March 18, 1996
Thank you, Alan Keyes. The picture of Ambassador Alan Keyes being led away from the Republican Presidential so-called debate in Atlanta in handcuffs reminds us all of the important fact that political advantage trumps morals.
Thank you, Alan Keyes. The idea of Ambassador Keyes being driven around Atlanta in a cop car while the other candidates appeared on smellevision reminds us of the even more important fact that ideology trumps ethics.
Thank you, Alan Keyes. The notion that Ambassador Keyes is not getting many votes reminds us of the most important fact of all: how far we have yet to go before morality becomes the most important feature of how we govern this country.
Thank you, Alan Keyes. We will remember you when the time is right.
The President has kept all the promises he intends to keep.
... George Stephanopoulos, February 14, 1996, Larry King Live
...administration officials, who spoke on condition that they not be identified, said the [US] naval deployments [of the carrier task forces Independence and Nimitz] also should clear up some of the confusion about what the United States would do if the Chinese did attack.
Chinese military leaders asked that question last year in a meeting with former Undersecretary of Defense Joseph Nye.
"We don't know what the United States would do, and you don't either," Mr. Nye said then.
Mr. [U.S. Defense Secretary William] Perry repeated the statement last month at a Washington Conference as the administration's preferred expression for a formula of "strategic ambiguity."
... Jim Landers for The Dallas Morning News, 3-12-96
"China does not have the capability to launch an invasion of Taiwan," U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry said on Saturday [after stating that he had received private assurances from the Chinese that they would not attack Taiwan]. "It's well-fortified and it's well-defended, and while the Chinese have a formidable army, they do not have much amphibious support."
... NandoNet, 3-16-96
"These reports are baseless," spokesman Shen Guofang said on Chinese TV. "China has never promised to give up the use of force," he said. "If Taiwan declares independence or if foreign forces encroach on Taiwan, then of course we will use whatever methods are necessary to protect our country's sovereignty and territorial integrity."
... NandoNet, 3-16-96
Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson announced to the world that Korea was outside the U.S. sphere of interest; two weeks later North Korean troops were pouring across the border into South Korea. The U.S. Ambassador to Iraq assured Saddam Hussein that the United States had no interest in Kuwait; shortly afterwards, on August 2, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Does all this sound familiar? Officials of the U.S. should never have permitted the slightest doubt to enter the minds of the Chinese leadership as to the U.S. response to aggression against Taiwan. If history is any guide, "strategic ambiguity" sounds like a formula for disaster.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud Party leader, in an interview on CNN recently, said that Yasir Arafat praised the Hamas suicide bombers efforts and spoke of them as leading stepwise to the "destruction of the Jewish State," in a speech made in Arabic to a Palestinian audience within a few days of the bombings. This statement went unchallenged and ignored by both Frank Cesno and his other guest, Hanan Ashrawi of the PLO.
Can this be true? What should we think of a leader who exhibits such two-faced behavior? What makes anyone think that Arafat can be trusted to honor any agreement or respect the legitimate security requirements of Israel?
Question: Why does not CNN either nail the lie or publish the truth about what Arafat says to his own people about Israel? Surely so important an issue as the truthfulness of a signatory to the peace treaty with Israel deserves some press attention and investigation. Our future is at stake in this, along with that of Israel and the entire region.
Answer: Dictators perceived to be of the left (Arafat) can do no wrong in the eyes of our press.
Prediction: Likud will gain a plurality in the next election and form the next government. They will abandon (openly or covertly) the "peace process" and take the necessary steps to ensure Israeli security. Arafat's protest at this will be ignored. No one in the United States (except some State Department professionals) will lose a single night's sleep over it, despite the massive propaganda commitment that the U.S. has made to the "peace process". By the time that anyone notices that the "peace process" has been quietly shelved, the President with his faithful herd of press sycophants will have gone roaring off after some other phantasm.
I am not so concerned about the programs that the V-chip will block as what it will allow through. If only the "V" stood for "vulgarity" and blocked any programs with vulgar content.
Now is the season for polls, lots and lots of polls. We are used to this: polls and surveys find the news, make the news, and many times are the news. If there is anything we want to know about the future, anything that appears to be a choice to make, anything troubling the American psyche, we take a poll; telephone polls, newspaper polls, television polls, mail-in polls, sports polls, economic polls, labor polls, entertainment polls, philosophical polls, even polls about polls. But most important of all, there are the political polls, those clever, sensitive, volatile, and fickle prognosticators of our national future.
The onslaught of a new presidentiad, our quadrennial immersion in political and fiscal nonsense, brings with it an ever-increasing shower of polls. This candidate leads another by so many points, that candidate is trailing, gaining, floundering, falling, peaking, etc., another is "testing the water", "reaching for the brass ring", or "mounting a challenge", while the metaphors all chase one another around the pages of our newspapers and magazines like drunken rats. The business has all the solemnity of a roomful of handicappers: this season, the Republican nomination; next season, the ponies. Well, presidential politics in the U.S. has always been our burden, our destiny, ...and our national hobby!
I recently collected the results of some polls published immediately before the New Hampshire primary. The raw data is given below, together with the actual outcome of the primary election, followed by notes indicating the poll's sponsor and when the data was collected.
Org. Size Margin Buch. Dole Alex. Forbes
KRCCR [1] 691 4 24 23 21 13
CNN-USAT [2] 828 4 26 23 20 13
ABC News [3] 434 5.5 30 29 14 12
JZG [4] 550 3.5 22 25 15 11
ARG [5] 514 4 25 26 16 15
UNH [6] 485 4 19 22 18 10
Results 203,000 - 27 26 23 12
Notes
[1] KRC Communications Research for The Boston Globe and WBZ-TV -- Monday night only
[2] Gallup Organization for CNN and USA Today -- Sunday and Monday
[3] ABC News -- Sunday and Monday
[4] John Zogby Group for The New York Post and WNYW-TV -- Saturday and Sunday
[5] American Research Group -- Friday through Sunday
[6] University of New Hampshire for The Boston Herald and WCVB-TV -- Saturday and Sunday
There are some interesting points to note about the polls, to wit, four of the six have errors exceeding the "margin of error", whatever that means; half of the polls have the top two finishers in the wrong order, which seems to defeat the purpose of having a poll; and one (ABC News) is so misleading and erroneous as to make one wonder whom the poll-takers were talking to. The last is particularly odd: there is always some justification for underestimating a particular candidate's support due to the undecideds, but why did 3 points of support leave both Buchanan and Dole to go to Alexander overnight, as the ABC News poll asserts? Of the six polls, only the KRCCR-Boston Globe survey really nails the result.
Here is a question: What does "margin of error" mean? Please drop your explanation to rbarb@deltos.com. Results of this poll will be published next month.
In the '70's, the United States punished its wheat farmers because of the USSR's misbehavior. In 1980, the United States punished its Olympic athletes because the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Now the United States is punishing businesses that have commercial relationships with Cuba because it disapproves of the behavior of Cuba in the recent incident in the Gulf.
I will never understand why the United States must hurt someone other than the guilty party in an effort to persuade that party to correct its ways. The United States should take its case directly to the guilty party, in whatever form that party will respect, and apply pressure directly to them.
Cuba's unapologetic trampling of international law in the shooting-down of the two unarmed Brothers to the Rescue aircraft has prompted the usual tightening of trade restrictions, etc., by the United States. This injures ordinary businesses and their employees, who have nothing to do with Cuban policy or behavior. Why not address the issue directly with the Cuban government and leave the innocent bystanders out of it? The correct response to Cuba's threat to civil aviation is to remove that threat. By grounding the Cuban Air Force, destroying its aircraft and military airports, the United States would be applying the remedy where it is needed and justified. The action would be safe, relatively easy, and its effects permanent (I think spare parts for antique, export-model, Russian military aircraft are pretty hard to get these days). Cuba engaged in an act of war; they should reap their rewards.
I have been immersed over the last several days in another world, one long vanished, but brought to life again by a remarkable group of four women who style themselves "Anonymous 4". What they have done is to perform and record chant and polyphony from the 13th century, specifically, from the Sarum (Salisbury) tradition and usage. They have compiled a collection of this material in a recording entitled "An English Ladymass". This is some of the most supremely beautiful singing I have ever heard, and the literature is haunting -- a 700-year leap backward in time -- a distant echo of our Christian and musical origins.
"An English Ladymass: medieval chant and polyphony in honor of the Virgin Mary" is produced by Harmonia Mundi, HMU 407080.
All contents © Copyright 1995, 1996 by Redmon Barbry ¶ 9:07 PM
