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
