Releases : Social Science

North Korea's plans to test fire a long-range missile are merely the latest efforts of the country to assert itself regionally and internationally, but the plans bring up questions about a new U.S. missile defense system designed to protect against such a threat, according to the director of the Military History Center at the University of North Texas.

Dr. Geoffrey Wawro says U.S. military forces should be wary of the missile test fire because North Korea "is a rogue nation craving attention."

"It is unable to get it any other way because of its poverty and relative insignificance," says Wawro, a former professor of strategic studies at the Naval War College and host of four programs on the History Channel. "However, this needs to be placed in perspective alongside the other threats facing the United States."

Wawro says Kim Jong-Il, supreme commander of the North Korean military and the most powerful person in the country's government, is upset about being marginalized by the United States, explaining that since the U.S. has engaged Iran with direct talks over that country's nuclear program, the North Korean regime wants the same.

"They have one little lever they can use as a negotiating tool, and that is the missile," he says.

Wawro points out other talks with North Korea have brought in other nations, including South Korea, China, and Japan.

He adds that the North Korean government has manipulated its people so they are incapable of rising up against it. And because the country's domestic economy is in a shambles, it is incapable of making multiple long-range missiles, he says.

"Even if the missile test is successful, North Korea won't be deploying dozens of these missiles; they can't afford it. They are trying to build a credible threat, and there is always the threat that they could sell this technology to a terrorist group," Wawro says.

U.S. officials have said the nation is ready to respond to the potential North Korean launch with a ground-based missile interceptor system. The program was a key component of President Bush's 2000 election campaign, but Wawro says questions remain as to its effectiveness.

"Nobody knows exactly how the missile defense system will work in a practical sense. The technology is new, and it's somewhat sketchy. In the final analysis, it's the last-ditch tool in the toolbox to deal with this," he says.

Dr. James Mueller first became interested in George W. Bush's relationships with reporters when he was running for president in 2000.

After Bush's first debate against Vice President Al Gore, Mueller heard Randy Galloway, then the host of a popular show on WBAP-AM in Dallas-Fort Worth, discuss Bush's manner with the press.

"Randy Galloway said, ‘That's not the George Bush we knew as owner of the Texas Rangers,'" says Mueller, a University of North Texas associate professor of journalism. "When Bush bought the team in 1989, he threw himself into his new job, attending most of the games while mixing with the fans, making public appearances and, most importantly, cultivating reporters."

Mueller says another reporter recalled interviewing the new Texas Rangers owner by phone, then receiving a greeting from him at a game they both attended - before the reporter had even met him face to face.

Bush's relationship with reporters, which has become more controlled by him during his presidency, is the subject of Mueller's new book, "Towel Snapping the Press: Bush's Journey from Locker-Room Antics to Message Control."

In the book, Mueller includes anecdotes from 29 journalists - from those who covered Bush during his unsuccessful run for Congress in 1978 to those who covered him when he was in the Texas Governor's Mansion and members of the White House press corps - to compare Bush's press relations with those of other presidents and conclude that he is among the best modern presidents at understanding and handling journalists.

Mueller says the title of his book came from a column that mentioned Bush having a "towel-snapping," or buddy, relationship with reporters, such as that seen among members of sports teams. The president has bestowed nicknames on certain reporters and "worked the White House press with charm" by teasing them, he says.

"In reality, Bush is like the all-star quarterback of a team. He'll snap the towel, but won't allow anyone else to snap it back. By doing that, he stays in complete control of the press. Some presidents, like Bush Sr. and Clinton, worried about what the press thought about them, but Bush never seems to worry. He understands that he's in charge," Mueller says.

He points out that the president has really been interacting with reporters since he was a child. At age 8, young George appeared in a photograph in the Midland Times-News that showed him competing in a YMCA electric train race. His father, George H.W. Bush, then a civic activist, had befriended the newspaper's publisher.

"Young George may have been a cute kid, but it was equally likely that his picture was taken because of who he was. Well before he was 10 years old, he was interacting with the press, getting the idea that it was natural to be photographed and interviewed - and that this was part of the process of running for office in the United States," Mueller says.

As he grew older, George W. Bush actively participated in his father's political campaigns, and during his own first campaign in 1978, his opponent noticed Bush "working the press by helping the camera guys carry equipment," he says.

A decade later, during the 1988 Republican convention, Bush spontaneously decided to go from booth to booth on the press floor of the New Orleans Superdome, campaigning for his father.

"A person doesn't do that without being well practiced with the media," Mueller says.

Mueller says in 1989, during his first press conference as owner of the Texas Rangers, Bush impressed the sports media by being "well spoken," with one columnist writing that Bush showed the "early earmarks" of a politician and praised his poise.

"This seems odd when Bush's intelligence and speaking style have been satirized. Another politician may have been destroyed by depictions of him as a fumbling speaker, but, in the White House, Bush has adapted it as part of his regular guy persona," he says, noting that during the 2004 campaign, the president would contrast himself with John Kerry, who "used big words."

"His argument was that Americans would be suspicious of a polished speaker and prefer a regular guy," Mueller says.

Nicknames, which became status symbols among reporters during the 2000 campaign, "goofy, at times roughhousing" humor with reporters, and limiting the number of press conferences, have worked in the president's favor in controlling the press, Mueller says. As a result, reporters have seemed afraid to ask him tough questions about the war on terrorism and other issues, he says.

The White House press corps "turned on itself" after the 2004 election, "criticizing themselves and their colleagues for not holding the president to account," Mueller says.

"Towel-snapping the press doesn't mean you have locker room camaraderie with reporters. It means you keep them in their place," he says.

In a televised speech this evening (Monday, May 15), President Bush will outline a plan to place National Guard troops along the U.S.-Mexico border to support Border Patrol agents in stopping illegal immigration.

The troops -- expected to be about 3 percent of all National Guard units -- will not be involved in apprehending illegal immigrants, according to a senior White House administration official. Bush's televised address comes as Congress continues its debate over new legislation on illegal immigration, and two weeks before the Memorial Day deadline set to pass the legislation.

The University of North Texas has several experts who are available to respond to Bush's speech:

Dr. Jeff Bennett, UNT assistant professor of communication studies, teaches courses on political communication and political rhetoric. He says Bush will present the idea of troops on the U.S.-Mexico border "in terms of national security."

"The one thing that has consistently happened with the White House is that every action is for the security of the nation," Bennett says. "Using that rhetoric doesn't solve any of the problems concerning immigration, but when you have troops on the border, it looks like action."

He added that because 200 U.S. troops already patrol the border, the additional National Guard troops "will be couched in terms as a supplement to an already existing program."

Bennett points out that Bush's political communication of actions for national security doesn't always register with Americans. On Sept. 15 last year, the president delivered a televised speech from Jackson Square in New Orleans, mentioning that the evacuation response to Hurricane Katrina was a test run for a terrorist attack. That language, Bennett says, backfired.

"Putting troops on the border to support Border Patrol agents will be seen as a negotiation between several camps, but I think a moderate view has the effect of upsetting everybody," Bennett says.

Bennett may be reached by cell phone at (940) 206-0667

Dr. John Booth, UNT professor of political science, specializes in Latin American politics and has taught courses on U.S. and Mexico political systems, public policy in Texas and political participation. He is fluent in Spanish, having lived in Spain, Mexico and Costa Rica.

Booth is available for interviews via cell phone only at (940) 368-9498

Dr. Roberto Calderon, UNT associate professor of history, directs UNT's Mexican-American Studies minor for the Department of History. He is a leader in the League of United Latin American Citizens and faculty advisor to UNT's LULAC chapter.

To reach Calderon on Monday evening, May 15, call Nancy Kolsti at (817) 491-3351

Calderon can be reached Tuesday, May 16, at:

Office phone: (940) 369-8929

E-mail: beto@unt.edu

Hispanic groups that organized today's (Monday, May 1) boycott of work, school and shopping by immigrants believe it will demonstrate the importance of immigrants to the U.S. economy. A University of North Texas economist, however, says the day will have little economic impact.

Dr. David Molina, associate professor of economics and director of UNT's Center for Inter-American Studies Research, says the buying power of Hispanics in the United States has increased about 250 percent during the last five years. In Texas, where they comprise 32 percent of the population, their buying power was 93 billion in 2002.

However, he says that if Hispanics stay away from work and do not buy anything today, the economic impact would be similar to a city closing down because of an ice storm or an approaching hurricane -- as Houston experienced last September with Hurricane Rita.

"Millions of dollars in business was lost when Houston closed down, but the state economy didn't fall apart," he says. "A one-day boycott will have an extremely short-lived economic impact."

Molina says the boycott's true impact may not be so much in dollars, but in its symbolism as an important breaking point in the immigration movement.

"It will measure if Hispanics and immigrants are a strong, unified lobbying group," he says. "If it doesn't succeed, it will indicate that Hispanics are not a homogeneous group that can make an impact."

He points out that Hispanics in the U.S. are a young population. While one-fourth of the total U.S. population is under age 18, 35 percent of Hispanics and 37 percent of Mexicans are under age 18. In addition, one out of every five children born in the U.S. is Hispanic.

Noting the large Hispanic student dropout rate in schools, Molina says he doesn't wish to see students cut school on May 1, "but if they are able to help change policy by participating in the boycott, it will give them empowerment and have tremendous implications for the future."

Molina can be reached at:
Office phone: (940) 565-4543
E-mail: dmolina@unt.edu

UNT has several other experts to comment on the ongoing immigration debate and today's boycott:

Dr. Rudy Rodriguez is the director of UNT's bilingual education program and a professor in the UNT Department of Teacher Education and Administration. He says Congress needs "to find a just solution that is humane and serves the economic interests of the country and immigrant groups."

"Moreover, I don't think we can have an effective policy unless at the same time we build in provisions that call for active and genuine negotiations between the United States and Mexico in particular. Mexican President Vicente Fox recently issued an invitation expressing his willingness to enter into negotiations with the U.S. on issues associated with illegal crossings, drug trafficking and border security. This is an important gesture on the part of the Mexican president that is worthy of serious consideration by the policy makers in Washington," he says.

Rodriguez can be reached at:
Cell phone: (940) 391-9764
Office phone: (940) 565-2833

Dr. John Booth, UNT professor of political science, calls immigration reform "incredibly difficult" for Congress "because of all the cross-cutting pressures it arouses, dividing normal allies from one another."

"The Republicans are split among nativist and pro-national security elements who want to exclude people, pro-business factions who like immigrants – legal or not - because the immigrants lower labor costs, and those who seek new Hispanic constituents," Booth says. "Democrats split between pro-labor factions who say open immigration lowers working class wages, and those who believe certain reforms will discriminate Hispanics as a traditional Democratic constituency."

At the same time, he says, Hispanics in the U.S. disagree about whether stricter immigration enforcement "might encourage persecution of Hispanics, and whether immigrants' low-wage competition for U.S. Hispanic workers might be keeping them poor."

"Try to build a working coalition for any particular reform out of that," Booth says.

Booth specializes in Latin American politics and has taught courses on U.S. and Mexico political systems, public policy in Texas and political participation. He is fluent in Spanish, having lived in Spain, Mexico and Costa Rica.

Booth can be reached at:
Cell phone number: (940) 368-9498
Office phone number: (940) 565-2684

Dr. Roberto Calderon, UNT associate professor of history, directs UNT's Mexican-American Studies minor for the Department of History. A leader in the League of United Latin American Citizens and faculty advisor to UNT's LULAC chapter, he participated in the protest march in Dallas on Sunday, April 8.

Calderon can be reached at:
Office phone: (940) 369-8929 or (940) 565-2288
E-mail: beto@unt.edu

DENTON (UNT), Texas -- With the beginning of hurricane season about a month away, a U.S. Senate inquiry concludes that the Federal Emergency Management Agency should be abolished following its poor performance last fall following Hurricane Katrina. A professor at the University of North Texas says that won't solve the root problems of inadequate funding and lax leadership.

"They don't know how to fix the issues with FEMA. The biggest problem is, the agency worked before--when it was not part of the Department of Homeland Security," says Dr. Nicole Dash, assistant professor of sociology at UNT.

The bipartisan Senate panel is calling for the creation of a new agency, to be called the National Preparedness and Response Agency, to plan and carry out responses previously handled by FEMA. Dash says such a move accomplishes little.

"Any new agency would basically be FEMA renamed to get rid of the negativity baggage," Dash says. "However, they are not solving anything by what they are proposing."

The findings of the Senate panel come after seven months of investigation, and indicate the U.S. is unprepared for another storm like Katrina. Dash says a first step towards fixing FEMA's problems should be to remove it from under the Department of Homeland Security.

"The problem (under the Department of Homeland Security) is that FEMA was never given enough resources to get the job done. As long as FEMA remains under the DHS umbrella, they are facing the same problems. Ideally, FEMA should be put back as its own cabinet-level agency," Dash says.

Dash formerly worked for Florida International University's Hurricane Research Center, where she received grants from the State of Florida and the National Science Foundation to examine impact of 1998's Hurricane Georges on the Florida Keys. Dash has also researched the long-term effects of 1992's Hurricane Andrew on Miami-Dade County by analyzing 10 years of property tax data in conjunction with both 1990 and 2000 Census data.

Office phone: (940) 565-2230, Home phone: (940) 898-9849, E-mail: dash@unt.edu

Hispanic groups that are organizing a boycott of work, school and shopping of immigrants for next Monday, May 1, believe it will demonstrate the importance of immigrants to the U.S. economy. A University of North Texas economist, however, says the day will have little economic impact.

Dr. David Molina, associate professor of economics and director of UNT's Center for Inter-American Studies Research, says the buying power of Hispanics in the United States has increased about 250 percent during the last five years. In Texas, where they comprise 32 percent of the population, their buying power was 93 billion in 2002.

However, he says that if Hispanics stay away from work and do not buy anything on May 1, the economic impact would be similar to a city closing down because of an ice storm or an approaching hurricane -- as Houston experienced last September with Hurricane Rita.

"Millions of dollars in business was lost when Houston closed down, but the state economy didn't fall apart," he says. "A one-day boycott will have an extremely short-lived economic impact."

Molina says the boycott's true impact may not be so much in dollars, but in its symbolism as an important breaking point in the immigration movement.

"It will measure if Hispanics and immigrants are a strong, unified lobbying group," he says. "If it doesn't succeed, it will indicate that Hispanics are not a homogeneous group that can make an impact."

He points out that Hispanics in the U.S. are a young population . While one-fourth of the total U.S. population is under age 18, 35 percent of Hispanics and 37 percent of Mexicans are under age 18. In addition, one out of every five children born in the U.S. is Hispanic.

Noting the large Hispanic student dropout rate in schools, Molina says he doesn't wish to see students cut school on May 1, "but if they are able to help change policy by participating in the boycott, it will give them empowerment and have tremendous implications for the future."

Molina can be reached at:

Office phone: (940) 565-4543

E-mail: dmolina@unt.edu

The criticism of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by six retired generals is not unprecedented, but may reflect the sentiments of current military personnel, according to Dr. Geoffrey Wawro, director of the Military History Center at the University of North Texas.

Wawro, formerly professor of strategic studies at the U.S. Naval War College, says that throughout history, "there have always been tensions between the military and the civilian leadership."

"The beauty of the American way is that we do have civilian leadership of the military, which has imposed a necessary check on what used to be called ‘military adventures,' and would now just be called bad or hasty judgment," he says. "The irony in this situation is that the fiasco in Iraq is the product of hasty, bad judgment on the part of Bush's civilian decision makers -- hence this belated revolt of the generals."

Wawro notes that during the Civil War, Gen. George McClellan spoke out against President Abraham Lincoln after Lincoln fired him. In 1951, Gen. Douglas MacArthur loudly spoke out in opposition to the Korean War after President Harry S. Truman fired him. And in 1965, former Air Force Chief Of Staff Curtis Lemay criticized the Vietnam War after he retired.

The generals' criticism of Rumsfeld likely reflects the views of their friends and associates still serving in the military, Wawro says .

"The generals represent the ‘boots on the ground' in Iraq," he says. "Both the Army and the Marines are the two services carrying most of the load over there, and some feel that they have been misused."

The retired generals, he adds, are "sounding boards for people who are still in uniform."

"They reflect a broad opinion on what the service members believe, and they consider this war to be a distraction from where they think they need to be focused."

Dr. Adrian Lewis, chair of the UNT Department of History and a military historian, agrees, pointing out that Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, who was the chief of the U.S. Central Command and oversaw Iraq and the rest of the Middle East in the late 1990s, and Maine Corps Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper are among Rumsfeld's critics

"Rumsfeld has grossly mismanaged this war and has done enormous harm to the Army and this country, but it is not just the Army (criticizing Rumsfeld)," Lewis says. "More accurately, it is ground force commanders. Long after Rumsfeld and Bush have departed, the country will be suffering the effects of this war."
Wawro gives parallels between Rumsfeld and Robert McNamara, who was defense secretary under Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War. McNamara was despised by many in the military for what they describe as "micromanagement" of that war, Wawro says.

"Rumsfeld and McNamara are similar in some respects. They were seen as whiz kids who were going to impose order on the Pentagon and reform it," Wawro says. "Then they ran into an insurgent war. Suddenly, all of their long range planning is irrelevant to the conflict."

Lewis says too many officers sat silent during the Vietnam War, as Johnson and McNamara deployed troops "and fought a war with very little regard for the advice of senior military leaders."

"No one wants to go though that again," he says.

But will any of this criticism lead Rumsfeld to resign or President Bush to fire him? Wawro says it's not likely.

"Rumsfeld is best at dismantling and efficiency. The President is famously loyal to his staff,

but the question the President needs to ask is -- can the Secretary continue to be effective in his job?" he says.  

A long-lost religious text from the fourth century that relates the last days of Jesus Christ from the perspective of Judas Iscariot is a fascinating document but will not change Christians' views of their religion and Jesus, according to a University of North Texas philosophy and religion studies professor.

The surviving copy of text, referred to as the "Gospel of Judas," was made public last week by the National Geographic Society and was the subject of a recent program on the National Geographic Channel. Rather than painting Judas as Jesus' betrayer who handed him over for crucifixion, as the canonical gospels of the New Testament do, the text says Judas was the only apostle who knew Jesus' true identity as the son of God, and Jesus asked Judas to turn him into Jewish authorities for crucifixion.

Dr. Joseph Barnhart says the text is part of several apocryphal gospels written in the centuries following Jesus' death.

"Early Christians generated a lot of materials on Jesus, and there was a big debate over the selection process over what became the four Gospels of the New Testament," he says. "When you generate a lot of material, you generate lots of variation. The question is, ‘What part of that material is reliable?'"

Barnhart says the 13-page "Gospel of Judas," written in the Coptic language sometime in the fourth century, provides a window into the varying beliefs found in the early Christian church. However, it does not contain any mentions of the crucifixion or resurrection.

News on this text comes as some researchers are reevaluating Judas' role in the gospels, he says.

"There are those Biblical scholars don't think there was really a Judas; for example, there is no reference to Judas in any of the letters of Paul. But to have good literature, you need conflict, and some scholars think this might be the case with Judas being inserted into the gospels," he says.

Barnhart points out that it wasn't until 382 A.D. that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were accepted and codified in the New Testament.

"Christianity grew up out of a flood of apocalyptic literature. Many people expected the world would end soon," he says.

DENTON (UNT), Texas -- A long-lost religious text from the 4th century--relating the last days of Jesus from the perspective of Judas--is a fascinating document but will not change the minds of the religious. That's according to Joe Barnhart, professor of philosophy and religion studies at the University of North Texas.

The text, referred to as the "Gospel of Judas," provides a different take on established Christian teaching. Rather than painting Judas as Jesus' betrayer, the text says Judas was the only apostle who knew Jesus' true identity as the son of God. Barnhart says the text is part of several apocryphal gospels written in the centuries following Jesus' death.

"Early Christians generated a lot of materials on Jesus, and there was a big debate over the selection process over what became the Four Gospels of the New Testament," Barnhart says. "When you generate a lot of material, you generate lots of variation. The question is what part of that material is reliable?"

Barnhart says the 13 page text, written in the Coptic language sometime in the 4th century, provides a window into the varying beliefs found in the early Christian church. However, it does not contain any mentions of the crucifixion or resurrection.

Barnhart says news on this text comes as some researchers re-evaluate Judas' role. He says, "There are those Biblical scholars don't think there was really a Judas; for example, there is no reference to Judas in any of the Letters of Paul. To have good literature, you need conflict, and some scholars think this might be the case with Judas."

Barnhart points out that it wasn't until 382 A.D. that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were accepted and codified in the New Testament. "Christianity grew up out of a flood of apocalyptic literature. Many people expected the world would end soon," Barnhart says.

Barnhart can be reached at his office, (940) 565-2266 or at home, (940) 387-3290.

Today's (Wednesday's) parliamentary election in Palestine -- the first one in a decade -- should result in the Islamic militant group Hamas winning some of the 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council, resulting in the group gaining momentum, says Dr. Emile Sahliyeh (EE-mill s-LAY-yuh), University of North Texas associate professor of political science with specialties in international relations and Middle East politics.

A native of Jerusalem and a former Brookings Institute fellow in Middle Eastern studies, Sahliyeh is the author of the books "The PLO After the Lebanon War;" "In Search of Leadership: West Bank Politics Since 1967;" and the forthcoming "The Predicament of Democracy in the Arab World." He has also written chapters on Middle Eastern politics for several anthologies.

Sahliyeh says Hamas, which has called for the destruction of Israel and is considered a terrorist organization by Israel and the U.S. State Department, is "presenting itself as a party of change" that will fight corruption brought about by the current ruling Palestinian authorities.

"Hamas is militant, but if it wins, it should become more moderate to be part of the political process," he says, adding that the group will have to work with the ruling Fatah Party, whose leaders have predicted that it will claim more than half of the parliament seats.

The election -- the first time that Palestinians have a clear choice between two political camps since Hamas boycotted the 1996 vote -- is expected to draw about 80 percent of registered voters in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

"People there are ready for a change," Sahliyeh says.

Home phone number: (940) 320-2020

Denton (UNT), Texas -- Today, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller announced indictments against 11 persons in the Pacific Northwest for crimes they defined as ecoterrorism.

Those indicted -- members of the radical groups Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front -- are charged with setting fires and sabotaging power plants. Some of the offences date back as far as 1996.

Reporters seeking expert comments on this situation can contact Dr. Eugene C. Hargrove, professor of philosophy and religious studies and director of UNT's Center for Environmental Philosophy.

He says, "Ecoterrorism or monkeywrenching is a movement based on a book by the late Edward Abbey that is similar to civil disobedience but often involves the clandestine destruction of private property.

"Members of the movement usually try to protect themselves from prosecution by avoiding formal organizational structure and by claiming the right to free speech that encourages others to commit acts of ecoterrorism without conspiratorial ties.

"Because monkeywrenchers seek to hide their identity, it often involves more criminality than civil disobedience, in which the acts are public and symbolic."

Hargrove is an expert on environmental ethics and he has written and edited books on environmental ethics and animal rights. In addition, he is editor of the "Journal of Environmental Ethics."

Call him at 940-382-8876 for comments.