A Word from London

Herbert London

Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute, John M. Olin Professor of Humanities at N.Y.U., and the author of the recently published book Decade of Denial, Lexington Books.

Guns and Feelings?

President George W. Bush has proposed a new cabinet level Department of Homeland Security. There has been a reshuffling of bureaucrats and an enormous increase in spending in order to forestall another terrorist attack in the United States.

But I wonder whether these gestures make any difference at all. Security won't improve unless the government comes to the realization that tolerance and sensitivity have to give way to cold, calculating reason and common sense. We are fighting against an elusive enemy that has recently vowed to use weapons of mass destruction to kill four million Americans.

Before we worry about offending a person from the Middle East because of racial profiling, we should concern ourselves exclusively with saving lives. It's too bad if Mr. Mohammed is angry or the A.C.L.U. is up in arms; we are at war and the government has as its paramount obligation the protection of citizens.

If this administration is serious about this war-as it should be-the president should tell the FBI and the CIA heads that they either coordinate activities and work together, or new leadership will be found. We don't have the time to engage in bureaucratic turf wars.

Moreover, if the president's new policy of preemption, which he enunciated in his West Point speech, is accurate, then we must seriously ferret out the thousands of "sleepers" in our midst, even if detractors scream about civil rights violations. So much for privacy and personal freedom if millions are in jeopardy of being incinerated. We can certainly restore these freedoms when the war is won.

This administration has made the case for war quite effectively, but it is feckless in bringing about the appropriate actions. A full-scale roundup of suspects is needed now, not unlike the capture and imprisonment of al Qaeda members formerly in Afghanistan.

The FBI recognizes that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has lost control of those who have exceeded temporary visas and remain in this country. It seems to me that each and everyone of these people must be apprehended. There is no time to waste.

The notion that the CIA addresses foreign crimes and espionage and the FBI domestic issues is a distinction unworthy of the wartime effort. Terrorists move in and out of this nation; it is not at all clear under whose jurisdiction they come. But that is ultimately inconsequential if they are apprehended and their ambitions thwarted.

I.N.S. Commissioner James Ziglar says

It's not practical or reasonable to think you're going to be able to round them (illegal aliens) all up and send them home.

Indeed, it may not seem practical because so many people fall into this category. But let me remind Mr. Ziglar that we are at war and if he doesn't think this charge is practical, President Bush should find someone who does.

Similarly, if Transportation Secretary Norman Minetta won't allow guns in cockpits or ethnic screening in airports, the President should find someone who will. This isn't the time to worry about hurt feelings.

In fact, that is the main problem with the war effort. It isn't guns and butter that we attempt to reconcile; it's guns and feelings. Yet how can that be done? How do you fight a war in which millions of lives are at risk and worry simultaneously about hurting someone's feelings?

Could World War II have been fought and won if America's preoccupation was Japanese and German feelings? This is liberalism's cross to bear; Americans want to see resolve, not merely tolerance. Americans, I believe, wish to survive, not to pretend we don't discriminate.

It's time to stop playing games and time to get serious about the war we are in.

Free Press & Press License

Let me note right at the outset that I believe deeply in freedom of the press. In fact, even when I've disagreed with various opinions or have been treated unfairly or had my views twisted into unrecognizable positions, I've still consistently defended press freedom.

However, over the last few months I have observed the excesses of freedom that may put at risk millions of American lives and, in the process what I have observed has forced me to consider my devotion to the First Amendment.

Several newspaper accounts have revealed the vulnerability of the water supply in metropolitan areas. In one story a journalist pointed out how easy it would be to put cyanide in reservoirs.

In another account chemical companies were identified by name and location and their vulnerability to attack was noted.

In yet another television news story a young journalist demonstrated the ease with which he gained access to the tarmac at an airport and the damage he could inflict, if he were so inclined.

Presumably these would-be truth tellers are intent on showing areas of security weakness so that steps to improve matters might be taken. Yet it is also the case that these stories give potential terrorists ideas.

What characterizes contemporary journalism is that any story is fair play. There are virtually no limits. Neither taste nor security enter the equation of newsworthiness.

Overlooked in this vigorous pursuit of a story are the lives that may be put in jeopardy. Suppose, for example, that a journalist in the 1940s wrote a story indicating naval intelligence broke the Japanese code prior the Battle of Midway. Hundreds of lives would have been lost unnecessarily and the advantage possessed by Admiral Nimitz at this turning point in the Pacific war would have been lost.

Suppose as well that a journalist in the pursuit of a Pulitzer Prize were to illustrate how vulnerable a U.S. attack force in Iraq would be to chemical weapons.

Consider the Nazi advantage if they knew exactly when and where the invasion of Normandy would occur.

It was not by pure chance that so many American planes were shot down over Vietnam since overzealous anti-war activists attempted to keep tabs of fighter schedules and tipped off the enemy.

Knowledge is power and information can be an advantage. In the aftermath of 9/11 every precaution must be taken to prevent another terrorist attack. That should be obvious, but isn't. The press corps has been so inured to the conditions during the Vietnam War and subsequently that it considers its first obligation the pursuit of journalistic stories wherever they lead rather than a concern for national security. As a consequence, very rarely is any statement "off the record," even when these words are used by a government official. Is it any wonder that Don Rumsfeld is close-mouthed or intentionally ambiguous?

In the minds of the public, responsible journalism is an oxymoron. Everything is fit to print and everything is appropriate for viewing. The generation of journalists who kept information to themselves and were circumspect in what was ultimately printed is an anachronism, yet another casualty of cultural degradation.

While I am not sure where journalistic limits should be drawn or how they may evolve, in the absence of self-policing something will have to be considered. The Geraldo Riveras of the world are interested solely in self-aggrandizement; they want to be at the center of a big story. That's what counts.

Ernie Pyle is gone and there isn't anyone to replace him. Schools of Journalism emphasize subjectivity rather than objective accounts. "How do you feel about the events that are unfolding?" Moreover, and most significantly, national security issues rarely enter the equation. As one newsman told me, "my job is getting the news, period." If only it were that simple.

Freedom is attached to responsibility and responsibility infers limits to what one will write and say. This should be the first lesson in Journalism 101. That it isn't the case is evident in the daily reading of many newspapers and viewing of T.V. news. Perhaps that explains why I have begun to question the Constitutional provisions for a free press even as I recognize its many virtues. Yet we are at war and the preservation of lives and nation trumps press freedom.

What Ever Happened to Taboo?

There is a word that has been excised from the English language: taboo. The word suggests that some acts are banned, prohibitions to protect the culture from depredation. It was once understood that certain conditions might tear the gossamer thin shield of civility and unfurl a wave of destructive behavior. One didn't have to be religious to appreciate the restrictions that kept Sodom and Gomorrah from reemerging on the contemporary scene.

Yet it appears that the understanding as well as the word have been placed in the ash heap of history. Any perversion, however bizarre and lurid, has defenders as the First Amendment is often reinterpreted to include expression and action of any kind, even when unrelated to speech.

Let me cite several illustrations.

Pedophilia was often cited as the taboo that could not be modified. After all, children require protection from sexual predators. How could any society allow children to be used for sexual gratification? To my astonishment it has happened here. There are defenders of this perversity who claim a consenting child (under 16) has a right to determine his sexual actions.

It would be wildly exaggerated to claim this is a normative view. But the fact that this opinion has acceptance in any quarter indicates the restriction is weakening.

Incest was yet another taboo; its name rarely spoken since laws prohibit the union of relatives. Yet on April 28 the New York Times ran an article defending the marriage or relationship of cousins and two years ago the book Kiss, dealing with a father-daughter relationship, received a positive review in the same newspaper of record. Apparently incest is a topic moving inexorably into mainstream discussion.

With the enormous popularity of the film "Silence of the Lambs" and its not so successful sequel, "Hannibal Lecter"-the film's lead character-has taken cannibalism from the dark shadow of head-hunting societies to Hollywood. Moreover, the practice of eating human flesh has moved from primitive culture to ours without the revulsion one might have expected, say, 30 years ago.

Yet another taboo that laws have reinforced is public fornication. Here too the protection wall is crumbling. On the prime time television show "Dharma and Greg" a yearend program was devoted to this practice without the slightest glance at shame-another word in desuetude-or norms. It was simply fun to do.

Then there is the issue of pornography that was sensibly kept under wraps or in a brown paper bag. This was the tribute that vice once paid virtue. But that is also passé. Now pornography is everywhere-in clothes catalogues, on billboards, on bus ads. It is in the polluted air we breathe.

Since selling porn is technically illegal in many states, including New York, pornographers have taken to giving it away as inserts in magazines. Yes, porn is free, albeit the price tag for society is very costly.

Why, one might well ask, how has this happened? Surely most people don't approve of eliminating these restrictions. Yet the cultural drift continues.

As I see it the value imbibed by contemporary Americans as its paragon of virtue is tolerance. "Who am I to say what's wrong?" note Americans casually seduced by those who push the cultural envelope.

Another dimension of this issue is a cultural relativism in which judgments are not made about the superiority or inferiority of another culture. President Berlesconi of Italy is still paying a political price for suggesting Islam was inferior to Judeo-Christian societies. And a physician who decried the use of cliterdectomies was excoriated by anthropologists who argued we should not judge the practice of other cultures.

Without judgment, without discrimination, without a sense of right and wrong, taboos cannot exist. They become-or should I say are fast becoming, suggestions-cautionary matters that prudence might dictate. They are certainly not sins and rarely are they crimes. Perhaps the only taboo left is to argue forcefully for taboos.

The Challenge of Cyber Schools

For those interested in education for autodidacts the future has arrived. Cyber schools are now available for anyone who has a computer and a desire to learn. And the much discussed home schooling movement has an educational tool at its disposal that virtually addresses any critique the educational establishment can direct at it. Well, not any critique.

Public educators contend that for-profit schools are draining resources from public schools. Under many state laws, set up to encourage competition, a district that loses a student to a school chartered by another district is mandated to make payments for the child's education. On-line schools, freed from geographic boundaries, have entered the competition for students and the tax dollars that follow them.

About 50 of those on-line institutions have taken hold, with students and teachers communicating via telephone, chat rooms and e-mail. These on-line schools aggressively seek students across broad regions confusing, and often exasperating, accrediting bodies and state education boards.

Considering the widely recognized failure of public education, these cyber schools offer unique opportunities for students to study at their own pace, in an individually tailored curriculum with daily feedback on performance.

It is precisely the strength of cyber schools that most worries public educators. Public education rarely offers an opportunity for students to study at their own pace, nor does public education offer individualized instruction. Most significantly, is the potential loss of jobs a matter that most concerns teacher unions?

Hence the emergence of an educational battlefield pitting cyber schools often for-profit entities, against public school educators, primarily the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. The issue public educators use to promote their position is the use of tax levied funds, albeit that may be a Trojan Horse for other more general concerns.

One of the first cyber schools, the Florida Virtual School, launched in 1997 to relieve overcrowded districts, has caught on statewide with 5000 students in 67 countries now participating. This school is funded directly by the state and doesn't get revenue from other districts. But the precedent hasn't been lost on public educators who fear a signifcant reduction in the resources allocated for public schools.

Of course, at the moment, despite the hand wringing, there isn't really much that should worry public educators. With fewer than 50,000 students nationwide, cyber schools account for a tiny fraction of the K through 12 field that presently encompasses about 53 million students and a budget of nearly $400 billion annually. The concern emanates from the potential cyber schools have for changing education, not the present reality.

When school districts sponsor cyber schools, public money can be used to sustain the program. Conversely, when parents home-school on their own they generally are not eligible for public funds. As a consequence, for-profit entities actively seek out sponsoring school districts to serve as incubators for their products and services.

Some critics of cyber schools contend local tax revenues shouldn't pay for a school that local voters have no say in running. At the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year Einstein-one of the largest cyber schools-was attempting to fend off 24 different lawsuits involving 120 school districts as plaintiffs. The suits allege cyber schools do not qualify as charter schools; they are not deserving of public money and they are not responsive to local constituencies.

These lawsuits are the opening shot in what is likely to be an extensive battle. Although the big guns clearly are on the side of public education, the future result is anything but assured. Despite the litigation launched against them, cyber schools represent a desire for change on the part of parents fed up with the non-performance of public schools. Moreover, technological innovation invites reform of precisely this kind. Public educators will fight against this school alternative because it is in their interest to do so, but in the end I'm persuaded technology will triumph.

In the short term, however, a battle will be fought in which public educators will use any means at their disposal to oppose reform and maintain the status quo. Unfortunately what is lost in this calculus is the welfare of students. Then again, students don't pay union dues.