Desicritics Author: Mark Schannon

News Analysis: Part II 9/11 -- How Did It All Change Back

Mark Schannon — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:37:24 EDT

Part I of this article, We Are Changed Forevermore, examined the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the international outpouring of support, the sudden and powerful unity of purpose within America, and the upsurge in confidence in many of our institutions from government to religion.

There are people for whom 9/11 irrevocably changed their worlds; nothing will ever be the same. Most are relatives or friends of the thousands who died, but many are simply Americans for whom something was shattered or altered or simply changed ... for some there are positive aspects while for others there are only the negatives.

The New Normal

For America as a whole, it seemed in the immediate aftermath that the dramatic changes in attitudes might actually be signifying a new political paradigm. But what’s striking is how quickly we returned to normal, although not quite the normal of before. Bill McInturff, of Public Opinion strategies, calls it "the new normal."

McInturff said, "It didn't take America five years to recover. It was like a year."

Trust in government soared to 64% after the attack. By the summer of 2002, it had returned to it's traditional 30%. In December of 2001, Gallop found that 71% of Americans said religion was more important in American life. By March, according to a Pew Research poll, that number had dropped to 37%.

One key to why attitudes so quickly reverted is that, despite all the rhetoric, behavior had never shifted that dramatically. For all the calls to stockpile food and water, 30% told Harris Interactive pollsters that they considered it; the reality is that 9% did. By early March, 2002, Gallup found that number jumped to all of 13%--statistically almost meaningless.

What people reported is that they way they felt changed dramatically, not their day-to-day lives. Just over 50% told Fox News/Opinion Dynamics in late 2001 and early 2002 that their lives had changed in a lasting way, but 3/4 of those said it changed their feelings, not their behavior. When behavior fails to change, attitudes often regress to their former state.

Thus we find that the number who reported feeling depressed or had trouble sleeping declined fairly quickly. By March and September of 2002 Gallup found that smaller numbers had flown the flag, prayed more than usual, cried, or called loved ones “in the past two weeks” than had done so immediately after 9/11.

Karlyn Bowman, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said in a recent interview, "There was a temporary spike and people felt a little bit better about government after 9/11, but all those numbers have reverted to where they were before."

Bowman notes that people have accepted that terrorism is a real possibility in their lives, but they've incorporated that into their daily lives. The fear is worse in large cities, but, by and large, "they don't panic."

As noted in the previous article, Caroll Doherty of Pew Research said in an interview that the country has changed in ways we may not even recognize. He noted how little attention Bush and Gore paid to foreign policy in the 2000 presidential election. "That's not going to happen in the future. The landscape has changed so much since then."

He also has found that people are showing more interest and engaging earlier in the 2006 mid-term elections that is normal, and that there's more of a national and international focus than usual.

Bowman also cites "a level of pessimism in American that's just not warranted, say, by the economic indicators." People expect another attack, and they see the world as more dangerous.

Ironically, they still seem optimistic about their children's future. "What's profoundly affected is the view of the present," she said. That pessimism is reflected in how people view the war on terror. A 2005 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that 24% believed the war on terror would be won in our lifetimes; 62% said it would not. Moreover, over 3/4 of Americans told Gallup in July 2002 that today's world is the most dangerous in the respondent's life.

When asked if people think life in the U.S. will ever completely return to normal, i.e., pre 9/11, 62% said no.

Civil Liberties vs. Security

In a Los Angeles Times poll taken in September of 2001, 61% of Americans said we'd have to give up some civil liberties to curb terrorism. By July 2005, in a PRSA/Pew poll, that number dropped to 40% with 53% disagreeing. The reality is that Americans are torn about this issue. Both Doherty and Bowman said that while there is great concern about government scrutinizing American's behavior, there's this sense that it may be acceptable -- just as long as "they leave me alone."

Bowman, however, notes that there has been a rise in concern about civil liberties, and she attributes it to the return of suspicion about government, the reduced fears of terrorism, and that some Americans have found certain government actions "objectionable."

But public attitudes are complicated and unstable on this issue. For example, in May of 2006, an ABC News/Washington Post survey found that almost half of Americans believed that the government wasn't doing enough to protect privacy. Yet over 50% in a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll at the same time said they'd be willing to give up some personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism.

It's U.S. vs. The World

As noted before, Americans are more aware and more concerned about international opinion than at any time in recent history. While there has been support for America's military activities, the public wants the administration to take a cooperative stance with America's allies. A majority of Americans and nearly half of Republicans say that it should be a top foreign policy priority to improve our relations with our allies. The Pew Research Center conducted a poll with the Council on Foreign Relations and found that, by 49%-37%, "the public believes that the nation's foreign policy should strongly take into account the interests of U.S. allies, rather than be based mostly on the national interests of the United States."

At the same time, AEI's Bowman warns that it's difficult to get to the heart of this issue. Clearly people are aware that our image has suffered, and they think it would be better for us to have a more positive image, but she doesn't believe we have enough data to state conclusively how important this is for Americans. Further, she says that "there's a real question in the survey research community and among political scientists about whether we're seeing a new isolationism in the U.S. based on our awareness that we're not very well liked."

The Return to Partisanship and Divisiveness

According to a September 7 article in the New York Times, a big part of the “new normal,” is the resurgence of political divisions on national security questions. The coming together of Americans in a sense of national unity just after 9/11 has been buried amidst the deeply partisan views over Mr. Bush’s conduct of the war on terror and in Iraq. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found wide disagreement between the parties on a host of issues from the war in Iraq to airport security.

David Broder and Dan Balz, in a July 16 Washington Post article, entitled, "How Common Ground of 9/11 Gave Way to Partisan Split," wrote that the spontaneous outpouring bipartisanship "was quickly swallowed up by a resurgence of partisan differences among voters and politicians." Ironically, issues of national security no longer held Americans together but created a "new fault line" that's split the parties.

President Bush has seen his ratings drop from the stratosphere to below sea level, apparently stuck below 40% approval. The challenges to his strategies in Iraq, the growing insurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the failure to capture Osama bin Laden, the accusations of manufacturing evidence to support the Iraqi invasion, the questions of torture and secret prisons -- all have taken their toll.Part of what has caused the divisiveness is the lack of clarity of America's strategic focus. Michael Hirsch wrote in Newsweek that the War on Terror is losing its focus. "What began as a crystal-clear fight against a small, self-contained group of murderers has become a kind of murky, open-ended World War III in which the identity of the enemy is less certain and our allies seem to grow less reliable."

Even the Bush Doctrine of spreading democracy to the Arab world has been called into question and held up as a reason for the failure of our military endeavors. Jed Babbin, the former deputy undersecretary of defense in the administration of George H.W. Bush recently cited as "a strategic error in focusing on democracy as the weapon to counter radical Islam and terrorism." He said that it's irrelevant if the Arab states are democracies as long as they don't threaten our security. "By making the establishment of democracy in Iraq a precondition to other action, the president has given control of the pace and direction of the war to the enemy."

The public sees what is happening. In a Washington Post/ABC news poll taken in August, almost 90% said that politics is just as partisan -- or worse -- than it was pre-9/11. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) has said he hoped that 9/11 would make us less partisan, but "we are more divided and more partisan than I've ever seen us."

Why?

How could the spirit of unity that sustained us through the aftermath of 9/11 have dissipated so quickly, leaving scars but so little nobility behind? Pew's Doherty acknowledges that it's hard to understand why things changed so quickly. "Some of it is inevitable," he said. "It's very difficult to keep that spirit. After all, people are human beings and prone to disagree."

On the other hand, he also has no question that the Iraqi War was a major factor in breaking the bonds, citing the plummeting Presidential approval ratings.

Broder and Balz take a similar view. They believe that the return to "national rancor and partisan conflict" was inevitable. There were deep divisions in the country after the 2000 presidential elections that hadn't healed, and, as they say, "In a 50-50 America, the lust for political advantage overwhelmed calls for consensus and cooperation."

Finally, Republicans and Democrats have long disagreed about the use of American force in the world, and the role we should play as the sole super-power. Those disagreements may have been covered over just after 9/11, but they remain deep and divisive.

In balance, what we've learned from 9/11 is how little we really understand ourselves or the world around us.

News Analysis: 9/11: We Are Changed Forevermore

Mark Schannon — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 01:07:03 EDT

Part 1: The Immediate Aftermath

"We are changed forevermore." Thus spoke Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) on that day that still defies description. He wasn’t alone in that assessment. David Payne, senior vice president and general manager of CNN.com, which is going to show a live stream of the day’s events beginning at 8:30 a.m. on CNN Pipeline, said, "In many ways and to many people, it was the day that changed everything."

Who can forget French President Jacques Chirac proclaiming, “We are all Americans”? One day later, in Le Monde, Jean Marie Colmbani, wrote an article entitled, “We Are All Americans,” in which she said, “In this tragic moment...the first thing that comes to mind is this: We are all Americans! We are all New Yorkers, just as surely as John F. Kennedy declared himself to be a Berliner in 1962 when he visited Berlin.” And she reminded the people of France that the United States was the country “to whom we owe our freedom.”

In numerous small ways, the world reached out to Americans. Rebecca Sulock, in her blog, wrote of being in Europe at the time, and what happened after 9/11. “The rest of the trip we were showered with goodwill and sympathy: Switzerland, Italy, Spain, and France. The old woman who ran a hotel in Florence hugged us close when we first arrived. ‘We are all Americans,’ she said, crying. A businessman trying to get home had to stop in Athens overnight and had dinner in a local taverna. When the owner realized he was an American, he told everyone to stand up and raise their glasses. The he said, “"Shoulder to shoulder, until justice is done."

Remember that day. Remember how you felt. Did the world feel like it had just shifted on its axis, and nothing would ever be the same again? In the days and weeks following 9/11, did your eyes tear up when you drove down a street and saw American flags on virtually every home? Were you an emotional leaf in the wind tossed between rage and fear, vengeance and compassion? Did you think you were changed forevermore? Had 9/11 changed everything?

So much has been written about that day that the mass of data, anecdotes, theories, and analyses threaten to overwhelm understanding. Amazon.com lists 208,149 books. The five-year retrospective has already begun, and it will continue for...well, as long as the American people have the stomach for it. The airwaves, print, and the internet are flooded with stories; it’s great news from their perspective—emotional, historical, traumatic.

The president is going to make a prime-time speech, and the Republicans have already resurrected Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 legacy. The soccer moms pollsters used to track with assiduous care are now security moms. It’s not crass politics—it’s simply politics.

But was it the day that changed everything? How does one approach this subject, then, in a way that’s non-partisan, yet political; that seeks to understand what has happened over the past five years without being side-tracked by evidence that supports every theory, including that the government itself was responsible for the attacks?

First, by limiting its scope to the attitudes, emotions, values, and beliefs of the American people, and to a lesser extent, politicians. Second, by relying on literally hundreds of survey research results rather than trying to determine whose vested interest is consciously or unconsciously distorting history. Third, by acknowledging the best pollsters acknowledge how difficult it is to understand the “why” because we ourselves don’t often understand our own reactions and emotions, but if poll after poll shows similar results, we can have some confidence in the findings. And finally, by examining behavior.

In his book, Strangers to Ourselves, Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious, University of Virginia psychologist Timothy Wilson has argued that while we may have difficulty figuring out what’s going on inside our own unconscious, we can gather clues from our behavior.

Obviously, the answer to the above question and to Senator Hagel’s statement is a simple “no.” Of course everything didn’t change. But that’s not very helpful when one tries to understand what did change and how it’s influencing American life and the political process.

The Public Faces A New World

In an article in Roll Call, Karlyn H. Bowman, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote, that polls taken immediately after 9/11 give a good indication of how Americans react. “A deeply religious nation found prayer a source of comfort. A deeply patriotic nation displayed the flag and sang the national anthem. A generous nation donated to relief funds. A majority of men and women in Gallup's September 14-15 poll said they cried.” (Note: I received an updated version of Ms. Bowman's report that may not be up on the site yet; this report is a summary of a multitude of polls taken at the time and after.)

A study, publicly funded by the National Science Foundation, and privately by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Russell Sage Foundation, also demonstrated significant shifts in public attitudes. People saying that their fellow citizens are helpful rose 21 points to 67%; in terms of being fair, attitudes rose 12 points to 63%. Attitudes towards the military, the government, religion, and corporations rose to their highest levels in nearly three decades. And 97% (up 7 points) said they would rather be citizens of the U.S. than any other country.

In a recent interview, Caroll Doherty of the Pew Research Center compared 9/11 to the 60s and 70s, when there was a significant decline in people’s trust in government and institutions. “That’s an interesting counterpoint,” he said, “to this extraordinary change in public attitudes almost across the board on almost every subject to do with politics and even religion in the fall of 2001.” He noted that confidence in government and the media soared to an unusually high degree. “It was very unusual.”

But even that apparently simple data about trust in government is open to interpretation. Certainly after 9/11, many more people believed that Washington would do what’s right, but as Bowman says, “it’s not clear what exactly that meant." Two questions asked by ABC News in early January 2002 suggest the uptick was limited to national security and the war on terrorism.

Doherty said that there was a feeling of common unity and purpose in the immediate aftermath that seems to have lingered in some ways. He cited the recent British foiling of the terrorist plot. “Polls show people don’t mind the hassles and new security measures,” he said. “What’s happened is that 9/11 has changed the mindset. We didn’t get a spike in terrorism worries because people now see this is the world in which we live.” Even though 62% believe that the chance of a terrorist attack in the U.S. is at least as great as pre-9/11, “they don’t panic....There’s a sense that this is life today.”

In a January 2002 PublicAgenda/Pew Charitable Trust poll, 87% thought Americans would appreciate their country more, people would become more caring and thoughtful towards one another, and America’s elected officials would put politics aside and do what was right for the country. In addition, significant percentages of people thought these attitudes would last for a long time.

Leadership in Government

President Bush basked not only in the glow of increased approval from his fellow citizens, but from expressions of support and solidarity from around the world. President Roosevelt had achieved an 84% approval rating after Pearl Harbor. President Bush’s rating climbed to 90% and by mid-July 2002, an ABC/Washington Post story described his approval as “...the longest, highest run of presidential job approval since modern polling began in the late 1930s.”

Even Congress and the media were perceived more positively by the public to a degree that Caroll Doherty of Pew calls “unusual.” He also cites their international polling that showed strong support for the U.S. as well as a sense that America might now understand what it was like to live under the threat of terrorism. “There was great support in our early surveys,” he said.

A New Internationalism

One of the major shifts in American attitudes was a greater appreciation of the world outside our borders. Doherty said that people were looking outward, more interested in getting engaged in the world, much more aware of foreign news, and paying attention to overseas events “in ways they never had before.” In October 2001, “61% said to prevent future attacks, Americans should be active in world affairs. There was strong support for our alliances; there was really a lot of common views on these subjects.”

Politicians were quick to realize that the platform had shifted. According to a July 15, 2006 Washington Post article, presidential candidates realized that their international experience, once considered virtually irrelevant, was now a major factor. "We essentially transformed our [Democratic] convention into a VFW meeting," said Democratic strategist David Axelrod. "That would not have happened if not for 9/11."

Being tough on terrorism was a critical criterion. Just being tough was essential. Would you be willing to do what it takes to protect us? Are you willing to use the military to take out these terrorists? John Edwards, Kerry’s VP candidate thinks those factors still hold today. "I think 9/11 made national security/foreign policy a dominant issue in presidential races," he said. "I think Iraq changed the criteria by which people evaluate what matters."

Coming Up: Part II: How Did It All Change

Hezbollah Attempts To Spin Public Opinion - Oops!

Mark Schannon — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 01:32:24 EDT

In what has to be one of the most extraordinary attempts at spinning public opinion since the Nixon White House called Watergate "a fifth-rate burglary," Sheik Hassan Nasrallah Sunday night claimed he never would have invaded Israel, captured the two Israeli soliders, and killed three others if he'd known it would lead to war.

"'We did not think, even 1 percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not,' he said in an interview with Lebanon's New TV station."

According to CNN, he claimed, without producing any evidence, that Israel had been planning an October invasion of southern Lebanon. The Hezbollah raid simply moved up the Israeli's timetable.

Of course, since the interview was on Lebanese television, no one bothered to ask him for evidence of this supposed planned Israeli invasion...or even what its purpose might be. Although, given the way even the Western media works, it's unlikely that anyone would have challenged him. Think that's chutzpah? It gets better. "The Israelis wanted to begin this war," Nasrallah said in the interview, calling it "an American decision" with "many European countries" involved. He insisted Israel was looking for "an Arab cover."

Oh, there was never any intention on our part of starting a war, he proclaimed. Why, not even the families of Lebanese prisoners held by the Israelis would have wanted such an outcome, he said.

Such profound regret. Such deep remorse. Such unmitigated crap.

And he continued to claim that Hezbollah had won the war with Israel, and he showed no regret for the death of Israeli civilians since Lebanon was a victim of Israeli aggression.

The problem for Israel isn't that the Arab world will now take this drivel as gospel. They've been lying to their own people and themselves for so long that they wouldn't know the truth if it was at the end of a guided missile headed up their asses. The problem for Israel is Kofi "Some of my best friends are Jews" Annan and the European anti-Semites who will continue to look for reasons to blame her for this Hezbollah-inspired mess.

When will the world wake up to the danger posed by thugs such as Nasrallah and his Syrian and Iranian puppet masters? And when will the world stop blaming Israel for problems caused by European nation creation at the end of WWI which has resulted in this total disaster in the Middle East?

I Feel Sorry For Hitler--Too Bad He Wasn't Waging World War II Today

Mark Schannon — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 07:37:13 EDT

Can you imagine the Allied Forces trying to fight Hitler's armies under today's rules?

Attack cities with tons of bombs? Oh no, innocent civilians might be killed.

Blast through entire towns to relieve allies surrounded by German army units? Oh no, you might run over a cocker spaniel.

Fire bomb Dresden killing hundreds of thousands by literally sucking the oxygen out of the atmosphere? How horrid. Why, they didn't do anything wrong. You Americans, English, French, Australians and other allies are heartless, cruel, thugs taking revenge on innocent civilians for the crimes of a few bad Germans.

I am truly sorry 50+ Lebanese civilians were killed in an Israeli air attack today. But I put the blame where it belongs: Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, the U.N., the cowardly governments of Europe, and the Arab thugs-of-state who will do anything to prevent democracy from taking hold in the Middle East. Hezbollah hides among civilians, launches their rockets from civilian enclaves, refuses to even wear fucking uniforms so the Israelis know whom to attack.

Hezbollah -- a made up group of displaced lunatics who've taken over Southern Lebanon -- is a collection of cowards who've convinced too many bleeding heart morons in the West that somehow this is all Israel's fault.

Israel has shown more restraint that the entire Allied Forces in WWII. Over the years, Israel has done everything but give up Israel itself to try to create peace with its Arab neighbors. And in return, for every gesture of peace, the Arabs have responded with violence against Israeli civilians.

What did the United States do when the World Trade Center was destroyed? We launched an invasion of Afghanistan -- you think there were no civilian casualties? Do you really believe that our primary goal was to minimize bloodshed? We weren't harsh enough. The Taliban still exists and is trying to take control of the southern regions although the drug lords are giving them a hard time.

Do you have any idea how many "innocent" Germans and Japanese were slaughtered in the name of victory in WWII? Try millions.

Hezbollah declared war on Israel. Lebanon and the other Arab states have allowed them to build up their arsenals for years even though the U.N. ordered them disarmed. To condemn Israel for the death of innocent civilians in Lebanon simply demonstrates how naive, how morally bankrupt, how insanely stupid the world's leaders, and how blindly comfortable too many people in this world have become.

Yes, it's too bad innocent Lebanese are being killed. Of course, no one said anything when they were killed by Hezbollah and Syria, but that's different. Arabs killing Arabs is o.k. Jews killing Arabs is an international disgrace.

Poor Hitler. Born too soon. Today, he'd be king of the world.

It's Time To Kill The Myth of the Muse

Mark Schannon — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 03:16:11 EDT

Vikk Simmons, on his excellent site, Down The Writer's Path, recently wrote an article, "What is Your Relationship With Your Muse?"

Far too many writers are content to play the romantic courtier languishing on the sidelines while waiting for even the briefest glimpse of their Muse, the supposed supplier of their creativity. They love being caught up in the moment, dancing among the glorious stream of words only to fall exhausted at their Muse's feet. When they wake, their Muse has vanished. Distraught, they sit and pine.

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy explains the muses as "Nine goddesses of classical mythology who presided over learning and the arts. They were especially associated with poetry. Ancient Greek or Roman writers would often begin their poems by asking for the aid of the Muses in their composition. Writers and artists to this day speak of their 'muse,' meaning their source of inspiration."

It's time to kill the muse, an over-used, rhetorical device that gives writers an excuse to avoid doing what we should be doing - writing. There are no goddesses who bestow some magical power that allows words to flow from our fingers. We know that, yet we continue to use the word, and words have power - in this case, I would argue negative power.

I responded to his post by suggesting a third path I laughingly call my rhetoric machine... others would call it the unconscious. Scientists have determined that over 90% of our mental processes occur at the unconscious level, and these are sophisticated machinations. The unconscious is where we form judgments, values, opinions, evaluate our world, decide what is dangerous or safe, and even form behaviors. The bizarre thing is that we rarely have awareness of what's going on there.

All of us have had the experience of watching words appear on the page as if by magic having no idea where they came from. Well, they come from the unconscious lying outside our awareness.

Whether I'm writing fiction or non-fiction, I've developed a deep trust in my unconscious to lead me into surprising and wondrous realms that are as much as surprise to me as the reader. I may have a conscious idea about the theme of a book, characters, and plot lines, but almost never does it work out the way I intended. New themes and characters emerge unbidden, plot lines get twisted and sent along mazes I only can hope my unconscious is smart enough to get through.

(Okay, this is arrogant stuff for an unpublished novelist, but the same holds for my business writing, and I've been very successful in that field using the same techniques. For example, I cannot write from an outline. A VP used to demand outlines of speeches I wrote for the CEO. I'd write and edit the speech until it was ready, then do an outline and give it to her. She finally caught on and gave up.)

The verbalized theme of the current novel I'm trying to pitch to agents didn't really emerge until 3/4 of the way through the book. It's Thoreau's quote, "Most men live lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them." When I found that as I was doing research for a scene, I thought it the saddest statement I'd ever heard. Most of us have heard the first line, but I'd never heard the second. But I also realized that that quote had been driving the entire novel, even though I'd never heard of it.

My conscious mind has an important role to play - just making sure that, in the end, everything comes together, that the paths taken by my unconscious aren't self-indulgent but actually drive the work (again fiction or non-fiction.) Particularly in the editing process, my conscious mind demands consistency and clarity, it rejects tired cliches and trite situations. But then my unconscious most often has to find a way to rectify those problems.

If you're not writing, it's not because your muse has abandoned you. More likely, you've let the outside world distract you to the point where you don't write, where your unconscious is so wrapped up in garbage that the rhetoric machine is unheard.

There are no muses. I would suggest that that's a dangerous concept for a writer, as if the inspiration came from somewhere else. There are only the wild and mysterious ways of the unconscious just waiting for permission to be released.

Why Bloggers Blog? It's All About Me, Stupid

Mark Schannon — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 03:13:54 EDT

Blogging is a way for most people to talk about themselves, their personal experiences, and keep in touch with friends, with little regard for how many — or few — readers they get. In fact, about half of bloggers say that their readers are people they personally know. Only a small proportion talk about politics, media, government, technology, entertainment, sports or other issues.

A July national poll conducted among American bloggers 18 years and older by the Pew Internet and American Life Project Report notes that “The Internet has empowered a new class of commentators eager to share personal...views.” There are now about 12 million people who routinely put their ideas into cyberspace, about 8% of adult Internet users. There are 57 million adult readers of blogs or 39% of the online population.

For the all the talk about how powerful blogging has become, another way to look at the numbers is that 92% of people don’t blog and 61% never even bother to look at a blog. “To date,” the Pew Report says, “much of the public and press attention to bloggers has focused on the small number of high-traffic, A-list bloggers....The survey found a different kind of story about the power of the internet to encourage creativity and community among all kinds of internet users.”

The reasons people blog?

77% have shared something online that they’ve created themselves—artwork, photos, stories, videos, etc.
76% of bloggers say a reason they blog is to document their personal experiences and share them with others.
64% of bloggers say a reason they blog is to share practical knowledge or skills with others.
52% say they blog mostly for themselves, not their audience.
When asked to choose one main subject, 37% of bloggers say that the primary topic of their blog is "my life and experiences."

Hanging On The Edge Of A Cliff: Update On The Middle East

Mark Schannon — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:37:48 EDT

The Military Situation: Escalation Beyond Lebanon

Sam Ghattas of AP reported at 5 p.m. (EDT) that Israel increased the level of its attacks against Lebanon with their biggest offensive since the 1982 invasion, imposing a naval blockade, attacking Beirut’s airport twice, and hitting two army bases close to Syria. Israel’s army chief, Brig. Gen. Dan Halutz said “nothing is safe” in Lebanon. All cities and especially Hezbollah offices and residents were targets.

Hezbollah has also kept up its pressure, firing more than 100 rockets into Israel, one of which might have hit the city of Haifa. “The Shiite militant group denied it had rocketed Haifa, where no injuries were reported,” Ghattas reported, but Daniel Ayalon, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. called the attack “a major, major escalation.”

In a report that has gotten little notice outside of Israel but has the potential to escalate the crisis across the region, The Jerusalem Post and el Haaretz today reported that

“Israel has concrete evidence that Hezbollah plans to transfer the two Israel Defense Forces soldiers abducted Wednesday to Iran," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said Thursday.

"We have concrete evidence that Hezbollah plans to transfer the kidnapped soldiers to Iran. As a result, Israel views Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran as the main players in the axis of terror and hate that endangers not only Israel, but the entire world," AFP quoted Deputy Director General of the Foreign Ministry Gideon Meir as saying.

Forbes reported that Israeli analysts have warned that Syria it could be the next target. Syria supports Hezbollah and plays host to Hamas' political leader Khaled Mashaal. “But that seemed unlikely in the absence of a provocation,” the article said.

While Israel holds Lebanon responsible for the raids, “Hezbollah fighters operate with almost total autonomy in southern Lebanon, and the government has no control over their actions. But Lebanon has long resisted international pressure to disarm the group.”

OC Northern Command Lt.-Gen. Udi Adam said Thursday evening that the army has hit hundreds of targets in Lebanon since Wednesday night. Adam added that Israel has not ruled out sending ground forces into Lebanon. He told reporters that even Northern Command had come under Katyusha fire during the day. "I imagine over time that we will be able to rid ourselves of this threat entirely," he said.

Tap Dancing On The International Stage

President Bush defended Israel's attacks but expressed concern about toppling the fragile Lebanese government. "Israel has a right to defend herself," Bush said at a news conference in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel. "Every nation must defend herself against terrorist attacks and the killing of innocent life."

Western countries, Russia, and the United Nations called for restraint and demanded the return of the soldiers. The Arab League called an emergency meeting of foreign ministers in Cairo on Saturday, while the Lebanese Cabinet urged the U.N. to intervene, but all they got was a promise by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to send three veteran U.N. officials to the area to try to defuse the crisis.

In a turnabout from last night’s response, The European Union “criticized Israel for using what it called "disproportionate" force in its attacks.” EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he too was planning a peace mission.

Although there has been no media response or analysis, a review of comments by moderate Arab governments showed relative restraint, “apparently reflecting a sentiment in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia that Hezbollah — and by implication its top ally Syria — had started the fight with Israel.”

On the other hand, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas warned that Israel's Lebanon offensive "is raising our fears of a new regional war" and urged world powers to intervene.

The Analysts Begin To Weigh In

Forbes reports that Israel appears to be using the current crisis to strike a decisive blow against what Haaretz military correspondent Zeev Schiff called an "extreme foursome" -- Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.

"What's off Israel's agenda is as significant as what's on it. The dual crises in Gaza and Lebanon have all but killed what was until recently Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's top policy initiative: to withdraw from most of the West Bank in order to ensure a long-term Jewish majority for Israel."

"Katyushas and Qassam rockets, not demographics, now look like Israel's most pressing threat," wrote Aluf Benn, political correspondent for Israel's Haaretz daily.

Today’s Jerusalem Post ran an article, “Analysis: Hoping the Ripples Reach Teheran.” Reporter Herb Keinon wrote, “Lebanon is the pond, the IAF bombs are the stones, and the hope in Jerusalem is that hurling enough of those stones into the Lebanese pond will produce a ripple effect felt as far as Teheran.”

The idea is that if Israel makes things difficult enough for Iran’s proxy, i.e. Hezbollah, Iran may get the right message. Over the past two days, Israeli spokespeople have continued to claim that the Hezbollah raid had changed the rules of the game.

“One of the rules of the game that Israel wants to change is that Iran has free rein to use its terrorist proxies to make Israel bleed at a whim.”

Some question whether international pressure on Iran to stop its nuclear projects might be at play. “There are few ways easier to divert the world's attention than opening up another front. Which is what Iran has done. Indeed they have opened up two fronts, just as the question of the Iranian nuclear issue is reaching a critical peak.” However, Keinon and others doubt that Israel is ready to take Iran on directly, but they have argued that Iranian Republican Guards are in Lebanon directing Hezbollah actions and those soldiers could be targeted.

The Looming Middle East Disaster

Mark Schannon — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 03:01:32 EDT

11:50 July 12th. Until Israel declares its intentions, there's little hard news coming out of the region. At 11:15 p.m. (EDT), CNN reported live that Israel had declared all of Lebanon a target. At 11:45 p.m., a CNN reporter said that Beirut was under attack, including the airport, which is now apparently closed.

CNN also had reports from Gaza, where Israel has stepped up its military action. Their reporter said that opinion is divided between those who are celebrating the attacks on Israel and those who are exhausted, frustrated, and just want it all to end.

Israel's problems, however, may get more serious. WorldNet Daily reported late tonight that Abu Oudai of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in Judea and Samarai (the West Bank) in an exclusive interview said that "Palestinian rockets will now also be launched regularly on the other side of the country aimed at Jewish communities a few miles from Tel Aviv and Jerusalem." He added that major Israeli cities would become targets of terrorist rockets, hinting that they were getting help from Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.

"Our goal is to cover all Israeli regions and to bring them inside the distance of our rockets," he said.

On the international front, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormick issued a stronger statement. "This was an unprovoked attack. This was an attack on soldiers who are on Israeli territory, Israeli soil, by a terrorist organization," he said, adding that Hezbollah was taking this opportunity to try to increase hostility in the region, and in the process is dragging the Lebanese people into a situation that is not in their interest.

"It is a cynical attempt to provoke a reaction. It's a cynical attempt to try to escalate tensions in a region where tensions are already high as a result of the acts of Hamas, another terrorist group," he said. "So we would call upon all interested countries to do everything that they can to help secure the release not only of the soldier held by Hamas but the two soldiers now held by Hezbollah."

U.S. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones added, "This is a terrorist attack and it is clearly timed to exacerbate already high tensions in the region and sow further violence. We also hold Syria and Iran - which directly support Hezbollah - responsible for this attack and for the ensuing violence."Syrian Vice President Farouk al-Sharaa denied any involvement by his country, blaming Israel for its occupation of the territories.

Others had different interpretations for Hezbollah's attack. The Washington Post argued "the attack Wednesday was almost sure to bolster the reputation of Hezbollah, which probably enjoys more support in the rest of the Arab world than in Lebanon itself, where other sectarian factions have pushed for it to disarm. Nasrallah has vowed on numerous occasions to seize soldiers as a bargaining chip for the Lebanese prisoners; in one speech, he said it would happen this year."

AP reported that analysts in Lebanon have come to the same conclusion, adding that they've been under pressure to disarm.

The strategic problems of fighting a multi-front war are now being discussed by the analysts. Hezbollah's linkage with Iran, Syria, and Hamas has been highlighted by a number of sources. MSNBC noted "Regional Tensions Fuel Lebanon-Israel Clashes: Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, sees opportunity in Hamas situation."

MSNBC cited NBC's a Martin Fletcher's report that highlights Israel faces. "The Israeli prime minister is in a real bind now." Given how difficult it has been for Israel to root out the Hamas terrorists, it's even more difficult with Hezbollah, which is even more of an underground organization. As a result, Israel recognizes that only by putting pressure on Lebanon can they get their soldiers back.

Fletcher maintains that Hezbollah's goal is quite simple: To help Hamas. "It’s also important to bear in mind that both Hezbollah and Hamas are in effect run by Iran. The radical branch of Hamas is lead by Khalid Meshaal, who is in exile in Damascus and is financed and inspired in large part by Iran. It’s Syria and Iran who also finance, inspire, and give logistical back-up to Hezbollah. So, Hezbollah getting into the act is probably the work of Syria and Iran using their proxies to help each other."

But as the analysts analyze, the world waits to see what action Israel will take.

Extremism In The Pursuit Of Anything Is Moronic

Mark Schannon — Fri, 7 Jul 2006 00:33:22 EDT

Barry Goldwater once said, "Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice." That sure sounded good at the time.

"Give me liberty or give me death."

"Don't tread on me."

"Neither a lender nor a borrower be."

"Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy."

We're becoming a society of extremists and platitudinists. (Not to be confused with Platonists.) Challenge the president's Iraq policies, and you're an anti-American, "cut & run," Godless Islamic-fanatic lover. Support the president and you're a blood-sucking, oil guzzling, imperialist child killer. Imagine an anti-American, Godless, Islamic-fanatic lover sitting down to talk with a blood-sucking, imperialist child killer. What kind of calm, reasoned discussion would ensue? Talk about the environment for compromise and progress.

The far left treats the religious right as if they're out to cram Christ down the throat of every man, woman, and child in America. The far right believes that the left wants to take God out the dictionary. About the only thing they could agree on would be a book burning...except they'd fight over which books to burn.

We've always had extremists in America, but I don't think we've ever been in a situation where they've dominated the political process to the point where instead of dealing with substance, Congress introduces laws and constitutional amendments they know will never pass but will play well with the loonies back home.

It's not like we don't have serious domestic and international problems, but how can they be resolved when each side demonizes the other, when politics becomes a zero-sum game, when people fail to distinguish the person from the person's beliefs? There was a time when phrases such as, "we can agree to disagree," or "honest people can reach different conclusions" weren't considered heretical.

Sorry, Barry, but you're wrong. Extremism in the pursuit of anything is dangerous. It presumes that only one side can have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It not only deafens people to anyone who doesn't immediately agree, it serves as a distorting filter that twists what they hear so they interpret it in the most negative possible way.

What's scary is that extremists really believe that the other side is out to get them, so they figure they'd better strike first. When you're paranoid, you can't hear anything but what you expect to hear. You can't consider compromise because you can't trust that the other side will abide by the agreement.

At this point, I guess I'm supposed to offer a solution. I don't have one. Change is possible. I've seen it. And it doesn't always require a frontal lobotomy.

Writer's Block & The Unconscious

Mark Schannon — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 03:41:37 EDT

There are two kinds of people in the world. Orange people and green people. Orange people are round, have a tough skin that, once you cut through, reveal a tasty delight inside. Then their orangeness turns brown. Green people are long and thin, stretching up to the sky. They sway in the breeze until the wind wins and knocks them over. Then they turn brown.

Show of hands...how many thought I was at least trying to say something profound with that stupid metaphor? That few? Wow, I gotta come up with better intros.

However, while it has no relevance to what I'm about to say, I enjoyed it, so there.

The real topic of this article is ***WRITER'S BLOCK***

In my infinite capacity for imbibing large quantities of Jameson's Irish Whiskey (and when are those assholes going to recognize how much I plug them and send me a free case, that's what I want to know.) Where was I?

Oh yes, writer's block.

Thesis: Writer's block is nothing more than the conscious mind over engaged in the writing process.

I'm not going to go into all the scientific findings about the dominance of our unconscious mind and how little control our conscious minds have over our day-to-day lives. If you want to know, ask in a comment, and I'll flood you with more data than you'd ever want.

The point is that human beings are not rational, emotional, nor sophisticated beings with a profound grasp of the world around us. In evolutionary time, we are about ten minutes beyond the caves--and we've fooled ourselves thanks to our weird ability to develop sophisticated technology into thinking we're special.

So, there are three kinds of people in the world (here we go again.) People who think writing is about as interesting as navel lint, people who write because some external force demands it--like a job, and people for whom there is no choice. You can't rationally analyze it--writers in the third sense write because we have no option. Not writing would be like not breathing. You can do it for a while, but, in the end, you either breathe or die.

The folk singer Arlo Guthrie once said that Bob Dylan, when asked where he got his songs from, responded that it was like dipping his hand into a river and just pulling the song out. Guthrie responded that the rest of them were just lucky to upstream from Dylan.

Writing is the same thing. Timothy Wilson, a psychologist at the University of Virginia, in Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious, writes that our five senses at any moment take in over 11 million pieces of information. Our conscious minds can handle about 40 pieces of information per second. The rest is processed by the unconscious which sets goals, forms opinions and values, makes decisions, and even determines behavior--usually outside of our conscious awareness.

So where does writing come from? Writer's often talk about being on a roll, watching the words flow onto paper (or computer screen) as if they were observers. It's an incredible high. The joy of discovery at moments such as that is as great for writers is at is for their readers. That's the unconscious at work. Even those writers who develop detailed outlines and character analyses have to let their unconscious do the hard lifting when it's time to start writing--the conscious mind just doesn't have the capacity.

What's fascinating is that, as one watches the words appear, the conscious mind is engaged and can impose editorial control when the unconscious starts getting off base. The balance between the two is a delicate one. If the conscious mind is too disengaged, you wind up with Ulysses, which I'm convinced was written to befuddle and confuse college students.

However, and, we finally reach the point, if the conscious mind is too engaged, you experience writer's block. You're literally blocking the unconscious from the creative exercise. There are lots of reasons the conscious may get over-engaged--you're letting the outside world intrude and daily problems are front and center; anxiety about whether what you're writing is good enough; frustration over any aspect of the writing process, etc.

You have to regain that balance, but my guess that the solution is individual. I often get up and wander around. Or I'll start working on another project. Sometimes, I can let something go and somehow things get back into balance. (There aren't easy words to describe that internal process.)

But there's another kind of writer's block caused by over-engagement of the conscious mind. That occurs not when you're writing, but when you're thinking about writing. Some set such high expectations that when they sit down to write, they're paralyzed. Others are so confused about what they want to say that they begin to force the process resulting in stilted, uninspiring words.

Again, the solution to this kind of block is individual, but I would suggest that one method is to try to shut your conscious mind off and just start writing. Don't worry about where it's going or what it is. Just write and try to recapture the feeling of reaching into the river and pulling out the words. I must have half a dozen ten to thirty page somethings--they may turn into novels or short stories, or they may just linger on my computer forever.

Writer's block is painful and even frightening, but if you understand what's causing it, you may have a better chance of overcoming it. It isn't mysterious or magical, it's not a sign that you're not a writer, it's not that your rhetoric machine has run out of words. It's simply that you're not letting your unconscious drive the process.

(I'm talking big for an unpublished novelist, but I've made very good living as a business writer and am known for my ability to put things in unusual, vivid, surprising ways, so I've got some reason to believe my thesis may be correct.)