Tailhook 1991 - Another Generation of Bad Reporting

Easier access to what we often call "the news" can lead to dark consequences when those reports under the banner of CNN, Fox and the others lead to simply false narratives.

Here is one grandchild of a false narrative whose bloodline began in 1991:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/21/us/military-suicide-rape/index.html?iref=allsearch

Obviously the events of the world, when they have an aspect that involves improper conduct involving sexual relations, get internet-reader attention. Notice how the writer of the CNN article, Moni Basu, ties together three incidents of the last 22 years to allege a pattern. He includes a loose, drive-by summary of the Tailhook 1991 incidents:

"Two decades ago, at the Navy's "Tailhook" convention in Las Vegas, drunken aviators assaulted female recruits."

You can read about that scandal on Wikipedia, if you're not familiar at all or it's been a while:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailhook_scandal

The Wiki article (which is pretty fair and accurate, by the way) makes no mention of "female recruits," because none were there. This was simply concocted by author Basu as a way of alleging a pattern that ties together incidents in the last three decades involving inappropriate behavior by members of the military in positions of authority.

There is no doubt that sexual assaults occur in the U.S. armed forces and everywhere else in life. They will happen in the military more often because of the closer contact between the sexes in the course of doing their everyday training and jobs. No one should ever condone inappropriate and criminal behavior. When it happens, every effort should be made to stop it and prosecute when appropriate.

Creating false narratives through inaccurate or intentionally deceptive reporting will never, in the end create a positive outcome. Reporters like Moni Basu from CNN owe the millions of readers of his work the benefit of accurate information, especially when facts are so easily found on internet sources.

Wikipedia doesn't always get everything right. But it can be a great source of screening out anything that is so obviously wrong.

Coffees and Triggers

I'm writing this in a Salt Lake City Starbucks. According to the company's CEO, Howard Schultz, this is not a 'gun-free zone." He would just rather you not bring your guns inside the stores whether you have the legal right to or not.

This is, I suppose, the most recent example of a business owner dancing on the head of a pin when it comes to wide-ranging public opinions on a very controversial subject and making money. There are so many ways to fall these days, I honestly don't know how some of these guys do it.

I get no comfort from his altruistic request. Everyone around me seems so very pleasant and civil and isolated into his or her own world. This is a wonderful thing. 150 years ago, a group of people sitting within a building in the American West would be doing many of the same things happening around me now. Eating, drinking, reading, talking. Some or most would have one other thing on their minds that we don't think about much anymore except occasionally when reading the awful stories about Newtown or the Navy Yard: self-protection.

We have evolved and civilized to a point where a place like Starbucks seems like the safest place in the world. Because it generally is. A citizen of the West in the 1860's, on the other hand, would always be slightly occupied with these thoughts: where might the enemy come from? where is my weapon? is it ready to fire?

Not here, not today though in 2013. The enemy is a million to one odds away and we are very happy and comfortable in soft chairs with expensive coffee drinks. He is out there, though. Raging quietly somewhere about a perceived injustice or blasting away thousands of computer generated humans on a video screen for hours at a time, considering the real thing. The fact that one of these monsters doesn't walk through the front door right now is simply bitterly good luck.

My safety at this moment is not based on access to a concealed weapon, because I don't have one. My choice, completely. It is based on very long odds in a very free society and my location. Another mass shooting on another military base will probably lead to another law or two. But it won't help other citizens of this country who live in places where guns are fired and people die every single night.

Decisive Action. Maybe. Sort Of

Crisis averted last night, I suppose. 'Peace in our time' as an infamous prime minister said after meeting a madman seven decades ago.

One thing that should be clear about this entire fiasco is that the Syrian government in place has and will continue to destroy property and kill people in the civil war. If they don't, they will lose and be destroyed themselves.

The necessary distraction has been created for them to remain. The world will focus on a probably false-commitment of agreeing to give up some of their arsenal (chemical munitions) while the Russians strengthen the position of Assad and his henchmen. Advantage, barbarians.

Two years ago, Obama said that this dictator "must go." Now it seems probable that our current president will be gone first.

I listened to a lot of commentary on both sides after Obama's speech last night. Here is one thing the president's supporters seemed unable to explain: If our position is righteous (implicit) and congressional approval is necessary (stated by the president), then why not have a vote anyway? An approval of force resolution wouldn't automatically make bombs fall out of the sky. Obama could win the legislative approval and still choose not to strike. He could say that thanks to John Kerry's diplomacy, cool heads have won the day. The country would be relieved that no one dies with our weapons. The right would think we still look strong. The left would be happy with peace at any price. Everyone would win. Well, everyone except the average Syrian.

The sad answer to this question is that Barack Obama could not convince the majority of Congress to trust him with a military strike. Not in this place. Not at this time. So we are left with what we had last night. A fairly persuasive argument to punish a foreign government for very bad behavior. Just not right away. Maybe soon. Or never. Hard to say.

Watching the president's speech for the first half was admittedly, inspiring. Then, it seems as if, in the middle of it all, we were told, "You know what? Hold on a second. Let me get back to you on all this..." Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC finally got off the media hamster wheel for a moment by suggesting the whole thing was a little "schizophrenic."


This will change to the other direction, someday. Maybe by a future president who is much more averse to tying his own policies in knots through delay, indecisiveness and abject ignorance. The tragedy is that this future leader may be wrong next time but being desperate not to look weak like a certain predecessor, he or she chooses to lead us rapidly into a genuine abyss.



“Almost all things have been found out, but some have been forgotten.” - Aristotle