To read my current blog go to
http://jjprinz.typepad.com/
I will soon stop posting any new blogs at
this site.
WLIW (a local PBS station) broadcast
an episode of Inspector Morse the
other night. Of course I’d seen it
before as I have all of the late
John Thaw’s 33 wonderful
performances as the erudite and
emotionally complex Oxford detective
created by Colin Dexter. In this
story Morse and his deputy Sergeant
Lewis once again arrive on the scene
of what they determine is a murder.
Morse is ready to commence the
investigation as always, but there
is a problem. Lewis informs him that
he is about to take a week’s
holiday, one that Morse had approved
but as usual has forgotten. A
holiday? Morse will have none of
it. Someone has been murdered and
this is no time to be taking off.
Not that Morse couldn’t solve a
crime on his own, and usually does,
but the idea that Lewis could walk
off the job at this crucial moment
just doesn’t fly.
There was a time in my own
professional life when vacations
seemed out of the question – I once
went three or four years without
taking time off. For some reason, I
deluded myself into thinking that
the show could not go on without me
which definitely was not the case.
There is no other way to describe my
avoiding time off, it was stupid.
Everyone needs to recharge the
batteries if only to maximize what
little we have to offer. Lewis
should have taken his time (which he
didn’t) and Morse should have let
him (which would have been out of
character).
Much has been made of George W.
Bush’s extended vacation in the time
of war and indeed, as Maureen Dowd
recently wrote in the NY Times, he
has taken almost the equivalent of a
full year’s vacation time since
taking office (and he’s less than
five years in). She and others have
pointed to the hypocrisy of
dismissing the French for their
vacationing and work ethic (which
they also do regularly on CNBC) in
comparison. I couldn’t say it better
than others have and won’t try. I
am intrigued however by what all
this time off says about Bush and
the presidency.
My shunning vacations was ultimately
an act of inflated self importance,
making sacrifices that were totally
unnecessary and inappropriate. My
family suffered for it. I admit to
that (and have long since corrected
my ways). The fact is, however, that
my decision also reflected that I
really loved my work. Spending time
in the office or out with clients
gave me great satisfaction and, yes,
joy. I think Bill Clinton (who did
take vacations) felt the same way
about his work as president (which
he hated to leave). George W. Bush,
I’ve decided, does not. Oh for sure
he loves the trappings of the job –
the pomp and circumstance, the
occasional opportunities to dress
up, the sitting at the center of the
table and having the last word on
things. But I don’t think he really
likes doing the presidency most of
which has to be executed out of
sight by men (sadly still the case)
who put their pants on one leg at a
time. He also clearly doesn’t like
Washington which admittedly can be a
tough place to do business. One
wonders why he made a run for it in
the first place. In any event, here
we are, our lives and fortunes
dominated by a man who has made some
of the worst domestic and foreign
policy decisions in recent memory,
who manipulated himself into office
with slogans, marketing and legal
maneuvers and he doesn’t really like
the job. Who would have thought?
Unsettled
August 19, 2005
The exodus from Gaza is nearing completion. Some settlers have gone
quietly, perhaps not happily but resigned to the reality that something
has to give if the Israelis and the Palestinians are ever to dwell
alongside each other in peace they both deserve. Some are resisting
(augmented by outsiders, ultra orthodox religious fanatics from the West
Bank and elsewhere including from the United States). There has been
talk of how wrenching this experience is for many of those involved
including the police and IDF personnel – the little guys on the ground
are always left to do the heavy lifting. I would be insensitive not to
recognize their pain but find it difficult to empathize with it. These
settlements should never have been, nor should those on West Bank.
To be sure these occupations are the byproduct of a war that Israel
neither wanted nor started. That it treated these territories as booty,
retained them for more than three decades and that it gave in to
religious zealots who demanded they be annexed, is another thing
altogether. Occupation wherever it happens is a bad thing, destined to
play out badly. Some will suggest that, like it or not, events have a
way of taking over and they are not easily, if ever, be undone. But I
don’t buy that notion. The fact is that we’ve all become victims of
religious militants. Israel all the more so by people who from the start
refused to recognize the constituted State’s legitimacy – that is until
it suited their purposes. Among these were those goal has always been a
theocratic (orthodox) Jewish state. Even the more “moderate” among them
always had a price for their participation in the coalitions that have
always been necessary to govern. Ultimately the more radical elements
forged an unholy alliance with the political hard right. Sound familiar?
The fundamentalist religious agenda played well with Likud’s (a party
with pre-state terrorist roots) aggressive hostility toward Arabs. The
two found real karma in their personalities and their objectives. The
ultimate expression of their alliance, the Gaza West Bank occupation
settlements.
It’s time to move on. Sharon seems to have come to that conclusion
though it’s hard to forget the pivotal role he played in getting us to
this place. Some still feel his aggressive grandstanding near the Temple
Mount in the waning days of the Barak administration helped ignite the
most recent Intifada. It’s time to move on which is unquestionably hard.
IDFers cry with the unsettled which is only human, but let’s also do
some crying for the many frustrated Palestinians caught in the political
and violent crossfire all these thirty plus years. I celebrate the
exodus from Gaza. Next, the West Bank. If so, can peace be far behind?
Unsettled, that has a nice ring to it.
Israel was founded on the assumption of partition, that sharing of the
land in which both Jews and Arabs had real, albeit different, history
was fair. You can point fingers especially at the Arab governments who
used the Palestinians as pawns from the moment the United Nations acted,
but where does that get us? Certainly not to the peace and normalcy that
ordinary citizens on both sides so desperately want, and that the world
(including you and I) so desperately needs.
More Wrong Direction
August 16, 2005
New York is a
never ending construction zone with old buildings coming down and new
(usually taller and larger) ones going up. It’s less common to see a
whole new street emerge, but that's exactly what happened in my
neighborhood. Riverside Boulevard, has materialized over the past few
years adjacent to my home thanks to Donald Trump, that master of smoke
and
mirrors, unending public relations/promotion and (most of all) survival
against all odds. A few years back, The Donald was in great trouble
owing much more to our city’s fine banks than he could afford. He was
functionally bankrupt. His development on the Hudson River near me was
in danger of going belly up, but it didn’t. The truth was the banks had
too much in the project and, not wanting to be left holding the bag,
they bailed Mr. Trump out after which (as usual) he cashed in at someone
else's expense. Some folks in my neighborhood still can’t let go of
their anger that the Trump buildings have risen before our eyes (often
obstructing our views), but I find such huffing a puffing a silly waste
of energy. Riverside Boulevard (he likes to think of it as Trump Place)
is a mammoth brick and mortar fact of life.
What made me think
of The Donald today was a story in the NY Times suggesting that changes
in Federal standards for improving SUV mileage are likely to be
abandoned because the people in Washington are concerned about further
weakening the already hobbled American automobile industry. The banks
were too dependent on Trump as apparently is our economy on the people
in Detroit, similarly under water. To be sure they are in deep trouble
– I have not owned a GM, Ford or Chrysler in decades, nor do most people
I know. But it’s hard to sympathize with these guys who haven’t been
killed by competition, but who were suicidal co-conspirators; deaf, dumb
and blind to what was going on around them. First there was the issue
of quality. After taking delivery of my first foreign made car, I was
astonished to look in the side mirror and see the front and rear doors
line up – it was a first. Then of course there is that size thing.
Even after the terrible gas lines of the Carter years, Detroit has been
systematically sizing and bulking up and rather than improving gas
consumption, building more and more trucks that are marketed as family
cars which have insatiable thirsts for Saudi oil. My newest Japanese
car – the exact same model as the last gets ten miles more per gallon.
I realize that our
media is not what it used to be and our news is watered down to tepid
nothingness dominated by shallow stories like Michael Jackson and brides
who decide not to show up at the alter. Even so, most people have heard
of a war in the Middle East and of oil prices going through the roof.
Surly even members of the Bush gang have noticed that it costs twice as
much to fill up the tank than it did a year ago even if they overlook
the fact that there are a couple of Americans out there (some who have
lost jobs in Detroit) who can ill afford such a swing in prices. But
the energy bill recently past doesn’t address such mundane problems and
while we hear much talk about rising demand little is done to reduce it.
The President speaks out for the morality of saving embryos, thwarting
stem cell research and the need to teach creationism (excuse me,
Intelligent Design), but can’t use his bully pulpit to get citizens to
think fuel economy by buying more efficient vehicles. That probably
would get too close to emissions and global warming and all those other
unproved theories about which the Bible was silent.
So here we are
again bailing out the incompetent and telling ourselves we know they
aren’t perfect, but what can we do? Plenty! We can do a great deal if
we only had the will and the vision, not to mention our people and our
planet's future in mind.
1776 Forgotten
August 10, 2005
Nothing beats
turning the pages of a good book, but I confess that being able to
download a volume onto my iPod transforms a long car trip turn into
something special. That’s exactly what I did recently with the added
dividend of David McCullough’s sonorous voice reading his own 1776.
Like all McCullough books, it’s a great “read”, history beautifully
told. This book was not merely satisfying. Whether intentional or not,
it was surprisingly timely. What’s striking and often forgotten about
1776, a year that we celebrate with too little introspection, is how
hard it was. We take Empire America so for granted, that we forget what
an ill equipped rag tag bunch of novices fought for its Independence.
To be sure Washington was a charismatic and towering (literally)
figure but, as McCullough points out, a general with no combat
experience surrounded by more on-the-job trainees than officers as we
think of them today. The citizen soldiers who fought for the colonies
were a tattered, often shoeless, lot. The British boasted the greatest
military (Army and Navy) of its day – spit and polish with all the
necessary tools of war within arm’s reach. By every measure, Washington
with his inept grossly outnumbered fighting force (calling them an army
is misleading) should have lost and decisively so. They did not. They
were fighting for their land and the right to determine their own
destiny, an unbeatable combination.
Does this have a
familiar and immediate ring, like you just read it in today’s Times?
You bet it does. 1776 wasn’t the only time in history that we’ve seen
how the odds can be turned on their head when people are fighting for
their homeland. Nor is it the only time the British confronted a
rebellion of the under equipped. Remember India and Pakistan? And
let’s not forget the odds against outnumbered little Israel prevailing
in its war of independence. And how about Viet Nam (which supposedly is
something totally different) where we were thinking creeping Communism
and dominoes while the Vietnamese were fighting for homeland? Israel
(with reversed fortunes as the dominant power) is about to vacate Gaza
where, whatever their monstrous means, Palestinians have been fighting
for their homeland too.
Perhaps there is a
war on terrorism. But as with the war against Communism, it’s one that
conveniently is used as cover when the cause at hand can't be
justified. It isn’t simply that we shouldn’t be in Iraq but that 1776,
the year and the book, informs us that we can’t possibly win when people
think they are fighting for homeland and real self determination. Sure
there are some non-Iraqi fighters involved in this conflict, many but
probably not all of them terrorist jihadists. We got some help from the
French in our war for independence and the Vietnamese had allies as
well. Who has joined someone’s side and even the tactics they use
doesn’t change the reality that we don’t want to see, admit, or remember
from our own history. An Iraqi involved in writing their constitution
complained to a reporter yesterday of being rushed by the Americans so
that George Bush could claim a success. OK Mr. Bush, he said, you’ve
had a success, now go away and let us write our constitution in our own
time – it will take time to get it right. I guess some of our people in
Washington have lost sight of the fact that, once completed, the Iraqi’s
will have to live by that constitution or have forgotten how hard it is
to change documents like that once they’ve been adopted.
David McCullough’s
1776 is a terrific book about a pivotal year. Too bad with all
our bravado, flag waving and lapel buttons that we’ve forgotten its
lessons.
Jailed
July 11, 2005 (Chapel
Hill)
Judy Miller is in
jail. Matt Cooper and Bob Novak are not. Judy Miller is in jail not
for what she did or what she said, but for what she knows (and won’t
say). Matt Cooper maintained his silence up to the moment he was given
an "unconditional pardon" by his “source” after which he apparently
sang. Bob Novak apparently never gave singing a second thought. After
all it was he who outed Valerie Plame Wilson. Judith Miller works for
The New York Times. She didn’t give an inch and didn’t get a inch. The
Times backed her to the last and is still doing so. Matt and Bob both
work for Time Warner – the first writing for Time, the second continuing
to cash in big for CNN appearances. Time helped push Matt over the
edge, and one wonders if Time Warner's connections with the Bush
Administration facilitated the “pardon”. One also wonders if working
for that bastion of Liberalism, The Times, sealed Judy Miller’s fate
from the start. It’s ironic of course that she was one of those
reporters whose stories (source Ahmad Chalabi) helped the Administration
by giving credibility to those phantom WMDs. But that was then, this is
now.
I see in Judy
Miller and her being jailed for what she knows as a metaphor for our
troubling times. Thanks to the Patriot Act there are others in jail
(for more than four months) not necessarily for what they know and won’t
say, but for who they are. To be sure among the detainees in Gitmo and
elsewhere there are some really bad and dangerous people, but we know a
significant number there are caught in the “usual suspects” net. As
best I can remember whatever it is that resides in my head, even the
most evil thoughts (which I don’t have), is not a crime in the United
States. It’s a good thing because our penal system is even more
stretched than our military. One can’t have lived through the McCarthy
era without feeling a shiver down your spine in hearing about the
government monitoring the books you check out of the library – I wonder
if they will soon put surveillance on the booksellers who have set up
shop in front of Zabars or at flea markets around America.
Some say the facts
surrounding Judy Miller’s refusal to reveal sources is are not as clear
cut First Amendment issues as they might be. Perhaps so. I leave
that to the lawyers and the few in the press who may be trying to
justify that from time to time they were not so careful about protecting
sources. In my own view when it comes to maintaining a free press which
may be our only protection in times like these, I err on the side of the
broadest possible interpretation. Perhaps Judy Miller’s source for that
unwritten story, that information she has in her head but never shared,
doesn’t qualify as a whistle blower, but so what. We certainly don’t
want to take the slightest chance that making a reporter spill the beans
will have a chilling effect on future whistle blowers. Judy Miller is
in an American jail for saying nothing when Colin Powell is free for
saying what he knew (or at least thought might not be) true. Judy
Miller's silence has had (from all reports) no impact on the case
against Leaker X, thousands have died because of what Powell said.
Miller seems to have more principles than Powell. That said, is
there any doubt that Judy Miller and Colin Powell are equally loyal and
proud Americans? Of course not. And as for the Supreme Court
not taking on the case. I guess the courts aren’t such activists after
all.
Credibility: The
Speech
June 29 2005
In 1968, Lyndon
Johnson threw in the towel his presidency, that had produced landmark
Civil Rights and Anti-Poverty legislation, shattered by a misbegotten
war that cost
58,226
young American
lives. We still haven’t fully recovered from it, the 2000 lb. guerrilla
in our national room. In the end Johnson’s biggest problem was that he
had lost credibility with the public. After years of being told that,
despite its cost, we were on the way to victory, we simply didn’t
believe him. Nixon, it is said, lost his presidency because of a
cover-up, not because of a crime. I’m not sure that’s true, but it’s
clear that his words had also lost credibility. We didn’t believe him.
Nothing is more devastating for a leader, nothing more unnerving for a
citizen. Our lives are in the hands of a president. When we don’t
agree with his policies, that’s OK. Democracies for better or worse are
subject to partisan dispute, frustrating, but acceptable. When we don’t
believe what he says, the line has been crossed.
In the end, this
is George W. Bush’s problem. We went to war rationalized by two lies.
The first faded away for lack of evidence. The second is still with
us. No one can deny the brutality of terrorist acts, nor their real
threat to all of our well being. There is also no question that they
are increasingly being used in Iraq much as they have been tools of the
tragic Intifada. But terrorism is not the thing, but the modality, a
distinction that too few of us are making these days. It is both
simplistic and inaccurate to gloss over the insurrection in Iraq as
terrorism and part of our war on it. One of the bad habits of the Bush
administration is to make contentions as if they were fact. A military
analyst assessing the President’s latest address for PBS, suggested that
the foreign fighters who the speech implied were the primary enemy in
Iraq may in fact represent only 5% of the combatants. That may or may
not be the case, but the fact is I simply don’t believe George Bush.
It’s not that I disagree with him (which I do), but that he has no
credibility.
I don’t know about
you, but hearing 9/11 (now a combination of brand and a code-word) weave
in and out of speeches in such a manipulative way is getting a little
sickening. No one who lives in New York has to be convinced of the
horror of that day but nothing is more repulsive than hearing it being
used as a rhetorical device to justify every controversial foreign
policy action of this administration. I can live with the argument that
we can’t just cut and run when we’ve mucked up a country and served as a
catalyst for such destruction, such misery (even if there are places in
Iraq that remain relatively tranquil). What I can’t buy into is doing
it under some false premise, some blatant lack of candor justified time
and again by 9/11. The fact that Bush and his people are incapable of
admitting and mistakes and of taking responsibility for their actions
makes it all the worse.
One more thing.
The last thing I would want to see is more terrorist actions in my city
or my country. In that everyone “red and blue” can agree. That said,
there is something very disturbing about hearing over and over again
from the President, his Secretary of State and others that we’re
fighting there so we don’t have to fight here. The implicit message
that sends is it’s OK for the people over there, not the
combatants but the innocent caught in the crossfire, to die as our
surrogates. There is something perverse in such an idea, as is the call
for raising the flag and calling someone else’s kids to arms, but not
our kids. I don’t think anyone in the next Bush family generation is in
uniform. They don’t take responsibility, and they want to make us feel
grateful, to take comfort, that others are suffering rather than the
homeland. That makes me angry and frustrated but perhaps worse of all
it makes me terribly sad.
Post Script: More on Gitmo from
the President and Secretary of Defense. Not only does it serve
great food, it's a modern facility situated in an inviting warm
climate. Some kind of Marriott resort, I guess.
Fine Cuisine
June 22, 2005
We’re not making
our usual summer trip to what my children and I consider our paradise,
St Barths. Not being able to swim those blue green waters and see
many good friends is a real
downer, but our schedules just didn’t work out this year. With the
Caribbean on my mind, I couldn’t help but be intrigued by a new option,
a place touted as having great food: Guantanamo. You think I must be
kidding, but why would I do that especially reflecting on words I heard
yesterday on C-Span from the hallowed floor of the Congress. Challenged
by a continued call for investigation of reported abuses of prisoners
detained in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan, Administration apologists lashed out
with the usual charges that critics were undermining our troops and the
war on terrorism, clearly Un-American if not seditious behavior. That
said, the only words in defense of the practices at these prisons was,
yes, the very excellent food served there, comparable to any nice
restaurant across America. Which American would that be? As the kids
say, whatever. The point is that it all boils down to Cuisine, the very same thing that
so distinguishes St Barths from most other places. Is it any wonder that I
started thinking a Cuban vacation? Blue green waters and fine food.
Of course the
protectors of our country’s fine reputation don’t simply talk about food
these days. When they are not telling us that we’ve yet again turned
the corner with those pesky insurgents (100% imported terrorists of
course),
they are building a case to destroy what they call the Bill Moyers
Public Broadcasting Network – that insidious tool of Lyndon (the great
left winger) Johnson’s Great Society. There is a method to their approach,
just claim a "truth" often enough and, presto, it is or at the very least
everyone will believe that to be the case. That Karl Rove, there he
goes again with his unique approach to politics and governance
(indistinguishable from one another). When the President’s diving
poll numbers were reported last week, the White House announced that
they were planning to do a better job of talking up their positions. I
guess if social security is ranked by only 14% of respondents as an
urgent problem, PR is what’s needed. Oh, did I mention they had great
food at Gitmo?
What continues to
be so interesting is how disciplined these people are about message, all
repeating the same themes as if original (and God forbid independent
thoughts) were possible. I wonder who writes these lock step
scripts? I wonder what’s on the menu tonight down there, what
we’re all missing? Should Jean George be worried? Will
putting some their recipes on air save Jaques Pépins' controversial left wing PBS cooking shows?
Oh life is full of questions these days. The only good thing about it,
thinking of those falling polls, is that more Americans may be beginning to ask
some questions of their own – those classically un-American questions
like, “what the hell are we doing?” Do they realize how great the
cuisine is at Guantanamo?
The Church of Florida
June 18, 2005
If you thought
you’d heard the last of Terri Schiavo you were wrong. Terri is dead,
her body turned to ash but the manipulation of her person to serve the
agenda of others is alive and well, resurrected by the Most Reverend
Governor Jeb Bush, head of the Church of Florida. What did George
Herbert Walker and Barbara Bush feed those kids that made them such
religious extremists? If this were simply an isolated case of
innocuously seeking to impose a particular religious point of view on
the body politic one could dismiss it with a Reagan-like quip, “there he
goes again.” But it is neither isolated nor episodic and certainly not
benign. Christian fundamentalists, supported by people like the
governor of Florida, are engaged in a systematic attack on the America
that you and I hold dear. They want to enter our bedrooms, decide with
whom we should partner and discredit our judicial system which they
rightly see as a threat. Most judges (described by them as activists)
tend to follow the law of the land not some particular religious agenda.
These zealots feel, having won the last elections that it’s time for the
country as a whole to fall into lock step. Many of them now more openly
and actively describe this as a Christian country which is distinctly
different than a country in which the majority of its citizens are
Christian. Where does that leave the many of us who are not?
Both the Governor
and the President Bush seem to see themselves as ordained by God to do
his work (as they interpret it). So too with Rev. Senator Frist, the
Rev Representative DeLay and a host of other elected and appointed
officials from the far right. I understand that Americans of good (and
fair) will are sometimes slow to react – it took a tipping point of
indignation to undermine McCarthy. What I fail to understand is the
virtual silence and acquiescence of the mainstream progressive clergy,
many of whom are citizens of Florida. Why aren’t religious leaders
there and across this country speaking out against this hijacking of our
republic by a fringe who no longer hide their objective of pushing us
toward a theocracy in spirit if not in fact. Does anyone really believe
that Jeb Bush’s response to the definitive autopsy of poor Terri’s body
in referring her case to prosecutors is anything other than the reaction
of a religious fanatic? It should not be lost on us either that, beyond
being politically opportunistic, Mr. Bush, perhaps even more so than his
older brother doesn’t cotton to defeats of any kind. After all, God is
on his side, and those who think differently are sinners who can go to
hell and literally will.
The debate between
right and left in this country used to be about different economic
visions – sometimes simplistically expressed as big business verses
labor. Those halcyon days are over. Today’s debates are more
reminiscent of Medieval Spain than of what one would expect in twenty
first century America. The extremist religion that’s being pushed is
both one sided and very selective. Turning off life support of a brain
dead woman is bad, treating a prisoner inhumanely including using his
belief as a torturous lever in a time of “war” is OK, the right thing to
do, what undoubtedly God wants us to do. Which God is that?
One word of
caution to Rev. Jeb Bush of the Church of Florida. Over in the mother
county where the Queen sits in her palace there is a Church of England,
the official church of the land over which she nominally presides. The
problem is, nobody goes to church any more. How is that for a bright
future?
The Absence of
Michael
June 15, 2005
Isn’t there any
celebrity out there who can do something really terrible so that we can
spend the next months (years if we’re lucky) obsessing over it?I know
that poor missing girl in the Bahamas is trying to help, but even if
she’s found (alive I hope), my guess is she won’t have sustaining star
power. Look how quickly Terri was pushed to the side. I give it
to Russell Crowe for trying to save us, but despite apparently being
able to throw accurate punches as Cinderella Man, he can’t seem to be as
lethal with a telephone. He’s also apologized, ouch! Thousands of
reporters were sent out to California to cover the, let’s see trial of
the century has already been used, oh perhaps not in this century. Well
any way, thousands went and we really shouldn’t be surprised. Frank
Rich would ascribe it to the age of the mediathon (his coined term), and
of course that’s exactly right. But I think there are two other things
at play here. First, covering these celebrity extravaganzas is safe. I
don’t know anyone who was blown up by a suicide bomber or fired upon
covering Michel, Robert, Martha or OJ. Second, they are all in English,
stupid. Neither we or the reporters involved have to deal with one of
those quaint foreign languages.
I guess that’s
why, relatively speaking, things like Darfour, pandemics in Africa and
generally what’s happening out there in the world get virtually no media
time. Given where we are these days, and most specifically where we are
as a country, I truly wonder why things like the Jackson trial merit
even a paragraph in print or a mention on broadcast. Sure what happens
there is important to those involved, but it has absolutely no relevance
to your life or mine. On the other hand, genocide (which is something
families like mine know something about) and the spread of AIDS matter
very much and at some point and time will catch up with our futures, a
fact that apparently nobody wants to share with us. Speaking of
sharing, do you think Dr. Frist will be sending any sort of apology to
Michael Schiavo upon learning that his video diagnosis of Terri was
established as totally inaccurate (if not absurd) by the autopsy
results released today? Maybe he should also apologize to his
colleagues, the neurologists who haven’t given up medicine for
grandstanding faith-driven politics and actually examined her before
sharing a real (and accurate) diagnosis with her loved ones.
The other night
The News Hour, once again showed the photos and stats of another
seventeen service personnel killed in Iraq. They do this in total
silence and I always stop whatever multi-tasking may be at hand and pay
total attention. It never ceases to move me, all those young faces. As
it happens that number 17 had an aura of symmetry because on the same
day the total lost of US forces hit 1700 more than half of them in the
past twelve months (long after the mission was accomplished and "we got
him") and a very large percentage of them since that election about
which we congratulated ourselves. Things certainly haven’t gotten a
better nor are they likely to do so. I just finished reading Reza
Aslan’s excellent book on Islam, “No god but God”. What is clear is
that followers of Muhammad have little patience for colonial powers, all
of whom did them dirty over a couple of centuries. Perhaps we have
short memories and can abide only instant gratification, but people who
see their land as being invaded don’t and they won't stop fighting until
they have recaptured it. You can talk about terrorists and outsiders
all you want, but in the end, we’re facing people who simply want us to
get out of their home and return to our own. And why shouldn’t we, it’s
so much easier to report on things we know – Michael and where he goes
from here, for one. Now that's a story worth knowing about!
Separation Farewell?
June 10, 2005
You may have
missed the June 9th Lehrer News Hour report about the fight
being waged by an Oregon public school official to get more than a 1,000
home-schooled kids into his classrooms. His reason isn’t at all that he
feels these youngsters would be better off in a learning environment
that includes something more than parents and siblings. His primary
concern is that each of these non-attending students represents a loss
of state revenues for the school. Without being judgmental about that
narrow premise
-
I certainly understand his concern at a time when funds for education
are so short and the need so great
-
I am deeply concerned about the price he is willing to pay to get these
kids, and more importantly their parents, aboard.
Introduce
creationism into the school curriculum and have the teachers let all the
students know that this is a Christian country and perhaps we can talk,
say the home schooled parents. In other words break down the barrier
between church and state. This case of course only echoes what has been
happening in many different places around the country specifically
around replacing Darwin with Genesis – theory with truth. Considering
it’s been eighty years since Clarence Darrow defended young Mr. Scopes
in Dayton Tennessee, it is remarkable we're still talking about this.
It is as if no science has taken place since, certainly none worth
considering. The information age notwithstanding, we seem to be
retrogressing. That bridge to the 21st Century is fragile
indeed.
But the real
concern here is that recent elections have emboldened Christian social
conservatives and indeed fundamentalists of all faiths to engage in a
frontal attack on one of our most cherished and long standing American
traditions – keeping church and state apart. By undertaking an assault
on this separation in many different places at one time, all of them
seemingly involving the kind of localism that Tip O’Neill understood so
well, they largely pass are under our radar. This doesn’t mean
that they are inconsequential. Quite the reverse, put enough locals
together and you begin to have something national.
I have long felt
that there are those among us who don’t simply want to break down the
barriers between church and state; they really seek to supplant the
pluralistic society we cherish with an American theocracy. That may
seem far fetched, even alarmist, but I think to ignore this threat would
be a big mistake. The Schiavo debate wasn't merely an example of social
conservative excess, it was another salvo in this ongoing struggle in
which many scared members of the Senate and House were unwitting pawns.
Forgive them, they know not what they do. I wish it were that simple.
Let's not give ourselves the same pass.
…the money. Right!
June 6, 2005
You’re probably
sick of hearing Mark Felt’s advice to Bob Woodward and even how much
money he and Bernstein have raked in (compared to Felt) since.
Nonetheless, how well Woodward heeded the advice, of course in pursuit
of that particular story, but more significantly personally is worth
thinking about. Woodward has leveraged Watergate in a way probably
never before seen in journalism. He has become an industry within
himself, a manufacturer of the best seller. Many reporters were forced
to dangerously embed themselves with the troops in Iraq. Some lost
their lives in the process. Woodward safely embedded himself in the
White House during the run up, and far from facing any risk more the
possible ire of Dick Chaney et al, his “reporting” ended up in yet
another blockbuster book. In the years since breaking major news as a
young reporter Woodward not so quietly moved to the other side becoming
a celebrity part of Washington’s society elite, rather than its
independent critic.
The fact is I
don’t much care what Woodward has done as an individual – more
power to him in living out the American dream in the American way. But
his disease is contagious as Frank Rich so aptly pointed out last month
in writing about the White House Press Corps gala. Remember that when
Watergate broke, CNN didn’t exist and even the greats like Walter
Cronkite and Chet Huntley weren’t raking in numbers like those accorded
to modern day anchors. In an era where news broadcasts are routinely
described as “shows”, which they are, it's often hard to distinguish
between the interviewer and the interviewee. In fact the former is most
likely to be better known, better paid and more of an insider than the
latter. For many in the press, it would seem that what they do “on the
job” (to use TV cop show jargon) is often used to reinforce what they do
on their own, especially to increase the nickel earned elsewhere.
Case in point: Tom
Friedman of the NY Times has written a new and from what I understand
(it’s on my growing to read pile) very insightful book about a sea
change in the world economy. I’ve heard him interviewed about it which
(as such interviews are meant to do) made me log into Amazon. He also
has been coming back to the subject in his regular column. In many
respects that’s not surprising. Columnists often take on a theme and
pursue it for an extended period of time to drive home their point. The
only problem is that, much as I am impressed with his argument, I can’t
get it out of my mind that he is promoting his book, not on a tour at
this point but while drawing a salary for his day job.
Don’t get me
wrong. I am not focusing on Friedman for anything more than to make a
general point with a particular. I could have just as well pointed to
the multi-million dollar man Tom Brokaw who may not have used his
nightly broadcasts to push the Greatest Generation but who like
his (former) anchor colleagues epitomizes reporter as celebrity.
Friedman continues to be an important voice, an honest one. While I
don’t always agree with him, it’s a voice that hopefully will be used
for a long time to come. What I fear is that as news people following
in Woodward and Bernstein’s footsteps, also take on Felt’s advice to a
degree even Richard Nixon might not have dreamed that our nation and its
free press risk becoming an endangered species, even more so than we
already are. In yet another time of White House denials, cover-ups and
disinformation that is a significant problem. We, their readers and
listers, dare not let it happen.
Taking Responsibility
May 27, 2005
It’s been more than a
month since my last confession. You can see that I feel a bit like a
lapsed blogger. My keyboard has been busy but with other things.
Much has gone on since my retreat to Chapel Hill, but sadly the basics
haven’t changed all that much. The truce proclaimed in the Senate
notwithstanding, we’re still yelling at each other and, despite the much
touted exercise of democracy in Iraq, more blood than ever is still
flowing. Both make me terribly sad, trouble me, a feeling you probably
share. Any way, I’ve let us both off the hook so this will be a long
one.
Tom Friedman with
whom I don’t always agree (and why should one always agree) made a
provocative suggestion in his Times column this morning. He
thinks the government would do well to simply shut down operations at
Guantanamo because it has become a symbol of everything that is bad
about America not merely in the Arab world but among our allies around
in Europe and around the globe. His heart is in the right place, but I
think his solution is off the mark. Speaking of us “ugly” Americans
(but of a lot of 21st Century folks in other places as well)
one of our generation's least attractive attributes is an apparent
constitutional inability to take responsibility for anything, large and
small. We behave like a society of little kids averting our eyes when
mom accuses us of invading the cookie jar or breaking that precious
piece of glass that’s been in the family for generations. Simply
shutting and then tearing Gitmo down would amount to still another
cover-up. When you have a failing futureless business on your hands or
have made an ill conceived investment, being told to let it go and move
on can be the best advice. But what’s happened in Cuba, in Afghanistan
and at Abu Ghraib is not some kind of financial blunder but a moral
misdeed of enormous proportion that reflects on the very core of the
democracy that we all hold so dear and that some of us seem intent on
sharing with the world (God help them if this is the kind of democracy
they are promoting).
In the normal course
of events when people of responsibility do bad things, even when there
is suspicion or perception of misdeed, they go. Great leaders take
responsibility for things done under their watch. With today’s
complexities and the myriad of free agents whom we call Federal
employees perhaps Truman’s oft quoted (and rarely observed) dictum about
buck stopping is too much to ask of any mortal, however empowered by God
he and his people may be. But the very idea of passing the buck, not
taking responsibility, is what’s poisoning the precious tree of our
America. We can’t move on from these places with another grand stand PR
act, we have to fess up to what happened there and then, just the
opposite of a close down install real reforms including aggressive
transparency. There are times when people should be imprisoned, but we
all need to know who and why. How they serve out their incarceration,
how they are treated by those in authority shouldn’t be a mystery but
open to independent inspection. Our nation's prisons are filled with
thousands of men and women. Perhaps you and I don’t know how and why
each individual came to this place, and most assuredly some among them
also don’t belong behind bars. But there is a public record, we could
find out if we made the effort. There was a trial and certainly
representation of counsel. That isn’t true for Gitmo and the others.
Not merely is there no transparency, things are so opaque that we are
asked to believe that even on site commanders don’t know what’s going on
– more cookie jars and broken glass. If this stuff had happened on one
day in one place or even on two days in that one place, I could buy that
fairy tale. But after the 9/11 Commission we’ve all been taught about
connecting dots and the striking similarities of goings on in all those
prisons belies any attempt to portray them as anything but a systematic
way of doing things
a following of orders, however wink of the eye they may have been.
Last night The A&E
Channel presented a very moving two hour documentary, Bearing Witness,
about five journalists, all women, working in Iraq. They were each
young enough to have been born after or in the last years of Viet Nam,
long after our second war to end all wars. What was striking about
these women was that they all were journalistic veterans of multiple
conflicts; one having lost an eye to shrapnel in Sri Lanka. The other
thing was that they were all real journalists, not the plastic readers
that we see on both networks and cable who pretend to be. Seeing them
in that light alone was heartening because they are clearly not the only
serious and courageous professionals (in the Murrow tradition) out there
on the streets where things are really happening. One of these women
was an “old” Iraq hand and had in fact been imprisoned in Abu Ghraib
under the former regime. Needless to say, it was a frightening
experience, especially in a place of such a terrible reputation.
Fortunately, being a journalist, she was released after a relatively
short stay. But what she said about the place, not then but now, is
that if anything the treatment administered by our princes of light,
protectors of the “culture of life”, are far worse than they had been
during her incarceration. To be sure her experience was limited, but
the fact that she could even come to such a conclusion speaks volumes,
even if only about perceptions.
We are never going to
get past what has been done by our people in our name and, without
question, as a fostered, not merely condoned, way of doing things until
people very high up either take responsibility or have it forced upon
them. If it is true, as he claims to be the case, that Donald Rumsfeld
offered to resign after the horrors of Abu Ghraib were both uncovered
and confirmed, then one has to fault George Bush for not accepting his
resignation. Not merely would doing so have sent a clear message, but
as Bill Clinton liked to say “it was the right thing to do.” The fact
that he didn’t, puts the matter squarely on his desk, the one placed
in the room where
Truman sat. He must take responsibility for not acting when he should
have or is it that he, the loyalist that he is, could not let his Donald
take the fall for a policy that he, with help of the now Attorney
General, had set into motion?
I’m not naïve enough
to think the George Bush is about to hand the reigns of government to
Dennis Hastert (if Bush is guilty is it credible that Chaney is not).
Nor do I think this particular issue is, or should be left or right, red
or blue, for the war or against it. This issue transcends all that. It
is one of basic morality, of values. Yes Matilda, forget what you've
heard from the propaganda machine, liberals like me have and care very
much about values, and big surprise so do many of those godless
secularists. We’re in this American boat together, the one in which we
collectively came to found a better place, where people should take
responsibility for what they do, and then do something about the
responsibility that they have taken.
Chapel Hill
April 21, 2005
Back in the quiet
of Chapel Hill for one of my retreats, though never escapes, from this
wild world. It’s so peaceful in this enclave, so conducive to thought
and writing. To be sure there are plenty of Cardinals in these parts
though the only conclaves are those around the bird feeder. The red
coats are just as bright and striking as those seen in Rome during the
last two weeks but there are some significant differences. For one
thing the Cardinal before me at this moment as I sit (computer on my
lap) on the back deck of my kid’s house, like all the others seems both
young and vigorous – and of course there are all those females. Perhaps
their dress is more on the brownish-red side, but they are here, doing
their Cardinal thing right along with their male counterparts.
The selection of a
pope is really none of my business. He doesn’t lead my “church” or set
my religious agenda. We should celebrate that Roman Catholics, like
every other religious group is free to select a leader of their liking
and to follow their chosen path and religious agenda, and I do. Does it bother me,
as the son of German Jews who if not lucky enough to escape were
slaughtered by a country which they called home (in our case since at
least the 17th century), that Benedict XVI spent even a day
in the Hitler youth or in a Nazi uniform? I’d be lying in saying that
it didn’t. I’ve just heard those “we were forced to do it” stories too
often and, prejudice or not, white haired Germans always give me a bit
of the willies. I can’t help thinking, “where were you, what did you
know and what did you do about it?” But that’s me and I admit it is
somewhat irrational. I know that a pending Security Council seat is
probably behind the current anti-Japanese demonstrations in China, but I
can relate to their discomfort, especially among those old enough to
remember.
The selection of a
pope is none of my business, but I do see it as a significant choice in
today’s wider religious context. It’s been suggested that the new
pontiff may play a greater role in supporting the social conservatism
that is trying so desperately to impose its will on all of us, as
exemplified by their fight against choice and the recent Terri
Schiavo debacle that, were it not for the goings on in
Rome, might still be on our front pages. But I don’t think even that is
germane; certainly it isn’t news. To me the choice of Benedict
represents just another example of religion turning inward (and in doing
so backward) in what I can describe only as a defensive posture guided
by a kind of fortress mentality. In turning a deaf ear to progressive
forces within and most especially to the ordinary faithful who have no
choice but to adopt that disdained “cafeteria Catholicism,” as the
essential life raft of their religious lives, the Church is taking a big
risk. I ask myself how long not only Roman Catholics but a broad
spectrum of religious groups (especially those in the mainstream) can
overlook all those empty pews in their great Cathedrals, “pretending (as
Bob Dylan sings) that they just don’t see.”
Parking at Whole
Foods in Chapel Hill one can’t help but be struck by the large number of
Kerry stickers still affixed to the cars. This in the heart of a “red”
state. I saw others as I drove down through New Jersey, Delaware,
Maryland and Virginia. It’s a reminder of a nation still bitterly
divided. Watching the news here or checking the Times online, I
wondered if Tom DeLay has taken notice of what happened to the President
of Ecuador when he tried pushing aside a sitting Supreme Court? And
intermittently watching the events in Rome where two million passed by
John Paul’s body but only 25% of Italian Catholics attend Mass with any
regularity, I wondered about the unreality of it. It is said that the
great conflict of our time is between religions, especially between
Christianity and Islam. I wonder. From where I sit the really great
conflict is within religious groups between those who have turned
increasingly inward and are trying to relive the past and those who are
struggling to find some legitimate and consistent place for religion in
their lives. I wonder how that one will come out.
Culture of Life,
“Yes but”
April 11, 2005
In the midst of
the Terri Schiavo docudrama, Scott McClellan reminded
reporters that his boss the President believed in a “Culture of Life”,
so much so that he was committed to changing the culture (that would be
of anyone who disagrees with him). The Republican rightists and their
social conservative-in-chief have bandied about that culture of life
rhetoric for a while now no more so than during their disgraceful
exploitation of Mrs. Schiavo. It seems only fitting than that the death
of John Paul II (which sucked the air out of that Mediathon)
reminds us of who invented the culture of life concept in the first
place.
To be sure, Bush and
company have been quite selective in their application of it. For the
Pope it translated into his long term opposition to the death penalty
and more recently to the Iraq war which he knew would involve wanton
"collateral damage". Beyond opposing the pulling of feeding tubes from
people whose lives have been reduced to breathing nothingness, the
in-power conservatives oppose abortion and any legitimate semblance of
stem cell research. But they aren’t alone in this “yes but” approach.
The fact is that the late Pope did much the same. Unquestionably he was
a remarkable man who inspired love and respect among people of many
faiths and who decisively broke away from historic antagonisms toward
Jews and Moslems. But when it came to the culture of life, he shut his
eyes to one of its most lethal consequences, and with it the real world
in which we find ourselves. Interestingly, it is a breach that is
shared by our present administration.
The Catholic
Church and many fundamentalists (Ultra-Orthodox Jews among them), oppose
“artificial” birth control. I don’t agree with them, but respect their
right to hold those views for themselves. They do so with the utmost
conviction. Imposing their view on others is quite another thing,
especially so in the face of the AIDS pandemic. Here both the Pope’s
opposition to the use of condoms and the Bush Administration’s refusal
to fund them (one of his first acts as President) is perhaps the most
scandalous example of “yes but” -- one that cannot be overlooked. If
someone with AIDS knowingly infects others by having unprotected sex
with them we consider it murder and subject to prosecution. The hard
question we have to ask is whether pursuing a doctrine that denies
condoms in Africa and other underdeveloped lands in these times –
something that inevitably leads to infecting heretofore healthy human
beings – isn’t also murder? Is that consistent with a culture of life?
People on the
Right love to talk about values and morality. To some, the fact that
these same people along with the Catholic Church are denying the reality
of our times may be considered a simple, if cruel, head-in-the-sand
mentality, with honestly unintended consequences. But that would be
letting them off the hook. What this dogmatic culture of life amounts
to is no less than moral blindness in the guise of religiosity. That is
hard to respect. In these moments of chest pounding in Washington and
mostly well deserved public adoration of the late Pope, we should pause
to demand that the pious stop saying “yes but” to their culture of life.
What’s really afoot
here?
March 25, 2005
Since having my
by-pass eight and half years ago, I’ve regularly visited Dr. Ellis my
terrific internist/cardiologist. Given the limitations of Medicare – it
doesn’t cover what’s classified as checkups – this is a pretty costly.
Well I’m addressing that problem. Next week I’m going email Dr. Ellis
and suggest that in lieu of coming in next time, I’ll have members of my
family video tape me. That seemed good enough for a diagnosis by Dr.
Frist and after all Dr. Ellis, while perhaps not a surgeon/senator, has
actually examined me. He knows his patient first hand, which seems to
matter. Doesn’t it?
As a I watch poor
Terri Schiavo, in a vegetative state for fifteen years, being used as a
political football I find myself sickened. I also find the whole affair
ominous. Playing before us is the brute force, indeed social if not
physical violence, of the Religious Right. I watched the House debate
and subsequently have listened to the increased attack on Judges (who
incidentally have become assassination targets) and it doesn’t simply
make me angry, it truly frightens me. Where is this country heading and
where are the voices of dissent, most particularly religious dissent?
The Schiavo affair
makes one contemplate why this surge in religious fundamentalism,
specifically Christian fundamentalism? I for one think that there is a
direct correlation between it and rise of Islamic fundamentalism. There
is a kind of parallel build and what’s most scary about it is that it echoes
the religious wars of the Middle Ages. Behind all the rhetoric about
values and the preciousness of every life is a militant defense of very
specific values, one that has increasingly turned into an offense. How
long will it be until we see some version of suicide bombings by these
people or more likely large scale vigilante executions? Remember Dr.
Barnett Slepian of the abortion clinic was shot dead in his kitchen shortly after
returning from Friday night services? I worry for Terri’s husband, her
doctors and all those judges.
I can’t help also
asking myself if Tamar Shapiro were in the same condition would the
Congress have met in a late night session to overturn the will of her
husband and the courts (including the Supreme Court which weighed in on
this case before it became a political and media frenzy)? I don’t mean
this as a paranoid question. The same could be asked about the fate of
a Moslem woman in a vegetative state. My point is that this whole thing
is very religious specific, not merely conservative but a sectarian
assault on Separation and, if successful, potentially on minority
religions in a country that some people now see as their own to the
exclusion of all but the like-minded.
Creeping Talibanism
U.S. Style
March 19, 2005
Two stories
reported in today’s New York Times brought home what we’ve come
to as a result of the ever growing dominance of religious rightists in
our troubled polarized country. The first is the attempted intervention
of Congress to prevent the peaceful death of Terri Schiavo who has spent
years in a helpless vegetative state. Most macabre of this disgraceful
act was the issuance of a subpoena for Ms. Schiavo to come before a
committee to “testify” which these self proclaimed protectors of human
life seem to think accords respect and dignity to one of our least
powerful and defenseless citizens. It’s an act so astounding, so
despicable and so cheaply political that it boggles the mind. The
second story, which is totally different but has undeniable linkage to
the first, is a report that a number of Imax theaters have opted not to
show Galápagos a film about the islands where Charles Darwin
developed his theories as well as a number of other scientific
documentaries that suggest evolution. The theaters involved, mostly in
the South, are concerned about protests by radical Creationists, the
same good people who are also seeking to expel Professor Darwin from our
public schools.
As troubling as
these two stories are, they are only a very small part of what's
happening in a country that is increasingly influenced and in many cases
co-opted by a retrogressive religious agenda, a kind of creeping
Talibanism. The recent anti-abortion speech by Hilary Clinton and the
urging on Democratic politicians across the country to soften their
pro-Choice rhetoric is all cut from the same cloth. From Reverend Bush
through Reverend Frist and Reverend Delay our ministers of state have
taken it upon themselves to speak for God and to straighten out those
among us who aren’t part of their ideology and its metaphorical church.
It’s not a question of whether we favor abortion (which the vast
majority of people do not), but whether people like Senator Clinton are
being compelled to use unseemly political code, a “you don’t have to
worry about me” message in our “are you with us or against us”
environment.
The separation of
Church and State is not some crazy notion, some anti-religious
conspiracy. It is the only way in which to insure true religious
freedom, not to mention speech and thought. It was promulgated by the
Founders (most of them personally deeply religious) to protect the
country from becoming a religious state. They had good reason, because
the record of religious states was not good then and is not good today.
The ironic thing is that the very people who profess great concern about
Islamic Iran, who fear the possibility of religious rule in Iraq and who
rightly were appalled at the religious tyranny of the Taliban are the
very same people who think their religious ideology ought to be imposed
on fellow citizens in the United States. That includes entering not
only our bedrooms but our hospital rooms as well. These are people who
think that if our children would only read from Genesis rather than
Darwin all those silly theories of how we really evolved, which includes
real science, will simply go away.
I don’t know why
people worry so much about global warming, the threat of WMDs and all
those other twenty-first century things. We have to get out of the
Middle Ages before that happens. Thank God we have so many wonderful and
powerful people around to keep us there, not to mention all those who
silently sit on the sidelines and let it happen; both equally complicit
in our systematic and frightening retrogression into Talibanism American
style.
Saffron Winter in New
York
February 27, 2005
I
made my farewell visit to The Gates today, taking my run around the
entire parameter of Central Park. They have been up for sixteen days,
and I’ve visited them on almost every one of them. Sometimes, like
today, on the run but often slowly wending my way through the gated
paths, looking at them from every perspective: under and above, close up
and from afar. Sixteen days and they are gone. It’s much like
experiencing the full life of a friend or a loved one compressed into a
nanosecond of time. I watched the infant building process in the
proceeding weeks, experienced the life to its fullest and will surely
observe the burial in the days to come.
Jeanne-Claude,
Christo’s life and work partner and his voice, was asked about the
meaning of this monumental 23 mile exhibition. “It has no meaning,” she
said, "it is just art.” And so it is. To be sure, artists like
writers, composers and other communicators often have some meaning in
mind as they create their work. In the end, however, much of the heavy
lifting
of meaning is left to us – the audience who experiences it. And
experience is first thing that comes to mind with The Gates. During
these sixteen days thousands of people, many New Yorkers and countless
visitors experienced The Gates and with it Central Park (our great
treasure) and the city itself.
It’s cool, at
least for some, to be a critic of The Gates, to see it as a big “so
what.” I don’t agree, but art is in eye of the beholder and everyone
will appreciate it differently. Contemporary art, especially of the
momentary or performance kind, has been dismissed throughout the
generations. I think the best response to that was given by a youngster
who was asked by a smart aleck reporter, “don’t you think this is
something I could have done?” “Yes,” she said, “but you didn’t!” And
isn’t that the point? It took the perseverance of two obsessed artists
to bring The Gates into our lives and to boot it was their gift to the
city, its inhabitants and visitors. Their gift to us!
The
gift is something in and of itself. It’s wonderful, generous of course,
but it also points to the way in which our country treats the artistic.
We are positively miserly in our support of the arts in any form, and
begrudge every dime spent. Considering how much is expended on building
useless weapon systems and how many dollars fall through the cracks or
go down the drain in the process through mismanagement or Congressional
pork, we should be ashamed of ourselves. I’m glad and grateful that
Jeanne-Claude and Christo didn’t dip into the public coffers and, at the
same time, equally saddened by it.
So what was I
thinking as I took my final run through? I was thinking about bright
color in the bleak winter – though it was a gloriously sunny final day.
I was observing all of those people and thinking how much better it is
to have them look at art in our park than to come and ghoulishly gawk at
the scarred hole at ground zero – whoever came up with that ridiculous
name as if it were the Logos of our lives. I was thinking about the
local businesses who were beneficiaries of the gift and how, unlike the
Republican Convention that also brought them customers, we didn’t have
to be in lockdown. People were welcomed in, not excluded. The police
presence was real but in a way
that
made them part of, not separate from, the celebration of good will. I
was thinking of how technology had changed us even here with cameras,
including my own, clicking away with abandon but largely bypassing the
famous "Kodak (film) moment". No bonanza for the fast photo counters in
this event, just a lot of download and digital memory.
Most of all, with
the backdrop of a depressing world and a domestic political abyss, I was
feeling good, feeling saffron and as Martha who is to depart from her
jail cell in the coming days would say, “that’s a good thing.” Bravo
and thank you Jean-Claude and Christo!
Work-in-Progress
February 10, 2005
A
couple of weeks ago, I entered Central Park to take a run and noticed a
series of low black stone wedges with orange handle-like markers on the
path before me. What’s going here, I asked myself. As I proceeded
around the six mile winding road from 69th street up over the
top of park at 110th down the other side to 59th
and back around to my entry point, it was clear that there was more to
all of this than just a few blocks of black stone at 69th. They
were everywhere. What I saw emerging, and what will come to
full fruition this weekend, is the fulfillment of the artists Christo
and Jeanne-Claude’s long planned “Gates” public art experience. As the
days have passed and the shape of this wonder emerges on all of the
park's 23 miles of paths, it’s clear that New York which has seen it all
is about to see something really new. Rachel Bernstein, my talented
artist daughter-in-law who was in town for a few days and is kicking
herself that she’ll miss Gates in full bloom, joined me in checking out
the building progress yesterday before flying home to Chapel Hill. If
anyone doesn’t understand what art is, she said, they should come here
and experience it. Indeed they should.
On today’s visit,
where I took a lot of photos, I thought about why this evolving
temporary art was so engaging, so exciting. It was a grey day, quite a
contrast from the soaring bright orange structures that were beginning
to dominate the space. What a metaphor I thought. I wouldn’t say that
it spoke the cliché “light at the end of the tunnel”, but it certainly
evoked a counterpoint to the darkness of our time. I was also thinking
that one of the things missing among the current crowd in Washington
(both parties) and other places of
leadership in this country and around the world is humor. I thought of
Franklin Roosevelt’s broad smiling face with that cigarette holder
sticking straight into the air – the anti-fear man of high spirits (he
also liked his afternoon cocktail) in the depths of national
depression. I thought of Jack Kennedy’s dry humor, the unending quips
that punctuated every press conference drawing you in and giving you a
sense that politics was indeed a noble and uplifting thing. We’re all
so dour today, we take ourselves so seriously, carry the burden so
visibly on our shoulders.
What’s going on in
Central Park is striking, but it also makes you smile. It's the
kind of thing that doesn't take itself so seriously. It's art at
its creative
core,
not its permanent preciousness. It reminds us that we are alive and bright (orange),
that dark as it may be, life is full of light or at least can be. The
Christo project was dismissed by many as too daunting, too much for this
City that’s experienced it all. No one would take on this monumental
task; translate this dream into a reality. But here it is, the
impossible as the possible. It won’t be around for more than a
fortnight which in itself is some kind of metaphor for the fragility of
brightness in our time. It won’t be around to see in the park, but I
won’t let it slip from my memory. So there, dark and dismal world!
Back to What’s Important
January 31, 2005
Forget Iraq. The
vote went well, and it no longer requires our attention. Forget Social
Security. Lot’s of complicated numbers. Boring! Health Care for
everyone. I have mine, why should I be interested in that? Starvation,
AIDS and Malaria in Africa. Isn’t that Tsunami stuff under control?
That happened in Africa didn’t it? No forget all this peripheral stuff,
we’ve got a trial to watch – the “Trial of the Century” (prescient title
considering we're only 5 years in). Michael Jackson, that’s what I
really want to know about. That’s what’s important.
I was thinking of
Frank Rich when I turned on the news early this morning. What a relief,
another of his Mediathons on its way. Even BBC, my usual refuge from
the narrow trivia found on Networks and Cable, failed me. “The trial of
Michael Jackson will begin this morning…” it told me. Ugh. If it
weren’t so infuriating, it would be funny. Is this why we are bringing
democracy to the unwashed so that they can bypass their miserable
reality to follow months of Michael Jackson on CNN? Perhaps my problem
is that I’ve never listened to a complete Michael Jackson recording or
seen more than a few moments of his famous videos, and thus don't
comprehend his importance relative to those silly world events. I know
his sister bared a breast during the half-time show at last year’s Super
Bowl (which I also don’t watch). Was it the right or the left breast?
This is important isn’t it? I know it dominated the news for weeks last
year and required decisive action by the FCC.
What is wrong with
us? To be sure there is no simple answer when facing a chicken and egg
problem. The media focuses on this beside-the-point, but millions watch
it. I don’t really know who to blame. One would hope that those
keepers of our moral values in Washington would be pointing out that
Michael Jackson’s trial pales in comparison to the multitude of serious
problems we face. But perhaps they don’t see this preoccupation with
the irrelevant as so bad. What better a time than to sneak through some
further tightening of the Patriot Act, some further reduction in
benefits to our beloved warriors and their food stamp using families
(where did I put that yellow ribbon bumper sticker) or another denial of
global warming (focus on the recent cold in New York, not the diminished
ice caps at the poles). Certainly we would expect some words of
criticism of this irrelevance from the pulpits across America, but that
might offend “viewers” sitting in the pews below. Heaven forbid,
let’s not risk that.
I’ve been thinking
a great deal about our situation these days. One of the things that
strikes me is that we have totally lost our sense of humor evidenced by,
among others, this outburst. Oh I know the Daily Show airs every night,
but I’m talking about the official world. Remember those photos and
newsreel clips of FDR with his infectious smile; his “nothing to fear
but fear…” in the darkest days of the Depression? Remember those JFK
press conferences filled with engaging dry humor directed both inwardly
and outwardly? You simply didn’t want to miss a single word. Gone.
Now we only shout and scowl or sanctimoniously invoke the Almighty as
if our utterances were the sanctioned holy word. And we devote our
attention to important things. Michael Jackson, thank your for being
here when we need you most.
The Election
January 29, 2005
We don’t know what
will happen with the election in Iraq tomorrow. Even the most
vociferous critics of this dreadful miscalculation and abuse of imagined
power like myself, must hope that it goes well. Thousands of innocent
Iraqi lives have been lost. Too many of our own young military men and
women will either not return to their families or not return as they
were. Saddam was a brutal dictator and the idea of free self rule
replacing tyranny should not be trivialized. Whether the election will
be seen as legitimate remains the big question and its answer is
unlikely to be self evident. For sure, only a portion of eligible
voters will go to the polls (we Americans can relate to that), and whole
constituencies have indicated that they won’t participate at all. Some
votes will come from Iraqi never-to-return expatriates around the world,
among them those who hold citizenship in their new countries. How will
that go down with the people so at risk on the ground? The
administration has consistently suggested that the election will be a
turning point, the beginning of a new beginning for Iraq. But that dog
has barked before – falling statues, mission accomplished, capture of
Saddam, routing of
Felluga –
all fantasy watersheds.
What does seem
clear is that both the Administration and the American people hope this
election, if not the beginning of the beginning for Iraqis, is the
beginning of the end for us. In that regard, I was struck by three
unscientific online instant polls conducted today by MSNBC and CNN.
One asked if the election was an opportunity for us to exit, another if
it would be successful and a third if it would bring democratic
government to Iraq. In each 65% or more of respondents weighed in on
the side of either opportunity to exit or of expected failure. Perhaps
we haven’t reached a Viet Nam like tipping point of fatigue but, in a
world that is moving much faster than it did in the 1960s, we are
getting pretty damn close.
In
today's column “The Bushies New Groove”, David Brooks, the now singular
conservatism op-ed voice at the New York Times, suggests that the
administration is looking at things in a totally new way as they enter
the second term. If you believe a new policy direction run by very
ideologues who created the old is credible, then you probably believed
there was a New Nixon. Remember what happened to that piece of
mythology? In any event, it’s instructive to read the administration’s
planted views in the paper of record suggesting that focus will turn
from the Middle East to the world including places like South America.
Now, aside from our pursuing the "evil doers", I don’t remember the
Bush people focusing much attention on real Middle East problems in the
first term, certainly not on solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
which continues to be the most urgent and probably far reaching of
them. That aside, I guess Brooks’ sources are using him to signal a
revealing “we’re going to get out of that town as soon as possible”
message. Very interesting! Almost as if they were in control of the
situation. Fat chance of that.
Where is today’s Martin?
January 17, 2005
I picked up Martin
Luther King Jr. at Newark Airport. A twenties something assistant rabbi
to my father in the last remaining liberal synagogue in town, we had
invited him to address our Community Forum. Like the city, the area
where the huge oval shaped cathedral-like temple sat, had long since
passed the tipping point in its case from being a white middleclass
Jewish neighborhood to one largely inhabited by African Americans. King
delivered a version of his standard stump speech that evening. In it
were hints of the memorable March on Washington address to come when my
father would again share the podium with him. Even if the talk had been
delivered elsewhere, it was nonetheless a memorable experience for the
many assembled. For me the striking moment of that day, was my earlier
experience at the airport.
King was already
pretty well known to the greater public, but at that time he had yet to
achieve the iconic status that all Americans associate with him today.
Yet to achieve that is except with, as I learned walking alongside him
through airport, his community. I was stunned and totally unprepared
for the reaction of the largely black personnel in the terminal. King’s
arrival was treated with excitement combined with the reverence for an
unquestioned superstar. It was clear that many reports of the sighting,
the contact, would regale family gatherings throughout the city that
night. Being involved in civil rights, I knew a lot about Martin King
but not till that moment did I understand the power of his person. It
reminded me of a similar experience I had in college when a young John
F. Kennedy was the unplanned but undeniable center of gravity in a
program where Chief Justice Earl Warren was the principal speaker.
As we remember
Martin Luther King Jr. today, I can’t help but agonize about the fact
that, despite the desperate times in which we live, his kind of voice is
totally absent from the scene. King was unique, but he typified a
generation of mainstream religious leaders. When the relationship with
White America had achieved a kind of pathetic equilibrium largely
accepted by the Black power structure, the well educated second
generation minister of a traditional congregation, would have none of
it. King didn’t invent the struggle nor was he its only or even primary
leader, but he brought a new passion and took extraordinary risks when
he could have had a comfortable and trouble-free pastorate and career.
The established churches were not thrilled when he began rocking their
stable boats. So, too, much to the consternation of fellow civil rights
activists, did he step out in speaking against our involvement in Viet
Nam. He had every reason not to add that fight to his plate; every
reason except for the moral imperative that ran rampant through the
blood in his veins. He died for his willingness to go against the
grain.
During the past
years we have witnessed continuing violence committed in the name of
God. We have seen our troops sent into a questionable battle in which
many of lost their lives and countless more, due to severe injury, have
permanently lost their way of life. We have seen still uncalculated
“collateral damage” obscured in the fog of war and we have been
horrified by the horrendous humiliating abuses in Abu Ghraib and other
prisons. All this and not a King-like word or figure from the
mainstream religious community. To be sure, we’ve heard moral outrage
from Michael Moore and from the likes of Rabbi Arthur Waskow on the
Internet, but it’s all at the fringe. If a Martin Luther King and his
like exists today, I don’t know who he is or who they are.
Mainstreamers have turned inward when we need them to engage with larger
societal problems, turned silent when we need them to talk. I don’t
know if that will happen, but it’s all I can think of on this Martin
Luther King Jr. Day 2005.
The Invisible Fifth Border
January 4, 2005
“As I look out the
window on one side I see the mountains over Jordan. I turn my head and
I see the mountains at the southern tip of Israel, lurching into
the Egyptian crossing at Taba. Throughout this trip we have seen four
foreign borders: Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.” So writes my good
friend Clifford Kulwin, rabbi of the congregation where I served
alongside my father for nearly a decade in the 1960s. He and forty four
of my fellow members visited Israel over the past two weeks and these
comments were embedded in an email report about the trip. What struck
me was that even at this late date the idea of a fifth border, that of
Palestine, did not play into the thinking of one whom I know is a strong
advocate of peace between Arabs and Jews in the Holy Land.
The news from the
Middle East has been grim in these last years no more so than from
Israel and the occupied territories. The Intifada that broke out after
the failure of the last peace efforts under Bill Clinton’s sponsorship,
and which has continued almost unabated since, has seen hundreds of
lives lost, many innocents on both sides. In the intervening time,
there has been little hope for a solution which stands in such stark
contrast with the day when Rabin and Arafat gingerly shook hands on the
White House lawn. But there does now seem to be some glimmer of light
ahead of us. Sharon’s decision to start the withdrawal process from
Gaza and the pending elections for new Palestinian leadership suggests
at least the possibility.
But progress is
also going to take new thinking and more aggressive, albeit sometimes
cosmetic, supportive communications to accompany it. The power of words
should never be underestimated. How we describe something effects not
only how we think about it, but in the long run can impact on the
outcome. It seems to me that we must begin thinking about and
articulating that fifth border. We have to cede sovereignty even if it
does not yet exist. It isn’t enough to have George Bush talk about the
future State of Palestine, we have to think and say it as well. To be
sure words alone will not do it, and the settlers in Gaza and on the
West Bank will continue to resist the idea. But if we don’t do our part
to change the conversation, to verbally insist on a new reality, then
the process will be all the harder. At this point the forces for change
need our support. Hopefully Cliff Kulwin’s next email report on a visit
to Israel will naturally include the phrase, “we have seen five foreign
borders.”
A Tsunami Year
December 29, 2004
A tragically
appropriate horrific ending to a horrendous year. I’m trying hard to
think about what good happened in 2004, and must confess to be at a
loss. To be sure, whatever humanly devised disasters, and there were
many, everything including the high casualty levels of conflict, pales
in comparison to the havoc and devastation that, without warning, befell
hundreds of thousands innocents in a matter of minutes across eleven
countries on the Indian Sea. The numbers of dead and displaced are the
kind one can’t really comprehend or personalize. The coincident death
of Susan Sontag, an individual whose loss we can define and appreciate,
reminds us how precious each individual life is, how much the absence of
a single human being can mean. So, too, the nearly 1400 American young
men and women who have given their lives in Iraq, another 17 of whose
heart wrenching photos were shown this evening on the PBS News Hour –
precious individuals leaving behind identifiable grieving mothers,
fathers, wives and children in our neighborhoods. But the victims of
the Tsunami are not the only unknown. Equally anonymous and uncounted
are the Iraqi, Afghani or other victims of that pathetic euphemism
called “collateral damage.” Be assured someone, if not us, knows their
number and mourns their loss as do the survivors of this week's
disaster.
It took our
President three days to interrupt his Crawford vacation long enough to
make a public statement on the Tsunami tragedy. One can’t imagine Bill
Clinton having waited three hours. It reminds me of Bush’s delayed
reaction to the 9/11 attack so quickly forgotten and forgiven by those
who didn’t want to think that their President could be absent for so
many hours in its aftermath. It’s funny how much more spontaneous human
empathy we got from the morally discredited Clinton than from the
sanctimoniously faith-imbued Bush who is so obsessed with the right to
life of the unborn, but who has no problem with putting the already born
(including potential victims of assault weapons) in harm’s way.
If you find these
words bitter, they merely reflect the total frustration of many of us
who can’t understand how so many of our fellow citizens were taken in by
the shell game that constituted the November election. A majority of
those people believed to the end that Saddam played a key role in 9/11,
a myth that the President and his associates saw no reason to correct
even if they knew better. It served their purposes, helped keep them in
power. Now we look ahead to four more years, to that unspent political
capital and what it might mean in the context of an ultra-right
political agenda. Meanwhile, even without this most recent natural
catastrophe, we find ourselves at great peril, far less safe, with no
end in sight -- no light much less sense of an ending tunnel. Our
standing in the world remains diminished and, as Tom Friedman of the
Times and others point out, we are concurrently losing our edge in
science and technology. We can borrow billions to wage war, but are
spending far less that is necessary on educating our young. We’ve
crossed the bridge to the 21st Century and half the schools
in the country are talking about teaching Creationism along with, or in
the place of, Darwinism, the former being proven fact the latter a mere
theory. We’ve crossed the bridge, but seem to be traveling back toward
the dark past not forward to the promise of the future. I’m normally an
optimist, but the realist within me sees no silver lining in that, no
quick happy Hollywood ending. We have a lot of work to do in changing
the course of this train that’s left the station on its way to the wrong
destination. We better get on with it, without delay. Where are
those damned breaks?
What Kind of Country?
December 25, 2004
It is Christmas
Day. For the majority of Americans it is a holiday, for some of them a
holy day. For the rest of us – Jews, Moslems, Hindus and others – it is
a moment of some ambivalence, a time when we are reminded of our
minority status. We are asked to participate in the holiday spirit and
are engulfed in its decorations, music and symbols. There is
festiveness in the air, but beneath the surface a palpable tension.
That is particularly true this year. Over the past few weeks we have
witnessed a series of local controversies and heated debates surrounding
public school and place holiday observances and programming. Not that
we haven’t experienced this before – similar discussions took place when
I was a child a long time ago. What’s different this year is the tone
and a new aggressiveness about bringing Christmas – the birth of Jesus
Christ – back into a holiday that has been increasingly secularized and
thus religiously neutered.
One of the most
unattractive aspects of our time, as my elder son keeps reminding me, is
that no one wants to take responsibility any more. To be sure,
Christmas has lost some of its religious edge because of what the
complainers see as political correctness -- not wanting to offend,
wanting to be inclusive. But Christmas become secularized many decades
before “correctness” even entered our vocabulary. It has long been
taken over as a commercial event, the make or break time for retailers
whose fiscal year ends in January so that they can book its sales. It
is a Christmas focused on unbridled gift buying rather than remembrance
of Virgin Birth. The broadest possible inclusion in this frenzy and the
resultant holiday neutralization has long been tacitly condoned by
people of faith including Churches who in all honesty are driven as
much, often more, by economic considerations than by prayer and piety.
Christmas’ meaning has been pragmatically hijacked by the almighty
dollar not by political correctness and that is sad. Restoring the
meaning of Christmas would be good for everyone, Christians and
non-Christians alike.
But there is
something in this year’s debate which is not good for all of us. For
the first time, I hear an increasing number of people voicing anger
about the neutering of Christmas with the argument that this is a
“Christian country.” To be sure, Christianity remains the dominant
religion in America, though other religions have been gaining ground.
Only the blind can deny the reality of that dominance, symbolized by a
National Christmas Tree and the annual television tour through the
decorated people's White House. Even so, I think of ours as a secular
democracy, my place as well as yours, yours as well as mine. Christians
should be proud of their faith, should feel embraced by all in their
right to celebrate and to be discomfited by the replacement of Merry
Christmas with Happy Holidays. But not because we live in a Christian
country, rather that we live in one which welcomes and protects religion
and the religious even as it welcomes secularism and the non-believer.
I have said many
times in these blogs that a large number of Americans, including those
in high places, see our current geopolitical struggles in religious
terms. We aren’t fighting terrorism, we’re battling Islam. We’re not
defending our democracy, but in their view our Christian country and
Christian way of life. As an American and as a citizen of our small
planet, I see that as a prescription for disaster. As a Jew with a
historic memory, I find such thinking ominous. When people start using
code words like correctness for un-Christian and thus un-American, there
is good reason for people of all faiths and beliefs to be concerned.
For or against the current foreign policy, let’s not forget what we’re
defending here. Yes, let’s not forget that we’re defending the right of
individuals in a pluralistic society to cherish their traditions and for
our Christian fellow citizens to wish each other a Merry Christmas with
all of its meaning and pride.
Dreams, Why
Not?
December 10, 2004
Philip Roth and I both grew up in Newark. We lived in adjacent
neighborhoods, went to the same high school and share many childhood
memories and sign posts. If you’ve read his latest Newark-based novel,
The Plot Against America, you know that my father is one of the
historic characters woven into his fictional fantasy. It’s a provocative
“it could happen here” story and, as usual, written in the compelling
style. I recommend it. Roth is obviously a dreamer, in this case,
subject to nightmares. Perhaps the dreaming part is in the air, because
I find myself drifting into that real/unreal world myself. Unlike Roth,
however, my dreams are not nightmares but happy fantasies.
My dream also concerns the outcome of a Presidential election. As his,
which was built on the reality of the pro-Hitler America First movement
in early 1940s, mine centers on the reality of an expected Ohio recount.
Contrary to the conventional wisdom, in my dream when all the votes are
reviewed Kerry is the winner of Ohio, reversing the results of the
November election. Now had we not lived through the bizarre events of
2000, I would totally discount this dream, certainly I wouldn’t write
about it. But, hey, if fellow ex-Newarker Philip Roth can bring
Lindbergh who never ran into the White House, why can’t I bring in John
Kerry, who did? Humor me.
Can you imagine Christmas in Crawford, in Wyoming or in any of the well
healed locations in which our, until then, self satisfied leaders find
themselves? Think about Condi suddenly planning a return to California
rather than a daily drive to the State Department. Think about a new
Secretary of Defense who might actually take some responsibility of
mucking up rather than streamlining our military or who might get some
blame for an Abu Ghraib on his watch. You can fill in your own
fantasies. I must say, just contemplating what such a turn around might
mean to these people who have so arrogantly taken us to the brink is
more delicious than eating an exquisite piece of “Old Europe” dark
chocolate. And don’t say it couldn’t happen, at least don’t say it
absolutely couldn’t happen. Not that it will.
Philip Roth’s book is obviously a nightmarish excursion into what could
have happened in the 1940, and thankfully didn’t. My dream is sweet
excursion into what I wish had happened a few weeks ago. His nightmare
is fantasy (even though most people see it as a contemporary metaphor);
my waking reality is the nightmare -- not what could have happened but
what is happening. Roth’s novel comes to a happy ending. I hope our
reality will as well. Like Martin Luther King Jr., “I have a dream that
someday…” Let’s resolve to make sure that is a day certain, one not too
long delayed.
Eye for Eye Insufficiency
December 6, 2004
Over the past
weekend C-Span broadcast a New American Foundation/NYU Law Center forum
on Trans-National Terrorism after 9/11. It was a provocative and
thoughtful discussion involving highly credentialed academic and
professional experts. Most questioned both our success in
combating terrorism and the underlying assumptions under which we are
conducting this so-called “war”. Force, many said, simply is not a
solution, certainly not in the long term. I’ve always felt that way
citing the abysmal failure of Israel’s futile use of often overwhelming
military power to end the Intifada. Corroborating their views, President
Musharraf of Pakistan expressed similar thoughts talking to both the BBC
and CNN in which he admitted that, in hindsight, the Iraq war was
ill-conceived and that the world is less safe in its aftermath. As to
the war on terrorism, the General, who knows something about these
things, suggested that the use of force had only a short term tactical
merit. Long term, the solution to terrorism requires addressing the
substantial underlying political and social problems or conflicts that
produce it.
Watching the
Foundation/Law Center discussion, I found myself engrossed in their
discussion but mostly depressed by the thought that this kind of
conversation is unlikely to have taken place in or around the White
House. In an administration that seems bent on corroborating
predetermined absolute truths and assumptions rather than exploring
possibilities and options, open discourse is obviously unwelcome, much
less any notion of the course correction that it might suggest. While
the number of cabinet posts being reshuffled is historically pretty
consistent with other second terms, the obvious message of the
replacement appointments is clear. No contrary views welcome here, no
dissonant notes in this one-dimensional "patriotic" hymn. The firmness
of this ill conceived resolve is only underscored by the one major
cabinet post that will not change. Donald Rumsfeld and company who,
regardless of one’s position on the war, botched things up big time has
been asked to stay. If you have any lingering doubts about George
Bush’s inability to admit mistakes, I rest my case.
In all fairness,
however, perhaps Musharraf’s critique was a little too harsh. After
all, Bush does have a long term vision
-
bring democracy to all those countries. It is prejudicial, he suggested
the other day, to think that Moslem countries could not sustain
democracies. I agree that it is, but as usual, the President’s words
constitute more sound byte simplistic hype than a reflection of reality
on the ground. As an investigative Aljazeera reporter reminded those at
the forum, more than 50% of the Arab population is illiterate; not
merely poorly educated, but unable to read or write. No wonder
authoritarian regimes hold sway across the region. How can people vote
intelligently, or even have the power to do so, when they are so
handicapped. Think about this tidbit from Richard Dawkins’ interview
with Bill Moyers on his PBS Now program. A significant majority of
Americans who voted for George Bush believe that WMDs were found in
Iraq, not that they might have existed and were somehow removed from the
country, but were there. If such disinformation can prevail among the
educated, albeit not up the standards we would like, how can one expect
real democracy, which includes informed voting, to take hold in
countries of rampant illiteracy? If we don’t begin to address these
problems, terrorism is likely to be at our doorstep for many decades to
come. At the very least, we can expect more authoritarian governance,
even if it functions under Egyptian-style charade democracies.
Are we safer today
than we were a year ago, or perhaps even months ago? Ask the bi-partisan
congressional delegation that just returned from Iraq, a follow-up on a
similar visit made last year. Senator Lincoln Chafe, a Republican,
confirmed what John Kerry and others said throughout the campaign.
Things in Iraq have deteriorated dramatically despite the presence of
over 100,000 US troops. The delegation simply couldn’t visit the same
places this time around and even their modest ten kilometer trip from
the airport was hazardous as they passed through land that is
essentially under insurgent control (as is much of Baghdad and other
places around the country). More troops are on the way, and more who
should be leaving will be staying around. But this show of
strength can't mask the fact that, these many months after the war of
liberation, Iraqis are not really in charge of their own destiny, have
less personal security and a substantially diminished quality of life
than before it started. Is it any wonder that their Intifada is
growing along with this reality? The idea of efficacious “an eye for an
eye” coupled with a “see no lack of progress, hear no alternative view”
is placing us and the world in greater danger every day. It's hard
to see a light at the end of the tunnel, even harder to imagine new
thinking in a now monolithic Washington imbued with mandate and the
rightness of their ideas, both large and small.
Post Script: My last blog, a
spontaneous reaction to increased prescription drug advertising,
appears to have been more timely than I thought. Suddenly the
airwaves are filled with similarly expressed concerns.
Obviously others, far more influential voices, are getting into this
and none too soon. More power to them.
Time to Call Your Doctor
December 1, 2004
I was so relieved
to learn that, in the wake of the Vioxx debacle, Merck’s board has acted
decisively to financially reward senior executives should the once
revered company turn into a house of cards. I am sure those who have
lost loved ones, or who themselves face the potential of Vioxx induced
heart attacks, were equally heartened to hear of their thoughtful
largesse.
Reading the Merck news over breakfast turned out to be somewhat of a
serendipitous coincidence. Just the night before, I found myself once
again being irritated by the ever growing number of prescription drug
commercials that, thanks to a compliant FDA, have become impossible to
avoid. While watching an episode of the British mystery Walking the
Dead on BBC, I was urged to treat my stomach with Nexium (proven
better), rhymed into reducing my cholesterol with Crestor (recently
identified as a potential future Vioxx) and, get this, consider a hip
replacement with a specific Titanium/ceramic prostheses even though I
had no need of such surgery.
I’ve spent the
last thirty plus years in the branding and marketing business, so I
understand the important role advertising plays in building sales for
consumer products. As a professional, I appreciate what it can do and
the often inventive executions that emanate from the many talented
people in the agency world. As a consumer, I’m like everyone else,
disdaining many of the commercials I see while probably being totally
susceptible to their sales pitch. That’s OK when it comes to household
cleaners, soft drinks or automobiles. I’m not sure the same can be said
of prescription drugs, and the more I see of those ads the greater my
concern. In 2003, just six years after the FDA relaxed its rules, the
pharmaceutical industry spent $3.2 Billion on prescription drug
advertising. Studies suggest that for every dollar spent, more that
four dollars are returned in revenue. That means that in 2003,
advertising generated more than $12 Billion in drug sales. The power of
persuasion. The thing that bothers me is that a basic role of
advertising is to induce trial, make us purchase something that we may
not have considered before and that we may not need. Trial is benign
when it comes to a new brand of soap or ice tea, but not for a drug that
by definition is going to modify the way our body is functioning, often
with dangerous side effects. One has to assume that part of that $12
Billion incremental business comes at the expense of competitive
pharmaceuticals appropriately prescribed, but it would be naïve to think
that some of it, perhaps a significant share, doesn’t fall into the
category of unnecessary medication.
The fact is that
patients are, as the ads usually suggest, calling their doctor “today”
to ask whether taking this or that wouldn’t be a great idea. Sadly, the
harassed physicians often take the path of least resistance. How many people are popping Celebrex when Aspirin or another
conventional analgesic would suffice? How many functional males are
pushing their doctors to prescribe Viagra or the like when these drugs
are meant to assist only the dysfunctional? And what, from a social
perspective, is this $3.5 Billion expenditure doing to further increase
the mounting cost of these and other medications? In a country where we
get exercised about someone smoking a joint to alleviate nausea induced
by chemotherapy, it seems quite hypocritical that we allow the hawking
of prescription drugs as if they were some kind of innocuous
confection. While I certainly have to take responsibility for my own
health and do, I don’t quite see telling my doctor what drugs are
appropriate as part of that task. Last I checked he, not I, was the one
with a medical diploma on the wall. I’ll accept being asked to rush out
to the supermarket or down to my car dealer by some actor on TV, but not
when and if to call my doctor. Something about that just doesn’t sit
well.
We blame the fast
food industry for contributing to our national obesity. All that
superfluous fat is taking its toll. It’s time we started blaming the
pharmaceutical industry and the FDA for making us a nation that over
medicates. It may take years to know the full extent of damage
wrought by
Vioxx, once the most heavily advertised prescriptive drug, but we already know it has done harm. Perhaps I should
call my doctor today and ask him why he and his colleagues are not
raising their voices against this dangerous trend, this invitation to
drug abuse? Perhaps you should call your physician with the same
question.
ARCHIVE
The Reds
November 24, 2004
History sure has
its ironies, and here is one nobody seems to have picked up on. Anyone old enough to remember the Cold War and most
especially the horrendous 1950’s has a vivid association with the
designation “Red”. To paraphrase that sage Kermit the Frog, “it wasn’t
easy being Red” in those days when Joe McCarthy and his ultra
conservative friends labeled them, or anyone the least bit sympathetic,
as “Commies”. Everyone knew that a movie called “Reds” was going to be
about Communists and it was commonplace to speak disparagingly of Red
China. So it is especially ironic that today Red States should refer to
the Republican (and conservative at that) dominated sections of the
country. How did their language guru Frank Luntz let that happen? The
people he has so influenced on the right pride themselves on discipline
especially in co-opting powerful descriptors, “Pro-Life” for
anti-abortion activists or the “Death Tax” to discredit the inheritance
taxes they want to repeal to name only a few. One really has to laugh a
little that they find themselves in linguistic bed with the much
maligned enemy over which they obsessed for most of the last century.
What's worse, they aren’t merely "Pinko" sympathizers (read liberals),
they are Reds.
Tomorrow is
Thanksgiving the holiday that is truly ours as opposed to
yours and mine. It’s a time when we’re not Jews, Christians,
Moslems or non-believers, but Americans; perhaps we’re not Democrats or
Republicans either. I love Thanksgiving and in large measure because,
unlike the synthetically neutralized “holiday season” ahead, it is truly
shared by all. The changed meaning of Red reminds me that history has
its ebb and flow, its ups and downs. It gives me some hope that this
distressing time isn’t necessarily destined to be forever. That thought
alone makes me thankful.
And I guess one
should also be thankful for today’s Reds and the many things wrought
under their dominion. We’re at war, and not a single one of us has yet
had to pay a dime for it. Indeed, they’ve cut our taxes so that we can
indulge ourselves by buying more, not sacrifice by doing with less. Not
to worry, the kids for whom we have, after all, done so much will pay
the bills; even better so will their still unborn offspring. Countless
thousands have died or been wounded, physically or psychologically, and
notwithstanding that among them are many of our own sons and daughters,
the President tells us that it's better happening over there than over
here. That should make us thankful, shouldn’t it? There is melting at
both polar caps and an ever growing thirst for finite energy in a fast
developing world (most significantly in the old Red China), but the
garage under my New York City building is filled with SUVs. I am so
thankful on this holiday that my urban neighbors and their relatives in
suburbia can still have those guzzling Hummers, Escalades and Navigators
to transverse the rugged pavement of Amsterdam Avenue, Central Park West
and the Garden State or Merritt Parkways.
Life is good,
undeniably good, so why am I so depressed this Thanksgiving? I must
really be a poop. The latest polls show that a majority of Americans
think the years ahead will be better than those immediately past. I
guess that’s not surprising since a majority of them voted Red. Maybe I
should get with the program, not feel so Blue. Now what happened to
those rose colored glasses? They must be around here somewhere.
ARCHIVE
An Old Friend in New Clothing
November 19, 2004
Visiting
the Museum of Modern Art, was among my earliest childhood memories,
perhaps predating school. It was there that I was introduced to some of
the great paintings and sculptures that have moved me, given me joy and
a lifelong passion for art. I remember the treat of eating lunch with
my parents out on the penthouse terrace of the Edward Durell Stone
building or walking up and down the interior staircase that is forever
etched in my brain. I remember seeing Picasso’s Guernica, housed
temporarily there when the artist was on the outs with his native Spain.
Perhaps I wasn’t a pre-schooler the first time I came to MoMA, but my
sons most certainly were and there is no doubt that the experience also
left a lasting imprint.
I had the great
pleasure of previewing the new MoMA last evening. If its previous
expansions sometimes struck a dissonant chord -- seemingly more
appendages than integrated parts, this reincarnation is a cohesive
exhilarating symphony. Unlike other efforts, the 2004 MoMA is really
new from top to bottom. Perhaps behind the walls are skeletal remains
of the old but, aside from the sculpture garden, you would be hard
pressed to identify them. What you will find is elegant and ample
space. Whether typography or painting, the visual always thrives on the
air around it, and the new MoMA provides plenty of that. You never feel
the sense of being crowded or confined and happily neither are the
paintings or sculptures. The architecture doesn’t shout with any
egocentric “look at me”. Rather it reveals, and in a very intriguing
way. On each floor one can peek over railings or through “windows” and
get a glimpse of what was seen or is about to be seen on another level,
not to mention the city which it embraces rather than hides. The walls
are filled with old friends, but somehow even those appear as if never
seen before. The new MoMA is visually fresh and more importantly it
provides, even demands, a fresh look.
I remember when
Yoshio Taniguchi was awarded the MoMA project. It wasn’t that the man
wasn’t qualified. He had created nine museums (models of which can be
seen as part of the opening exhibits). But some MoMA loyalists had
hoped for a Frank Gehry sculpture-edifice or a Frank Lloyd Wright layer
cake – something that would stand out against the cityscape. It was
around the time when everyone was rhapsodizing about Bilbao. As to
Wright’s Guggenheim, it’s the only museum that I really hate. To be sure
the building is striking, though it still seems out of place in its 5th
Avenue context, but that narrow ramp simply isn’t conducive to viewing
art, especially larger canvases. I haven’t seen Bilbao yet, but its
notoriety caused me to think a great deal about the role of museum
architecture. I have been to the new Tate in London, a spare warehouse
of a place and to the Getty in LA, like the new MoMA an elegant but
visually understated building. In both cases, the architects seemed
more interested in showcasing the works inside (even though the Getty
collection disappoints) than in asserting their own signature. Far be
it for me to discount the sheer architectural brilliance of Gehry or
Wright both of whom I admire greatly, but I am in the Taniguchi and
company school. I don’t want a museum's architecture to distract me but
to facilitate the best possible viewing of all those collected
treasures. For that reason alone, I love the new MoMA, can’t wait to
return and hope you’ll get there soon to share my pleasure.
You won’t be Missed
November 16, 2004
Colin Powell won’t
be part of the last (that has a nice sound) Bush administration and it
won’t matter one bit. The man who four years ago joined a President
with an assumed weak mandate was widely regarded as the Walter Cronkite
of American public life. If Bush unnerved many of us, and Cheney scared
us half to death, Powell promised to be the saving moderating voice.
And, given the trust most of the country had in him, we wrongly assumed
his views would prevail, at least most of the time. These many years
later Walter Cronkite is still missed, still trusted. Colin Powell is
unlikely to benefit from a similar legacy.
Powell it turns
out, photo ops at the ranch notwithstanding, was a pretty weak player in
the Administration from day one. Despite tours in Viet Nam and leading
the military at NATO and at home, he turned out to be inept in the
trenches. Draft evader Dick and “oh things happen” Rummy beat him at
every turn. The only time it seems that they passed him a bone was when
it was clear that he would embarrass himself, not to mention his
country, and forever tarnish his reputation before the UN and the world
community.
Walter Isaacson
points out in a Times Op Ed that George Marshall, another General
turned statesman, is Powell’s hero. Marshall didn’t step aside when he
disagreed with Truman and Powell followed his example even in the face
of both foreign policy and military missteps. Good soldiers both of
them. Marshall at least has left the Western World with concrete
accomplishments – think about Europe without the life-regenerating
Marshall Plan. The Powell Doctrine has already been trashed, if it were
ever really employed. No, my guy is the late Cyrus Vance who quit Jimmy
Carter’s cabinet after the aborted attempt to rescue the hostages in
Iran. He did so on principle (remember that antiquated concept),
something that seems to have eluded the general. Soldiers may salute
the Commander and Chief, but apparently Mr. Powell forgot that Secretary
of State is a civilian diplomatic post, not another military assignment.
Some people will
try to put a good face on the Powell tenure, speaking of the
frustrations and valiant behind-the-scenes efforts. They see his UN
appearance as a tragic moment, an aberration in an unblemished career.
All of this doesn’t cut it. People who have reached Powell’s level
(achieved with considerable systematic planning and personal ambition)
don’t get free passes. If George Bush squandered the good will that
followed 9/11, Powell squandered what may well have been the myth of his
public career. Good bye Colin Powell, you won’t be missed. Don’t get
me wrong, Condi won’t be welcomed.
A Death in the Family
November 13, 2004
A break from the
global to the personal, the canine. In 1968 we were blessed with our
first son, dutifully named and reared in the traditional way.
Wonderfully, he would have nothing of it and early on established his
individuality including rebranding himself Tommy DOG. His path ever
since has been one of boundless creativity and originality, facing and
meeting challenges, some of them steep, and in the end conquering. He
is among the most inventive and industrious people I know, and among the
most loving. He life is music, fanciful sculptures – some of them
working instruments – and collecting. It is also revolves around a true
love of dogs.
In full disclosure
his father is not a dog person, and further is guilty of depriving his
children of a canine companion in our New York City apartment when they
were growing up; until only recently, a home I shared with Tommy DOG.
Eleven years ago, my house mate announced that he had decided to
purchase a puppy, a Rottweiler no less. It wasn’t something I had
contemplated nor necessarily welcomed, but his money and certainly his
home as well as mine. Into are lives came Otis. She, and I’m sure you
were thinking he, was named after the elevator that carries us up and
down each day. Did I tell you he is an original?
From her unlikely
name (he added to it, but rarely used Pricilla) to her disposition, Otis
mirroring her master was a contradiction in terms. While part of a
breed known for its potential ferociousness, Otis decided that she was a
lap dog. Her favorite spot of course was on my comfortable leather
couch which ultimately self destructed from years of her loving licking
and lying about. Over the years, knowing my general disposition toward
dogs, TD would say to me, “admit it, you like her.” Who couldn’t like,
even admire, Otis? Given the subjects I usually write about, I might
add that some of the human Rottweilers out there could learn a thing or
two from this powerful beast who opted for peace rather than war,
gentility rather than confrontation.
Otis’ disposition
didn’t come out of the blue. It was responsive to extraordinary love
and gentleness of her adopted “parent”. From the start, she knew
unquestioned love and respect. She wouldn’t have been what she was
without Tommy DOG. But that is only half the story. He would not have
been who he is today without her which is what makes this a beautiful
and a powerful metaphor. I’ve tried to be a good parent to my two sons
and hope that some of their innate character and value systems reflect
what they were exposed to at home. But what I may have given to them –
and hopefully will continue to give for some time – pales in comparison
to what they have given to me. I’m sure their mother feels the same
way, and hopefully so do you if you are a parent. Tommy DOG saw Otis as
his child and, as he told friends and family in his email announcing her
death last evening, “nothing has given me more pleasure and personal
satisfaction then raising my Rottweiler from a pup”. He is a different
person today than he was eleven years ago, and Otis is part of that
difference.
“My life with her
has been full and gratifying and I wouldn't have traded it for anything
in the world,” he said in his email. I feel the same about my life with
Tommy DOG. Fortunately, I don’t have to deal with it as a memory but as
a living and wonderful work-in-progress. We'll all miss Otis and
I'll always be proud of him.
The Moral Minority
November 6, 2004
78% of the
electorate did not consider morality the number one issue facing the
nation. Listening to the pundits you would think a significant majority
placed it above the combined woes of terrorism, Iraq and the economy
which simply is not at the case. What one journalist characterized on
C-Span as “most voters” was in fact 22% that selected morality, which
any seasoned researcher knows is an ambiguous descriptor, in exit polls.
Morality, widely used as a code word for the religious right’s social
agenda, may have polled higher than any other single option but let’s
not get carried away with ourselves. Probably more revealing is that
after this long campaign there is no national consensus about what is
our most urgent problem. Perhaps even the famously focused Mr. Rove was
unsuccessful in providing singular focus, but more likely it's another
indication of how complicated are the problems we face going into Bush’s
second term (even writing those words hurts). In this world, even the
public has to “walk and chew gum at the same time”.
I don’t for a
minute want to minimize the powerful role played by the religious right
in this and the 2000 elections. With their help, the country has been
tilting conservative for a long time, most especially on the so-called
cultural issues. The next few months are likely to prove particularly
troubling to many of us the President starts paying off his campaign
debts, “spending his political capital”. Hold on to your seats, it’s
likely to be a rough ride. But the lockstep analysis notwithstanding,
we're looking at a influential moral minority not a majority of the
population. Moreover, I simply don't see the religious resurgence
now taken as a truism in our media. The fact remains that in this
purportedly deeply religious country less that half of us belong to a
church or synagogue. More telling is that among the affiliated, no
more, and often much less, than 40% of them attend religious services
with any regularity. If you don’t believe me, stop in at your local
house of worship any weekend and do a head count. I say stop in,
because most of you who read this, affiliated or not, also attend only
occasionally, if at all.
Without question,
religion is playing a huge role in this troubled time, and it is largely
its extreme right that holds center stage. Whether the fundamentalist
fanatics who are blowing up the innocent in the name of God or their
more docile counterparts who are trying to impose their ideology on the
body politic, we find ourselves captives of their designs. The religion
whose face we see in the daily media is pretty unattractive if not
frightening. But to a great degree, we are not merely captives of it,
but accomplices. We complain that Moslem moderates have not raised
their voices against the militants who are using their religion to
justify violence, and rightly so. But where are the moderate religious
voices, the counterpoints to no less fanatical Fundamentalist Christians
and Ultra-Orthodox Jews who want to impose their morality, their
world view, on us? When will the majority and the mainstream religious
leaders wake up and challenge this notion that morality belongs only to
the fringe or, for that matter, only to believers? When will we stop
being cowed by the hype and offer an alternative, more compelling, view?
We live in
dangerous times and the religion that presents itself most vigorously is
a huge part of the problem. If we continue on this course of silent
acquiescence don’t expect our kids, already largely absent, to sign up
for faithful duty. Who can blame them?
2000 All Over Again, Not!
November 3, 2004
Much time will be
spent in the coming days weeks and perhaps years analyzing the election
of 2004. In the final analysis, I believe this election proves that
being for something and someone trumps being against.
The stark fact is that, while many of us happily voted for John Kerry,
few felt any real passion for him. It isn’t as simple as saying we
don’t like him, for in fact most of us both like an admire him. But, to
use a popular expression of the kids, “he’s not to die for.” With the
possible exception of Howard Dean, none of the Democrats evoked real
passion among their supporters and I doubt if any could have done better
including John Edwards who somehow disappeared from the screen during
this campaign. People still vote for Presidents on both sides and even
mediocre running mates don’t amount to meaningful dragging anchors if
Number One is up to his game. Howard Dean evoked passion, but scared
the hell out of the establishment that saw success only in the middle.
But more important, his campaign was largely against and his wipe out in
the primaries should have been seen as a significant sign for the perils
that lay ahead. That said, I still don’t think Kerry had voter passion
going for him rather than against Bush which probably made the margin of
difference.
Make no mistake
about it; The United States has become a conservative country dominated
politically by a right religious tilt. Political tides change, but
that’s where we are as the lingering votes are sorted out in 2004. The
frustrating thing about 2000 was that the country as a whole saw no
great difference between Bush and Gore (speak about passionless
candidates). When the Supremes cast their vote, many Democrats were
saying that it really wasn’t a big deal. What could a mandate-free
President do? Right. This election was vastly different. Everyone saw
two distinct candidates and two distinct ideologies. Nobody thought or
thinks it won’t make a difference, particularly on domestic issues over
which in the final analysis President’s have the most control.
John Edwards is
fond of saying there are two Americas, those who have and those who
need. That may be true, but politically the two Americas don’t divide
over possessions but over ideology and regionalism. We Liberals, a term
that I use broadly to define the heart of the Democratic Party, are
cultural pluralists who are uneasy when our personal and particularly
our religious predilections are brought into the public discourse, much
less used to determine public policy. The Conservatives, read
Republicans, feel just the opposite. We Liberals are coastal (which has
become somewhat of a cliché but is nonetheless true) and excursions into
the heartland are, language and Shopping Malls aside, more akin to
visiting a foreign country than a next door neighbor. The reverse is
equally true. We don’t talk to each other, because we don’t really
speak a common language.
If the
religious-cultural thing, what Conservatives like to call values (a term
that they have co-opted much as they have “life’) is so important than
we might look at what role that played in planting the seeds of this
election. This time around I don’t think it was abortion, but rather
the decision made by the Massachusetts Supreme Court on Gay Marriage,
one with which I happen to concur. More than inclusion of this issue on
the ballots of half a dozen states was the unspoken
homophobic rage that still exists in our society, particularly in
the heartland. The fact that John Kerry is so much a son of
Massachusetts where it all started should not be underestimated. His
remark about the Vice President’s daughter which I don’t think was
either calculated or malicious nevertheless underscored this connection
and was even unnerving to many of his supporters. The induction of an
openly Gay Episcopal Bishop, also from New England, didn’t help.
Homosexuality in this conservative environment is like Color was (and
sadly still very much is) in earlier times.
This was a bad day
for Liberals. I think it was also a bad day for science and,
considering the illness of the Chief Justice and an aging Court, a
potentially bad day for Choice. I shudder to think that we are headed
once again for back alley abortions. All of this brings us to religion
which may be the bottom line of this election. Not merely is America
considered the most religious of Western countries, functionally we have
become a right tilting Christian country which, lip service to the
contrary notwithstanding, is increasingly intolerant of other points of
view. Taking an international perspective, this is a very ominous
development. In fact, I would contend that we are moving rapidly toward
replacing the Communist Menace that we lost in the Soviet Union’s
demise with the Moslem Menace. Perhaps George Bush didn’t
literally mean Crusade when he said it, but there is no question that
for some democracy is simply a code word for a certain religious
belief. That is not good for either the country or the world. The
record of holy wars and their impact upon the world, not to mention on
minorities caught in the cross fire, is not pretty. We dare not let
that happen.
After the Vote – Now What?
October 31, 2004
The campaign is
drawing to a close and I truly don’t know what the outcome will be when
we go to the polls on Tuesday. Is it too close to call, or have a
majority of Americans decided on change or continuation? Needless to
say, in casting my ballot for John Kerry, I’ll be hoping for change,
even yearning for it. However, in a way what really concerns me now is
exactly the same thing that troubled me on March 9, 2003 when I wrote a
blog about the Iraq war entitled “After”.
Millions of words have been spoken during this campaign, but what
happens after? The conventional questions are how many of those
promises will be kept and how will governing differ from campaigning?
These remain valid, but my real concern is about something totally
different.
We’re told time
and again that the nation is deeply divided. Being skeptical about oft
repeated truisms, I am prone to suspect such pronouncements. Sadly, I
find it difficult to refute them. I was struck in this morning’s
Times Book Review by the title of Ann Coulter’s most recent book,
“How to Talk to Liberal (If you Must). Of course, Ms. Coulter is
part of that slick group, both Conservative and Liberal, who engage in
Crossfire Speak focused as much on provocative rhetoric and
entertainment as expressing a coherent point of view. Nevertheless, the
troubling fact is that our national discourse has been poisoned in such
a way that most of us old enough to have lived through many of the 20th
Century's ups and downs have never before experienced. This is not to
suggest that there weren’t times when people didn’t speak past each
other, but the arguments never got quite as personal. Also in the
Times was the photo of a couple sitting angrily side by side in bed,
his wall decorated with Kerry posters, hers with Bush’s. They are
staring straight ahead, certainly not talking to one another and that
tells it all.
Leaving aside
where one stands on the various foreign policy and social issues that
hang in the balance as we move toward Election Day, I think all of us
should mourn the tragic fact that George W. Bush’s single greatest
failure may have been not delivering on his promise to bring the nation
together -- "a uniter, not a divider". He made it during a campaign
that also was conducted against the backdrop of division, but incredibly
what we thought of as polarization four years ago pales in comparison to
what we experience today. What’s even more damning is that the
President squandered a historic opportunity of binding the wounds of
division immediately after 9/11, something that in the long run may have
caused even greater damage to the nation than the horrendous events of
that day.
I am a Liberal. I
believe in a government that supplies a safety net to those in need,
that treats the citizenry with equality, that doesn’t impose one
ideology over another, that affords us the right to manage our lives and
control our bodies and that really goes to war only as a last resort.
Other’s believe differently, sometimes diametrically so. I am convinced
of my beliefs, they are convinced as well. Why can we no longer talk
about those differences, defend our beliefs, without acrimonious
character assassination? Ann Coulter doesn’t want to talk to me, and I
really don’t want to talk to her. That’s where we are, and nothing good
can come of it.
The campaigns are
coming to an end. I’m glad. I can’t stand listening to another of the
same speeches or hearing the predictable scripted spin from each side’s
spokes folk. I've given up on hearing about all those unspoken issues
and most assuredly won’t be burdened with anything thoughtful in the
next two days. I hope John Kerry is our next President. If he is, then
in addition to bringing together his new cabinet, I hope he spends some
time, and political capital, in bringing us back together. I hope
George Bush is defeated, and that his loss is decisive. If he loses,
historians may look back to 9/12 and the opportunities cast aside. If
he wins, and despite all the evidence of his ability to do so, I hope he
too will look at bringing us together. The campaign is over. Now what?
ARCHIVE
God Troubles
October 21, 2004
This isn’t a good
time for God. Listening to those who claim to talk or act upon God’s
behalf, and who have collectively brought more havoc than solace into
our lives, one has to wonder what’s in it for all of us. Let’s just
mention a few of the wonderful things wrought by Divine direction.
Suicide bombers are being sent into the world and killing more innocents
than combatants. God imbued settlers are occupying the land of their
neighbors on the West Bank and in Gaza. Medieval Crusade-like conflicts
are threatening human survival in a nuclear age. The Catholic Church
covered up horrendous sex abuse perpetrated by men of God. The Anglican
Church is outraged that an openly gay priest was elevated to Bishop and
now, after denouncing homosexuality as a sin, has essentially adopted a
don’t ask don’t tell position on the subject. Science, arguably the
essential of human survival, is being dragged back into the ideological
constraints of the Middle Ages by people who seriously are still
fighting Darwin. We are being taken into war because God wants us to be
there. Well if that’s what God is all about, I want no part of Her.
Religion is in
deep crisis, not spiritual revival. It has become, or more accurately
reemerged, as a tool of political necessity and agendas. God has been
hijacked and used to justify the imposition of one point of view over
another. Our diverse pluralistic society which was founded on tolerance
and a clear separation of Church and State is in danger of being
subsumed into broad scale theocratic governance. We’re returning to the
world of “some of my best friends” where neighbors of a different point
of view or belief system pay lip service to tolerance but move
aggressively forward with an agenda of submission. All this in the name
of God.
I don’t know for
sure if there is a God. I live under the assumption that there is. I
don’t know if there is a God, but I sure know that God doesn’t whisper
into my ear. In fact, we all used to think that such a notion fell into
the kook category, the hearing of voices by the unbalanced. I still
think that’s true, but the bother is that the kooks have truly taken
hold of the asylum. God’s whispers are scary.
Perhaps worst of
all, moderate voices are, for all practical purposes, silent. Anti-God
talk, which is what any challenge is labeled, is an untouchable hot
potato. Moreover, they are frightened, consciously or unconsciously
concerned for their personal safety. You don’t have to be paranoiac to
be scared of people who murder doctors at abortion clinics or who blow
up children at play. The threat of governmental power used in the name
of security – read that protecting the will of God – may not reflect a
current reality, but its there hovering in the air. Philip Roth’s
chilling it could happen here metaphoric novel is looking less
fanciful by the day. Moderate voices, especially the voices on the
pulpit need to be heard, regardless of the risk.
God’s trouble?
Only we can redeem what we all know is God’s humanly tarnished
reputation. If we don’t have the will or we can’t, God help us.
Post-Debate
Thoughts
October 14, 2004
What Dan Rather
has appropriately termed the “joint appearances” are now history. Of
course I thought John Kerry won -- no I really do think he won, and big,
in the larger sense. Even those who support George Bush will have to
agree that either man is plausible as President. No Franklin Roosevelt,
Jack Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln here, but plausible. That is a big win
for a challenger as Jerry Ford, Jimmy Carter, or George 1st
will attest. Kerry, unlike Terry (Brando), is a contender.
He's seriously in the game and now all he needs is a knockout, even a
technical knockout.
What strikes me
about the joint appearances, and the campaign at large, is not so much
what is being discussed, however superficially, but what is totally
absent. In general both candidates seem to be going the extra mile not
to offend or stir controversy. Yes they will make some statement on a
hot topic, but it’s always nuanced or “caveated” to death. Bush can’t
bring himself to say he’s against choice and Kerry can’t quite mouth the
words Pro-Choice in anything much above a figurative whisper. That
doesn’t mean that they don’t have real convictions about this, they just
want to be careful not to rock a boat that is maneuvering through a very
narrow channel. I for one feel that we are less safe since Bush and
company began their Iraq folly, but equally feel that we are far too
safe when it comes to confronting real issues in the campaign.
Have you noticed,
just to use two examples, that there has been scant discussion of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and no mention at all of Abu Ghraib? It
boggles the mind that we are discussing an exploding Middle East and
Moslem-Western culture conflict and not seriously addressing
solutions to the unending Holy Land turf war that increasingly
threatens world stability, not to mention brings death an destruction to
thousands of innocents and both sides. It isn’t mentioned because
neither side wants to offend the American Jewish Community – my
community – which they assume to be single minded on the subject. I
hear Jews saying they are voting for Bush because he so strongly
supports Israel and it astounds me. Speak about the big lie. Bill
Clinton spent inordinate time and personal capital on seriously seeking
a negotiated solution that would ultimately safeguard a Jewish State and
bring about a legitimate Palestinian homeland. In the end his
time ran out, but there is no doubt that had the Constitution permitted
a third them, the effort would have continued. George Bush has done
nothing except to mouth support for a Palestinian State (with which I
agree) and bolster his fellow Rightist Arial Sharon (with which I
strongly disagree). Roadmaps, notwithstanding, there has been no peace
process under this Administration. And, to his discredit, John Kerry
has not added much to the discussion or risked telling us how he would
get it started again.
With the absence
of WMDs, the entire Iraq argument has rested on bringing the wonders of
democracy, including one would assume moral decency, to the unwashed
multitudes in backward Moslem states. Thank God for America. Abu
Ghraib, more than anything else has sullied those high purpose
platitudes, calling into question why democratic states are any
different or better than the combination of dictatorships and monarchies
in place. The fact that not a single senior official has paid in any
way for this monstrous breakdown in stewardship is shocking and a
serious threat to our moral fiber and national reputation. The fact
that abuses have also taken place in Afghanistan and, one must now
assume in Guantanamo, speaks to an underlying cultural problem that at
the very least seems prevalent in our military, but most disturbingly
may also reflect something more wide spread. The truth is that
“everything is not fair in love or war,” and whoever is in charge
of conveying that message seems to lack a moral compass. That John
Kerry has not made something of this very fundamental issue is
disturbing and disheartening.
I’ll vote for John
Kerry and without any doubt that he is the superior of the two.
America will be safer and better off with him in the White House. I’ll
feel more sanguine about the social issues from environment to
scientific research. I wish George Bush had been asked an updated
version of the Kitty Dukakis question, "what would you do if Laura had
suffered spinal damage and there was a cure developed from stem cell
research? Would you let the doctors cure your beloved wife?"
With Kerry on Pennsylvania Avenue I’ll feel better about Constitutional
issues, about a daughter’s right to control her own body and about Dick
Chaney’s daughter’s right to wed. I hope everyone will vote for John
Kerry, early and often. He says we can do better. I agree and perhaps,
if we get our heads straightened out during his days in the White House,
we will. I yearn for an FDR somewhere in the future and for a time when
more Westsiders will be wearing buttons for rather than against
someone during a Presidential campaign.
Joining the Campaign
Trail
September 24, 2004
In what could
easily be mistaken for a campaigning running mate, Ayad Allawi the
“independent” acting prime minister of Iraq blew into town. Listening
to his carefully nuanced pronouncements, one could not help being stuck
by their verbal consistency with the Bush campaign rhetoric. This was
especially evident in an interview given to PBS's Jim Lehrer last
evening. Echoing language used by Bush, Allawi kept on referring to
those opposing our occupation, and consequentially his rule, as
terrorists. When asked how many Iraqi’s had been killed along with
more the now 1037 US service women and men, he responded that about
3,700 civilians had been killed by the terrorists. Of course
that number does not include civilian losses during the heavy bombing of
the days prior to “mission accomplished.” But Allawi went further in
claiming that rather than a fight against insurgency, this was a battle
against terrorism on behalf of the entire world. After all, Saddam, he
suggested as if it were an absolute fact, worked hand in glove with the
terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. I guess the 9/11 Commission which came
to just the opposite conclusion should have interviewed him more
carefully. I wish Jim Lehrer had challenged on those self serving, but
hardly self evident, allegations, but that’s another subject.
There is no doubt
that brutal acts of terrorism are being carried out in Iraq and, of
course other places. There is equally no question that all, and perhaps
most, of the hostilities should not be described as such. When people
resisting occupation blow up tanks and Humvees these may be lethal acts
of rebellion, but it’s not the same as a suicide bombing or kidnapping
of innocent civilians. Donald Rumsfeld likes to remind us that war is
messy and it sure is. Part of the way we get clarity is to distinguish
between horrible hostile acts, a painful but important process. Picking
and choosing descriptors is complicated. Are individuals lining up to
join the army or police force potential combatants or civilians?
Perhaps both, but trying to thwart the buildup of opposing forces, no
matter how we may feel about their potential mission or how awful it is,
can’t simply be labeled another act of terrorism. For a segment of the
Iraqi community the mission accomplished is simply not acceptable and
that includes people who were not the Saddam regime.
There is another
dimension to this renewed emphasis on terrorism as the central player in
Iraq, one that goes beyond the renewed implied connection with 9/11.
This one has a moral component and a very disturbing one. It appears
that the Administration is now acknowledging that terrorists, not
previously there, were drawn to Iraq in the Post-Saddam era. This is
now being portrayed as a good thing because, it’s better to have them
there than elsewhere, specifically on American soil. No one wants
another terrorist act in this country, but the implications of that
thinking are in themselves abhorrent. Taking Mr. Bush’s logic when he
makes such assertions, one has to conclude that it is, if not alright,
then better for Iraqi civilians to die than Americans. I find such
thinking by a man who likes to talk of his doing God’s work to be
morally reprehensible. Sadly, it represents the continuing isolationist
strain that has always been embedded in the American psyche. Better
over there than here at home.
We always talk
about how a President’s hardest decision is to put American military
personnel in harm’s way. We rarely mention that, in doing so, he is
also putting a much larger group of human beings, mostly non-combatants,
in mortal danger as well. The right-to-lifers who are so bent on
protecting the unborn, might give a little more thought to how many
viable lives we have cut short in our excursions around the globe, some
legitimate but some, like the invasion of Iraq, out of transparent self
interest, often economic self interest. The terrorist card continues to
play in this election season and it continues to be its most misleading
and disturbing component.
ARCHIVE
Time for Kerry to
Speak
September 14, 2004
I think there are a
lot of people out there ready to jump the Bush ship, but they simply
haven’t been given the reason to make the move. They're not happy with
W and his policies, but wonder what will really change with a Kerry
administration. It’s all well and good to complain that the public and
consequently the campaign has been distracted by vicious attacks filled
with half truths or even outright lies, but that’s no excuse for not
getting straight and clear talk from the candidate. Let’s face it, our
world is in a real mess and John Kerry has to tell us exactly −
specifics not platitudes − what he will do about it.
Without question the
economic issues are real as are the anxieties about healthcare in
general and Medicare in particular. An under funded “No Child Left
Behind” can’t go on if we are to remain competitive with an increasingly
well educated developing world. That great “sucking noise” of jobs
exiting the country predicted by Ross Perot is a top priority in the
industrial states and no less so in the corridors of Tech Valley. A
woman’s right to choose and the future direction of the Supreme Court
can’t be overlooked. On all of these Kerry has spoken out, but in the
final analysis I don’t think any of them turn the election even though
they probably have the most immediate impact upon our daily lives.
The key question for
those who might opt out of the Republican column this year, and for most
of us as well, is what will John Kerry do about the two burning
international issues that have dominated our attention in the past three
years: terrorism and Iraq? How does Kerry view these two
life-threatening problems and what specifically is he going to do
about them?
It is now a cliché to
say that the so-called war on terrorism will be with us indefinitely. I
accept that. But what is this war, who are we really fighting and,
beyond the preventative measures and reflexive “hit backs,” what are we
going to do to reduce the underlying causes of terrorism? What steps
will we take to mitigate the desperation felt by young people in the
many oppressed lands around the globe? How will a Kerry administration
work toward making the powerless feel empowered, focused on building
their own lives not destroying ours? What will it do to finally bring
peace to Palestinians and Israelis, bring it not pay mere lip service to
it?
Many of us vigorously
opposed the war in Iraq, but here we are mired in its aftermath. So
what now and what exactly are our objectives in Iraq? What is the exit
strategy and how specifically will we engage the world community
in helping fix the mess we have made? What about the current
Administration's inotion that democracy cures all, the modern day
reverse domino theory? Does John Kerry buy it? Who will he put in
charge of righting this disaster and why do they have the smarts and
credentials to accomplish success where others have so miserably
failed? How will he personally engage in this process and who among
other world leaders does he think are essential partners to accomplish
his goals?
There are many
questions and a desperate need for answers if we – the decided and the
undecided – are to have the confidence that voting for John Kerry is not
simply voting change for its own sake. It’s time to stop wearing defeat
George Bush buttons and start wearing ones that say vote for John Kerry,
but that won't just happen. We need some answers. John Kerry, you have
the floor. It’s time to use it.
Shock and Awe
September 8, 2004
Bill Clinton is
recovering from his quadruple bypass surgery, and while everyone’s
experience differs to some degree, I personally can imagine what he’s
going through. At this point, he’s probably in the step-down unit, a
room with few beds and lot’s of incredible nurses. He is feeling a
little weak and perhaps experiencing some pain, easily managed, but
relieved, even exhilarated, to be alive. In a few days he'll be walking
through his front door in Chappaqua astonished at the speed of his
recovery, or at least its first phase. Bill Clinton has just
experienced Shock and Awe.
I was also
seemingly in great health when suddenly confronted with unfamiliar
discomfort (in my upper back) and shortness of breath. I too sensed
something seriously amiss and after an angiogram revealed considerable
blockage was operated two days later – a quadruple bypass also in my 58th
year and in the month of September; my Shock and Awe.
I’ve always admired Bill Clinton, happily voted form him, but now we
really have something in common.
I know we’re not
alone in experiencing the Shock of unexpected life-threatening
illness. If you haven’t been there and someone tells you it’s not that
big a deal, don’t believe them. It is. We all know that life is finite
and that people die, often “before their time”. But most of us function
under the “it can’t happen to me” assumption. You can say that it’s
living in a dream world, but in fact it is much more out of necessity.
Were we to live under other assumptions we might not function as well
or, for some people, at all. If someone tells you that having
experienced Shock, life simply goes on as usual, don’t believe
that either. With it and the Awe that follows comes a new
awareness of life’s values and, much as we may be prone to discount it,
a reevaluation of how we do things, how we use our time. Even Bill
Clinton, who has accomplished so much, is likely to go through that
process. Certainly he’s likely to change his diet – radically I hope.
The difference
between Shock and Awe is that the latter is much more long
lasting. It’s been years since my surgery and I have never felt
better. The truth is that clogged arteries don’t come over night and,
while you don’t realize the subtle but increasing impact they are
having, chances are you haven’t felt well for quite a long time. I’m
doing physical things today that I never though possible when I was
forty. There is also the Awe of how far modern medicine has
come. I had an uncle who died early from heart disease whom I am sure
would have had a long life had bypass surgery been around in his day.
We know a lot more about the impact of diet and exercise and how to keep
those arteries clear – to prevent future Shock. My bypass was a
wake-up call for me as was Bill Clinton’s for him. Speaking with some
confidence for us both, there has to be a better way to wake up.
That said, I
consider what happened to me among the best of life’s experiences.
While certainly never one who took life for granted or avoided deeper
thoughts about its meaning, it provided a sharper focus. Adversary,
which I never would recommend as preventative medicine, is nonetheless a
powerful propellant for human growth and change. In these times of
stress, of national adversity, much of the discourse focuses on the
negative, is mired in the Shock. We would do well to take
counsel from the survivors many of whom have moved on to embrace the
wonder of the Awe; focused less on what was and more of what can,
and must, be. Recover well, Bill Clinton, we need to see what you’ll do
with the Awe.
Straight Talk
August 30, 2004
I’m writing from
Chapel Hill North Carolina. Like many New Yorkers, I’ve escaped the
city and the tumult of the Republican convention as did Bostonians with
the Democratic conclave in July. These conventions have become pure
theater, sadly less reality than those awful TV shows that have become
so popular of late. Much of what we’ll see in New York, and what we saw
in Boston, is aimed right over the delegates heads to the larger
mainstream, our election cycle “swingers”. The staged focus of the GOP
convention is far more centrist (compassionate is making its
quadrennial comeback) than either the delegates or, most significantly,
the party’s office holders. The public talk in Boston was far to the
right of the assembled, though not as out of sync with post Clinton
Democratic office holders. What we don’t have on either side is
straight talk. Messages are delivered in code in this election season,
which is probably the last thing we need during these troubled times.
Take for example
the swift boat flap. The focus of the initial attacks which, thanks of
intensive repetitive media coverage got so much of our attention, were
on John Kerry’s war performance and whether or not his citations and
purple hearts were earned. But that was all a smoke screen because it
was in the second commercial that the real complaint emerged – John
Kerry the anti-war protester is what bothered these people and the
Administration ideologues behind them. What really unnerves the right
is that John Kerry embodies a war gone wrong whose aftermath has hung
over the military and America’s use of power ever since. And this is
not a trivial matter because underlying the current aggressive foreign
policy is the notion that at long last we are over Viet Nam and all that
unmanly self doubt. The reason it’s important to discredit John Kerry
the protester is that every day Iraq is looking more like a Viet Nam
style quagmire. That doesn’t suggest that the two wars are the same.
For one thing, however horrendous, the body and casualty count pales in
comparison. For another, connecting the dots of Communist expansionism
was much more credible (albeit equally wrong) than linking Saddam to
terrorism. That said, Kerry is a living reminder of our fallibility and
of the patriotism of dissent. He contends that we can’t just use our
power because we want to or have the capacity which is precisely what
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have been all about since Bush took office.
Swift boats are a code, not straight talk.
The greatest
challenge for Democrats is not in marching against Bush which may feel
good but might not result in victory, but in marching for John Kerry
which probably will. Straight talk is not that we don’t like what’s
happening, but what we believe should and must happen to get things back
on track. Straight talk means being willing to say that perhaps in a
shifting world our perceived best days are behind us if we mean by that
our absolute dominance of the agenda and our ability to make everyone
salute when we pass by. In a world of technology and ever increasing
accessibility, we may not be the only ones to invent, may not always be
the most successful and capitalizing on what we discover. Nor, speaking
of straight talk, have we been that in the past. Straight talk doesn’t
lend itself to sound bytes and simplistic slogans which, however
commonly employed, are not how any of us, including our government,
functions. And as to Liberals, of whom I count myself as one, straight
talk means saying what we believe, not what we think will play well. On
that, the compassionate bull not withstanding, the Conservatives have
been much more successful. Their ideological straight talk has played
well, not because it is right, but because it’s been proudly stated and
weakly refuted. Straight talk: we better get our act together.
ARCHIVE
Much Larger than Life
August 20, 2004
Few things have
caused more partisan outrage and subsequent ridicule as the premature
and inaccurate “mission accomplished” fly-in by the Aviator-in-Chief.
Perhaps less remembered, but no less erroneous in its implied promise,
were the words “we got him,” spoken by L. Paul Bremer last December.
Howard Dean was roundly criticized at the time for suggesting Saddam’s
capture would not have any measurable positive impact on our safety, a
contention that has proved prescient as eight months later we continue
to witness ongoing, even escalating, hostilities in Iraq combined with
repeated terror alerts at home. It is Bremer’s “promise” that we
should think about in contemplating the eventual capture or demise of
Osama bin Laden. While the latest reports suggest even the Pakistanis
have no idea where he is, some cynics contend that he will surely
materialize in the weeks before the November election — a classic
October surprise. While of practical political relevance, such
thinking is ultimately beside the point. Everyone, on the Right, Left
or in between, would welcome eliminating this infamous character from
the world scene, the sooner the better. If, however, we think that ends
the story, we are seriously deluding ourselves and missing the most
basic lessons of human history.
Heroes, and bin Laden
is most surely a hero to his followers, don’t diminish but become
larger-than-life when they are removed from the scene, most especially
when they die. This should be evident, to anyone who has an
understanding of the history and nature of religion, which plays such a
central role for contemporary terrorists, not to mention the current
administration. Whatever influence he may have had in life, Jesus
became a religious super power only in death. Without the crucifixion,
Christianity may never have become the dominant religion we know today.
The same holds true for Islam even if the nature of the heroic figures
are different. Mohammed made significant localized inroads as a
spiritual and political leader, but Islam only spread across the world
after he was gone. Death can be more powerful than life, far more
powerful.
We don’t really take
control of our heroes until they are gone. On the most elemental level,
a dead hero can no longer take actions that may disappoint or make
statements that might contradict our own thinking. Death provides us
with an opening and, more importantly, an opportunity. We can now begin
the myth building process, freely expanding the message and finishing
the unfinished or unspoken thought to suit our own purposes and agenda,
noble or not. That is precisely what we can expect from the radicals
who have followed bin Laden in life, and even more significantly by the
not so radical but highly frustrated who see his movement as their only
way out.
Dead heroes are like
the global consumer brands that pervade our lives. They certainly can’t
sustain without substance, but the real power lies in the idea of them,
in their emotional content. It is that larger-than-life aspect which
takes hold of us. People don’t prefer Coke or Nike because the first is
an intrinsically better beverage or the second a superior running shoe,
but because each embodies a state of mind, something with which we can
and want to identify. So, too, Osama bin Laden may once have been a
person with temporal human attributes, a man who puts his pants on one
leg at a time like the rest of us. But that bin Laden, due in no small
measure to our predilection for personalizing the “war on terrorism,” is
already gone. When truly removed from the scene, he is bound to grow in
mythical stature, most likely geometrically — immeasurably
larger-than-life. So his movement, far from being neutralized or even
wounded, will likely be stronger than ever. It is this reality that we
must face if we have any hope of changing the potentially lethal course
on which we have been bound for more years than most of us care to admit
or think about.
It’s Downhill for Brands
August 12, 2004
A little change of pace.
With all that’s going on in the world
these days, we tend to be distracted from things that impact more
directly on our way of life. A changing geopolitical world coupled with
the information age, have given new meaning to nostalgic remembrances of
the good old days and the comparatively simpler life that accompanied
them. One of our most cherished ideas that seems to have lost some of
its luster is the power of big brands. We’re a long time from when Wall
Street accorded high multiples to companies that owned these icons of
commerce. Indeed some of the once nifty dozen, brands like Coca-Cola,
American Express and Marlboro no longer are the revered names they once
were. Coca-Cola has suffered from uneven management and changing
lifestyles, American Express no longer has exclusive right to wallet
cachet and Marlboro, along with other cigarette brands, has to hover in
the shadows of embarrassment rather than in the spotlight of manly
pride.
I won’t suggest that brands or branding have become irrelevant, but it
seems to me that a lot of consumers are simply moving on past their
former fixation with reliable names. Decades ago, brands faced what
seemed like severe competition by retailer house and generic entries.
To be sure, some of their business was lost in that period, especially
to the cost conscious and constrained. But the truth is that the hey
day of brands, the time when everyone was speaking and writing of their
incredible value, came after the onslaught of value competition.
No, I think what troubles brands today is a combination of changed times
and most especially of self-inflicted wounds.
Brands have been whipsawed by a series of social and health trends and
by an increasingly well educated (in the practical sense) consumer.
Whether greater sensitivity to the consequences of high cholesterol, the
growing awareness that obesity and even simple overweight is becoming a
major health crisis or the more widely accepted risks of smoking,
Americans have become readers of back panels and cautionary notices. A
pretty picture on the front simply won’t cut it any more. Moreover,
many have discovered the true parity between most competitive products.
Perhaps people once bought into the idea that Bayer delivered something
superior, but most know that aspirin is aspirin whatever brand name
appears on the package. Pepsi, because it was in second place,
discovered long ago that cola (as most people’s one and only) may have
run its course, and has been rolling out the alternative beverages that
consumers have grown to include in their daily life. And specialty
stores like the ever growing Whole Foods that opened a blockbuster
destination flagship in New York earlier this year and Trader Joes that
is expanding rapidly are offering an alternative to the traditional
supermarket. Brands, including their own, are present but no longer
playing the starring role. Finally the increase of channel options on
TV, the threat of Tivo-like filter systems and the still unresolved
challenge of the Internet as a medium has put somewhat of a lid, even if
temporary, on the power of advertising.
But these are all externals. Much of the problem comes from the
marketers themselves. What ails the branding giants can be ascribed to
two intertwined phenomena, lack of true innovation and greed. Together
they have commoditized product offerings and diluted brand franchises.
When something is new only because it claims to be on the label, then at
some point in time the Emperor’s nakedness will reveal itself. When a
new kind of cleaning or of eating is just more of the same old, the
promise becomes empty. When a brand is deemed so powerful and
profitable it is interminably leveraged and ultimately milked to death
by line and franchise extensions, one begins to forget where it all
began and why it mattered. I can develop an attachment to a one and
only, but not to a variety some of which don’t ring my bell. If Oreo is
so many different things, what makes the original so special, not that a
newborn will even know that one of them was its version of the real
thing.
Perhaps even more damaging is the continuing and ever growing trend of
me-too copycat marketing. Today’s fad is low carbs and it’s a wonder we
haven’t been offered a low carb cleanser, air freshener or allergy
medication. There is a kind of shameless silliness to all of this that
bespeaks a disturbing degree of branding bankruptcy. Innovation and
creativity seem to be headed for Chapter 11 and that’s really sad.
Perhaps I am in the minority, but somehow an unending series of
disappointments has made even me, a curious early adopter, lose
interest. Take for example the Gillette Mach3 razor which was
introduced so effectively by BBDO close to a decade ago. Mach3 was a
demonstrable improvement in shaving; at least I found it so. Next came
Mach3-Turbo whose incremental benefits were so invisible that the only
improvement I could discern was a higher price per blade, good for the
company but certainly not for the consumer. Finally, the most recent
entry, Mach3-Power, a battery powered razor that supposedly reduces the
number of passes and improves the shave. Really? Well I certainly see
the benefits to Gillette of a twofer – replacement blades and Duracell
batteries in one product, but my own experience with this new “system”
was disappointing to say the least including that two of the even more
expensive blades broke in half while I was shaving. I probably won’t
even try Mach4 or whatever it is called when it inevitably hits the
market.
I don’t mean to either pick on Gillette (who incidentally never replied
to my complaint email), nor to use personal anecdotal information as the
proof of anything. That would be unprofessional. But I do think it’s
an example of a much larger problem spread across all categories and
businesses. If we don’t start focusing on our own unique mousetraps and
making them, not to mention their communications, distinctively
different then say goodbye to brands. Perhaps the end won’t come in the
next few years or even in my lifetime but, absent some change, I see it
happening within this still young new century.
ARCHIVE
Candidate-in-Chief
July 31, 2004
Watching John
Kerry the other night reminded me why he, and not any of the others,
ended up with the nomination. All of them might have used the exact
same words in their acceptance speech; none could have carried it off.
Certainly not with any credibility or so comprehensively. Being an
unrepentant Liberal and Dove, I could have done with a little less
General-speak. However, it seems to me that having a proclaimed tough
guy candidate who will probably be more of a talker/negotiator than a
haphazard shooter is far more attractive than having a proclaimed man of
compassion who turns out to be the world’s most notorious bully.
Pundits suggest
that the Democratic Convention, which most see as having been a success,
was playing to the undecided rather than to the faithful. That is
probably true, though given scant coverage I really wonder how these
generally uninterested folks could possibly have gotten the message.
Surely, they can’t have divined it. In fact, I don’t fully buy this
analysis believing instead that the message was as much directed inward
as outward. One of the problems with Liberals, Progressives or however
you may want to describe them, is that we have generally ceded
patriotism, military readiness and moral values to the Right. It isn’t
that Conservatives have taken hold; it’s that we’ve handed them the
reigns. What this convention did, in the most aggressive and overt
fashion was to reclaim ownership. Unlike Republicans who often seem to
think of themselves as the sole proprietors of flag and country,
Democrats made it clear in the past week that they, like all citizens
regardless of ideology, were equal stakeholders. John Kerry and company
also proclaimed that we were prepared to defend both that ownership and
whatever it might bring.
John Kerry did
what Howard Dean could never have done. As his wife said, “he earned
his medals in the old fashioned way.” I know Dean understands what made
Kerry potentially electable and what would, at this time and place, have
put him and the Party at a disadvantage. The day will come when
Democrats will have to remind the world that Chaney, Wolfowitz,
Ashcroft, DeLay, Santorum, and cheerleaders like Ralph Reed, Bill
Kristol, and Bill O’Reilly are all ready to send young men and women
into battle but never served themselves. Unlike John Kerry, they didn't
say “send me” and none of them have any real idea of what it’s like,
especially what it’s like in an ill begotten and poorly prepared
conflict. Yes Max Cleeland, left with only a single limb after Viet
Nam, was shamelessly smeared out of office in Georgia for being "soft"
on defense, but that kind of mud simply won’t stick nationwide,
especially with the Homeland still vulnerable and Iraq still a mess,
both on the accuser’s watch.
God Bless You
ended every speech. It’s become the “have a nice day” of political
talks, and frankly I find it most distasteful, a kind of knee jerk
disingenuous piety. That said, John Kerry can talk about moral and
family values in a way that Bill Clinton, no matter how much I may think
of his enormous intellect and talent, never could. The Kerry and
Edwards picture-perfect families with the obvious deep internal
connection in each of them suggest these people know something about the
substance of relationships. They don’t have to say anything on this
subject, which I truly wish they would not have to do; one simply has to
look at them.
Is John Kerry
perfect? Of course he’s not. It’s a besides the point question. None
of us are perfect; especially those who profess to have all the answers
and find being asked about their mistakes a trick question. The thing
about John Kerry is that he seems to be someone who knows how, and wants
to, win. You can’t govern unless you can win. If we haven’t learned
that lesson, we haven’t learned anything. He gave a powerful
convention and a compelling speech. I'm excited about what he
might do in the months ahead and about the prospect of what may follow
if we see to it that he is elected.
Convention
July 27, 2004
While looking for
a misplaced something the other day, I came across a little box filled
mostly with Adlai Stevenson-for-President Buttons. It reminded me how
long I’ve been a political junkie and an avid watcher of our quadrennial
conventions. To be sure the Democratic convention that is playing
itself out on my TV is a far cry from the days when platforms were hotly
debated, delegates were contested and speculation about a Vice
Presidential pick carried through almost to the end. In 1956 Stevenson
left the choice up to the delegates, which
provided
John Kennedy an
opening to launch his national career. He lost out to Estes Kefauver,
but emerged four years later as the party’s successful Presidential
nominee. In earlier years, I watched the proceedings on CBS or NBC, but
this time I am happily exiled to C-Span which, unlike the Networks,
doesn’t interrupt with “analysis” and inane sound byte interviews. In
fact, even if I wanted to put up with that kind of filtered coverage, I
couldn’t. All the Networks opted out of substantive coverage, seemingly
marginalizing the convention process, but actually further marginalizing
themselves. Even the 24/7 people who have no problem providing wall to
wall coverage of OJ, Cobey, Michael and similarly transformational
“news” events, fail the gavel to gavel test. That’s the pathetic state
of things.
It may be that the
Democratic and Republican conventions have taken on an infomercial
quality, but I think the media is doing a great disservice to our
democracy by their arbitrary censorship of these Democratic and
Republican gatherings, however choreographed it may be. It’s hard for
them to argue that summer reruns, the Network's own infomercials for the
coming season, are a more important use of the public airwaves. Shame
on them! No wonder many of us look increasingly to PBS and BBC for our
broadcast news.
Perhaps, today’s
conventions are theater, but that doesn’t mean they are not revealing
and reflective of where our political parties stand. I’m always struck
by the differences in the audience and in the tone, nature and
content of the speeches in each. This year the Democrats opted for a
virtually unknown keynoter, Barack Obama, running for the senate in
Illinois. I feel sorry for anyone who missed that speech, read that
most Americans, and who must be satisfied with the few second long
snippets they may hear on the evening news. Some pundits are already
speaking of Obama as our most likely first African American (in his case
literally since his father was form Kenya) President, but forget that
premature hyperbole. Beyond having put forth a hugely talented and
charismatic orator, the Democrats and John Kerry who is at the controls
were sending a message. Some will say it was an appeal to minority
voters, but I think it speaks much more to the fact that the party
wanted to put everyone on notice that it has a strong bench,
leadership for tomorrow not merely today. Like the choice of John
Edwards, it is another example of Kerry’s willingness to send forth the
best with little concern that he’ll be upstaged, which some fear will be
the case.
The tone of the
convention I’m watching is upbeat which in large measure was made
possible by the dramatic, albeit short lived (Obama take note) candidacy
of Howard Dean. Beyond providing a wakeup call which finally energized
a hibernating party, he laid out the harsh particulars of indictment on
the Iraq War and other issues in such a clear way, that they are now
accepted as givens freeing Kerry to focus on the tactics of
victory. Dean got the warmest of welcomes, a sign that everyone on the
floor knew that they owed him a lot, perhaps the victory that many feel
could come this November. Some, in what the former Governor calls the
Democratic wing of the Party, may feel the convention messages are too
safe, too mainstream. Perhaps so, but this convention isn’t simply one
about “the economy stupid.” Criticism of the Bush foreign policy and
misbegotten adventures runs through along with social values,
environmental policy, health care and, thanks to Ron Reagan’s entry into
the conversation, embryonic stem cell research. He made it abundantly
clear that social conservatism of his father's successors has gotten us
off track in its narrow and selective view of the right to life.
We have yet to
hear from the two Johns. We are being told that they will give the most
important talks of their political lives. How many most important talks
can there be? Hopefully Americans will be able to hear their words from
start to finish even at the expense of a missed Law and Order or ER.
Hopefully, they will be listening. To be sure, I will. How about
you?
The Happy Warrior
July 14, 2004
I’m of an age when
it’s nice to know that some things were before my time, to wit the
Presidential campaign of 1932. But thanks to the many photographs of
candidates Hoover and Roosevelt, I have a pretty good feeling for how
these two men projected themselves. Hoover, in almost every shot,
looked dour; FDR had that infectious full smile. For a guy who couldn’t
even walk, he sure was upbeat. I’m reminded of those images in
contrasting Dick Cheney and John Edwards. Cheney always looks dour,
even when he affects a smile. Edwards can’t contain his happy
disposition. For a guy who lost a child, he sure is upbeat. And boy do
we need upbeat in these troubling times.
George Bush is
fond of characterizing himself as a War President. Perhaps we are at
war, but it wouldn’t be so bad to have a Peace President. In fact, I
think that’s exactly what we need, a president who is committed to
leading us out of conflict into peace. I am not naïve enough to think
we can simply wish our conflicts away, but sometimes I feel the current
gang on Pennsylvania Avenue has a vested interest in keeping us unnerved
and armed for conflict. Indeed, with their regularized threats of
imminent danger and reminders that bad things not only can but will
happen here, the American public finds itself on the edge. What was
that about “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself?” Again, I am
not discounting the possibility, or even the probability, of terrorist
attacks, especially if we keep on our current belligerent course. But I
do think that we all need encouragement and a reminder of how blessed we
are relative to most of the world’s population. Edwards, like
Roosevelt knows of real personal trauma, and with that experience in
place, he understands the importance of what the late
Norman Vincent Peale
called “the power of positive thinking.”
John Edwards was
exactly the right choice and his upbeat outlook and commitment to
positive campaigning seems to be rubbing off on the other John. Kerry
is very smart and he knew exactly what he was doing, and its
ramifications, in selecting the attractive North Carolina senator.
Perhaps he doesn’t have the gravitas of Dick Chaney, but look where that
got us. A little less gravitas and we might actually survive
individually and as a nation.
By the way, as a
follow-up on my last blog, I saw “Marty” today. He cuts perfect turkey
breast. Guess what? He’s changed his hat again. Bill Bradley is gone,
replaced by John Edwards. And, he confided, “I think we have a real
shot this time.” Voters, listen up.
ARCHIVE
Marty, Bob and
Michael
July 4, 2004
I’ve been away in
a place where news doesn’t dominate the day and mind. It’s always a
relief. What strikes me upon my return each year is how little has
changed which makes one wonder why we need all this 24-7 noise. Being away
from it all, really away, also gives you some perspective. Looking ahead
as we move into the pre-election summer, we find ourselves in a kind of suspended
animation. Those of us who have been troubled about where the country
has been heading in these last years wonder if other Americans, those
who seem to be asleep on the sidelines, are going to finally awake from
their slumber and, more importantly what action they will take? None of
us really knows, but I have some anecdotal evidence that the tide may
be turning.
Marty (that’s not
his real name) is behind the cold meat and prepared food counter at
one of my favorite Upper West Side specialty shops. He has been a fixture
there for years and has long been
dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country. Four years ago the name
Bill Bradley appeared on his paper service hat. Marty favored the former New Jersey Senator and wanted everyone to know it. He was
relentless and long after Al Gore won the nomination, Marty still stood his
ground. Bill Bradley was the man and his name remained on his hat. It’s still there, but
significantly now below the name John Kerry. Marty’s hoping Bradley will
get a shot at the Vice Presidency. Regardless, he wants Bush out, and
in that regard knows he must get behind Kerry regardless of his
beloved Bill's fortunes. But here is the punch line.
I discovered the other day that all this time Marty has been a
talking, not a doing, activist when he declared, “I am going
to vote for the first time in thirty years.” Marty has been a
closet sideliner, but that will end with this November. One vote,
but somehow I suspect he’s not alone.
Bob (also not his
real name) is a sharp guy with a distinguished high level business
career including sometime abroad. Like many of his peers, he’s been
voting Republican pretty consistently over the years and the two of us,
good friends, have long accepted each other’s different politics. Bob
has voted Republican, but not this year. I think his disillusionment
began with the economy, but it probably crystallized with the way in
which George W. Bush and company have been systematically dismantling
generations of international cooperation, have mucked up the war on
terrorism and have ill advisedly opened a hornets nest in Iraq. Bob is
not someone who takes these things lightly. He’s also a reader and this
year he has been reading a multitude of devastating books by insiders who know
what's really going on down there in and about 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue. Bob is pissed (I can use that word now since the Vice President
has lifted the bleep rule). Unlike Marty, he always votes and this
year, like him, it will be for John Kerry. Perhaps he won’t be
attending any rallies and won’t switch his affiliation, but the GOP has
lost him this time around. I suspect he's not alone either.
And then there is
Michael. The lines to see Fahrenheit 911 even in places you’d least
expect it have been astounding. I'm going today as a kind of
Independence Day celebration. Sure much of the audience is made up
of the already committed, but I think film may constitute more than preaching to
the convinced. Like Marty, a lot those people who profess unhappiness
with the status quo never moved themselves to the polls. People do go
to movies and do watch television, both of which have big influences on
their thinking, and their doing. Just consider the powerful role
of advertising on purchases. Michael Moore may just
stimulate enough of the heretofore talkers rather
than doers like Marty, to pull some levers this fall. He may even
convince some more Bobs.
Marty, Bob and
Michael. Perhaps I’m dreaming, but think of the possibilities. Happy 4th
and best wishes for what’s our America too.
ARCHIVE
What About Me?
5/18/04
The election in
India, the world’s largest democracy, may turn out to be among the most
significant events in recent years. Most assuredly it will be analyzed
by many including people who, unlike myself, really know something about
the sub-continent. I see it as sign of possible things to come. On the
simplest level, much ink and many words have been devoted recently to
the miracle of the Indian economy, to its brilliant well educated middle
class and its aggressive move into technology. Indians answer the
phones when we call tech support representing a major endpoint of all
the outsourcing that has become an issue in our Presidential
campaign. But the real story of India is that, despite years of
democracy and of economic growth, the vast majority of its citizens
remain mired in abject poverty. This election appears to have been
about them, those many left behind, truly left behind. In
bringing back the Congress and other Leftist parties, these people were
asking, what about me?
It’s an important
question and if you put it in a global context, one that can be posed by
the majority in most places. As an American, it’s hard these days not
to be obsessed with our conflicts, external and internal. Aside from
aggressively flexing our muscle and promoting global trade, we have
little time for the world at large. Even when we venture out; we do so
awkwardly without any real conviction about engagement in any
substantive way or necessarily assessing the near or long-term
consequences of our actions. Today there are people in Washington and
on Wall Street who are ringing their hands about the Indian election
results and the potential impact they might have on us. Interestingly
these are the same people who insist that the Almighty wants everyone to
live under democracy. Right, so long as they don’t think about
exercising it. Remember the kind words spoken about the Spanish
electorate after they translated their opinion into votes? While I
don’t think God is its advocate or sponsor, I do believe that democracy
is a great thing and truly wish it were more widespread all over the
world.
What if that were
the case and all the disenfranchised could, and more importantly would,
vote? Contemplate that and you’ll see why the election in India was so
important, perhaps prescient. We all talk about the growing disparity
between rich and poor, or even middleclass and poor. We bemoan it, but
we don’t do all that much about it. We rightly criticize the Bush
Administration for its lack of after-planning in Iraq,
which has turned out to be so costly on every level. The fact is that
nobody in any party here or elsewhere around the globe seems to have a
strategic plan in place to transform this planet into something that at
least puts everyone on the playing field. In fairness, I don’t know
that such a plan is even feasible, but don’t you think we should be
taking a stab at it?
Go into the
neighborhoods of poverty in the United States and in many other places.
Visit the homes and what will you see? A television set. Walk the
streets and you’ll probably see some cell phones which are morphing into
post-computer powerhouses of capability and connectivity. Images and
ideas are multiplying faster than the families of fundamentalists.
Perhaps they haven’t pulled themselves together yet, but they will and
they will most assuredly be asking, what about me? That
shouldn’t come as a surprise to us who ask the very same question almost
every day. In fact, what about me is our favorite question, the
icon of our times, at the very moment when we should be asking more
vigorously, what about you?
Moral Authority
5/10/04
While taking his anguished
apologies at face value, what seemed to bother Donald Rumsfeld most
was the fact that the gruesome photos got out. It reminded me of how we
all feel after some accidental event, kicking ourselves that we could
let such a stupid thing happen; if we only had... Rumsfeld contended that photographing
and the release to CBS, The New Yorker and other media were illegal renegade acts, and
you can be sure that, if he can find a way below the radar screen, they
won’t go unpunished. Punishing the chain of command is another thing
altogether which is exactly what troubles Senator Lindsey Graham, the
South Carolina Republican known for his prosecution of Bill Clinton
during the increasingly beside-the-point days of Monicagate.
Perhaps I misjudged him because he certainly is less partisan than might
have been expected.
I’ve noticed in
talking to people about this that, after mouthing the appropriate
horror, strong supporters of our invasion of Iraq are eager to place it
in the proper context: terrible things happen in war.
True, which is precisely why many of us are so reluctant to engage in
it. But even if you accept war, which sometimes is unavoidable,
what happened in this prison can’t be construed as one of those
spontaneous combustible acts in the heat of battle. Getting people to
undress and into suggestive embarrassing positions, leading them by dog
leashes, is something that doesn’t just happen. It takes planned
intentionality.
We simply can’t
let ourselves off the hook with the things happen in war argument,
the kind of reasoning that in a profound way is at the heart of what makes our
times so
troubling. Perhaps it is overstating it to say that we’ve
proven ourselves no better than our adversary, but to deny it entirely
misses the moral point. Morality is one of those pesky things that
demand absolutes. The country I love claimed the moral high ground in
sending its daughters and sons into battle to fight for democracy and
decency against the evil one. We tell the world that we don’t do
those terrible things done by others because that’s not what we’re all
about. Having found no WMD’s the President justified our action by
pointing to torture chambers like Abu Ghraib in what now appears to have
been a compare and contrast shell game. I don’t suggest that
Bush knew the specifics, but rather that it is all part of a claim of
moral certainty – I’m right and everyone else is wrong – that is
emblematic of the neo-con rhetoric to which he so closely adheres.
The Conservatives
that hold sway in America, so certain that theirs is the right way, are clearly not
terrorists, but like them claim to act on on behalf of The
Almighty. It is the same proprietary pipeline conceit used by
those who bomb the innocent around the world on instructions from Allah or of
Orthodox West Bank settlers who claim Divine Right in withholding lands
from Palestinians who lived there for centuries. Everyone with a gun it
would seem claims to be carrying out a mission of a “Higher Authority.”
If all the terrible things going on these days are the result of what
God really wants, I want no part of Her. The fact that I view all these
claims as self serving and bogus is the only thing that permits me to
hold on any modicum of belief. My father was born 102 years ago
today and based upon his lifelong work and thinking most assuredly would have shared this sentiment. Had he
voiced it in one of his sermons, he might have concluded with this prayer:
May God protect us from the many divergent forces that claim to hold
the absolute Divine truth.
From Bad to Catastrophe
5/6/04
Our intelligence
wasn’t good enough to avoid 9/11 or to find Osama in the hills of
Afghanistan, but apparently right on target in understanding what it
takes to humiliate Moslem men. It is one thing to see rage based upon
presumptions and misconceptions, it’s another see it based upon clear
evidence. I ask myself how I would feel as a Jew seeing analogous
humiliation of my religious and cultural beliefs? But that’s silly
isn’t it, here I am a child of, but not born in, Nazi Germany and I
still can’t look at Germans with complete trust sixty years after the
fact. The day Saddam was captured Howard Dean was asked if we were
safer now. He said no and was vilified for it. Not only was he right,
but we are less safe with every passing day.
You have to ask
yourself not only why representatives of this country tortured
prisoners, but also what in the world was the nature or purpose of the
interrogation. We still don’t have a shred of evidence that Iraq was
connected with terrorism, and what might we have wanted to learn about a
fallen regime? Was this simply a case of profiling, of late day
sadistic McCarthyism? And what about all of those civilian
interrogators? Did you know that we were hiring people to do that?
Obviously, they are getting higher pay than the military, but do they
also work for a company whose owners are sitting comfortably and
risk-free in the US collecting millions of tax payer dollars? Is
that off the books or on? Is this an Enron in the making?
When George Bush
couldn’t answer a reporter's question about mistakes – something he
joked about at a recent press dinner (but still didn't answer), it was
revealing. The man couldn’t bring himself to say a simple “I’m sorry”
during his two interviews yesterday with Arab TV. He is clearly
viscerally unable to do so. Ah to be so perfect. Remember how outraged
this gang was at Richard Clarke’s apology to the 9/11 families,
something Condi Rice refused to do? And Donald Rumsfeld, the arrogant
and obviously incompetent Secretary of Defense, couldn’t bring himself
to say so either. His response was very similar to that of the day when
looting was going on in Iraq, the day we essentially blew it and from
which we have not recovered. Shit happens, he said then and
shit happens he says now.
When will the
American people wake up and realize that we need regime change, not to
mention drastic thinking change, before this Republic implodes? Will it
take a Holocaust-like catastrophe to make people sense that something is
going drastically wrong, that we are being led down a road that
ends with a cliff? Where is our sense of outrage, not at the low level
soldiers (men and women), but against the chain of command that made
this ill conceived war and disgrace possible and that leads straight to
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
ARCHIVE
Image Makers
5/1/04
The power of
images has long been understood by advertising people, and image making
is a widely used tool of politicians. Stage setting and image making is
a bi-partisan activity, but no one has become more adept at it than the
Republicans, particularly since Michael Deaver came to town with Ronald
Reagan. So it’s not surprising that a great deal of attention has been
paid on this day to President Bush’s fly-in and staged
end-of-hostilities address before that huge Mission
Accomplished banner on the deck of a large carrier last May 1. I
can’t add to it other than to note something Bob Woodward recently said
about owning things you create.
What I can't get
out of my head are two vivid images that appeared on our front pages in
the past days. The first, and clearly the most disturbing, was of
American soldiers humiliating war prisoners, and the second was of an of
American officer shaking hands with a former Iraqi general to whom he
was turning over authority in Falluja. While being a vociferous
opponent of the war in Iraq, I don’t for a minute think that those few
soldiers represent the brave youngsters who are risking their lives
every day, nor do I doubt George Bush’s sincerity in expressing disgust.
I also understand the desperate need to quiet down Falluja -- thus
General Saleh. But think about the images.
The prison in
which those soldiers disgraced themselves and their country is the same
prison in which Saddam tortured Iraqis throughout his brutal regime.
The general with his Saddam-like mustache and Saddam-era uniform has
been asked to take command of the place, claims about outside agitators
notwithstanding, that is widely regarded as the main stronghold of
Baathist resistance. If images are the name of the game in influencing
minds and carrying the message, what must the average Iraqi be
thinking? What are we, who have sent our sons and daughters to war and
spent billions to rid the world of Iraq’s old way, to think? Isn’t it
fair for both of us to wonder why our two countries are going through
all of this?
Ugly things happen
in the heat of war, on all sides. Frustrated and tired soldiers
commit atrocities. The only people in Iraq with any track record
of getting things like security done are the bad guys. Our problem is
that we have entered a world whose language, customs, culture and way of
doing things we neither knew nor understood. We speak platitudes about
being on the Almighty's mission to bring the light to the
democracy-starved. We are confidently self-assured but are
absolutely clueless. Now everything is out of control, including the
images. In the end, it is the Iraqi people who, based upon our
promises had harbored some hope, will pay the price. They should have
known the day we marched in Ahmed Chalibi as their democratic savior.
Speak of images.
On Value and Values
4/21/04
Ever so often a
book comes along that transcends ordinary narrative to provide a
profound insight into what’s going on and how things work in our ever
changing world. James Gleick’s Faster and Malcolm Gladwell’s
The Tipping Point were such books along with a handful of others.
Now my good friend Douglas K. Smith gives us On Value and Values,
Thinking Differently About We…in the Age of Me. It’s a must read for
anyone who really wants to understand how our world has fundamentally
changed in more than the obvious ways. I don’t use the word our
lightly here because, as with any other change, we in the so-called
developed societies are early adopters. What’s so powerful about this
book beyond explaining how things really are, is that between the lines
you'll find still another insight into why there is such a huge
disconnect between cultures, one of the underlying causes of the
terrorism that hangs over our heads.
Doug’s underlying
thesis is that our world has moved from one of place to
one of purpose. While in former times everything we did revolved
around our village, town, city etc., we are now driven by markets,
networks, organizations, friends and family. Simply put, what
pervades our lives are the multiple relationships forged within each of
those groups developing small teams of thick we’s with whom we
get things done. Our connection with these discrete points of shared
interest are far stronger than with people who just happen to live down
the street. Our world is not a village any more. Along with our
new purpose-focused existence comes a shift from the values-driven life
of place to value-driven life of purpose, often for its own sake. This
may provide us with short term returns, but Doug argues that it is a
recipe for long-term failure. Value without values is no value at all.
His purpose in this writing is to point the way toward achieving those
values.
Doug Smith is a
deep thinking consultant who has assisted more than forty high profile
companies and institutions navigate through complicated management
issues or position themselves for the future. He has one of the best
minds of anyone I’ve encountered in my professional life. Doug has five
previous books, but this one really sums up his global thinking with a
conviction that is hard to miss. It is that which is what makes
the read so compelling. There are lots of great books around this year,
many of them important but timely. Doug Smith’s book is timeless, one
that I plan to revisit often as I try to make better sense out of what’s
really happening to us in this new century. Log on to
www.amazon.com or
www.bn.com both of which carry On Value and Values. You
won’t regret it, if only to get away from the ugly stuff that is taking
up such a large share-of-mind these days. It's also a wonderful
read.
ARCHIVE
Talk On
4/8/04
Testimonies don’t
simply happen they are prepared. I’ve been through that process when
getting ready to offer expert opinion in legal disputes. In such
instances, and probably in most others, lawyers have two simple
instructions: listen carefully to the question and answer only what is
asked in the fewest possible words. A potentially hostile hearing in
which questioners are on the clock seems to require something else
altogether, the advice Dr. Rice was obviously given. Talk and then talk
on. Bury them with words and run out their clocks. That’s exactly what
we witnessed this morning at the 9/11 Commission hearings. She was a
master at it.
The networks went
quickly into headline mode identifying the critical sound byte, “no
silver bullet”. Preparing for the worst, the spinsters are out there
telling us that this is a politicized process. Watch how that tone
changes if the Commission exonerates W’s administration which, of
course, would make for a non-partisan verdict. Without diminishing
either the importance of the inquiry by what appear to be ten pretty
serious people, nor the need to find a better way of integrating
intelligence, the hearings are somewhat of a sideshow given what’s going
on in our world.
Even Tom Friedman,
who long supported the war with or without WMD’s, and in all fairness
has consistently worried about the after, is getting increasingly
frustrated and concerned. It doesn’t matter that many of us opposed
Iraq, considered it a distraction from the war on terrorism and perhaps
even an inflaming factor, we are here now. Like it or not, George Bush
and company has succeeded in merging the two wars. How we proceed
against divergent but clearly mutually supportive uprisings in the North
and South will undoubtedly impact what happens next — there, in the
world and to us. Friedman can argue whether we’re fighting the Viet
Cong or the Kamer Rouge (NY Times 4/8), but I know a quagmire when I see
it.
So Condi Rice
talks on much as she has on every conceivable news program that will
have her. She talks on in the hope that we might be distracted, which
we dare not let happen. Personally, I prefer shorter answers to more
questions. Considering how deep a hole we’ve dug for ourselves since
9/11 they better be good. Knowing they won't, let's hope we'll survive
long enough to have a new, policy. I don’t know about you, but I’ve had
quite enough of robust.
We lost Davy…
3/30/04
“We lost Davy in
the Korean War; still don’t know what for.”
So sings Bette
Midler in her song, “Hello in There,” adding disturbingly, “doesn’t
matter any more.” Perhaps that’s the way some of us feel, but of
course it isn't true. It matters a great deal, for us individually and for our
society. Listening to those words put in the mouth of an aged mother on
my MP3 player while running in the park made me think about war, the
ones in which we are engaged today, and those waged in our past.
Taking us into
war, all Presidents claim, is the most difficult thing they
do. Deciding whether we should follow them in, which plays a huge role
in its ultimate success, is equally so. I'm old enough to remember
The War which is what we called it without any concern about
confusion well into the 1960’s. After all Korea, the conflict
referenced in Midler’s song, was termed a “police action.” I was a
little kid during WWII which left me with three vivid memories. One was
VJ-Day celebrated on a summer afternoon by the whole neighborhood
which coincided with my recovery from strep throat, the most traumatic
and threatening illness of my childhood. Were it not for the recent
availability of Penicillin, I might not have survived. The second was
Della Hayes, our beloved housekeeper, beating reddish food coloring into
margarine at our kitchen table to make it look a little more like the
butter we couldn’t get in a time of war. Finally there was that black
“A” sticker affixed to the rear window of our Chevy denoting the
preferred gasoline allocation given my clergyman father in a time of
severe rationing. Most people had “C” stickers on their windows.
Memories of celebration and of sacrifice.
How different in
this time of war. Zabars, Fairway, Whole Foods or any supermarket
across America chockfull of food, plenty of butter (even if some of us
can’t eat it any more). “A” or “C” stickers? Forget it, the garage
under my New York apartment building is crowded with gas-guzzling SUVs
(oh to have a Hummer to navigate those pot-holed city streets). The
only restrictions on plentiful gasoline is how much we can afford to buy
at what we perceive to be exorbitant prices (still a fraction of what
others pay around the world. The little ones in my building will have
very different memories of war than my own, probably no memories at all
because there are no signposts. The war going on right now, even with
9/11, doesn’t touch most of our collective lives. There is no sacrifice
involved, not one we experience personally. Only a fraction of
American families have sons, daughters, fathers, mothers or siblings at
war and among those of us in the middle and upper classes, fraction
would be an overstatement. There isn’t even a draft to evade.
But let me not wax
nostalgic, so unbecoming in connection with the ugliness of war, any
war. While the cost of WWII was immense, it was a hugely successful
effort, not inconsequentially because it had full public support. It
isn’t that some isolationists didn’t oppose it early on and, in doing
so, delay our entry. It is that once in, the citizenry gave its
wholehearted support. No one was ambivalent about the enemy or the
rightness of our cause for which we were willing to personally
sacrifice, for however long it took. That wasn’t true with Korea.
Perhaps we were just tired of fighting and had not yet been fully
convinced of the Communist menace (these had been our allies). In any
event, the eloquent Adlai Stevenson went down to defeat when war hero
Ike promised to go to Korea and end the conflict. We wanted out.
Our discomfort was brought to new heights with Viet Nam, which in many
ways was simply an extension, albeit delayed, of the same anti-Communist
hostilities in Asia. The opposition took some time to build, but
ultimately the war became an unwanted and discredited cause. In some
ways, we still haven’t recovered from it.
There is a
military lesson in all this. We won WWII with which the public
concurred. We failed in Korea about which we were ambivalent and more
so in Viet Nam where we rose up in angry protest. Harry Truman, FDR’s
successor won the election most immediately following WWII. Stevenson,
the incumbent party standard-bearer, paid the price for Korea at the
polls in 1952 as did Lyndon Johnson (who couldn’t even run) and Hubert
Humphrey for Viet Nam in 1968. Successful wars need public support.
Wars fought for questionable causes have bad endings, militarily and
politically.
All of this brings
me to the unprecedented situation today, the duality of war with what is
clearly fractured support presenting a real military and political
conundrum. Few of us would question the reality of the global terrorist
threat and consequently the War on Terrorism. In that we are one, much
as we were in WWII. The other war is more reminiscent of Korea and
Viet Nam. The "why" we went to war in Iraq has been muddled by
the mixed messages of the very Administration that advocated it.
The
ever changing rationale: the threat of (ultimately elusive) WMD’s,
links to Al Qaeda (unsubstantiated) , freeing what may be considered an
arbitrarily selected group of oppressed (there are so many around the
world), bringing democracy to an unruly region, and the ever present
elephant in the room — huge oil reserves, makes for a nation divided. It's hard to define for what cause and reason all these
young kids are dying or being damaged for life. Knowing our limited
attention span and how well we have been trained to avoid complexities,
the two very different wars are being portrayed as of the same cloth.
That is, excuse the expression, a real stretch. Absent full support,
not to mention a pretty well defined and understandable cause around
which we can collectively rally, history suggests a problematic
prognosis.
From that
perspective, even if we fail in a foreign war of questionable purpose,
it is unlikely to do us long term damage. Certainly not for those of us
who are risking and sacrificing absolutely nothing, not even a little
butter or gasoline. It’s ugly, tragic, but in the scheme of things,
sadly inconsequential. Losing the other war, the real war about which
we have no doubt and where the enemy isn’t armed with phantom weapons,
but with committed human time bombs of real destruction, could be
disastrous. Losing that war could claim life as we have grown to know
it. If there was any time in which we needed focus and unambiguous
purpose it is now. Duality, mixing metaphors, won’t do it. It could, in
fact, do us in.
ARCHIVE
The Whole Truth
3/25/04
Perhaps the most
credible words out of George Tenet’s mouth at the 9/11 hearings were his
confession to have been primarily concerned about keeping his job during
the transition in late 2000. He’s been a good solider ever since and,
given the many reasons that he probably should have been sacked, one
can’t help but wonder why he’s still in place. Perhaps he is protected
by what we might now describe as the O’Neill/Clarke factor. Experienced
public officials talk after leaving the Bush team, and they don’t seem
to have such good things to say about either its character or
intentions. If we are to believe Clarke, and why shouldn’t we, Tenet,
his public utterances notwithstanding, may harbor his own doubts about
the machinations in the Bush land. Let’s have none of that, thank you.
What strikes me is
the degree of mendacity in our government, often in the form of routine
spin, to which Richard Clarke himself admitted, under oath, being a
party. “Put the best face on things” are the routine marching orders.
Smooth the edges of truth which, I’m sad to say, while taken to new
heights these days are hardly the modus operandi of a single party.
People in high places skirt the truth and talk out of at least two sides
of their mouths. Is it any wonder that such a large percentage of
Americans have given up on voting?
Our government
officials are also habitually disingenuous. Watching these hearings in
the context of Israel’s assassination of Hamas leader Sheik Yassin,
followed by various sanctimonious expressions of outrage and “concern”,
I was struck by how desperately we were looking for an opportunity to
“take out” Osama bin Laden in 2000. I continue to think the Israeli’s
are taking the wrong approach in their conflict with Palestinians, but
let’s not pretend their policy of assassination is unique. We’d love to
have the leaders of Al Qaeda in our missile sights. Remember how the
Iraq war started a few days early because our “intelligence” told the
President that there was an opportunity to take Saddam out? Why can’t
people be straight with us, treat us like grownups?
The answer is
pretty clear. Truth telling raises serious questions and that is
something they simply can’t have. Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill seem
to be pretty candid fellows, both somewhat painfully disillusioned about
the process and probably most by their complicity in it. Clarke even
apologized to 9/11 families for having failed them. Now that’s
something different. Hearing them is almost like listing to the
confessions of recovering alcoholics at their first AA meetings. Those
still addicted to power don’t like this kind of behavior, this straying
from the reservation. They have tried to discredit or at best to
marginalize these two men. I pray that decent Americans will see
through this charade.
The months ahead
will be important for our country and for the world which is so much in
our powerful hands. We need a change, and with it straight talk.
Howard Dean had that capacity, even in telling us that we weren’t any
safer with Saddam’s capture (something with which Clarke agrees). It
scared the hell out of everyone including the voters which is probably
the most depressing part of his implosion. But it’s early and John
Kerry has a great opportunity to truly herald a change in substance as
well as in form. Remember Robert Kennedy and the “why not” question?
Indeed, a little truth for a change, why not?
Eleven Again
3/13/04
On hearing the
news from Madrid, the first words out of my son were, “oh, it’s the
eleventh.” I’d been listening to the dreadful reports for more than two
hours by then and no one had mentioned that numerological connection. I
don’t know if it is more than a coincidence, but there certainly is an
eerie similarity. Violence in a beautiful city, the home of Picasso’s
monumental Gurernica, mirroring violence in my own, home of the United
Nations founded on the idea of world peace. They don’t yet know if it
was ETA or Al Qaeda, though some believe the Spanish government, one day
away from elections, won’t say because perceived home grown terror will
be more beneficial for them at the ballot box. Politics injecting
itself into tragedy, now that’s something new.
As it happens, I
am reading Jessica Stern’s fascinating book, “Terror in the Name of
God.” That Terrorism is our number one global problem is a truism
that’s fast becoming a cliché. George Bush talks of little else. Tony
Blair delivered an impassioned speech yesterday in which he decried
Madrid and vowed that we would not be frightened, but would aggressively
defend our way of life. He’s not alone in thinking that force is needed
to meet these gross acts. I’m not naïve enough to believe we or anyone
else, so hurt, can easily hold back from military retaliation. But I
don’t think this tit for tat really works. In the end, it is more
a tactical quick fix rather than a long term viable strategy for
success. If you need any proof of the futility of retaliative force,
simply look at the Israelis who, after years of using it, are now
building a Berlin-like wall to keep the bad guys out. The irony of
history.
If we are really
facing a totally new kind of threat, we must begin to develop a totally
new approach. New doesn’t mean 21st century smart bombs, state of the
art detection or better trained dogs with highly sensitive noses.
Surely, we need all those things to protect ourselves, but they are not
going to win the war. We’ve been told over an over that this is a
different kind of enemy, one that is obviously confusing the hell out of
us. The military, on whom we rely, are trying to adjust, trying to find
a point of reference. But they may be looking in the wrong place. If
we want to fight terrorism, we have to look not at the battlefield but
at the source of what led us to it. In the late 1960’s American waged
two wars: Viet Nam that has taken on an almost iconic nature and the War
on Poverty that is both out of sight and mind. I didn’t participate in
the first, but was an active soldier in the second, the one that may
provide the best reference point for the current situation.
Reading Professor
Stern’s book one is reminded once again that most of the foot soldiers
in the terrorist armies come from the worst social circumstances. Sure
there is an absence of democracy in their world, but most of all there
is unimaginable poverty and despair. They live in a hopeless
environment in which no one really cares if they live or die, where
humiliation, not personal pride, prevails. If there was any time for a
new War on Poverty, a contemporary Marshall Plan, it is today.
Perhaps I’m
dreaming but think about this. How different would our world look if
instead of letting Orthodox militants build settlements, the government
of Israel had poured all that money into transforming slum infested
refugee camps into decent dwelling places for Arabs on the West Bank?
What if, instead of sending tanks they had provided seed money to
establish small businesses? How many suicide bombers would have come
out of those green garden neighborhoods, how many Palestinian recruits
would have been lured from their productive jobs into Jihad? Perhaps,
I’m being simplistic; perhaps I’m out of touch with the real world.
Perhaps, but I don’t think so. I think this approach could have
worked for Israel, wish that it had been tried.
I'm certainly not
suggesting that Israel not having taken a different course makes all of
this terrorism their fault. That would be absolutely untrue. I
know talking about solutions is always easier than creating them in
the face of a complex set of circumstances and conflicting interests.
What's happening today falls on all of our shoulders, reflects mistakes
of countries much larger and certainly more powerful that Israel.
My point is, we better start thinking
new thoughts, starting from new places and doing it soon. There are
West Banks all over the globe. Just as Arabs in Gaza look with envy at
the plush Jewish settlements in the midst of their distress, so too do
the have-nots elsewhere look at our oases of perceived opulence. They
don’t need our world view, but they do need a modicum of the comfort and
the hope that we cherish so very much. We in the West are doing well.
They need a piece of the action, and they need it now. Making that
happen may be the most effective way of moving past the eleventh. What
concerns me most is that, while avoiding fresh thinking, we are running
out of time.
ARCHIVE
It's a Good Thing
3/7/04
I’m distraught.
Really bummed out! How can I face Thanksgiving and the other holidays
without Martha to guide me? How will I know how to set the perfect
table, prepare the perfect meal? I feel like a rudderless ship heading
out to an unknown sea. And then there are those dreams. Scenes of
Martha decorating a federal prison cell, convincing the Warden to let
her have a go at the yard, have a few words with the mess hall cook.
Perhaps she can make him into a chef. Perhaps she can make it all
perfect which, after all, would be "a good thing."
People love
Martha, people hate Martha; few are neutral. Her conviction of a crime
most lovers and haters believe she committed is seen as another metaphor
for a world of excess gone awry. A strong statement that no one, even
iconic Martha, is above the law. All true, but in some ways all at the
periphery. When you watch Martha demonstrate and pontificate on TV, you
can’t help thinking that no one, least of all yourself, could get it
that perfect — every time. And that includes Martha. There is a large
staff behind her to insure that illusion of perfection. No matter. The
whole idea here is aspirational, not what we can reach but what we
hope to accomplish. That’s the problem.
It isn’t merely
that this illusionary perfection doesn’t exist it is that, in a deeper
sense, it just isn’t human. I consider myself a pretty good cook, but
perfection simply isn’t in the cards. Certainly not Martha's kind of
blemish-free perfection. There is nothing like a good stew. They say
stews come from of a world of poverty which for many of us is not even a memory. Yet stews remain popular because they are forgiving.
A little more onion. wine or whatever really doesn’t matter. So too
with life which, if we want to survive its ups and downs, has to be
forgiving. Whether it's setting a table, making a meal, relating to one
another, bringing up kids or doing our jobs, the perfect is not only
unattainable, it’s downright unattractive. A little flaw in the diamond
makes for the memorable, the real.
So goodbye dear
Martha. I know there will be appeals, attempts at rehabilitation,
perhaps even a cookbook from jail (if it comes to that), but you’re
history. Personally, that’s sad. I’m sure you’re kicking yourself
(hope you’re kicking yourself) for a stupid act of greed. But,
regardless of what happens to you, the myth you have been selling is
history. To give you the last word, “that’s a good thing.”
Random Thoughts on
Religion and Politics
3/1/04
Mel Gibson loves
Jews. That’s what he’s telling all the interviewers when asked if he is
anti-Semitic. I’m relieved to hear it because I’d hate to even
contemplate how he would treat history if the reverse were really true.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I haven’t seen Passion, but it’s hard
to escape either its tone or content in this media age. And of course,
it is precisely the media age that is making the film such a
phenomenon. Gibson and company have gone all out to promote this
business venture. I’m not suggesting that his work doesn’t bespeak a
heartfelt religious conviction and point of view, but let’s not forget
who will be taking the loot to the bank. Indeed, that’s the big
difference between earlier Passion plays and even Hollywood Crucifixion
flicks, Mel is making bundle. They didn’t.
The contrast
between Gibson’s bloody cinematic epic reading of Jesus’ last days and
the peaceful drama taking place in San Francisco is striking. The young
mayor of that city
Gavin
Newsom,
like Gibson, is a Roman Catholic and a heterosexual. His reading of his
faith, undoubtedly rooted in the same Crucifixion, is one of peace,
understanding, and love for his fellow human beings. It would seem to
me that we have enough blood in the name of religion these days and that
the active promotion of respect for differences is the better course.
Tomorrow is
Election Day in New York and the Times invited the two Johns to
contribute Op Ed essays about a critical event that shaped their
character early on. Not surprisingly, John Kerry wrote movingly about
1968 and what drove him to transition from soldier to anti-War
activist. Equally touching in its way was John Edwards’ account of the
trust placed in him as a young lawyer by a badly crippled client in a
malpractice case. Without placing a value on them – we are where time
takes us – the difference in these stories is telling. It is why
personally, while liking the Senator from North Carolina very much, I
opt for John Kerry. It all comes down to experience. No doubt Edwards
has that human touch, a deep understanding of the underdog, the
individual. These are qualities that I value almost above everything
else. But Kerry, who may lack the touchy feely, has faced and, more
importantly, faced up to the kind of global issue that we know
Presidents encounter. His experience goes to the basic fabric of who we
are as a nation. Howard Dean may have been the prophetic voice to
remind us of our contemporary connection with tragic and divisive times
past, but John Kerry’s experience is what may help us turn the corner.
I think that’s why so many people have flocked to him, a reason that
goes far beyond electability.
The Doctor and the
Viet Nam Vet
2/18/04
It's time to talk
about Howard and John -- no not John Kerry, John McCain. The pundits
will be dissecting Howard Dean’s rapid fall from front runner to
marginal participant and then ex-candidate for some time to come. Dean
undoubtedly made some mistakes including being sucked into the negative
duel with Dick Gephardt in Iowa. But in the final analysis, as in any
political race, the voters reaching the privacy of the booth simply
wouldn’t turn down the Dean lever.
And despite my own
attraction to Howard Dean, particularly to his forthright critique of
this misguided War, it really isn’t so surprising. Dean is both candid
and a maverick, two qualities that make for great news bytes but not
necessarily electoral success. He says what he thinks and what he
thinks is not always politic or popular. In that regard, despite the
obvious sharp ideological differences, he is very much like John
McCain. Howard and John are provocative, intriguing, more often than
not, absolutely on target. Both are ultimately unacceptable in prime
time. They entertain in the most positive sense of the word, they
challenge in the most productive way, but they unnerve American voters
because they are as unpredictable as events. Neither, to use a medical
metaphor, has sufficient bedside manner to put people at ease. Dr. Judy
Steinberg Dean may have done better.
Howard Dean proved
to be an electoral loser, perhaps even more so than John McCain, but his
impact upon the campaign in which he participated has been far more
profound. McCain interested the public, but had little impact upon the
candidate of his party. Dean, on the other hand, changed and
focused the conversation in 2004. His single minded opposition to the
War in Iraq pulled along all of the leading candidates, made them
rethink their positions giving them the courage to distance themselves
from the Bush policy. Dean did challenge his primary opponents, but his
primary and most blistering criticism was always reserved for George
Bush and policies that have set America on a dangerously wrong course
both in foreign affairs and the economy. If Democrats are now fully
engaged and intent on winning, we can largely thank Howard Dean for
building the fervor and attracting minions of young people who have
energized the party in a way not seen for generations.
Dean awakened hope
— the idea that George Bush could be defeated — and ironically it was
precisely that accomplishment that did him in. Democrats became
convinced, as had Republicans four years earlier with John McCain, that
translating this hope into reality required a different kind of
standard-bearer. That doesn’t suggest even the remotest similarity in
style or substance between Bush and Kerry, only that both were perceived
as being the most electable. In 2000 Bush had the support of the GOP
establishment and the hard Right (of whom he turned out to be one),
Kerry in this day of security hysteria, the compelling military
credentials. Unless he makes a big mistake, it is why he, not John
Edwards, is likely to capture the nomination. He’ll make a fine
President.
ARCHIVE
What’s in a Marriage?
2/15/04
When officiating
at a wedding ceremony, I do so as an agent of the State. New York
State, for example, has chosen to deputize me into civil service by
virtue of my ordination from an accredited Seminary, but they don’t view
marriage as a religious event. Orthodox Jews may insist on a Get
to recognize a divorce as religiously valid, Catholics may insist on
calling it an annulment, but when it comes to child custody or the
division of assets, it is state law that prevails. So whether a rabbi,
priest, minister, imam or judge presides and signs the documents, the
State sees the marriage as a matter of contractual secular law. It may
inquire about religious affiliation (often an optional question) but
only for statistical purposes. Legally, it could care less whether the
individuals have the same or different religious, racial or ethnic
backgrounds.
So the current
furor about same-sex marriages from the State’s point of view is a bit
disingenuous to say the least. It’s a topic most politicians,
especially those currently running for office, wish would go away. They
are afraid to touch what has become yet another example of the Religious
Right seeking to tear down the walls of Separation. This is not to say
that clergy of individual faiths don’t have every right to refuse to
officiate at such marriages or to preach against them if they find such
unions inconsistent with their religious belief. I may not agree with
them, but Separation and freedom of religion embodies that privilege.
By the same token, many clergy also refuse to officiate at mixed
marriages which, while recognized by the State, may not comply with
their religious laws or convictions.
It always strikes
me as odd that those who speak so piously of “family values” seem to be
against the building of any family that does not conform to their
definition of the word. That’s really sad at a time when the building
of families has never been more important and where so many people have
problems making commitments of any kind. The fact is that many states
now allow adoptions of children whom they know will be brought up by gay
or lesbian couples, even though they pretend that not to be the case.
Perhaps it isn’t yet de jure, but nobody can honestly deny its
reality. In that regard alone, rules against same-sex marriage
potentially undermine the de facto family which is an essential element
in this entire issue.
It seems to me
that to stand for religious and civil rights, and to deny the right of
two people who love each other to solemnize that union – civilly or
religiously – is to be inconsistent. But it goes much further than
that. For untold years religion and society were in denial of
homosexuality. We pretended that Joe and Frank, Sally and Helen were
very good friends but, despite what we knew was the truth of
their relationship; we never afforded them the respect or the
“permission” to live openly and honestly. How many lives did this
charade cost in the epidemic of AIDS? How many lives would have been
spared had we created a nurturing or accepting society that naturally
promoted monogamy regardless of orientation. Keeping relationships
going takes a lot of work by the individuals involved but also the
support of the world in which they live.
We’re very good at
killing. We’re specialists in conflict. We’re habitual degraders of
our planet. Perhaps, we ought to rethink our strategy. Talk about
being inclusive is cheap, action takes some humanity. The willingness
of same-sex couples to leave their closets behind and demand the rights
given other partners, including marriage, may be a great gift to all of
us, a unique opportunity. Rather than rejecting their generosity of
spirit, perhaps we should see it as an urgently needed lifeboat for
ourselves and our decency. I think we have it in us, will be better for
it.
Obliterating the Separation
2/13/04
When John F. Kennedy
stood for the Presidency the big issue that dominated the primary was
whether he, a Roman Catholic, would be controlled by the Vatican. The
truth was that while JFK had a very devout mother (whose faith sustained
her in multiple tragedies to come); his public work never embodied any
kind of religious agenda. He was a strict Separationist. Much
attention has been given to George W. Bush’s appearance on Meet the
Press this past Sunday. It was disconcerting to watch the notoriously
tough Tim Russert playing lap dog and annoyingly letting the President
get away with repeatedly connecting those illusive dots between Iraq and
9/11, dots as real as the WMD’s. No wonder so many Americans make that
erroneous leap. I for one was far more interested in the 60 Minutes
segment that aired that evening on Evangelicals and their influence on
the leadership of both the current executive and legislative branches of
government.
How things have
changed. If JFK had
said,
as did Bush during a 2000 campaign debate, that Christ was his most
influential political philosopher it would have destroyed his candidacy
on the spot. Gary Bower, one of the Golden boys of the religious right,
intimated that the GOP equated with piety in pointing out that 80% of
active church goers vote Republican. I don’t mean to disparage others
he added. Right. JFK had no religious agenda, but George Bush does and
makes no bones about it. It’s not that he is moved by his religion, but
that he thinks his religion should move us.
Bush’s crossing the
Separation barrier ran through his recent State of the Union, but
nowhere is it more evident than in his systematic undermining of
potentially life saving stem cell research. And it was only four days
after 60 Minutes aired that we received the news of the breakthrough
achieved by South Korean scientists, unencumbered by restrictive rules
promulgated by the President. Perhaps there are ethical issues
surrounding cloning, particularly its potential use in reproduction, but
in a country that is supposedly agnostic with regard to particular
religious points of view, it’s a debate that belongs somewhere else. On
the most fundamental level, if someone is opposed to stem cell research
on religious grounds, no one is forcing them to use the therapeutics
that may emanate from it. No one forces a woman to have an abortion.
If you don’t approve what’s being shown on TV, you can always change the
channel or turn it off altogether.
Standing in the way
of this important new area of discovery is impinging on my rights as a
citizen and my freedom of religion or, for some people, freedom from
religion. I’m not saying George Bush shouldn’t feel personally opposed
to this research, shouldn’t abstain from its benefits, only that he
shouldn’t make a private belief, no matter how heartfelt, into public
policy. And there is one more thing. Many of us feel that the foreign
policy of this government has weakened our position in the world
community with broad implications for our future. The fact that Koreans
made this breakthrough speaks to the potential erosion in our scientific
power as well. Make no mistake about it, a decline in scientific
leadership can ultimately impact not only on our national health but our
national security as well. Wasn’t security “Job 1” for Bush and
company? I guess not.
The Song Goes On.
Bravo!
2/3/04
A break from the timely
to the timeless. I spent last Sunday afternoon at the 10th
Annual Marilyn Horne Foundation Concert at Carnegie Hall. I’ve missed
only one of these. I love music and no instrument more than the human
voice. To paraphrase George Orwell, “all voices are unique, but some
voices (very, very few) are more unique than others.” Marilyn Horne has
one of those voices, the kind that stop you dead. Regardless of the
clutter around it – often very beautiful clutter – it consistently stands
out as unmistakably her own. It is widely accepted that she is one of the
great singers of all time, some believe the greatest of her generation.
While she sang only briefly, and then in a duo with Barbara Cook, those
tones, ever rich and powerful, broke through and I enjoyed even the
glimpse of them.
But Jackie, as she is
known to her friends, is so much more than the vessel of an astounding
musical instrument. When she turned 60 a decade ago and looked ahead
toward a less active performing career, she decided it was give-back
time. Thus the Foundation devoted to preserving and encouraging vocal
music, nurturing upcoming artists and bringing the recital to places
around the country where it was heretofore unavailable. And still at its
active center ten years later is Jackie, with her generous spirit teaching
and promoting these young talents with the kind of dedication and warmth
all those who know her understand are the essence of her natural force.
It’s a honor to among
her friends, but what strikes me every time I attend one of these concerts
and dinners to follow is how many of us there are. I’ve known her now for
about 30 years, but many of her friendships reach much further back to
every part of her life. There are friends from Pennsylvania, from
California, from New Jersey; all can depend on her loyalty and caring.
Perhaps symptomatic of this capacity for friendship was the enduring
relationship she maintained with her former husband the gifted conductor
Henry Lewis, a man with both razor sharp mind and integrity. And it
wasn’t simply because they shared and loved a wonderful daughter Angela,
now a mother herself. In the initial years of these concerts Henry was
always there, but that ended with his untimely death midstream. He is
sorely missed by all of us who knew and loved him, no more than by the
enduring Jackie herself, which says it all.
So the song goes on,
and it continues to be a very good song. God knows, we need a good song
in these often dark days. Brava, Jackie.
ARCHIVE
Tony dodges the bullet. Twice
2/1/04
Twice Tony Blair came
close to the potential brink, and twice he escaped. By only a hair did the
Labor leader who boasts an extraordinary majority in Commons win his
education legislation; only by a single man’s judgment was he exonerated
in the now infamous Kelly Affair. Lord Hutton simply didn’t find evidence
that Blair’s government cooked the books on Iraqi intelligence, though the
bounds of his inquiry were limited to the specifics surrounding Kelly’s suicide
and Andrew Gilligan’s alleged exaggerations on the BBC. Whether or not
facts were manipulated, Dr. David Kelly one of Brittan’s top arms experts, seems
to have had doubts about the continuing threat of WMD’s, which
precipitated the leak in the first place. It’s poignant that Hutton’s
report was issued during the same week as our Dr. David (Kay) was telling
us WMD’s probably weren’t present at the start of hostilities and probably
won’t be found. That from a man who who was sure they existed,
but apparently isn’t the kind to find a fact he won’t reveal or fess up to.
How refreshing.
This past week's news
in our former Mother Country made me consider once again the strange saga
of the attractive, articulate, brilliant Tony Blair. Mirroring, many
thought, the career and rise of Bill Clinton, Blair rescued the UK from
years of Thatcher Conservatism. He used Clinton-like tactics, but with
substantially more success because, unlike our President, he garnered and
kept huge
majorities giving him a clear mandate to dominate the public agenda.
Clearly, Bill and Tony were a duo,
soul-mates it appeared like no other President and Prime Minister since
perhaps FDR and Churchill, albeit in a very different way. It was in that
context that Blair’s almost instantaneous move to the side of George W.
Bush at the Crawford ranch shortly after the Supremes named
him President, was stunning and seemingly incongruous. They have been
joined at the hip ever since. I still don’t quite understand it.
When history is written
perhaps it will show that Tony Blair was interested above all in power and
influence. Being close to, and more significantly having the ear of,
the US President whoever that may be, translates for him into a larger
than life role for himself and the UK which, relative to some other
countries around the world, is a small nation. History may also show something else. I
believe, and it’s only a hypothesis, that we could not, would not, have
gone to war with Iraq the way we did absent Blair’s support. His
acquiescence made it possible for Bush to move ahead without the UN,
specifically France and Germany. The Coalition of the Willing, without
the UK, would have been an impossible sham, no offence intended Spain et
al. Ultimately, that may be Tony Blair’s legacy, certainly with regard to
world politics. Chaney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice and all those
enterprising think tankers may have whispered the words, but Tony Blair
gave voice to action. In a curious way, "he’s the man."
I’m one of those avid
C-Span listeners to Prime Minister’s Questions and always marvel at Tony
Blair’s style and syntax. Quite a show. But I’m not sure I appreciate
him as much as was the case in the past. I'm not alone in that regard.
My guess is the bullets are going to get closer.
Sadly Moving to Safer
Ground. Again.
1/29/04
In the world of sound
bytes and simplistic platitudes; when public officials of all stripes have
virtually been forced to wear silly flag pins to prove their patriotism,
it’s hard to step out. That’s exactly what Howard Dean has tried to do
and it’s precisely why his run for the Presidency seems to be loosing steam. Electability
is the mantra of the day, and a multitude
of forces have conspired to declare that he is not the winning kind.
Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t be unhappy with Kerry, Edwards or Clark. I
also think that any one of them might win; hope for all of our sakes that
they will win. But it’s another short term fix. Read Robert Reich’s
thoughtful Op Ed piece in today’s New York Times. Like Dean, he is
convinced that Democrats have to return to their core beliefs, have to
stand for something, have to become a movement again.
Marketing is all about
focus and consistently delivering one’s message. Like it or not,
marketing is what greases the mechanism of American thinking these days. The
Republicans, specifically the Conservative coalition that is in control,
have been brilliant at it since the days when Deaver and Company promoted
the Morning in America Presidency. It isn’t a matter of whether the media
have a Right or Left bias, it’s that the Conservative view of things has
become politically correct, the default position. While opponents of the
War are in fact deeply concerned about putting our young people at
needless and unjustified risk, they are painted as not supporting the
troops. Repeat that often enough in the current environment and the
accuser gets away with a lie that becomes a perceived truth.
At this moment we are
in the midst of an international quagmire where everyone seems to hate us,
with 3000 plus American deaths and casualties (not to mention never to be
counted Iraqi losses) and exit polls show only tertiary concern with the
War (and thus with foreign affairs). Sure it’s natural that bread and
butter issues, health and education are given top priority, but it is also
a mark of how successful the propaganda has been. Even David Kay, the
dispassionate inspector, feels it necessary to caveat his conclusion that
WMD’s just weren’t there with a defense of the President. It was all in
the faulty intelligence and those guys (read scapegoat) owe him an
apology. What happened to Harry Truman’s buck stopping?
So we are sneaking off
again to safe ground. We weren’t ready for the Wisconsin Senator in 1968,
the New Jersey Senator in 2000 and, much as it pains me, apparently for
the Vermont Governor today. When will be ready?
Random Thoughts after Iowa
1/22/04
It is hard to predict how the Democratic
contest will end after Iowa. Is Howard Dean out of the game?
Perhaps, but voters can surprise. The idea of electability certainly
has certainly come to the fore, but I'm not certain we really know what it
takes to be a winner yet. Dean's position is that warmed over
neo-whatever is not the way to go. Many of his opponents represent
just that, presumably safer bets, more comfortable old shoes.
Perhaps that is the only thing that Americans might buy which, given where
it has led us, is pretty depressing.
Meanwhile, George Bush's performance on Tuesday night
reminded me how silly and staged our State of the Union speeches have
become regardless of who is President. Clinton was no better also
using those human props in the peanut gallery to signal yet another
mindless breakout of applause and leaping to the feet. Well our
public officials do need some exercise.
Bush's speech also reminded me of why I still hope
for a Dean victory and would settle for most of the others, save Joe
Lieberman. What stuck me in particular, and what was most offensive, was the religious coda in
which the President appealed to his core constituency with a series of
statements that to my mind had prejudicial overtones. Invoking the sanctity of
marriage (code words quickly understood), he made short shrift of the deviant sinning same sex partners
and offered a paternalistic hand to the unmarried poor (guess what color
they are) who so notoriously
avoid tying the knot with God's blessing. Echoing Nancy Reagan, he seems to
think that the ultimate solution to AIDS is to "just say
no." And what if you can't or don't want to? Finally another
passionate plea for funding faith-based
organizations, his continuing effort the subvert separation of Church and State.
I don't remember the Supreme Court appointing George W. Bush as my pastor
and frankly don't look for spiritual guidance from people like Rick
Santorum or any other elected official for that matter. Don't get me wrong, I
respect their individual faith and the conviction that goes with it, but not their
imposition of it on others.
This year is going to be a real test for
America. Let's hope we don't face another election in which most
people sit at home voting there for none of the above. I'm not sure we can
afford it, nor do I think can the world.
ARCHIVE
Dr. Judith
Steinberg
1/15/04
While I never
understood her obsession with Bill Clinton’s sex life, I’m really quite a
fan of Maureen Dowd. Funny thing is, I don’t know if she has a husband
or, if so, who he is. He plays no role in my reading her regular NY Times
column. A woman who has broken through in the competitive world of
journalism and yet today she writes a piece questioning why Dr. Judith
Steinberg, the wife and one time medical practice partner, of Howard Dean
is not out on the campaign trail. Why doesn’t this lady give up what
she’s doing to be at her husband’s side? Now anyone who reads my blogs
knows that I am a Dean supporter, and that I think effecting regime change
in Washington
is a high national priority, but that doesn’t mean what Dr. Steinberg is
doing is without consequence.
She is a country doctor
with real patients — a doctor who still makes the occasional house calls
like our family doctor and others like him regularly did when I was a
kid. In a time when for most people medicine is in crisis, what could be
more important
than that? Ask her patients how they would feel if she hung a “closed for
the duration of my husband’s campaign” sign on the door. Obviously he
hasn’t ask her to do that. One has to wonder if she were the one running
for President whether Maureen Dowd or others would be complaining that Dr.
Dean had not abandoned his medical practice to be at her side? Of course
they wouldn’t. Maureen, have you heard of the Women’s Movement? And by
the way, where would you be, placed in the same situation? I still admire
your columns, still will read them every Sunday and Thursday, but shame on
you today. And bravo to you Dr. Steinberg, for having the commitment
that I so admire in my own doctor, a man who happens to be married to a
practicing physician just like you.
At Year's End:
The
Statistics of Death
12/31/03
How can we bring this
year to an end without thinking of how many of our fellow human beings
lost their lives through the violence of conflict and, in the closing
days, a natural disaster of unimaginable proportions. We’ll probably
never know the final count of either since the casualties of powerful
bombs and earthquakes are often vaporized into nothingness; off the
statistical radar. And what of those statistics? Statistics shelter us
from any kind of personal feeling or involvement — great neutralizers of
information. The fact is, that we can’t begin to fathom thousands of
dead.
When someone we know
dies, the impact is felt personally. We understand an individual who was
part of our life is gone, forever. Funerals of loved ones provide
closure, the first step toward healing. But impersonal death, statistical
death, provides neither a sense of individual loss nor, absent some public
effort, closure. Statistical death is someone else’s problem. In
our
scheme of things, it doesn’t have much impact. That kind of dispassion in
a society is dangerous, especially if one is concerned about stopping the
unending cycle of violence that marks our contemporary scene. To bring
about change, the community has to individualize the loss and has to
grieve. The Italians understood that when their country stood still to
honor their brave young soldiers who died in Iraq.
Japan
did the same and so did our principal partner “of the willing”, Great
Britain. Not so in this great democracy.
We have had no national
grieving. Any grieving has been limited to the families of the fallen and
a few moving tributes of isolated media like The News Hour (PBS) which
ends many evening broadcasts with the photos, names and, most poignantly,
ages of those recently killed. We can’t grieve publicly because the
Administration has forbidden coverage of the bodies being brought back
home. Somehow it thinks “out of site will be out of mind,” a crass
cover-up of the real price of war in which most of the media is a willing
and culpable co-conspirator. So we ask these young people to go off to
war, volunteers and conscripted Reservists, and we don’t have the decency
to say a public thank you to them and their families when their lives are
cut short. We wear flags on our lapels that brag patriotism and we
dishonor the greatest patriots of all by hiding their individuality from
the public. Speak about dehumanizing acts.
So I enter 2004 with a
great deal of sadness about our losses, about the lives cut short in a War
of questionable origin. I enter with a feeling of frustration. It’s been
a horrendous time for the world and for the country which I love deeply.
Thousands of individuals are gone and each of their families will never be
the same without them. I’ve known parents who lost children from
disease. None of them ever recovered. I think of them when the
statistics flash across the screen. Perhaps we can find a way out. Being
an essentially optimistic person, I know we can. I also know it’s
ultimately up to us and I ask myself (and you) what are we going to do
about it? Time is running out.
ARCHIVE
Now What?
12/15/03
My New York Times was at the door this morning. Above the fold was
the huge face of someone who had a remarkable resemblance to the
Unibomber. A gigantic photo as large as I’ve seen on that page and tucked
in the right hand corner, a dwarf sized image of George W. Bush. Is there
a message in that? And it looks like Saddam, unlike those hundreds in
Guantanamo, hasn’t been taken to such a bad place. An undisclosed
location, isn’t that where our Vice President lives a lot of the time?
I have been a little worried whether Paul Bremer is really in tune with
his boss, but when I heard his eloquent words of announcement “we got
him,” I knew he was right in there. A message for the moment.
Now don’t get me wrong, this is the capture of a really horrible monster
who rightly belongs in the pantheon of the most despotic murderers, but
his arrest really doesn’t change the basic facts one iota. This war, in
which thousands have died, and are dying, was still launched on bent
truths, and the aftermath continues to be a colossal mess. Yesterday’s Times carried a blistering column by Tom Friedman (one of the War’s
boosters) contending that our government still has no plan all these
months after. Perhaps Saddam had symbolic value for those still resisting
the occupation, but don’t put too much stake in it. The fact is that
dictatorships function in the British system, “The King is Dead, Long Live
the King.” We shouldn’t be fooled by our own infatuation with stars and
the cult of the personality. Conditions make for unrest not any individual
leader. Conditions remain poor.
The noise will quiet down. You can count on the media to move on as soon
as the story gets a little tired and ratings slide. And then we will be
back to reality. Nothing has really changed over the weekend. We’ve made a
mess out of the world, we’ve alienated our friends, and we’ve taken an
ominous turn toward repression of liberties and, as Bill Moyers' Now
pointed out, pervasive secrecy at home justified by that unassailable
catchall excuse, The War on Terrorism.
So the pundits are now in aircraft carrier mode – mission accomplished.
They are telling us unpatriotic naysayers that it’s all over. I fully
expect to see a life size photo of Howard Dean on the front page of The
Weekly Standard – he is the real enemy isn’t that right?. Hell, why wait
till New Hampshire, why delay until November. This thing is all over and,
if not, there always those five crucial votes. Perhaps it is over. I don’t
think so. For our sakes, I hope it’s not. I continue to worry for my
children.
A
Death in the Family
11/23/03
“I am distressed for
you my brother Jonathan. How the mighty are fallen in the midst of
battle…” — David’s lament for his fallen best friend. These were the
words I chose to read from the pulpit to the nearly two thousand people
who spontaneously attended our Friday night service on
November 22, 1963. And it wasn’t easy to read them. It’s painful to this
day and I am not alone. Not alone, but it remains a singular experience
for most of us, our personal loss even more than our collective loss.
John Kennedy’s
presidency was exceedingly brief. Arthur Schlesinger recounted it as
days, not years. Jackie wanted us to remember it as a shining moment.
And, I believe, it is precisely because it was a flash in time, that has
his legacy became so powerful. Since he didn’t have the opportunity to
play it out, inevitably (as we all do on some level) to screw it up, we’re
free to fill in gaps, to dream the dreams. The most powerful myths are
those over which we have ultimate control. Heroes are always bigger than
life because we need them to be just that. And heaven knows, there aren’t
too many heroes around these days, making JFK all the more precious.
Given the weight of the
myth factor, pundits and talking heads rush in to point out the substance
behind the myth, to fill in the gap. They remind us of missiles, of the
cheering crowds in Berlin and of a the introduced, though not passed,
landmark Civil Rights legislation. All important, all fair but all
totally besides the point. There is nothing wrong with myth which has
always been far more powerful and enduring for humans than fact. The myth
of JFK’s short Presidency was its ultimate accomplishment.
Style over substance,
was exactly what we needed so desperately after the deadly dull Eisenhower
years. When Jack Kennedy came to the fore,
in emotional terms America
had yet to fully recover from World War II. The FDR antidote
personalities were in place -- first Truman and then Ike, both extremely
decent men but totally lacking the charismatic electricity of their
predecessor. And let’s not forget Joe McCarthy who left us dispirited and
wondering if democracy had actually prevailed in the first half of the
Century. Enter Jack Kennedy. He gave us the lift we needed and, while
countless Americans did not realize the magnitude of the gift until he was
gone, he made us feel good about our country, proud of it. It wasn’t a
matter of wearing metal flags on our lapels. It was real.
Which brings me to
2003, the fortieth anniversary. Where is JFK now when we need him again?
There’s been this death in the family and we still can’t seem to get over
it.
Another Viet Nam: Wishful Thinking
11/17/03
As we become
increasingly mired in an Iraqi morass, it’s hard for any of us not to
think of Viet Nam.
Regardless of whether we compare or contrast, we too are mired, but in the
wrong neighborhood. Would that Iraq were a Cold War conflict in which
governments and economic-political ideologies were at play. Wishful
thinking. 2003 is a very different place. Unlike Viet Nam, we are not
putting ourselves in the middle of a civil war because of some domino
theory. While long since discredited, at least it had a logic and a
consistent context. The idea that entering Iraq, a plan that we now know
for sure was hatched long before 9/11, was part of a war on terrorism is
more than a stretch. It’s not credible. Iraq had to do with egos
(personal and national) and oil. Controlling natural resources, harks
back to an age-old purpose of Colonialism. But even here, the past is not
necessarily the most valuable teacher other than to say that locals still
dislike foreign takeovers, even when they are portrayed as transitional
and short term.
When I open my day with
the BBC news and the New York Times, it’s not
Viet Nam that comes to
mind, but something geographically much closer. Israel and the conflict
with the Palestinians. It’s here that the parallels are so obvious and so
very disturbing. The Intifada, which manifests itself largely in attacks
against the innocent, is horrendous. The right of Israel, born out of a
Holocaust in which there were enough dirty hands to circle the globe, to
exist is not a question. But the response that the Israeli government has
mounted, one that I would describe as “a head for an eye” simply isn’t
working. If Palestinians on the Street were unhappy and frustrated at the
start, they are now filled with fury. Sure the lack of constructive
leadership from within must be blamed for that as well, but not as much as
what military people euphemistically call “collateral damage.” I like to
say that minor surgery is something that happens to someone else.
Collateral damage is much the same.
The idea of turning the
other cheek is not only difficult, thoughtful people reasonably argue that
it sends the wrong message. Few Americans, caught up in September horror,
opposed going after the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. But were Gandhi and
Martin Luther King irrational idealists? I don’t think so. Quite the
opposite, they were thoughtful strategists who took difficult and
unconventional steps to reach their goals. Their rationale was simple.
If you want to have significant movement, you have to change the
conversation. Someone has to say stop, and more importantly to act on his
own call for inaction.
So we are now
proceeding with our own “West Bank” retaliation and each day gaining less and paying more.
We’re facing an Intifada in which terrorist tactics are used by desperate
outgunned people who feel colonized and we simply don’t know what to do
except follow the
Sharon strategy.
Consequently, the innocent Street is confused and getting increasingly
angry. Every day we are looking more and more like the enemy not the
liberator. A rush trip to
Washington for instructions and a return with frantic
cosmetics crafted in the Spin Rooms on
Pennsylvania Avenue. A
more rapid turn over of “power.” And while we’re waiting, substantially
increased use of force to send a message. The “Peace Process” and the
tanks. Sound familiar?
ARCHIVE
Accuracy
11/05/03
I’m having some serious
doubts about the Elizabeth Smart Story, the CBS docudrama scheduled
for broadcast this coming Sunday. I’m not sure it’s going to be accurate
or that all of the conversations between the principals, especially those
who captured poor Elizabeth, are going to be true to what was really said,
or meant. I’m a little worried about the image of mother Smart and if
father Smart might come off a little less up to his game than he really
is.
In the day of the
reality show (of which CBS claims to be a proud parent), let’s get real.
Accuracy was never the issue here. There was plenty of time to vet the
script of Mr. and Mrs. Gipper’s story. And let’s also be honest.
Television fare of this kind, much less a great deal of the glossy “news”
we get today, wouldn’t meet the Ed Murrow standard or, in some cases, even
the smell test. Using lack of accuracy as an excuse is a slippery slope
for a tarnished media that so often seems no longer capable of
distinguishing between reporting and editorializing.
CBS caved into
pressure. They accepted the direction of Conservative critics, just as
the whole country has been caving into those same people with disastrous
results. In that regard, it seems almost unfair to blame them. But in
doing so, regardless of the logic (which must have included fear of
Sponsor abandonment) they have done damage to free expression. If we are
not fighting for the right of people to express, even erroneously, what
the hell are we fighting for?
I feel for our former
President and his family now sharing a dark world that in many ways is
worse than no world at all. I think it’s always tricky to portray the
living which anyone who has seen her or his story on screen can surly
attest is likely to be largely fictional and thus painful to one degree or
another. But public people chose to be public and along with the
adulation and chauffeurs comes a loss of full personal control. You can’t
build a myth around yourself, or allow one to be built, without risking
the balloon being punctured, even if often inaccurately so.
Docudramas are, and
always have been, off the factual mark to one degree or another. It’s why
I generally find them offensive. But that’s a matter of taste not
censorship. In a time when neo-McCarthyism is afoot in some very high
places, we can’t be complacent about the “why” of what happened here. Be
assured, accuracy never came into legitimate play in CBS’s decision, even
if they have deluded themselves into the fact that it did. The word
disingenuous, however, does come to mind.
Things are Getting
Better
11/02/03
The Central Park
Reservoir opened in 1862 surrounded by an elegant 5’ high iron fence
providing an unencumbered view of the growing city around it. In 1926
that fence was replaced a mundane chain-link affair which couldn’t destroy
the view altogether but gave it a gauze-like, not to mention rusted-out,
quality. Surrounding the water is a track, the favorite of many New
Yorkers like myself and countless other jogging visitors. It’s always
been a near perfect place. Early this past summer, staggered work begin
on restoring the original fence design. Within the last few weeks a large
section has been reopened. One always surmised that the project would
enhance this beloved urban space, but what it has done is no less than
astounding. Running this familiar track, is a dramatically different and
wondrous experience. So, too, is what’s happening to the City’s
Hudson
shore line. The long decaying rot of abandoned piers and neglected
waterfront is being replaced by wonderful parks. One can now bicycle down
a protected path (with a few remaining detours) from the George Washington
Bridge to the Battery.
Riverside
Park
is being extended South and will one day join with that new park system
below 59th Street. In
New York,
things are getting better.
Things are getting
better in Iraq as well. Right. It seems now that every Thursday and
Sunday we’re getting the classic half-full, half-empty in the columns of
Tom Friedman and Maureen Dowd. Among the issues at hand, for them and for
a growing number of others, is whether we’re experiencing “déjà
vous
all over
again?”
Friedman doesn’t see Viet Nam, Dowd does. And so do I in much the same
way. It isn’t that these wars are identical in cause or content, but much
more in the way we Americans come to them. There is an eerie echo in
those rosy statements coming out of the Administration. The “we’ll be
home by Christmas” and the preposterous proclamation that increasing
violence is a sign of “enemy” desperation (read imminent defeat). At
least as important, and sadly Tom Friedman falls into that pit, is an
inability to admit being wrong. We know today that our suspicions about
motivation and our doubts about proclaimed immediate threat were correct.
Perhaps if that had not been the case, we too might be holding on to our
rightness. Perhaps, but we haven’t put so many kids at risk and there is
no joy or satisfaction in saying we told you so. Far from it. Did you
hear that the Defense Department is not allowing ceremonial returns of the
dead and that our caring President has not attended a single funeral.
Counting the dead just doesn’t smack of success and missions accomplished.
In downplaying individual tragedy these people are under the illusion
that we won't notice its magnitude.
It’s not merely that
the mission has not been accomplished in Iraq, it’s that we’re in a global
quagmire of terrorism in which we continue to combat symptoms not causes.
Just look at the unending terror in Israel where military strike backs
have been notoriously unsuccessful while the ongoing issues are not even
being addressed and the violence just continues. And look at the other
breeding grounds of hopelessness around a world in which the gulf between
rich and poor is growing daily. The most disturbing part of it all,
however, is not our machismo or our denial, but the fact that, for the
most part, we just don’t get it. We remain a largely insular people who
always want to be in absolute control and are unforgiving to those who
won't follow our lead or who resist being like us. How dare they?
We are language and culturally deficient which is part of what got us into
trouble in the 60’s and what clearly is hurting us still in
Baghdad
and other places. We continue to have a short attention span with a
mentality of out-of-sight means out-of-mind and thus not really happening.
I love our renewed
running track and our revitalized shoreline. New York needs the boost
which these amenities provide. But getting things better, requires more
than surface cosmetics. I don’t see that happening. I take it back.
Things are not getting better.
It’s Complicated
10/18/03
The girls and boys at
CNN et al would like us to think the everything is simple, and can be
summed up in a clever sound byte. We know that’s not true and older I get
the more I understand that most things are actually complex. That doesn’t
mean we don’t have points of view. Our core beliefs and opinions are not
expressed in shades of gray. But there is gray around the edges, and if
we want to be really honest with ourselves we shouldn’t either avoid or
deny them.
I opposed the Iraq
war. It was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place and, worst
of all, like others I sensed it was based on half truths. Increasingly,
it’s becoming clear that the latter was an understatement. Lies are
probably a better description. I have not changed my mind about it and
hope, perhaps somewhat naively, that we will be able to extricate
ourselves more or less in one piece. I hope we’ll be able recapture our
moral center and the respect of the world. That’s why I’ll do everything
possible to get George Bush and his gang who hijacked our precious
democracy out of
Washington.
That said, we are in
Iraq
and whatever is physically broken at this point is our doing. You can’t
espouse a moral center and not take responsibility even if others took
actions in your name without your consent. That is doubly true if they
had your consent. Whether or not we should have gone into Iraq is our
problem and what we did there is our problem as well. The idea that
Iraqi’s should now be punished economically when we rebuild what we broke
is not only ridiculous it is dishonorable. It pains me to see some
Democrats in Congress who should have known better than to support this
war in any fashion a year ago tying to recoup their reputations and lack
of judgment by penalizing the Iraqis who have suffered so much at our
hands. The loan idea is silly on the face of it. Let’s say, for example,
that we got hold of Osama and asked that he pay for the damage at the
World Trade Center. Of course, this is an apples and oranges comparison,
but humor me, how would we feel if he said OK, but it’s a loan that you’ll
have to pay back from any money made there? Bush should be held
accountable for how the money is spent (including which of his near and
dear get contracts to do work). His feet should be held to the fire
for a plan, but all of that is our problem. Let's not lay on the
Iraqis whose "liberation" has hardly been a bed of roses.
We are in
Iraq. We should get out as soon as possible, but we
better help them fix it before we do. Let’s not repeat the mistakes we’ve
made in the past, especially in places whose culture and beliefs are not
the same as our own. There are enough legitimate ways to challenge George
W. Bush. This is not one of them. Gray around the edges. Complicated
not simple, and a price we'll have to pay.
ARCHIVE
Lost
10/11/03
A raw vote plurality
and the questionable intervention of the robed gang of five
notwithstanding, Al Gore lost the 2000 election. That was clear to anyone
who watched his dismal campaign. A wooden candidate evoking the pretense
of synthetic dynamism and running against, rather than on, an obviously
powerful message. Gore lost. So, too, with Gray Davis, only in spades.
The stiff Davis didn’t even attempt the pretence and, in any event,
couldn’t have pulled it off against a cinematic, not to mention media,
super hero. Gore lost, Davis lost as did Bob Dole and Papa Bush in
elections past.
What is the lesson
here? Elections are lost, perhaps as often as they are won. Perhaps more
often. To win, one has to win. That means, if not electrifying the
public, then at least eliciting a spark. Listening to Bush & Company
pontificating this past week to selected friendly audiences,
sanctimoniously repeating the now discredited “truths” that were used to
sell our preemptive interventionism, I was struck by how much ammunition
they are providing for the inevitable foreign policy debate of 2004. This
and a still lackluster jobless recovery with ballooning deficits (and the
resulting ballooning interest rates that will certainly follow) provide
powerful arguments for the opposition. But in the end, someone, whether
it be Howard Dean, Wes Clark or John Kerry, will have to win. That’s the
rub.
Everyone is trying to
find the message in California. Democratic optimists see it as a sign of
powerful dissatisfaction that will ultimately and naturally translate into
a Bush defeat. My good friend Clifford Kulwin in a Friday night sermon
reminded us that when people are energized by a substantive cause, they
can be driven to the polls in numbers that Americans rarely see.
Republicans have taken heart that the heretofore solidly Democratic
stronghold of California went 60% for their party’s people. All true, all
valid. There is deep dissatisfaction, it can lead to unprecedented
turnout and party loyalty is not what it used to be. But, in the end, it
may be much simpler. Gray Davis lost.
I think the recall set
a terrible precedent in a country where politicians already are constantly
looking over their shoulders or at polls before making decisions. Jack
Kennedy would have difficulty finding the courageous to profile in these
times. Then again, I wouldn’t over read the precedent. After all, we’re
talking about California where politics is always a little off the
national norm – lot’s of propositions, ultra conservatives and ultra
liberals. It’s hard to keep tabs and difficult to make predictions about
what might come next, much less consider what happens out there predictive.
So I would suggest that
those who will ultimately emerge from the nine, and especially he who
ultimately emerges as the One, focus on a single truth. Elections are won
or lost. Without discounting the role of the voter, it is the runner who
has to win the race. Al Gore and Gray Davis lost. The country can’t
afford another such capitulation.
A Morning with
El Greco
9/30/03
It’s a beautiful crisp clear Fall day in New York and I walked across the
Park this morning to a private members preview of the large El Greco show
that is to open at the Metropolitan Museum in a few days. I had special
reasons. On this day fifteen years ago my father, Joachim Prinz, died. Two
days later I would officiate at his funeral and deliver both the easiest
and most difficult eulogy of my life. Like most people I have had a small
number of best friends, but none better than he. Which brings me to
El Greco.
Some people honor their loved ones with trips to the cemetery. I have
never been so inclined. I'm not discounting visits to the grave, just saying
they don’t work for me. Those who really meant something in my life are
embodied in how I function, ever present. Boy is that true in his case, so
I went to see El Greco.
It was my father who instilled in me a passionate love for art, and it was
during a summer we spent together in Europe that I got hooked on El Greco.
It was a wonderful and eventful trip beginning on the Island of Ibiza off
the Spanish coast on to the mountains of Switzerland and ending with about
12 hours spent in Berlin (my first and only visit to Germany). It was the
summer that the Wall was being constructed and a shaken Jewish Community
feeling uncertain
once again
about its future wanted him to preach in
their synagogue.
The Spain portion included Madrid and from there that wonderful drive to
the old city of Toledo. If you’ve made it, and are familiar El Greco’s
powerful painting of the walled city set against an angry sky which echoes
your experience, you know how moving the approach can be. I made a similar
trip with one of my own sons and had an identical reaction. Once in
Toledo, we entered the world of El Greco. Paintings were everywhere,
the best hanging on the walls of the Cathedral’s sacristy. Those narrow
figures, that unforgettable vivid color, often sparsely used, often
contrasting with the grayness of skin. I was astounded and to this day
whenever I visit a new museum and encounter an El Greco in its collection,
I get excited. I don’t have a single favorite painter, but certainly none
more favorite than this man from Greece.
I don’t know how you remember. My remembrance on this day was, as always,
thrilling. I could have experienced a similar connection with Rembrandt,
with Van Gogh, with any of the Impressionists, with Matisse or Picasso.
Roy Lichtenstein, Chuck Close and their crowd are in my realm, definitely
not his but that’s what next generations are all about. The point is, the
relationship continues and even if you didn’t know him, go see El Greco at
the Met. Perhaps not the paintings themselves, but the sheer
experience of human creativity, the wonder of it all, is his rich legacy.
Share it with me. You won’t be sorry.
ARCHIVE
Best Friends
9/21/03
I’m sure you’ve heard
it. Israel has never had better friends in Washington than the Bush
Administration. Really. If being with you at the start when very few
would stand at your side has any meaning, then it would seem Harry Truman
was a pretty good friend. And wouldn’t you think Menahem Begin felt the
same about Jimmy Carter and Yitzhak Rabin about Bill Clinton, both of whom
used Camp David, not to mention their personal capital, to broker peace,
albeit with mixed results? So let’s translate. The far right
administration in our country is in tune with the ultra right government
in Jerusalem.
So, too, the Administration’s fundamentalist Christian friends with Ariel
Sharon’s fundamentalist Jewish friends on the West Bank. I only hope this
kind of friendship doesn’t ultimately kill the Jewish State, not to
mention the dreams of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians.
To be sure, the
conflict between Israel and its neighbors is rooted in the days of the
founding, but I would think my father’s friends David Ben Gurion, Moshe
Sharret and Golda Meir would be horrified at the sharp right turn,
politically and religiously, taken by their successors. After all, it was
large a group of Jewish secularists and religious modernists who made
Israel a reality. Many of the Orthodox, aside of imposing their will on
religious practice – liberal rabbis couldn’t function – were on the
fringes, and the ultra-Orthodox, unlike Truman, didn’t much recognize the
State’s validity or authority. The West Bank emerged as their key to
taking hold of the conversation and, as of today, of Israel’s destiny.
George Bush and company
are hell-bent on establishing a Moslem stronghold for democracy in the
region. And, of course, they want to obliterate terrorism. And now
they’ve spent our considerable capital in seeking that transformation in
Iraq.
Imagine if you will, that they had opted to make only a fraction of that
investment in transforming the
West Bank into a
Palestinian State, a
parallel democracy to its Israeli neighbor? What if troops, minus the
devastating bombs, had been landed right where that self-defeating wall is
being erected? The fact is that no peace in the Holy Land is likely to
come without proactive and sustained intervention by a third party or
parties. Talking of road maps is all well and good, but it’s clear that
someone has to patrol the path, a truly honest broker with force behind
the words. Just as I am dubious about our ability to achieve a democratic
Iraq, I am convinced that with a similar effort we could achieve it in
Palestine. And the dividends would be huge and immediate for the
parties on the ground, for ourselves and for the world at large. Settling
this dispute addresses one of the core causes of global terrorism. To do
so would be to bypass symptomatic relief of a malignancy in favor of
producing remission and ultimate cure.
I had written these
words before setting out to attend an event for Howard Dean. I’ll
confess, as anyone who reads these blogs will know, that Dean has
increasingly been at the top of my list of Democratic candidates. But I
went wanting that gut feeling to be sustained by some substance, and not
entirely sure it would be. Howard Dean, it turns out, is a very much what
I had hoped and sensed. Unlike what the press and neo-Cons would have you
believe, he is not a George McGovern but a result oriented fiscal
conservative with a down-to-earth rather that pie-in-the-sky agenda,
economic, social and foreign policy. He’s a liberal – “if that means
balancing a budget rather than running up record deficits, I’m proud of
the designation.” He was, and is, opposed to the current Iraq war
brought on by dubious arguments about non-existent WMD's and unproved
terrorist links. Conversely, he supported the first Gulf War
pushing back an illegal invasion and that of
Afghanistan which retaliated for 9/11. He is not opposed to being strong
or using force, simply using it unjustly. He thinks we’re in real
trouble, trouble that can be addressed, but real trouble. I agree. And,
in answer to a question on Israel, he said more or less what I stated
here. How could I not like the guy? But in a less flippant context, his
words were heartening because obviously there are others who are beginning
to think out-of-the-box on a subject mired in truisms a cliché
“patriotism”. Perhaps there is some hope in these terrible times.
By the way, he wasn't wearing one of those American Flag pins. I
guess, like me, he must think his words and deeds are enough to prove that
he is loyal to and loves his country.
9/11 Thoughts
9/11/03
I was in Miss Fischer’s
classroom when the news of FDR’s death arrived, preparing a Friday night
sermon when JFK was shot and running in Central Park on the crystal clear
morning when those planes hit the Towers. We all have our own "where I
was" for these kinds of days after which we’re solemnly told, “nothing
will ever be the same.” Perhaps, only time and history will tell. In the
meantime, George Bush and company have adopted 9/11 as a catchall for
everything they are doing. Forget WMD's, evil regimes and all that
stuff. 9/11 terrorism is "it" and the "why" we’re in Iraq. Oh, that
explains all, finally. As a New Yorker, where more than 3,000
individuals and their families, not to mention our city as a whole, were
direct victims of this horrendous tragedy, I resent it being used as an
excuse for hiding incompetence, for subverting civil liberties and for
furthering partisan/ideological political agendas.
A
poll taken last week
shows that one out of seven Americans firmly believe Saddam played a
significant role in 9/11. Now that’s marketing. The Bush Administration
entered Iraq
with two contentions: weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism.
Neither substantiated at the time, neither substantiated to this day.
WMD’s have yet to appear and the only terrorist connection, if there is
one, seems to be a result of the war not a precursor to it. In fact, it’s
no stretch to suggest that only the demise of Saddam’s regime gave license
for the entry of terrorist groups which heretofore didn’t dare show their
faces in his authoritarian state. There is no connection between Saddam
and 9/11 except as planted in the minds of consumers who have been led to
that dog food by the propagandists on Pennsylvania Avenue and at the
Pentagon. Wow!
George Bush wants us to
connect 9/11 and Iraq calling that beleaguered country “the central front”
in the war on terrorism. It’s an audacious statement playing on our worst
fears and shifting attention from the reality of the situation. The
United States' total lack of preparation for other than a fantasy the
“after” script and what is happening now both reflects that. It
should also be no surprise since throughout history locals have resisted
foreigners calling the shots in their country. Our founding fathers did
it in 1776 and the Iraqis seem to be doing it today, much as they and
their fellow Arabs resisted both the English and French occupiers in the
last Century. And even if they are grateful (which some of them probably
are) that Saddam is gone (sort of), it’s hard to stand and applaud when
the most immediate result of conflict is lawlessness, a lack of clean
running water and no electricity. How do you think the average Iraqi
would respond to Ronald Reagan’s famous question “are you better off today
then you were one year ago?”
Perhaps the most
striking and most unproved “truism” in Bush’s recent TV address was his
contention that military force is the best way to counter terrorism.
While all of us understand what motivates a tough response in the face of
attack, history does not suggest that it works. Quite the contrary. Look
at Northern Ireland and look at the tragic drama we witness daily between
Israel and the Palestinians. Ariel Sharon’s aggressive retaliation and
assassination program has done nothing to reduce, much less eliminate,
suicide bombings. I would argue that violence is probably the least
effective way to counter terrorism. It may work as a band-aid, but
ultimately the underlying wounds that provoked the terrorism in the first
place have to be addressed. No one can excuse what happened on 9/11 or
when a bus explodes in Jerusalem – targeting the innocent is a despicable
tactic, but we seem to be destined for more of the same if we don’t
address the fundamental issues that drive Street people into the hands of
fanatics around the globe. Perhaps we should spend less time making
sanctimonious patriotic speeches about 9/11 and start looking for
solutions, even ones that might be hard to swallow. The cycle has to stop
somewhere, and a little honesty in our rhetoric might be a good place to
start.
ARCHIVE
Inside
Outside
8/31/03
I spent
last week sitting in a jury box. After being called every four years like
clockwork , this was the first time I was actually selected to sit in
judgment on a fellow citizen, a weighty experience in a criminal case. It
was a particularly hot week in New York coming at the end of a summer of
wacky weather around the globe. Taking the subway down each day and
walking the half dozen blocks across to the Moynihan Federal Court
Building was a bit like hiking through the environs of my kitchen oven.
That was outside. Inside Judge Stein’s courtroom it was so cold that one
could only survive in a winter sweater – he likes it that way, keeps
everyone awake. Without making light of the trial experience, what I
couldn’t get out of my head throughout was the sharp contrast between the
cold inside and the heat outside on the street. Being so accustomed to
the synthetic climate control in which we regularly function, we don’t
think about that much. In fact, how we privileged few experience life
bespeaks a consistent unreality, an apt metaphor for our times and most
especially for our country.
Sitting
in that cold room, we were totally out of touch with the reality of the
streets below which, given being in the act of passing judgment on what
happened out there, is kind of bizarre. Don’t get me wrong, I think we
jurors got a pretty good picture of what went on and we reached a fair and
reasonable verdict. That’s the particular, but in a more global context,
we tend to see the outside from an inside perspective and to act
accordingly. It’s like a movie set in a foreign land where the locals all
speak English on screen, their natural language having been subverted in
the name of art. Well we function in much the same way looking out into
the world feeling that the American way, our way, is the natural order of
things and everyone should be partaking of it's values – a kind of
born-again nirvana. I am not saying others don’t do the same in reverse,
but if so, they are equally delusional.
The
funny thing about this insight is that one might have thought it would
have occured the week earlier when the lights went out while I was sitting
at my computer. Here was a dose of reality, not to mention the absence of
air conditioning. But that’s the point, during the great Blackout of ’03,
inside and outside merged. There was no disconnect. Sure we were up to
the task (in my case less than twelve hours of deprivation), but we
quickly retreated into “normalcy.” The conservation measures we
collectively took to reduce strain on the system by restraining ourselves
from unnecessary consumption once the lights returned lasted but a
fleeting moment. A little bit of energy sticker shock, but back to our
collective SUVs (which most of us “drive” in one way or another).
No, if
you look at what’s going on these days -- the depressing international
situation and the continuing economic slump – much of it stems from
planning in “air conditioned” rooms where assumptions are made about the
heated world outside. There is a disconnect, and to some degree we all
engage in it. Indeed our idea of deprivation is so ridiculously tepid
compared with what most people experience, that it’s a true conceit to
claim understanding or worse to impose our solutions. People behaved
themselves enormously well, we tell ourselves, speaking of the power
outage that stretched into 27 hours in lower Manhattan, but how would any
of us behaved if, like the Iraqis, we were without electricity and clean
running water for months since being “liberated?”
It’s not
that all our intentions are suspect or disingenuous, it's that we are
simply stuck in the air conditioning of Judge Stein’s courtroom. Inside,
outside two very different places and that is where the trouble starts.
Sorry for the
interruption. Let the circus continue.
Recall
8/17/03
I’d love to recall
George W. Bush. Hell, he wasn’t even elected. I’m appalled by his
policies which make me, a generally optimistic person, feel more uneasy
about the country’s present and future than at any time I can remember.
He has sullied our reputation in the world community. His trickle down
economic solutions seem to have had little impact upon the economy while
burdening us again with disastrously large deficits, a Ronald Reagan
legacy that we thought had been cleaned up by those much maligned tax and
spend Democrats. Another poor Democratic President is likely to take the
rap for raising taxes in the years to come to keep us afloat.
I’d love to recall
George W. Bush, but we can’t. Nor, and this pains me no end, should we be
able to mid term. Recalls aren’t democracy in action, they are anarchy in
the making. Perhaps I’m overreacting. After all it’s California where
all this craziness is going on and you know how they are. Well, I don’t
buy it. I expect maturity and responsibility from a mega-State whose
actions impact the well being of the entire nation. Sure they have a
boring and even unlikable Governor. Tough. Sure their economy sucks, but
hello, is the New York economy booming? But all that is beside the
point. The idea that we can just recall our public officials between
elections because we don’t like them is preposterous. It may be legal in
California, but that doesn’t mean it passes either the smell or the sanity
test.
Of course it does make
for good TV which may be all that counts these days. The Networks on and
off Cable have already anointed a successor, the actor Arnold
Schwarzenegger – their kind of guy. You may have missed it, but Arnold is
a man of unquestioned credentials — a proven fiscal manager who clearly
has the experience required to solve the enormous problems of a giant
state where, due to other spontaneous voter propositions, a Governor is
left with virtually no options or powers. Right! Details, details.
Arnold debuted his candidacy on Leno with a few good movie character
jokes. What happened to policy-rich announcements on the steps of a
public building or historic site? What happened to seriousness. And
Arnold is not alone, there are a multitude of other self proclaimed
neophyte wannabes running who just aren’t muscular enough to gain media
attention but are nonetheless part of the show. If this is democracy,
perhaps it’s time to opt out.
And one final thing.
Firing a sitting governor should not a moment of levity or bravado. If
noting else, it is overturning the will of the electorate, a de facto
Impeachment absent reasonable cause, trial and due process. Impeachments
are not happy moments. I’ll never forget the day that the House committee
voted to impeach Richard Nixon, someone who had really and criminally
abused his office. When the clerk called the name of Chairman Pete Rodino,
a Democrat, you could hear the cracking in his voice as he cast is "aye"
vote. This had to be his saddest and most profound day of public
service. What has happened to that kind of decency, that kind of gravitas
in our country?
ARCHIVE
Captive of the One
7/27/03
Wyatt Erp, the new
sheriff came to town. Most just call him W. He’s a real tough cookie and
it doesn’t take much time till he plasters the trees with the picture of
his most wanted – that singular bad guy whose demise will transform Dodge
into a safe a peaceful place. “We’re going to get him, dead or alive!” W
sends forth his posse, canons in tow, guns a ‘blazing. Lot’s of destruction, lot’s of bodies “theirs” and “ours” –
fortunately fewer of ours. But no enemy number one. No matter, just as
the townsfolk are getting antsy, beginning to ask questions, W has the
perfect distraction. Down come the old pictures to be replaced by
another, a guy sporting a mustache and hiding untold boxes of TNT or
worse. The posse will have to go out again, but there is good news --
less mountains and (shhh) lot’s of oil. More loud noises, more
destruction and, guess what, no bad guy dead or alive. We could have
sworn that we got him eating in a restaurant, driving in a wagon train,
but things just didn’t turn out.
I don’t know if Osama
or Saddam will be caught. I don’t care, nor should you. W’s bravado
notwithstanding, it is of little global consequence. Leaders do make a
difference, but in large measure they simply reflect those whom they
lead. Sure some of them are tyrannical, but even the most evil example
Adolph Hitler, represented prevalent public sentiment. Demonizing and
personifying the “enemy” makes for good sound bytes and PR, but is totally
out of sync with the current reality or with history. It leads to the
illusion, astoundingly expressed in Washington, that one simple act, the
elimination of an individual, will turn things around. What is so
disconcerting about the current situation is that W’s team talks with
certainty and feigned erudition, but is so clueless.
Ask the Israeli’s about
the impact of their leadership assassination program? Did the killing
stop when we “got The Sons?” Of course not. Five more young Americans
have died so far this weekend. We have lost more kids since W’s war ended
early in May than during the hostilities that preceded his proclamation of
victory. Perhaps Saddam was a threat, but the fact is that Iraqi’s, like
almost every other people in human history, don’t like being occupied,
even by “friends.” Look at the dismal history of Colonialism, and
you’ll find that not one occupation proved successful long term. People
may not like their own dictators, but they seem to like dictation from the
outside even less. And it’s people, not a single individual. There are
no magic bullets in deep seated human conflict. The idea that there is a
“one” has made us all captives – we are the one’s imprisoned by
circumstance. And it isn’t the first time. Remember Ho Chi Min?
Paul Bremer was in
town. He made the talk show circuit like someone on a book tour or
touting a new Hollywood film. It was clearly a piece of theater aimed at
reassuring us that we had a sound man on the job. Meanwhile, people are
still getting killed (something that’s escalating rather than receding),
water and electricity remain problems, the kind that hurt ordinary Iraqis,
and there seems no discernable light at the end of the tunnel. So W and
the guys (excuse me Condi) keep on talking about the One, when they should
be sending Bremer back to
Saigon (oops,
Baghdad) to figure out
how to get us out of the Iraqi’s hair and of our own captivity of the one, sooner rather
than later.
The War Dividend
7/19/03
Isn’t it hell the price we pay for war, the sacrifice? Well not
for everyone.
I have done a lot of interesting things in a multi-faceted career,
among them almost a decade on Wall Street working, often directly, for the
fabled Sandy Weill. To the surprise of many, perhaps even including
himself,
Sandy
announced his phased retirement earlier this week. Stepping aside is not
quite in his nature, but I guess the past couple of years have not been
that much fun. Needless to say, there was a lot of ink expended on the
Citigroup Chairman and his career. It’s a great story, but it was one
little line in the Times that caught my attention. It seems, with
more than 22 Million shares in hand, many of them acquired through a super
generous option program,
Sandy
will be looking forward to more that $30 Million in annual dividend
income. Now let’s not get into the coincidence that Citigroup had
announced a 75% dividend increase just two days earlier, a change that
materially effects his post retirement income. What really struck me,
perhaps more concretely than anything else I’ve seen on the subject, was
the total one-sided absurdity of the recent cut in dividend tax rates.
Sandy
will be pay only 15% on this enhanced dividend. That comes to a hefty
$4.5 Million or so, but far less than the $12 Million he would
have paid just a year ago. So here we are, spending $1 Billion a week in
Iraq (with wonderful results), mired in a recessionary environment in
which 3 Million Americans have lost their jobs (income), watching a growing
number of military families losing their
loved ones and we’re paying stockholders like Sandy a huge tax dividend.
So much for sacrifice. Now don’t get me wrong, I own a few shares of
Citigroup and am happy to have both the increased payout (good for Sandy,
albeit vastly less, good for me) and reduced tax burden. But
Sandy’s windfall, along with those of all the other
Sandy’s, just shows how absurd and wrongheaded is this
so-called economic policy.
In the aggregate, I don’t think too many ordinary Americans (that’s
99% of us) have benefited from the Bush tax cuts. This doesn’t mean their
benefits aren’t being touted on the Treasury Department’s website -- our
taxpayer dollars used for thinly veiled partisan spin. We’re all seeing
the bill for War as will our kids and grandkids, but none of these
specially targeted benefits. Those youngsters at risk on the killing
fields come from small town
America,
off Main Street not on Wall Street. Sandy Weill’s retirement in affluence
is assured, while most of America’s pensions have been decimated or
eliminated. And they say with a straight face that this is not a benefit
for wealthier Americans. But of course, they also said the still illusive
WMD’s were a present and imminent danger. Can you believe just yesterday
these same people sanctimoniously impeached Bill Clinton for lying about
his personal and private sex life? The theater of the absurd, which sadly
is the stage on which we play every day. What has happened to our
national sense of balance not to mention of outrage?
No matter, I want my dividend too. We all do.
ARCHIVE
The Doctor
and The General
7/08/03
Have you noticed the growing number of wags predicting a decade of
Republican rule, essentially writing off the Democratic Party? When
everyone joins the band wagon, predictions are usually wrong.
Nevertheless, the realist in me is deeply concerned. While Karl Rove and
his well oiled company spend all their waking hours laying the ground work
for George Bush’s first election to the White House (wonder if they will
suggest that term limits don’t apply to the unelected), the Democrats seem
in total disarray.
Too many people are running. Most of them know they can’t win but
that doesn’t get in their way. They claim to represent an important point
of view, and perhaps they do, but in the face of political reality it’s
hard to not see more than an act of hubris. We may all pay a very high
price for their self indulgence. To win back the White House my party
can’t continue to act like a rudderless ship. It’s time to get our house
in order. That means most of the want-to-be Presidents need to take a
good look in the mirror, perhaps conjure up the image of Ralph Nader, and
get real. I’m not suggesting that there be no contest, but that there be
a manageable contest so that we can begin to sort things out without the
distraction of extraneous noise.
And here is the rub. I’ve listened to a number of “debates”
between the current candidates and have yet to find a standout. I’ve seen
the possibilities but have failed to fall in love, which of course in the
days of anti-charisma may be asking too much. Not that all the seemingly
viable pretenders are not decent or credentialed, but let’s cut to the
chase. John Kerry, who has it all, war hero and war protester, has failed
to ignite. John Edwards still seems more surface than substance. Claims
of electability notwithstanding, I don’t think Joe Lieberman or Bob Graham
can win. I respect Dick Gephardt but, hard as he tries, the never-to-be
Speaker seems yesterday, not tomorrow. Most important in the current
context, none of these candidates had the courage to oppose a highly
questionable war, choosing political expediency over conviction.
That brings me to the Doctor, Howard Dean. Dean is new to the
Presidential game and has made a few gaffs. That’s pretty common first
time out and hardly a disqualification. Remember the current occupant of
the White House’s appearance at
Bob Jones
University? Some say Dean is too dovish, too left, the latter belied by
his public record. His stewardship of
Vermont
was essentially in the Bill Clinton mode, fiscally moderate conservative,
socially progressive. His State is among our smallest, but I sense he
himself can grow in the absolute, grow on me and on the electorate
emotionally which is ultimately what counts.
The dove issue in these hysterical times may be more problematic.
It’s a troubling that anyone questioning placing untold numbers of human
beings in harms way without proven good reason is so discredited? Chalk
one up for the heirs of the Gipper. Dean was against
Iraq
and so far his skepticism appears to have been more than justified. No
WMD’s and no post-War plan. Nevertheless, in the post 9/11 real politic
that doesn’t cut it. Which brings me to the General, Wesley Clark. I
know there is continued talk about
Clark
for President, and perhaps that’s where it will end out, but I’m
suggesting a Dean-Clark ticket.
Promoting a Vice Presidential candidacy at this juncture may seem
odd. The Constitution gave the office short shrift. Jack Garner, its one
time tobacco chewing incumbent thought it wasn’t worth spit. But Jimmy
Carter changed all that, making Walter Mondale his full and active partner
with a real role to play. George H.W. may have been out of the loop and
Danny Q out of it altogether, but Bill Clinton brought the idea of
partnership to new heights with Al Gore. The current Vice President, Dick
Chaney is the most powerful of them all. He may be spending a lot of time
in undisclosed locations but no one can doubt the defining role.
Consequently, it is not too early to think running mate. I don’t know
how you can consider one without the other.
The truth is we don’t know very much about Wesley Clark’s domestic
politics, but we know a lot about his record as a balanced Military man
who had a fine reputation as both a thinker and administrator when he led
the Alliance. We also know that, like Howard Dean, he had substantial
reservations about Iraq. No one could suggest that he lacked military
credentials or having led our forces in the Balkans, the will to use power
when truly justified.
I don’t know if Dean-Clark is a dream ticket (dream ticket and I
say Gephardt is living the past), but it seems a compelling one. Two men
of talent and apparent conscience. Perhaps they could win.
Stars
& Stripes Hijacked
6/27/03
My
elder son is a creative dresser. A few Sundays ago, we went over to
the flea market to find a birthday gift for his girlfriend. As he
browsed through some books and records, the vendor noticed the American
Flag he had sewn on the back of his blue jean jacket many years ago.
Seeing it, he immediately told us about a just returned GI who had visited
his stand the week before. His effusiveness clearly communicated his
own support of the Iraq
war and, with the flag and all, he assumed we agreed. That is not
the case, but his assumption reminded me again that our Stars & Stripes
have been hijacked.
I’m
not big on flags. My family arrived from Nazi Germany in 1937 a
month before I was born. Like many Americans with similar
experiences, they were devoted to their adopted country with an intensity
that often alludes the native born. In our family everyone, in every
generation, votes. At the same time, having lived under a
totalitarian regime where flag waving and the like became so symbolic,
they always were squeamish about any show of ultra-nationalism, and thusly
about flag waving even in their beloved
United
States. I think their view was prescient.
Without discounting the many people of all opinions who have strong
attachments to Old Glory — showing colors has become a not so subtle sign
of “loyalty” and support for the President. Partisans have taken
ownership of this non-partisan symbol and made it their own -- taken hold
and made it sacrosanct. The lapel flag has become a loyalty uniform,
and I’m sure no one in the administration with any ambition would dare
come to work without it. That in itself is a little unnerving
because it smacks of civilian uniform wearing, if even on a mini-scale.
Remember George Bush’s threatening “either you’re with us or against us”
words after 9/11? Well wearing the flag answers in the affirmative.
Far
more disturbing than the fact that Conservatives have appropriated the
Stars and Stripes for their own agenda, is that we have permitted it to
happen. We all know the bumper stickers about supporting our troops
and God blessing
America (right or wrong), but where are the bumper stickers saying “free
to dissent?’ Now don’t get me wrong, I’m really not a bumper sticker
kind of guy, with our without flag. The point is that in a very
powerful way, this abrogation of flag rights is a metaphor for the
continued and very audible silence that is threatening both our present
and our future. Disturbing things are being done by these flag
wavers, things that in many cases potentially threaten the very democracy
and way of life that we claim to defend. The vast majority of
Americans, not to mention our increasingly pathetic and media conglomerate
controlled press, are either giving them a pass or acquiescing by simply
looking on in silence.
We’ve
invaded two countries and, regardless of how you might feel about these
conflicts, at street level neither is doing very well in the aftermath.
We have instituted Homeland Security which is big on propaganda but small
on funding. The cheap talk leaves the cost on local desks which is
part of why our states and cities are in financial crisis. We have
given extraordinary powers to an Attorney General whose respect for
individual rights and ultra-conservative social agenda is highly suspect.
Our economy is in the dumper with more than 2 Million American’s having
lost their jobs since the Supremes put George W in office. Tax cuts
won’t help those people giving new meaning to the cliché “adding insult to
injury.” It also means that the previously unemployed, many of them
less prepared and qualified, have been pushed back another rung in the job
line, extending their life of poverty even further. That’s a consequence
no one is talking about. The forces against Choice and Gun Control
are gaining in political ground, if not wider popular support. Women
may once again be driven into the back alleys of shadow medicine and more
handguns may land on the streets. International treaties affecting
the quality and indeed the endurance of human life have been written off.
Meanwhile the President continues his saber rattling bravado which they
say isn’t really imperialistic, but “if it walks like a duck….” And
they have taken our flag.
Take a
look at the red, white and blue. Don’t you want it back?
ARCHIVE
All That Fit News
6/14/03
I’m a creature of habits (an understatement, my children will tell you).
One such habit is my morning routine that begins with two acts confirming
the day has begun: reaching out to turn on my computer and picking up the
remote to flick on the news. For habit-impaired people like me, it’s hard
to break any part of the routine, but after many years of the Networks and
CNN, I’ve switched to the BBC. In fact, aside from regularly
tuning in to Jim Lehrer and Bill Moyers on PBS, I find myself watching
significantly less television news than ever before.
Another habit, begun it would seem before I was born, is The New York
Times. The Times has gotten bigger and more featured than it needs to be,
but it’s still the best. Needless to say, as a lifelong reader I too was
unhappy to learn of the lapses that ultimately resulted in the ousting of
its two top editors. Unhappy, but not turned off. Perhaps it’s because,
despite the high regard in which I hold the Ochs family trust, I don’t
think even the Times is superhuman. Perfect is just not in the natural
order and we've seen ample examples of lapses in every segment of life. To
be sure, excellence and quality of reporting are real issues for
contemporary journalism at the Times and elsewhere, but what bothers me
even more these days is content.
Some of my friends don’t like the BBC because they think it is slanted
against Israel. That’s probably more a case of the myopia we Jews suffer
when we see our survival at risk than of reality, but that’s another
subject. I find the BBC pretty evenhanded. But what really attracts me is
that BBC presents real news seriously. Wonder of wonders there is a big
world out there and, despite half hour broadcasts, they are able to cover
more than one story at a time. Their cameras routinely go to “exotic”
Continents like Africa
and Asia
where, if you can believe it, important things are going on each and every
day. You may not hear about it too often, but thousands are dying in civil
conflicts, from epidemic disease and, in more places than any of us would
like to think about, from hunger. Like our own media, BBC focused on Iraq
during the war and even expanded its coverage to an hour, but even then
that larger world didn’t disappear.
The other morning, thinking my abandonment of CNN perhaps too precipitous,
I switched over when the BBC World News ended at 7:30. Lacey Peterson is
what I heard and it was only the middle of an extensive report. Now don’t
get me wrong, I feel very sorry for her and a grieving family, but in the
scheme of things is that really major news? On the day Lacey was murdered,
I’m reasonably sure other women were as well — that day and the ones
before and after. We'll never know their names despite deaths that are no
less tragic, no less important to their near and dear. Lacey Peterson, yet
another made-for-TV and the Tabloids “news” drama. Another (thank your
Frank Rich) Mediathon. No ours is not a problem of shoddy journalism,
though that is part of it, but of trivial content. The world is falling
apart, millions of innocents have died in Africa in the last few years
alone, democracy is being stifled in places like Indonesia and we’re
talking about Lacey Peterson. Shame on us.
David Brinkley died this week. When he and Chet Huntley held sway at NBC
and Cronkite told us “that’s the way it is” on CBS, I became a TV news
junky. I also felt pretty well informed, pretty well served even though it
wasn’t 24/7. Today I can watch three hours of Network and CNN news and
miss 90% of what’s really going on, what is truly important and newsworthy
Shoot me, I simply don’t trust Wolf Blitzer the way I did Walter Cronkite.
Do you?
Mainstream Extremism
6/9/03
Yet another, albeit awkward and tentative, move away from conflict in the
Holy Land. My parents witnessed the historic 1947 UN Partition vote and
later celebrated with soon to be leaders of the fledgling State. Their
recounting of both events the next morning are among my most vivid
childhood memories. My father had become a Zionist in 1917 when it was far
from fashionable. From the start, so much hope, so much fear. Now, more
than half a century later, the only change is that the fear seems greater
than the hope. Painful.
The problems between Israel and the Palestinians are extraordinarily
complex, but I tell myself, perhaps unrealistically, not insurmountable.
More than any other obstacle to peace, more even than what to do with
Jerusalem
and the Refugees, is the reality that both sides are captives of
extremists. Both give in to them. What makes a solution so difficult is
that Arab and Jewish extremists (supported not so incidentally by American
Christian fundamentalists) share a undeniable bond of commonality. Neither
wants the other to stay on “their” land. What’s more, both will use
violent means to reach their goal, though admittedly not the same violent
means. To most of us, certainly to those who consider ourselves political
or religious Liberals, these are alien forces. They have nothing to do
with us.
But is that really true? What’s interesting about today’s extremists is
that they are largely from the Right, not the Left. A large percentage of
them espouse the most Conservative form of their religion, a position that
extends to societal issues. Whatever the nature of the government under
which they live, philosophically they are not democrats. Quite the
contrary, they have little patience for what the majority may want, since
they see themselves as the embodiment of a higher order, the ultimate
word, in possession of the single “Truth.”
This effects us directly because it is having a profound impact upon the
global body politic.
Look at Israel
and equally at our United States. The extreme fringe caused a hard pull to
the Right producing the ultra-conservative Likud that, in comparison,
operates under a cloak of “moderation.” The same can be said for us. The
ruling Republican Party is not that of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt
and Olympia Snow, but of Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush and
Tom DeLay. To be sure these Conservatives are not terrorists, but they are
certainly belligerent, often a belligerence that turns to violence of
enormous consequences. With “right” (think about the double meaning of
that word) on their side, they barrel ahead with their agenda, broaching
no criticism and using whatever means may be required to meet their ends.
The Bush agenda for America is not merely out of a Conservative songbook,
but out of the extreme. And it’s an agenda that is being carried forward
by a deft use of underlying uneasiness or dissatisfaction as a cover-up
for action. As victims of terror, albeit limited compared with other parts
of the world, Americans live in fear. That’s real and a great smokescreen
for John Ashcroft’s draconian administration of “Justice.” A very rare and
wrenching medical procedure is given a politicized name and is used to
undermine a woman’s right to choose. This list goes on, but the reality is
clear, extremism is going mainstream while those who should be exposing it
are sitting around timidly shaking their heads but keeping their mouths
shut. That may change at some point, better late than never. The question
for our lives is, will it be too late? Will extremism and mainstream be
the same?
ARCHIVE
Bring Back The French Fries
6/5/03
Why is it that the word hypocrisy comes to mind so often these days? OK
you don’t much like the French and you still suspect their motives. But
let’s look at the record, not at the spin. Before we went to war in Iraq,
Secretary Powell unashamedly appeared before the world at the UN to make
his case about the threat of WMD’s.
Yes Saddam Hussein was a bad and brutal guy, but that wasn’t our primary
reason for action. How could it have been given the large number of
equally bad guys around the world whom we regularly ignore? No, we had to
take immediate action because of the clear and present danger of Iraq’s
WMD’s. We had non-compliance with a UN resolution. The French Foreign
Minister responded. He never questioned Saddam’s evil character, he did
however question the existence of the alleged WMD’s
as did the UN Inspectors on the ground. You probably remember he received
unprecedented applause from the many diplomats observing the session.
So here we are. I watched the articulate and still attractive Tony Blair
fend of questions before Parliament yesterday. Wonder how George W would
fair in such an open forum? Blair is adamant both about the WMD’s and not
having cooked the books of the intelligence community. The British are
focusing on those 45 minutes and I couldn’t help but think of Rosemary
Woods. Blair’s leadership and, more importantly, reputation are on the
line. Don Rumsfeld, doesn’t have the Blair problem. He dismissively says
may never find these alleged WMD’s
and should “get a life.” With a silent Congress, the Bush Administration
simply changes the subject, talking only about how wonderful it is that
the bad guy is gone. So it is, but that doesn’t change the fact — WMD’s
are why they told us that we had to risk the lives of our children and
thousands of Iraqi civilians. Tom Friedman, says we shouldn’t have been
talking WMD’s in the first place, that Saddam’s cruel regime was enough
reason to go, so we should “get a life.” Well that’s not the point.
“Should have” is not the issue. Manipulating the world and all of us in
the "Homeland" is.
Our Administration now suggests that the weapons have either been
destroyed or remain hidden. Perhaps we’ll never know which. Thoughts of
Watergate again, perhaps we’ll never uncover Deep Throat. I have just one
simple question. If these WMD’s
were such a present and immanent threat and if Saddam knew we would fight
to his end (which he most assuredly did), why didn’t he use them against
us in battle? Wasn’t that what they were for? Why didn’t he lob dirty
missiles over to
Israel, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait? Why didn’t his Guard gas our troops? He
certainly wasn’t protecting his humanitarian reputation. Perhaps there
were indeed no WMD’s,
only a the myth of them to prolong his power and justify the deteriorating
quality of life in his beleaguered country.
In light of the facts at hand, isn’t our finger pointing at the French a
bit disingenuous? Perhaps they had ulterior motives, but the questions
they had the temerity to ask of Emperor George were valid then and remain
unanswered. I wish more of
