This Week:

Quote of the Week

A Nickel’s Worth of History

The “Old Europe,” Part I: “Lingering Complexes”

The “Old Europe,” Part II: “Drifting from Christian Institutions”
“Even a Few Hundred Dollars a Month”

Greetings,

It’s another double issue this week. I don’t know what’s gotten into me.

As promised, there are no references this week to statistics, nor graphs, nor charts, nor any other number-related, ranking-type comparisons. No, this week it’s just some thinking about stuff I have seen recently in the newspapers. Whereas the past couple of weeks has been basic information about which you can form your own opinions, this week is some analysis of other people’s journalism, that is, other people’s opinions. The reason it is worth looking at is that the opinions (i.e. the “news”) in the mainstream press has a huge impact on how we all think about the world.

The “theme” this week—which is accidental, since I didn’t know there was a theme until just now—is how institutions shape how we feel by shaping how we think about certain things. Certain things, that is, like the European conquest of the continent 200 years ago, or the cowardice and amorality of the people of today’s Europe. You hadn’t thought about these things lately? Well, you haven’t been reading the newspapers!

OK, last week REALLY was the final week of the Nygaard Notes pledge drive. Thank you all, so much! After saying that the response had slowed down in the third week, this past week has seen the readers of Nygaard Notes playing some serious catch-up. Each and every contribution makes a difference, and I hope I am not saying all of this too often. Even if I am saying it too often, it’s true. And I much appreciate the kind and thoughtful notes that many of you send along with your financial support. Nygaard Notes is truly a public resource, dependent on no one but the readers. THANKS!

Speaking of thanks, a big one to my friend Madeleine, who supplied far more than a nickel’s worth of Latin expertise for this week’s issue. Fordham University is lucky to have you, Madeleine!

See you next week,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

Paired “quotes” this week. Both of them are from the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) of October 13, in an article on food advertising as it relates to the epidemic of childhood obesity.

“Quote” #1:

“The food industry advertises to children at the earliest ages. They're tremendously good at it; they spend billions of dollars on it. And the consequence is the most overweight children on Earth.”

That’s Kelly Brownell, chairman of the philosophy department at Yale and director of the university's Center for Eating and Weight Disorders.

Here’s “Quote” #2, from Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health in New York, a nonprofit group of physicians and scientists “funded by foundations, corporations and trade organizations:”

“There's no reason these products should not be advertised, even intensively. Advertising is a part of life in a free society. The products being advertised are perfectly safe, wholesome products, whether it's Oreos or Cheez Doodles or Pepsi.”

A Nickel’s Worth of History

On November 7th the Star Tribune ran an article by the Associated Press headlined “5-Cent Facelift.” In this story, which was published in a number of newspapers around the country, we learn that “After 65 years with hardly a change, the nickel is getting two new looks next year – one design will feature clasped hands of friendship between the U.S. government and American Indians, and the second will show Lewis and Clark on a keelboat.” Well, I don’t know what a “keelboat” is, but let’s look, for a moment, at this “friendship” business.

U.S. Mint Director Henrietta Holsman Fore is quoted as saying that “We believe it is important for a country to pause from time to time and recognize our heritage.” The occasion, in this case, is “the bicentennial of the 1803 Louisiana Purchase.” Time sure flies, doesn’t it? It’s hard to believe that it was a mere 200 years ago that the U.S. government “purchased” 524,800,000 acres of land from the French government (I commented on this immense crime back in Nygaard Notes #212 “Purchasing ‘A Law-abiding Society’”).

It’s a fact that our government has chosen to honor the bicentennial of something that many consider to be a larceny of unimaginable proportions. But take a look at the image that was chosen to “commemorate” it. The article explains that on the back of the new nickel

“There is an image of hands clasped in friendship – one with a military cuff to symbolize the U.S. government, and the other with an ornate bracelet to represent American Indians. Above the clasped hands is a tomahawk crossed by a peace pipe. Below the clasped hands are the Latin words ‘E Pluribus Unum.’”

Maybe, just maybe, if we thought long and hard, someone could come up with an even better symbol of “friendship” with the continent’s native peoples than a shake with the hand of the imperial military that was in the midst of conquering them by the use of genocidal force in 1803.

One other thing: Perhaps the motto “E Pluribus Unum” – “From Many, One” – could be replaced by a motto more meaningful to the indigenous people whose land was “purchased” 200 years ago (from the French, not from the indigenous people who lived on it). How about “E Pluribus Pauci” (From Many, Few)? Or, perhaps, “E Multis Viventibus, Multi Mortui” (From Many Living, Many Dead)? I also quite like “E Pluribus Lucrum,” because it sounds the best in English: “From Many, Money.”

This offensive image – with the peace pipe, military glove, etc – is not an original image, by the way, and its offensiveness only increases with a little knowledge of history. The image is taken from something that appeared, back in 1803, on the face of an item called the “Jefferson Peace Medal.” This medal was carried, in the fashion of the time, by official military agents of the U.S. government who traveled with the Lewis and Clark expedition. According to the National Park Service description, “These agents were to give the peace medals to the most powerful American Indian chiefs only if these chiefs would agree to certain conditions.”

You may ask, “What were these ‘conditions’?” Well, it seems that the agents (the Park service calls them “captains”) would sit down in ceremonies with the various native leaders they would meet. (I say “leaders,” but they may or may not have been. According to one historian of the time, “when in doubt, the captains arbitrarily ‘made’ chiefs, upon whom they would then bestow the medals.) The Park Service explains what happened next: “During these ceremonies, the captains would impress upon the chief the importance of making and maintaining peace. If the chief would promise to be under the rule of the ‘Great Chief’ Thomas Jefferson, and if he would make peace with all the other American Indian tribes in the area, the captains would then present him with a peace medal as a symbol of their agreement.”

That’s pretty neat, isn’t it? An unbelievably well-armed and relentless conqueror “impresses” upon the targets of their conquest that they must capitulate. And, not only must they capitulate, but they must also agree to police and pacify the entire “area” under attack. This process, in the official history, is known as “making and maintaining peace.” For this, the Indian leaders get the “Jefferson Peace Medal.”

Now, 200 years later, the image from this “peace medal” is issued by the U.S. government to commemorate...what? Is it really to commemorate the “purchase” of the 820,000 square miles of land that was stolen from the continent’s native people? Or is it to commemorate the almost 400 treaties that the U.S. government has made and broken with those same people? Either way, the “peace” of the United States government isn’t worth a nickel.

The “Old Europe,” Part I: “Lingering Complexes”

As the European Union gains strength and presents itself as a potential rival to U.S. domination of the globe, it becomes necessary to explain something to the mass of United Statesians: What could possibly be wrong with those people, that they would not want to passively follow U.S. orders? So, the media has taken it upon itself to offer an increasingly-frequent series of feature articles reporting on problems in the so-called “Old Europe.” Many of the articles focus, not surprisingly, on the economic centers of Europe, France and Germany. The following is a look at an article that appeared a while ago, and which exemplifies the trend particularly well.

Back on March 18 the New York Times ran a story telling us about how backwards and useless the German military has become. You think I’m overstating this? Here’s the headline: “Germany's Military Sinking to ‘Basket Case’ Status.” See what I mean? It’s an accurate headline, as it turns out. Let’s have a look...

After quoting German military people as saying that many parts of Germany’s “aging war machine” really “should be in a museum,” reporter Craig Smith informs his U.S. audience that Germany “is now one of the worst military laggards in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.” (Bear in mind, as we go along, that this is a “news” story, appearing on page 3, and not an editorial.)

Remember, also, that this article appeared just two days before the U.S. attacked Iraq, during the time when the U.S. was attempting to deal with its failure to assemble a “coalition” in support of its illegal war. Remember, also, that Germany was one of the leaders in opposing the U.S. military attack. Then consider how surreal it was for the Times, at that moment, to publish a major story stating that “even if Germany did want to take part in a war on Iraq, military experts say it would find it hard to fight alongside the modern United States military.” It’s so bad, an anonymous “senior NATO official” chimed in, that “They're a basket case.”

The Times was very explicit in explaining what Germany would have to do if it wanted to reverse this humiliating trend: They would have to “transform their traditionally static armed forces into high-tech, mobile services that can better share the task of policing the world.”

The Cowardly “Complex”

Some benighted readers may imagine that Germany might possibly have made a rational decision since the end of the “Cold War” to refrain from “policing the world,” choosing instead to use the resulting peace dividend to improve the welfare of its people. But, no, the Times makes clear that this is all a result of “lingering complexes over the experience of World War II,” among other things. “With no obvious enemy threatening German security,” adds the Times, “the population has little stomach for more military spending.” So, they’re not only neurotic, they’re gutless, as well!

Let’s assume for a moment that it is indeed a strange combination of complex and cowardice that has made it impossible for the German military to function in a way that would allow them to help the U.S. “police the world.” Is the German military good for anything, then? Well, as the Times points out, “The German military has been effective in peacekeeping operations from the Balkans to Afghanistan... It has several hundred highly trained special operations troops, excellent mine-clearing equipment... It has a strong medical corps and a state-of-the-art flying hospital, and more troops deployed overseas than any other country besides the United States.” None of these things are useful in “policing” the world, but once can imagine a political process by which the German state could decide to orient their military toward actual defense, and toward some arguably peaceful purposes. Or, maybe it’s just a “basket case.”

Whether one can really use the military to promote peace is debatable, but that’s not the main point here. The simple point being made by the Times—and, by extension, the high-ranking, mostly anonymous, political leaders who talk to the Times—is this: Germany is a part of the “Old Europe,” and is living in the past, out of touch, gullible and helpless.

Although the focus of the article was Germany, the Times was clear that Germany is not the only backwards country in Europe. “Most NATO allies have followed Germany's lead in letting defense spending languish since the end of the cold war, investing in rich social welfare programs instead.” Uh-oh! There’s your problem, U.S. taxpayers: “Rich social programs.” Fortunately (in this view), the U.S. has not been investing in such frivolities, and “As a result, America's annual defense budget is now nearly double that of the 18 other NATO countries combined.” Note the cause-and-effect implied here. Cause: De-fund social programs. Effect: Not a basket case!

What is wrong with these wacky Europeans, anyway? Do they even believe in God? Maybe not, as the next article indicates...

The “Old Europe,” Part II: “Drifting from Christian Institutions”

Maybe the problem with the “Old Europe” is more than simple neurosis and cowardice. Maybe they have fallen away from God. At least, one might think so after reading the front page article in the NY Times of Oct 13, headlined: “Mainline Christianity Withering in Europe.”

In this article, the Times reports that “The secularization of Europe, according to some political analysts, is one of the forces pushing it apart from the United States, where religion plays a potent role in politics and society, shaping many Americans' views of the world.” One might think that “secularization”—at least in terms of keeping specific religious ideas out of government—would be a point of bonding with the U.S. After all, the separation of church and state is a founding principle of this country.

But, instead, we read about “France, which is predominantly Catholic but emphatically secular,” showing evidence of a “drift from Christian institutions,” which makes it “an extreme case” of the “disparity with the United States [that] holds true throughout much of Europe.” So that’s it: The further from the Christian God a nation is, the further it is from the United States.

The United States is, after all, a place where the “President” can say, as he did in a speech on November 6th, that his plan to impose “liberty” on Iraq through military invasion and occupation (as absurd as that idea may be) is unquestionably justified because U.S.-style “liberty” is “the plan of heaven for humanity,” merely being implemented by U.S. foreign policy.

No wonder it is troubling to the Times and its influential readers that “The preamble of a new, unfinished constitution for the European Union omits any mention of Christianity or even God among the cultural forces that shaped Europe...” If a nation’s political leaders don’t get their authority from God, then where the heck are they going to get it? The people?

The Times had so much trouble with the Christian God not being in the EU constitution that they managed to find someone (who “lobbied for God’s inclusion” in the document) to label this omission “a form of secular intolerance in Europe.” In fact, it’s just the opposite. By refraining from aligning a government with a specific religion, a constitution makes it far more difficult for that government to interfere with any individual’s practice of their own religion. This is the one of the fundamental reasons why the separation of Church and State is so important to a diverse society that wishes to operate as a democracy.

The alternative is theocracy, in which leaders base their decisions and policies on divine authority, which is unchallengeable and therefore unaccountable to the people being governed. That’s why it’s so troubling to hear our “President” speak of his plan as “the plan of heaven.” In the same vein, it was troubling to hear the recent comments of Army Lt. General William G. Boykin, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, who told an Oregon audience a few months ago that “George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the United States. He was appointed by God.”

The Times reports that “Americans are widely regarded as more comfortable with notions of good and evil, right and wrong, than Europeans, who often see such views as reckless.” Forget for the moment that this is terrible journalism (the phrase “widely regarded” is meaningless, for example). Consider that this comment may indicate that some very powerful people in this country are willing to suggest that many Europeans don’t know the difference between right and wrong (that is, they are “less comfortable” with the idea). And consider that General Boykin has not been fired, and actually has been praised by the Secretary of Defense. Do these things indicate a drift toward building a theocracy here in the United States? That would be “reckless,” and dangerous, indeed.

“Even a Few Hundred Dollars a Month”

In the world of “professional” journalism the belief is that the job of reporting “the news” is something that can be learned in school, just like any other “skill.” The ideology of the modern newsroom says that the journalist’s job is fundamentally one of “reporting what you see.” A problem arises, however, when you have affluent, sheltered people reporting on poor people, or “white” people with no race consciousness reporting on the realities of a race-riven society. In those cases, among others, what the reporter does NOT see becomes as important as what he or she does see. As a consequence, the world looks more like they think it is than like it really is.

Consider an article in the New York Times (“All The News That’s Fit To Print”) of October 20th headlined “Are Those Leaving Welfare Better Off Now? Yes and No.” The article was filled with unintentionally revealing comments. For instance, the evidence that the reporter was doing little more than speculating about whether former welfare recipients are “better off now” appeared in the second paragraph. That’s where we read that, “Since former welfare recipients are difficult to track, and the federal and state governments make only limited efforts to follow them, it is hard to say for sure how many of those who have lost federal cash supports are without other resources.”

Still later on in the article, the reporter, Leslie Kaufman, states that “Those already tightly pressed say that the loss of even a few hundred dollars a month is deeply felt.”

Bear in mind that Ms. Kaufman is speaking of people who make an average of less than 900 dollars a month—in fact, four paragraphs earlier she cites studies from four states showing that many so-called “welfare-leavers” are somehow living on “as little as $500 a month.” She even states that the number of people living at this level had increased by 600,000 from 2001 to 2002.

Perhaps this comment about “the loss of even a few hundred dollars” doesn’t sound absurd to people who have full-time jobs with decent pay. But for many people—particularly the subjects of this article—such a comment sounds so ignorant that it is hard to imagine why one should believe anything the reporter might write about “the poor.” And, how about the editors who assigned her to do the story? This isn’t about “liberal” media or “conservative” media: this is about getting the story straight.

Doing the Homework

Even if a reporter doesn’t have direct experience of living hand-to-mouth, they could always read any of a number of studies and reports that might help to give them a clue. In the case of Ms. Kaufman, she could have looked at a report released just last month by the National Center for Children in Poverty. That report points out that “Few low-income families today have the economic resources available to weather even a short-term loss of income.” The brief report—“Debt and Assets Among Low-Income Families”—explains exactly why: many low-income families have no savings, no stocks, no bonds, no money under the mattress, no nothin’. Their net worth, in other words, is close to zero.

Remember that one’s “net worth” is the result of adding up all of the stuff you own—your “wealth”—and then subtracting what you owe—your “debt.” Here’s what NCCP found out: First you take all families with debt. Then, when you focus on the families among them living below the poverty level, you see that the median amount of liquid assets (i.e. “money”) that they have is less than $200. 200 bucks! Total! This is only a slight improvement from 1984 when these families reported no liquid assets at all.

The median amount of liquid assets for a family with income between 100 and 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Line is only $600, down from $1,000 in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The result, as the NY Times reporter apparently doesn’t understand, is that the loss of “even a few hundred dollars a month” is not just “deeply felt.” It’s impossible to navigate.