Thank you, Barack...Sarah, job well done!

Yes, it is true. I (born in 1941), who participated in the 1963 "March on Washington", used to call the tumultuous 1960's the "Second Civil War."

For our generation (whose civil rights activities helped begin the end of the Civil War) this election seems especially symbolic. It does also reflect the changing composition of the country, new voters, young faces. high tech networking, and the skills of a Chicago community organizer. And, yes, this is a grand, but not final step beyond 1865.

This is also a challenge to the "Black Community" to move onward, to move beyond being victims -- at a time where it is very difficult to rise up whether you be Black or White.

In observing those on the bottom here in North Carolina, whether it be Black or White I see repeatedly the "sacred threes:" poverty, self destructiveness, and trouble with the law.

The "saving grace" of those on the bottom has been perseverance, hard work, courage, humor, and an ability to manipulate the system's "welfare" benefits. At a time of economic decline switching from that to rise up WITHIN the system will be a major challenge.

There is a potentially deep conflict between uncontrolled Hispanic immigration and the poor already here -- even though for now a coalition of Hispanics and Blacks seem to have been key Obama supporters.

But low wage Hispanics are part of the globalzation threat to Americans on the bottom, already weakened by lack of unions and export of jobs....and no one dared talk about this in ths campaign.

Without some control on the importation of low wage immigrants (which transforms them from union busters to equal competitors) conflict lies ahead.

That will be an important political challenge for Obama --- because so many people benefit from cheap Hispanic labor, including Democrats who seek to buy their votes.

Lastly the next few years will depend heavily on interaction with the outside world, which is only marginally controllable.

Obama's intelligence may help protect him in the recurring patterns of power politics where good intentions often backfire. Still enormous challenges lie ahead.

History often honors American optimism --- but it is not in the nature of life to escape from future tragedy.

As one tragedy heals, we can expect others along the way. History may cheer, but there are always tears ahead.

Lastly, while we can praise the many changes which combined with economic meltdown to make this landmark possible, let us also give credit to Sarah Palin.

The prospect of this talented but flawed politician in the White House with her "First Dude" may have done as much as anything (aside from Obama's organizational brilliance and McCain's eratic behavior) to put a non Afro American "half white" Afro American in the White House.

Thank you, Sarah. Job well done.

America's "gift to the world:" just a bit of anarchy

Except in time of war or perceived external threat, the American tradition is quite often to go easy, to err on the side of anarchy.

It goes all the way back to the overthrow of oppressive British rule, to the tradition of no holds barred self reliance on the wild frontier.

This despite well established practices of regulation in areas of public health and food and consumer safety.

To err on the side of anarchy is a grand American tradition.

Right on up from the often dysfunctional family, the out of control schools, the polarizing passions over abortion and evolution, the loose regulation of assault rifles, the marginally regulated banks and mortgages, the out of control credit card expansion and the now notorious lack of regulation of high risk investments, derivatives of sub prime rate mortgages.

Anarchy in America is alive and well. Now it has been shared with the world.

American anarchy and opposition to regulation are grand components of today's global economic downturn.

Many products now bear on them the label "made in China."

Today's move toward global downturn bears the label "made in America."

For a time, at least, much of the world must view America as a big part of the problem -- no matter how much Americans prefer to see themselves as the solution.

For now in America no one seems to be in charge.

But other countries around the world are beginning to push for more
order in the US -- and for global co-operation to reduce the spreading
of American anarchy to other parts of the world.

Now, that's a switch......

"Change we can believe in?" -- Alexis meets Bob

In 1831 French writer Alexis de Toqueville visited the United States as a journalist to cover the McCain -- Obama presidential race.

He discovered too late that he arrived too early -- but decided to file his observations anyway.

They appeared in Democracy in America, 1835.

Since then, in the words of aging but ever wise rock star Bob Seger, "It's still the same" (click to listen). There has been little change we can believe in. Indeed, in America change seems to come "Against the wind" (click to listen). What will it take to "Turn the page" (click to listen)? "The answer's in the question" (click to listen).

Chapter XVIII

WHY AMERICAN WRITERS AND ORATORS
OFTEN USE AN INFLATED STYLE

"I have frequently noticed that the Americans, who generally treat of business in clear, plain language, devoid of all ornament and so extremely simple as to be often coarse, are apt to become inflated as soon as they attempt a more poetical diction. They then vent their pomposity from one end of a harangue to the other; and to hear them lavish imagery on every occasion, one might fancy that they never spoke of anything with simplicity.

"The English less frequently commit a similar fault. The cause of this may be pointed out without much difficulty. In democratic communities, each citizen is habitually engaged in the contemplation of a very puny object: namely, himself. If he ever raises his looks higher, he perceives only the immense form of society at large or the still more imposing aspect of mankind.

"His ideas are all either extremely minute and clear or extremely general and vague; what lies between is a void. When he has been drawn out of his own sphere, therefore, he always expects that some amazing object will be offered to his attention; and it is on these terms alone that he consents to tear himself for a moment from the petty, complicated cares that form the charm and the excitement of his life.

"This appears to me sufficiently to explain why men in democracies, whose concerns are in general so paltry, call upon their poets for conceptions so vast and descriptions so unlimited.

"The authors, on their part, do not fail to obey a propensity of which they themselves partake; they perpetually inflate their imaginations, and, expanding them beyond all bounds, they not infrequently abandon the great in order to reach the gigantic.

"By these means they hope to attract the observation of the multitude and to fix it easily upon themselves; nor are their hopes disappointed, for as the multitude seeks for nothing in poetry but objects of vast dimensions, it has neither the time to measure with accuracy the proportions of all the objects set before it nor a taste sufficiently correct to perceive at once in what respect they are out of proportion. The author and the public at once vitiate one another.

"We have also seen that among democratic nations the sources of poetry are grand, but not abundant. They are soon exhausted; and poets, not finding the elements of the ideal in what is real and true, abandon them entirely and create monsters.

"I do not fear that the poetry of democratic nations will prove insipid or that it will fly too near the ground; I rather apprehend that it will be forever losing itself in the clouds and that it will range at last to purely imaginary regions.

"I fear that the productions of democratic poets may often be surcharged with immense and incoherent imagery, with exaggerated descriptions and strange creations; and that the fantastic beings of their brain may sometimes make us regret the world of reality."

After filing on the McCain -- Obama race, de Toqueville decided to visit a Walmart.

First woman president? McCain plays "Babe Card"

We see the vice presidential picks of of Obama and McCain as moving to produce a high voter turnout by energizing their "bases."

Obama tacks back to the traditional blue collar Democratic base with Sen. Joseph Biden. McCain tacks back to the right wing conservative Republican base with Gov. Sarah Palin.

(Examine a fascinating photo gallery of Gov. Palin's life.)

The message is clear. Traditional blue collar union Democratic types who were more comfortable with Hillary Clinton than with Barak Obama need not sit out this election. Evangelical right to life conservatives suspicious of John McCain need not sit out this election.

Nothing too much new here.....except John McCain has played this traditional card with a woman.

McCain plays his right wing "politically correct" hand with a charismatic, tough, rifle shooting "Babe." Obama plays the traditional union left appeal with a smiling, smooth talking, shirtsleeve Irish Catholic guy.

Is McCain's "Babe" competent or ideologically appropriate to lead the country if McCain "bites the dust?" That is another matter.

Never forget:

McCain's high stakes gamble will also energize into voting for Obama all those who think Sarah Palin as the nation's first woman president could be a disaster.

What is new here is the emergence into the political spotlight of what is quite "common" in America today: the right wing woman.

Ah yes. If McCain wins, we could have our first woman president, a right wing woman. Finally we "break the glass ceiling."

No, Virginia, not all American women went to Wellesley.

No, Virginia, not all American women are liberals.

Yes, Virginia, lots of American women can shoot.

No, Virginia, the liberation of women does not necessarily move America Left.

Would it not be ironic if the move to make "Hillary" the first woman president ended by making "Sarah" the first woman president?

Yes, Virginia, "breaking the glass ceiling" is not necessarily "a good thing."

War, media, and politics: "the first casualty is truth"

The preliminary casualty reports coming out of Georgia by human rights groups such Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch indicate relatively few casualties and no massive atrocities from the Russian invasion.

This could change.

Still we must raise the possibility cable news with its graphic content and the public relations strategies of the Georgian President Mikheil Saaskashvili, as well as the Russians, have grossly exaggerated the severity and scale of this war.

It is far from clear whether this was a brutal rape or a relatively careful punitive strike. Or a foggy mixture of something in between.

A grim propaganda war of videos alleging looting appears on YouTube. Some of the footage is BBC and CNN. Others is of unidentifiable origins, uploaded to YouTube by partisans of various stripes (be sure to check the emotional nationalistic comments posted with these videos). Here is one pro Russian YouTube upload claiming CNN used the wrong video to give a false impression Russian forces had occupied the Georgian city of Gori.

The propaganda war on YouTube appears aimed at youthful computer-savy viewers around the world.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch refrain from charging massive human rights abuses but point out Georgian civilians in occupied areas are vulnerable to abuse even after the current ceasefire.

Amnesty International has warned of continued dangers for Georgian civilians in Russian occupied areas and Human Rights Watch published a photo essay on looting and other trials of Georgian civilians.

The war may, indeed, be significant for its long term implications both in the region and on American politics. -- even though relatively minor in terms of human suffering. Time will tell.

"War, media, and politics"

We know that in the age of cable TV the presence of cameras can make even isolated violence appear as universal.

Conversely massive violence hidden from cameras and reporters makes it appear to have never occurred.

Taking a page from China: Russia teaches a "lesson"

When the US and the Czech Republic agreed July 8 to establish an anti missile program, Russia's Putin warned he would push back.

Now we have what is in some ways a quickly over "proxy war" between the US and a resurgent Russia. More fundamentally Russia's invasion of Georgia is a familiar great power tactic to ensure predominance in "its region" and send its rivals a message.

The expansion of American power into Russia's backyard after the end of Cold War made some kind of Russian reaction almost inevitable -- once its neighbors began to gravitate toward NATO and NATO pushed a dynamic move east to undermine Moscow's influence in the traditional sphere of Russian power.

A resurgent Russia under Putin decided when the time was ripe.

So now we have a Russian "punitive expedition."

Putin sent his message to Washington by invading this tiny American ally on Russia's border. Every nation bordering Russia must take notice.

The lesson is clear: don't mess with Russia, don't taunt a Putin, don't "Bait the Bear."

Beware of fooling around with the Americans. They cannot protect you. Especially when they are deeply involved with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ironically the weakened Russians have taken a page out of China's book. In February 1979, in a much more violent 29 day war covered by this writer, Deng Xiaoping invaded Vietnam to "teach a lesson" to that country that it could not depend on Soviet support for protection. A resurgent China sought to teach the Soviet "hegemon" a lesson.

Washington had pressured the Georgian leader Mikheil Saaskashvili (above) not to invade breakaway regions now aligned with Russia.

He did it anyway.

Giving Putin what he may have wanted: a "casus belli" to teach Georgia and the "West" a lesson. (See an article "Georgia, Russia took a path of belligerence and bluster" in the Los Angles Times on the origins of the war.)

Mikheil Saaskashvili, democratically elected. A brilliant, emotional, "in your face" man educated in America, the "darling" of several American politicians. Contemptuous of Putin. His army is American trained, parts of it assigned to Iraq.

Apparently confident his bond with the US would protect him, he launched his attack.

**************

Punitive expeditions are a well established great power tactic in dealing with defiant neighbors or troublesome governments in strategic locations. Especially if one's power is predominant in a region -- or not deterred by the power of another.

Smaller powers sometimes carry out punitive strikes, but it is the mark of a large or great power to claim the right and have the power to do this.

The trick of a successful punitive expedition is to make the point, inflict enough damage to deter future provocations -- but keep one's costs limited.

In the last few decades this has been a great challenge for both Russian and American policy makers: how to punish, intimidate -- without getting bogged down in maintaining a costly empire or military occupation. Or get involved in the costly enterprise of "nation building."

America is a frequent master of the punitive strike: from Panama to oust Manuel Noriega (1989); to Iraq to liberate Kuwait (1991); to Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban (2001); again to Iraq to ousts Saddam Hussein (2003). All were aimed at leaders or governments who dared to thumb their nose at the United States.

You don't mess with the Uncle Sam.

Look at some other examples:

Soviet expeditions to Hungary to oust Imre Nagy (1956); to Czechoslovaka to oust Alexander Dubcek (1968) -- then into Afghanistan to contain Islamic extremism (1979).

The Soviet expeditions went hand in hand with the costly enterprise of maintaining an empire.

The Russians haven't had a successful punitive expedition since 1968, although in the 1990's they did "win" two wars against rebellious Chechyna. Their ten year Afghan adventure ended in defeat in 1989.

China used a punitive invasion to teach Vietnam a lesson in 1979, with mixed but potent results. In 1962 China had launched another lesson against India when Indian armies marched north into region of Ladakh.

China's 1950 intervention in Korea as American forces moved toward its borders established there would be a steep price to pay when Americans played in Beijing's backyard. It was a lesson Americans listened to -- creating US caution in the war for Vietnam.

*******************

Punitive attacks often, but not always, lead to "regime change."

Regime change also is a well established great power tactic in dealing with defiant neighbors or troublesome governments in strategic locations. Especially if one's power is predominant in a region -- or not restrained by the power of another.

When Americans do regime change they justify it by accusations of corruption, human rights violation, irresponsible aggressive behavior. When Soviets did it they charged counterrevolution.

Now we have the interesting phenomenon of Putin using "Western" justifications in highly personal attacks on Georgian leader Mikheil Saaskashvili: that Georgia is carrying out genocide against its minorities, attacking peacekeepers, etc. Much the same arguments that Presudent Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Russians have called for trying Saashkashvili on genocide and war crimes charges.

We now have the irony of Washington, so often using regime change against its own enemies, castigating the Russians for possibly attempting this in Georgia.

Aside from Saddam, the US did regime change against Manuel Noriega in Panama; sought to do it against Fidel Castro in Cuba; did it numerous times during the Cold War, for example against Jacobo Arbenz Guzman in Guatemala (1954); and against Mohammad Mosaddeq in Iran, 1953.

A controversial American regime change was its support of the coup which killed South Vietnam's Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963.

"Hey Bill Moyers, are media really all that bad?"

"Our media institutions, deeply embedded in the power structures of society, are not providing the information that we need to make our democracy work. To put it another way, corporate media consolidation is a corrosive social force. It robs people of their voice in public affairs and pollutes the political culture. And it turns the debates about profound issues into a shouting match of polarized views promulgated by partisan apologists who trivialize democracy while refusing to speak the truth about how our country is being plundered."

Thus speaks Bill Moyers, prize winning PBS TV journalist, sometimes described as the inheritor of the Edward R. Murrow tradition.

Bill Moyers has long been the president of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy and the host of Bill Moyers Journal on PBS.

He was giving the keynote address at the National Conference for Media Reform Conference in Minneapolis on June 7. You can read more on Moyers at his PBS website.

Bill Moyers laments the decline of journalism and labels it a "Fifth Column" undermining democracy.

*****************

In my youth as a journalist with The Christian Science Monitor Bill Moyers was an esteemed name -- a journalist and clergyman and Lyndon Johnson staffer once again turned journalist.......

He is still a much respected icon, speaking out for the prophetic tradition of watchdog journalism, where reporters and editors "speak truth to power."

I personally called him while covering the 1976 Patty Hearst trial to discuss issues surrounding "mind control" and "brainwashing."

Today's Bill Moyers falls back on many "liberal" anti-corporate cliches -- oversimplifying the world between good and evil. Even though he does not use the Bushian term, "Axis of Evil."

Those who seek to gain the public's attention -- be they in journalism, movies, vaudville, or the circus -- have long hyped and hawked their wares to catch public attention. Wide media circulation sells advertising. Advertising supports media.

But government run media can also have problems of corrupting the truth by enforcing the party line.

This is not the kind of government media Bill Moyers knows. For at government subsidized PBS Moyers has had the freedom to "preach to his choir" -- even with plenty of corporate underwriting.

Yes, media today reflects lots of corporate power, consolidation, etc., especially at the local level.

Cost cutting downsizing of coverage at both local and international levels is legion. But journalism has always been highly intertwined with profit, with its making money in tension a bit with the idealistic ideology of freedom of the press.

Yet looking back, few journalists have been gods and few pure icons free from spin.

Anyone who studies the history of journalism knows there has been no truly "Golden Age" -- and that journalists were rarely high enough in heaven to become "fallen angels."

On balance I would say we suffer as much today from media anarchy, of information overkill, as we do from censorship or consolidation.

When one surveys the entire spectrum, the diversity and free flow of information is massive. The trumpets have sounded, and lots of walls have come tumbling down.

While some traditional journalism sectors have weakened, the world has come alive with an irrepressible bubbling of global information.

In my youth the door to China was dark and closed. Today I can see and read almost every pimple in the "Middle Kingdom."

God, Bill, the old days were nice......but, Hey, ain't it Grand Today?

******************

Partisanship and opinion spewing are massive today -- blatant Republican on Fox cable (Bill O'Reilly's "The Factor") ; blatant Democratic on MNBC (Keith Olbermann's "Countdown"); blatant populist nativism on CNN (Lou DobbsTonight).

Bill, we are in full agreement. Vituperation, opinion, spin are the hallmarks of today's journalism, especially on television where the competition for viewers and advertising is so keen.

Fear and ideological polarization are the hallmarks of much electronic media, both creating and pandering to the deep emotions of our times.

But to blame everything on corporations is to miss the forest for the trees.

Sensationalism and hype are nothing new. Indeed they are a major tool in the arsenal of the "rabble rousing" journalist -- whether it be to drum up popular support for a war or to gain attention for needed social reform.

In our history they are deeply established in the sensational but often reformist tradition of "yellow journalism" and our equally strong tradition of attacking "yellow journalism" as a corrupter of public discourse.

In time of war, nationalism, fear, and propaganda have long determined that "the first casualty of war is truth." It was no different once so many in this nation yearned for revenge following 9/11. American journalists seemed proudly "on team."

So it has been in almost every war, both in the United States and overseas. Until the pendulum swings, popular attitudes shift a bit, and media see profit and headlines in undermining the official view. That is when segments of the journalism world feel the freedom and the inclination to go "off team." That is when journalism's skepticism is most like to clash with the military's goal of "staying on mission."

But, Hey Bill Moyers, it takes a while to get there.

As for the information that would have undermined the President's case for war, so very much of it was out there for anyone who wished to see.

Rarely have the nuances of intelligence analysis been so open to the public. Rarely have the uncertainties of intelligence analysis been so publicly available. Rarely had the murky miasma surrounding Saddam Hussein been so apparent in news reports, books, and widely on the internet.

Yet rarely have Americans, including the media, felt so under threat as in the aftermath of 9/11. It was a "perfect storm" for war.

To complain that American media did not stop the Iraq war is the height of foolishness. What wars in history were truly stopped in the beginning by media?

Media are so often among the first to climb on board. In times of patriotic fervor who wants to be left behind to face stoning by the mob? Governments have long known how to exploit this.

Do some wars never happen because of media? Perhaps...If there is a "perfect storm" for peace.

There is nothing new about pack journalism and groupthink whether blindly following a drive toward war or mindlessly challenging every official account once a long war grows unpopular.

******************

Yes there are now, as then, "stuffy" bastions where credibility and balance still are valued.

Even within the cable TV outlets I cite above one can find vast, relatively untainted, news delivery where a bit of balance is still a part of marketing appeal.

Often it is far more than corporate greed which shapes the product. For example the dominance of fast moving visual imagery fed by modern technology and public hunger for images of "reality."

Nothing sells like the visual excitement of a hurricane or a massacre.

So entertainment, hype everywhere coexist with an avalanche of information. Yes, Bill, nothing is sacred. Neither the sins of the present nor the alleged saintliness of the past.

As always, lots of things are "spun." On TV, on the internet, in blogs such as this.

"Just the facts, ma'am" has often given way to a gush of unverified opinion.

But, Bill, like many of the rest of us, you have grown a bit righteous and rigid.

That is our prerogative.

We who are growing old have a tendency to romanticize the past.

God, it was nice......but, Hey, ain't it Grand today?

"Catch a Predator": yellow journalism as vigilante

"To Catch a Predator" is a type of programming quite familiar in US journalism history.

Generally it is known as "yellow journalism," a type of journalism designed in the late 19th Century to increase circulation and advertising by appealing to popular tastes and fears . It focused on "shockers" -- the kind of crimes which violated contemporary tastes and taboos.

It may or may not be your cup of tea but there is no doubt MSNBC is daring, innovative and in this grand tradition -- evoking many of the same journalism controversies as did earlier "yellow journalism."

William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer were, of course, its most famous practitioners.

The coverage focused on the kind of crimes gaining prominence in urban America, crimes which drew public concern, partly because papers covered them so prominently when competing for circulation and advertising.

In many cases these kinds of "yellow journalism" became "a part of the story."

Still I have not seen 19th Century instances where newspaper reporters enticed would be criminals into actually committing crimes in a sting operation --- as is routine on Dateline's "To Catch a Predator."

"Yellow Journalism" newspapers tended to operate independently of the police. Dateline co-operates with police -- partly to increase its credibility and respectability. Any doubts about Dateline's entrapment methods, any sense by viewers that it is a extra legal operation tend to dissolve when seeing clear co-operation between Dateline and police.

It is this "sting" quality that set "To Catch a Predator" apart. MSNBC staffers conspire to lure would be predators into computer chat with someone claiming to be underage, then invite the would be criminal into a trap where he is invited to visit the decoy.

The person lured in is then publicly humiliated on camera, then allowed to leave to be tackled and arrested by heavily armed police alerted in advance of the MSNBC "sting."

Whatever happens later in the court system, the on air display of the person lured into the sting administers a form of extrajudicial punishment. It can culminate in loss of job, loss of marriage, loss of children, or, always a possibility, suicide.

This, of course, can be seen as a form of "vigilanteeism" executed BEFORE a rustler steals a horse. Where Dateline appears to truly make journalism history is in deliberately setting up the "sting." In taking upon itself the power to be police, judge, jury, and executioner.

The dramatic police arrest, usually caught on camera, allows MSNBC to portray itself as an anti-crime outfit helping to rid the streets of child predators, persons who would still be at large were it not for MSNBC broadcasters.

The collaboration between MSNBC broadcasters and police has brought charges of conflict of interest, violations of due process, and collaboration with "vigilantes." These issues are examined in detail in an investigative video report posted on YouTube.

It is important to note that the decoy pretending to be under age "comes on" as a willing partner. But given the stigma attached to the "child predator" in today's America, on camera display of a person who responds to the decoy amounts to a private broadcasting corporation taking upon itself the power to mete out one of the severest punishments possible in America today.

The second stage of punishment comes in posting on the web pictures and details concerning those who fall for the internet decoy bait.

In the classic days of 19th Century "Yellow Journalism" on at least one occasion a reporter broke a case -- and the paper boasted how it had outdone the police. The strategy of competing with haphazard, careless, or corrupt police was carefully showcased with front page promotions designed to boost newsstand sales.

Pulitzer and Hearst chains sometimes assigned their reporters to compete with or supplement police investigations of sensational murders or "mashing" (harassment) of working women on the way to the job.

The "Yellow Journals" were truly "mass" in their appeal to large numbers of residents of growing American cities, literate readers with relatively little education and "low brow" tastes.

While later decried by journalism reformers as base and money grubbing, yellow journalism in anecdotal, featurish form sometimes spotlighted the need for reform amid the ills of America's changing times.

MSNBC prominent evening coverage of prison life is a dead ringer recreation of the Hearst/Pulitzer approach. In more than one case "Yellow Journal" reporters disquised as convicts reported from within prisons. In one famous instance a photograph of a woman reporter sitting in the electric chair was prominently displayed.

"Yellow Journalism" focused on many aspects of grassroots life and crime -- whereas its higher brow competitors spotlighted in more abstraction politics and public affairs geared toward the educated and the affluent.

MSNBC's evening crime coverage is squarely in the "Yellow Journalism" tradition. Its daytime programming on politics and economics dilutes the yellow dimension but seeks to make more entertaining the serious topics which could be seen as "elite."

Where Dateline appears to truly make journalism history is in deliberately setting up the "sting." In taking upon itself the power to be police, judge, jury, and executioner.

Think of it as a form of "Yellow Journalism" turned "vigilante."

Yesterday's high tech becomes today's "retro"

Yesterday's high tech becomes today's "retro."

We sometimes forget how revolutionary the effects of technological change can be.

High tech from the past is ignored as obsolete. Even more telling, few are aware of just how great an impact today's high tech can have on the outcome of past events.

Take the Cell Phone.

How many understand just how important this technology we now take for granted was in shaping Union victories in the Civil War?

Take some Time Travel, with apologies to Mark Twain:

Scouting the Civil War with Cell Phones
The day Ambrose Burnside "Drove Old Dixie Down:"
Four forgotten hours help shape the world

http://www.worldlymind.org/cellofony.htm