"Let men be wise by instinct if they can, but when this fails be wise by good advice." -Sophocles

Friday, October 12, 2007

Alienating a Key Ally over an Apology

Apparently the Democratic controlled congress has too much free time on its hands. Instead of balancing budgets, cutting wasteful spending, or working together to improve national security, congress is busy rewriting history and passing judgment on historical events that occurred 90 years ago. Such frivolous behavior is problematic enough by itself, but in their ill-advised foray into historical revisionism, congressional Democrats are needlessly and recklessly jeopardizing diplomatic and military relations with a crucial ally in the War on Terror: Turkey.

A resolution regarding Turkey's alleged genocide of Armenians between 1915 and 1923 sponsored and shepherded through committee by Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff has angered Turkish President Abdullah Gul sufficiently that he wrote a letter to President Bush warning that passage of the resolution would cause “serious problems” between the U.S. and Turkey. As the future of Iraq hangs in the balance and Turkey is expected to have significant involvement in the political and territorial viability of Iraq, the timing of a resolution designed to do nothing more than prick an ally in a sensitive and presently irrelevant area could not be worse. The State Department is working overtime attempting to repair the damage House Democrats seem determined to continue inflicting on U.S.-Turkey relations and has condemned the Schiff resolution.

The Democratic resolution passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee Wednesday in a 27-21 vote seeks to placate Armenian-Americans, who, in collaboration with Armenians throughout the world, have long insisted that the forced deportation of 2 million Armenians from the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 was actually a “systematic” and “deliberate” genocide that killed 1.5 million Armenians. Ottoman Turks at the time and the current Turkish population disputed Armenian claims of an organized plan for genocide. Turkish and Armenian casualties from violence between the two peoples during that period are estimated to number in the hundreds of thousands.

Congressman Schiff claimed that America has a “compelling historical and moral reason” to label the Armenian deaths officially as genocide. Conveniently, Schiff did not explain what will be accomplished in 2007 by re-labeling events that took place 90 years ago. Other than to give in to the demands of a special interest group and anger the current Turkish government and citizenry who had nothing to do with deportations or alleged genocide, there appears to be no purpose for the resolution.

Does the resolution demand that Turkey pay damage settlements to the victims’ families? No. Does it demand that the alleged perpetrators of genocide be turned over to an international court at The Hague for prosecution? No, of course, because everyone involved is long since deceased. Does it offer any recommendations for preventing future “genocide” between Turks and Armenians? No, because the demographics and political boundaries have altered so significantly since the World War I era that the factors that led to deportations or alleged genocide no longer exist. It is a vengeful document that cannot even provide its bitter supporters with their desired pound of Turkish flesh.

CNN coverage of the dispute included key paragraphs that put the issue in its present-day historical context:
Meanwhile Turkey's ambassador to the U.S., Nabi Sensoy, said the resolution would be a "very injurious move to the psyche of the Turkish people," predicting that its passage would create a backlash in his country.

The vote was also strongly criticized by Turkish newspapers, The Associated Press reported. "Bill of hatred," said Hurriyet's front page, while Vatan's headline read "27 foolish Americans.

The U.S. embassy in Ankara warned Americans there to brace for possible anti-American demonstrations.

Turkish protests come with relations between Washington and Ankara already tense amid Turkish military and political preparations for a possible strike into northern Iraq in response to recent attacks by Kurdish militants.

…Last year France voted to make it a crime to deny that the killings constituted genocide, causing the Turkish government to cut its military ties with the country.

The issue pressed by Armenians is similar to the debate over slave reparations in the United States. Some states have issued official apologies for the slave trade, but historically, what results from such official declarations, condemnations, or apologies? Are the descendants of slaves any less bitter or any more forgiving or placated by these official pronouncements? Other than a “Gotcha” moment and a fleeting feeling of satisfaction from getting one’s point across, nothing substantive or historically relevant occurs.

Holding modern day Turks responsible for alleged genocide 90 years in the past is just as unfair and pointless as demanding that Americans who never owned slaves and whose ancestors fought to free them in the Civil War pay slave reparations 150 years after slavery was abolished. The fact that it existed is horrible and was a stain upon our nation. Fortunately Abraham Lincoln and many others recognized that and much blood was spilled to cleanse the stain. Likewise, even if it were proven conclusively that the Ottoman Empire deliberately killed a large number of Armenians, it would be a stain on an empirical government that could not be cleansed because it disappeared into the annals of history.

Bitterness and ethnic vengeance are not healthy and create nothing productive. Rather than working as enablers of discord, animosity, and blame, congress should work to ensure that present day Armenia and Turkey have good relations and are not on a course destined for conflict, verbal or otherwise. The current Turkish government has offered to conduct a joint investigation of the genocide claims and establish basic diplomatic ties to Armenia. The offer is a gesture of goodwill and would develop diplomatic relations that presently do not exist between the two nations.

Congress should not engage itself in debates over historical events or pass resolutions accepting one people’s version of history simply because they immigrated to America in large numbers and have a louder voice than those they accuse. We reiterate that in the context of today’s Middle East, the question of whether an alleged genocide occurred during World War I is largely irrelevant because there is no conceivable action that can be taken to redress the grievances of those who claim to have been wronged.

We do not suggest that any nation be granted immunity from scrutiny simply because it is currently an ally in the War on Terror. If the modern Turkish government were accused of genocide, such a claim should be given our full attention and an international investigation should ensue. However, such is not the case. Turkey as it exists today is not accused of any such crimes, and is sensitive to any international effort to portray Turks as a genocidal nation. Alienating an ally because its government may have been involved in a serious crime 90 years ago is a high price to pay for providing Armenians with a few moments of international sympathy. Only those with some degree of familiarity with the logistics of the Iraq War and the War on Terror comprehend fully how important Turkey is to our efforts. Ultimately our relationship with Turkey far outweighs any need for historical condemnations, apologies, or labels.

Congress has far more pressing matters to attend to than rewriting the history of a disputed event that appears likely to be resolved through diplomatic and investigative efforts.

Technorati Tags:
, , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Rudy/Mitt Ticket Marginalizes Bystander Thompson

Rather than issue debate report cards for each candidate as we have done after each of the GOP candidate debates thus far, we can save ourselves and our readers from repetition by declaring that, despite the entrance of Fred Thompson into the race, the candidates finished with precisely the same grades we assigned after the previous debate. Additionally, with few exceptions, they set forth the same clichéd sound bites on issues significant to conservatives and paid mandatory lip service to Ronald Reagan’s legacy.

Readers can review those previously assigned grades, insert Fred Thompson in a tie for third place, and draw the conclusion, accurately, that nothing substantive changed since the previous debate, in content, personalities, or format. The only difference was the addition of one principle actor, pun intended, to the distractingly large and unwieldy cast of GOP characters on stage. Thompson made no notable gaffes, was not challenged directly by any of his fellow candidates, and left an underwhelming impression after months of blogosphere hype about his potential role as savior of the GOP’s 2008 campaign hopes. While he did nothing to hurt his chances, he likewise did nothing to set himself apart from his competition or inspire mass defections of his opponents’ followers to his camp.

Thompson’s ho-hum debut should have been the major media story from this debate, but it was not. Consider today’s headlines: “Romney, Giuliani Spar on Taxes, Spending (AP),” “Romney, Giuliani Spar During Thompson’s Debate Debut (CNN),” and “Giuliani Clashes with Romney Over Taxes and Spending (New York Times),” among many others. Each of these news articles focused on the “quarreling,” “sparring,” “heated exchange,” and “increasingly fierce confrontation” between Romney and Giuliani.

It seems appropriate at this point to make a few general observations of what happened on stage and what appears to be going on behind the scenes.

We stand by our previous observation/prediction that despite any perceptions of rancor or “fierce confrontation” between Romney and Giuliani, their body language and demeanor when they personally interact before and after such events indicate a familiar camaraderie and genuine respect for each other that belies any barbs exchanged on the debate stage.

They appear to be comfortable with each other and share a perception that together they would make a formidable team, with Giuliani’s strength as a mafia-busting, 9/11 crisis managing, national security candidate, and Romney’s remarkable record as a scandal-free financial manager, governor, and same-sex marriage obstructionist, who also happens to be a model family man, all traits which Giuliani lacks.

Giuliani and Romney are already de facto running mates, and last night’s debate was shared political strategy at its finest. By firing their best salvos at each other, they prevented Thompson or any other candidate from offering any memorable or substantive return volleys.

The post-debate headlines above illustrated just how effectively Romney and Giuliani stole Thompson’s debate debut momentum and shifted it squarely in their direction. Nearly every article describing the debate included statements similar to these: “It also left Thompson, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and the other contenders as something of bystanders for the several moments that Romney and Giuliani went at one another;” “Mr. Thompson often found himself a bystander as Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney attacked one another;” or “Thompson was largely spared direct fire from the other candidates.”

Nothing is more deflating to a political candidate than thinking he will be the main attraction at an event only to realize that others have taken over the spot light and are receiving the coveted applause of the audience. Marginalizing one’s opponent is critical to successful politics, and the sparring between Giuliani and Romney achieved that goal.

We use the term sparring intentionally, because in boxing, one’s sparring partner fulfills the role of presenting a target to punch for the mutual goal of improving the prize fighter’s skill and chance for success. Sparring partners take a few good blows but are adequately protected from any serious damage, and they likewise jab at the prize fighter sufficiently to expose his weaknesses so they may be addressed through better training preparation for his shot at the title.

Romney is Giuliani’s campaign sparring partner. They will take shots at each other throughout the primaries, but once the dust settles and Giuliani is left standing with the GOP nomination and marching orders to beat Hillary, this dynamic duo will save every KAPOW! for their Democratic rival.

Giuliani’s debate performance further solidified his position as the GOP front-runner, and by keeping the cameras and the audience focused on their exchanges Giuliani and Romney limited Thompson’s opportunities to impress potential voters. After months of speculation regarding his charisma, desire to campaign, and knowledge of the issues, Thompson needed a strong debate stage performance to propel him upward in the polls and differentiate himself from his already familiar opponents. He appeared to rely on the strategy of “Here I am, I’m new to the race and new automatically means better.”

Ultimately, as a result of his vanilla answers and more interesting exchanges between other candidates, Thompson did not make the grand entry into the race that his supporters practically guaranteed. He was not the conservative savior riding in on his white horse to rescue the party.

Instead, he hardly got a word in edgewise and Romney and Giuliani rode off together into the Michigan sunset, victorious partners in this GOP political shootout.

Technorati Tags:

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

My Love, Sorry I Hurled You Out the Window!

Relationships, particularly marital interactions, often receive undue criticism and are blamed for a host of personal and societal ills. Stressful marriages are allegedly contributing to obesity, insomnia, depression, and now a new linkage has been identified: “Bad Marriages, Relationships Affect Heart Health.” Since nearly everyone is involved in a difficult relationship of one sort or another through marriage, dating, family, or work, the news that a stressful relationship may make you 34 percent more likely to develop heart disease seems rather alarming. However, there is always another side to every story, even one that quite literally threatens to break our hearts long before their time.

As is often the case, we look for stories in the media that tend to explain, provide context to, or refute other stories that are related topically. Such was the case Monday with two seemingly unrelated news reports. The first we have already noted above, containing distressing evidence that difficult relationships place us at greater risk for various forms of heart disease. The conducted study established that the term “You’re breaking my heart” is more literal than figurative.

Relationships, particularly bad marriages and family interactions, were identified as the primary culprits. Like all scientific studies, however, this one did not account for other variables that may have contributed more to the development of heart disease in the control group than marital strife. One variable not accounted for was identified in a separate and unrelated survey conducted for a computer software firm earlier this year.

At first glance, a consumer survey about personal computers would appear unrelated to a scientific research study linking relationships with heart disease. Yet that is why first glances often require a second, more careful examination, because the computer survey provided supplemental data that may help place the connection between heart disease and relationships in proper context.

If strained relationships have been conclusively determined to contribute to heart disease, then stop blaming your spouse, your family members, your oppressive boss, or anyone else with whom you interact negatively. They are not the culprits, since you spend less time with them than you do with the real cause of anxiety and stress in your life: your personal computer.

Lest you chuckle in amusement at the assigning of such blame to an electronic device, consider the following story from Fox News titled, “Survey: Many People Have Unhealthy Relationships with Computers”:
It's the relationship you spend more time on than any other. It has deepened even during the past few years.

When things go wrong, you become enraged and tearful and attack inanimate objects — but you're willing to spend hours making things right.

Obviously, we're talking about your relationship with your personal computer.

Consider this: In a survey earlier this year, 64 percent of Americans say they spend more time with their computer than with their significant other.

Meanwhile, 84 percent said they were more dependent on their computer than they were three years ago.

The survey was conducted for SupportSoft Inc., a company that produces help desk software. We all have utilized a help desk at one point or another, what SupportSoft discovered through the survey was that people experiencing computer problems need the same thing that people suffering relationship problems may require: therapy. In fact, the similarities were quite evident in the physical and verbal reactions displayed by those suffering psychological stress stemming from relationships and frustrated computer users who cannot solve their technical issues.

SupportSoft realized that customers were seeking “comfort and empathy” along with technical troubleshooting. Continuing from the Fox News story:
They were surprised, Rodio said, to find that computer problems could unleash such powerful emotions.

When confronted with a dead computer, 19 percent admitted to wanting to hurl it out the nearest window, 9 percent felt stranded and alone, 11 percent used language normally reserved for special occasions, 7 percent did so loudly, 3 percent did so tearfully and 3 percent additionally vented their wrath on inanimate objects. (They were not asked about animate targets — it was a survey, not a police blotter.)

On the other hand, a healthy 32 percent said that they basically shrugged.
The respondents (who were all over 18, owned a PC and enjoyed broadband Internet access) estimated they spent an average of 12 hours a month wrestling with computer problems.

Unsurprisingly, 48 percent said they would rather help a friend move than deal with a computer problem. Thirty percent said they currently felt more frustration with their computer than they felt three years ago.

Nineteen percent in the survey indicated that they just wanted to hurl the computer out of the window. If we continue down the road of full automation for all aspects of our lives, computers will start making our laws for us and this last resort will be removed as an available option for our personal expression. Regardless, that solution is never recommended for the other stressful, but more human, relationships in our lives.

If 64 percent of us spend more time with our computers than with our spouses or significant others, as the survey revealed, then this story certainly provides important context to the research findings linking struggling relationships with heart disease. In today’s automated world, perhaps we rely more on our electronic conveniences than we do on each other. This trend away from personal interaction contributes to feelings of isolation and often depression. As a result, we suggest relying on your spouse or significant other for more tasks and interactions that are currently performed by your computer.

For example, rather than paying your bills automatically online each month, leave stacks of unpaid bills, a checkbook, and a pile of envelopes and stamps on your spouse’s bedside table. That will cut down on the time you spend on the computer and allow your significant other to be a more active part of your relationship and finances.

Instead of hiding behind your computer and sending thousands of emails into cyberspace to communicate with everyone you know, you could provide your significant other with a notepad and a pen, along with the aforementioned pile of envelopes and stamps, and request dictation service. Not only will this get you out from behind that computer desk, it will give your spouse a glimpse into your inner-most thoughts as he or she puts them to paper.

The next time you need to create an important office presentation with detailed graphics, close your laptop and forget MS PowerPoint or Presentations. Instead, compliment your significant other’s artistic skills and ask him or her to create all your charts and graphs by hand, as it will be clear to your colleagues that a lot more time and personal effort was expended on them than if you had merely pointed and clicked your way to legible graphics. When was the last time you enjoyed a pie chart made from scratch?

Of course, these suggestions are in jest, but the sobering reality is that relying on electronic conveniences has resulted in 64 percent of us having closer relationships with our computers than with our spouses or family members. One can only shudder at how high that figure might be if cell phones, PDAs, or iPods were included in the survey.

We are not suggesting that heart disease should be taken lightly. On the contrary, stress is a known culprit in the development of all forms of heart disease, and bad relationships of all types, whether with spouses or computers, generate stress. The appearance of these two media stories on the same day, however, served as an important reminder that people are not always to blame when we experience stress or frustration.

We rely on computers much like we rely on significant others, to be there for us when we need help, to be available always when needed, functioning properly and holding all the answers to our problems. When a computer malfunctions or demands our attention to fix it, our reaction is no different than when a significant other comes to us with a personal problem at an inconvenient moment, like during a long-anticipated sporting event or late at night when we would rather sleep than start a lengthy emotional discussion. Yet most of us have spent many hours, even into the wee hours of the morning working feverishly to salvage our relationship with a troubled computer. Our significant others deserve similar or deeper attentiveness on our part.

After all, they chose to be with us didn't they? Unlike ordering a computer online, our spouses were not permitted to select each and every desirable trait and capability in us and leave out those they did not need or want. We came as pre-packaged bundles, full of hardware glitches and programming bugs. It is no wonder that there are now relationship and computer therapists. As the lines between our personal and virtual relationships have blurred, it has become difficult to distinguish where one begins and the other ends.

For the sake of our imperiled hearts and those of our loved ones, perhaps we should reboot and reevaluate which relationships in our lives are receiving the most serious attention from us. If our computers are winning, then our hearts are losing.

Technorati Tags: