Security and the lack

Note 1: After investigating the Benghazi attack at the US Embassy in Libya which left dead four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, the Accountability Review Board, appointed by secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has "concluded that the State Department suffered 'systemic failures' in providing adequate security". Security is a question in answer to a question; it asks, Is this enough? What else do we need to do? The question is unanswerable in definite.

Note 2: After the Newtown elementary school shooting which left 20 children and six adults dead, Connecticut's Chief Medical Examiner is examining the gunman's corpse for genetic clues that might explain his heinous act. He will find something, no matter what.

Because school shootings, especially Adam Lanza's, exist so outside our established schemas for knowing, lots of disciplines quickly invite themselves into the conversation, primarily education, mental health, genetics, forensic science, security, law, parental and child psychology, and religion. All these vie for control of the conversation, and all are entertained by death, all pretend to speak for the death and madness who speak languages we don't understand.

The hunter and the Huntsman

We know mainstream media covers elections like a horse race, focusing only who's winning rather than the implications of candidate X winning as opposed to candidate Y. But in the article "Huntsman: Cain’s miscue on China nuke capability, Romney’s trade rhetoric raise policy issues" The Washington Post goes off this election-coverage script and talks policy. Or, rather, they transcribe the candidates talking policy. Of course, the consolation candidate, Huntsman, made it possible. But faithfully, almost dutifully, the article returns to horse race coverage at the end with this reminder: "While Cain and Romney have been leading the GOP contest, Huntsman has trailed badly, barely registering in early polls."

Current narrative on Occupy Wallstreet

The media narrative on Occupy Wall Street says the participants have no clearly defined unifying goal or policy objective. By contrast we're shown the Tea Party who want smaller government and less taxes. Nevermind that "smaller government" and "less taxes" are amazingly broad demands that, if actually instituted, would result in changes that the Tea Party would not support, including cuts to the military, cuts to US farm and oil subsidies, and cuts to Social Security and Medicare (presumably, once unknowing senior Tea Party members are made aware these are government-run programs, some would change their mind).

Occupy Wall Street's thematic conceptual equivalent to "smaller government" and "less taxes" is probably "inequality" because this key word holds much meaning for the protestors: Inequality of wealth distribution (the poor get poorer and the rich get mega-rich), inequality of bailout-giving (big banks get 'em, homeowners and college loanees don't), inequality of criminal prosecutions (white collar crimes are often ignored, crimes of the poor cause prisons to spill over), and so on.

If the narrative is true that Occupy Wall Street lacks a cohesive, meaningful message, then it is equally true of the Tea Party. In fact, as the Tea Party grew in number, its aims became even more diverse, including Obama citizenship-deniers, health care reform opponents, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, veterans, seniors, libertarians, the rich and the poor. Yet they were celebrated in the media for allegedly lacking leadership and being a true-blue grass roots movement. The same benefit of the doubt is denied Occupy Wall Street.

The financial bleeding won’t stop with bin Laden’s demise

The author of Bloomberg's article "Bin Laden’s Death Won’t End Toll on Taxpayers" took dramatic license. I especially appreciate these lines:

Even in death, Osama bin Laden will be taking revenge on American taxpayers for years to come ...

... One of every four dollars in red ink the U.S. expects to incur in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 will result from $285 billion in annual spending triggered by the terrorist scion of a wealthy Saudi family ...

... Indeed, the meter didn’t stop running May 2 when bin Laden’s corpse slipped into the Arabian Sea ...

...  The government’s finances also will groan beneath the weight of the Department of Homeland Security, the 216,000- employee bureaucracy created to protect Americans from additional terrorist attacks ...

... And small erosions of personal liberty, conceded in the interests of security, may yet deepen ...

And, finally,

... Not since the early days of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union threatened, has an enemy so bedeviled Americans and their leaders. Where once children prepared for nuclear war with “duck and cover” drills, Americans after Sept. 11 stockpiled duct tape and canned food ...

While the prose here is unique among political articles and the numbers therein are stunning, the validity of the decisions behind these outrageous expenditures goes unexamined. The author treats the costs as a natural occurrence rather than symptomatic of bad, corrupt politics. Worse, the conclusion whitewashes the last decade by pretending the nation's middle and lower classes are not right now suffering from unemployment and inflation as city, state, and federal budget gutting hacks away our standard of living. If bin Laden hoped to bankrupt the country, the monies spent in his name combined with Wall Street's crimes may just well do the job.


* The title is taken from the article discussed: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-12/bin-laden-s-death-won-t-end-toll-on-taxpayers.html