Xmas recommendations

I am a big fan of Christmas. Less the baby Jesus part, more the Santa part. These are my top picks for Xmas entertainment:

Music: A Christmas Gift for You From Phil Spector. Best of all time.

Hanson: Snowed In Great album, though Otis Redding's "Merry Chistmas, Baby" far surpasses anyone elses.

Ella Fitzgerald and Nat King Cole display the best voices for Christmas songs. I do listen to Bing and Frankie, though only at Christmas.

TV: Rankin Bass kicks ass! Esp. Rudolph, natch, but I also love "Year Without A Santa Claus." Skip Frosty and some of the other very strange ones. And can't beat the Charlie Brown Christmas soundtrack by Vince Guaraldi.

Film: I like some of the Classics, okay, but not devoted to them: It's A Wonderful Life, Miracle on 34th St., Holiday Inn. Some of the more recent ones that wear well are Home Alone (one of my favorites), the Santa Clause movies with Tim Allen (surprisingly), and maybe even Elf, which I liked better on second viewing this year than I did originally.

But the only one that really counts in my book is Christmas Carol, and here debates rage over which is the best one. I am a fan of the Muppet Christmas Carol, believe it or not. Most people would go with the 1951 version Scrooge with Alastair Sim. Hard to quibble with that, and I have seen all the old ones. The 1938 version with Reginald Owen has some good ghosts, as I recall. Those old ones (and I think I have a couple of even earlier versions on tape somewhere) are often scary just for being in black and white. I remember as a child (long before cable tv) watching several versions in a row every Christmas eve, so I always went to bed dreaming not of sugar plum fairies but of Marley and Cratchit.

My favorite, however, is often overlooked by critics and fans, and is pretty much unknown: 1970's musical Scrooge with 34 year old Albert Finney. To my eyes, Finney is the greatest Scrooge ever. He even plays Scrooge as a young man and the transformation is amazing, with his crooked mouth, misanthropy and pathos. Incredible performance, and even some great songs (and I pretty much eschew musicals). I especially like the song Scrooge sings, "I Hate People."

Anyone else have recommendations?

Times' Op-Eds

Herbert: Fiddling as Iraq Burns. I like his opening: "The White House seems to have slipped the bonds of simple denial and escaped into the disturbing realm of utter delusion." It happened a long time ago, Bob. But thanks for noticing.

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Great Powers of Europe, Redefined
By TIMOTHY GARTON ASH
An excerpt:

Why is it that Americans do not understand the power of the European Union? Is it because they are simply not well informed by reports from Brussels and other European capitals? Or is it because, as citizens of the world's last truly sovereign nation-state, Americans - and especially American conservatives - find it difficult to acknowledge the contribution of a transnational organization based on supranational law? It's as if they can conceive of power only in the old-fashioned terms of a classical nation-state.

Robert Kagan describes the difference between America and Europe as the difference between power and weakness - American power, that is, and European weakness. This description is sustainable only if power is measured in terms of military strength. In the way that some American conservatives talk about the European Union, I hear an echo of Stalin's famous question about the Vatican's power: how many divisions does the pope have? But the pope defeated Stalin in the end. This attitude overlooks the dimensions of European power that are not to be found on the battlefield.

In economic power, the European Union is the equal of the United States: the combined gross domestic product of the union's 25 member states is some $11 trillion at current exchange rates, about the same as the G.D.P. of the United States. American business has long recognized the importance of the European market, and it is also beginning to understand the influence of its regulators. Three years ago the union blocked the merger of two American companies, General Electric and Honeywell - after American regulators had already approved the deal.

The European Union is also strong in a less tangible kind of power - what is known as "soft power." The European way of life, its culture and societies, are enormously appealing to many of its neighbors. Meanwhile, the policies of the Bush administration have prompted a wave of hostility toward America around the world, while its security measures have made it more difficult for foreigners to study or work in the United States. So Europe may currently have a comparative advantage in the exercise of soft power, if only temporarily.

Yet the most distinctive feature of European power is a fourth dimension - one that the United States wholly lacks. It is the power of induction. Put very simply: the European Union is getting bigger, and the United States is not. Haiti cannot hope to follow Hawaii into the American union, and even an American territory like Puerto Rico faces resistance in becoming the 51st state. But Ukraine can hope to follow Poland into the European Union.

AS we have seen across central and eastern Europe, and now in the Balkans and in Turkey, countries that wish to join the European Union are prepared to make profound changes to their economic, social, legal and political systems in order to qualify. Indeed, in the run-up to accession, the union has intervened extensively in the affairs of candidate states, but it has done so with the consent of their democratically elected governments. This is regime change, European-style.

The history of the European Union can be told as a story of the expansion of freedom: from the original six postwar democracies in western Europe; to 12 member states, including three former dictatorships in southern Europe; to 25, including many of the former Communist states of central and eastern Europe; and now on to the Balkans, Turkey and, one day, Ukraine.

It can't go on forever, obviously. If Europe is everywhere, it will be nowhere. So the European Union must decide what to offer neighbors that cannot be members. But for now, the European power of induction is working its magic on the streets of Kiev and Istanbul.

"The wisest use of American strength is to advance freedom," President Bush has said. Yet by overlooking the true dimensions of European power, America is failing to recognize the potential of what could be its greatest ally in the most hopeful project of our time: the advancement of liberty around the world.

And, finally, today's essential Krugman on the Social Security privatization scam:Buying Into Failure.

Library of Congress -- First World War Rotogravures

The Library of Congress's Serial and Government Publications Division
is pleased to announce the release of a new digital collection,
"Newspaper Pictorials: World War I Rotogravures," available on the
American Memory Web site at:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/rotogravures/

During the World War I era (1914-18), newspapers published pictorial
sections that provided readers with access to images of current events,
domestic life, classic artwork, and advertisements. The popularity of
the pictorial sections increased both readership and advertising revenue
for the newspapers. Many of these sections were produced using the
rotogravure printing process, which produced richly detailed, high
quality illustrations.

The three titles digitized for "Newspaper Pictorials: World War I
Rotogravures" represent the variety and diversity of pictorials
published in Sunday pictorial sections by two of the most prominent U.S.
newspapers of the day: the New York Times and New York Tribune. Shortly
after the armistice, the New York Times published a book, The War of the
Nations: Portfolio in Rotogravure Etchings, with images selected from
its Mid-Week Pictorial section. This volume also contains thirty-two
maps that describe military engagements throughout the war and a
three-page appendix that provides a chronology, statistics, treaty
excerpts, and information about significant wartime events.

The images in this collection track American sentiment about the war in
Europe, week by week, before and after U.S. involvement. They document
events of the war alongside society news and advertisements touting
products of the day, creating a pictorial record of both the war effort
and life at home.

American Memory is a gateway to rich primary source materials relating
to the history and culture of the United States. The site offers more
than 8 million digital items from more than 120 historical collections.

Please use the American Memory web form:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/askalib/ask-memory2.html
to submit any questions you may have about this collection.

Thank You!!

Laura Gottesman
Reference Specialist
Digital Reference Team
The Library of Congress

Ways to Destroy a Great Nation

A partial how-to guide can be found here

Friedman writes a good one

What's happening over at the Times' Op-Ed Page? First, Brooks, now Tom. What's next, Safire visiting the reality-based community for a stopover on his way to the condo in Florida?

Holding Up Arab Reform
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: December 16, 2004

Punk Rock in New Jersey

Since the Times doesn't place their New Jersey section articles online, I had to grab this whole article from Lexis-Nexis. Check out this work from our nation's greatest writer:

HEADLINE: Out of the Basement, Sparked by a Scream and a Dream

BYLINE: By DEIRDRE DAY-MACLEOD

DATELINE: Old Bridge

BODY:


ONLY the occasional hiss of bike tires on asphalt broke the serenity here one quiet Thursday recently. But, if you listened closely in one pastoral cul-de-sac, you might have felt a fierce throb beneath the manicured facade. That would have been the punk band From Downtown practicing in the basement of Steve Silverman's house.

Going back to at least the 1950's, teenagers have armed themselves with attitude and electric guitars and retreated to garages and basements to assault parental sensibilities. But there's a keener urgency among today's garagistes. Every young band wants to be like Matchbook Romance, a group of high school students from Poughkeepsie, N.Y., discovered by Epitaph's chief executive, Brett Gurewitz, who found their MP3 online. Many bands, though, find themselves teased and led on by CD labels, and end up feeling eternally on the verge.

But if the sounds have changed since the days of Chuck Berry and Brylcreem, the impulse remains the same for the musicians who blast distorted chords off garage walls: they want to be like their heroes.

For the five members of From Downtown, their beacon is the Bouncing Souls, a New Jersey punk unit that commanded the main stage when this past summer's Warped Tour hit Randalls Island in New York City. It's that left-of-the-dial devotion to punk and the Souls that nudges From Downtown to descend weekly to their makeshift underground studio, past the Costco-size packs of paper towels and the towers of canned food.

It might seem less than glamorous, but Geremy Jasper of the Fever, an up and coming New Jersey band, already looks back with a touch of longing to his teenage years spent in similar Bergen County basements. ''It was like magic,'' he said.

By 7:30 on this particular night, Downtown's singer, Evan O'Gibney, who at 18 is the band's ''annoying baby brother,'' seemed anxious to get going. And Squid, Steve Silverman to the world, tuned his bass and talked about how his parents possessed the remarkable ability to sleep through anything. ''I wake them up when we're done.''

Both Mr. Silverman and Mr. O'Gibney are recent additions, coming via want ads posted on Internet sites like Garageband.com and Soundclicks.com.

As Bob Guerci and Greg Aronne, the band's founding members and elders at 23 and 22, got settled, the drummer, Steve Svenda, rummaged through black bags emblazoned with band stickers searching for an unbroken stick. Posters on the walls and the T-shirts they wore identified the band's punk allegiances: Dropkick Murphys, the Ataris, Bad Religion and, of course, Bouncing Souls. Mr. Guerci even has a Souls tattoo. ''I first saw those guys play when I was in eighth grade,'' he said.

First, they thrashed their way through a round of old favorites. After half an hour, there was a break for the fresh-baked chocolate-chip cookies provided by Squid's mom -- did Mrs. Cleaver like punk? -- before an attempt to recover last week's new song. But the equipment balked, cookie grease made Mr. Guerci's strings slippery, Mr. Aronne's amp channeled mysterious sounds, then the arguments started: ''Does anyone remember how it went?''

But those things happen when you don't practice every day. The band's biggest challenge, besides remembering songs, is getting together -- which also means coping with schedule conflicts and desertions: Mr. O'Gibney replaced Matt, who never made it to practice, who replaced the old singer who decided to devote himself to college and martial arts. At least no drummers have, a la Spinal Tap, spontaneously combusted.

In between tuning and stabs at recapturing the magic of near-songs from weeks past, discussion turned to a coming gig in New York City. That led back to another ill-fated city gig, a night that ended with the band drinking Rheingold in a parking lot sitting on the equipment they'd hauled to Brooklyn. The club owner refused to let them play because they hadn't sold the required 30 tickets.

On the bright side, there have been better shows. ''At least four of my friends come to all of our shows,'' said Mr. Svenda of Middletown. And, Mr. Aronne, from Keansburg, added, ''We've played shows where some people knew the words.''

But to forestall growing up and the threat of a ''real'' job, the band has to get signed. Sometimes, the goal seems so near that one phone call could put them on a plane to California. Other times, it's seems so distant that a couple backstage passes to the Warped Tour are ''totally awesome.''

The waltz with music companies can be both exhilarating and exasperating; some talent scouts contact hundreds of bands a month, but don't sign any of them. A few weeks ago a nibble from the ''mouthpiece'' of an artists and repertory person at an unspecified major label, sent Mr. Guerci, from Belford, oscillating between euphoria and paranoia. ''Could someone be playing a cruel joke?'' Mr. Silverman wondered. Mr. O'Gibney, from Monmouth Beach, dashed around his house shouting: ''I'm selling my car! I'm quitting my job right now!'' His grandmother burst into tears, he said.

From Downtown remains unsigned, but still thrashing. In a perfect world? ''We'd be signed by Epitaph like the Souls,'' Mr. O'Gibney said -- and singing on the main stage of the Warped Tour.

URL: http://www.nytimes.com

GRAPHIC: Photo: The punk band From Downtown is on the verge. But the hard question is: On the verge of what? (Photo by Frank C. Dougherty for The New York Times)

LOAD-DATE: December 5, 2004

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

December 5, 2004 Sunday
Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section 14NJ; Column 1; New Jersey Weekly Desk; Pg. 12

LENGTH: 874 words

I am a Brooks convert

Well, not quite. But for the first time ever I have seen evidence of his charms; until now I have been baffled by how he has become such a star -- well, not baffled at all really: smug, glib, superficiality sells well, especially on the right, and for David Brooks it is nicely overlain with a veneer of openmindedness and something vaguely resembling cogitation. But I like this from yesterday's good column:

you have to remember that Republicans have a different relationship to ideas than Democrats. When Democrats open their mouths, they try to say something interesting. If the true thing is obvious and boring, the liberal person will go off and say something original, even if it is completely idiotic. This is how deconstructionism got started.

Ha! A good line. As a grad student in the 1990s, I suffered through -- nay, I must say, even embraced -- a good deal of hokum passing itself off as the latest method of finally seeing through what others had missed for centuries upon centuries. As for deconstruction (and any real deconstructer knows that it was never an "ism" -- that was the point!), my wife retains some fondness for it, having actually understood Derrida. But then she has even read all of Lacan, so one might question her sanity.

Brooks continues:

Republicans are less concerned with displaying their own cleverness. When they actually stumble upon an idea, they are so delighted they regurgitate it over and over again. Where others might favor elaboration, Republicans favor repetition.

Yes, repetition is right, though for the Republicans it works just as well (maybe even better) for repeating a phrase actually divorced from any idea.

Organized Labor and Politics

An excellent op-ed from the son of our own Irwin Nack:

Organized Labor Needs To Define Its Principles
The Capital Times [Madison, Wisconsin]:: EDITORIAL :: 9A
Monday, November 15, 2004
David Nack
In the wake of the election of 2004, American organized labor must reassess its most recent political activities and position.

A mighty consensus gripped almost all major labor organizations that the first priority in 2004 was to unseat President George W. Bush, and labor set its shoulder to the wheel. While union efforts were crucial factors contributing to Democratic victories in many states, obviously both John Kerry and labor came up short in the end.

Kerry campaigned hard, arguably won all three debates and seemed indefatigable right up until the end. From a labor perspective, however, he was hardly an ideal candidate. He had the right positions on overtime provisions for workers, on protecting Social Security from privatization, on worker rights to organize and engage in collective bargaining, and on health and safety standards on the job.

On two other issues, however, that are of the highest priority for organized labor, Kerry was either overly cautious or on the wrong side.

Kerry's proposals to deal with the rapidly accelerating health care crisis that is engulfing America, and haunting virtually all collective bargaining today, while a step in the right direction, were anemic and unimaginative. Looking at Bill Clinton's much bolder proposals in 1992, which helped Clinton win that year's election but erupted later into a political fiasco, surely caused Kerry to go slow in this area.

Even worse from labor's standpoint was Kerry's posture in regard to American workers and the global economy. As blue collar, white collar and now even professional work gets outsourced around the world by means of digital and satellite technology, American workers are left wondering whose job will be lost next. The Bush administration openly defends corporate outsourcing. Kerry, as a supporter of the World Trade Organization, North American Free Trade Agreement and free trade generally, also placed himself in direct opposition to organized labor on this fundamental issue.

Organized labor believes in fair trade, but not the free trade that enables corporate capital to abandon productive jobs and investments in the United States in favor of nations and regions that offer the cheapest sources of labor in the world today. To assuage this deep concern about the corporate outsourcing agenda, Kerry offered only a tax policy that would reduce taxes on American firms that stayed in the U.S. and tax corporations on their foreign investments.

One thing is sure: Kerry did not represent the interests of organized labor or American workers on this critical issue, and nowhere could that be seen better than in the popular vote, which Kerry lost, and in the election returns from Ohio. This industrial state has shed more than a quarter million jobs under Bush. Yet Ohio gave its electoral votes and the presidential election to Bush, primarily because Kerry did not make the case that he had anything meaningful to offer to the beleaguered workers of the Buckeye State.

When working people see little difference between candidates on an issue that strikes so close to home, some become susceptible to other appeals. There is really no way to logically persuade folks who get wrapped up in the guns, God and gays arguments that they are wrong, or overly fearful. The Bush campaign clearly recognized that fear could be used to motivate people, and neither Kerry nor organized labor was in a position to get past that fear by pointing to positive and substantive proposed reforms that are needed in today's corporate global economy to safeguard American livelihoods. In this Kerry was, unfortunately, true to his free trade principles, but organized labor put aside its principles to render him maximum support. It didn't work, and therein may lie important lessons for American organized labor.

It may well be that no Democratic candidates can win a national election again until they explain in detail how they intend to protect American workers and their jobs from corporate outsourcing. Organized labor needs to insist that its position on global trade be adopted before support is given to any candidate. The alternative for labor is to continue to lose elections. Labor itself has contributed to this problem by failing to lay the necessary foundation. American labor may be for fair trade, but what exactly does that mean, and how would it come into being? Where are labor's specific global trade proposals and the massive educational work that is needed to disseminate and explain those proposals?

Labor must learn from the election of 2004 that it needs to develop its own concrete political programs and that supporting candidates opposed to those programs generally will not work. It is better to establish clear-cut principles, and fight for them, than simply to accept the best we can get.

David Nack is an assistant professor at the UW-Extension School for Workers.

Bernie, we hardly knew ye

I couldn't resist this:

December 15, 2004
Missteps Cited in Kerik Vetting by White House
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

This article was reported by Elisabeth Bumiller, Eric Lipton and David Johnston and written by Ms. Bumiller.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 - Despite hours of confrontational interviews by the White House counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, the Bush administration failed to get a full picture of the legal and ethical problems of Bernard B. Kerik, its nominee for homeland security secretary, a government official said on Tuesday.

In addition, the White House did not consult with the one person in the West Wing who knew the most about Mr. Kerik's background, Frances Townsend, because Ms. Townsend, President Bush's adviser on homeland security and a former federal prosecutor in New York, was under consideration for the position herself, said the official, who would speak only on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Those problems, law enforcement officials and Republicans said, were just two of the factors that led to the collapse of the Kerik nomination and surprised a White House focused on changing more than half the cabinet.

The story of Mr. Kerik's nomination is one of how a normally careful White House faltered because of Mr. Bush's personal enthusiasm for Mr. Kerik, a desire by the administration to quickly fill a critical national security job and an apparent lack of candor from Mr. Kerik himself.

A Republican close to the White House who has participated in background reviews of presidential nominees said the fault lay both with Mr. Kerik and with "whoever's job it was to check him out."

A major problem, law enforcement officials said, was that the White House did not have the benefit of any F.B.I. investigation into Mr. Kerik's past. Mr. Kerik, as New York City's police commissioner on Sept. 11, 2001, had been offered a high security clearance by federal officials so he could receive classified intelligence about the city's security, a law enforcement official said. But he failed to return a questionnaire needed for the F.B.I. to conduct a background check, and he never received that clearance, the law enforcement official said.

Okay, Gonzales subjected Bernie to "hours of confrontational interviews" (I wonder if he made Bernie wear underwear on his head?). And they didn't bother to check the intelligence on Bernie. And they went ahead "because of Mr. Bush's personal enthusiasm ...." Oops.

Gee, where have I seen this before?

And I love the line by the always sycophantic Bumiller about the "normally careful White House." Ha, ha, ha. That's a good one, Liz! Humor on the front page!

[Update: I forgot to link to James Wolcott's same-titled posting on the issue. I swear I didn't steal my title from his, though maybe subconsciously....]

for smart students only please

National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Internships
Location: District of Columbia, United States
Summer Program Deadline: 2005-01-05
Date Submitted: 2004-11-30
Announcement ID: 142670

The National Endowment for the Humanities is offering up to 15 internships
in Washington, D.C., for the summer of 2005. College students entering
their junior or senior year in fall 2005 are eligible. NEH interns receive
$4,000 for 10 weeks of work. Applicants must be U.S. citizens, foreign
nationals who have been legal residents in the United States for at least
three years immediately preceding the application deadline, or territorial
residents of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Past interns have assisted
with administrative tasks, written articles for Humanities magazine,
researched emerging fields in the humanities, and developed web-based
tools for gathering humanities-related information.

The application deadline is Wednesday, January 5, 2005. Applications are
being accepted online at the web address below. Questions should be
directed to the Internship Coordinator at the following e-mail address.

Internship Coordinator
National Endowment for the Humanities
Room 403
1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20506
202-606-8431
Email: internships@neh.gov
Visit the website at http://www.neh.gov/interns/guidelines.html.

Rethinking Energy Security

Amory Lovins is one of the most original thinkers on the issues of energy, environment, sustainability, etc. Check out the transcript from:

Rethinking Energy Security: Mobilizing American Innovation

Speaker: Amory B. Lovins, founder and chief executive officer, Rocky Mountain Institute

Presider: David G. Victor, director, Energy and Sustainable Development Program, Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Stanford University, and adjunct senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
Council on Foreign Relations
New York, N.Y.
December 3, 2004

Great news for researchers

On top of their beginning efforts at google/scholar, Google announces this development:

December 14, 2004
Google Is Adding Major Libraries to Its Database
By JOHN MARKOFF and EDWARD WYATT

Google, the operator of the world's most popular Internet search service, plans to announce an agreement today with some of the nation's leading research libraries and Oxford University to begin converting their holdings into digital files that would be freely searchable over the Web.

It may be only a step on a long road toward the long-predicted global virtual library. But the collaboration of Google and research institutions that also include Harvard, the University of Michigan, Stanford and the New York Public Library is a major stride in an ambitious Internet effort by various parties. The goal is to expand the Web beyond its current valuable, if eclectic, body of material and create a digital card catalog and searchable library for the world's books, scholarly papers and special collections.

Get the whole article here.

Energy independence, democracy and the environment

See this: Clinton Urges Effort to Address Energy

and this, from the latest Nobel Peace Prize winner: Trees for Democracy
By WANGARI MAATHAI

and this, from TomDispatch, with a new article by Michael Klare, the preeminent expert on oil, Tomgram: Michael Klare on the Coming Energy Crisis

Wither the Democrats?

I have not weighed in on the currently raging debate about the future of the Democratic Party. In a nutshell, I believe we need to move to a more populist-progressive direction, while articulating a clear opposition to Islamofascism (and a program for countering such). Responding to the essay from the New Republic by Peter Beinart (which I cited in a post a few days ago), the always brilliant Digby captures some of my thoughts quite well, particularly with this bit:

The father of the modern Republican party (perhaps modern American politics) is not sunny Reagan, it�s darkling Nixon. Until we finally grasp the nature of the opposition we will continue to lose. It is the central problem we face.

Heart of Dixie

Adam R. from Historical Methods comments on "the Heart of Dixie":

License plates you would think are nothing but simple pieces of metal that we slap on the back of our cars and be on our merry way. However, in Alabama at this time a controversy has risen up about the license plate that reads “Heart of Dixie” in which some say is nothing more than a confederate reminder that should be wiped clean. Today the slogan “Stars fall on Alabama” are the new and people friendly plates that Former Gov. Don Siegelman came up with. Some groups argue the fact that it is indeed a confederate symbol but however, why would you want to change the roots of your state? A black legislative: Rep. Alvin Holmes, suspects “The groups knew very well what they were doing in omitting the slogan from their plates, but wanted to do it quietly to avoid upsetting fans of ‘Heart of Dixie.’” Basically, the blacks are trying to appease the whites by staying on their side while at the same time try to rid the Dixie and draw more businesses to Alabama. As Holmes points out: "Many white industrialists have come to realize what a burden it has been to this state and what the racist image of this state has cost the state economically," said Holmes, who has been trying to pass legislation taking "Heart of Dixie" off Alabama tags.” However, Confederate advocates such as Olaf Childress of Silverhill: "They say everything we ... stand for will go by the way, and it seems to be going that way. But as long as I'm alive, they will hear from me," So the battle will continue to blossom over the Confederate advocates and the anti, in trying to rid or keep the state of Alabama in its Confederate heritage.

'Heart of Dixie' Gone From License Plates

Bush Cabinet

Comments from John P. in Historical Methods re Bush Names Treasury's No. 2 to Head Energy:

The President has filled another cabinet post. I would like to be optomistic about his choice to fill the opening but I'm not. The reason for my pessimism is that Bush doesn't seem to appoint anybody he can't manipulate. Bush's energy agenda won't change with a new energy chief.

The administration talks about having an energy policy that controls costs and gives us independence from foriegn oil. Bush announced that his "top priority" will be to "develop and deploy the latest technology to provide a new generation of cleaner and more efficient energy sources" Unfortunately, these comments pay lip service to the goals we should be striving to achieve. In the end, drilling in Alaska will probably be Bush's highest priority.

More Krugman on Social Security

Borrow, Speculate and Hope

Attorney General

Andrew B. from Historical Methods comments on the new Attorney General:

Bush announced his new Attorney General on November 10th to replace the recently resigned John Ashcroft.
Alberto Gonzales, who was named into the Texas Supreme Court by Bush 5 years ago, was recenlty named into the position of Attorney General. The first Hispanic to be named Attorney General.

My question is... Did Bush only name Gonzales in this position due to his recent win in the election?
Bush had just gained the largest support from the Hispanic Culture, for a Republican, in Election history. Is this just a way to thank the Hispanic Society by naming the first Hispanic into the Attorney General position??
I believe this is smart on Bush's part as a Republican, because he is now going to help persuade the Hispanic votes in future elections.
Florida, who holds 27 votes towards the elections has a large abundance of hispanic voters, as well as New York who holds 31 votes. New York is primarily a Democratic State, but who knows...With the new Attorney General, New Yorks Democratic society may shift over to Republican State. Florida on the other hand is generally split. Half Republican, Half Democratic. With this new persuasion, Florida may lean back into becoming a more dominant Republican State.
What do you think???

ABC News: Bush Taps Gonzales for Attorney General
CNN.com - Bush attorney general pick is Alberto Gonzales - Nov 11, 2004

My thoughts: yes, this is absolutely about politics and reaching Latino voters. But there is more: the Bush cabinet is now more than ever composed only of loyalists. And Gonzalez is the man most responsible for giving Bush the legal briefings to support killing Texans, torturing anyone, and waging continual warfare. I will provide links to important articles later.

Share Our Wealth

Scott K. sends these thoughts on Huey Long's Share our Wealth program:

In 1935 Senator Huey Long had made a speech “Share Our Wealth.” In his speech, he attacked President Roosevelt. Long claimed that Roosevelt did not carry out the promises of the 1932 inaugural address. Long Believed he had a tax program that would solve America’s economic problems within a two week period. Despite Long’s heart being in the right place, I believe that his tax program was unfair and had no chance of being passed through congress.

Like Roosevelt’s promises, Long wanted to attack the wealthy; However, Roosevelt was aiming at big business while Long aimed at the “big man’s fortune”. Long believed that America had too much of everything for most of the population to be suffering. He felt that all of the wealthy should pay a capital levy tax. This tax would be imposed on any personal wealth that exceeded over a million dollars. This tax was proportional to the wealth of the person. The more money they had the more they were taxed. To see exactly the ratio, go to “Share the Wealth”: Huey Long Talks to the Nation. The ratio that Long had come up with seemed to be a crazy policy. He wanted to take money, which had maybe been inherited but still was rightfully owned, from people to support all of America.

Despite the outrageous tax that Long wanted to impose, he did have some good things he planned on using it towards. Long wanted to use the tax money to provide education for all children. Not only was it going to be used for elementary and secondary education but college as well. Long also wanted the money spent on providing pensions to the elderly. His idea and slogan was “every man a king, but no man wears a crown.”

Long idea of sharing the wealth was an outrageous tax policy however I did like his comparison of how America was being run. In his speech Long described America being like a barbecue. At this barbecue of a thousand, one man had taken 90 percent of the food leaving 10 percent for 999 people. This greed leaves many starving while one person has more than they could eat.

Okay, I'll bite. Why was this plan so "outrageous"? You say he wanted to use the money for "some good things." And you seem to agree with his characterization of American society as vastly unequal and unjust. Why not tax the extremely wealthy to address very real and dire social problems? Does not the social good ever trump individual "greed"? And how can money be "inherited" but still "rightfully owned"? Isn't that how the aristocracy kept its power over the centuries? Isn't that what the American Revolution was fought over -- to replace this inherited and undemocratic aristocracy with a democratic meritocracy?

Long raise at least three issues for historians, as I see it. 1) Would his program work? You don't address this, but most historians and economists dismiss his plan on these grounds. 2) Fairness and democracy: what kind of society do we want to live in? Do we want a society where the "plutocrats" can continually increase their share of the wealth through a rigged stock market, corporate control of the economy, and passing their wealth on to their children? Can democracy and the principle of equality survive when a small group of men control the economic and political destiny of our nation? 3) The social good: leaving aside the question as to whether inherited money is "rightfully owned," what does our society need in order to function smoothly, maintain order and stability, and at least passingly resemble the ideals we are supposed to uphold. That is, maybe it is not "fair" to a small group of extremely wealthy individuals to tax them at a higher rate than poorer people, but it just might be the only solution to serve the greater good and get the country out of the Depression.

Finally, does any of this have any resonance today?

Intelligence Bill

Nick D. from Historical Methods submits these thoughts and a news report on the passage of the intelligence reform bill:

I believe a major change in U.S Intelligence is a top priority. Living in the United States all of my life, I have always felt safe. I was being extremely naïve feeling that way due to the fact that the U.S intelligence has not seen major change since the Cold War. To say that the United States Intelligence was dated is an understatement. Hopefully with this new legislation just been passed this nation will be a lot safer than it has been. What are your thoughts on this legislation?

Congress Passes Historic Spy Agencies Bill

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Congress on Wednesday ordered the biggest overhaul of U.S. intelligence in a half-century, replacing a network geared to the Cold War fight against communism with a post-Sept. 11 structure requiring military and civilian spy agencies to work together against terrorists intent on holy war.
The Senate overwhelmingly passed the legislation 89-2, one day after the House easily pushed through the compromise strongly endorsed by President Bush (news - web sites).
Bush praised what he called "historic legislation that will better protect the American people and help defend against ongoing terrorist threats."
"We remain a nation at war, and intelligence is our first line of defense against the terrorists who seek to do us harm," Bush said in a statement released after the Senate's vote. He gave no indication when he would sign the bill.
Lawmakers said the legislation was essential.
"The world has changed," said Sen. Joe Lieberman (news - web sites), D-Conn. "Our terrorist enemies today make no distinction between soldiers and civilians, between foreign and domestic locations when they attack us."
The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks three years ago on New York City and Washington, which killed nearly 3,000 people, proved that the intelligence operation established in World War II and modified afterward to fight communism wasn't effective enough against the threats of the new century, senators said Wednesday.
"We are rebuilding a structure that was designed for a different enemy at a different time, a structure that was designed for the Cold War and has not proved agile enough to deal with the threats of the 21st century," said Senate Governmental Affairs chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine.
Sens. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and James Inhofe, R-Okla., voted against the bill, with Byrd saying that it was folly to expect a law to make America safer from foreign terrorists.
"No legislation alone can forestall a terrorist attack on our nation," Byrd said.
Outside the Senate doors were several of the family members who had lobbied Congress carrying pictures of their loved ones who died in Pennsylvania, the World Trade Center or the Pentagon (news - web sites).
"I don't think we've really digested it yet," said Mary Fetchet, a social worker from New Canaan, Conn. whose 24-year-old son Brad died at the World Trade Center. "It's been very emotional."
The Sept. 11 commission, in its July report, said disharmony among intelligence agencies contributed to the inability of government officials to stop the attacks. The government failed to recognize the danger posed by al-Qaida and was ill-prepared to respond to the terrorist threat, the report concluded.
In response, the legislation establishes a new director of national intelligence to oversee the nation's 15 military and civilian spy agencies and make sure they work together to forestall future attacks. The bipartisan commission said that didn't happen before terrorists flew airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
"With landmark legislation on its way to the president, we have come very far on the road to reform," said Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, former chair and vice chair of the 9/11 commission.
The intelligence director will not be part of the president's Cabinet but is to have the same access as the defense secretary and the secretary of state. He will have authority to move intelligence assets around the globe to keep an eye on terrorist groups like al-Qaida — as well as nations like North Korea (news - web sites) and Libya.
Bush has not yet decided whom to nominate to be the first intelligence director, spokesman Scott McClellan said. "We will move as quickly as we can, obviously, to implement the provisions and move forward on the steps it calls for in this legislation," he said.
Six years after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor — after World War II was won — Congress created the CIA (news - web sites), one of the spy agencies the national intelligence director will now direct in the fight against terrorism.
"Just as the National Security Act of 1947 was passed to prevent another Pearl Harbor, the Intelligence Reform Act will help us prevent another 9/11," Collins said.
The legislation includes a host of other anti-terrorism provisions, such as allowing officials to wiretap "lone wolf" terror suspects and improving airline baggage screening procedures. It increases the number of full-time border patrol agents by 2,000 per year for five years and imposes new federal standards on information that driver's licenses must contain.
Conflicts with House Republicans over how the new national intelligence director would work with the nation's military held the bill up for two weeks, and the legislation was almost scrapped by lawmakers.
But heavy lobbying by the bipartisan commission and by families of the attacks' victims kept the legislation alive through the summer political conventions, the election and a postelection lame duck session of Congress. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) pushed hard in the final days.
___
The bill is S.2845.

I have been reading Tom Englehardt's excellent blog TomDispatch more and more recently. He has a posting which includes an article by Chalmers Johnson that takes a historical view of the role of the CIA since its founding. The article was written a couple of weeks ago, when the bill was stalled, but provides an excellent primer to the issues.

A "New Liberalism"?

This article A Fighting Faith: An Argument for a New Liberalism by Peter Beinart in the New Republic has created quite a stir. If you are interested in the direction the Democratic Party is or should be going in, check it out.

Meanwhile, Richard Kearney over at Future's So Bright declares "Won't Get Fooled Again!!!!"

[Update: Beinert has an abridged version of his article in the Washington Post, Can the Democrats Fight? Cold War Lessons for Reclaiming Trust on National Security. But I recommend the original article and the subsequent debates on many blogs and in the letters to the New Republic. The article is most useful, I think, for its historical perspective on the relationship between liberalism in this country and totalitarianism abroad.]

Troop levels in Iraq -- part 2

I post this letter from today's NY Times ...

To the Editor:

Increasing American troop strength to 150,000 to provide security for coming Iraqi elections (front page, Dec. 2) is moving our policy in exactly the wrong direction.

To really do the job, the United States would need to double or triple its occupation force, as Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, warned before the invasion of Iraq (he was forced out for his candor). Nobody in the United States or Iraq has the stomach for such a huge increase, which would probably require reinstituting the draft.

A growing chorus of military analysts, including many who supported the war, has concluded that our large military presence is the problem rather than the solution, inciting anger and insurgency. The retired Army major general William L. Nash, the former NATO commander in Bosnia, said: "I resigned from the 'we don't have enough troops in Iraq' club four months ago. We have too many now."

The Bush administration should not only begin bringing our troops home, but it should also immediately announce a short timetable for complete withdrawal.

Kevin Martin
Executive Director, Peace Action and Peace Action Education Fund
Silver Spring, Md., Dec. 2, 2004

... because Chris V. raised the issue a few days ago, and because another student has told me that his friend in the Marines told him (I know, hardly "well-sourced" info), that 5,000 more are already scheduled for later this year (for now they are soaking up the sun in Australia and other far eastern locales until the politically opportune time for deployment arrives). Note, also the interesting quote from William Nash in the letter.

cool site

I just discovered Plastic.com -- "recycling the web in real time"

Green Day

I saw this post on Lullaby Pit:

I bought the new U2 and Green Day's American Idiot today. I'm still trying to parse the U2, but I can tell you right now that this Green Day record is nothing short of brilliant. Has there ever been a punk rock opera before? This AMG review is dead on, and in some ways I'm not sure they even do the record full justice.

I think it's high time we all acknowledged that Green Day is one of the greatest bands in the world today, and among punk bands only the Ramones and Clash can claim to be legitimately superior....

U2 is not available on Rhapsody, so I haven't heard anything but their excellent single. And I haven't listened to the Green Day album full through, so don't have an opinion on this yet, but wonder what others think. Go ahead, you have my permission to be uncivil!

American Presidency website

From Matt B:

For anyone in Method's that has not done so already and may need some last minute primary sources for their paper, i cannot stress enough americanpresidency.org. I offers incredible insight into every presidential election in our nation's history including primary sources: inagural addresses, state of the union speeches, campaign platforms, as well demographics. I highly recommend it.

We Pledge Allegiance to the Mall

We Pledge Allegiance to the Mall
By LOUIS UCHITELLE
NY Times, December 6, 2004

The United States is now engaged in its greatest age of consumer spending - longer and more intense than the splurge after World War II, when Americans rushed to acquire all the merchandise denied to them during the Depression and the war.

That postwar surge in consumption, a pent-up response to years of unemployment, then rationing, subsided in the early 1950's. Not until the late-1980's did the nation - encouraged by market bubbles - once again devote three-quarters of its national income to consumer spending.

But this time, the pent-up demand has intensified rather than dissipated, and the global economy trembles from the stress.

Read the whole thing....

[Update: Adam R. from Historical Methods responds:

I was at the mall this weekend doing my Christmas shopping and it was simply incredible how many people can be in one place at the same time. I was looking for a digital camera and there were just hundreds to choose from with all different features and brands, it’s like they all do the same thing but because one has a better name than the other it seems to make all the difference. However, my point is, is that all these people are supposedly working to in order to afford the products (except for me I got money from my mom), and they are spending it as fast as they get it. Maybe because it is the holiday season but you figure these people got paid on Friday and by Saturday their at the mall splurging and buying whatever and how much it costs as long as it’s at a decent price is theirs. So thanks to the big stores and advertisements the money shall continue to flow back into their pockets as the workers continue to spend the money they just worked for. It’s like a well oiled machine and it will never rust it seems.]

Building a "Model City"

Extraordinary article from the Boston Globe, Returning Fallujans will face clampdown.

We had to liberate the city in order to bring ... retina scans!

Troop levels in Iraq

Chris V. from Historical Methods sends in these comments:

Ah, the country of Iraq, how our country defends and tries to bring democracy to thee. It’s a bunch of poppycock if you ask me in the sense that we are there “policing” the country and yet we always end up in battles with losses of yet more soldiers, groups of young men being sent off to die or in some cases unexpectedly in ambushes that not even a psychic can see forthcoming. President Bush rolled the dice in a crapshoot and even though he got snake-eyes he decided to keep on gambling with the notion of trying to bring democracy to Iraq; and most of the people don’t seem to want it. Now that elections are supposedly taking place in Iraq, Bush and the major military leaders have decided to send yet more troops to Iraq for “security reasons”. I read this shocking information today in the Herald News newspaper and I can do nothing but shake my head. More than 12,000 fresh troops will go to Iraq in order to aid our brave yet weary soldiers that already served. This is sheer nonsense, if the people of Iraq don’t want democracy and elections and will forever try to fight our troops to the last man, than what we are there for is for nothing. Suppose that the elections do take place but what will happen when we leave? Will these radical Iraq men stand for this and not try to start a revolt and take over the country and just put it back to where it was before we got there, it is a distinct possibility. At least one critic of the war Senator Jack Reed a Democrat out of Rhode Island claims that “This announcement makes it clear that commanders in Iraq need more troops and that this will be a long and very expensive for the United States.” He also mentions that “it is still not clear whether Iraq will emerge from this chronic violence as a visible and stable country”. (Both Quotes are from the Herald Newspaper on December 2nd 2004). Nothing about Iraq is certain and I believe sending more troops will just end up with more causalities and someone’s child not coming home. It might not be a lost cause but sadly it isn’t certain and only sadness and darker days may come from it.

I couldn't find the exact article Chris sites (something he should have provided us with!), but here is the New York Times version from the same day, U.S. to Increase Its Force in Iraq by Nearly 12,000

Here is the Washington Post article that includes some of Jack Reed's comments.

And here is an article from Al-Jazeera.com that quotes him more extensively.

Krugman to the rescue

"Krugman to the rescue on the Social Security 'crisis,' explained simply and elegantly, as only he can," as Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo succinctly puts it.

Read Paul Krugman, Inventing a Crisis.

War in the 21st century -- a response

This comes in from reader Adam C., the student I referred to in a previous post What is War in the 21st Century? I will respond later, but for now invite other readers to weigh in.

Let me first thank you for your complements in the above post. Then if you will let me I shall proceed to more clarify my position upon the Art of War. I reference Sun Tzu, who is without a doubt the master of war tactics and strategy and is still read and followed in today’s modern world.
In class I tried to convey the message that, yes there should be extreme censure-ship of any war but not total. I myself am interested in the field of history and understand the vital importance of documented history. History should be documented for use by the public at all times, but in the case of war reporters should not be able to give to the public the video footage or stories they encounter in that field of battle until the material is deemed by the military irrelevant to strategy. Strategy includes the demoralizing effect that ill news has on the home-front. Meaning that if the news of an event would cause unrest on the home-front or on the front with the soldiers at war, it should not be published by the press. Instead, if an issue were to arise in which a soldier or a group of soldiers should need reprimanding and a news reporter recorded it, the military should take charge and follow its set course of action. The event would later be delivered to the media to be released at a date when the military deemed it safe for the campaign.
I understand that this so called censure-ship is not ‘right’ to the American people but in such a situation as war any nation is in a different position than such actions must be taken by the state if it is to fulfill its objective completely. If we were to have the media coverage and the political corrective nature of the American people during WWII there would be many more casualties on the Allies side, that I guarantee you.
To take it to a further extreme and to reply to the comment in which I was quoted for I do believe that in war, there SHOULD be no limits. After all, what is war? It is a declaration to kill the enemy or achieve victory over him. As soon as you start to prescribe rules and laws to the act of killing you prevent victory. I am not saying that a platoon should go into a town and kill whoever does not answer where the insurgents are, I am saying that when an objective is given to a platoon, it is the duty of that platoon to complete it’s objective to the best of their ability and if that should involve the killing of civilians or the torture of insurgents or the enemy than so be it.
You should only start a war that you KNOW, not think but know you are going to win. To achieve victory it must be done with speed and with precision, not questions and rules that must be avoided. In the case of Iraq and the killing of American’s through bombings, torture, and assignations I do not condone it. If you are in the position in which you cannot openly fight an enemy with force you do whatever is necessary to either deter that enemy or kill that enemy to prevent you from losing the war. We used gorilla warfare on the ‘red coats’ of the British and we had no problem with it. Why now when the enemy uses suicide bombers to kill us do we get upset and say that is unmoral or does not follow the laws/rules/style of war? War is not moral, killing is not moral, so why should we impose moral beliefs upon those acts unless we wish to lose?
Anyway regardless of what you think you have to look at war as completing one objective: victory. How that victory is achieved can be argued over and there are always more ways to achieve victory. However in the art of war the state must take these guidelines into mind in order to achieve ultimate victory.
(taken from The Art of War by Sun Tzu)

2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory
is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and
their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town,
you will exhaust your strength.
3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources
of the State will not be equal to the strain.

4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped,
your strength exhausted and your treasure spent,
other chieftains will spring up to take advantage
of your extremity. Then no man, however wise,
will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited
from prolonged warfare.

As it seems, we do not view any victory in short coming.

7. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted
with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand
the profitable way of carrying it on.

The problem is that we are not acquainted with the evils of war. Instead we are acquainted with the media’s perception of the war and that is death tolls of American soldier lives and the blunder’s we perform in our military operations. The American people need to understand that to achieve victory you do not prolong a campaign, you do what MUST be done when it needs to be done. That includes bombing a civilian house that 3 insurgent leaders are dwelling in. On paper that sounds bad but when it prevents 200 American lives from being wasted it leads to victory. Sun Tzu illustrates this point better.

16. Now in order to kill the enemy, our men must
be roused to anger; that there may be advantage from
defeating the enemy, they must have their rewards.

17. Therefore in chariot fighting, when ten or more chariots
have been taken, those should be rewarded who took the first.
Our own flags should be substituted for those of the enemy,
and the chariots mingled and used in conjunction with ours.
The captured soldiers should be kindly treated and kept.

18. This is called, using the conquered foe to augment
one's own strength.

19. In war, then, let your great object be victory,
not lengthy campaigns.

20. Thus it may be known that the leader of armies
is the arbiter of the people's fate, the man on whom it
depends whether the nation shall be in peace or in peril.
III.


1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best
thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact;
to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is
better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it,
to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire
than to destroy them.

2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles
is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists
in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

18. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy
and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a
hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy,
for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will
succumb in every battle.

Oral History and Objectivity

This comes from Historical Methods student Jim C.:

My biggest concern regarding history is how to evaluate resources for research especially oral history. Throughout the semester we read articles and learned about how to analyze and evaluate resources. Also, we learned about the type of analytical questions to ask. However, I discovered recently that learning how to analyze resources is a very small part in learning to do history, especially oral history. When looking at oral histories, we know to look at who is maintaining the oral histories? Are there transcripts and how and who maintains them, the copyright date and last date maintained? Also how does it stand up when the credibility of the oral history is checked with other resources? Who is doing the interview and when was the interview?

I am convinced more than ever that doing history can easily be subjective and the researcher's objectivity and the interpretation and analysis of the historical evidence (the oral history) can be compromised by the historian's conscious or subconscious biases. For example, I was reluctant to read the transcript and listen to the University of Southern Mississippi library's Oral History Project interview of a man who was a member of the Klu Klux Klan in Mississippi during the sixties. Was I being Bias? Was I being open-minded and objective? I finally did read the transcript and dismissed the transcript as credible historical evidence immediately. Again, was I being open-mined and objective? The weird thing is when I listened to parts of the interview, my opinion changed. I was willing to consider this interview as credible evidence. Was I now being objective? Was I being persuaded by emotional appeal of an auditory medium? Did my learning style interfere and compromise my objectivity? Learning style is the way a person learns. For example, some need to see it, others need to hear it and others need to interact with material in order to learn.

Also, from USM library's Oral History Project, I read the transcript of Aaron Henry, one of the delegates of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party in 1964. At first I was put off by some of the profanity he used in the interview. Does the use of profanity discredit historical evidence? Am I being objective? Can the interview be credible even if profanity is used? Does the profanity he used indicate his lack of intelligence and communication skills or does it indicate his anger toward an injustice? Perhaps neither one is true. Also, to be honest I dismissed some oral histories because they were boring. Was I being objective? Other times the audio was difficult to listen to because of the lack quality of the audio. If the quality of the audio is that good quality, does that discredit it a reliable historical evidence?

It seems to me doing history and being objective is not easy. I have not linked to an article to support my statements. Instead you can all judge for yourself. I have linked to a couple several oral history websites and the Oral History Association so you can listen to and/or read the transcripts of various oral histories especially ones with opposing viewpoints or are "boring" in order to practice and see how objective you are? The main link is USM library's oral histories which I used in my research.

The Oral history Association website

Oral History Association Evaluation Site

An ongoing website of oral histories of people close to Harry S. Truman and Bess Truman Some may see it as boring. This was not part of my research.

This website I copied and pasted of USM Civil Rights Oral history. There are interviews of various points of views: Klan people, civil rights leaders,locals volunteers etc.

This is the website I copied and pasted from Lyndon B. Johnson Library oral history collection

This website or oral history at university of Hawaii. It had nothing to do with my research I found some of them difficult to listen to

I threw this is because it asks the question, "Are blogs replacing oral history?"

Let me just throw in one other site -- the WPA Slave Narratives that were collected in the 1930s and are now online at the Library of Congress American Memory Site. For a discussion of some of the issues Jim raises, check out the thoughtful essay An Introduction to the WPA Slave Narratives, by Norman R. Yetman

Oil For Food

Historical Methods student Danny P. sends his comments with this op-ed from the Wall Street Journal:

thank-God, john kerry was not elected!! he wanted to seek the wise counsel of the almighty UN, they have been stabing us in the back and underminding everything we are trying accomplish.

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A17

LENGTH: 1082 words

HEADLINE: Kofi Annan must resign: The UN secretary general must be held accountable for failing to stop 'the most extensive fraud' in UN history

BYLINE: Norm Coleman, The Wall Street Journal

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

BODY:

WASHINGTON - It's time for United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to resign.

Over the past seven months, the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has conducted an exhaustive, bipartisan investigation into the scandal surrounding the United Nations' Oil-for-Food program. That noble program was established by the UN to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people, then languishing under Saddam Hussein's iron-fisted rule, as well as the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations after the first Gulf War. While sanctions were designed to instigate the removal of Saddam from power, or at least render him impotent, the Oil-for-Food program was designed to support the Iraqi people with food and other humanitarian aid under the watchful eye of the UN.

Our subcommittee has gathered overwhelming evidence that Saddam turned this program on its head. Rather than erode his grip on power, the program was manipulated by Saddam to line his own pockets and actually strengthen his position at the expense of the Iraqi people. At our hearing on Nov. 15, we presented evidence that Saddam accumulated more than $21 billion U.S. through abuses of the Oil-for-Food program and UN sanctions. We continue to amass evidence that he used the overt support of prominent members of the UN, such as France and Russia, along with numerous foreign officials, companies and possibly even senior UN officials, to exploit the program to his advantage.

We have obtained evidence that indicates that Saddam doled out lucrative oil allotments to foreign officials, sympathetic journalists and even one senior UN official, in order to undermine international support for sanctions. In addition, we are gathering evidence that Saddam gave hundreds of thousands -- maybe even millions -- of Oil-for-Food dollars to terrorists and terrorist organizations. All of this occurred under the supposedly vigilant eye of the UN.

While many questions concerning Oil-for-Food remain unanswered, one conclusion has become abundantly clear: Kofi Annan should resign.

The decision to call for his resignation does not come easily, but I have arrived at this conclusion because the most extensive fraud in the history of the United Nations occurred on his watch. In addition, and perhaps more important, as long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks and under-the-table payments that took place under the UN's collective nose.

Mr. Annan was at the helm of the UN for all but a few days of the Oil-for-Food program, and he must, therefore, be held accountable for the UN's utter failure to detect or stop Saddam's abuses. The consequences of the UN's ineptitude cannot be overstated: Saddam was empowered to withstand the sanctions regime, remain in power, and even rebuild his military. Needless to say, he made the Iraqi people suffer even more by importing substandard food and medicine under the Oil-for-Food program and pawning it off as first-rate humanitarian aid.

Since it was never likely that the UN Security Council, some of whose permanent members were awash in Saddam's favours, would ever call for Saddam's removal, the United States and its coalition partners were forced to put troops in harm's way to oust him by force. Today, money swindled from Oil-for-Food may be funding the insurgency against American troops and other terrorist activities against U.S. interests. Simply put, American troops would probably not have been placed in such danger if the UN had done its job in administering sanctions and Oil-for-Food.

This systemic failure of the UN and Oil-for-Food is exacerbated by evidence that at least one senior UN official -- Benon Sevan, Mr. Annan's hand-picked director of the UN's Oil-for-Food oversight agency -- reportedly received bribes from Saddam. According to documents from the Iraqi oil ministry that were obtained by us, Mr. Sevan received several allotments of oil under Oil-for-Food, each of which was worth hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.

To make matters worse, the actions of Mr. Annan's own son have been called into question. Specifically, the UN recently admitted that Kojo Annan received more money than previously disclosed from a Swiss company named Cotecna, which was hired by the United Nations to monitor Iraq's imports under Oil-for-Food. Recently, there are growing, albeit unproven, allegations that Kofi Annan himself not only understands his son's role in this scandal, but that he has been less than forthcoming about what he knew, and when he knew it.

As a former prosecutor, I believe in the presumption of innocence. Such revelations, however, cast a dark cloud over Mr. Annan's ability to address the UN's quagmire. Mr. Annan has named the esteemed Paul Volcker to investigate Oil-for-Food-related allegations, but the latter's team is severely hamstrung in its efforts. Mr. Volcker's panel has no authority to compel the production of documents or testimony from anyone outside the UN. Nor does it possess the power to punish those who fabricate information, alter evidence or omit material facts. It must rely entirely on the goodwill of the very people and entities it is investigating. We must also recognize that Mr. Volcker's effort is wholly funded by the UN, at Mr. Annan's control. Moreover, Mr. Volcker must issue his final report directly to the secretary general, who will then decide what, if anything, is released to the public.

Therefore, while I have faith in Mr. Volcker's integrity and abilities, it is clear the UN simply cannot root out its own corruption while Mr. Annan is in charge. To get to the bottom of the murk, it's clear that there needs to be a change at the top. In addition, a scandal of this magnitude requires a truly independent examination to ensure complete transparency, and to restore the credibility of the UN. To that end, I reiterate our request for access to internal UN documents, and for access to UN personnel who were involved in the Oil-for-Food program.

All of this adds up to one conclusion: It's time for Kofi Annan to step down. The massive scope of this debacle demands nothing less. If this widespread corruption had occurred in any legitimate organization around the world, its CEO would have been ousted long ago, in disgrace. Why is the UN different?

Norm Coleman is chairman of the U.S. Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and a member of its Foreign Relations Committee.

GRAPHIC: Photo: Reinhard Krause, Reuters; Double Hit: Iraqis suffering under United Nations sanctions lined up for coupons to buy meagre amounts of food and medicine while the UN did nothing to stop Saddam Hussein from siphoning billions of dollars off the Oil-for-Food program.

LOAD-DATE: December 2, 2004

What is War in the 21st Century?

The other day in my U.S. History survey class one student -- a very bright young man who is bound for the military after graduation -- argued that there should be total media censorship of war and that in war anything goes, including the killing of civilians, the beheadings of kidnapped careworkers, even the attacks on the World Trade Center. I found his comments quite disturbing as they go against not only all civilized norms of warfare, but even the U.S. military's code, as I reminded him. THe comments came on the heels of a viewing of a documentary on the Vietnam War which showed the slaughter of unarmed villagers. Many people smarter than I have written about these issues, and I want to link to a few recent articles which raise some ideas for discussion. (This will be a long post.)

Iraq's Silent Dead
Jeffrey Sachs
December 02, 2004

November 2004 has the dubious distinction of being tied with April as the bloodiest months in Iraq for American soldiers. In both months, at least 135 U.S. servicemen or women died. But it's anyone's guess as to which months were the bloodiest for Iraqi citizens. No one is counting their deaths—and the American media isn't reporting on it, either. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University's Earth Institute goes where the mainstream media doesn't tread: deep into a war where civilians are targets as often as insurgents.

Jeffrey D. Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

Evidence is mounting that America’s war in Iraq has killed tens of thousands of civilian Iraqis, and perhaps more than one hundred thousand. Yet this carnage is systematically ignored in the United States, where the media and government portray a war in which there are no civilian deaths because there are no Iraqi civilians—only insurgents.

American behavior and self-perceptions reveal the ease with which a civilized country can engage in large-scale killing of civilians without public discussion. In late October, the British medical journal Lancet published a study of civilian deaths in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion began. The sample survey documented an extra 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths compared to the death rate in the preceding year, when Saddam Hussein was still in power— and this estimate did not even count excess deaths in Fallujah, which was deemed too dangerous to include.

The study also noted that the majority of deaths resulted from violence, and that a high proportion of the violent deaths were due to U.S. aerial bombing. The epidemiologists acknowledged the uncertainties of these estimates, but presented enough data to warrant an urgent follow-up investigation and reconsideration by the Bush administration and the U.S. military of aerial bombing of Iraq’s urban areas.

America’s public reaction has been as remarkable as the Lancet study—for the reaction has been no reaction. The vaunted New York Times ran a single story of 770 words on page 8 of the paper (October 29). The Times reporter apparently did not interview a single Bush administration or U.S. military official. No follow-up stories or editorials appeared, and no New York Times reporters assessed the story on the ground. Coverage in other U.S. papers was similarly frivolous. The Washington Post (October 29) carried a single 758-word story on page 16.

Recent reporting on the bombing of Falluja has also been an exercise in self-denial. The New York Times (November 6) wrote that “warplanes pounded rebel positions” in Fallujah, without noting that “rebel positions” are actually in civilian neighborhoods. Another New York Times story (November 12), citing “military officials,” dutifully reported that, “Since the assault began on Monday, about 600 rebels have been killed, along with 18 American and 5 Iraqi soldiers.” The issue of civilian deaths was not even raised.

Violence is only one reason for the increase in civilian deaths in Iraq. Children in urban war zones die in vast numbers from diarrhea, respiratory infections and other causes owing to unsafe drinking water, lack of refrigerated foods, and acute shortages of blood and basic medicines at clinics and hospitals (that is, if civilians even dare to leave their houses for medical care). Yet the Red Crescent and other relief agencies have been unable to relieve Fallujah’s civilian population.

On November 14, the front page of The New York Times led with the following description: “Army tanks and fighting vehicles blasted their way into the last main rebel stronghold in Fallujah at sundown on Saturday after American warplanes and artillery prepared the way with a savage barrage on the district. Earlier in the afternoon, 10 separate plumes of smoke rose from Southern Fallujah, as it etched against the desert sky, and probably exclaimed catastrophe for the insurgents.”

There is, once again, virtually no mention of the catastrophe for civilians etched against that desert sky. There is a hint, though, in a brief mention in the middle of the story of a father looking over his wounded sons in a hospital and declaring that, “Now Americans are shooting randomly at anything that moves.”

A few days later, a U.S. television film crew was in a bombed-out mosque with U.S. troops. While the cameras were rolling, a U.S. Marine turned to an unarmed and wounded Iraqi lying on the ground and murdered the man with gunshots to the head. (Reportedly, there were a few other such cases of outright murder.) But the American media more or less brushed aside this shocking incident, too. The Wall Street Journal actually wrote an editorial on November 18 that criticized the critics, noting as usual that whatever the United States does, its enemies in Iraq do worse—as if this excuses American abuses.

It does not. The United States is killing massive numbers of Iraqi civilians, embittering the population and the Islamic world, and laying the ground for escalating violence and death. No number of slaughtered Iraqis will bring peace. The American fantasy of a final battle, in Fallujah or elsewhere, or the capture of some terrorist mastermind, perpetuates a cycle of bloodletting that puts the world in peril. Worse still, America’s public opinion, media and election results have left the world’s most powerful military without practical restraint.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, November 2004.

What Is a Just War?
By Garry Wills

Arguing About War
by Michael Walzer

Yale University Press, 208 pp., $25.00
Jus in Bello

The traditional theory of the just war covers three main topics—the cause of war, the conduct of war, and the consequences of war. Or, in the Scholastic tags: jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. But most attention is given now to the middle term, the conduct of war. That is where clear offenses are most easily identified, though only occasionally reported and even more rarely punished. The two main rules of jus in bello have to do with discrimination between combatants and noncombatants, the latter to be spared as far as possible, and proportionality, so that violence is calibrated to its need for attaining the war's end. The claims of morality here are recognized with difficulty in actual combat, and disputed when recognized. Why should that be?

This is the beginning of the article; click on the link for the full piece.

From the L.A. Times:

PR Meets Psy-Ops in War on Terror
The use of misleading information as a military tool sparks debate in the Pentagon. Critics say the practice puts credibility at stake.
By Mark Mazzetti
Times Staff Writer

December 1, 2004

WASHINGTON — On the evening of Oct. 14, a young Marine spokesman near Fallouja appeared on CNN and made a dramatic announcement.

"Troops crossed the line of departure," 1st Lt. Lyle Gilbert declared, using a common military expression signaling the start of a major campaign. "It's going to be a long night." CNN, which had been alerted to expect a major news development, reported that the long-awaited offensive to retake the Iraqi city of Fallouja had begun.

In fact, the Fallouja offensive would not kick off for another three weeks. Gilbert's carefully worded announcement was an elaborate psychological operation — or "psy-op" — intended to dupe insurgents in Fallouja and allow U.S. commanders to see how guerrillas would react if they believed U.S. troops were entering the city, according to several Pentagon officials.

In the hours after the initial report, CNN's Pentagon reporters were able to determine that the Fallouja operation had not, in fact, begun.

"As the story developed, we quickly made it clear to our viewers exactly what was going on in and around Fallouja," CNN spokesman Matthew Furman said.

Officials at the Pentagon and other U.S. national security agencies said the CNN incident was not an isolated feint — the type used throughout history by armies to deceive their enemies — but part of a broad effort underway within the Bush administration to use information to its advantage in the war on terrorism.

The Pentagon in 2002 was forced to shutter its controversial Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), which was opened shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, after reports that the office intended to plant false news stories in the international media. But officials say that much of OSI's mission — using information as a tool of war — has been assumed by other offices throughout the U.S. government.

Although most of the work remains classified, officials say that some of the ongoing efforts include having U.S. military spokesmen play a greater role in psychological operations in Iraq, as well as planting information with sources used by Arabic TV channels such as Al Jazeera to help influence the portrayal of the United States.

Other specific examples were not known, although U.S. national security officials said an emphasis had been placed on influencing how foreign media depict the United States.

These efforts have set off a fight inside the Pentagon over the proper use of information in wartime. Several top officials see a danger of blurring what are supposed to be well-defined lines between the stated mission of military public affairs — disseminating truthful, accurate information to the media and the American public — and psychological and information operations, the use of often-misleading information and propaganda to influence the outcome of a campaign or battle.

Several of those officials who oppose the use of misleading information spoke out against the practice on the condition of anonymity.

"The movement of information has gone from the public affairs world to the psychological operations world," one senior defense official said. "What's at stake is the credibility of people in uniform."

Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said he recognized the concern of many inside the Defense Department, but that "everybody understands that there's a very important distinction between information operations and public affairs. Nobody has offered serious proposals that would blur the distinction between these two functions."

Di Rita said he had asked his staff for more information about how the Oct. 14 incident on CNN came about.

One recent development critics point to is the decision by commanders in Iraq in mid-September to combine public affairs, psychological operations and information operations into a "strategic communications" office. An organizational chart of the newly created office was obtained by The Times. The strategic communications office, which began operations Sept. 15, is run by Air Force Brig. Gen. Erv Lessel, who answers directly to Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Partly out of concern about this new office, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, distributed a letter Sept. 27 to the Joint Chiefs and U.S. combat commanders in the field warning of the dangers of having military public affairs (PA) too closely aligned with information operations (IO).

"Although both PA and IO conduct planning, message development and media analysis, the efforts differ with respect to audience, scope and intent, and must remain separate," Myers wrote, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Times.

Pentagon officials say Myers is worried that U.S. efforts in Iraq and in the broader campaign against terrorism could suffer if world audiences begin to question the honesty of statements from U.S. commanders and spokespeople.

"While organizations may be inclined to create physically integrated PA/IO offices, such organizational constructs have the potential to compromise the commander's credibility with the media and the public," Myers wrote.

Myers' letter is not being heeded in Iraq, officials say, in part because many top civilians at the Pentagon and National Security Council support an effort that blends public affairs with psy-ops to win Iraqi support — and Arab support in general — for the U.S. fight against the insurgency.

Advocates of these programs said that the advent of a 24-hour news cycle and the powerful influence of Arabic satellite television made it essential that U.S. military commanders and civilian officials made the control of information a key part of their battle plans.

"Information is part of the battlefield in a way that it's never been before," one senior Bush administration official said. "We'd be foolish not to try to use it to our advantage."

And, supporters argue, it is necessary to fill a vacuum left when the budgets for the State Department's public diplomacy programs were slashed and the U.S. Information Agency — a bulwark of the nation's anticommunist efforts during the Cold War — was gutted in the 1990s.

"The worst outcome would be to lose this war by default. If the smart folks in the psy-op and civil affairs tents can cast a truthful, persuasive message that resonates with the average Iraqi, why not use the public affairs vehicles to transmit it?" asked Charles A. Krohn, a professor at the University of Michigan and former deputy chief of public affairs for the Army. "What harm is done, compared to what is gained? For the first year of the war, we did virtually nothing to tell the Iraqis why we invaded their country and ejected their government. It's about time we got our act together."

Advocates also cite a September report by the Defense Science Board, a panel of outside experts that advises Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, which concluded that a "crisis" in U.S. "strategic communications" had undermined American efforts to fight Islamic extremism worldwide.

The study cited polling in the Arab world that revealed widespread hatred of the United States throughout the Middle East. A poll taken in June by Zogby International revealed that 94% of Saudi Arabians had an "unfavorable" view of the United States, compared with 87% in April 2002. In Egypt, the second largest recipient of U.S. aid, 98% of respondents held an unfavorable view of the United States.

The Defense Science Board recommended a presidential directive to "coordinate all components of strategic communication including public diplomacy, public affairs, international broadcasting and military information operations."

Di Rita said there was general agreement inside the Bush administration that the U.S. government was ill-equipped to communicate its policies and messages abroad in the current media climate.

"As a government, we're not very well organized to do that," he said.

Yet some in the military argue that the efforts at better "strategic communication" sometimes cross the line into propaganda, citing some recent media briefings held in Iraq. During a Nov. 10 briefing by Marine Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, reporters were shown a video of Iraqi troops saluting their flag and singing the Iraqi national anthem.

"Pretty soon, we're going to have the 5 o'clock follies all over again, and it will take us another 30 years to restore our credibility," said a second senior Defense official, referring to the much-ridiculed daily media briefings in Saigon during the Vietnam War.

According to several Pentagon officials, the strategic communications programs at the Defense Department are being coordinated by the office of the undersecretary of Defense for policy, Douglas J. Feith.

Peter Steinfels writes the "Beliefs" column in the Saturday NY Times, and he always has something interesting and important to say. Here are a couple of his latest thoughtful articles:

December 4, 2004
BELIEFS
The Truth About Torture
By PETER STEINFELS

The coming week's celebration of Hanukkah revolves around the delightful story of a tiny amount of consecrated oil that miraculously burned for eight days in December 164 B.C. when the Maccabees recaptured and rededicated the Temple after it had been desecrated by the Syrian ruler Antiochus Epiphanes.

There is another celebrated story, however, this one grim rather than delightful, connected with the persecution by Antiochus and the saga of the Maccabean revolt. The story of Hannah and her seven sons appears in various sources but most extensively in the Second Book of Maccabees, a Greek translation of a Hebrew text eventually incorporated into the Christian Bible and found in Roman Catholic Bibles today although not included in Hebrew scriptures or, later, in Protestant Bibles.

As part of Antiochus's campaign to break the fidelity of the Jews to their way of life, Hannah and her sons are ordered to eat swine. When they refuse, each of them, one by one and in view of the others, is successively subjected to gruesome mutilations, scalding in oil, and death. All modern English translations feature, in these passages, one of the ugliest words in the language: "torture."

It is a reminder that torture opens one of the greatest chasms in morality. In even the most morally unsophisticated forms of popular storytelling, it is certainly not violence in itself, not even killing, that unmistakably separates good guys from evil ones. It is torture. Heroes may kill; villains torture - Nazi commanders, soulless drug dealers, despots on this planet or in outer space.

In debates among contemporary ethicists about the notion of acts that qualify as "intrinsically evil," torture has always been a prime candidate. Within Roman Catholicism, the discussion of intrinsic evils has recently focused on abortion and euthanasia. But when Pope John Paul II weighed in on the question in his 1993 encyclical "The Splendor of Truth," the list of other actions he described as evil "in themselves, independently of circumstances" included, along with genocide and slavery, "physical and mental torture."

But, really, is this a topic to bring up on the eve of a season of sparkling candles, childlike exuberance and family gift-giving?

One could reply that the issue is posed by the nomination of Alberto R. Gonzales, who as White House counsel helped frame the administration's policies about treatment of prisoners of war. Or that it is posed, more recently, by the International Committee of the Red Cross's newly reported findings that practices "tantamount to torture" have continued at the United States' prison at Guanatánamo Bay.

But is this a topic that anyone wants to examine ever? Last April, the photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq shocked the world and put the treatment of prisoners in the headlines for several weeks. Then, Congressional hearings faded, military investigations were begun in all directions, a few individuals were tried without great publicity - and attention shifted to the presidential campaign, where no one was going to touch the issue.

As Mark Danner points out in his book "Torture and Truth" (New York Review Books), in the end the lurid photos may have deflected the central question of what role torture may have played, or yet be playing, in American policy for waging a war on terror into the question of individual indiscipline and sadism - "Animal House on the night shift," as former Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger called the Abu Ghraib atrocities.

Mr. Danner's book is valuable because to the 50 pages of articles he originally wrote for The New York Review of Books, the volume adds hundreds of pages of the relevant Justice and Defense Department memorandums, the photos, prisoners' depositions, Red Cross reports and the military's own major investigations of Abu Ghraib. Motivated readers can judge for themselves.

Although the question of torture has justly become part of the debate about the war in Iraq, the question cannot be reduced to differences over that war. The Guantánamo prisoners, after all, were captured in Afghanistan, in a military action that had overwhelming support from the citizenry.

Gathering intelligence is clearly crucial to the entire war on terror. Long before the invasion of Iraq, voices here and there began to ask about the legitimacy of torture, sometimes treading a fine line where it is hard to tell whether the aim is to uphold a moral precept or undermine it. It became imperative to define what constituted, in government talk, "aggressive interrogation" or "exceptional techniques" and what was, in blunt talk, torture.

In this regard, the documents in "Torture and Truth" seem to operate on three levels. At the highest level, the thrust of the Justice Department memorandums seems entirely toward giving interrogators maximum leeway rather than worrying about setting limits. At the middle level, the Defense Department spells out permissible methods of increasingly aggressive interrogation with a degree of detail, benign examples and insistence on safeguards that mostly suggest approaches definitely this side of torture.

At the lowest level, however, the appalling reports from the field give an entirely different picture of what "sleep adjustment," "stress positions," "environmental manipulation," "removal of clothing" and "increasing anxiety by use of aversions" can mean in practice.

In an analysis of the torture question written this week for Religion News Service, David Anderson notes that "nearly absent from the three major administration reports on the abuse at Abu Ghraib is any discussion of the ethical issues involved."

The report from Mr. Schlesinger's panel has eight appendices, the last of them rightly described by Mr. Anderson as "a cursory 2 1/3 pages on ethical issues." The panel calls for more "ethics education programs" without suggesting what their substance might be.

Mr. Danner notes how much of the 9/11 commission's much-admired reconstruction of the World Trade Center plot depended on information from high-level Qaeda conspirators held in places and interrogated in ways that no one, apparently even top officials of the government, wants to know more about.

The most disturbing aspect of "Torture and Truth" is not anything it reveals that has been hidden but how much it reveals that is not hidden - but that the nation chooses not to look at.

And this one, from a couple of weeks ago, available through Lexis-Nexis:

SECTION: Section B; Column 1; Metropolitan Desk; Beliefs; Pg. 6

LENGTH: 1069 words

HEADLINE: In the brutality of war, the innocents have become lost in the crossfire.

BYLINE: By Peter Steinfels
BODY:

Warfare is so brutal that it is easy to understand the cynicism that doubts whether the words war and morality even belong in the same sentence.

That is not the way that the military looks at it, however. In the years since the war in Vietnam and revulsion at events like the My Lai massacre, leadership of the armed forces has probably been way ahead of civilian policy makers in giving heed to traditional standards of ethical conduct in battle. No one imagines that these standards will be perfectly observed in the heat of combat, but they provide precious barriers against the descent into utter inhumanity.

Most of this growing ethical concern has centered on sparing civilians. The principles are simple, even if observing them is not. First, civilian casualties must be an unavoidable side effect of military action, not an intended and purposeful part of it. Second, there must be some proportionality, however hard to define precisely, between the military objectives and the extent of civilian death and suffering.

World War II saw a breakdown of this kind of traditional distinction between enemy forces and civilian populations. The civilians were finally judged to be as liable to direct attack as the former. The bombings of Germany and Japan were extended not only to hit traditional military targets, but also to wreak widespread death and destruction on civilians in hopes of breaking the enemy's morale.

That wartime collapse of an ancient moral distinction carried over into cold war military planning, which often contemplated civilian deaths in the millions as a consequence of direct nuclear attacks or even biological warfare against population centers.

Attitudes have changed. One reason, admittedly, is the existence of more discriminating weaponry. Another reason is the sense that much of what distinguishes the legitimate uses of military power from terrorism hangs on the special moral consideration given civilians. It is true that in the 1991 Persian Gulf war or the intervention to block ethnic cleansing in Kosovo the destruction of dual-use public works like power plants and communications and transportation systems raised a new category of moral questions. But the postwar suffering of civilians that resulted would scarcely have gnawed at Western consciences to the extent it did had not the goal of sparing civilians become so vigorously affirmed.

This evolution in attitude appears all to the good. Unfortunately, the recent debate about tallying civilian casualties in Iraq has raised questions about its seriousness.

Three weeks ago, The Lancet, the British medical journal, released a research team's findings that 100,000 or more civilians had probably died as a result of the war in Iraq. The study, formulated and conducted by researchers at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at the Johns Hopkins University and the College of Medicine at Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, involved a complex process of sampling households across Iraq to compare the numbers and causes of deaths before and after the invasion in March 2003.

The 100,000 estimate immediately came under attack. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain questioned the methodology of the study and compared it with an Iraq Health Ministry figure that put civilian fatalities at less than 4,000. Other critics referred to the findings of the Iraq Body Count project, which has constructed a database of war-related civilian deaths from verified news media reports or official sources like hospitals and morgues.

That database recently placed civilian deaths somewhere between 14,429 and 16,579, the range arising largely from uncertainty about whether some victims were civilians or insurgents. But because of its stringent conditions for including deaths in the database, the project has quite explicitly said, ''Our own total is certain to be an underestimate.''

It has refrained from commenting on the 100,000 figure, except for noting that such a number ''is on the scale of the death toll from Hiroshima'' and, if accurate, has ''serious implications.''

Certainly, the Johns Hopkins study is rife with assumptions necessitated by the lack of basic census and mortality data in Iraq. The sampling also required numerous adjustments because of wartime dangers -- and courage in carrying out the interviews. Accordingly, the results are presented with a good many qualifications.

Ultimately, the researchers are saying that these are the best estimates available and that better ones could be obtained if the occupying forces and the Iraqi authorities wanted them.

''This survey shows that with modest funds, four weeks and seven Iraqi team members willing to risk their lives, a useful measure of civilian deaths could be obtained,'' the researchers wrote in The Lancet. ''There seems to be little excuse for occupying forces to not be able to provide more precise tallies'' that could be confirmed by independent bodies like the International Red Cross or the World Health Organization.

What is Washington's response to this argument? The dismissive statement by the head of the United States Central Command, Gen. Tommy R. Franks of the Army, that ''we don't do body counts'' has been repeatedly quoted as more or less the final word on American policy. (An official at the Defense Department confirmed this week that American casualties were ''as far as I know the only casualty information we track.'') General Franks's dictum implies that the method, often disparaged as a measure of progress in Vietnam, is equally irrelevant or unreliable for measuring tragedy elsewhere.

Can this position withstand scrutiny? To a lot of ears, it sounds like a pharmaceutical company that swears it doesn't want to market drugs with dangerous side effects but then avoids the studies that might determine just how dangerous those side effects might be. What would one think of doctors who stressed the importance of combating fever but refused to take anyone's temperature?

To be sure, the morality of waging war in Iraq is not automatically resolved by establishing whether 4,000 civilians have died as a consequence or 17,000 or 100,000. But whether one figure or another is closer to the truth is surely relevant. Doesn't it mock any otherwise admirable moral concern for civilian losses not to want to find out?

URL: http://www.nytimes.com

LOAD-DATE: November 20, 2004

I am reading a few more articles on these issues right now and will have more to say in the near future; right now I would love to hear what readers think about all this.