Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

CARROLL: Bennet's dilemma

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published January 6, 2009 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

Michael Bennet, Colorado's soon-to-be U.S. senator, has experienced first hand how unions tend to suffocate innovation and change. Which is what makes his likely vote this year on Democratic legislation to abolish the secret ballot in union-organizing elections so interesting.

Will Bennet back this obnoxious measure that attempts to saddle private companies with the sort of reactionary inertia he has had to endure as superintendent of Denver Public Schools?

If he does, he'll take a huge hit on his credibility.

The Denver teachers union didn't merely dig in its heels against many of Bennet's reforms (which included closing nonperforming schools and supporting those that wished to waive contract rules to better serve their students). Union officials also mocked Bennet's initiatives as the product of "policy wonks" in love with "the latest fads," and accused the district of "bad faith."

They even tried last year to defeat the re-election bids of the president and vice-president of the school board, two of the reforms' biggest supporters.

Bennet has made no secret of his disappointment in the union's behavior. If any senator should understand the danger in dispensing with the most fundamental guarantee of election integrity in order to boost the prospects of unions - at a time when innovation and flexibility in the private sector are more critical than ever - he should be the one.

Go, set, ready . . .

We might not know what our next senator thinks about almost any issue outside of education, but we can at least be comforted by the fact that he began organizing his 2010 campaign staff even before his selection had been made public.

Now there's a fellow who understands political priorities!

Defining terrorism

Paul Campos believes the latest Israeli-Palestinian dust-up shows that terrorism "has been emptied of almost all practical meaning. 'Terrorism,' in the context of Middle East politics and warfare, has come to mean something very close to 'violence targeted at people with whom I sympathize.'

"As Nir Rosen puts it in The Guardian," Campos continued, "it is 'an empty word that means everything and nothing; it is used to describe what the Other does, not what we do.' "

What rubbish. If the University of Colorado law professor, who writes a weekly column for this newspaper, has difficulty defining terrorism, that's his problem. But lots of us are able to - and it matters that we do.

Terrorism is violence that intentionally targets noncombatants for political purposes.

Campos believes that those who generally support Israel consider "a teenage Palestinian unaffiliated with any group who tries to run down Israeli soldiers with a car" a terrorist. Not so. But we do insist that the launching of missiles into Israel by Hamas are acts of terrorism because their purpose is to kill and maim civilians.

Campos seems to reject any moral distinction between razing a kindergarten and razing a bomb factory if civilians are killed in both attacks, as will probably be the case. It follows from this logic that almost any military operation in an urban landscape can be declared the moral equivalent of a suicide bombing in an ice cream parlor - a proposition that some of us find obscenely simplistic.

Since the days of the Romans (and probably before) humans have understood the moral difference between killing armed combatants and slaughtering civilians.

Early Christian philosophers such as Augustine emphasized the distinction, too. Later, the code of chivalry would develop in part as an attempt to protect the defenseless. Modern international law is hardly silent on the matter, either.

Nor is it true that people in the West never describe what "we do" as terrorism. The bombing of Dresden during World War II, for example, is broadly (and correctly) recognized as "the greatest Anglo-American moral disaster of the war against Germany," in the words of historian Paul Johnson, precisely because it seems to have had no purpose other than to break civilian morale.

If terrorism is becoming an "empty" word, it's because some people have discovered that empty words help them argue for moral equivalence where none exists.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • January 6, 2009

    6:48 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    VVVV writes:

    'Let he who is free from sin cast the first stone' was intended to prevent anyone from casting stones, since nobody is truly free from sin. By definition, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, the bombing of Hanoi, the Sand Creek Massacre, and Guantanimo Bay are all acts of terrorism.

    The problem is not in the definition. The problem is the holier-than-thou horror that using the term 'Terrorism' is supposed to create. The only thing that shocked people about 911 was that it could happen to us (a superiority complex), not that it could happen. Anyone who says differently is just trying to sell something.

  • January 6, 2009

    8:47 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    DougH writes:

    Vince , I wouldn’t say you are going over the top but your comments that “unions tend to suffocate innovation”, “ and change at a time when innovation and flexibility in the private sector are more critical than ever” seem to be a little extreme.

    When you talk about innovation and flexibility are you speaking of the meat packing business in Greeley that had a workforce comprised of illegal immigrants or the company that was filing bogus tax returns for them ?

    Or are you talking about the flexibility of exporting jobs to India and other countries as it is much more profitable for owners to move jobs out of the country ?

    Of course our so-called “ Free Trade” allows companies the flexibility of competing US workers against third world countries for labor costs.

    All of this innovation and flexibility is draining employees and consumers and taken with it our middle class economy and life style

  • January 6, 2009

    8:58 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    GunnyBob writes:

    The results of my program's Friday poll question revealed that 74% of the respondents would be more likely to read the Rocky if there weren't so much extremism in some of the doomed paper's columns and editorials. This fits precisely with my repeated assessments and warnings that readers will move elsewhere if the hate, bigotry, intolerance, radicalism and anti-Semitism in a paper is allowed to run amok, as it has with Campos, Littwin and Salzman. Now it has gotten so bad that the editorial page editor is publicly maiming one of his own columnists; a member of the triumvirate that is one factor in the demise of the Rocky.

    Will the humiliated Campos now fire back? Will he quit in anger just before the paper folds? Will Carroll now attack Littwin and Salzman for their pedantic and vile opinions?

    I've been warning the paper for years that it had better rein in these characters or its readers would walk away. Sadly for the RMN families who are now facing financial ruin, Temple and Carroll didn't listen and now it's too late.

  • January 6, 2009

    9:33 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    DougH writes:

    My gosh, it is the famous Gunny Bob posting to this site. When 74 % of your respondents agree on something, then it is time to run for cover and get away from that as fast as you can.

    Right Wings Nuts come in all shapes and sizes, but you are truly on the very far side,your comments posted here are just as moronic as your radio show.

  • January 6, 2009

    10:50 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Ted_in_Vegas writes:

    VVVV: Your statements are non-sensical unless you ignore reality and facts. Let me blow apart your silly statement with four questions.

    Guantanamo Bay is violence targeted at civilians? (No, while the lack of military tribunals and the necessary and subsequent hangings of illegal combatants is horrendous, few there were civilians.)

    Hiroshima was not the Imperial Japaneese HQ in WWII, from which most of the ships that attacked Pearl Harbor came? (In fact, Hiroshima was the largest functioning Japaneese Navy base when it was bombed.)

    Nagasaki was not the largest manufacturer of weapons and ammunition for Imperial Japan during WWII? (In fact, not only did Nagasaki produce more weapons and ammo than any other city, it was also a major Japaneese Army HQ.)

    (BTW - The Japaneese economy at that time had nearly every household also involved in the production of military hardware of somekind or another.)

    The bombing of Hanoi didn't target bridges, weapons factories, power plants and other legitimate targets? (We carpet bombed the jungles earlier but hit Hanoi with targeted strikes at military targets and unveiled the first laser-guided bombs in the process.)

    Unfortunately, you're stand correct on Sand Creek though so we are not without blame. But that also misses the point.

    Israel - unlike Hamas, Hezbollah and PLO - does not TARGET civilians.

  • January 6, 2009

    11:42 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Cwillyrun1 writes:

    Good points Ted. Lest some forget, there was no such thing as guided missiles or precision bombs in WWII. That left both sides with dropping bombs 'en masse. Germany bombed London neighborhoods. Britain and the United States bombed Berlin and some other large cities, with military manufacturing in them as well as neighborhoods. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and the United States was NOT at war at the time. Japan attacked China and enslaved millions of Chinese. Sure, 2 atomic bombs dropped on Japan killed tens of thousands, but probably saved millions from ultimately dying because Japan's government would've sacrificed anything to win or survive. See kamikaze attacks! All of those instances are still NOT considered acts of terrorism, unless a very liberal and twisted viewpoint leads someone to deludedly believe so.

    Guantanamo Bay is bad, but it is NOT an act of terrorism! Using your logic, VVVV, if a driver rear ends you it's probably an act of terrorism. Sand Creek might be considered an act of terrorism by today's standards, but then Indians aren't innocent either now, are they? After all, isn't attacking homesettler's and scalping them just as bad?

    The Oklahoma City federal building bombing was an act of terrorism...... homegrown terrorism.

    About 9/11......... what shocked people was that there are those out there who have NO RESPECT for innocent life. In America, we're not as backwards or barbaric as those who we relate terrorism to. We value life, they look at anyone's life as expendable. They don't have civility towards people with different beliefs....... they'd like to kill them. Not just Jews, but even Christians. Sell your logic to yourself, because we aren't buying it.

  • January 6, 2009

    1:07 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

    One for the "Moral Equivalence" Crowd [James S. Robbins]

    Here is a good example of Hamas's modus operandi. They set up a mortar team next to a school crowded with refugees, fire a few rounds (acoustic mortar detectors can locate the source fairly quickly), then run before the counterstrike arrives. Innocent people pay the price — in this case, 30 killed, 55 wounded.

    This has happened at two different schools so far.

    So Hamas is not just hiding among civilians or using them as human shields, they are intentionally engineering headline-grabbing mass casualty events they can blame on Israel.

    Great bunch of guys.

  • January 6, 2009

    1:23 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    GunnyBob writes:

    This http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,4... must tickle Campos pink.

  • January 6, 2009

    1:47 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    Warfare will never return to chivalry. The future of war will be defined by Islam as was the Jihad we call the Crusades from our side. Look for more terror, not less. Carroll seems confused attempting a definition of terror to almost cede the point to Campos. Was firing-bombing Dresden terrorism or a necessary act of war? Righties say war, lefties say terror. Carroll can’t find the line between the two as Campos can’t find his morning slippers. One thing is certain, civilians are killed in warfare and that will become worse with time. Trouble with the word “terror” it doesn’t pin the tail on the donkey. And in a world where anyone can be a terrorist, you may as well call the enemy by his name.

    GunnyBob’s great radio program is incisive. He got it right on the left lean killing the Rocky. The paper tried to play to both sides, losing its traditional base and not picking up the liberal youth it thought it might. It was a business risk that failed. Funny, Littwin blamed the very people to whom he was appealing, the Internet crowd. The paper ended up with lefties still calling the paper right wing nut work, or whatever the illiterate phrasing is, and traditional readership bolted seeing their paper become something designed for a Berkeley readership.

  • January 6, 2009

    2:23 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Faux_Noise writes:

    "Campos seems to reject any moral distinction between razing a kindergarten and razing a bomb factory if civilians are killed in both attacks, as will probably be the case. It follows from this logic that almost any military operation in an urban landscape can be declared the moral equivalent of a suicide bombing in an ice cream parlor - a proposition that some of us find obscenely simplistic."

    Which is why Campos never said any such thing. It "seems" that way to you, because you can't make any argument without invoking a straw man.

    Perhaps that, and your obsession with the NYTimes and all other things political in New York, explains the Rocky's tanking. Of course, I doubt if political views of either stripe are responsible, it's about ad revenue and fracturing of old media markets. That reality will not stop the wingnuts from whinging though.

  • January 6, 2009

    2:45 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    peterpi writes:

    GunnyBob, I'll bet 75% of your listeners think your show and Fox News are "fair and balanced". Polling your supporters and getting responses from people who self-select is good for the ego, but not much else.
    "hate, bigotry, intolerance, radicalism and anti-Semitism"?
    "Radicalism" and "intolerance" are in the eye of the beholder, so I'll pass. I defy you to give specific examples of when Campos, the columnist mentioned by Carroll, or Littwin, the columnist reactionaries love to hate, engaged in outright bigotry or anti-Semitism.
    Arguments against Israel's behavior are not, in and of themselves, anti-Semitic. And you should know that. Give me one example where Campos deliberately used anti-Jewish stereotypes and smears to condemn Israel.
    Vincent Carroll offered a reasoned critique of Campos without resorting to calling him a bigot and an anti-Semite.
    I support Israel. But efforts to call any criticism of Israel's policies anti-Semitic are nothing more than efforts to silence criticism of Israel by over-zealous supporters.
    The State of Israel is a human creation, just like any other nation. All nations, like all humans, are imperfect. Feel free to condemn unjust criticism, and explain why it's unjust. Throwing around "anti-Semitism" cheapens the term to meaninglessness and silences useful dissent.

  • January 6, 2009

    3:06 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    HopiMedicineMan writes:

    Another thing that happened, the RMN tightened it's coverage area. The inner city is liberal, the burbs are conservative. Young people live in the city, go to school, vote for Democrats. They get married, witness some crime nearby, move out a ways. They have a couple kids and they're making more money, a house further away is desirable. Then, they want better schools for their kids and they take notice of the taxes they're paying that go for almost nothing. It is these folks the Rocky did not follow to Littleton, Evergreen and Loveland. In fact, Temple, somebody, went the opposite direction, pulling coverage of the outlying areas. Your readership disperses, thus the perfect name for a newspaper.

  • January 6, 2009

    9:03 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    EMeister writes:

    How quickly we forget. It was not long ago that Hamas called and end to the truce. What would the world say if Israel launched 3,000 rockets into Gaza, at random each year? What if an Israeli strapped on a bomb and walked into a crowded market, onto a crowded buss or perhaps a restaurant in Gaza? Would there be more or less outrage? Was it not Israel that pulled out of Gaza? What did Hamas do? They moved their rockets up. Do the Palestinians want peace or is the only solution the total destruction of Israel, or if not, Palestine. If there is no middle ground, let's call it a war and get on with it. If peace is out of the question, why continue the dance? While we're at it, if the world is so concerned about Palestine, why is there a wall between Gaza and Egypt and why won't the Jordanians accept the Palestinians? Could it be that they don't want the trouble that goes with them? If ever there was a group that has created a hell on earth, it is Hamas. Has that worked well for the Palestinians? "Yea, that worked so well the last time, let's do it again. Let's launch a few more rockets from that school yard so we can make martyrs of kids. That'll be great for the Palestinian cause." Would the world be happier with an in-kind retaliation? For every rocket fired by Hamas randomly at Israel, Israel should fire one back randomly into Gaza? That would be better than targeting the military machine of Hamas? Wow. Just wow...

  • January 6, 2009

    10:14 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    GunnyFred writes:

    Thank goodness the seer of seers, prognosticator of prognosticators, Gunny Bob, has offered his insight. Honestly Bob, your delusions of grandeur are as inspiring as they are cringe-inducing. You're really going to "call-out" others on intolerance, bigotry and hate when you were nearly fired last spring after your on-air meltdown regarding the electronic monitoring of Muslims? Be a man, step-up and post that DD214 on your homepage for all to see. We're waiting.

  • January 6, 2009

    10:40 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    lol...now gunny is spouting his conspiracy theories here as well as on the radio...classic.

    http://colorado.mediamatters.org/issu...

  • January 6, 2009

    11:28 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Iceman7 writes:

    Mr Campos,

    You need to open the blinds to your ivory tower office and view the world from the commoners’ perspective. You are so out of touch with reality that your columns have become laughable.

    Hamas has been launching rockets aimlessly into Israeli civilian towns and settlements for years. There is no military objective other than to terrorize the population.

    When Israel launches an attack it makes every effort to go after military targets and inform the general population. Do to the terror tactics of Hamas, poor Palestinian civilians lose in greater numbers.

    What is evident is your simplistic and uneducated view of the world. Why a newspaper pays you anything for your dribble is beyond my pay grade. Mr. Carroll, as the editor, you may want to explain this to your readers.