Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 February
2008 January
2006 April
2006 February
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
My Links
Google News
Salon.com
Washington Post
Trump Fires Bush Video
Bush You're Fired Tshirt.com
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Lord Acton's Revenge: Brutality in Brooklyn |
| 03.31.04 (12:00 am) [edit] |
|
It’s a truism in my field of psychotherapy that in order to improve, it’s not enough to simply know something intellectually; you need to know it emotionally, to feel it, before that knowledge becomes truly useful. The implication of this idea is that some things have to be learned and re-experienced over time before they are taken to heart, and become usable knowledge. What is true on the personal level also applies on the societal level. There are many platitudes that we know by rote, without really truly embracing them. As a result we make misstep after misstep before we finally get it right. So it is, with Lord Acton’s famous dictum in 1887, “Power Corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” At its core, this maxim tells us that individuals who feel that there are no checks or restrictions on their behavior will tend to overstep and exploit their position. With this in mind, we all benefit from the network of checks and balances on authority, whether in the form of statutes, ethics codes, Miranda rules, or constitutional limits on state power. During a time of perceived national threat, however, this network of civil protections gets strained: In particular, we tend to loosen the checks and balances that serve to protect the less powerful in society: During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, the requirement that an individual by properly charged with a crime before he can be indefinitely detained; in 1944, the Supreme Court held 6-3, that the government could evict Japanese-American citizens from their homes on the West Coast and incarcerate them, based on the notion that they were an espionage risk. Today, under the threat of international terrorism, we are once again experiencing an erosion of civil liberties. It is important to shine a light on the examples of this trend. In the eleven months following 9/11, the government rounded up over 762 men, mostly of Arab or Asian nationality, on the possibility that they may have had some role in the 9/11. There was no evidence to suggest any participation in terrorism, other than the men’s ethnicity, so the pretext for the detentions was that of immigration violations. Not only was the round-up excessively broad and of dubious merit, once detained, the civil rights of these men were largely ignored. Eighty-four of them wound up in a federal facility in Brooklyn, a facility that deserves a special badge of shame. The Associated Press reports that a recent Justice Department Investigation of the Brooklyn prison “found that guards slammed detainees against walls, twisted their arms, performed unneeded strip searches, and taped conversations between some detainees and their lawyers. In addition, hundreds of videotapes that might have documented the abuse were destroyed or erased,” or in some cases, hidden from investigators. Not only were the unfortunate detainees caught up in a dragnet of ethnic profiling, based on the report issued by Justice Department inspector Glenn A. Fine, they were abused and degraded by as many as 20 guards at the Brooklyn facility. Virtually all were eventually released, but not before being subjected to systematic brutality that included, according to the Justice Department’s own report, “slamming detainees against walls; bending or twisting detainees’ arms, hands, wrists, and fingers; lifting restrained detainees off the ground by their arms, and pulling their arms and handcuffs; stepping on detainees’ leg restraint chains; using restraints improperly; and handling detainees in an otherwise rough and inappropriate manner.” Equally alarming were the allegations of verbal abuse: “Whatever you did at the World Trade Center, we will do to you,” “You’re never going to leave here,” “Don’t ask any questions, otherwise you will be dead,” “Put your nose against the wall or we will break your neck.” When detainees prayed, officers said, “Shut the fuck up! Don’t pray, Fucking Muslim. You’re praying bullshit.” There are three things that outrage me about this episode. First, I’m outraged that it could happen at all. Such practices can only flourish when guards know that they have tacit approval from superiors to engage in systematic abuse. Second, I’m outraged that there is no national concern about it. Rather, it’s something of a middle-of the-newspaper story, which seems to fall under the heading, “life isn’t fair.” Finally, I’m outraged that the consequences for the abusers are so minimal. Inspector Fine reports that “reasonable and appropriate steps” will be taken, and recommends such measures as counseling, and administrative action. It is striking, however, that federal prosecutors have declined to press criminal charges in the case. Fine also urges that better training be given to guards. Training? It is hardly a matter of inadequate training when guards strip search detainees simply to demean them, call them names, or smash their heads into walls. And it adds insult to injury that much of the evidence, in the form of videotapes, was either destroyed or hidden from Justice Department officials—an apparent obstruction of justice. In a recent editorial, the Washington Post was cautiously optimistic about the steps taken by the Justice Department: “The Justice Department's apparently serious attention to Mr. Fine's recommendations is encouraging….. The policies adopted now will go a long way to determining how many detainees swept up after a future terrorist attack -- most of whom will prove innocent of any involvement -- have their loss of liberty compounded by abuse.” To the contrary, I find little to cheer about in the Justice Department’s approach. Despite clear evidence of wholesale brutality and obstruction of justice, prosecutors have decided to treat the abusers with kid gloves. Apparently, Attorney General Ashcroft believes in tough penalties for everyone but his own employees. It is an extraordinarily shortsighted policy, because however little attention these stories get in US newspapers, they are inevitably major news in the Arab world and serve to undermine our mission and our credibility. It should be noted that not one of the 762 detainees was ever charged with a terrorism related crime. Compare the quality of justice in the Brooklyn case with that meted out to James J. Yee, the former Muslim Chaplain at Guantanamo Bay. Yee was arrested in Jacksonville Florida on September 10, 2003, after customs officials found documents in his backpack that looked suspicious, and were thought to contain classified information. Military officials originally alleged that he was part of a plot to infiltrate Guantanamo Base, and indicated that it might be a capital crime. As it turned out, there was no evidence to support this sensational claim, and the original charge of espionage was downgraded to that of transporting classified information without the required secure container. While the Army investigated this lesser charge, Yee was detained in the military brig in Charleston, SC. for 67 days in virtual solitary confinement. During this time, questions arose as to whether any of the documents were classified at all. Eventually, even the lesser charges could not be sustained, and Yee was released. Before releasing Yee, however, the Army filed additional charges, including adultery, and storing pornography on a government computer. As of today, after all the early sensationalism of this case, all criminal charges have been dropped. Where prosecutors were once talking about capital punishment, now they cannot find evidence to sustain any of the charges. In an ideal world, military prosecutors would apologize to Yee and move on. In the real world, however, they have recommended that Yee face a military administrative hearing on charges of adultery and pornography. How bizarre is that? This case, which once dominated headlines, now consists of Mickey Mouse allegations of adultery and pornography! The military’s view apparently is, if you can’t convict a man, you can at least ruin his reputation. I suspect that if everyone who had porn on a government computer were discovered, half the government's computers would be confiscated. On a more serious note, however, this case bears eerie similarities to that of scientist Wen Ho Lee, the Taiwanese-born scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, who was arrested, charged with espionage, and harshly confined for 10 months. During that time, the government realized it had no case against Lee. The authorities not only failed to support any charges against Lee, they had diverted important investigative resources away from others who may have been culpable. The government, however, did succeed spectacularly in ruining Lee’s career. Cases like these don’t happen simply because the government is foolish, hysterical, or corrupt; they happen because we, the citizenry, allow the government to perform in this manner. Lord Acton would be turning over in his grave. |
| 0 Comments |
| Political Potpourri: Kerry, Clarke, Rice, and Scalia |
| 03.26.04 (2:08 pm) [edit] |
|
“Go West Young Man.” When John and Teresa Kerry left to spend a week at their winter home in Ketchum, Idaho, a shudder went through the Democratic ranks. Many felt that Kerry’s timing was off, that he was making a mistake in ceding the playing field to George Bush, who would use the week to tar Kerry with saturation campaign ads. As it turned out, the worries of Democratic operatives were misplaced. Kerry’s week off was a help, not a hindrance; it served to bolster his campaign rather than weaken it. The electorate was becoming increasingly uneasy with a presidential race whose raggedness was beginning to resemble a game of pick-up basketball: more turnovers than points, more noise than news. Kerry, to his credit, was able to sense this. The vacation gave Kerry the look of a man who recognized that this was a marathon not a sprint, a man comfortable in his own skin, a man who wanted to spend some time with his wife, and a man who would overrule his handlers if he had to. These are all good things. But the biggest benefit to the Kerry campaign was accidental; Kerry was off stage when former terrorism czar Richard Clarke made his appearance. Comments by Kerry this past week could have only have stepped on Richard Clarke’s message that the Bush administration was at turns both oblivious and incompetent with respect to Al Qaeda. “Dick Clarke’s Hit Parade.” This has been an extraordinary week. Just two weeks ago we were discussing whether the Bush 9/11 campaign ad-- trumpeting his leadership role after 9/11--was in poor taste. Today, we are debating whether Bush actually contributed to the spread of Al Qaeda by inattention before 9/11, and obsession with Iraq after 9/11. This is a profound and damaging issue for the Administration, for several reasons: 1) The theme of Clarke’s book is so strikingly similar to that of former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill’s book, as to bolster both men’s credibility. Both books portray Bush as a man unable to think creatively about new problems, but rather still fighting the battles of the Cold War (Iraq, Star Wars, etc.). 2) While it was fairly easy to brush aside O’Neill, who did not inspire confidence as a cabinet official, Clarke is tough, media savvy, and has an unassailable resume, spanning four administrations. 3) George Bush’s record on truth-telling is so compromised at this point that it deprives him of the benefit of the doubt. Recall that this administration sold their tax cut using budget figures that were based on the idea that the tax cut would “sunset” after several years. The problem is, they never believed in the concept of “sunsetting;” they always planned for the tax cut to be permanent. They misled Congress about the cost of the Medicare bill. They low-balled the country on the number of troops that would be needed to pacify Iraq, and then vilified General Shinseki when he told the truth. To put it bluntly, there is some serious bad Karma at play for this administration. Apart from George W. Bush, the greatest casualty of Dick Clarke’s book, “Against All Enemies,” may be National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice. “Conde Nast-y.” There is currently a critical mass developing about the failings of Conde Rice, who has been a major player in virtually all of the administration’s blunders. It was Rice who spoke ominously about mushroom clouds emanating from Iraq’s WMD. It was Rice who became the lead apologist for Bush’s claim in the State of the Union speech that Iraq was seeking enriched uranium from Niger. Recall the tortured explanation from Rice: “"The statement that he made was indeed accurate. The British Government did say that.” This is akin to the Washington Post printing a false story and then saying, “We didn’t say it was true; we just said that the New York Times said it was true.” Rice has further damaged herself by refusing to testify publicly before the 9/11 Commssion, and then trying to justify it on constitutional grounds. This prompted the chairman of the Commission, former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean, to comment, “I think this administration shot itself in the foot by not letting her testify in public.” As reported by Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank in today’s Washington Post, Rice’s statements on Clarke are a hodgepodge of contradictions: She can’t decide whether Clarke was in the loop or out of the loop, whether he had limited influence and is now disgruntled, or whether his counsel was keenly appreciated. Here is Rice attempting to trash Clarke: “He was the counterterrorism czar for a period of the '90s when Al Qaeda was strengthening and when the plots that ended up September 11 were being hatched." Here she is trying to prop up Bush’s anti-terrorism credentials: “I wanted somebody [Clarke] experienced in that area precisely to carry on the Clinton administration policy.” Rice will survive this sorry episode with her job intact, but not her reputation. “Scalia [i]ducks[/i] responsibility .” Few of us knew, prior to Justice Scalia’s refusal to recuse himself from the pending Supreme Court case concerning Dick Cheney’s energy task force, that there was no way to compel a Supreme Court justice to step aside in a particular case, however clear his obligation. This is a frightening thought. Can you imaging being a litigant at the state court level, and discovering that the judge is a pal of the opposing party in the case, and goes duck hunting with him? You would obviously feel disadvantaged in the case; any reasonable litigant would feel that the playing field was not level. In such a case, the appearance of bias would be obvious, and the state ethics board would swoop down on the misguided judge. Scalia, by contrast, sticks a thumb in our collective eye by presuming to pronounce upon his own impartiality. The whole basis for ethics guidelines is that the individual whose bias is questioned, is not in a position to guarantee his own impartiality. And nothing could be more specious than Scalia's claim in his twenty-one page statement that the pending case is about the office of the vice-president generically, not about Dick Cheney, and therefore does not significantly impact Dick Cheney the person. Is he kidding? The Supreme Court ruling will be a referendum on Cheney's judgment, it will affect him politically, it will affect the way he is seen by history, and the fallout from any disclosure about the makeup of the energy task force could be highly negative for the Cheney-Bush campaign. Based on Scalia's logic, he and Dick Cheney could be twin brothers and Scalia's objectivity would still not be compromised, since the case is apparently not about Dick Cheney! Finally, it is not completely accurate to say that there is no check on Scalia’s judgment: If, in fact, we find his reasoning and subsequent role to be sufficiently flawed as to undermine the institution of the Supreme Court, the option of a Senate impeachment is always available. |
| 0 Comments |
| Ted Kennedy And Tim Russert, Mano a Mano |
| 03.25.04 (2:56 pm) [edit] |
|
One of the more memorable interviews of the political season took place on Sunday, as Ted Kennedy sat down with Tim Russert on Meet the Press. I hope every past and future Democratic candidate watched it. More importantly, I hope that they took a few lessons from Kennedy, who came out swinging as a good, old-fashioned, unapologetic liberal, the kind that disappeared at some point in time behind a phalanx of focus groups and consultants. Kennedy, at age 72, has achieved a special status as a politician. He is a man so beloved and politically secure in his own state of Massachusetts, and so comfortable in his own skin, that he has the same kind of freedom that Barry Goldwater earned with the Republicans: the freedom to tell the truth, to talk turkey to his audience, regardless of how jarring that truth might be. To watch Kennedy in action was also to be reminded of why Howard Dean failed: Both men have the same blunt style of addressing issues, but while Dean’s manner often seems cold and clinical, Kennedy’s style brims with passion and warmth. Moreover, Kennedy is every bit as clear and straightforward about his views as John Kerry is maddeningly equivocal about his. Kennedy has two attributes that are essential for a good politician: a love of political combat, and a love of his constituents, who Kennedy sees as all the citizens of the US. Asked to comment on the one year anniversary of the Iraq War, Kennedy reminded Russert of the universal support that the US experienced immediately after 9/11, the many offers of assistance--financial, military, and intelligence sharing. At that moment, there was an extraordinary feeling of solidarity between the US and the rest of the world, particularly with Western Europe. The senator pointed to our needlessly high-handed manner of dealing with Europe, and our eagerness to forget Afghanistan, while making a headlong rush into Iraq, that shattered that very promising world coalition. Kennedy illustrated the decline in American esteem and credibility with an anecdote about his brother John: “One of the proudest moments that President Kennedy had is at the time of the Cuban missile crisis when Dean Acheson went to France and told Charles de Gaulle that we were going to face the Cuban missile crisis, and told him that President Kennedy needed his help and assistance. And then after he told him that he said to Charles de Gaulle, ‘Let me show you the charts.’ And the president of France says, ‘the word of the United States is all that I need.’ That kind of credibility in terms of the world community has been fractured…” Russert had his share of prepared zingers for Kennedy, but they bounced off the senator like spitballs hitting a battleship. Russert’s first failed “gotcha” moment came when he asked Kennedy whether vice-president Cheney was right in saying that John Kerry had an obligation to tell the American public which foreign leaders were supporting Kerry. Kennedy didn’t even address how silly and inappropriate it would be for Kerry to identify some foreign leader who had spoken to him in confidence. Instead, Kennedy had bigger fish to fry: “You know, I watched the vice president make that statement. And you know what--all I could think of is, when is the vice president going to give us the names of those people on his task force in energy that jacked up the price for consumers and provided windfall profits for the energy industry? When is he going to do that? When is the White House going to give us the name of the person that leaked the name to the newspapers endangering the life of Valerie Plame, who was a CIA agent? When are they going to do that? Come on, Tim. All we have to do is go down the list of members of the United Nations and find out where the support [for Kerry] is. The CIA knows it. They work for the president. They can give them the names of all of those countries.” Kennedy was absolutely right. While calling for a full (and inappropriate) disclosure from Kerry, Bush runs his own administration with all the openness of the Skull and Bones Society. But Russert had more ammo to deliver, confronting Kennedy with his statement to the Associated Press that “money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops [to Iraq]." When asked for his evidence for this charge, Kennedy chuckled, “You can talk about [i]incentivizing[/i], or [i]providing resources [/i]for those [countries]. You take the choice of words. What do you think the $8 billion was in terms of economic aid that we are providing for Turkey in order to get Turkish troops? You put whatever label on that.” Russert continued, “Do you still stand by the term “bribe?” Kennedy responded, “… I don’t retreat from the word bribe.” Kennedy didn’t miss a beat on the topic of gay marriage. In contrast to John Kerry, John Edwards, and Howard Dean, Kennedy doesn’t waver on the issue of gay marriage. He supports it without hesitation: “….the Massachusetts decision has no requirement about sacramental marriage. I think that's the key. There's no requirement that the Catholic Church, Protestant Church, synagogue, mosque, have to have a sacramental marriage. So I am for... civil [gay] marriage.” By the end of the interview, as Kennedy had run through the litany of Bush credibility problems, from the phony figures on the Medicare bill, to the inflated estimates of job growth, to the purported link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, to the nonexistent WMD, to the notion that oil revenues would pay for the rebuilding of Iraq, it was Russert who was in strategic retreat. Russert, however, had one last trap for Kennedy, asking, “President Bush says he's a proud conservative. Are you a proud liberal?” When Kennedy answered yes, Russert triumphantly moved in for the kill: “Is John Kerry?” Kennedy, always more comfortable characterizing his own political persona than that of John Kerry, hesitated, then continued, “This president says he's a proud conservative. He has taken a budget, a budget that had the greatest surpluses in the history of this country [230 billion dollars in 2000], and now we have the greatest deficits in the history of this country [projected 500 billion], and he calls himself a proud conservative. I call that irresponsible. Now, is that liberal or conservative?” Kennedy wasn’t through, “I'm just asking you, when you have that kind of surplus and you go to this deficit--is that liberal or conservative? If you answer that question, I'll tell you where John [Kerry] is.” At that point, both men, recognizing that it was a stand-off, dissolved into laughter. It was a great comfort to me that John Kerry was almost certainly watching Kennedy’s performance from his vacation home in Ketchum, Idaho. Kerry could learn a lot from the strength, clarity, and passion of Kennedy’s presentation. In fact, I couldn’t help but say to myself at the end of the interview, “Damn, the Democrats nominated the wrong guy from Massachusetts.” |
| 0 Comments |
| "American Idol": My Guilty Pleasure |
| 03.18.04 (9:11 pm) [edit] |
|
Pardon this excursion into the nether world of the FOX network, but I couldn’t resist offering a few words—1,940 if you must know—about the guiltiest of my guilty pleasures, “American Idol.” The topic, while not political on its face, still has much to say about who we are as a culture, and what it is that grabs our attention. I am here to confess my love-hate relationship with “American Idol,” a show I only discovered last year, at midseason. Despite my many misgivings about the show, I will admit that I never miss it. And I suspect that I am not alone in my ambivalence about this show. So let’s talk about the good, the bad, the sublime, and the utterly ridiculous about AI: One of my biggest problems with "American Idol" is its very premise: The idea that the next great musical star can be found by determining who does the best Billy Joel/Aretha Franklin/Whitney Houston/Celine Dion cover version, is to completely miss the essence of rock n’ soul. Rock is about breaking the mold, about catching the listener off guard; it’s about the continual search for a new sound and a new paradigm. “American Idol” does not strive for the new; it merely strives for the safe and marketable. Now, this is certainly not a crime, unless you start imagining how some of the legendary figures of rock would have fared auditioning for AI. Bob Dylan, having hitchhiked in from Hibbing, Minnesota, wouldn’t have made it past the “Chicago auditions,” bounced for “poor vocal quality.” James Brown, likewise, would have been sent packing at the “Atlanta auditions,” for his “limited vocal range.” Joni Mitchell, the greatest female singer-songwriter of her era, would have been seen as lacking stage presence; and can you imagine the reception that the introspective Van Morrison would have gotten? Simon Cowell would have demoted him for lacking the “it” factor. Diana Ross’ voice would have been deemed “too thin,” and I can just hear Cowell saying to Paul Simon, “you just don’t look like an American Idol.” And Jimi Hendrix? Forget it! But okay, okay, I’ll accept AI on its own terms as the search for the most suitable person to be tossed into the Fox marketing machine, in order to make a pile of money for all concerned. That point granted, what does the mega-competition tell us about the music industry and about ourselves? First, it highlights something that we already know, that the craving for fame in this country is boundless and all-consuming. Indeed, one has to give kudos to the judges for traveling all over the continental and non-continental US in their search for talent. Of course, one thing that eased the judges’ burden during the exhausting series of tryouts, was the fortuitous discovery they made about the contestants: Not only are the good contestants great for ratings, the bad ones are excellent for the ratings as well! The most shocking thing for me about the early auditions was not how bad most of the contestants were; rather, it was how utterly self-deluded they were. The look of complete disbelief and outrage that most displayed when told how bad they were, was either priceless, or terrifying, depending on your point of view. For me it was the latter. (No, I did not watch the show that featured the worst of the worst. I don’t enjoy car crashes). But eventually, amid the ocean of mediocrity, a diverse range of talent did emerge. And an interesting ethnic stew it was! American Idol leaves no doubt that we live in a vast global village. Take a look at the twelve finalists. To observe them is to see an extraordinary ethnic cross-fertilization. How else do you explain why, if you close your eyes mid-song, you would mistake the two Hawaiian singers for sistahs from the ‘hood? Or that a 16 year white girl from Snellville, Georgia (Diana Degarmo), who likes to catch catfish as a hobby, could do a version of “Think” that would make Aretha Franklin proud. Or that Leah LaBelle (Vladowski), a Bulgarian defector, now sings in a black choir in Seattle, and attends the same school (Garfield High School) that produced Jimi Hendrix, Quincy Jones, and Bruce Lee? That’s the good news. The bad news is that this week, Labelle gave another in a series of off-key performances, should never have made the final 12 in the first place, and was the first to be booted from the finals. If Paula Abdul had not made Labelle her personal choice for the final 12, Labelle would have been sent packing a week earlier, which would have opened the door for the far more deserving Susie Valaca, a first-rate r&b singer from Fiji. Which leads us to the judges. This judging panel represents the triumph of chemistry over quality. The separate niches filled by each the three are one of the great calling cards of the show, even if the judges often fail at their primary task, which is to evaluate talent. Abdul and Simon have honed their good cop/bad cop routine to perfection, while Randy’s role as the lovable middle-aged hipster is well-polished. The problem with this panel is that only one member has an ear—Randy. Paula’s soothing bromides are so similar from one singer to the next as to be all but meaningless. When Abdul's personal pick, Leah Labelle, flopped with her version of the Supremes’ “You Keep Me Hanging On,” Abdul covered her own derriere by pronouncing it “an off night.” Actually, it was a typical night for the justly departed Labelle. In an ideal world, AI would make an offseason trade, sending Abdul to Star Search, and bringing in Naomi Judd, who is bright, warm, opinionated, and has an ear that is tack-sharp. By contrast, Simon Cowell has no musical ear whatsoever. His MO is to make a quirky, generalized reading of each contestant’s “star quality,” which may or may not correlate with whether they can sing. I was shocked to hear him suggest that Jon Peter Lewis—whose spastic karaoke-level performances have only served as comic relief—is a “dark horse” to win it all. Likewise, the fact that he thinks that John Stevens--a guy who mimics the tonal quality of Dean Martin, but can’t consistently sing on key--is original, shows that Cowell is, to put it mildly, musically challenged. This raises an interesting question. What are Jon Peter Lewis and John Stevens doing in the final 12 in the first place? Well, one of the little secrets of AI is that it has its own built-in “affirmative action” program. White male singers get a special boost on the show, because the white female teenyboppers who populate the audience, are the only ones willing to knock themselves out by making hundreds of calls on behalf of their favorite heartthrob. Without this significant edge, the two aforementioned white males would be long gone, and the far superior Susie Valaca and Lisa Leuschner would still be around. In fact, the whole voting system is terrible. Why should it come down to a battle between phone banks from, say, Georgia, and phone banks from Hawaii? No single phone number should get more than one vote. (But of course that would deprive AT&T of all those text messaging fees.) Also, AI should reverse the voting process and have viewers vote [i]against[/i] the person they believe should leave the show. The mention of contestant Lisa Leuschner brings up another flaw of the show: It engages in subtle racial stereotyping. It was clear from day one that Leuschner, who is white, earned demerits because she was overweight. Simon told her that openly. He would never, however, tell an African-American contestant to lose weight. Why? Because he would look very foolish; there is a long tradition of great, overweight, African-American divas, from Aretha, to Patti Labelle, to Jennifer Holliday, to Roberta Flack, to Mahalia Jackson, Shirley Caesar, to Patti Austin, etc. The truth is, it wasn’t Leuschner’s chops that got her booted, it was her waistline, which is a disservice to everyone involved. I can hear you saying, “Hey, if you have so many gripes with the show, why do you bother to watch it?” Well, that, after all, is the nature of a guilty pleasure; it pleases and disappoints at the same time. The show has competitiveness, it has fun, it has some intense drama, and it also features some fine performances. Allow me to handicap the final 11: The Top Tier: 1. Jasmine Trias. She’s cute, she’s humble, she’s soulful, her voice is almost pitch-perfect, and she has a powerful set of chops. She may grab the gold. 2. Diana DeGarmo. She has a great voice, one that is far more mature than her 16 years. In a competition where 50% of one’s impact depends on picking a song that both grabs the audience, and showcases one’s skills, DeGarmo has shown herself to be more than equal to the task (“Think,” “I’ve Got the Music in Me”). After hearing her sing, does anyone even remember Simon’s early complaint that she might be too “cutesy?” I don’t think so. 3. LaToya London. She has shown that she can take both a ballad and a rocker and knock them out of the park. Her confidence and poise will hold her in good stead. Heck, I even liked the tape of her wedding band! The Middle Tier 4. Camille Velasco. Camille is a fine singer, but has made some disastrous song choices (“Son of a Preacher Man”). If she has the moxie (doubtful) to do some funky, hot-buttered soul numbers, she could make a move on the pack. 5. Fantasia Barrino. Yes, Fantasia can sing, but her quirky phrasing and delivery knock her down a peg for me. And while initially, sex appeal doesn't matter, in the last weeks of the competition when you’re up against people of equal talent, it does. At that point, she will be outclassed. 6. Jennifer Hudson. Yes, Jennifer can also sing, but there is something too generically “gospel” about her sound. I thought that Simon got it right when he suggested that she was good, but was not distinctive. 7. George Huff. While I wouldn’t have put him in the final 12, this guy has grown on me a bit. That raspy voice is a bit limited, but he uses his body onstage more naturally than any of the contestants, and he believes in himself. That being said, no, he cannot win. The Bottom Tier. 8. Amy Adams. Amy, nice as she is, is lucky to still be around. The song choices have been forgettable, the voice lacks power, and when she goes into her upper register, her voice becomes reed thin. Because she’s not a white male, she will not get the benefit of ballot-stuffing. She’s probably the next to go. 9. Matthew Rogers. I like this guy. I like his vulnerability, I like his earnestness, and I thought his choice of Otis Redding’s “Hard to Handle” (a b-side single, released only after Redding’s death), was inspired. But alas, he doesn’t have the talent to win. 10. John Stevens. This guy is a one-trick pony, who someone convinced at an early age that he was Harry Connick, Jr. While I welcome a contestant who undersings rather than oversings his songs, you still have to hit the notes! Stevens’ durability in the competition can be explained by a remark I saw on a message board: “That redheaded gringo is way cute!” He will last far longer than he should. 11. Jon Peter Lewis. This guy has no more business winning the competition than his father does. I don’t blame him though for continuing the awful dancing; that’s how he got voted in. If anyone in my bottom tier wins the competition, I will swear off this show forever; or at least until next season starts up… |
| 0 Comments |
| Bush, Kerry, Arafat, and 14 Year Old Voters |
| 03.15.04 (3:20 pm) [edit] |
|
It’s not news that the run-up to the war was marked by a series of empty claims about Iraq’s military capability by the Bush administration. We heard variously about mobile germ labs, unmanned aerial attack vehicles, decontamination trucks, and biological weapons that could be deployed within 45 minutes--all of which turned out to be fictional. Moreover, Dick Cheney told us that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq, and all but predicted that Baghdad would receive us in the manner of Paris in 1945. Not! Of all the pre-war claims of the Bush administration, however, the most witless was the idea that toppling Saddam would lay the foundation for a settlement in the Middle East. I never could make any sense of this connection. Was the premise that the players on the West Bank and in Israel would be so impressed by our military might that their collective awe would cause them to make mutual concessions? The idea was preposterous on its face, but that didn’t stop the Bush Administration from making it part of its Pollyannish script. Currently, with the Israeli Fence going up, the peace process in a shambles, the “road map” largely forgotten, and Bush having retreated to his pre-election policy of benign neglect for the Middle East, the Saddam-Middle East link now seems more foolish than ever. Ironically, there is an important connection between the Middle East and Iraq; however it is precisely the reverse of what Bush had in mind: It is clear by now that the turmoil in the Middle East is the world’s single largest incubator of international terrorism, the most urgent grievance within the Arab community. The plight of the Palestinians is a metaphor, a galvanizing symbol for the Islamic community everywhere. To not address it is to recklessly leave the pot boiling on the stove, unattended. The implication of this is simple: If, rather than invading Iraq, we had used the time, effort, and financial resources (including a portion of the $160 billion we have so far spent on the war) on an earnest, unrelenting, hardnosed diplomatic effort in the Middle East, we would be well ahead of the game in the fight against international terrorism. One of the central flaws of the Bush world-view is the idea that there are a finite number of terrorists in the world, and if we simply identify and capture our "rogues' gallery" of terrorists, we can cripple Al Qaeda. To the contrary, Al Qaeda is a multi-headed dragon that feeds on a diet of rage, despair, and alienation. These elements are in such great supply that it is capable of regularly reconstituting itself. Instead, if the US had chosen to engage both Israel and the Palestinians, had held their feet to the fire, and had used every ounce of its leverage to force both sides to negotiate, we would have made far more progress against terrorism than any incursion into Iraq could accomplish. This however, would have required the unthinkable, grabbing both parties by the scruff of the neck, and forcing them to talk. Does either Bush or Kerry have the necessary resolve to do this? That is doubtful. Why am I so skeptical about progress in the Middle East? Just this past week, Kerry engaged in one of his signature gestures; he changed his mind about a critical issue. On March 8, Kerry slammed Yasser Arafat as “an outlaw to the peace process,” adding that Arafat had rightly been pushed aside in any negotiations. This position stood in stark contrast to Kerry’s discussion of Arafat in his 1997 book, “The New War,” where he spoke with approval of “Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman." Is it not the height of irrationality to say that we can negotiate with the likes of Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Slobodan Milosevic, and Kim Jong il, but that somehow Yasser Arafat, the chosen representative of the Palestinian people, is an unacceptable negotiating partner? This is not just another typical Kerry flip-flop; it reflects a problem that afflicts all Democratic presidential candidates, what I call the “Progressive Paradox.” The Progressive Paradox goes as follows: The closer a Democratic candidate gets to achieving electoral success, the harder it is to maintain the principles that got him there in the first place. The closer he gets to the finish line, the harder it is to stay on message. Take the case of Howard Dean. The moment that Dean became a front-runner--and as a result, had something to lose--he suffered a loss of nerve from the candor that had propelled him to success in the first place. When Dean spoke of the need for the U.S. to be an “evenhanded” broker in the Middle East, he was saying something that was both true, and highly unsettling to establishment politicians. When the predictable criticism arose, rather than hold his ground, Dean went into retreat mode: “I've since learned that that [evenhanded] is a very sensitive word to use in certain communities, so perhaps I could have used a different euphemism…” Imagine that! The word “evenhanded” is too sensitive a word to use! When Dean suggested that Osama Bin Laden deserved a fair trial, he was pilloried, this time for upholding the all-important principle of due process. Dean was again forced to tuck his tail between his legs, and do an about-face: "I share the outrage of all Americans….. This is exactly the kind of case that the death penalty is meant for.” Likewise, when it came to light that Dean several years ago had derided the Iowa Caucuses as undemocratic, and controlled by special interests, he was absolutely right. Again though, he was forced to go into damage control mode. Indeed virtually all of Dean’s “gaffes” were unpalatable but important truths that Dean subsequently had to run away from. Now that Dean has nothing at stake, we’re beginning to see his straight-talking persona again. That is refreshing. I hope that Kerry can learn from this, and accept the idea that one of the great challenges of a nominee is to tell the electorate—persuasively, to be sure--difficult truths that it may not want to hear. Speaking of difficult truths, there is an interesting constitutional amendment currently brewing in California. State Senator John Vasconcellos has proposed an amendment to the state constitution that would lower the voting age in California local elections to fourteen. Yes, fourteen! The proposed amendment, entitled “Training Wheels for Citizenship,” which would require two-thirds approval by the state Legislature in order to make it on this November’s ballot, would give 16 year olds a half vote, and 14 year olds a quarter vote in California elections. Before you dismiss this idea out of hand, bear with me. Even my most progressive instincts were momentarily rattled by this startling proposal. That is, until I gave some thoughtful consideration to the arguments put forth by Vasconcellos: “When we gave the vote to those who didn't own property, then to women, then to persons of all colors, we added to the richness of our democratic dialogue and our own nation's integrity and its model for the world.” Vasconcellos is right. Every expansion of voting rights has been painful and hard fought. Seventy-two years passed between the seminal women’s rights convention at Seneca Falls and the passage of the 19th Amendment, which granted the vote to women. The original requirement of property ownership as a prerequisite for voting, which existed in 10 of the 13 colonies at the time of the Constitution, wasn’t fully abolished until the “poll tax” was ruled unconstitutional in Virginia in 1966. It’s been 33 years since our national voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. Currently, both Germany and Austria allow 16 year olds to vote in local elections. I support Senator Vasconcellos’ amendment for several reasons. First, anything that promotes civic responsibility and impresses on young men and women that they have a stake in the political process is a good thing. Second, the creation of good citizenship is a self-fulfilling process. Young people respond to the expectations that we hold for them; the more that we credit them with decision-making capability, the more they will take their own decision-making seriously. (I might add that this argument applies to convicted felons as well.) As a 15 year old, I worked for presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy, and recall traveling 10 hours on the campaign bus from Washington, DC to Albany, NY so that I could canvass the cities of Albany and Troy prior to the 1968 New York primary. I would have rejoiced at having a vote both in my local primary, and in the general election that year, even if it only counted as a quarter vote. Today, when voter turn-out is consistently low, and when disaffection from the political process is the norm, I believe that the California proposal, which would promote civic involvement, deserves serious and favorable consideration. I predict that like most radical ideas, it will fail in the present day, but become the accepted law somewhere down the road. |
| 2 Comments |
| Lynching: America's Forgotten Legacy of Terrorism |
| 03.13.04 (12:06 pm) [edit] |
|
When George Bush’s advertising campaign recently ripped the scab off of the events of 9/11, it reminded us that the 2004 election will be a sustained and heated debate about the meaning of 9/11 and its aftermath. The tragedy has already generated much national soul-searching about concepts such as freedom, terrorism, and our collective security. This public dialogue, while important and necessary, has also unwittingly given rise to a new set of myths about America’s relationship with terrorism—myths that need to be addressed. Much has been made in the national media about 9/11 as America’s worst, and some have even said “first” experience of major terrorism. While it was certainly the worst act of terrorism sponsored by a foreign enemy, the events of 9/11 should not blind us to the magnitude of the terrorism we’ve experienced before in our national history. Domestic terrorism, albeit flourishing under different names, has long been a part of American culture. Unfortunately, however, this terrorism has largely gone unrecognized as such, for one simple and striking reason: In contrast to 9/11, the victims of previous domestic terrorism have overwhelmingly been poor, disenfranchised, and people of color. I will not dwell on the most obvious expressions of terrorism in our national history, namely slavery and the conquest of Native Americans--these forms of state terrorism, appalling as they were, seem too historically remote to many Americans to inform the events of 9/11. Instead, let us address two largely 20th century variations on this theme, the intertwined evils of lynching and Jim Crow. It is clear that lynching qualifies as a prototypical act of terrorism: An individual is abducted and murdered by a vigilante group, often in the middle of the night, sometimes accompanied by a church- or house-burning. The intent of the mob is to terrorize, subdue, and even depopulate a segment of the community. Statistics compiled by the Tuskegee Institute show that between 1889 and 1920 alone, more than 4000 individuals were lynched, with virtually no legal accountability. All told, these lynchings represent the most extensive collection of unsolved murders in American history, and well exceed the number of those killed in the World Trade Center. To be sure, if our measure of evil is the number of people killed in (or amount of economic impact caused by) a single act of terrorism, then the attacks of 9/11 surpass anything that we’ve seen in our history. However, there are other, perhaps more morally revealing ways to evaluate evil. Let us suppose that our measure of evil is not the number of people killed by terrorists, but rather the number of people who actually participated in the terrorist act itself, even if they were only killing one person. Or, alternatively, let us suppose that our means of assessing evil is to first look at the brutality of a terrorist act, and then ask, “did the relevant government institutions offer an appropriate response to the brutality, or were they indifferent, or even complicit in the terrorism?” By either of these measurements, the tradition of lynching, which continued well into the 1960’s and encompassed 26 states, staggers the conscience far beyond the attacks of 9/11. As the horrific photographs of laughing and celebrating lynch-mobs attest, such killings were either carried out or observed by thousands of individuals, for “offenses” that could be as frivolous and illusory as arguing with a white person, not showing proper deference to a white female, or of all things, trying to cast a vote in an election. Historian Robert L. Zangrando writes of the “festive atmosphere among the killers and onlookers. White families brought small children to watch, newspapers sometimes carried advance notices, railroad agents sold excursion tickets to announced lynching sites, and mobs cut off black victims' fingers, toes, ears, or genitalia as souvenirs.” Indeed, historians generally agree that well over 100,000 people either watched or actively participated in lynchings. Of that number, only a scant few were ever brought to trial, and even fewer convicted. Did any of these horrific acts ever give rise to a “war on terrorism?” Hardly--for much of the history of lynching, the attitude of the government was one of malignant neglect, as the victims of this terrorism went largely unprotected and unaided by the courts. Indeed, one of the central platforms of Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrat party in 1948—a party which won 39 electoral votes in the presidential election—was staunch opposition to a federal anti-lynching law. The anxiety of an individual today who feels too anxious to fly to Cancun for vacation, pales in comparison with that of a black family who merely lived in Mississippi in the 20th century, well into the 1960’s. Moreover, if we look closely at the Jim Crow south we find an interesting commonality with the Taliban--religious extremism. The history of American racial oppression is consistently commingled with Biblical rationales for that oppression. Indeed, it is telling that cross burning became a primary means of instilling terror. If we want to better understand the intolerance of radical, fundamentalist Islam, all we have to do is look back at the fundamentalist Christianity, which for many years served as the philosophical handmaiden of racial oppression. Those who criticize Islam for the terrorist acts committed in its name are missing the important point that the history of Christianity teaches us: Religions are dynamic entities that mirror the cultural contexts in which they exist; if the citizens of a community have relinquished their sense of decency, their religion will also mirror that moral vacuum. There is no better evidence of this point than the following opinion from a Virginia trial judge in 1959, which affirmed the “Virginia Racial Integrity Act,” the state’s then-extant law (lasting until 1967) which made it a crime for members of different races to marry: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” Unfortunately, terrorism is a significant part of American history. What was unique about the attack of 9/11 is that for the first time, most of the victims were among the powerful and the privileged, rather than the poor and the vulnerable. That made the victims powerful objects of empathy and identification. We as a nation responded forcefully and appropriately to protect our citizens and to secure justice. Let us learn from this experience, so that in the future we are equally quick to recognize when terrorism is visited upon a non-privileged segment of the community. And when we do recognize it, let us hope that our response is equally robust. |
| 0 Comments |
I'm a psychologist in Washington, DC, and have a progressive outlook on today's political scene.
jeffrowan111@aol.com Jeff Rowan, Ph.D.