A Necessary Show

There’s been quite the varied reaction since today’s news – that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others will be moved from Gitmo and will receive a federal trial in NYC for the 9/11 attacks – surfaced from the Department of Justice.

Let’s get the asinine criticism out of the way first: Rep. John Boehner, who seemed to hint that evidence obtained through torture amounts to a “legal technicality,” worried that the trial shouldn’t happen because the accused might be acquitted.  As many have conveyed, the five defendants already sought to plead guilty in military commissions.

Further, as Glenn Greenwald notes, these five detainees have essentially been handpicked for the federal court route, while others from Gitmo are left to military tribunals.  It’s safe to say that Eric Holder and Co., however wrong it is, would likely not risk a civilian trial if the outcome was much in doubt.  The hope is that the trial will therefore amount to little more than sentencing.

(Greenwald stresses this deeper, dangerous issue of varying legal standards and ‘who gets tried in what arena’; I’ll stay above with the more superficial public debate.)

The most consistent debate essentially centers on diction: Are these terrorists war criminals or a handful of the 20 or so criminals who perpetrated a terrible crime?  Beneath this, there are ideological concerns: Does labeling them as war criminals coalesce and validate their motive?

Personally, the idea of bringing the murderers back to Manhattan in chains for sentencing might bring a measure of emotional closure with levied justice, but it’s not my opinion in that regard that matters.  And indeed it seems that many of the victims’ families are divided on the issue.

In any event, this specific NYC trial will largely be a show trial, to which I say, ‘Fine.’  Early on, the Obama Administration abandoned the ‘War on Terror’ description (there’s that diction again) in a somewhat verbal ‘show,’ as not much has changed policy-wise.  With military tribunals still murky in their reformed state, a relative show of constitutionality and due process is a small but positive rebuff of many of the Bush Administration’s legal decisions.

~Ben

Sad, But True

It was a bad week and there’s no way to sugarcoat it. It’s impossible to fully explain away the Fort Hood and Orlando, Fla. shooting tragedies that befell those communities and the nation. As James Fallows noted while recounting a sad chronology of American mass shootings, “Some people go crazy.”

But, on an admittedly superficial level, these two men, struggling, to some extent, with impending deployment to Afghanistan and economic woes, respectively, show a nation internally eaten away by disaffection. Our military is disgustingly overextended and our general populace frustratingly underemployed.

The notion of the American fighting spirit is being put to the test, and cumulative effects cannot be ignored. As the Afghan strategy debate continues, the battered human toll must be considered along with sheer troop numbers. Experience does not ease the immense strain of multiple tours of duty and, as Joseph Kinney wrote Friday, the “shadow” of combat lingers longer.

And while some “green shoots” spoke of profit and productivity gains this week, it was reaffirmed that such green can occur despite continued job losses – unemployment proved its “lagging indicator” nickname. For job seekers and the young, the battered psyche continues as well. Concerns of financial survival and a relative “shadow” exist for those fighting economic worries, as well.

It’s unsurprising, therefore, that for all the various and contradictory lessons offered by the media after this week’s off-year elections, the one consensus, epitomized by Michael Bloomberg’s close call in New York City, is that it’s bad to be an incumbent. Disaffection is a powerful force in the voting booth.

Given that, the reaction of some in government to demand troop increases, speak out against further stimulus spending and want to slow down on major, societally-beneficial legislation is sickening. Let the tea-partiers, the deficit hawks, the war hawks and the generally cautious rant from all sides.  Positive actions have always spoken louder than words. Those war advocates should consider human costs and cost-benefit analysis and those politicians worried about their futures should crack the policy whip, now more than ever. For the good of the nation as a whole, mollify us in the short term and give us something to look forward to in the longer term.

Disaffection is a dangerous and self-perpetuating national sentiment. The shadows are lengthening and the status quo is unsustainable.

~Ben

Automated Frustration

For all the disheartening specific quantitative data points – both short- and long-term – regarding the tenuous state of youth employment, the vague and impersonal nature of modern job-seeking does not help the situation.

Frankly, how many parents, who haven’t had to search for a job in years, know that their children often merely receive automated responses to their applications, encouraged by the faint hope that they “could be contacted directly to discuss qualifications,” (provided there is further interest)?

And while the online process certainly has made job-seeking more efficient, it doesn’t make it better.  In a buyer’s market, with flooded inboxes, the process has made the job of hiring managers easier, as well.

In general, I like automated responses.  I like knowing that my train ticket is confirmed, for instance.  A job search is different, however. After spending hours on a resume and cover letter, a job seeker today might reflect on the lone automated response and wonder if it was worth it.

Now, this might be an inappropriate reference for a Millennial blog, but in Cocktail, at least Tom Cruise gets to see the HR reps who don’t want him. At least they tell him that he needs a degree to make it on the Street.

Without any (real) feedback, how can a young job seeker know how to improve before the next emailed resume?  For the health and development of the job force at large, efficiency does not equal progress.

~Ben

Misguided Apologist

Among the points I disagree with in this “Stop Vilifying the Bankers” DealBook column – in addition to the somewhat-Objectivist notion that the healthier banks should largely be exonerated from blame – is the idea that public perception significantly alters banking behavior.

I therefore ask: Why hasn’t current “widespread anger” affected projected bonus payouts at Goldman Sachs? In the face of public dismay, as job seekers find heightened competition, why can’t banks admit beneficial government terms and diminished competition?

Further, the column argues that sentiment “has become counterproductive.” I do agree that banks should return to their “chartered roles.” In that case, how productive, for the economy at large, are profits driven by principal investments while investment banking lags?

I understand that bankers are responsible to their shareholders and I don’t mind that compensation levels are high (although I do think they should be more significantly taxed). I do, however, disagree with the notion that public outcry and reasonable reforms would impede our economy or bankers, who for years have held very advantageous positions.

~Ben

Shuffle Voters

On Monday, a piece by E.J. Dionne in The New Republic caught our eye.  Dionne explored the traditionally-fickle nature of youth voters, as some Democrats are worried that young people will sit out subsequent elections now that Obama the Change Candidate has become Obama the Pragmatic President.

Said Thomas Bates of Rock the Vote: “For people who were energized in 2008, it was a time of hope and optimism.  And when you get to the brass tacks of governing, the atmosphere in the process of legislating has become poisonous.  That makes political engagement as unappealing as possible.”

If 2008 was a relative one night stand, it was indeed impressive.  As Dionne notes, there were more under-30 voters in 2008 than voters over the age of 65, which certainly bucked an established voting trend.

And while I believe there has been and will be residual youth engagement as a result of 2008, I do share these same concerns of my fellow youths.  In July, Matt Bai theorized that Obama is the Shuffle President.  I assume that would make us the Shuffle Voters, prone to bounce around without commitment.

But while significantly lower youth turnout, say, in 2010, would be disappointing, the fact of the matter is that majorities traditionally give away some congressional seats.  And in 2008, there was a relative unifying cause.  It’s hard to get behind the “Democrats-need-to-maintain-their-majority” cause, especially considering some of the legislative inertia slowing down the current liberal majority.  It almost makes one crave a divisive issue.  Would a slowed-down climate bill be effective for 2010, for instance?

On Monday, a piece by E.J. Dionne in The New Republic caught our eye.  Dionne explored the traditionally-fickle nature of youth voters, as some Democrats are worried that young people will sit out subsequent elections now that Obama the Change Candidate has become Obama the Pragmatic President.

Said Thomas Bates of Rock the Vote: “For people who were energized in 2008, it was a time of hope and optimism.  And when you get to the brass tacks of governing, the atmosphere in the process of legislating has become poisonous.  That makes political engagement as unappealing as possible.”

If 2008 was a relative one night stand, it was indeed impressive.  As Dionne notes, there were more under-30 voters in 2008 than voters over the age of 65, which certainly bucked an established voting trend.

And while I believe there has been and will be residual youth engagement as a result of 2008, I do share these same concerns with regard to my fellow youths.  In July, Matt Bai theorized that Obama is the Shuffle President.  I assume that would make us the Shuffle Voters, prone to bounce around without commitment.

But while significantly lower youth turnout, say, in 2010, would be disappointing, the fact of the matter is that majorities traditionally give away some congressional seats.  And in 2008, there was a relative unifying cause.  It’s hard to get behind the “Democrats-need-to-maintain-their-majority” cause, especially considering some of the legislative inertia slowing down the current liberal majority.  It almost makes one crave a divisive issue.  Would a slowed-down climate bill be effective for 2010, for instance?

~Ben

Welcome, Folks.

May creativity, societal engagement and thoughtfulness be with this blog always!  Or at least semi-regularly.

Fondly,

The New Feed