'IF WE CAN'T DO EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE, THEN WE MUST DO NOTHING ANYWHERE'
I'm presently reading the excellent book A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide by Samantha Power. It addresses genocides in the 20th century and America's (non-)responses to them. I just finished the chapter on Bosnia and am just starting the one on Rwanda.
I've read a number of works about the Rwandan genocide but it still angers me. Although it's less historically reknown/notorious than the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide is by almost all accounts the most evily efficient slaughter in history. An estimated 800,000 to 1 million dead in 100 days, as though numbers can really do justice to the magnitude of the horror.
In the book and her appearances on TV book shows, Power has made one pointed repeatedly about the greatest obstacle human rights activists come across when trying to get the America to fight genocide and other massacres: the false either-or choice.
Basically, those who don't want to intervene frame the situation this way: either we risk tens of thousands of American* troops in an all out ground invasion of [place where genocide is occuring] or we do nothing. Since risking American lives, especially for something that's "only" a humanitarian mission, is never a vote-winner, the president of the day and his team always want to avoid doing anything.
[*-As foreign powers go, the French government's hands were far more bloody in the Rwandan genocide, as their culpability was dangerous close to active. But I refer to American govt and public here because Power concentrates on her adopted country]
This is a myth because there are always more than the two choices presented. There is always more than one way to intervene.
For example, there was a small UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda when the genocide started. Their mandate almost emasculated them, forcing them to be nothing more than "witnesses at a funeral" as one person put it. This was demanded by a gun-shy Clinton administration, still scarred from the experience in Somalia.
The genociders captured 15 UN peacekeepers, 10 from Belgium and 5 from Ghana, unable to fight back due to the absurd rules of engagement. Then the genociders executed a plan that would have a huge impact on the international reaction to the massacres. They released the West Africans but murdered the Belgians. Their plan was to scare the Belgians and other westerners to withdraw or weaken the UN mission, thus imitating the Somali warlords who scared the Americans out of the Horn of Africa. That way, they could remove even the powerless witnesses from their slaughters.
Belgium asked for the Security Council to reinforce the mission, without which the Belgians would pull out. The head of the peacekeeping mission, Canadian Gen. Romeo Dallaire, asked the Council to double the size of his force, since he estimated the larger contigent would deter the massacres. Instead, the Council, under pressure from the US and France (each for different reasons), slashed the size of the mission by 90 percent. The Belgians and others pulled out. The genociders took their cue. Around million men, women and children were murdered.
The Clinton administration claimed that since committing US ground troops was inconceivable, there was nothing they could do. But this either-or, as always, was a sham. A convenient smokescreen. A few of the options, not involving US troops, that Clinton could've pursued were:
-The US could've pushed for the strengthening of the UN mission in Rwanda, rather than actively opposing it
-The US could've used jamming equipment to disrupt the broadcasts of Radio Mille Collines. This "hate radio" was broadcasting names, addresses and license plate numbers of those to be slaughtered. If the hate radio's broadcasts had been jammed, the genocide couldn't possibly have proceeded with the same ruthless, mechanical efficiency. It's likely that hundreds of thousands of lives would've been spared. When the deputy US ambassador to Rwanda (who, ironically, was ambassador to Kenya during the Nairobi bombing) suggested the jamming to her superiors in Washington, she was chided as naive. ""Pru, radios don't kill people. People kill people!"
-The US could've pushed for the expulsion of Rwanda's ambassador to the UN. A symbolic measure to be sure. But the administration barely even bothered with symbolic measures like this or even ritual condemnations of the violence. Rwanda wasn't on their radar screen in spring 1994.
-Gen. Dallaire asked the US to help transport heavy military equipment to the small number of remaining peacekeepers, since the US was one of the few countries with the logistical capacity to offer such help. The US bureaucracy instead haggled over details. Would the UN buy the equipment? Lease it? Who would pay for it to be shipped? If the administration had wanted this to be expedited, it would've been expedited. Instead, tens of thousands of people were being murdered during every week of this stonewalling..
These are only four of the options that could've saved the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of Rwandans. Four options that entailed no risk to American military personnel. Yet they weren't done.
They weren't done because of the false either-or choice. The American people were fed the line, "Since America can't do everything everywhere, it should thus do nothing." In an part of the world not familiar to most people here and susceptible to pre-conceived notions, Americans trusted what they were told. They believed the either-or myth.
Contrast this to Liberia, another part of the world unfamiliar to most Americans and susceptible to pre-conceived notions. Although the US did not send ground troops, the Bush administration continuously condemned the country's then-dictator Charles Taylor. The Bush people excerted strong diplomatic pressure on its West African allies to push Taylor out of office. US ground troops weren't committed, but Washington did not side aside silently. Without US pressure, it's likely Taylor would still be in power rather than in exile, possibly facing international war crimes charges. When left to their own devices, the most influential African governments (Nigeria, South Africa, Senegal) tend to be very deferrential to other heads of state and prefer "silent diplomacy" even when it's clearly failed miserably. The example of Zimbabwe is a testament to that.
As Liberia shows, committing ground troops is not the only way to effectively intervene in a genocide or other brutal conflict. Don't let the political establishment tell you differently.
**
WANT TO KNOW MORE?
-The book We Wish To Inform You That We Will All Be Killed Tommorrow With Our Families by Philip Gourevitch is widely considered to be the definitive account on the Rwandan genocide. It is the most powerful book I've ever read. Fergal Keane's Season of Blood is also excellent. Gourevitch's book looks at the bigger picture while Keane's focuses in on the stories of individuals.
-For a briefer account of the Rwandan genocide, Samantha Power published a comprehensive yet concise article about it in the September 2001 issue of The Atlantic Monthly.
Friday, November 14, 2003
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
MR. POSSIBLE FUTURE COMMANDER IN CHIEF: ARE YOU A POWER MAC GUY OR A DELL DUDE? CNN WANTS US TO KNOW
Interesting story from The Washington Post. At a debate hosting the Democratic presidential candidates, a CNN producer reportedly pressured a young audience member into asking a vapid question, instead than the serious one she'd prepared.
The paper wrote, "Alexandra Trustman said [Monday] that a CNN producer called her on the morning of the Boston forum and suggested she ask about the Democratic presidential candidates' computer preferences. Puzzled by the request, she writes in Brown University's Daily Herald, she drafted a more complicated question about how the candidates would use technology."
CNN rejected her serious question and told her to ask the candidates if they preferred Macs or PCs. The 2004 equivalent of 'boxers or briefs?' "Mr. Possible Future Commander in Chief, are you a Power Mac Guy or a Dell Dude? Inquiring minds want to know." [yes, the reference to a certain kind of tabloid was intentional]
Since it was Rock the Vote event with an audience comprised mostly of young people, Trustman was informed that CNN, "thought it would be a good opportunity for the candidates to relate to a younger audience."
Every November, the establishment media ritualistically bemoans the perceived political apathy on the part of young people. But then when young people do try to get involved, they are treated with this sort of breathtaking condescension.
Miffed by the criticism of her softball question, Trustman deplored the media's laziness. Not one person bothered to inquire or find out the truth about the incident, she wrote.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Huge storms are made about the most overt cases of journalistic malfeasance like the Jayson Blair/New York Times scandal. But the media would be better off if it realized the cumulative damage these smaller cases of laziness, sloppiness and pandering do to journalism's credibility.
Interesting story from The Washington Post. At a debate hosting the Democratic presidential candidates, a CNN producer reportedly pressured a young audience member into asking a vapid question, instead than the serious one she'd prepared.
The paper wrote, "Alexandra Trustman said [Monday] that a CNN producer called her on the morning of the Boston forum and suggested she ask about the Democratic presidential candidates' computer preferences. Puzzled by the request, she writes in Brown University's Daily Herald, she drafted a more complicated question about how the candidates would use technology."
CNN rejected her serious question and told her to ask the candidates if they preferred Macs or PCs. The 2004 equivalent of 'boxers or briefs?' "Mr. Possible Future Commander in Chief, are you a Power Mac Guy or a Dell Dude? Inquiring minds want to know." [yes, the reference to a certain kind of tabloid was intentional]
Since it was Rock the Vote event with an audience comprised mostly of young people, Trustman was informed that CNN, "thought it would be a good opportunity for the candidates to relate to a younger audience."
Every November, the establishment media ritualistically bemoans the perceived political apathy on the part of young people. But then when young people do try to get involved, they are treated with this sort of breathtaking condescension.
Miffed by the criticism of her softball question, Trustman deplored the media's laziness. Not one person bothered to inquire or find out the truth about the incident, she wrote.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Huge storms are made about the most overt cases of journalistic malfeasance like the Jayson Blair/New York Times scandal. But the media would be better off if it realized the cumulative damage these smaller cases of laziness, sloppiness and pandering do to journalism's credibility.
MAYBE HE SHOULD JUST STAY HOME
The upcoming visit of President Bush to London is wreaking havoc in the UK. The president's people ordered British officials to shut down central London. This angered the capital's mayor Ken Livingstone who fumed The ideas of some American security advisers that perhaps we should shut the whole of central London for three days, ignoring the economic consequences of that, I don't think that's got a chance at all.. The mayor noted that no British prime minister has been assassinated in 190 years so maybe they know something about security.
Officials banned a march that would've gone past Downing Street and the Houses of Parliament, insisting it should go on in another part of London far away from the president. As The Guardian described in a piece entitled Bush Visit Set to Paralyse London, "Bush's arrival is likely to follow the pattern of his visit to Australia last month, when he was spirited away from protesters along empty streets cleared of ordinary people."
Livingstone, a staunch leftist, plans on hosting "a peace party" in another part of town with leading critics of the Iraq adventure, which has infuriated the mayor's arch-enemy Prime Minister Tony Blair. The mayor warned the police not to employ tactics similiar to those used when China's president visited in 1989, shortly after the Tianammen Square massacre.
British families of the Iraq war dead condemned the visit as insensitive and ill-timed.
City officials are also miffed that they, instead of the British government, are going to be stuck with the approximately $8.5 million bill... for a three-day visit. Britain's Foreign Secretary cautioned, "People are fully entitled to demonstrate, but what bothers me is the fashionable anti-Americanism that is around," earnestly confusing "anti-Americanism" with "anti-Bushism."
Accompanying the president across the Pond, and I'd love to know how much all this costs:
-Up to 250 Secret Service Agents
-Up to 400 advisors, aides and other bureaucrats
-15 sniffer dogs and their handlers
-5 people to prepare the president's food
-Two identical personal Boeing 747-200s and a third chartered jumbo
-One personal US Marine Corps Sikorsky Sea King helicopter and a second A VH-60N, a VIP version of the Black Hawk helicopter
-Two identical motorcades each made up of 20 mostly amored vehicles, including the president's converted Cadillac Deville
-The "football," a briefcase carried by a military aide which contains the launch codes for America's nuclear arsenal
And this all is for just one trip of only three days.
I don't know for how much longer our friends will put up with thanks like this. If Bush's visits cause so much uproar, maybe he should stay home.
The upcoming visit of President Bush to London is wreaking havoc in the UK. The president's people ordered British officials to shut down central London. This angered the capital's mayor Ken Livingstone who fumed The ideas of some American security advisers that perhaps we should shut the whole of central London for three days, ignoring the economic consequences of that, I don't think that's got a chance at all.. The mayor noted that no British prime minister has been assassinated in 190 years so maybe they know something about security.
Officials banned a march that would've gone past Downing Street and the Houses of Parliament, insisting it should go on in another part of London far away from the president. As The Guardian described in a piece entitled Bush Visit Set to Paralyse London, "Bush's arrival is likely to follow the pattern of his visit to Australia last month, when he was spirited away from protesters along empty streets cleared of ordinary people."
Livingstone, a staunch leftist, plans on hosting "a peace party" in another part of town with leading critics of the Iraq adventure, which has infuriated the mayor's arch-enemy Prime Minister Tony Blair. The mayor warned the police not to employ tactics similiar to those used when China's president visited in 1989, shortly after the Tianammen Square massacre.
British families of the Iraq war dead condemned the visit as insensitive and ill-timed.
City officials are also miffed that they, instead of the British government, are going to be stuck with the approximately $8.5 million bill... for a three-day visit. Britain's Foreign Secretary cautioned, "People are fully entitled to demonstrate, but what bothers me is the fashionable anti-Americanism that is around," earnestly confusing "anti-Americanism" with "anti-Bushism."
Accompanying the president across the Pond, and I'd love to know how much all this costs:
-Up to 250 Secret Service Agents
-Up to 400 advisors, aides and other bureaucrats
-15 sniffer dogs and their handlers
-5 people to prepare the president's food
-Two identical personal Boeing 747-200s and a third chartered jumbo
-One personal US Marine Corps Sikorsky Sea King helicopter and a second A VH-60N, a VIP version of the Black Hawk helicopter
-Two identical motorcades each made up of 20 mostly amored vehicles, including the president's converted Cadillac Deville
-The "football," a briefcase carried by a military aide which contains the launch codes for America's nuclear arsenal
And this all is for just one trip of only three days.
I don't know for how much longer our friends will put up with thanks like this. If Bush's visits cause so much uproar, maybe he should stay home.
Friday, November 07, 2003
THE 'LIBERAL MEDIA' CHARGE MISSES THE POINT
I was reading a BBC piece on Diane Sawyer's interview with Jessica Lynch. According to the piece, "the 20-year-old criticised the release of false information about her capture by Iraqi forces." And noted additionally, "She said she was grateful to the American special forces team which rescued her but, asked whether the Pentagon's subsequent portrayal of her rescue bothered her, she said: 'Yes, it does. They used me as a way to symbolise all this stuff. It's wrong.'"
Now obviously people can draw their own inferences regarding the Department of War's propaganda campaign. Lynch speaks with more authority than I certainly can. But my observation is this. You'd think that the so-called "liberal" media that has such an supposedly large ax to grind with the Republican administration would make a huge deal out the story. "Rescued soldier said Pentagon manipulated her story" would've been an easy headline, especially for a media allegedly so pre-disposed to hating the Bush administration. Yet the story is only a minor aside on the three network news websites, CNN.com and the Fox site (at least two minutes ago when i checked all of them). Or how about the story of how Saddam's regime made a last ditch offer before the invasion to let American inspectors scour Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. Coverage of this in the "liberal media" will certainly lag behind Laci Petersen and Kobe Bryant.
The reason is because allegations about "liberal" bias, even if true in the case of individual journalists, entirely miss the point. Newspapers and newsmagazines, as institutions, tend generally to belong to the liberal establishment. But, they are establishment first and liberal second. When the two come into conflict, the establishment part always triumphs. Witness The New York Times vitriolic crusade against Ralph Nader's candidacy in 2000. A crusade essentially reversing Voltaire's maxim, "I may agree with what you say but will oppose to the death your right to say it."
Television news, as institutions, belong to the entertainment industry and are run as such. They are driven by ratings, not by any political agenda as such. Some would cite Fox News [sic] Channel as a counter but I disagree. FNC is filling a perceived vacuum. A lot of the people who really do believe the media as a whole has a liberal bias flock to FNC. If the perception was of a conservative media bias, FNC or someone else would invent a liberal alternative. It's just business.
The so-called mainstream news' media, print or broadcast, wants easily catergorizable voices. They want "standard liberals" and "standard conservatives" to make a prima face, superficial "balance," even if neither says anything substantive. Challenging readers/listeners isn't a priority and, in some circles, seems to be viewed as a DETRIMENT to ratings. Alan Keyes or Pat Buchanan is as unlikely to be given a fair treatment in a news story as Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky.
The New Republic ran an interesting piece on this very topic. Jonathan Chait, the article's author, notes a point I've made before. The Jayson Blair scandal (and its predecessors) serve as a excuse for the media to avoid true self-critique. They round on the most egregious offenders and pass this off as self-flagellation. When it's really a convenient diversion from the more fundamental problems of how journalism is practiced today. As long as coverage of politics is treated either as either celebrity fluff ("Does the candidate wear boxers or briefs?") or as a horse race ("Who's more likely to win?" rather than "Why we should care if x wins vs y?"), then political coverage will be increasingly irrelevant to the average citizen.
I was reading a BBC piece on Diane Sawyer's interview with Jessica Lynch. According to the piece, "the 20-year-old criticised the release of false information about her capture by Iraqi forces." And noted additionally, "She said she was grateful to the American special forces team which rescued her but, asked whether the Pentagon's subsequent portrayal of her rescue bothered her, she said: 'Yes, it does. They used me as a way to symbolise all this stuff. It's wrong.'"
Now obviously people can draw their own inferences regarding the Department of War's propaganda campaign. Lynch speaks with more authority than I certainly can. But my observation is this. You'd think that the so-called "liberal" media that has such an supposedly large ax to grind with the Republican administration would make a huge deal out the story. "Rescued soldier said Pentagon manipulated her story" would've been an easy headline, especially for a media allegedly so pre-disposed to hating the Bush administration. Yet the story is only a minor aside on the three network news websites, CNN.com and the Fox site (at least two minutes ago when i checked all of them). Or how about the story of how Saddam's regime made a last ditch offer before the invasion to let American inspectors scour Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. Coverage of this in the "liberal media" will certainly lag behind Laci Petersen and Kobe Bryant.
The reason is because allegations about "liberal" bias, even if true in the case of individual journalists, entirely miss the point. Newspapers and newsmagazines, as institutions, tend generally to belong to the liberal establishment. But, they are establishment first and liberal second. When the two come into conflict, the establishment part always triumphs. Witness The New York Times vitriolic crusade against Ralph Nader's candidacy in 2000. A crusade essentially reversing Voltaire's maxim, "I may agree with what you say but will oppose to the death your right to say it."
Television news, as institutions, belong to the entertainment industry and are run as such. They are driven by ratings, not by any political agenda as such. Some would cite Fox News [sic] Channel as a counter but I disagree. FNC is filling a perceived vacuum. A lot of the people who really do believe the media as a whole has a liberal bias flock to FNC. If the perception was of a conservative media bias, FNC or someone else would invent a liberal alternative. It's just business.
The so-called mainstream news' media, print or broadcast, wants easily catergorizable voices. They want "standard liberals" and "standard conservatives" to make a prima face, superficial "balance," even if neither says anything substantive. Challenging readers/listeners isn't a priority and, in some circles, seems to be viewed as a DETRIMENT to ratings. Alan Keyes or Pat Buchanan is as unlikely to be given a fair treatment in a news story as Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky.
The New Republic ran an interesting piece on this very topic. Jonathan Chait, the article's author, notes a point I've made before. The Jayson Blair scandal (and its predecessors) serve as a excuse for the media to avoid true self-critique. They round on the most egregious offenders and pass this off as self-flagellation. When it's really a convenient diversion from the more fundamental problems of how journalism is practiced today. As long as coverage of politics is treated either as either celebrity fluff ("Does the candidate wear boxers or briefs?") or as a horse race ("Who's more likely to win?" rather than "Why we should care if x wins vs y?"), then political coverage will be increasingly irrelevant to the average citizen.
Thursday, November 06, 2003
REALITY CHECKS
News item from The Associated Press: Mauritanian head of state Maaouiya Ould Taya arrested opposition leader Mohamed Khouna Ould Haidalla on the eve of the Sahel nation's presidential elections for which both men are candidates. The incumbent's campaign officials have accused Haidalla of plotting to seize power if he lost the election. Haidalla was the country's leader from 1979-1984 until he was ousted in a military coup by... Maaouiya Ould Taya.
News item from The BBC: An opposition coalition in Guinea has announced that it will boycott the West Africa country's presidential election scheduled for next month. [Guinea] will end up like Sierra Leone, Liberia or Ivory Coast because if we cannot discuss with the man in power, we will fight him the way he wants threatened opposition leader Ba Mamadou, who insisted he was referring to street protests, not armed insurrection. The opposition insists the vote has already been rigged in favor of the incumbent head of state, Gen. Lansana Conte and that the party in power has blocked the opposition's access to the state media (the European Union concurring with the latter assertion). For his part, the Gen. Conte warned I will never accept that someone comes to power by force. Those who want power will have to wait until the elections and contest it under the banner of a political party. The head of state came to power in a 1984 military coup that overthrew a civilian regime whose members were thrown in prison.
News item from CNN. President Bush signed a controversial bill that would ban partial birth abortions. In remarks at the signing ceremony, the president said he hoped to "build a culture of life." "This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government -- it comes from the creator of life," added the president, who was once governor of the state that habitually murders (denies life to) far more of its citizens than any other state.
News item from The Associated Press: Mauritanian head of state Maaouiya Ould Taya arrested opposition leader Mohamed Khouna Ould Haidalla on the eve of the Sahel nation's presidential elections for which both men are candidates. The incumbent's campaign officials have accused Haidalla of plotting to seize power if he lost the election. Haidalla was the country's leader from 1979-1984 until he was ousted in a military coup by... Maaouiya Ould Taya.
News item from The BBC: An opposition coalition in Guinea has announced that it will boycott the West Africa country's presidential election scheduled for next month. [Guinea] will end up like Sierra Leone, Liberia or Ivory Coast because if we cannot discuss with the man in power, we will fight him the way he wants threatened opposition leader Ba Mamadou, who insisted he was referring to street protests, not armed insurrection. The opposition insists the vote has already been rigged in favor of the incumbent head of state, Gen. Lansana Conte and that the party in power has blocked the opposition's access to the state media (the European Union concurring with the latter assertion). For his part, the Gen. Conte warned I will never accept that someone comes to power by force. Those who want power will have to wait until the elections and contest it under the banner of a political party. The head of state came to power in a 1984 military coup that overthrew a civilian regime whose members were thrown in prison.
News item from CNN. President Bush signed a controversial bill that would ban partial birth abortions. In remarks at the signing ceremony, the president said he hoped to "build a culture of life." "This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government -- it comes from the creator of life," added the president, who was once governor of the state that habitually murders (denies life to) far more of its citizens than any other state.
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
WHY DON'T PEOPLE VOTE?
I was reading an essay by my sister about why you should vote. And I totally agree with her. Usually I write an essay of that sort every year. But this year, I thought about why that sort of thing happens. The most common explanation is that Americans are politically apathetic. Which is true, to a certain extent, I believe. However, it's worth asking WHY this is they are are apathetic. Part of it is related to lack of competition. In many areas, one party dominates so much that it suffocates the political process.
For example in my county, there were 11 races yesterday for town supervisor. Nine (82%) were unopposed. The other two pitted a pair of Republican candidates against each other. Admittedly, there were county wide races and referenda on the state constitution, but when so many races present no choice, it's hard to get excited.
Out of 38 town wide races (supervisor, town clerk, etc), only 8 were contested. That means nearly 80% of these town wide officers were elected without any competition. The marketplace of ideas loses some of its luster when most of the products have only one brand. Making a choice implies having a choice to make.
While lack of citizen participation is part of the problem of our not-quite-so-vibrant democracy, it's also a symptom.
I was reading an essay by my sister about why you should vote. And I totally agree with her. Usually I write an essay of that sort every year. But this year, I thought about why that sort of thing happens. The most common explanation is that Americans are politically apathetic. Which is true, to a certain extent, I believe. However, it's worth asking WHY this is they are are apathetic. Part of it is related to lack of competition. In many areas, one party dominates so much that it suffocates the political process.
For example in my county, there were 11 races yesterday for town supervisor. Nine (82%) were unopposed. The other two pitted a pair of Republican candidates against each other. Admittedly, there were county wide races and referenda on the state constitution, but when so many races present no choice, it's hard to get excited.
Out of 38 town wide races (supervisor, town clerk, etc), only 8 were contested. That means nearly 80% of these town wide officers were elected without any competition. The marketplace of ideas loses some of its luster when most of the products have only one brand. Making a choice implies having a choice to make.
While lack of citizen participation is part of the problem of our not-quite-so-vibrant democracy, it's also a symptom.
Saturday, November 01, 2003
WHAT ABOUT THE BABY'S RIGHTS?
A local woman recently gave birth to a newborn baby with a blood alcohol level of 0.18. That's more than double the state's legal intoxication rate (0.08) for adults. Unfortunately, the sad case of the drunk newborn is pitting child welfare advocates and pro-abortion supporters against each other with the little baby stuck in the middle.
Originally, the Warren County (NY) district attorney wanted the woman to be sent to rehab. But the DA later learned that she'd already had similiar problems in a neighboring county. What I wanted to do was try to get her into in-house rehab, and release her from jail to get the treatment she obviously needs. We learned after she was produced in court, that she had other legal problems in Saratoga, related to similar legal conduct, noted the district attorney. The indication from Saratoga County officials is she was not going to rehab and had refused on a number of occasions with them.
Capital News 9 also reported that the woman "admitted in her sworn statement that this wasn't the first time she had gotten drunk while she was pregnant.
As a result, the district attorney decided to charge the woman with endangering the welfare of a child. Not surprisingly, this caught the attention of advocacy groups. Since the fetus isn't a child, according to pro-abortion forces, causing your fetus to become intoxicated is no big deal. Or at least not a form of child abuse. Accordingly, four dozen advocacy groups have petitioned the district attorney not to press the child endangerment charges against the woman.
The abortion debate is so tricky for one reason. A fetus may not be a full-fledged person independent of the mother, but it's not a body part just like any other. The fetus is the only part of a woman's body that can become its own person. In that way, it's qualitatively different from the tonsils or fingers. If the law does not recognize a fetus as a whole person with the same rights as the mother, then at least it should be given a special status somewhere between that of a full-fledged human being and that of an appendix.
There's just something about this case that seems wrong. Ideally, the woman would realize her mistakes (plural, remember) and voluntarily submit to counselling. But she's already rejected counseling for drinking during her previous pregnancies. And the NYCLU will argue that it's her right to do so. One advantage of prosecuting the woman is that, if convicted, it gives the system leverage to force her to submit to the counseling she so obviously needs. Without that stick, she can get plastered the next time she's pregnant and we're all supposed to feel sorry for her when it's her poor kids who will suffer.
There's one fact that no one can dispute. Her baby was born drunk. The baby was born drunk as a result of conscious actions she made. The baby may or may not have with fetal alcohol syndrome. Or maybe her next one will. Babies with fetal alcohol syndrome can have facial abnormalities, growth deficiency and evidence of central nervous system dysfunction, mental retardation, poor motor skills and hand-eye coordination. They may also have a complex pattern of behavioral and learning problems, including difficulties with memory, attention and judgment. All this because the baby's mom felt like getting plastered and, according to tne NYCLU, there's nothing society can do about it. Except, of course, pick up the tab for the baby's medical care, special education and Social Security disability.
No kid should have to suffer like that simply because the kid was "only" a fetus at the time. If we can't make her to get the help she needs so she doesn't condemn any more kids to that kind of life, then all our incessant prattle about how "kids are the future" will be exposed as a sham. If what this woman did was legal, then there's something wrong with the law.
A local woman recently gave birth to a newborn baby with a blood alcohol level of 0.18. That's more than double the state's legal intoxication rate (0.08) for adults. Unfortunately, the sad case of the drunk newborn is pitting child welfare advocates and pro-abortion supporters against each other with the little baby stuck in the middle.
Originally, the Warren County (NY) district attorney wanted the woman to be sent to rehab. But the DA later learned that she'd already had similiar problems in a neighboring county. What I wanted to do was try to get her into in-house rehab, and release her from jail to get the treatment she obviously needs. We learned after she was produced in court, that she had other legal problems in Saratoga, related to similar legal conduct, noted the district attorney. The indication from Saratoga County officials is she was not going to rehab and had refused on a number of occasions with them.
Capital News 9 also reported that the woman "admitted in her sworn statement that this wasn't the first time she had gotten drunk while she was pregnant.
As a result, the district attorney decided to charge the woman with endangering the welfare of a child. Not surprisingly, this caught the attention of advocacy groups. Since the fetus isn't a child, according to pro-abortion forces, causing your fetus to become intoxicated is no big deal. Or at least not a form of child abuse. Accordingly, four dozen advocacy groups have petitioned the district attorney not to press the child endangerment charges against the woman.
The abortion debate is so tricky for one reason. A fetus may not be a full-fledged person independent of the mother, but it's not a body part just like any other. The fetus is the only part of a woman's body that can become its own person. In that way, it's qualitatively different from the tonsils or fingers. If the law does not recognize a fetus as a whole person with the same rights as the mother, then at least it should be given a special status somewhere between that of a full-fledged human being and that of an appendix.
There's just something about this case that seems wrong. Ideally, the woman would realize her mistakes (plural, remember) and voluntarily submit to counselling. But she's already rejected counseling for drinking during her previous pregnancies. And the NYCLU will argue that it's her right to do so. One advantage of prosecuting the woman is that, if convicted, it gives the system leverage to force her to submit to the counseling she so obviously needs. Without that stick, she can get plastered the next time she's pregnant and we're all supposed to feel sorry for her when it's her poor kids who will suffer.
There's one fact that no one can dispute. Her baby was born drunk. The baby was born drunk as a result of conscious actions she made. The baby may or may not have with fetal alcohol syndrome. Or maybe her next one will. Babies with fetal alcohol syndrome can have facial abnormalities, growth deficiency and evidence of central nervous system dysfunction, mental retardation, poor motor skills and hand-eye coordination. They may also have a complex pattern of behavioral and learning problems, including difficulties with memory, attention and judgment. All this because the baby's mom felt like getting plastered and, according to tne NYCLU, there's nothing society can do about it. Except, of course, pick up the tab for the baby's medical care, special education and Social Security disability.
No kid should have to suffer like that simply because the kid was "only" a fetus at the time. If we can't make her to get the help she needs so she doesn't condemn any more kids to that kind of life, then all our incessant prattle about how "kids are the future" will be exposed as a sham. If what this woman did was legal, then there's something wrong with the law.
Monday, October 27, 2003
MY DRINKING WATER IS TOO CLEAN!
In many places, "taxes" is a four-letter word. Especially in places where they are used to find libarys and skools.
In a neighboring community, the Republican town supervisor is about to be ousted because he is not as rabidly anti-tax as his Republican challenger. This despite a booming town economy and overflowing sales tax coffers. The incumbent also has the audacity to, very occassionally, not write blank checks to developers.
Have you ever noticed how the words "taxes" or "taxpayer" are employed as an emotion-triggering propaganda cues? Whenever someone uses the word "taxpayer," you know you are supposed to be outraged about something.
You might hear someone say, "We Americans are proud to support our troops." But on another topic, it might be, "We taxpayers shouldn't subsidize those people who choose to be unemployed."
I have a long essay planned in the back of my mind which I will entitle "The Republic of Consumers." Americans consider themselves first and foremost taxpayers, whereas the French, for example, consider themselves first and foremost citizens. Other countries have had revolutions to overthrow oppressive oligarchies. The American Revolution was a middle-class tax revolt. This paradigm is reflected in the nature of public discourse in those countries.
This is the mentality that subordinates the greater good to the individual good. This is why many Americans hate taxes for its own sake.
Sure, no one actually likes paying taxes. It's losing money that we'd otherwise get in our paychecks. But, the fallacy is viewing out of context. Yes, we pay taxes. But we also get services for those taxes. Debating about which services should be funded by public money is a legitimate question. But removing that context and simply saying "taxes are bad," that is disingenuous. It's like doing a cost-benefit analysis while totally omitting the benefit half.
I've read tens of thousands of opinion columns, editorials and letters to the editor. Hundreds have bemoaned taxes. Candidates and parties base campaigns on lowering taxes.
But of those thousands of pieces I've read, no one's ever complained that their drinking water is too safe. No one's ever cried that their roads are too smooth, that crime is too low or that the fire department responds to blazes too quickly.
In this case, it's the people who are talking out of both sides of their mouthes. In 1995, Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich made the mistake of taking the voters at their word. The GOP ran a campaign based on less government. The people voted for them. The shock occured when Gingrich actually implemented that plan. He shut down the government in his budget dispute with President Clinton. He figured that since his party was elected based on reducing government, shutting it down wouldn't be a big deal.
Gingrich learned a painful (for him) lesson. Americans hate government in theory, but not in practice. They hate "the guys in Washington" but their own guy gets re-elected 90% of the time or more. They hate "pork" so long as it's other people's programs, not their own. They hate taxes but love the programs that are provided with those taxes.
Everyone wants a free lunch, but in the real world, the money always has to come from somewhere.
In many places, "taxes" is a four-letter word. Especially in places where they are used to find libarys and skools.
In a neighboring community, the Republican town supervisor is about to be ousted because he is not as rabidly anti-tax as his Republican challenger. This despite a booming town economy and overflowing sales tax coffers. The incumbent also has the audacity to, very occassionally, not write blank checks to developers.
Have you ever noticed how the words "taxes" or "taxpayer" are employed as an emotion-triggering propaganda cues? Whenever someone uses the word "taxpayer," you know you are supposed to be outraged about something.
You might hear someone say, "We Americans are proud to support our troops." But on another topic, it might be, "We taxpayers shouldn't subsidize those people who choose to be unemployed."
I have a long essay planned in the back of my mind which I will entitle "The Republic of Consumers." Americans consider themselves first and foremost taxpayers, whereas the French, for example, consider themselves first and foremost citizens. Other countries have had revolutions to overthrow oppressive oligarchies. The American Revolution was a middle-class tax revolt. This paradigm is reflected in the nature of public discourse in those countries.
This is the mentality that subordinates the greater good to the individual good. This is why many Americans hate taxes for its own sake.
Sure, no one actually likes paying taxes. It's losing money that we'd otherwise get in our paychecks. But, the fallacy is viewing out of context. Yes, we pay taxes. But we also get services for those taxes. Debating about which services should be funded by public money is a legitimate question. But removing that context and simply saying "taxes are bad," that is disingenuous. It's like doing a cost-benefit analysis while totally omitting the benefit half.
I've read tens of thousands of opinion columns, editorials and letters to the editor. Hundreds have bemoaned taxes. Candidates and parties base campaigns on lowering taxes.
But of those thousands of pieces I've read, no one's ever complained that their drinking water is too safe. No one's ever cried that their roads are too smooth, that crime is too low or that the fire department responds to blazes too quickly.
In this case, it's the people who are talking out of both sides of their mouthes. In 1995, Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich made the mistake of taking the voters at their word. The GOP ran a campaign based on less government. The people voted for them. The shock occured when Gingrich actually implemented that plan. He shut down the government in his budget dispute with President Clinton. He figured that since his party was elected based on reducing government, shutting it down wouldn't be a big deal.
Gingrich learned a painful (for him) lesson. Americans hate government in theory, but not in practice. They hate "the guys in Washington" but their own guy gets re-elected 90% of the time or more. They hate "pork" so long as it's other people's programs, not their own. They hate taxes but love the programs that are provided with those taxes.
Everyone wants a free lunch, but in the real world, the money always has to come from somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)