In a pickle

One of my role models writes that the present day media can influence the conflict in the middle east, and maybe even decide the outcome. He is a champ. He is from the West, but can think like the East. He is a good cultural translator.

He is a media person now, but by golly, he also has experience by education, and personal dealings. I would follow him to hell. I hope he does not lead me there.

Over the last few months, I have listened and divined that he believes that the media can decide wars, or certainly influence the outcome in the middle east. Certainly the media can influence things, but decide outcomes, no! If I am wrong, I apologize.

But why does he think he is correct? He is no wastrel.

Sometimes there must be gun fighting, as in fight for what we believe in. Skilled diplomacy and smart threats don’t always work to our satisfaction. I offer the idea of trying to negotiate with Hitler as an obvious example. Would today’s media have made a difference in the outcome then and there?

Media reports, and history, is what is written, not what happened. A recent example of this principle is former President Clinton’s reported devotion to his legacy. Even Sandy Berger is apparently caught up in it. And it appears much of the main stream media is similarly included in recording and writing, or rewriting, Clinton’s history. Often it appears to be overt commissions vice inadvertent omissions.

But this universal principle of recording history is known by many. Another good example is from my time at two very professional schools at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma. Before taking any test, examples of types of questions would be explained to the class. On the multiple choice type, a joking example would be as follows. When a Marine goes into combat he takes: A. One historian, B. Two historians, C. Three historians, D. All of the above. Of course the joking answer was D. All of the above. I always took this with good humor, and as another confirmation of this universal principle being recognized by others.

That written history is a reflection of human scribes recording history means another thing, also. It often reflects who is paying the bill; and also often reflects the mood or style of the scribe. To many this can be like saying the glass is half-full or half-empty; or the weather is partly sunny or partly cloudy.

We all know that politicians obscure the facts. That’s what they do. We also know their histories can be similarly construed. Jimmy Carter may know something about this, though I think for him it is mostly the effects of aging catching up (in regards his recent book). If it is his health, then I wish him the best.

But when any perfect storm of events converges history writing, obscuring facts, and national party objectives, often harm may come to our nation. How is a citizen to know what is really going on? Of course this question presupposes harm can come to us and our nation.

In the running of our nation, the ability of the leaders to communicate, to guide us and lead us, is important. When we lose trust in what we hear, then we are in trouble. After all there are many courses of actions for our nation, and some are better than others. And some courses can lead to our doom. It is at times like this that I look for and expect all national parties to act in the nation’s interests first.

That we can debate the national interest is a privilege, not a right. The privilege was earned by our ancestors. We are just the current beneficiaries.

Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that the National Democratic Party is in pursuit of power first, and the nation second. I think the recent 2006 Congressional elections have sent many patriots to the House and Senate, but I now fear they may be overwhelmed by the old timers already there. And since the “old timers” run things, they can write the history. And the Republicans have not been much better.

In the way of our Congress, many bills are voted on without the detailed homework of the congressmen and senators, and their hired staffs. The size of the bills, and the timing, does not allow for careful review, and this is accepted practice. This is wrong. What we get for example is a House minimum wage bill with a special exception for the new Speaker of the House, voted on and approved. Yet the written historical record says the vote was so and so, and implies the full knowledge and consent of our representatives.

Now I don’t trust any representative’s historical pontifications about any new bills until I can read the massive bill’s details, or wait for a report of same by those who are good at this. This is a sad state of affairs, but something we voters can and must deal with.

This leads to one course of action for us voters. We can clean house, as in vote in those who think about the nation’s interests first, and write history more like what happened; not what they presently write, and obscure, and spin later.