The Female Interrogator

HOW HAS GENERAL BARBARA FAST MANAGED TO STAY UNDER THE RADAR?

Where does the buck stop in the Abu Ghraib scandal ?

You decide.

I became concerned about this question when, amazingly, the two-star female general, daughter of an Air Force Master Sergeant, emerged unscathed in Army investigations into the responsibility for excesses at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. It so happens that I live next door to her domain--Fort Huachuca (pronounced "Wha-CHEW-kah"), which is leased from Sierra Vista, a small town of some 40,000 in southeast Arizona. The sprawling post hosts, among other missions, the Army's training center in intelligence and interrogation techniques.

Major General Barbara Fast set up military intelligence-interrogation in Iraq following the invasion in 2003. Her counterpart, Reserve Brigadier General Janis Karpinski was in charge of the military police, who were the custodians for POWs and other detainees. In addition to the huge facility called Abu Ghraib, she also the commanded three other large US- and British-led prisons, with eight battalions consisting of 3,400 Army reservists.

For a current background on the evolution of the United States’ attempt to develop a viable legal position on the status of detainees and interrogation for intelligence in our new era of warfare—terrorism—the most comprehensive public presentation to date is Frontline’s (PBS) recent 90-minute TV production, provocatively titled: “The Torture Question.” The presentation also examines the Joint Task Force detention center in Guantanamo, Cuba (Gitmo), where certain interrogation techniques were refined and subsequently adopted in Iraq.

In March 2005, just after General Fast finally took command of the post and the intelligence training center responsible for training interrogators (after lying low for almost a year while the Army completed its investigation into command culpability for the Abu Grahib excesses), I e-mailed a fellow retiree on the board of directors of a large local chapter of the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA):

I noted that General Barbara Fast, after finally assuming command of the Post a few days ago, spoke at your last MOAA luncheon. What’s going on? I can't get rid of the nagging thought that her weak command skills surely had a lot to do with why the scandals at Abu Graib occurred. Now, a year after the general’s return from Iraq, the Army “cleared” her of any responsibility for the Abu Grahib excesses. But isn't it surely a profound mistake to place her charge of . . . teaching intelligence interrogation techniques, even if she has learned from her past mistakes. What’s going on? Is the Army afraid to tell it like it really is, perhaps under pressure from feminists?

His response (heavily edited for brevity) was swift and sternly admonishing; I believe his attitude represents a wide section of American opinion:

I am ashamed that this issue has distorted the views and opinions of some fellow veterans [referring to me:ed] who ought to be more supportive of the good things our folks are achieving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and less accusative and second guessing.

I am also concerned to learn that you have become a presumed 'expert' on General Fast's 'command skills.' If there is any 'fault' to be assigned, it ought to be zeroed on the news media/ACLU and the resulting intimidation of the Army Justice System into court-martialing the 'hazing' participants [referring to Specialists Graner, Lynnie England and seven others:ed] instead of reprimanding or possibly issuing Article 15’s for 'behavior unbecoming.'I [don't] believe any of them were acting in on official command orders.

I am glad that folks like General Fast have stood up to uninformed public criticism that has probably caused lesser individuals to step down and prematurely retire.

It’s interesting that, even as reports continue to surface about severe beatings related to interrogations, Americans seem unwilling to accept that their warriors would resort to real torture of their prisoners--especially under orders. The most they seem to be willing to accept is that the incidents were "brief anomalies" carried out by a few untrained “rogue” soldiers--all of which, in any event, they believe amounted to no more than fraternity house “hazing.”

However, it's not my purpose here to allege torture or to try to define it. My concern is whether, after Army investigators determined that inappropriate activity had taken place and the Army decided to take punitive action, all the individuals in the chain of command have been held accountable. As a case in point, it's an unexplained mystery why General Fast, as the highest ranking officer in charge of all intelligence and interrogation operations in Iraq, emerged with entirely clean hands and, counter-intuitively, was rewarded with the command of the Army's center for teaching military intelligence-interrogation techniques, after a year of remaining in "limbo" upon returning from Iraq. The Army owes the American people an explanation.

Now it's time for you to decide. It’s not really as complicated as you might think. After accumulating pertinent facts, the main thing you need to know is the American military concept of orders and the chain of command:

MILITARY ORDERS & THE CHAIN OF COMMAND

All levels of officer and non-commissioned officer schools teach: The individual at any level who issues, receives, or executes an order is responsible for it. The ultimate responsibility rests at the level where the order was originally issued. Delegation of authority does not relieve anyone of responsibility. Therefore, when problems occur, their origin may be traced and resolved by following the chain of command to the level where the order was issued. It is never an excuse after the fact to claim that an order was not clear and therefore misunderstood. If an order is deemed unclear, it is the responsibility of those receiving it to clarify before executing. Finally, illegal orders are not to be obeyed.

This concept was made crystal clear by a high ranking retired Air Force officer writing recently on a military blog (in reference to religious and sex discrimination/abuse at the Air Force Academy):

I have commanded at every level [up to wing and] I have a newsflash: [L]eadership is always responsible for the behavior of the troops. Not only can leaders not condone [inappropriate behavior], but they are held responsible for the environment they have fostered that allows such [behavior] to prevail. Do you really think all Nazis were responsible for the Holocaust? Do you really think all of the South was responsible for segregation? . . . . There is no guesswork about this.

Looking at the actual chain of command below, whatever the specific facts uncovered by investigators in the Abu Ghraib, where do you think the buck should stop?

Notes:

(1) Red denotes INTELLIGENCE-INTERROGATION functions. Blue denotes PRISONER CUSTODIAN (Military Police) functions. In 2003-2004, names shown are the highest ranking officers in Iraq who were found guilty of lapses related to the Abu Ghraib excesses. Maj General Barbara Fast is shown in green because she was the sole exception, despite her position in the chain of command; in fact, she was the only officer authorized to promulgate and approve of military intelligence interrogation methods in Iraq.

(2) The two-way arrows between the two functions indicate the close coordination required between intelligence and custodians (Military Police). This is important to remember, because lots of finger-pointing between the two functions took place during Army investigations, when in fact their activities were closely related, as the chart above shows. So far, the Military Police seem to have lost the contest, if you count the number of low-ranking soldiers the investigators named as responsible (2 enlisted in intelligence, against 7 enlisted and 2 officers in the MPs); of course, General Karpinski was demoted and relieved of duty, although--according to the Army--for "other" unrelated reasons.

Liberals, the Left, and the media are not the only groups criticizing Abu Ghraib--here's a link from conservative The Weekly Standard.

Jazz made palatable!

Confession! I've never understood or really liked jazz . . .

. . . not until I had put a belt or two under my belt to help me endure it.

But recently I turned on my speakers and downloaded the webpage belonging to the daughter of a friend of mine. I was not only surprised, but astounded that she called her work "jazz"--it's obvious the genre has evolved considerably--and in positive directions--since I originally tried to tune my ear to it. Her name is Stephanie and you're in for a treat if you listen to some of the many samples she has loaded (free) for your enjoyment (see the link below).

I'm certain my dislike for and ignorance of the medium was partially due to certain biases my family inculcated in me--classical music (it has "rules" and rhythms that one can anticipate and even memorize)--and the unfortunate encounter I had with "modern" jazz after enrolling in college. As a 17-year old who wanted to be as "sophisticated" as my peers, I collected the names of stalwarts such as Stan Brubeck, Thelonious Monk, Woody Herman, Dizzy Gillespie, et. al., and invested, with what little money I had for subsistence, in several LPs.

The "in crowd" tutored me that these were musical geniuses who performed without written guidelines or practice--yielding improvisations without equal. Despite my best and honest efforts, to my ear they seemed to be--for the most part--painfully disjointed dissonances. It was my preconceived notion that one should feel uplifted after listening to their noises--or at least some better than before engaging one's record player. However, after a trial run of about a year, I finally gave my LP recordings away--I was thankful not having to stare at them on my bookshelf, making me feel guilty about the money I paid for them through a mail-order record club.

To me, listening to a "jazz session" by these geniuses was like having to make stare for 15 minutes without a break at my print-reproduction of Guernica or most any other disjointed work Pablo Picasso turned out in his "later period"-- that is, after he abandoned his natural ability to reproduce the beautiful forms, colors, and subtleties of the real world. I always suspected the old boy took the easy way out to make a fast buck when he discovered the craving the post-WWII middle- and upper-class population had developed for something "different" in art. I hold the same suspicion today about the surge in music that resulted in modern jazz at the same time.

I haven't had time to research or listen to enough of the very different strains that wafted from her webpage, but what I heard coming from Stephanie's site convinced me that "jazz" has evolved considerably since I bade goodbye to Stan Brubeck and his ilk years ago.

In fact, if you're as ignorant as I still am about jazz, I found a terrific website to ply the history of jazz. After 30 minutes on this site, I now recognize the "jazz" genre is far wider and deeper than I ever appreciated, so somewhere in that vast field I suspect are forms of jazz that might even have met my approval years ago.

In the meantime, if you're seeking a new, vibrant (and disciplined) music form Stephanie classifies as jazz, you can leap over all those years of music history and cut to the chase for some fine listening. Although Stephanie doesn't appear on the rolls of jazz history yet, I fervently trust she may be someday. Listen to Stephanie now.

Bling-Bling! Say what?

BLING-BLING! Huh . . . say what ?

Normally, I've always tried to be patient, understanding--even admonishing myself for being too frequently "rigid" in my outlook. In other words, I try, as much as is practical, to step away from the mainstream (if I ever fall into it) and stay up on linguistic trends among the generations soon to take charge of running things.

But I discovered a few days ago that I've been totally blindsided, and I'm not sure I can explain why it happened. This time, I may have reached my limit in my flexibility to accept new trends.

If my first impression is reasonably accurate, BLING-BLING refers to the audacious and impractical dress style of gangsta-rappers, East L.A. Bloods and Cripps and other undesirable anti-social groups--right?

Ball caps with the bills placed askew on the head. Sweat shirts that flow freely to mid-thigh, over jean pants that fall over the Nikes, so that the wearer has to tread (or stumble) on them with each step. Finally, the over-sized tee shirts over the sweats, bearing all sorts of blasphemous, outrageous, sexist, and other ignorant "messages."

Time Magazine recently had an article (I only looked in disbelief at the pix and read the subtitles) that seems to confirm--this is for real.

O.K., so I happen to hate this anti-social style, but among the young, my taste doesn't count. What distresses me, however, is that the hundreds of under-educated, outrageously overly paid ball dribblers have adopted BLING-BLING as their preferred "cool" dress mode. Naturally, a good percentage of their pre-teen, teen, and puberty-retarded adult fans will slavishly imitate this anti-social dress style, embarrassing everyone but themselves. Fortunately, it seems I'm not the only one offended by the brainless new trend--I just read somewhere that the NBA has decreed that BLING-BLING dress style by its dribblers would not be acceptable in any NBA-related event. Bravo for the NBA, but I'm not going to bet that this rule will stick; after all, the monsters that sports fans have created now rule their masters.

As a footnote, the gals who hang with the dribbling crowd or their fans are also emulating their male counterparts' dress trends, but that's nothing new--it's an extension of the 1960s "unisex" mentality. But it was part and parcel of feminism's influence on young women and it hasn't receded easily.

A quick check of my 1999 unabridged Webster's doesn't contain "BLINK-BLINK," but Google revealed a very discouraging recent decision by the Brits. Astonishingly, they have already officially added the term to their stodgy, conservative dictionary--the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language. According to our British cousins, it means: "jiggy," "breakbeat," "dopey" and "phat."

Jiggy, breakbeat, dopey, phat!! Except for "dopey" (unless the Brits have another meaning for it), I haven't the slightest idea of what these definitions mean. I only pray they're definitions peculiar to the British dialect, so that maybe Webster's-- if it decides to follow suit and canonize the term--will use some American English definitions I can understand. But at the moment, I stand naked (linguistically speaking) and helpless. I think I now know how a speaker of, say, Urdu, must feel during the first week of instruction in English when his instructor says, "Look it up in the dictionary!"

Wasn't it Judge Robert Bork who wrote Slouching Toward Gomorrah? Perhaps I ought read it, especially if the Judge offers suggestions on how to rationalize BLING-BLING. And where is Bill Cosby when we need him? Or in even framing that question, am I beginning to tread on racial sensitivities? I'm assuming I'd be vindicated for this possible insensitive transgression when I can prove that lots of white guys (Latinos don't count, because I suspect BLING-BLING has its origins in their culture) are also stumbling on their over-long pants.

Have I finally reached the linguistic Jordan? Should I stay put on this side of the river, or should I wade in and head for the other side?

Would my being blindsided by this linguistic surprise have been avoided, had I at some time in the past watched even one full length MTV program? Come to think of it, I now know what BLING-BLING refers to, but where the hell did the words BLING-BLING come from?

C-Span: America's Mirror

C-SPAN: America's Mirror

C-SPAN (Cable-Satellite Public Access to News) celebrated its 25th anniversary last week.

Until I began to tune in now and then to C-SPAN’s call-in show “Washington Journal” I was always puzzled why politicians pander unabashedly in their speeches by using a variation of the phrase, “the wisdom of the American people.”

If you’ve ever listened to any media call-in show, you know there’s no shortage of opinion on anything. I mean anything! And that was the secret of what turned an unlikely, frumpy, unexciting pseudo government TV network into a 24-hour, advertising-free media phenom.

Politics, economics, the law, origins of the universe, planetary phenomena, nuclear physics, bio-engineering, foreign affairs. . . you name it, there are hundreds--nay thousands--of tuned-in experts waiting out there, ready to opine on any subject you can dream up.

In fact, it’s a safe bet to suggest that C-SPAN (Cable-Satellite Public Access to News), a TV format that, but for its daily call-in show, would have folded within months of its birth for being the world’s most boring concept: showing hours-long live shots of soundless, dead legislative chambers. But Brian Lamb, the “father” of what most pundits had preordained as a gigantic TV flop, discovered the talk-show/call-in format that would attract not only a respectable number of viewers, but millions of them—for one reason only: its seven-day-a-week, three-hour early morning show, featuring personas of the entire social spectrum. They come prepared to appear on camera and present information relative to their area of expertise and then to field questions and opinions—mostly opinions as it turns out—from that fecund body of informed citizens who wait patiently on phone-hold for their brief moment of fame when they publicly engage an renown expert. Many of them are convinced that their presentations are of vital importance to the country (or even the world, on occasion) by prefacing their oratory with exhortations such as "Americans--listen to me. It's important for the future of your country."

The guest experts must come prepared for more than just sharing their knowledge with America--they must be prepared to defend their expertise against the “citizen experts” who call in from Arkansas, Illinois, California, Texas, Indiana, Alabama . . . from anywhere a phone connection can be made to one of C-SPAN’s three call-in lines. (It’s curious to note that these lines are not toll-free, but that doesn’t seem to bother callers who sometimes must queue on hold for up to 30 minutes or more, before the moderator either ushers in their live calls, or run out of time, dashing the hopes of the expectant experts.) And now that satellite radio is up and running, C-SPAN’s reach continues to expand to every earthly niche!

To illustrate, here's an imaginary snippet of a few minutes on the Washington Journal:

C-SPAN Moderator: This morning our guest for the next hour is Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, recently installed by the United States Senate to replace the recently deceased Chief Justice Rehnquist. This morning we’ll be discussing the professional qualifications of nominees to the nation’s highest court, the United States Supreme Court—most especially his personal experience of undergoing partisan criticism of Senators during the approval process. Our lines are open now. Good morning, Justice Roberts. You’re a seasoned lawyer and judge in a lower court and, as many of your admirers have called you, a life-long student of and passionately dedicated to the law. You’re also known as a solid conservative voice. Please tell our viewers what you believe will be the most important factor to becoming an effective Justice—even leading the eight other Justices, all of whom have years of seniority over you on the Court.

Justice Roberts: Good morning. It’s a privilege to be able to discuss with your C-SPAN viewers and listeners my recent appointment to the Supreme Court and my philosophy I will apply whenever possible. To begin with, your audience probably already knows that I consider myself to be first and foremost a jurist who does not believe it’s in my place to make new law, but simply to determine whether the law that has been challenged and placed before me is within the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution.

Moderator: You’ve been described as a “strict constructionist,” would that be an accurate characterization of your judicial philosophy?

Roberts: Yes, that would pretty well sum up my outlook. You see, the three branches of our government-—the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial-—were created to provide a balanced, three-legged stool, as it were, upon which our nation could sit comfortably without fear of falling off. If the Court decides to initiate new law that departs from what the Legislative Branch—the Congress—has created, then it has fitted the stool with one larger leg than the other two, causing it to become unstable.

Moderator: Aren’t you saying, in effect, that while the Court has oversight over the other two branches, no one has oversight over the Court? In other words, the Court could, if it wanted, become the dominant voice of government. Before you comment, Justice Roberts, we have several callers waiting. Let’s take the first call from Sacramento, California. Hello, Sacramento—it’s very early where you are. What question do you have for Justice Roberts?

Sacramento Leftist: Look, Mr. Roberts, I don’t mean to call your hand so early in your tenure as a Supreme Court Justice, but it’s not my fault that you risked coming before the American people on C-SPAN this morning--it’s important you know how 50 percent or more of the American citizenry feels about you. I don’t mind telling you to your face, sir, you’re nothing but another tool of George W. Bush’s fascist government. Your role—-and don’t try to deny it—-is to set up a kangaroo court to do Herr Dubya’s bidding, to make sure the law is shaped to insure that he and his criminal cronies keep their grip on our government.

Moderator (interrupting gently): Caller, what’s your question for Justice Roberts? Let’s try to focus on asking questions of the Justice.

Sacramento Leftist: O.K. then let me ask you Herr Puppet Justice: Was it Herr Bush himself or his SS-minister, Oberpropaganda-Fuehrer Karl Rove who found you somewhere in the woodpile? So when do you intend to pass a law declaring the Constitution suspended like Adolf Hitler did?

Roberts: Caller, I appreciate your concern for our government, but I think you’ve vastly over-interpreted President Bush’s view of his role, much less mine. As for your slurs, equating the president with Nazi Germany and Hitler, I think most Americans don’t share your rather extreme viewpoint. So, if you don’t mind, I’ll place your question about suspending the Constitution in my outbox labeled “Irrelevant.”

Moderator: The next caller’s from Bluefield, West Virginia. Good morning, Bluefield.

Caller from Bluefield (pronounced drawl): Thenk yew fer takin’ mah call, C-SPAN. Ah’m a furst-time callah, so ah’m a tad nervous, O.K.?

Moderator: Welcome. Take your time, no need to be nervous.

Bluefield Caller: Well, I jes’ wanted to tell the new Judge thet he’s got a big job afore him, considerin’ thet thangs in Washington is all messed up, whut with them Liberal folks thet hate their own country, and all. I jes’ hope the Judge’ll set the record straight and throw them commies outta there. Thet's all I gotta say. God bless and good luck, Judge.

Moderator: Callers, for the record, the proper title for Mr. Roberts is “Justice,” not “judge.” Next call is from Phoenix, Arizona. What’s your question for Justice Roberts, Phoenix?

Caller from Phoenix: Good morning, Mr. Chief Justice. It’s a privilege and pleasure to talk to you—we have a lot of faith that you will restore the Supreme Court to its proper place—as the arbiter for the people, not as our nanny. My question for you Mr. Justice is this: We had a recent case in Scottsdale having to do with eminent domain, that is, we were hoping the recent Keho ruling that allows communities to obtain properties if they are deemed . . . .

Roberts: Yes, I’m familiar with that ruling, and . . . .

Caller from Phoenix: Well, I know you are, because I listened to your testimony before the Senate Committee on Keho. But here’s what I want to tell you. Our state Supreme Court ruled against the community, citing Arizona state law that evidently supersedes federal law.

Roberts: Yes, that’s correct, states may make their own decisions on whether and how eminent domain will be applied—they’re not obligated to follow the Keho decision and are largely unaffected by the controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision, unless states should rule in a way that contravenes their own constitutions. This ruling, Number 04-108 issued in July this year, simply allows states the latitude, should they want to exercise it, to exercise their powers of eminent domain in a broader context than the Fifth Amendment meant it.

Caller from Phoenix: So you condone the Keho ruling, do you?

Roberts: Condone? Not necessarily. In fact, the Keho ruling probably exceeds the language of the Fifth Amendment. Let me explain . . . .

Caller from Phoenix: There you go, Mr. Justice, that’s what happens to you people. Once you taste power, you immediately turn against the people. Look, I had to study the Fifth Amendment in a government course I took for my AA degree two years ago, and . . . .

And so goes the remainder of Justice Roberts' hour (as well as the remainder of the three-hour talk show): It's the rare caller who asks a question that recognizes the expertise of the guest. Despite their obvious lack of knowledge, they would not recognize the fact—they’re all exercising their “knowledge” (and their First Amendment rights--they're all very much up on the First Amendment, even if the other 26 Amendments would draw a blank from them) and don’t hesitate to lay it all out there, convinced that approximately 8 million listeners are absorbing every syllable of their enlightened utterance.

It’s amazing to listen to America on C-SPAN—any day of the week, and no matter what the topic of discussion might be. I now know why politicians pander to the people when they preface their remarks with something like, “I defer to the wisdom of the American people.”

They’d better, by God, if they want to get elected!

Testing our resolve!

TESTING OUR RESOLVE

Here's a "chain-letter" e-mail I received today. Although it was probably initiated by the Secretary of Defense's Public Information Office, it offers a perspective of Iraq most Americans (and the world, for that matter) don't have. It was entitled:

"OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW!"

How could we, with all the “noise” generated by world-wide, anti-American media?

Let’s review the facts. Did you know that,

· 47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq?

· the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqis?

· 3,100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been built in Iraq?

· Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, all currently operating?

· 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?

· the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have five 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels, and a naval infantry regiment.

· Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft (under Iraqi operational control) that operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?

· Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?

· the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?

· there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3,500 new officers each 8 weeks?

· there are more than 1,100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools; 67 public clinics; 15 hospitals; 83 railroad stations; 22 oil facilities; 93 water facilities; and 69 electrical facilities.

· 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?

· 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?

· there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?

· Iraq has independent media consisting of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers, and 10 television stations?

· the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?

· two candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?

· the nationwide constitutional referendum passed on October 15th?

I answered with the following return e-mail, which I post here--not to illustrate an original perspective--but to record candidly that even my determination to "stay the course" is being tested (if I'm losing heart, I wonder about my fellow Americans out there):

NOW, if only someone'd throw the main to deliver electric power 24/7, re-establish regular garbage pick-up, water and sewage services--at least in Baghdad! That, added to the reported progress in all the other projects cited--together with a restoration of a regular rhythm of life by eliminating the destabilizing insurgent/terrorist attacks--will restore the confident rhythm of life for the average Iraqi citizen, finally allowing us to leave that beleaguered country with a clear national conscience (NOT as we did from Vietnam).

The nut of the problem is that insurgency/terrorism is so rampant and widespread that it's neutralizing our good (and very expensive) efforts, because it's impractical to put an armed guard out with each garbage worker. If we can't stamp out or politically neutralize the insurgents/terrorists--yes, that includes NEGOTIATING with the bastards--it'll soon end in a Mexican stand-off or devolve into an endless war of attrition. Fiscally or politically--we can't afford either outcome.

Bush has three years to see this through. If not fixed (or well on the way to getting that way) when the next administration takes office--whether Dem or GOP-- it'll be another "tuck-tail-and-run operation" (behind familiar Nixonian withdrawal slogans such as "peace with honor"). My prognostication may not hold even three more years if the administration becomes mired into the muck of allegations of criminality (Valerie Plame affair), sleaze (Abramoff and his proteges), and cronyism (FEMA-Mike Brown or SCOTUS nominee-Harriett Mier). And frankly, the president's "spontaneous interview" by feed-TV from Iraq with a dozen GI's didn't do much for my morale. Maybe I was unduly influenced by an angry and politically biased, but nonetheless excellent, op-ed piece by Robert Higgs this morning.

You can tell--my resolve is being tested. I don't know about you, but my sphincter is beginning to pucker, and I'm not even responsible for the war and reconstruction. I often wonder the state of that anatomy belonging to those who are. For that matter, I'm also wondering just how the prez's is holding up. I won't pray for him. Instead, I'll pray for Iraq and the future of America. These are indeed critical, but very stressful days!

NOTE: Here are the blogs of a couple of young Iraqis (with links to their families' and friends' blogs) who will give you current real-world, hands-on insight into what everyday life is like: www.healingiraq.blogspot.com and www.astarfrommosul.blogspot.com . Surfing a few minutes will reveal that blogging is a hugely popular and interactive medium among Iraqi citizens.

Evangelizing the Military

Evangelizing the Military
Just a pen stroke away!

The Air Force Academy continues to struggle with social forces. The most widely known diversion from the Academy’s mission are allegations and investigations of sexual discrimination. Although the Academy evidently hasn't got the problem completely under control, it finally appears on the verge of doing so.

Even more serious is what has come to light as a disturbing distraction that was about to become a very ugly and dangerous trend: religious intolerance. If this problem isn’t quashed decisively and rapidly, it will become a long-lasting, heavy yoke for the Academy to bear, with consequences for our military establishment that are frightening to contemplate. The Air Force just recently began taking steps to address this problem; it will be interesting to see how aggressively it moves to exorcise it at the Academy. Even more interesting would be a thorough internal review of how pervasive the problem is in the other academies and throughout the military community at large.

Putting the responsibility where it belongs: That these problems exist at all points out where the responsibility lies--squarely on the shoulders of Air Force leadership and the leaders it designates to run the Academy. What weaknesses (or strengths) that manifest themselves at any level of the closed military social order are the direct result of the failure (or success) of leadership--starting at the top.

The easier of the two problems to deal with was the 1976 integration of females into the three service academies. It didn’t take rocket scientists to anticipate, plan for, and solve problems before the first female cadet arrived. Unfortunately, the planners viewed the problem as limited to logistics. That is, they failed to adequately anticipate the attitudes (or, in today’s lingo, “culture”) that would greet women when they first arrived. Thus, for almost 30 years, the cadet corps at the Air Force Academy was left to its own devices—to accept females as equals or not. When sexual harassment and abuse began to surface by the reporting of some gutsy female cadet-victims, the Air Force finally was induced by Congress to shake up things: By admitting there was an attitudinal problem, and then by finding leaders equipped with the appropriate attitudes and leadership skills to repair the damage done over three decades. Today, thankfully, signs finally point toward a healthy resolution of the sexual discrimination problem.

But when it comes to religion, the problem—not as predictable as the sexual discrimination problem—is much more subtle and insidious, as is the challenge to Air Force leadership skills. To begin with, the problem has a very emotionally charged background. For example, if you (or an Air Force officer charged with administering policy at the Academy) are one of the 80 percent or more Americans said to identify themselves as firm believers in God, then at first blush you’ll probably see nothing wrong with the service academies having a robust religious program. In fact, that’s the way it has always been in every service academy since they were founded. But the vital difference today is this: Religion has always been recognized as a highly personal and—here’s the key—a completely voluntary activity.

So what’s happening today? How can leadership be blamed for a problem that 80 percent of us would say isn’t a problem? Some analysts even assert it’s not the lack of leadership promoting and backing religious activities in the Academy, but too much of it and for the wrong reasons. I’d take it one step further by blaming the leadership that didn’t notice or purposely ignored “mission creep,”that is, the fact that the “religious right”—a euphemism for the evangelical sector of the broad American religious panorama--had gained tremendous influence in the U.S. Air Force through its Chaplain Service Corps. This phenomenon parallels the rapid growth of this sector during the past decade. Just as analysts noted that George W. Bush rode decisively into his second presidential term on an unanticipated surge of support from the “religious right,” so too is this force the same that has been busy asserting itself inside the military—down to the point of codifying its dogma in official Air Force doctrine.

Concrete evidence of how deeply the “religious right” has penetrated the Academy was revealed in the recent Air Force announcement that it had withdrawn an ethics manual that allowed its chaplains to “instruct and/or evangelize” members of the military not affiliated with a particular religion. A recent Reuters article highlights these surprising “ethics guidelines” in connection with a law suit filed against the Air Force:

Air Force Academy cadets have complained that evangelical Christian leaders on campus used their positions to push their religion and one Jewish graduate, who has a son enrolled at the academy, filed suit in federal court last week to force the chaplains to stop proselytizing.

The Air Force said a Code of Ethics statement issued by the Air Force Chaplain Service in January stated: "I will not actively proselytize from other religious bodies. However, I retain the right to instruct and/or evangelize those who are not affiliated."[emphasis added]

The Air Force said these guidelines were "withdrawn for further review" on August 10.

"It was pulled to be reviewed following the release of the interim religious guidelines that were put out" on August 29, said Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Stephens.

These guidelines warned against promoting any particular religion in official communications or meetings, athletic contests and ceremonies and cautioned against pushing "religion over non-religion."

A team from Yale Divinity School said in April it had found evangelical Christian proselytizing commonplace at the Air Force academy, in Colorado Springs and described a chaplain telling cadets they would "burn in the fires of hell" if they were not born-again Christians.

My take: This sort of activity has no place in a closed society such as the Academy or, for that matter, in the wider military services. Before the present heady days when the “religious right” came to enjoy its new found status in our society, the climate inside the military community was always strictly apolitical and non-invasive.

I can speak from my own military experience that goes back to 1951 as a young cadet in New Mexico Military Institute (NMMI) in Roswell, New Mexico--a respected, U.S. Army-accredited, commission-issuing institution akin to Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel. During my three years in that private institution, where it would have been very easy for proselytizing to become officially installed as part of “a wholesome curriculum,” never once did I feel pressure from the institution or from my fellow cadets to attend chapel services that were strictly voluntary. This attitude and policy were consistent with that of all the military academies since their founding and the military establishment in general.

How the system has always worked: In 1963 I was associated with a relevant incident while stationed in Berlin, Germany. A first lieutenant of the Latter Day Saints (Mormon) persuasion had instituted--at the beginning of their daily duty shifts--a mandatory “prayer service” for his 50-man duty contingent. The lieutenant’s senior non-commissioned officer reported this development to me in my capacity as the operations officer staff assistant. After observing the lieutenant’s next duty shift, I confirmed that indeed, he was supplicating the Lord to bless himself and the men under his control before they commenced their daily toil in the service of the American people.

Although the Air Force (or any other military service) had no policy at that time—written or otherwise—nevertheless, we were the descendants of a long, unwritten policy in which religion was strictly a voluntary activity on a serviceman’s off-duty time. On the strength of this tradition my boss, a young black major, didn’t hesitate to act decisively. He ordered the lieutenant to cease and desist, pointing out that government time was not his to covet for any personal or religious reason. He explained to the chagrined officer—who countered with the argument that, in order to avoid the major’s “on government time” logic, he would simply require his men to show up five minutes before their official duty time—that he would risk a court-martial for issuing an illegal order under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The lieutenant, a functionary in the local Mormon Church, made noises to the effect that his church might escalate the matter to the level of the Secretary of Defense, but his more prudent elders in the LDS hierarchy must surely have nixed that move as folly. Case closed.

This is where leadership at the Air Force Academy has been wanting. Someone, somewhere along the line when religious dogma began to make its appearance in official “ethics guidelines”—as we now discover covered not only the Academy, but the entire Air Force structure—leaders failed to step up and invoke the simple, common-sense tradition articulated and enforced by my young black Air Force boss in 1963: Religion shall not charge the military (and the taxpayers who sustain it) time to proselytize.

Religion is a very personal matter that must remain voluntary, especially within a closed, hierarchical military society, where it would be all too easy for its zealots to codify a religious particular dogma as an “inherent” part of that social organization. That’s exactly what the Air Force Chaplain Service “ethics guidelines” were intending to do. And what better place to put this code in place than the Air Force Academy—the heart of the Air Force’s source of its future leaders.

Had this development not been exposed, it was only a pen stroke away from finding a permanent place into one of the Air Force Manuals that dictate every phase of operational life of its service members (as opposed to the off-duty, personal life for which no manual does or should exist) .

In the interest of full disclosure, the author was an Air Force officer who taught German language at the Air Force Academy from 1970 to 1973. This should explain any apparent biases he may hold in favor of the Air Force Academy in this essay.

Color me colors!

DON’CHA JUST LOVE POP PSYCHOLOGY? or
Color me colors--

Now look—please don’t laugh or snicker! I’m about to make a painful confession, because I’m doing it in the interest of research into modern pop psychology and to possibly save you from blowing $22.50.

I just paid that amount to get a download “analysis” of WHO I AM. I’m a sucker for these things, ever since my father-in-law—normally a stable man (he was a wheat farmer in eastern Colorado, following a failed career as a chiropractor in Los Angeles . . . well, now that I think about it, maybe he wasn’t that stable, after all)—introduced me to a system that, by observing the shape of people’s faces, you could figure out “WHO THEY ARE.” He assured me in 1960 this was no mere parlor game--it was serious stuff! He had invested in a book that probably cost the equivalent of today’s $22.50.

As I recall the idea, there are four basic types of facial structure: round, oval, triangular and square. The most sensitive (and, as I recall, the most preferred by the authors) types were people with triangular-shaped faces—these people were intelligent, creative, and extrovert (presumably the best personality type to be), while the most sensible types were the square-faced persons. The book contained tear-out pages printed with charts that you could use to do your analyses, referring to the chapters arranged around these four types, listing the various characteristics, including their good, bad, and best points. A few minutes scanning the “positive” and “negative” characteristics of each facial type and . . . voila!

Today, zealots have refined this analysis, extending facial shapes considerably, presumably because of their tireless "scientific research;" you can check it out quickly at this LINK.

At about the same time the more “serious” analytical tool was revived: Handwriting Analysis (graphology).

This tool was developed in earnest during the same era (18th and 19th centuries) as Phrenology—feeling the lumps on skulls to tell what kind of a person owned them—and became especially popular about the same time as Freud’s method of finding out WHO WE ARE, having to do with the elusive ego, the id, and the super ego.

In the 19th century, Freud and his followers, as we know, established the European School of theories in an attempt to establish a new "science" of the mind. How successful this "science" has been is open to debate; my own bias is reflected in this essay.

While Phrenology has generally run its course and is seen today to be fraudulent "science" (except for a few on the fringes today), Graphology was raised from obscurity and is still a tool that fascinates a wide range of people interested in finding out WHO THEY ARE. Handwriting (which advocates confidently call "brainwriting") is still a popular parlor pastime and to a considerable extent, after being very widely used in the 1960s by corporate employers to make hire and fire decisions, is still practiced, albeit more sparingly, by some human resources people; it is also occasionally used in the investigative phases of law enforcement.

Not slow off the mark was the American School—stimulated, curiously, by the Soviet search in the 1920s and 1930s for the predictable, productive, ideal “New Soviet Man” (Pavlov’s experiments with bells and salivating dogs comes to mind). The American credited with developing the “self-realization/actualization hierarchy”—a brave attempt to pull together the loose ends of the European and Soviet theories of an evolving new industry—was Abraham Maslow.

Americans love to simplify wherever possible, and Maslow managed to do this by tying the loose ends of the various theories floating about at the time into a neat “package.” He then developed an easy-to-understand set of rules by which mankind can be defined and classified. His efforts were represented by his “pyramid” or “triangle” consisting of the five levels ("hierarchies") of human "needs." It’s so simple that now almost anyone can become a practitioner of the mind with minimal effort. Indeed, psychology departments in the academy were given new life and began to expand almost overnight; eager students--many themselves in need of help--were introduced to monkeys' need for love (this was the domain of Professor Harlow, Maslow's friend and mentor) and rats were rewarded when they successfully found their way out of mazes (conversely, the poor things were jolted by electricity when they didn't). In short, advanced phases of the mind industry were born and their practitioners were convinced that they now possessed the power to help people find meaning in their irresolute lives.

From monkeys and rats, the professors made a quantum leap to the proposition that people too could be similarly classified into little compartments; then, if suffering from lack of esteem or other undesirable social traits, they could be treated by dealing with their lack of fulfillment of one or more of the five “needs” (starting from the top of the triangle: "actualization," "esteem," "love-belonging," "safety," and "physiological"). Of course, in addition to the wonderfully simple triangle, you'll need Maslow's textbooks that present in a handy format the “symptoms and treatments” that, if diligently applied, will lead yourself and others to Happy Land.

ENTER THE PARLOR COLORS ASSESSMENT SCHEME: I came to know the newly packaged and updated parlor game online the other day for $22.50. It's called “Color Assessment”--a variation of its predecessors. After answering a mere 24 questions, this system will tell you--as long as you answer the questions honestly (as the authors admonish you before you begin)-- WHO YOU (REALLY) ARE. As in the other "mind games," that's the first step to either avoiding mental anomalies or to extricating oneself from them.

The company assured me of the system’s "scientific" basis (although it doesn't explain just how or why it's “scientific”) and how it can be made even more useful by sharing my analysis with my friends and colleagues for their comment. Frankly, I can't shake the feeling that this is really a crass pyramid marketing appeal--I have 30 days to name as many friends and colleagues to whom I want to expose my innermost self on the company's website, inviting them to log on and have a go at me—a kind of internet group therapy session. (If you think I'm going this far in "sharing" with you . . . what do you take me for?)

After (honestly) answering the company's 24 questions, here’s my chart of colors that tells you and me WHO I AM:
Of course, to understand WHO I AM, you’ve got to have access to the following analysis, which, if you look closely, you’ll recognize Maslow’s hierarchy at the levels of "Actualization" and "Esteem":

It turns out that Green is a great color to have; the company spared little effort in heaping praise on me. My need for ego stroking was amply fulfilled--so that (so far) I’ve given little thought to demanding a refund of my $22.50.

Green: Your Strength is Knowledge

If your brightest color is GREEN, you feel best about yourself when solving problems, especially when your ideas are recognized. You seek to express yourself through your ability to be an expert in everything, and your idea of a great day is to use your know-how to create solutions. You are a complex individualist with great analytical ability. Although you do not express your emotions openly, you do experience deep feelings. Greens are Happiest when Using Ingenuity

Those with GREEN as their brightest color have curious minds, exploring every facet of a problem or idea to control the realities of life. Global by nature, and always seeking universal truth, they acquire skills to perfect and product or system on which they choose to focus. They are symbolized by the abstract thinker, the unknown challenge of outer space, the complexity and simplicity of design, and the symmetry of forms.

With GREEN as Your Brightest Color, You Tend to . . .

· Dream of truth, perfection, and accuracy
· Value answers, resolutions, intelligence, and explanations
· Regard efficiency, increased output, and reduced waste
· Dislike injustice and unfairness
· Express coolness, calm and collected reservation
· Foster inventions and technology
· Respect knowledge and capability
· Promote effectiveness, competence, and know-how

Analytical self-assessment: Now that I know I possess all these characteristics, I'm wondering what went wrong in my life? Will I now have to deal with a tendency not to plunge into despair and permanent depression, knowing that I evidently somehow failed to achieve the greatness I was obviously destined for?

Note: The above summary evaluation doesn't include an in-depth explanation for the orange, gold, and blue components shown in the graph. At first this was a bit disquieting, because it occurred to me that these colors, in close combination with green, might reveal such a negative result, that the company daren’t publish it (except, of course, for another $22.50 and a confidentiality agreement). But to be fair, I suspect the complete analysis lies somewhere in one of the boiler-plate PDF file formats they sent me and which I haven’t perused yet—I'm confident the company wouldn’t risk shortchanging me with $22.50 at stake!

Ah, the never ending efforts of the “mind industry!” If you can’t get ‘em into the office and onto a couch, you can always sell 'em parlor games. Frankly, I’m not as critical of them as this essay might suggest—I believe the “mind industry” is far less dangerous to humans (probably more productive and definitely cheaper) by peddling their parlor games than they are with the patients whom they manage to get into their offices and onto a couch.

Post Script: If you want to save $22.50 for this latest twist on pop psychology, e-mail me and I’ll send you the 24 questions (never mind what the "answers" are, because there are no right or wrong answers) as well as copies of the downloads for nothing--it's exactly the same material you'd get if you were to invest your own $22.50. Then referring to this material, select the color that seems to fit you best and simply arrange your chart that will result in the most complimentary outcome--after all, the fact that you're interested in knowing WHO YOU ARE automatically puts you into the top categories of the "self-actualization" triangle. Anyway, that's about all the online company would do for your $22.50. (Note: I withdraw this offer if I later discover that the material is clearly and specifically copyrighted--the company might mistake me for a big-time writer with deep pockets and go after me in a frivolous lawsuit.)

Minuteman "sells" his newspaper

SOLD! What's behind the "sale" of the Minutemans' newspaper?

Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC), recently sold the Minutemans' newspaper, the Tombstone Tumbleweed. The following are excerpts from the tiny weekly newspaper, located in the high desert tourist movie-set village of Tombstone, Arizona:

Simcox said he bought the paper in the first place to serve the community and he feels he just cannot do justice to both the border security issues and the paper at the same time. Selling the Tombstone Tumbleweed was a very difficult decision, but Simcox stated, “The needs of the community are too important and should be in the hands of someone who will serve those needs properly. . . .”

The Tumbleweed gained international notoriety by bringing attention to internationally-resonant border issues when Simcox began Civil Homeland Defense in October of 2002 and then co-founded the Minuteman Project last April with Jim Gilchrist. . . . Between the newspaper and the website the partners expect to become a premier, international news service focusing on Tombstone and Southern Arizona.

Sometimes, I just hate it when I become suspicious of others' motives, but I can't help thinking that the Horatio Alger spin Chris Simcox put on the reason for his "sale" signals another, more likely story! In 2002, Simcox bought the tiny failing weekly, which was never a serious journalistic or money-making enterprise--at least not after the last big shoot-out around 1889. Chris landed in Arizona after giving up his tough public school teaching job in Los Angeles and, according to his own statements, after spending time wandering in the desert (along the Arizona-Mexican border, of course).

It was during this period of seeking his higher purpose that he was overcome by a profound sense of indignation and patriotism while witnessing first-hand the waves of illegal immigrants crossing into the U.S.A. Soon thereafter, he linked up with Jim Gilchrist of California who, considering that Chris was penniless, evidently became Simcox's "sugar daddy" and bought the tiny Tombstone weekly newspaper.

With Simcox installed as editor, the paper became the mouthpiece and business office for the Minuteman Project. Gilchrist, by the way, is not a newcomer to the border protest movement--he has been long associated with Glenn Spencer (at one time branded a "hate supremacist" by the Southern Poverty Law Center), another long-time California activist, also relocated to Arizona in 2001 . Until Spencer was arrested in 2003 for shooting up a neighbor's property with his .357 Magnum in an upscale Sierra Vista (AZ) neighborhood, he had been very active and highly visible in recruiting local MM-type border patrol volunteers. Spencer launched his own unmanned aerial vehicles to fly and photograph the border area, relaying the movement of illegals to his volunteers on the ground. Spencer is good at getting media attention; he has been the subject of many press reports in California and in 2002, he was a guest more than once on FOX News, Bill O'Reilly Show--appearing at least once with Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO)--C-SPAN and Donahue.

I don't know whether the Simcox-Gilchrist-Spencer "Triad" had already forged a relationship before they relocated to Arizona, or if their alliance is of a more recent vintage. However, they're apparently working together these days, if this notice I pulled off an anti-immigration reform website is any indication:

October 7-9 2005: TUCSON, AZ - White Supremacist Glenn Spencer of Voices of Citizens Together, Chris Simcox and others are expected to speak at something called "Borderfest 2005", a three-day hatefest against immigrants at United Sports Arizona Race Park, 4300 E. Los Reales Road Tucson, AZ 85705. [Ed.NOTE: Without explaining why, the keynote political speaker, Randy Graf (R-AZ)--who is seeking veteran Jim Kolbe's (R-AZ) seat in Congress--withdrew at last moment on 10/6/05, causing the organizers to cancel Borderfest 2005.]

Now that the Tumbleweed helped secure the national exposure Simcox and Gilchrist sought for their Minuteman Project, it'd be a good guess that the "sale" of the paper a mere three years later to three fellow MM "businessmen-enthusiasts" was arranged in order to recoup Gilchrist's initial investment, as well as to realize some profit for them both, using the money now flowing into a foundation from donations by sympathetic Americans. The organization grew rapidly after national and international media shone huge spotlights on the much touted "volunteer border patrol" organized last April along short stretch of Arizona-Mexico border. It was truly a fortuitous media success, but it had nothing to do with the Tumbleweed "serving the community" of some 1,500 souls.

On the surface, there's nothing wrong with Gilchrist and Simcox arranging the "sale" of their MM Project's newspaper front to fellow MM enthusiasts, even if it was an illusory transaction ( although some of the many donors to the MM Project might see it otherwise). But the timing of the sale, seen in the light of other closely related events, does make one wonder why Simcox is trying to create the illusion that he sold a business that he pulled out of the ashes--a tiny newspaper with no meaningful subscriber or advertising bases (and little prospect of developing them without money from MM supporters), to an employee and two fellow MM enthuiasts, neither of whom have much if any business or journalism experience.

Without support from the MM Project and its newborn twin, the MCDC, there is no chance the paper--even with its neat modern website--would ever become more than what it has been for many years: A quaint bit of Western Americana, kept alive by preserving the facade of a frontier town that once consisted of whorehouses and saloons--a lore kept alive today by recreating shootouts between gun-totin' O.K. Corral look-alikes for snowbirds looking for "live" winter entertainment.

My guess is that none of the principals intends the paper to become the "community voice" of the tiny tourist village with a population of about 1,500--as Simcox claimed in his "sale" announcement. But it will continue to function with the wider mission that Simcox and Gilchrist lent to it three years ago, and will continue to do very well as long as the MM Project remains viable and continues to attract support from individual citizens.

When organizations with considerable political and financial potential rise like the Phoenix from the ashes--veiled by a cock and bull spin--it's hard to ignore the olfactory senses when they detect the odor of a story somewhere not far below the surface. Not to be forgotten is the fact that Simcox's "partner," Jim Gilchrist, recently threw his hat into the political ring, running for congressman of California's 48th district, with strong backing from Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), a consistent advocate of immigration reform pushing, among other actions, the closure of the U.S.-Mexico border. It's no coincidence that the Tumbleweed regularly features Tancredo's and Gilchrist's politics (finding interesting "hometown" news would be very problematic in this tiny desert village of a mere 1,500 souls). Watch for new, interesting moves from the Tancredo-Gilchrist-Spencer(?)-Simcox-Minuteman/Civil Defense Corps alliance.

Wherever the formula money+ politics = power emerges, there's an excellent chance something interesting's going on. And there's no better issue for ambitious politicians to work than the illegal immigration problem, out of which the Minuteman Project and the MCDC grew--with the Tumbleweed as its mouthpiece. Whatever the fortunes of the MM Project and the weekly, you've gotta give the men behind the movement credit for bringing the little historical remnant out of oblivion and into the sunshine--it hasn't had this much activity in the past 100 years!

However, if you're an investor, I'd advise you not to rush into any future offering by the Tombstone Tumbleweed, based solely on Simcox's puffery that in three years he converted a failed little village weekly into an imminently powerful force of the Fourth Estate. That might not be the smartest investment decision over the long haul.

Postscript: Without the fanfare of last April's patrol activities, the MM, apparently with new on-site volunteer operational control, began its activities in the month of October on the Arizona border. Local coordinators said they're doing their duty this time around with more stealth and a very low media profile. We note that FOX News has been doing its "live" border reports from the California-Mexico border with the U.S. Border Patrol without reference to the Minutemen.

Linguistic Political Correctness

Linguistic Political Correctness (LPC): Its Unintended Consequences

I’m white, so I can’t use the word “nigger.” To do so today automatically brands me in everyone’s eyes as a racist—at least a suspect or latent one.

You’re black, so you can use the word without stigma anywhere or at anytime—especially if you’re out to ruffle my comfort level. In fact, if you’re Chris Rock, you can flaunt it often, loudly, and widely—and make millions of dollars doing it. During any of his sexually-based, racially top-heavy routines, no one will mind if I laugh at the “n” word, but once outside the theatre, I’m not permitted to.

Just as Detective Mark Fuhrman found out on the witness stand in O.J. Simpson’s murder trial, despite his testimony that he’d never used the “n” word in his life, no one believed him for a second. Why? Because he was white (and a police officer). His denial so infuriated prosecutor Marcia Clark and her black assistant, Christopher Darden, they decided to wander off into one of the trial’s many distractions to prove Fuhrman had actually used the forbidden word. Their sleuthing soon dug up a tape on which Fuhrman was heard using . . . . Aha! See! That proves white guys are thinking and using the “n” word behind our backs! While this revelation discredited Fuhrman’s testimony concerning his personal language habits, it actually cast a negative light on the prosecutors and may have subtly influenced jurors’ attitudes during their final deliberations.

What’s going on here?

Could it be that “learned” behavior (as opposed to “innate” behavior), which modern psychology asserts is ultimately influential in the development of our personas, hasn’t been influential at all? That is to say, people’s thought processes seem not to have been altered by forbidding their use of certain emotion-laden words that are inherent in our vocabulary.

Jim Crow reborn? In fact, could it be that suppression of certain verbal habits is actually creating an undesirable internal backlash--a modern form of Jim Crowism?

During the 60s when the “consciousness” of American black culture was “being raised” by Martin Luther King and more militant organizations like the Black Panthers, American English progressed rapidly through a linguistic evolution when confronted with trying to level the racial differences playing field. “Negro” was discarded in favor of “black,” which soon gave way to the current preference: Afro-American. (I suspect that, if semanticists could only invent a word that doesn't arouse the mock cynicism of European whites who are tempted to describe their ancestry as “I’m a Anglo-American,” or “I’m a Danish-American,” or "I'm Slovenian-American," Afro-American would be on the way out.)

So after almost half a century, if us white guys are still thinking and occasionally verbalizing the "no-no" words in private, could it be that we’re still no closer to solving the “race problem” in this country than we were when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation? Is it possible that Linguistic Political Correctness (LPC) is primarily aimed at white guys and gals and is behind a half-century period of gestating frustration that could manifest itself as a sudden cultural backlash?

Is Dr. (PhD) Bill Cosby on to something when he talks to audiences of black parents, teachers, and kids and lambastes them for clinging to and even inventing more layers of negative social habits that retard their assimilation into the American cultural mainstream? Cosby has especial disdain for black “street language” which a couple of California school districts have attempted to legitimize by labeling it “Ebonics” and including it in the schools’ curriculum as an “alternative” form of English language (if you can believe our educational system has sunk so low--more on this later).

But back to my theme: Are we white guys silently reacting to the semantic repression that has been imposed on us since the 1960s? Is this repression already causing even wider rifts of resentment between the races, instead of altering the tendency toward racial bias? If so, are we actually developing a higher, more pernicious attitudinal barriers between the races? Despite all the advances the black community has achieved the past half-century, black organizations such as the NAACP cite statistics which demonstrate the advances have not been proportionate to their percentage of population in any measurable area.

This unique American linguistic dilemma has spread to relations among other races as well. Take the case of Chai Vang, at this moment on trial for slaying six white hunters with his high-powered hunting rifle. Chai is a Muong tribesman from Laos who immigrated to Wisconsin more than 20 years ago, but found assimilation among the heavily Germanic stock was not easy. Apparently, the slain hunters and Chai had had many run-ins over the years in various settings, but this time Chai exploded when they encountered each other while deer hunting. The exact circumstances of the encounter are not clear—the ongoing trial is attempting to determine this. However, it is known that their previous encounters were always laden with tension and just enough insults (“slant-eyes,” “gooks,” and similar Vietnam-era verbiage) uttered under their breath that an unhealthy relationship evolved over the years, exploding during early evening hours last year.

Is it possible that Linguistic Political Correctness (LPC) was actually the basic cause of the profound levels of resentment in both new immigrants and local citizens? Were the two sides actually prevented by LPC from communicating with each other honestly and openly about their prejudices, problems, and lifestyles? And had they been able to freely communicate with each other when Chai and his family entered the community, would that have contributed to forging a different, less violent attitudes?

If anyone doubts the power of spoken words, they need only remind themselves how their own emotions can be quickly raised to fever pitches under the most ordinary situations—a real or perceived slight to you or your family can bring most people unglued. But just how quickly an appropriate explicative or a good "chewing out" (even if not in the person's presence) can bring beneficial cathartic release—defusing the frustration. It’s easy to imagine the internal pressures that would build internally if we were required to repress our reactions during the course of these ordinary situations, multiplied in frequency over time—that is, to pretend nothing had happened. Yet that's what happens to a lot of us ordinary users of language.

A Polish-born professor of linguistics, Alfred Korzybski, broke new grounds in semantics between 1920 and 1940 with a unique theory of how people function--"General Semantics," only tangentially related to semantics as we usually think of it. He described how most people, unless taught how to deal consciously with the psychology of words, “reify” them—that is, they actually try to transform words into reality by over-identifying with what they think they mean (or what they'd like them to mean) and then try to live and force others to also live accordingly. Professor Korzybski laid a foundation for a modern generation of semanticists such as S.I. Hayakawa who tried to teach people how to apply the adage in their daily lives, “Sticks and stones won’t break . . . . etc.” Or as Alice wondered in her conversation with Humpty Dumpty, "The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things." To which Humpty Dumpty answered knowingly, "The question is, which is to be master—that’s all."

During a very critical period of social development in the U.S. (the 1950s and 1960s) people weren't very interested in and today show just as few signs of wanting to learn these critical skills. Most of us, when cornered, continue to adopt a confrontational attitude, elaborated by the Queen (was it?) in The Adventures of Alice in Wonderland who told Alice defiantly: "Words mean just what I want them to mean."

Unfortunately, semantics has remained the province of the academy. Perhaps, had it been seen as a vital “real life” skill to be widely taught to our kids, Chai Vang wouldn’t be on trial for murder today. In fact, it is possible to surmise realistically that the level of antagonism between people and races might have been significantly lowered--had we understood how not to “reify” words in the course of our everyday conduct, which is shaped largely by words, i.e. person-to-person communication.

More lamentable is that Washington's officialdom, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights--charged with implementing the many tiers of non-discrimination policies, regulations, and laws involved in affirmative action programs--didn’t understand the dangers of verbal “reification.” So they gave us the platitudinous, "We mustn't use words that hurt" (indelicate, rude, inappropriate, vulgar, race-baiting). So all the well-meaning, but linguistically uninformed citizens drew up a list of words that might "hurt" someone. Thus was born Linguistic Political Correctness.

Would there have been a different outcome if our “Great Society” leaders had known something about semantics? Instead of purging our language lexicons of “inappropriate” language, what if they had promoted the publication and distribution—at the community level—of "rules" relating to human behavior and language? Might this approach have underwritten a different outcome in our interpersonal relations today?

Look again at Chris Rock’s routines that play on his audience’s discomfort with racial biases by repeatedly using and re-using “forbidden” words. Doesn’t he lower the pressures among everyone listening to him, if only for an hour or so?

Or take Ann Coulter, while leaving obscenity to Chris Rock, who makes a similar breakthrough in her books and TV appearances by talking bluntly about political undercurrents that LPC effectively represses. By daring to throw those things in our faces and by using "no-no" language that political antagonists aren't used to hearing, Ann manages to arouse levels of emotion that aren't normally displayed among "sophisticated" politicos on radio and TV--she's not healing, but deliberately applying semantics in order to antagonize and agitate--a useful outcome in many circumstances. She proves that the sword can cut both ways! (Ann and I are both NJC alums--we were only a few months apart, but look where we ended up . . . as I write this blog to myself!)

Might today's “offensive” words have become less insulting had we learned about their emptiness? Might we have developed a whole different approach to understanding each other had we learned something about the words we use? It’s probably too much idealism to wonder whether such an open approach to language might have led to positively altered behavior among people with racial and other differences? We could not have done worse.