Saturday, July 6, 2013

A teacher's lament

This from a blog called "Black & Right", suggests a difficult road ahead to further integrate our society.


Before-It’s-Deleted Of The Day


The following was a difficult read because it’s also what liberal blacks call “dirty laundry”: bad stuff about black folk never to be said around whites. The essay was posted on Craigslist and it’s the kind of truth that often is taken back out of PC fear….
Essay by a teacher in a black high school
*This is a repost from the rants and raves section from the Mobile, Alabama craigslist.*
The truth is usually a tough thing to accept, so I understand if this is flagged. It would be a cowardly thing to do, but I understand it. Some people just ignore unpleasant truths. However, if you think ignoring the problem, or trying to censor the truth, will help our black children improve, you’re dreaming. This is important, so I’m happy to repost – indefinitely if necessary. I find it interesting that NO ONE has had the intellect to refute anything in the essay. They can only attempt to censor it, as if doing so somehow makes it invalid. Weak minds, weak minds.
Until recently I taught at a predominantly black high school in a southeastern state.
The mainstream press gives a hint of what conditions are like in black schools, but only a hint. Expressions journalists use like “chaotic” or “poor learning environment” or “lack of discipline” do not capture what really happens. There is nothing like the day-to-day experience of teaching black children and that is what I will try to convey.
Most whites simply do not know what black people are like in large numbers, and the first encounter can be a shock.
One of the most immediately striking things about my students was that they were loud. They had little conception of ordinary decorum. It was not unusual for five blacks to be screaming at me at once. Instead of calming down and waiting for a lull in the din to make their point — something that occurs to even the dimmest white students — blacks just tried to yell over each other.
It did no good to try to quiet them, and white women were particularly inept at trying. I sat in on one woman’s class as she begged the children to pipe down. They just yelled louder so their voices would carry over hers.
Many of my black students would repeat themselves over and over again — just louder. It was as if they suffered from Tourette syndrome. They seemed to have no conception of waiting for an appropriate time to say something. They would get ideas in their heads and simply had to shout them out. I might be leading a discussion on government and suddenly be interrupted: “We gotta get more Democrats! Clinton, she good!” The student may seem content with that outburst but two minutes later, he would suddenly start yelling again: “Clinton good!”
Anyone who is around young blacks will probably get a constant diet of rap music. Blacks often make up their own jingles, and it was not uncommon for 15 black boys to swagger into a classroom, bouncing their shoulders and jiving back.
They were yelling back and forth, rapping 15 different sets of words in the same harsh, rasping dialect. The words were almost invariably a childish form of boasting: “Who got dem shine rim, who got dem shine shoe, who got dem shine grill (gold and silver dental caps)?” The amateur rapper usually ends with a claim–in the crudest terms imaginable — that all womankind is sexually devoted to him. For whatever reason, my students would often groan instead of saying a particular word, as in, “She suck dat aaahhhh (think of a long grinding groan), she f**k dat aaaahhhh, she lick dat aaaahhh.”
Black women love to dance — in a way white people might call gyrating. So many black girls dance in the hall, in the classroom, on the chairs, next to the chairs, under the chairs, everywhere. Once I took a call on my cell phone and had to step outside of class. I was away about two minutes but when I got back the black girls had lined up at the front of the classroom and were convulsing to the delight of the boys.
Many black people, especially black women, are enormously fat. Some are so fat I had to arrange special seating to accommodate their bulk. I am not saying there are no fat white students — there are — but it is a matter of numbers and attitudes. Many black girls simply do not care that they are fat. There are plenty of white anorexics, but I have never met or heard of a black anorexic.
“Black women be big Mr. Jackson,” my students would explain.
“Is it okay in the black community to be a little overweight?” I ask. Two obese black girls in front of my desk begin to dance, “You know dem boys lak juicy fruit, Mr. Jackson.” “Juicy” is a colorful black expression for the buttocks.
Blacks, on average, are the most directly critical people I have ever met: “Dat shirt stupid. Yo’ kid a bastard. Yo’ lips big.” Unlike whites, who tread gingerly around the subject of race, they can be brutally to the point. Once I needed to send a student to the office to deliver a message. I asked for volunteers, and suddenly you would think my classroom was a bastion of civic engagement. Thirty dark hands shot into the air. My students loved to leave the classroom and slack off, even if just for a few minutes, away from the eye of white authority. I picked a light-skinned boy to deliver the message. One very black student was indignant: “You pick da half-breed.” And immediately other blacks take up the cry, and half a dozen mouths are screaming, “He half-breed.”
For decades, the country has been lamenting the poor academic performance of blacks and there is much to lament. There is no question, however, that many blacks come to school with a serious handicap that is not their fault. At home they have learned a dialect that is almost a different language. Blacks not only mispronounce words; their grammar is often wrong. When a black wants to ask, “Where is the bathroom?” he may actually say “Whar da badroom be?” Grammatically, this is the equivalent of “Where the bathroom is?” And this is the way they speak in high school. Students write the way they speak, so this is the language that shows up in written assignments.
It is true that some whites face a similar handicap. They speak with what I would call a “country” accent that is hard to reproduce but results in sentences such as “I’m gonna gemme a Coke.” Some of these country whites had to learn correct pronunciation and usage. The difference is that most whites overcome this handicap and learn to speak correctly; many blacks do not.
Most of the blacks I taught simply had no interest in academic subjects. I taught history, and students would often say they didn’t want to do an assignment or they didn’t like history because it was all about white people. Of course, this was “diversity” history, in which every cowboy’s black cook got a special page on how he contributed to winning the West, but black children still found it inadequate. So I would throw up my hands and assign them a project on a real, historical black person. My favorite was Marcus Garvey. They had never heard of him, and I would tell them to research him, but they never did. They didn’t care and they didn’t want to do any work.
Anyone who teaches blacks soon learns that they have a completely different view of government from whites. Once I decided to fill 25 minutes by having students write about one thing the government should do to improve America. I gave this question to three classes totaling about 100 students, approximately 80 of whom were black. My few white students came back with generally “conservative” ideas. “We need to cut off people who don’t work,” was the most common suggestion. Nearly every black gave a variation on the theme of “We need more government services.”
My students had only the vaguest notion of who pays for government services. For them, it was like a magical piggy bank that never goes empty. One black girl was exhorting the class on the need for more social services and I kept trying to explain that people, real live people, are taxed for the money to pay for those services. “Yeah, it come from whites,” she finally said. “They stingy anyway.”
“Many black people make over $50,000 dollars a year and you would also be taking away from your own people,” I said.
She had an answer to that: “Dey half breed.” The class agreed. I let the subject drop.
Many black girls are perfectly happy to be welfare queens. On career day, one girl explained to the class that she was going to have lots of children and get fat checks from the government. No one in the class seemed to have any objection to this career choice.
Surprising attitudes can come out in class discussion. We were talking about the crimes committed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and I brought up the rape of a young girl in the bathroom of the Superdome. A majority of my students believed this was a horrible crime but a few took it lightly. One black boy spoke up without raising his hand: “Dat no big deal. They thought they is gonna die so they figured they have some fun. Dey jus’ wanna have a fun time; you know what I’m sayin’?” A few black heads nodded in agreement.
My department head once asked all the teachers to get a response from all students to the following question: “Do you think it is okay to break the law if it will benefit you greatly?” By then, I had been teaching for a while and was not surprised by answers that left a young, liberal, white woman colleague aghast. “Yeah” was the favorite answer. As one student explained, “Get dat green.”
There is a level of conformity among blacks that whites would find hard to believe. They like one kind of music: rap. They will vote for one political party: Democrat. They dance one way, speak one way, are loud the same way, and fail their exams in the same way. Of course, there are exceptions but they are rare.
Whites are different. Some like country music, others heavy metal, some prefer pop, and still others, God forbid, enjoy rap music. They have different associations, groups, almost ideologies. There are jocks, nerds, preppies, and hunters. Blacks are all — well — black, and they are quick to let other blacks know when they deviate from the norm.
One might object that there are important group differences among blacks that a white man simply cannot detect. I have done my best to find them, but so far as I can tell, they dress the same, talk the same, think the same. Certainly, they form rival groups, but the groups are not different in any discernible way. There simply are no groups of blacks that are as distinctly different from each other as white “nerds,” “hunters,” or “Goths,” for example.
How the world looks to blacks: One point on which all blacks agree is that everything is “racis’.” This is one message of liberalism they have absorbed completely. Did you do your homework? “Na, homework racis’.” Why did you get an F on the test? “Test racis’.”
I was trying to teach a unit on British philosophers and the first thing the students noticed about Bentham, Hobbes, and Locke was “Dey all white! Where da black philosopher a’?” I tried to explain there were no blacks in eighteenth century Britain. You can probably guess what they said to that: “Dat racis’!” One student accused me of deliberately failing him on a test because I didn’t like black people.
“Do you think I really hate black people?”
“Yeah.”
“Have I done anything to make you feel this way? How do you know?”
“You just do.”
“Why do you say that?”
He just smirked, looked out the window, and sucked air through his teeth. Perhaps this was a regional thing, but the blacks often sucked air through their teeth as a wordless expression of disdain or hostility.
My students were sometimes unable to see the world except through the lens of their own blackness. I had a class that was host to a German exchange student. One day he put on a Power Point presentation with famous German landmarks as well as his school and family.
From time to time during the presentation, blacks would scream, “Where da black folk?!” The exasperated German tried several times to explain that there were no black people where he lived in Germany. The students did not believe him. I told them Germany is in Europe, where white people are from, and Africa is where black people are from. They insisted that the German student was racist, and deliberately refused to associate with blacks.
Blacks are keenly interested in their own racial characteristics. I have learned, for example, that some blacks have “good hair.” Good hair is black parlance for black-white hybrid hair. Apparently, it is less kinky, easier to style, and considered more attractive. Blacks are also proud of light skin. Imagine two black students shouting insults across the room. One is dark but slim; the other light and obese. The dark one begins the exchange: “You fat, Ridario!” Ridario smiles, doesn’t deign to look at his detractor, shakes his head like a wobbling top, and says, “You wish you light skinned.”
They could go on like this, repeating the same insults over and over.
My black students had nothing but contempt for Hispanic immigrants. They would vent their feelings so crudely that our department strongly advised us never to talk about immigration in class in case the principal or some outsider might overhear.
Whites were “racis’,” of course, but they thought of us at least as Americans. Not the Mexicans. Blacks have a certain, not necessarily hostile understanding of white people. They know how whites act, and it is clear they believe whites are smart and are good at organizing things. At the same time, they probably suspect whites are just putting on an act when they talk about equality, as if it is all a sham that makes it easier for whites to control blacks. Blacks want a bigger piece of the American pie. I’m convinced that if it were up to them they would give whites a considerably smaller piece than whites get now, but they would give us something. They wouldn’t give Mexicans anything.
What about black boys and white girls? No one is supposed to notice this or talk about it but it is glaringly obvious: Black boys are obsessed with white girls. I’ve witnessed the following drama countless times. A black boy saunters up to a white girl. The cocky black dances around her, not really in a menacing way. It’s more a shuffle than a threat. As he bobs and shuffles he asks, “When you gonna go wit’ me?”
There are two kinds of reply. The more confident white girl gets annoyed, looks away from the black and shouts, “I don’t wanna go out with you!” The more demure girl will look at her feet and mumble a polite excuse but ultimately say no.
There is only one response from the black boy: “You racis’.” Many girls — all too many — actually feel guilty because they do not want to date blacks. Most white girls at my school stayed away from blacks, but a few, particularly the ones who were addicted to drugs, fell in with them.
There is something else that is striking about blacks. They seem to have no sense of romance, of falling in love. What brings men and women together is sex, pure and simple, and there is a crude openness about this. There are many degenerate whites, of course, but some of my white students were capable of real devotion and tenderness, emotions that seemed absent from blacks — especially the boys.
Black schools are violent and the few whites who are too poor to escape are caught in the storm. The violence is astonishing, not so much that it happens, but the atmosphere in which it happens. Blacks can be smiling, seemingly perfectly content with what they are doing, having a good time, and then, suddenly start fighting. It’s uncanny. Not long ago, I was walking through the halls and a group of black boys were walking in front of me. All of a sudden they started fighting with another group in the hallway.
Blacks are extraordinarily quick to take offense. Once I accidentally scuffed a black boy’s white sneaker with my shoe. He immediately rubbed his body up against mine and threatened to attack me. I stepped outside the class and had a security guard escort the student to the office. It was unusual for students to threaten teachers physically this way, but among themselves, they were quick to fight for similar reasons.
The real victims are the unfortunate whites caught in this. They are always in danger and their educations suffer. White weaklings are particularly susceptible, but mostly to petty violence. They may be slapped or get a couple of kicks when they are trying to open a bottom locker. Typically, blacks save the hard, serious violence for each other.
There was a lot of promiscuous sex among my students and this led to violence. Black girls were constantly fighting over black boys. It was not uncommon to see two girls literally ripping each other’s hair out with a police officer in the middle trying to break up the fight. The black boy they were fighting over would be standing by with a smile, enjoying the show he had created. For reasons I cannot explain, boys seldom fought over girls.
Pregnancy was common among the blacks, though many black girls were so fat I could not tell the difference. I don’t know how many girls got abortions, but when they had the baby they usually stayed in school and had their own parents look after the child. The school did not offer daycare.
Aside from the police officers constantly on patrol, a sure sign that you are in a black school is the coke cage: the chain-link fence that many majority-black schools use to protect vending machines. The cage surrounds the machine and even covers its top. Delivery employees have to unlock a gate on the front of the cage to service the machines. Companies would prefer not to build cages around vending machines. They are expensive, ugly, and a bother, but black students smashed the machines so many times it was cheaper to build a cage than repair the damage. Rumor had it that before the cages went up blacks would turn the machines upside down in the hope that the money would fall out.
Security guards are everywhere in black schools — we had one on every hall. They also sat in on unruly classes and escorted students to the office. They were unarmed, but worked closely with the three city police officers who were constantly on duty.
There was a lot of drug-dealing at my school. This was a good way to make a fair amount of money but it also gave boys power over girls who wanted drugs. An addicted girl — black or white — became the plaything of anyone who could get her drugs.
One of my students was a notorious drug dealer. Everyone knew it. He was 19 years old and in eleventh grade. Once he got a score of three out of 100 on a test. He had been locked up four times since he was 13.
One day, I asked him, “Why do you come to school?”
He wouldn’t answer. He just looked out the window, smiled, and sucked air through his teeth. His friend Yidarius ventured an explanation: “He get dat green and get dem females.”
“What is the green?” I asked. “Money or dope?” “Both,” said Yidarius with a smile.
A very fat black interrupted from across the room: “We get dat lunch,” Mr. Jackson. “We gotta get dat lunch and brickfuss.” He means the free breakfast and lunch poor students get every day. “Nigga, we know’d you be lovin’ brickfuss!” shouts another student.
Some readers may believe that I have drawn a cruel caricature of black students. After all, according to official figures some 85 percent of them graduate. It would be instructive to know how many of those scraped by with barely a C- record. They go from grade to grade and they finally get their diplomas because there is so much pressure on teachers to push them through. It saves money to move them along, the school looks good, and the teachers look good.
Many of these children should have been failed, but the system would crack under their weight if they were all held back.
How did my experiences make me feel about blacks? Ultimately, I lost sympathy for them. In so many ways they seem to make their own beds. There they were in an integrationist’s fantasy–in the same classroom with white students, eating the same lunch, using the same bathrooms, listening to the same teachers–and yet the blacks fail while the whites pass.
One tragic outcome among whites who have been teaching for too long is that it can engender something close to hatred. One teacher I knew gave up fast food–not for health reasons but because where he lived most fast-food workers were black. He had enough of blacks on the job. This was an extreme example but years of frustration can take their toll. Many of my white colleagues with any experience were well on their way to that state of mind.
There is an unutterable secret among teachers: Almost all realize that blacks do not respond to traditional white instruction. Does that put the lie to environmentalism? Not at all. It is what brings about endless, pointless innovation that is supposed to bring blacks up to the white level. The solution is more diversity–or put more generally, the solution is change. Change is an almost holy word in education, and you can fail a million times as long as you keep changing. That is why liberals keep revamping the curriculum and the way it is taught. For example, teachers are told that blacks need hands-on instruction and more group work.
Teachers are told that blacks are more vocal and do not learn through reading and lectures. The implication is that they have certain traits that lend themselves to a different kind of teaching.
Whites have learned a certain way for centuries but it just doesn’t work with blacks. Of course, this implies racial differences but if pressed, most liberal teachers would say different racial learning styles come from some indefinable cultural characteristic unique to blacks. Therefore, schools must change, America must change. But into what? How do you turn quantum physics into hands-on instruction or group work? No one knows, but we must keep changing until we find something that works.
Public school has certainly changed since anyone reading this was a student. I have a friend who teaches elementary school, and she tells me that every week the students get a new diversity lesson, shipped in fresh from some bureaucrat’s office in Washington or the state capital. She showed me the materials for one week: a large poster, about the size of a forty-two inch flat-screen television. It shows an utterly diverse group — I mean diverse: handicapped, Muslim, Jewish, effeminate, poor, rich, brown, slightly brown, yellow, etc.–sitting at a table, smiling gaily, accomplishing some undefined task. The poster comes with a sheet of questions the teacher is supposed to ask. One might be: “These kids sure look different, but they look happy. Can you tell me which one in the picture is an American?”
Some eight-year-old, mired in ignorance, will point to a white child like himself. “That one.”
The teacher reads from the answer, conveniently printed along with the question. “No, Billy, all these children are Americans. They are just as American as you.”
The children get a snack, and the poster goes up on the wall until another one comes a week later. This is what happens at predominately white, middle-class, elementary schools everywhere. Elementary school teachers love All of the Colors of the Race, by award-winning children’s poet Arnold Adoff.
These are some of the lines they read to the children: “Mama is chocolate . . . Daddy is vanilla . . . Me (sic) is better . . . It is a new color. It is a new flavor. For love. Sometimes blackness seems too black for me, and whiteness is too sickly pale; and I wish every one were golden. Remember: long ago before people moved and migrated, and mixed and matched . . . there was one people: one color, one race. The colors are flowing from what was before me to what will be after. All the colors.”
Teaching as a career: It may come as a surprise after what I have written, but my experiences have given me a deep appreciation for teaching as a career. It offers a stable, middle-class life but comes with the capacity to make real differences in the lives of children. In our modern, atomized world children often have very little communication with adults — especially, or even, with their parents — so there is potential for a real transaction between pupil and teacher, disciple and master.
A rewarding relationship can grow up between an exceptional, interested student and his teacher. I have stayed in my classroom with a group of students discussing ideas and playing chess until the janitor kicked us out. I was the old gentleman, imparting my history, culture, personal loves and triumphs, defeats and failures to young kinsman. Sometimes I fancied myself Tyrtaeus, the Spartan poet, who counseled the youth to honor and loyalty. I never had this kind intimacy with a black student, and I know of no other white teacher who did.
Teaching can be fun. For a certain kind of person it is exhilarating to map out battles on chalkboards, and teach heroism. It is rewarding to challenge liberal prejudices, to leave my mark on these children, but what I aimed for with my white students I could never achieve with the blacks.
There is a kind of child whose look can melt your heart: some working-class castaway, in and out of foster homes, often abused, who is nevertheless almost an angel. Your heart melts for these children, this refuse of the modern world.
Many white students possess a certain innocence; their cheeks still blush. Try as I might, I could not get the blacks to care one bit about Beethoven or Sherman’s march to the sea, or Tyrtaeus, or Oswald Spengler, or even liberals like John Rawls, or their own history. They cared about nothing I tried to teach them. When this goes on year after year it chokes the soul out of a teacher, destroys his pathos, and sends him guiltily searching for The Bell Curve on the Internet.
Blacks break down the intimacy that can be achieved in the classroom, and leave you convinced that that intimacy is really a form of kinship. Without intending to, they destroy what is most beautiful–whether it be your belief in human equality, your daughter’s innocence, or even the state of the hallway.
Just last year I read on the bathroom stall the words “F**k Whitey.” Not two feet away, on the same stall, was a small swastika.
The National Council for the Social Studies, the leading authority on social science education in the United States, urges teachers to inculcate such values as equality of opportunity, individual property rights, and a democratic form of government. Even if teachers could inculcate this milquetoast ideology into whites, liberalism is doomed because so many non-whites are not receptive to education of any kind beyond the merest basics.
It is impossible to get them to care about such abstractions as property rights or democratic citizenship. They do not see much further than the fact that you live in a big house and “we in da pro-jek.” Of course, there are a few loutish whites who will never think past their next meal and a few sensitive blacks for whom anything is possible, but no society takes on the characteristics of its exceptions.
Once I asked my students, “What do you think of the Constitution?” “It white,” one slouching black rang out. The class began to laugh. And I caught myself laughing along with them, laughing while Pompeii’s volcano simmers, while the barbarians swell around the Palatine, while the country I love, and the job I love, and the community I love become dimmer by the day.
I read a book by an expatriate Rhodesian who visited Zimbabwe not too many years ago. Traveling with a companion, she stopped at a store along the highway. A black man materialized next to her car window. “Job, boss, (I) work good, boss,” he pleaded. “You give job.”
“What happened to your old job?” the expatriate white asked. The black man replied in the straightforward manner of his race: “We drove out the whites. No more jobs. You give job.”
At some level, my students understand the same thing. One day I asked the bored, black faces staring back at me. “What would happen if all the white people in America disappeared tomorrow?”
“We screwed,” a young, pitch-black boy screamed back. The rest of the blacks laughed.
I have had children tell me to my face as they struggled with an assignment. “I cain’t do dis,” Mr. Jackson. “I black.”
The point is that human beings are not always rational. It is in the black man’s interest to have whites in Zimbabwe but he drives them out and starves. Most whites do not think black Americans could ever do anything so irrational. They see blacks on television smiling, fighting evil whites, embodying white values. But the real black is not on television, and you pull your purse closer when you see him, and you lock the car doors when he swaggers by with his pants hanging down almost to his knees.
For those of you with children, better a smaller house in a white district than a fancy one near a black school.
I have been in parent-teacher conferences that broke my heart: the child pleading with his parents to take him out of school; the parents convinced their child’s fears are groundless. If you love your child, show her you care — not by giving her fancy vacations or a car, but making her innocent years safe and happy. Give her the gift of a not-heavily black school.
Wow.

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Welfare state run amok

Here'e a whole new way of looking at where we are, historically, in terms of our debt and future  obligations to retirees and the like..  What we have here is the Welfare State run amok

IS THE UNITED STATES THE BROKEST NATION ON EARTH?

One of the problems with an administration as comprehensively awful as Barack Obama’s is that people can’t keep track of all the crises. His foreign policy has collapsed, the economy is on life support, unemployment and poverty are at record-breaking levels, scandals pile one upon another. And–oh yes, don’t forget–the country is $17 trillion in debt.
Mark Steyn refers to the U.S. as the brokest nation in history, and in purely quantitative terms–$17 trillion–the proposition is not debatable. But Cato’s Dan Mitchell takes the analysis a step further. This chart, from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, suggests that the U.S. is in worse fiscal condition than any developed country other than Japan and New Zealand. Greece? We should be so lucky!
But Dan isn’t crazy about this measure of fiscal ineptitude:
I’ve never been happy with these BIS and OECD numbers because they focus on deficits, debt, and fiscal balance. Those are important indicators, of course, but they’re best viewed as symptoms.
The underlying problem is that the burden of government spending is too high. And what the BIS and OECD numbers are really showing is that the public sector is going to get even bigger in coming decades, largely because of aging populations. Unfortunately, you have to read between the lines to understand what’s really happening.
But now I’ve stumbled across some IMF data that presents the long-run fiscal outlook in a more logical fashion. As you can see from this graph (taken fromthis publication), they show the expected rise in age-related spending on the vertical axis and the amount of needed fiscal adjustment on the horizontal axis.
In other words, you don’t want your nation to be in the upper-right quadrant, but that’s exactly where you can find the United States.
Yes, Japan needs more fiscal adjustment. Yes, the burden of government spending will expand by a larger amount in Belgium. But America combines the worst of both worlds in a depressingly impressive fashion.
So thanks to FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Bush, Obama and others for helping to create and expand the welfare state. They’ve managed to put the United States in a worse long-run position than Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, and other failing welfare states.
Well, some of those individuals have contributed more than others. But let’s not forget that no president has the power to spend a nickel: all appropriations come from Congress. In truth, a corrupt bargain has been struck between the political class and a majority of voters–fluctuating, often reluctant, occasionally remorseful, but always enough to send big spenders back to Washington. So far, there is no sign that the out-of-control locomotive that is the product of this corrupt bargain can be deflected until it has flown off the cliff. At which point, of course, it will be too late..

Monday, July 1, 2013

The DOJ and corrupt media join forces

The passages below are from Jim Tarantos' daily WSJ Online column, and cuts to the chase on the Treyvon Martin-George Zimmerman hoax trial currently underway in Florida.  For anyone following the trial and evidence and cast of outside characters involved, this affair has been a very bad joke from the beginning. In short  the tragic and unfortunate incident was used by the grievance mongering crowd as a means, not to seek justice, as they claim, but to find a way to cash in of the television coverage and white guilt over racism to earn another huge payday along the lines of Pigford I&II. These passages also point out the utter corruption of NBC with their attempt to shape the narrative of this case with selective editing of transcripts.  Any one who watches NBC (and the other two networks as well, for that matter) is never going to get anything important right with regard to the news.  One has to feel sorry for these people who are being duped so flagrantly.


Salon's Joan Walsh, author of a book whose actual title is "What's the Matter With White People?," denounced "white grievance-mongers" who do not care for the word "cracker":
My God, don't these people get tired of themselves? So much of the trumped-up racial upset on the right, generally, is about language: If black people can use the N-word, why can't we? . . . Now we're moving on to: If the N-word is racist and forbidden, words like "cracker" should be, too.
But "cracker" has never had the same power to demean, or to exile, or to sting. No social order has ever been devised whereby African-Americans oppress people they deride as "crackers."
Walsh is surely correct in observing that "cracker" is less harsh than the antiblack racial slur to which she alludes--the one that in recent years has become so taboo that it's usually just called "the N-word."
But so what? In the context of the Zimmerman trial, the comparison is irrelevant. Nobody has claimed that Zimmerman used "the N-word." In fact, as we noted in April 2012, a report on NBC News, Al Sharpton's network, included an audio clip of Zimmerman telling a 911 dispatcher, in reference to Martin: "This guy looks like he's up to no good. . . . He looks black."
It turned out a Sharpton colleague had deceptively edited the recording to Zimmerman's disadvantage. The exchange actually went like this:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy--is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
In context, Zimmerman's observation that "he looks black" is entirely innocent. But the relevant point today is that if NBC's version of the recording had been truthful, it would have been problematic for Zimmerman not because he said "black" instead of the politically correct "African-American," but because even without any slur, it would have been evidence of racial profiling.
Martin's description of Zimmerman as a "creepy-ass cracker" is problematic for the same reason the phony NBC quote would have been. It would have been no less problematic for the Zimmerman-profiled-Martin theory of the case if Martin had described Zimmerman as, say, a "creepy-ass white dude" instead.
Walsh's observation that "no social order has ever been devised whereby African-Americans oppress people they deride as 'crackers' " is, in the main, true. Today there is systematic discrimination against whites, but to call it "oppression" would be a gross overstatement.
But whatever George Zimmerman's culpability in Martin's shooting, he is not to blame for the social order of pre-civil-rights America. He has every right to mount a vigorous defense, and the judge and jury have a duty, as in any criminal trial, to give the defendant the benefit of any reasonable doubt.
The rightful term to describe a criminal trial that serves as a "referendum" is "show trial."



Sunday, June 30, 2013

Claire Berlinski on Turkey today.

Claire Berlinski, a free lance reporter, has lived in Istanbul for many years and may know Turkey and the Middle East better than anyone.  Having read her work for nearly a decade, there is no better source for brining sense out of what is going on in Turkey today.  Here's her take on recent events.


Notes on the Turkish Troubles by Claire Berlinski - City Journal

President Obama surely knows that the current unrest in Turkey, which has left at least four dead, 12 blind, and some 7,000 injured, many critically, does not remotely compare—as a humanitarian disaster or as a threat to American interests—to the unremitting carnage in Syria; to the urgency of evaluating the meaning of Iran’s elections and what they portend for its nuclear program; to the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Iraq; to our imminent defeat in Afghanistan; or to at least half a dozen other foreign policy crises of greater moment, not least in the Pacific. It is entirely understandable that Turkey would not be the president’s chief concern.
What is not understandable is that the situation does not appear to be the chief concern, or indeed of any concern, to America’s ambassador in Turkey, Frank Ricciardone. Who knows what Ambassador Ricciardone knows, other than Ricciardone himself? Perhaps a perfectly logical explanation exists for his apparent inaction and indifference. He is hardly inexperienced. His acquaintance with this region dates from 1976, when he taught at a community school in Iran. His most recent posting was to Kabul, where he served as deputy ambassador; before that, he served for three years as the U.S. ambassador to Egypt. He clearly knows Turkey well. He speaks fluent and occasionally colloquial Turkish; he was the political advisor to American and Turkish generals assisting the Kurds during Operation Provide Comfort in 1991. No doubt an able staff provides him with a daily summary of the Turkish-language press.
But Ambassador Ricciardone’s appointment here was controversial. Over the Senate’s strenuous objections, Obama installed him by means of a recess appointment. The opposition derived, among other things, from what some held to be his weak performance in Egypt. Critics believed him excessively deferential to deposed Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak on matters of human rights. In 2006, Ricciardone introduced Egyptian students participating in a model American Congress with these words: “President Mubarak is well known in the United States. He is respected. If he had to run for office in the United States, my guess is he could win elections in the United States as a leader who is a giant on the world stage.” In the same year, speaking to the Egyptian media, he downplayed concerns about the country’s treatment of its Coptic Christians. “Naturally, here in Egypt as in the U.S., there is freedom of speech, so it is possible for anyone to complain about any personal or social problem. If there is a problem, there are legal ways to deal with it, whether here or in the U.S.” These words proved strikingly unprophetic about Egypt’s future but all too familiar to those of us living in Turkey.
The president also surely knows that the U.S. relationship with Turkey is of tremendous strategic importance. Turkey lies in the middle of the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean and the Aegean. As any visual review of the region’s history will show, the route invaders take to go from west to east and east to west is right through Anatolia—pretty much every time. Three-quarters of the world’s proven oil and gas reserves are in this neighborhood, and you can’t get oil and gas from the landlocked Caspian region to Europe—not, at least, without going through Iran or Russia—save by going through Turkey.
America has withdrawn from Iraq, which is now a quasi-Iranian satrapy, so our military ties with Turkey are particularly vital. Turkey is a crucial logistics hub, supporting U.S. forces in Afghanistan. It is difficult to conceive of any future military intervention in this region without Turkish cooperation. During the Iraq war, more than 70 percent of U.S. air cargo moved through Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base, also the primary refueling stop for flights to Afghanistan. Turkey hosts our X-band radar station in Malatya, west of the Iranian border. Not incidentally, Turkey is also home to some 65 tactical nuclear weapons, under the control of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR). Also, Turkey has one of the largest standing armies in the world and the second largest in NATO. It can deploy a sizable army corps to conduct joint operations at short notice. The Turkish Air Force operates one of NATO’s largest combat aircraft fleets and can conduct air assault operations with a lift capability of up to six battalions at a time, day and night. It no longer has 20 percent of its most experienced admirals and generals (because they’re in jail), but perhaps it can manage without them. As Stalin found out, you never know until you try.
Moreover, Turkey has taken in 363,000 refugees from Syria, at great cost to its social stability and to the lives of its citizens. On May 11, 52 Turks perished in a terrorist attack in the southern province of Hatay. While many here are not entirely persuaded by the government’s insistence that the bombing was the work of Turkish far leftists linked to Bashar al-Assad, most are persuaded that it had something to do with Syria.
So yes, without a doubt, Turkey is a strategically important country, one that we very much want to keep in the American orbit, particularly since it appears that we’re about to do something mysterious in Syria—or at least so reports the Los Angeles Times, which claims that the CIA and U.S. special forces have been training Syrian rebels on Turkish bases. What is U.S. policy on Syria, and what is it supposed to achieve? Who knows?
For all of the above reasons, the United States should not alienate Turkey. And America and Turkey, allies since 1952, have stuck together through much darker times. Turkey wasn’t a libertarian paradise before the rise of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan. The United States has no good reason to intervene in Turkey’s internal affairs. Turkey’s problems are Turkey’s to solve.
But there is one small thing I do expect. I expect the American ambassador to tell the Turkish people the truth about our country. There is no earthly reason for him publicly to lie or prevaricate about what makes the United States an extraordinary country, unique in the world, for all its failures. There is a particular urgency to telling the truth in a country like this, moreover, where lies are spread daily about the United States by the government, the press, and by Turkey’s sycophantic intellectuals.
In early May, peaceful protests over the proposed demolition of a small park near Istanbul’s central Taksim Square were met with brutal police violence. Secretary of State John Kerry was reportedly “concerned” by this, as was Vice President Joe Biden. On June 6, State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki confirmed that Kerry had spoken to Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet DavutoÄŸlu, expressing “ongoing concerns about the situation on the ground.” Kerry, she said, “also welcomed the update on efforts to calm the situation,” noting that “we have had concerns over the past couple of days about instances of police brutality, and we continue to call for, of course, the acceptance of peaceful protest . . . Obviously, the protests and the incidents that we’ve talked about a little bit over the past couple of days that have happened on the ground, reports of police brutality and injuries and even a couple of deaths, that’s concerning. And we continue to call for acceptance and support for peaceful protest not just in Turkey, but around the world. That’s our consistent belief and our consistent feeling.” Psaki noted that “what is most helpful is for all the officials, as some have, to encourage calm and encourage peaceful—and accept peaceful protest. And language and verbiage that’s not doing that is not helpful toward moving forward.”
All fine, all appropriate and diplomatic. But that was also pretty much the last we heard from the State Department. Since then, the situation may be summarized thus: Throughout the country, protests sparked by the sight of cops kicking the snot out of peaceful protesters have been met by more cops kicking far more snot out of (largely) peaceful protesters. It’s true that some protesters have lost their cool and broken windows, smashed cars, and—in one remarkable case—hotwired a sizable backhoe to face down the police. But even the most violent protester is no match for what is, effectively, an army. Not a day goes by without reports of protesters getting pummeled. And that is not the worst of it: Not a day goes by without reports of arrests. What this means, in Turkey, is that hundreds of families may never see some of their loved ones again.
In Ankara, reports say, armored cars patrol Kennedy Avenue constantly. People there claim to have lost count of the water cannon and tear-gas attacks to which they’ve been subjected only for walking down the street. The Internet is replete with countless images and videos of elderly men vomiting from tear gas. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been tear-gassed for the violent crime of sitting quietly in my apartment. There have been confirmed reports of thugs loyal to the AKP storming through cities with cleavers and knives. A particularly alarming incident took place the other day in Yeniköy, the Sausalito of the Black Sea, a wealthy Istanbul neighborhood known for its seafood restaurants. Locals were holding a community forum—these have sprung up spontaneously in the past weeks, open-air gatherings to discuss new ways of doing politics. AKP loyalists attacked the forum, reputedly under the watch or perhaps even on the orders of the district muhtar (an elected local official) shouting, “Allah, Allah, you’re the sons of Greeks!” Multiple videos confirm this. The reason this attack is so disturbing is that Yeniköy once was a Greek community, the bulk of which left in the population exchange of 1924 that followed the Greco-Turkish war. The mob attacks of September 1955, orchestrated by the government of Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, eliminated all but the last vestiges of the Greek population here. Menderes—whom the military subsequently hanged—is one of ErdoÄŸan’s idols.
Countless people tell me stories of outrageous treatment by the police. There are plausible (but unconfirmed) accounts of police threatening female protesters with rape. There are confirmed stories, documented with videos, of police beating women for no discernible reason. Several blocks away, the police have more than once used water cannon and thrown tear gas into hospitals. They have used heavy tear gas, as well, in other enclosed spaces, including the Divan hotel near Taksim Square, where people fled for refuge after the police, without warning—and indeed, after the governor explicitly promised that protesters there would be safe—attacked and destroyed the encampments at Gezi Park. The police turned the luxury hotel into a sea of gasping, weeping, vomiting, and wounded victims, then refused for hours to permit ambulances to collect them. The very same governor then advised medics not to treat wounded protesters. The hotel’s owner has been threatened with legal action for sheltering them.
The height of this absurdity was the arrest of protesters for standing. The “standing man” stood in front of the Ataturk Cultural Center in Taksim, just looking at the thing. It took nearly six hours for anyone to notice that he was not just standing, but protesting. Once others figured it out, they began standing silently next to him, their hands in their pockets. Finally, the police realized this was a protest and detained them. The headline in one local paper: “Police radio: Arrest all standing still.”
By June 17, the government was so spooked by protests throughout the country that Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arınç warned that if need be, he would call in the army to put down the unrest. The markets tanked faster than journalists could type. Wasn’t the ErdoÄŸan government’s proudest achievement “sending the military back to the barracks?” Hundreds have been detained and the markets have continued to plummet. The Turkish lira has gone into a nosedive, and with every word that comes out of the prime minister’s mouth, foreign investors turn a more horrified shade of pale. These “terrorists,” as the government calls them, include dozens of doctors, lawyers defending the protesters, and a few political opponents for good measure.
The press has been mired more or less in its usual lockdown, so it’s possible that much of the country, if they receive their news from broadcast media, has no idea that any of this is happening. Famously, during the initial days of the crackdown, CNN Turkey aired a documentary about penguins precisely as the international media showed the chaos on Istanbul’s streets to the rest of the world. ErdoÄŸan has been holding rallies around the country, prompting journalists to join betting pools to see whether he can exceed his previous speech in insanely provocative rhetoric. No one who bets against him ever wins. The rallies are called “festivals of democracy,” or more alarmingly, “Respect for the National Will,” the latter suggesting that he has hired the ghost of Leni Riefenstahl as his campaign manager.
The Turkish Education Ministry has ordered schools to hand over the names of any teacher who has participated in the protests. The pro-government media (that is, most of it) has entered territory so bizarre that one example will suffice: The pundit YiÄŸit Bulut insists—in all seriousness—that foreign powers are using telekinesis to try to kill the prime minister. Alarmed Jews the world over have written to me about the anti-Semitic rhetoric emerging from these quarters, but I keep reassuring them that they are not being singled out: ErdoÄŸan and his entourage are blaming these protests on everyone from the Masons to the Martians.
How has the rest of the world responded to all of this? Amnesty International has sent out messages to all who will hear: “Turkey: End the Incommunicado Detention of Istanbul protesters.” Human Rights Watch: “Turkey: A Weekend of Police Abuse. Many Protesters Arrested; Hospital Targeted.” Reporters Without Borders: “Mounting Police Violence Against Journalists Covering ‘Occupy Gezi.’” The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, called for an investigation into “violations of international human rights standards,” which she demanded be “prompt, thorough, independent and impartial.” The perpetrators, she said, “should be brought to justice.”
The European Parliament passed a resolution expressing its “deep concern at the disproportionate and excessive use of force in response to the peaceful and legitimate protests.” This is astonishing language for that body, which has thus far reserved such terms only for the condemnation of Israel. German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared herself “appalled” by the violence and described the crackdown as “horrible.” The official German position was clearly expressed on the Ankara Embassy’s Twitter account: “#merkel ‘Shocking pictures from #turkey‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬show that course of action was too harsh. Situation not consistent with freedom of assembly + speech.’” No doubt the Germans were particularly aggrieved because the police gassed their consulate, which is near Taksim Square, and followed up by attacking a delegation of German MPs, including Green Party co-chair Claudia Roth. The water cannon they used was spiked with astringent tear gas, turning Roth’s pale German skin crimson and blistered. Berlin promptly blocked the opening of EU regional policy negotiations. The Serbs, predictably, went bonkers when their consulate was gassed—so much so that the Serbian ambassador was recalled from the post for violating laws of diplomatic service. The Dutch, French, and British consulates were also gassed, and British and French cooperation with Turkey on matters Syrian is in doubt. I knew that the police had definitively lost their minds when they gassed the Russian consulate. The Russians have not commented upon this officially. No doubt they will respond, in their own way.
Leigh Turner, the British consul-general, has shone brightly throughout, responding on Twitter with wit and principle: “Tear-gas canister over wall of #British‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬Consulate #Istanbul‬‬‬‬‬‬—‬‬‬‬all here OK. Grateful if all concerned can try to avoid gassing us if poss.” He provided regular updates, including firm diplomatic condemnation of the violence and statements of Britain’s position on the right to freedom of expression and assembly. His timeline set the standard for dry consular updates and offered clear indications that—to British sensibilities—these were by no means pleasing events.
The United States has, for security reasons, moved its consulate so far away from the city center that perhaps the Americans neither smelled the gas nor heard the screams. Considering things charitably, this may be the reason U.S. officials failed either to grasp or communicate the abnormality of this situation. When one’s consulate is halfway to the Bulgarian border, it’s more difficult for diplomats to put their fingers on the pulse of the street. Perhaps that explains why, throughout this, our embassy Twitter feed consisted of nothing but irrelevant updates such as these:
Department of State ‏@StateDept‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ 7 Jun (Video) #SecKerry‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬ on #LGBT‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬Pride Month: No matter where you are, and no matter who you love, we stand with you. http://youtu.be/1KeaoB-kAGY ‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬
ErdoÄŸan considers his friendship with President Obama far more valuable than that with any European leader. It was clear to all that the only hope of controlling ErdoÄŸan was a call from the White House, one that unequivocally put the hammer down. Many Turks asked me hopefully whether the United States would now “let” Turkey have a new government. (It is widely believed here that nothing happens in Turkey without the United States’ approval.) But Obama said nothing, and the embassy remained as enigmatic and aloof as the elderly Greta Garbo. Only when ErdoÄŸan insisted that his response to the protests had been mild compared with the U.S.’s crushing of Occupy Wall Street—he claimed that American government forces had killed 17 protesters—did the embassy issue a feeble tweet saying no, that wasn’t so. Then, some hours later, for reasons mysterious, the tweet disappeared.
On June 17, the first working day after the storming of the park and the siege of the Divan, Ambassador Ricciardone paid a visit to the AKP headquarters. What remains of the opposition press indulged in some hopeful speculation. Radikal reported that he had been dispatched to issue a “strongly worded message to the headquarters of the ruling party.” If true, that message went unheeded. Speaking to reporters afterward, Ricciardone explained, “I reaffirmed our support for Turkish democracy, for the principles that we share of freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly. There is no difference between us and the government of Turkey and the governing party on those principles.” The ambassador went on: “I’m quite confident that our relations are strong and healthy. And will continue. I’m very confident about Turkish democracy. You are having a conversation within your Turkish family. The United States is not participating in it, except with full-out faith in you, the Turkish people, and the Turkish government. And we will stand by you as you have your conversation about your future. I believe this is a friendly country to the United States. It’s a good place for American trade and investment, business, visitors, tourism and I intend to enjoy the summer here in Turkey.” Asked whether he discussed the Gezi events, Ricciardone simply reiterated the United States’ support “for Turkey, Turkey’s democracy, for freedom of expression, for freedom of peaceful assembly . . . .” And that was it. Not one reference to what has been going on all around us.
Ricciardone is a diplomat. It is his job to be diplomatic. Clearly, ErdoÄŸan is unhinged and rebuking him in public could prompt the opposite of the desired effect. And affirming that the United States has no desire to participate in Turkey’s “family conversation” was a shrewd thing to say in a conspiracy-minded country. But the rest of Ricciardone’s comments are outrageous. “For the principles that we share of freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, there is no difference between us and the government of Turkey and the governing party on those principles?” No difference? It may be true that we both support the principles of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. But in the United States, we also support the practice of freedom of expression and assembly, not to mention supporting freedom after the practice of free expression and peaceful assembly. To suggest that the United States and Turkey have remotely similar perspectives about these principles is ridiculous. It should insult every American, and it should insult every Turk.
Turks are genuinely confused and misinformed about the United States. After all, they’re told daily that what they are experiencing is normal, and that this is what all “advanced democracies” do. It would have been better by far to say nothing than to confirm these lies and better still to explain that in the United States, you’re unlikely ever to be arrested for demonstrating peacefully, nor will you ever be arrested for anything you say, and that it is very much our hope that Turks will one day experience this extraordinary freedom that we cherish.
Ricciardone’s remarks caused real harm. The Turkish government immediately exploited his words. Headlines in the local papers announced, “Gezi Park protests are not exaggerated by White House.” The deputy prime minister proudly told the nation that at least the United States, unlike those bigoted Europeans and screeching human rights’ groups, had a sense of perspective—in contrast with the international media, which persisted in “exaggerating” these “normal” incidents. At roughly the same time, media outlets associated with ErdoÄŸan’s party—and by “associated,” I mean that on one day, seven of them ran exactly the same headline—were placing the blame for the unrest on what the state-run Anatolia media agency called the “American Entrepreneurs Institute,” which it alleged had been plotting this “coup” for months. Did Ricciardone say a word about this? No. So of course the United States didn’t exaggerate these incidents. We didn’t even acknowledge them.
In other words, whatever was actually said in that meeting, the Turkish people learned that America had emerged from it saying: “Green light. We have no problem. Keep going.” And keep going ErdoÄŸan’s government has. The next day, Interior Minister Muammer Güler announced that the government was preparing laws to fix “legislative gaps” in the regulation of social media—the one place where Turks might have a chance of finding actual news. The week prior, ErdoÄŸan had described Twitter as the “worst menace to society.” It may well be a menace to ErdoÄŸan. Unlike in Egypt, which had anything but a “Facebook Revolution,” rates of social-media penetration here are high—almost in the range of the United States. And unlike in Egypt, 90 percent of the tweets about the unrest here have originated in Turkey. In Egypt, 70 percent of the tweets originated outside of Egypt. No one misunderstood, despite the government’s soothing blandishments, what Güler was really saying: “From now on, watch your every word, because we’ll be watching yours.”
The Turkish press has reported that the government plans to monitor social media with U.S. assistance. Obviously, as recent leaks have suggested, the United States government has considerable experience in this department. Whether it is true that the United States plans to help Turkey transform itself into an advanced police state, I don’t know. But if it is true, shame on us. If it is not, Ricciardone should have immediately rebutted the claim. He didn’t. Nor has the ambassador objected to any other slander about the United States uttered by the prime minister, his subordinates, or their press organs—with one possible exception. In a June 18 press briefing, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki rejected the claim that any American group or individual was responsible for escalating the protests in Turkey. She offered boilerplate remarks urging all sides to “exercise restraint and avoid violence,” noted the reports about the prosecution of medics who had treated injured protesters, and said that “all of these reports are greatly concerning and we’re very focused on monitoring it closely. We, of course, deplore the use of excessive force in any of these cases.” But you would not have known she said this from the U.S. embassy Twitter feed, which issued only this: “US rejects claims Americans fomenting Gezi Park unrest in Turkey.” That tweet was promptly buried under a slew of irrelevant information: the text of John Kerry’s remarks at PEPFAR’s 10th anniversary celebration, his travel schedule in Bandar Seri Begawan, and so on.
It is not entirely Foreign Minister DavutoÄŸlu’s fault that his “zero problems with the neighbors” foreign-policy plan has resulted in a “100 percent problems with the neighbors” outcome. This is not a good neighborhood, period. But it is a fact that Turkey has only one powerful friend left—the United States. And we have been the only relevant country or entity in the world that has failed to express more than a few platitudes about what’s going on in Turkey, to say nothing of what we surely do think: that we find it repulsive to shoot out the eyeballs of peaceful protesters. And no, we don’t do this back home.
From where I sit, the United States’ flabby, indulgent attitude toward this cruelty appears both craven and strategically idiotic. It is in neither America’s nor Turkey’s interest for Turkey to go down this path. Our silence has confirmed the worst suspicions of everyone but the AKP base, hardly our natural friends. We have confirmed their fondest suspicions about us—to wit, that we’re fools.
The United States may be permanently alienating the next generation of Turks, the ones with whom we really do want to be friends. When rumors that kids who are getting brutalized have been screaming, “Please help us, Obama” circulate over the Internet, followed by statements from our ambassador that the United States and Turkey share “the same ideas” about freedom and democracy, it confirms every suspicious instinct Turks have about the gulf between what America says about human rights and what we mean. When the Turkish government publicly boasts that it has the United States on its side—well, you don’t have to live here to guess the impact.
This is hardly the first time that Ricciardone has appeared eager to take abuse from Turkish officials. It has not been widely reported in the American press that Turkish officials have rebuked the diplomat on numerous occasions for making tepid comments about Turkey’s human rights record. After Ricciardone expressed “puzzlement” that Turkey appeared to be arresting all of its generals—events in which we do have a legitimate interest, given that NATO is not a human rights alliance but a military one—ErdoÄŸan dismissed him as a “rookie ambassador who should know his place.” When our ambassador expressed further “puzzlement” that “journalists are being detained on the one hand, while addresses about freedom of speech are given on the other,” he nonetheless attempted to express his warmth toward Turkey by means of a Turkish proverb, to the effect that this was like eating pickled cabbage on a salt-reduction diet. (Turkish proverbs lose much in translation.) Fuat Tanlay, the prime minister’s chief advisor, told Ricciardone that if he was so keen to learn Turkish proverbs, he should learn this one: Don’t piss on a mosque wall. Doesn’t that say it all? Under ordinary circumstances, one would at least expect the Turkish ambassador to Washington to be summoned and read the riot act. If he was, the news wasn’t widely reported.
Is there any strategy to American silence? Is the Obama administration making a conscience decision to alienate the Turkish people in the service of some larger and more important goal? Obviously, the United States needs to cooperate with Turkey on matters ranging from Syria to Iran and beyond. But we have an ocean between us and those maniacs. Turkey doesn’t. In other words, they need us more than we need them. So must we really be so afraid of their wrath that we behave like cowering bunnies when they kill their own children? What do the folks in the Situation Room know that we don’t?
Claire Berlinski, a City Journal contributing editor, is an American journalist who lives in Istanbul. She is the author of There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters.

Bill Whittle on Political Correctness