Obama Shocked, Shocked!

With Rev. Jeremiah Wright back in the news with his outrageous Black Liberation Theology, and Barack Obama denying he ever heard any thing like that in twenty years of listening to Wright’s sermons, it’s fun watching the politically correct crowd congratulate Obama for distancing himself from his former pastor. It isn’t going to work. The problem is Obama can’t explain why he never saw anything wrong with the sermons until now. If he didn’t agree with the essential sentiment behind Wright’s anger, why would he belong to that church all these years? This brand of rhetoric has been a Wright staple throughout his career. He built a large and enthusiastic congregation on it. His remarks aren’t being taken out of context and they aren’t new. Obama’s dissembling isn’t going to cut it. This story’s got legs, big hairy muscular legs. I think the whole thing may turn out to be cathartic. Black preachers and civil rights leaders have been given a pass for several decades. Much of the public and essentially all of the media have been turning a deaf ear, partly out of naivety and partly for fear of being called racist. It’s finally out and we are finally talking about it.

Jeremiah Wright came of age at a time when American Blacks felt able to voice their frustrations for the first time in the history of the republic, and voice them they did, loudly, angrily, and sometimes violently. Black Liberation Theology was created from whole cloth specifically to add to those voices and to give them a Christian underpinning. But this isn’t 1964. A black man has served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and as Secretary of State. At the time of the latter appointment he was one of the most respected men in the country and that had nothing to do with the color of his skin. The current Secretary of State is a black woman. Black men and women are among today’s top Hollywood stars, and they aren’t playing “black” roles.

Racial discrimination still exists and many blacks remain trapped in cycles of poverty. But the opportunity is there to escape it and blaming it all on the white man isn’t much help. A lot of people think it’s time to move on. One of the reasons Barack Obama is the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination is a lot of people thought he might be the man to help us do that, and not just to move beyond racial politics. The Wright controversy calls that into question. It’s a shame but there it is. It isn’t something that’s happened to Obama, it’s something he has done. He’s not the victim of some dark racist plot. His past associations are fundamentally at odds with his present message of hope and unity. For Obama to say Rev. Wright isn’t the man he met twenty years ago just raises another question. What else is he not telling the truth about?

I think Obama was caught off guard by the uproar. A lot of black people were. They have grown so accustomed to the talk they don’t realize how offensive it is. When Michelle Obama said this was the first time in her life she was proud of her country I think she meant it. Many black people do see a racist in every white person and they see the United States as racist to its core. They’ve been telling us that for years and we’ve come to expect it, but not from the long time pastor of a serious presidential candidate. That many of us resent being painted with that brush is a surprise. That we might consider the America bashing as unpatriotic is unfair. That we would call Barack Obama to account for his association with the message is a shock. Obama is right about one thing. Words do matter. It’s well past time he and other prominent blacks understood the impact of some of those words.

Toward a Better Society

In advocating for abolition of the death penalty the argument I have the most difficulty countering is “he probably committed some heinous crime” if not this one. He deserves whatever he gets. It’s hard because there is an element of truth to it. Most people on death row are really bad actors. Most of them committed the crimes they were charged with. Even if they didn’t prosecutors had no difficulty in painting them as fiends and a public menace. But some of the convicted almost certainly did not do the deed. The truly guilty have gone unpunished. Some death row inmates may not have committed any serious crime. That ought to bother us all. I find it disturbing that it does not. If we are to be a civilized society we must do all we can to ensure that we convict criminals only for crimes they are actually guilty of. We can't be hanging people on principal just for being despicable characters. In our current system it is entirely too common that we do just that. Aside from that I don’t oppose capital punishment on grounds of morality or injustice. On the contrary I believe the public has every moral and civic right to decide what the appropriate punishment should be for various crimes, including the death penalty. The Good Thief who died at Calvary with Christ was right. He was guilty of his crimes and his punishment was just. But I am concerned less about the thief than about the society that put him on that cross. I wonder how far we’ve really come. It’s fair to argue that we can’t compare modern American jurisprudence with Roman brutality. We don’t send slaves to the salt mines any more. Nor do we use religious minorities as human torches. But our progress is fragile. It wasn’t that long ago Japanese troops were raping their way across China and Germans were exterminating Jews at Auschwitz. Both those nations have looked into the abyss and promised never again. Both have also abolished the death penalty. They are better for it and we will be better for it when we follow suit. The problem is that its only real purpose is revenge, one of our baser instincts. We no longer need it for its only legitimate purpose, the maintenance of public order. We are perfectly capable of incarcerating criminals and keeping them safely away from the public for as long as we see fit. It has been often demonstrated that forty or more years in a maximum security prison is significantly less expensive than carrying out an execution. There is no convincing evidence that fear of the death penalty is a serious deterrent. There is much evidence that it is not. Punishment is neither swift nor certain. Charges are rare, convictions more so, and appeals interminable. Prosecutorial use of the penalty in plea bargaining is a deplorable exercise in coercion. It is understandable that families of victims often want “closure” through the death of the perpetrator but understandable or not it is still vengeance. Most psychologists say any such closure is elusive. Most of us consider ourselves principled people if not idealists. We hold the protections of our constitution up to the world as representative of our values. Many other nations have adopted them as their own. We pride ourselves on having emerged from the dungeons of medieval inquisition into trial by jury and right of appeal, both of which represent important but imperfect advancements. Juries make too many mistakes. So do appeals courts and, lengthy as they are, appeals are usually quite limited in scope. It may well be true that in most cases of state sanctioned execution justice has been served. It is my contention that in no case has society at large benefited. It is bad public policy and the practice should be stopped.

Cutting Off Our Noses

In a book about Columban missionaries in modern Japan Edward Fischer relates the story of Christian persecution during the two centuries Japan was closed to outside influence. Atrocities were as bad as anything under Nero. Repression continued for decades after the arrival of Commodore Perry and his black ships in 1853. Perry wasn’t there on behalf of Japanese Christians of course. His mission was to open markets to American trade, and ports to refueling stops for the whaling fleet. Perry acted high handedly but he shocked the Japanese into what may be the most amazing social revolution in history. In just fifty years they transformed themselves from a medieval feudal society into a major industrial power with perhaps the most literate population on earth. Christians did benefit though. In the eighteen eighties a Japanese trade mission to Europe and the United States reported back that they were asked about the persecutions everywhere they went. By then Japan’s rulers recognized how important trade was to their plans and if they wanted more of it with the west the persecution was going to have to stop. And so it did. Official restrictions on Christianity ended in 1889, not for human rights or spiritual reasons, for better trade. The United States didn’t do too badly either. This country was founded on trade and nobody has profited more from it than we have. Despite a tradition of high protectionist tariffs that prevailed from the Civil War up to the Great Depression we have generally led the world in opening up trade and trade routes. Since the 1930s we have steadily reduced tariffs and other barriers until today ours may be the most accessible markets of all. With no colonies to speak of we are regularly accused of being an Imperial power mostly because of our readiness to defend economic interests abroad, another tradition, one that that began with fights against pirates off the Barbary Coast in the Jefferson administration and some would say continues today in Iraq. Even unlikely Dallas has become an important hub for the distribution of goods to and from the Far East. The new inland port project in southern Dallas has been called the “largest economic engine to be built in the Metroplex since the opening of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport in 1974,” itself a major boost for international trade. Depending on how you count, Texas is number one or two in exports among the fifty states. That sort of story has been repeated many times across the country. It is no coincidence that we became and remain the most prosperous nation in the world. One good way to alter that status and do serious long term damage to both our economy and our security is to backtrack on trade and international discourse, yet that seems exactly what we are about to do. We can’t close ourselves off completely as Japan did in the seventeenth century. That would be impossible but we are building a wall along our southern border, we’ve already made it much more difficult for foreign students to get study visas, both Democratic presidential candidates are vying to outdo one another on NAFTA bashing, the Speaker of the House wants to block an important trade agreement with Colombia, and prospects for the current Doha round of negotiations in the WTO have foundered. None of this is in our best interest. The only viable long term solution to illegal immigration lies with prosperous neighbors to the south. We should be encouraging more trade with Mexico, not stepping back. Many of our best and brightest scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs were once immigrant students. Why would we choke that off? We’ve had recent food riots in Haiti, Egypt, the Philippines, and Bangladesh. For the first time in years the world isn’t producing enough to feed itself. The best thing we could do to help is to encourage agricultural production in third world countries through trade agreements. Why wouldn’t we? Crop yields go up, prices go down all around, and everybody wins. If we follow the lead of French Minister of Agriculture Michel Barnier and call instead for higher subsidies for domestic farmers we will just add to the problem. We ought to be encouraging the Middle East to open up its economies too. Commercial relationships don’t guarantee lasting peace but they’re a good place to start. Prosperous countries with open economies, respect for contracts, and the rule of law are a lot less likely to become pariah states than closed societies are. Trade is the single most effective weapon we have against terrorism. I’d much rather be buying hand woven carpets from Afghanistan, and selling them silicon chips, than sending them troops. Improved trade ties carry all sorts of net benefits for both parties. Why aren’t we doing all we can to promote them? After WWII Japan rose from the ashes and made another spectacular run. It was the second in as many centuries and they soon became the world’s second largest economy, third if you count the EU as one. They have no oil, precious little arable land, and few natural resources. The have to import almost everything. They have accomplished miracles through trade. So have we. The difference is trade is a more obvious engine for Japan’s wealth. If we don’t start reminding ourselves where ours comes from we could be in serious trouble.

Cutting Off Our Noses

In a book about Columban missionaries in modern Japan Edward Fischer relates the story of Christian persecution during the two centuries Japan was closed to outside influence. Atrocities were as bad as anything under Nero. Repression continued for decades after the arrival of Commodore Perry and his black ships in 1853. Perry wasn’t there on behalf of Japanese Christians of course. His mission was to open markets to American trade, and ports to refueling stops for the whaling fleet. Perry acted high handedly but he shocked the Japanese into what may be the most amazing social revolution in history. In just fifty years they transformed themselves from a medieval feudal society into a major industrial power with perhaps the most literate population on earth. Christians did benefit though. In the eighteen eighties a Japanese trade mission to Europe and the United States reported back that they were asked about the persecutions everywhere they went. By then Japan’s rulers recognized how important trade was to their plans and if they wanted more of it with the west the persecution was going to have to stop. And so it did. Official restrictions on Christianity ended in 1889, not for human rights or spiritual reasons, for better trade. The United States didn’t do too badly either. This country was founded on trade and nobody has profited more from it than we have. Despite a tradition of high protectionist tariffs that prevailed from the Civil War up to the Great Depression we have generally led the world in opening up trade and trade routes. Since the 1930s we have steadily reduced tariffs and other barriers until today ours may be the most accessible markets of all. With no colonies to speak of we are regularly accused of being an Imperial power mostly because of our readiness to defend economic interests abroad, another tradition, one that that began with fights against pirates off the Barbary Coast in the Jefferson administration and some would say continues today in Iraq. Even unlikely Dallas has become an important hub for the distribution of goods to and from the Far East. The new inland port project in southern Dallas has been called the “largest economic engine to be built in the Metroplex since the opening of Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport in 1974,” itself a major boost for international trade. Depending on how you count, Texas is number one or two in exports among the fifty states. That sort of story has been repeated many times across the country. It is no coincidence that we became and remain the most prosperous nation in the world. One good way to alter that status and do serious long term damage to both our economy and our security is to backtrack on trade and international discourse, yet that seems exactly what we are about to do. We can’t close ourselves off completely as Japan did in the seventeenth century. That would be impossible but we are building a wall along our southern border, we’ve already made it much more difficult for foreign students to get study visas, both Democratic presidential candidates are vying to outdo one another on NAFTA bashing, the Speaker of the House wants to block an important trade agreement with Columbia, and prospects for the current Doha round of negotiations in the WTO have foundered. None of this is in our best interest. The only viable long term solution to illegal immigration lies with prosperous neighbors to the south. We should be encouraging more trade with Mexico, not stepping back. Many of our best and brightest scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs were once immigrant students. Why would we choke that off? We’ve had recent food riots in Haiti, Egypt, the Philippines, and Bangladesh. For the first time in years the world isn’t producing enough to feed itself. The best thing we could do to help is to encourage agricultural production in third world countries through trade agreements. Why wouldn’t we? Crop yields go up, prices go down all around, and everybody wins. If we follow the lead of French Minister of Agriculture Michel Barnier and call instead for higher subsidies for domestic farmers we will just add to the problem. We ought to be encouraging the Middle East to open up its economies too. Commercial relationships don’t guarantee lasting peace but they’re a good place to start. Prosperous countries with open economies, respect for contracts, and the rule of law are a lot less likely to become pariah states than closed societies are. Trade is the single most effective weapon we have against terrorism. I’d much rather be buying hand woven carpets from Afghanistan, and selling them silicon chips, than sending them troops. Improved trade ties carry all sorts of net benefits for both parties. Why aren’t we doing all we can to promote them? After WWII Japan rose from the ashes and made another spectacular run. It was the second in as many centuries and they soon became the world’s second largest economy, third if you count the EU as one. They have no oil, precious little arable land, and few natural resources. The have to import almost everything. They have accomplished miracles through trade. So have we. The difference is trade is a more obvious engine for Japan’s wealth. If we don’t start reminding ourselves where ours comes from we could be in serious trouble.

Getting it Right

It’s been more than fourteen years since Ashley Estelle was abducted from a Plano soccer field and murdered. Michael Blair was convicted of the crime in 1994 and has been in virtual solitary confinement on Texas Death Row ever since. For eight years we’ve known the most important physical evidence used at trial to tie him to the crime was bogus. DNA testing showed that hair samples found on the child’s body and thought to be Blair’s weren’t his. Hair found in Blair’s car and linked to Ashley wasn’t hers. The case went back to the trial court to weigh the new evidence and to consider several other issues raised on appeal, Judge Nathan White sat on the case until he retired in 2006 without ever ruling on those issues. In the meantime more DNA testing demonstrated that tissue found under the girl’s fingernails isn’t from Blair either. Last April Visiting Judge Webb Biard finally ruled. He held essentially that Blair probably didn’t commit the crime but none of the new evidence proved his innocence conclusively. He sent the case back to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals with a recommendation that the conviction and sentence should stand. Now TCCA has sent it back one more time. They want the trial court to evaluate some further DNA testing that also fails to connect Blair. More important they want another look at the same issues the lower court already ruled on once. The Dallas Morning News quotes current Collin County DA John Roach calling the new order a procedural one. Procedural my foot, I’m not a lawyer but TCCA is saying in no uncertain terms Judge Biard got it wrong. He used the wrong standard. Blair doesn’t have to prove his innocence. He just has to show that "the newly discovered evidence, if true, creates a doubt as to the efficacy of the verdict sufficient to undermine confidence in the verdict and that it is probable that the verdict would be different on retrial…it is not reasonable to hold, and we reject the implication . . . that confidence in a verdict is undermined only when newly discovered evidence renders the State's case legally or constitutionally insufficient for conviction." I think TCCA is getting tired of being reversed by federal courts. This time they’ve set a forty five day time limit for the district court to reconsider. There will be no more interminable delays. Michael Blair was convicted and sentenced to death by a jury that thought hair samples tied him to Ashely Estell. They don’t. He probably isn’t guilty and he should get a new trial. Personally I don’t think a reasonable prosecutor would try the case on what’s left. Eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Those placing Blair at the soccer field come from people who had never seen him before, did not see him with Ashley, saw him only at a distance, and had trouble describing him. Witness who do know Blair but the jury didn’t believe placed him at his apartment far from the soccer fields. That he volunteered to help search for Ashley proves nothing. Neither does his driving by the site after her body was discovered. The only remaining physical evidence is fiber similar to that from a toy found in Blair’s car. Such fibers could have come from thousands of toys. Blair is a confessed serial child molester but you can’t just convict the first monster that comes along, and there is no evidence Ashley was sexually molested. In any new trial Blair will be represented by attorneys a lot more experienced than his original defense team. Most prosecutors are reluctant to try cases they are likely to lose. That is written all over this one. Any new jurors are going to be left wondering who really killed that little girl, and why the state isn’t trying to find out.

None So Blind

April is Autism Awareness Month and most media outlets are carrying something on the subject, more than in any year I can recall. CNN had a series. HBO did a wonderful documentary on a group of children who staged their own musical. I liked it because it placed them in the context of everyday life, and gave a glimpse into the struggles their parents face. Several times recently I have seen or read of prominent scientists explaining that autism appears to be caused by a genetic vulnerability triggered by an as yet unknown environmental factor, or factors. That by itself is a major step forward. For years now parents of children with autism have been shouting from the rooftops to a scientific community that has insisted on ignoring them. Autism is affecting a lot more children these days and something is causing it.

Not all scientists or physicians agree. Yesterday I watched a program on PBS featuring a panel of experts. One member was a retired professor of pediatrics who averred that in forty years of practice he had seen maybe two cases of autism. He thinks parents of normal children are having them diagnosed with autism just so they can get benefits. The children will be needlessly stigmatized for the rest of their lives. I was so angry I could have spit. He is typical of the doctors my son and daughter-in-law have been dealing with in the five years since they realized their child had autism. Weston’s symptoms are plain to see but most pediatricians still don’t see them, I suppose because they aren’t taught them in medical school. Nor do they see the equally obvious digestive and immune system issues Weston has. Most children with autism have such issues as any of their parents will tell you but to this day when doctors will diagnose autism at all they almost always treat it as strictly a behavioral problem. None of the experts on yesterday’s panel mentioned the related medical factors.

The CDC now says 1 in 150 eight year olds in multiple areas of the United States have autism. How much it has increased over the last three decades is hard to measure. It’s diagnosed more often partly because of increased awareness and partly because the autism spectrum has been broadened to include Asperger’s syndrome, a disorder that was not included until relatively recently. People with Asperger’s typically function at a relatively high level and aren’t diagnosed until later, around age six. Weston’s autism became apparent at about eighteen months, a common age for “autistic disorder” symptoms to be noticed. Nevertheless, the idea that we’ve always had large numbers of children with autism in our schools is simply not credible. It can’t possibly be true, else we would have large numbers of adults with autism today and they just aren’t here.

Get ready for it. For most people autism is a lifetime disorder. Effective treatment requires a lot of intervention and it needs to start early. It’s expensive too. Insurance doesn’t usually cover it and most of the affected families are broke. Intransigence doesn’t stop with my friend from the panel of experts. Twenty years ago there was very little treatment to be had at any price. A lot of these people are going to have to be institutionalized, just to get the “benefits.”

It’s encouraging to see so much attention being paid. I suspect there is more and more interest because by now almost everybody knows at least one affected family. They are becoming more politically active and they are becoming strong enough to force scientists to look seriously for causes and cures. We are even going to have to take a real look at the role childhood vaccines play. That will get the most resistance of all.

Asking the Right Questions in Iraq

In a Dallas Morning News op ed piece today John Nagl states the obvious when he says ultimate success in Iraq is up to Iraqis, and that the key to military success is in training internal Iraqi security forces. But when he suggests the army has no doctrine for that purpose he is being disingenuous. The mission LTC Nagl describes is called "foreign internal defense." It is one of five primary missions of the US Army's Special Forces, the Green Beret. One can argue that the army has too few trained professionals in this area, or that current doctrine is inadequate or even misguided. But to argue, as LTC Nagl does, that the army has no such doctrine is to suggest that he is poorly informed at best.

The Bush administration is regularly accused of having no strategy for the insurgency phase of the war in Iraq. That isn’t true either. The White House released a “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” way back in November 2005 highlighting the need for, you guessed it, strong Iraqi military and police forces and the need for training to produce them. It wasn’t a new strategy then and it hasn’t changed since. The surge that is getting so much credit for resulting in reduced levels of violence isn’t really a new strategy at all. It is the application of classical counterinsurgency tactics that would not have been practical as recently as two years ago. You have to have an enemy who is too weak to overwhelm small units before you can deploy those units to vulnerable positions among the populace, and you have to have reliable Iraqi troops before you can embed American troops with them. The strategy has always been to use US forces to maintain order in Iraq only until Iraqi forces can be made ready to assume responsibility. The frustration, and a legitimate criticism, is that it has taken far too long to get them ready.

It’s worth remembering that the general currently in charge of operations in Iraq, David Petraeus, was responsible for training Iraqi troops three and one half years ago. He wrote an opinion piece on the subject for the Washington Post back in September 2004. He said then he saw progress but there would be setbacks. I doubt the general appreciated just how serious some of those setbacks would be but you have to agree that there has been progress. Like the tactics now being used in the surge, the recent offensive launched in Basra by Iraqi army and police units would not have been possible when Petraeus wrote. It’s not surprising it had mixed results. Iraqi commanders had never before planned or led operations on anything like this scale. Nevertheless it’s encouraging that they can do it at all. Even if it turns out they aren’t very good at it yet they should learn from mistakes and improve over time.

All this is important because if we are to have informed public opinion on Iraq we need a serious public discussion about it. When we begin with false premises any ensuing discussion quickly falls into incoherence. If you don’t like our strategy in Iraq say so, say why, and say what you think it should be. First you have to understand what the current strategy is. To begin by saying there isn’t one is to lose any opportunity to critique it. Saying that the army has no doctrine for training foreign security forces robs LTC Nagl of credibility as he advances his alternative. That’s a shame. We should be asking our military leadership “what in the world is taking so long?” It takes about seventeen years to make a competent platoon sergeant in the American Army, about the same time it takes to produce a battalion commander. In past crises we’ve been able to expedite that process dramatically. What’s different about Iraqi’s? Is something wrong with our doctrine? The answer has to begin with understanding what the doctrine is.