A friend writes from Albuquerque NM......
Dan:
Clearly the rules for everything are changing and I don't see a way
back, for principles of any kind. Leaders have re-defined what the
traffic will bear. I feel so overwhelmed by the scope of it, stymied,
stupid, and spread out on a sheer rock face with nothing to grab to
change the predicament.
Americans, either ignorant of their own narrowness of viewpoint or
jingoistically on board with any ass-kicking agenda that comes along,
want to think they're getting straight stuff from their press. Local
press, like their parent networks, are desperate not only to report
support, but to make us all feel good and righteous about it (or
shamed without it), as if unanimity equals virtue and that there's
inherent glory in any aggression we perpetrate. The peace movement
wants to feel good too, but the military is carpet bombing the moral
high ground.
I am simply distraught at the absence of debate, that an initiative
of so little merit and such stupendous impact was rammed into place
and cannot be turned around. Whatever occurs, we've already claimed
victory and W eagerly awaits his iconic status. Will we even have an
election in 2004, or shall there be continuity by acclamation
(martial law) to assure homeland security? Bush has guaranteed this
will become an ever more dangerous place to live. As I look at the
paralysis of Congress, I begin truly to grieve the end of democracy
as we knew it, and the loss of my country. How does the overt
mendacity of this administration prevail? I am fearful that the
citizenry is not up to this battle, because I've seen its weaknesses
in the mirror.
Re Arnett: I think there's got to be a dilemma for him between doing
the expected award winning reportage from his head (laying out the
facts he can collect, connecting the dots with his informed
perspective, sending them to headquarters) and "doing the right
thing" from his heart (framing his facts and applying his perspective
free of the known biases of his employer). He is not alone. It's
indicative of the collective chaos of this war -- frankly of any war
-- that a news consumer has to sort among biases. The rule arrogantly
prescribed for the whole world is "you're either with us or against
us." Therefore us is a monolith, and "not in our name" is denied
relevance. So now, hopelessly labelled as an anti-war sympathizer,
Arnett will ply his wares with heightened credibility at the Mirror
and tainted or no credibility on the coalition side. The US "wins",
since his exposure here will be limited to those who make the extra
effort to find alternative coverage. I would like to cut Arnett some
slack, but he has marginalized himself more effectively than higher
powers could have. But his next book should be interesting.
--Pat
