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
| The Sunday Morning Talk Wars |
| 04.30.04 (2:58 pm) [edit] |
|
While not as important as the fight for Fallujah, or the struggle between Kerry and Bush, the battle for prestige, influence, and market share on the Sunday morning political talk shows is intense, tenacious, and ongoing. I'm referring specifically to the competition between Chris, Chris, Tim, Bob, and George. For the non-wonks out there, that would be Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday, Chris Matthews of The Chris Matthews Show, Tim Russert of Meet the Press, Bob Schieffer of Face the Nation, and George Stephanopoulos of This Week on ABC. While each of these shows is similar--in content, revolving-door guests, and issues—they are also quite different, in their pacing, style, and atmosphere. With both the May sweeps and the Kentucky Derby upon us, it’s a fitting time to handicap the Sunday shows. “Fox News Sunday.” Not long after celebrating its 7th birthday, Fox News Sunday made the decision to replace long time anchor Tony Snow. The fact that his replacement was Chris Wallace, son of “60 Minutes” crusader and do-gooder Mike Wallace, caused some teeth-gnashing among the show’s right-leaning fans, who feared that the one-hour talk and interview show would lose some of its conservative bite. Fox chairman Roger Ailes recognized, however, that not only was the show lagging in the ratings—drawing 1.6 million viewers to Meet the Press’ 4.2 million—it had also developed a certain drab predictability. Republican officials were simply too comfortable taking Snow’s chummy softballs (“Mr. Secretary, were you surprised at the shrillness of the Democratic reaction?” “Yes, Tony, I was…”) Snow was affable, smart, and conservative, but not consistently hard-hitting or news-making. Moreover, Snow’s closing thoughts, always conservative, sometimes religious in nature, had the ability to induce sleep in viewers. In Wallace, they got a seasoned journalist who had spent 15 years at ABC, and during the late 80’s, was, himself, the moderator of Meet the Press on NBC. [I remember during the height of the apartheid struggle, Wallace interviewing South African and Zulu Chief M.G. Buthelezi on Meet the Press, asking him if his close relationship with the ruling white government had hurt the fight against apartheid. Buthelezi looked at Wallace, and with a thick African accent said, “That is bullshit.” There were no five second delays in those days, and the panel of interviewers was reduced to laughter]. Wallace took over in December of 2003, and after a brief period of acclimation, now looks comfortable in his new role. He’s professional, more confrontational than Snow, and has brought some new life to the program. And the show’s loyal audience should be reassured; far from yanking the show leftward, Wallace seems quite comfortable in his new neighborhood, mindful of doing nothing to upset the true-believers in the Fox audience. Of course, Wallace claims he’s playing it “right down the middle,” and says that there was only one political question posed by Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes during Wallace’s hiring: “Can you wake up in the morning without assuming the U.S. is in the wrong?" While Wallace performs workmanlike interviews in the first half hour, the show’s major problem is with the political roundtable in its second half hour, with regulars Brit Hume, Bill Kristol, Mara Liasson (now on maternity leave and replaced by Ceci Connolly of the Washington Post), and Juan Williams. While the panel has the appearance of being ideologically balanced, the so-called liberals, Williams and Liasson, too often come off as if they were auditioning for Washington Week in Review—that is, no partisanship allowed. Brit Hume for his part has no hesitation about offering his curmudgeonly right wing views, and Bill Krystol leaves no doubt that he was once an advisor to Dan Qualye, but the liberal wing of the panel unfortunately does not uphold its end. This occurs not for lack of intellect, but rather, attitude. Perhaps it is the National Public Radio pedigree of Williams and Liasson that gives them a sort of FM-radio reserve. Whatever the reason, the roundtable suffers in terms of both stimulation and entertainment value. Overall, the show is a professional package, but rarely leaves you talking about it the next day. Grade: B “The Chris Matthews Show.” Launched by NBC a year and a half ago as a kinder, gentler version of Matthews’ “Hardball” show, The Chris Matthews show is a Sunday roundtable show with a twist: Instead of using the same four studio panelists each week, Matthews has a rotating roster of twenty or so talking heads, most of whom are entertaining, any of whom might appear in a given week. Pundits like Joe Klein, Tucker Carlson, Clarence Page, Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, and Sam Donaldson trade views with reporters like Norah O’Donnell, Gloria Borger, David Gregory, and Howard Fineman. One of the most valuable players on the Matthews team is a relative newcomer to American punditry, the insightful and somewhat sexy BBC correspondent, Katty Kay. Matthews surprisingly manages to forego his Hardball habit of interrupting every five seconds, as well as his unforgivable tendency to drown out his interlocutor’s last five words by starting his next question before they have completed their answer. By giving the panelists space for real discussion, the Matthews show allows for a fun rather than pressured atmosphere. Because the show is taped on Fridays, it tends to deal with broader themes than the breaking news of the moment. In one segment on last week’s show, for example, the panelists offered their views on the new tell-all book about JFK’s love life, "Grace and Power: The Private World of the Kennedy White House,” by Sally Bedell Smith. The free-for-all atmosphere of the show produced such nuggets as conservative commentator David Brooks calling JFK “…a lousy lover, a selfish, lousy lover,” and liberal writer Joe Klein announcing, “I'm a pro-peccadillo journalist. I actually believe that having an interesting personal life is a leading indicator of success in the presidency.” The show is fun, and the discussions have far more hits than misses. One minor off-note is the weekly recorded message from Matthews, saying “Keep those letters coming in,” as it shows some canned copy that says, “Gee Chris, what a great show!” Message to Chris: If you’re not going to read real, challenging letters from real viewers, don’t keep asking for mail. Minor quibbles aside, the show pulls in about 2 million viewers a week, more than Fox New Sunday, and succeeds as a tasty little half-hour hors d’oeuvre offered just before Meet the Press. Grade: B+ “Meet the Press.” Largely due to host Tim Russert’s force of personality and confrontational style, Meet the Press is the 800 pound gorilla of the Sunday talk shows. Averaging 4.2 million viewers a week, it is by far the most watched show of its genre. To his credit, Russert cannily transformed the original panel-driven format of original host Lawrence Spivak, into a one-on-one interview show. Even the opening notes of its theme music signal to the viewer immediately that the mood of this show is one of drama. Guests know that the stakes are elevated here, that they are usually in for a tough mano a mano struggle during the interview. Russert pioneered the “gotcha” interview technique, in which he and his staff exhaustively research his guests’ previous public statements, and post them on the screen, asking each guest to defend the statements in terms of both content and consistency. The fact that interviewees on the show may be confronted with remarks they don't even remember making, can make for highly entertaining television. Occasionally, however, Russert overdoes this technique: One had to wonder recently, about the relevance of quizzing John Kerry about remarks he made on Meet the Press 33 years ago at the age of 27. After all, the only quote that could have been culled from George W. Bush at that age would have been, “Another beer, barkeep!” At his best, though, Russert can be illuminating. Questioning Bob Woodward on last Sunday’s show, Russert got Woodward to shed further light on how a president could take the country to war without directly asking for a clear recommendation from either his secretary of state or secretary of defense: “…Tony Blair said he had doubt when people sent him letters saying that they hated him because their son died in the war in Iraq. You ask Bush this. No doubt, none, none whatsoever. And as somebody who had a lot of time to work on this, I went around and I asked people, I said, ‘You know, any kind of hand-wringing sessions? Any private moments of, you know, Gee, is this the right thing? Was this a mistake?' I found none.” While not a weekly feature on the show, the political roundtable discussions on Meet the Press have some of the best political analysts around, including David Broder of the Washington Post and Ron Brownstein of the LA Times. But the show’s real calling card is making its interviewees sweat before, during, and after they come on. And if Russert occasionally comes across as over the top, and a bit of a blowhard, it only goes to remind us of the old adage “politics aint beanbag.” Grade: A “Face the Nation.” I confess that I don’t have a serious opinion about the CBS morning show, Face the Nation, because I’ve never been particularly motivated to watch a Sunday talk show that only lasts a half hour. I have no problem with Bob Schieffer; he is a good, solid, likable, skilled interviewer. My problem is that CBS, the network of Murrow, Severeid, Chronkite, and Rather, refuses to allocate more than a half hour to discuss the pressing issues of the day on Sunday mornings. No grade. “This Week on ABC.” Anchored since 2002, by George Stephanopoulos, “This Week,” has survived personnel changes, format changes, and the brickbats of television critics to become one of the tastier offerings on the morning menu. When co-hosts Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts were sent packing in 2002 in favor of George Stephanopoulos, many critics panned the move, and predicted the imminent demise of the show. Their misgivings stemmed variously from Stephanopoulos’ lack of experience, his strong association in the public’s mind with the Clinton administration, and his presumed lack of “presence” as an anchor. The show however has succeeded in making liars of these critics, due to some creative format changes and to Stephanopoulos’ emergence as a credible host. Originally thought by many to be too passive and deferential, he now comes across as confident, probing, and always well-prepared. Last week, his interview with Special UN Envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, gave the audience a much needed, in-depth look at the man who may be pivotal to any transfer of power back to the Iraqis. When the show did away with its trademark roundtable segment, the move was universally panned as a major mistake. However, the producers have since seen the light and have put together a new and improved version of the roundtable, one that features Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria and George Will as dueling pundits, along with powerful government figures, like ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph Biden and Richard Lugar. This “power roundtable” can produce fireworks, as it did last week when Will called for overwhelming lethal force to subdue Fallujah, to which Zakaria responded, “That’s insane. Every textbook of guerrilla warfare tells you that what the guerilla is trying to do is get you to use massive retaliation…because what the insurgency needs is public support.” Zakaria and Will have been setting off sparks ever since they got into an argument several years ago over a quote that Will attributed to DeGaulle, while Zakaria insisted the Disraeli had said it. “This Week” is also the first show to formally recognize an important social trend: the line between politics and pop culture has become extrememly blurred, as nowadays many in the youth culture get their news not from the morning newspaper, but from Jay Leno and Jon Stewart, . The segments “The List” and “The Funnies” target the way that politics is reflected in pop culture and in humor each week. Perhaps the most quietly moving part of “This Week” is its concluding segment, “In Memoriam,” which focuses on significant deaths during the previous week--both on the battlefield and in the broader world. Last Sunday. the profile of late journalist Mary McGrory was brief, but touching. Equally compelling each week, are the names of the fallen from the Iraq war; seeing names like “Torrey L. Gray, 19, Patoka, Illinois,” or “Marcus M. Cherry, 18, Imperial, California,” is often more moving and sobering than actual battlefield footage. “In Memoriam” is a timely and poignant segment. “This Week” may never gain the cachet or generate the audience of Meet the Press, but in my view it is a clear artistic and journalistic success. Grade: A In sum, the Sunday morning talk shows offer a little something for every taste. While they are not all equally appetizing, each, in its own way, is nourishing. |
| 2 Comments |
| American Idol, Part Trois: The Controversy! |
| 04.24.04 (8:27 am) [edit] |
|
When I first wrote about American Idol on March 19 of this year, I said that it was the “guiltiest of my guilty pleasures,” and justified its inclusion among more serious topics with the comment that AI “while not political on its face, still has much to say about who we are as a culture…” Little did I know how meaningful that comment would become a month later, as a major brouhaha has broken out over the program’s voting results. To review the facts for the uninitiated, this week, one of the presumed favorites (among the seven remaining contestants) to win the AI competition, Jennifer Hudson, received the lowest number of votes, and was voted off the show by the viewing public. In addition, the three consensus favorites—Hudson, LaToya London, and Fantasia Barrino--all African-American women who had earned consistent praise from the judges, ranked in the bottom three of the audience voting. This has raised many questions about AI’s voting system and its integrity, not to mention the motives of the voting public and their integrity. To bring some order to the resulting Babel of allegations and conspiracy theories, I feel compelled to do something I never thought I’d do—offer yet a third discussion about AI. First of all, let’s clarify exactly what led to all the uproar. It took a “perfect storm” of circumstances to produce this week’s controversy: If Jennifer had been sent packing while Fantasia and LaToya had fared well in the voting, there would have been sadness about Jennifer’s departure, but no uproar; if the most likely candidate for termination, John Stevens, had also been in the bottom three, the public would have also seen some rationality to the voting. However, when the three most consistent performers on the show, all African-American, are given the back of the hand by the voters, while a not-ready-for-prime-time 16 year old white male skates through, it raises serious questions about the integrity of the voting process. While FOX executives may be feeling a little tight in the shorts right now (they’ve been saying “no comment” all week), they should actually be counting their blessings; the situation could have turned out even worse. Of the three “dissed Divas” Jennifer was widely viewed as the lesser of the three; as such, her departure was shocking and unjust, but bearable. If, however, either Fantasia or LaToya had been given the boot, the outcry would have been significantly greater, and AI might have had a full-scale revolt on its hands. Nor did the FOX network do itself any favors by the overly cute way it handled the results show: Host Ryan Seacrest divided the seven remaining contestants into two groups of three, and then asked the seventh individual (George Huff) to go and join the “top” vote-getting group, without identifying which group that was. Huff paused for a second, and sensibly walked over to where the three women were standing, since they were universally viewed as the superior singers. This allowed Seacrest to play a game of “gotcha,” and dramatically tell Huff that he had joined the wrong group. That produced a shock wave through the audience, and the reverberations are still being felt. Numerous explanations have been offered to explain the results: 1) The tornadoes which knocked out power in areas of Chicago, Jennifer’s home town, and prevented some 15,000 people from voting; 2) The preference of teenage girls, AI’s biggest voting bloc, for teenage males over all other contestants; 3) The unhealthy influence of allowing unlimited votes from the same phone, compounded by the use of automated “power” dialers, which can dial a number hundreds, or even thousands of times; 4) An undercurrent of displeasure among white voters at the prospect of three black women being the finalists on American’s signature talent show. Let’s explore these theories: 1) If the difference in votes between the two lowest vote-getters, Jennifer and Fantasia, was as narrow as Ryan Seacrest indicated, then the tornadoes in the Midwest certainly could have hurt Jennifer. However, this theory does nothing to explain why all three women ranked at the bottom. And as I indicated earlier, if Jennifer had garnered more votes and Fantasia had been the loser, the hue and cry would have been stronger, not weaker. 2) I’ve been stating all season that teenage girls exercise a disproportionate influence on the voting, which creates a virtual “affirmative action” program for young white male contestants on the show. What other voting demographic has the time and the fanaticism to stay on the telephone for two hours, casting multiple votes for their heartthrob? From what I’ve seen over the last month, my belief in this theory has only been strengthened. John Stevens has demonstrated week after week that there is no performance that he can give which is bad enough to significantly reduce his vote totals. 3) Automated dialers have affected the voting results. These machines exist, can make hundreds of speedy calls with no human effort, are capable of making a mockery of the voting process, and were even acknowledged by Paula Abdul in a feature on Entertainment Tonight several days ago. But unfortunately, her solution to this problem was laughable: She exhorted everyone to go out and make more phone calls to offset the influence of these machines. What kind of solution is that!? The obvious remedy to the problem is to adopt a “one phone, one vote” policy. However, there is a simple reason that this policy is not in effect: money. AI, in case anyone hasn’t noticed, is all about crass commercialism. As such, it’s important for AI to generate as many text-messaging fees as it can for its advertiser AT&T Wireless. I suspect that AI also feels that that unlimited voting encourages audience participation and emotional investment in the show, which drives up viewership. Those who set the rules for the show, however, may have created a situation that could now blow up their faces. Feelings of cynicism about the integrity of the voting may not only cause people to stop voting, it may also cause them to stop watching. Despite Ryan Seacrest’s weekly boast that 30 million people are watching, the number is now closer to 23 million, and has been declining for the last three weeks. 4) I am convinced that racism also made a significant contribution to the results. My evidence? It is quite revealing to surf through the various AI message boards online. The anonymity that these boards offer—any username is permitted—allows people to offer their views with disturbing bluntness. When I explored the message board on Entertainment Weekly Online (ew.com), I repeatedly saw Fantasia referred to as “too ghetto” to be the winner. There were references to her friends in the studio audience as “hood rats.” Here is a comment that I lifted from “Ann Marie W”: “Too funny that Fantasia was in the worst group. She is obnoxious! Love to see that skank go. Go back to a crack house where you belong.” Another racially loaded theme on the message boards is the notion that the black singers “scream” rather than sing. Here is “Lina”: “I love John Stevens and Jasmine, not the 3 screaming divas.” Also, threaded through the message boards is the view that the three African American women have too much “attitude,” are too full of themselves, and don’t have the humility to wear the honor of this year’s “American Idol.” Many of the posts drip with resentment. Check out this message from “Kate”: “I was hoping that either La Toya or Fantasia would get the boot. If there is one thing I can't stand, it's an arrogant idol, and Miss London and Miss Barrino seem to get more arrogant every week.” That’s strong stuff! Does anyone seriously think that Madonna, Sting, or for that matter Streisand and Sinatra weren’t “arrogant” and full of themselves? That’s part of what made them pop icons! I might add that Entertainment Weekly makes a strenuous attempt to purge the most strident posts from its message board, so many of the angriest posts magically disappear overnight. Finally, let me address an argument I hear all too often: “If everyone is so racist, how did a black man win the competition last year?” Let me be clear about this: Racism is not a monolithic attitude that leads to identical treatement (or mistreatment) of everyone in a minority group. It has long been characteristic of racism that some individuals get favorable consideration and are judged to be “acceptable” members of their race, while others invoke resentment. Reuben Studdard, the "Velvet Teddy Bear," was sufficiently shy, humble, and non-threatening that he was embraced last year as an “acceptable” black contestant. Likewise, this year, George Huff’s genial manner has granted him the same status. But if an African American steps too far out of that role, shows too much edginess, toughness or moxie, then he or she had better put on a hard hat! If anyone has any doubt about this, ask Muhammed Ali, who was regarded as “uppity” for the first 15 years of his career, before the American public finally woke up, and began to see him as the rest of the world already did—as a national treasure. Whenever I see a post on a message board complaining that one of the three divas is “too full of herself,” I think, “thank goodness—that’s how she got where she is!” As for my view of how the voting should have gone during Barry Manilow week, first let me offer my “philosophy” of voting: Each singer should be judged on his or her most recent performance combined with the running average of all his or her performances. That said, the worst performer of the week was George Huff; the next worst was John Stevens; the third worst was Diana DeGarmo. By far the worst running average of the three was that of John Stevens. He should, at this point, be long gone. Having mentioned Diana DeGarmo, allow me to do a little housekeeping here. As much feedback as this blog gets about George Bush, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and John Kerry, there is one question that has by far dominated the interest of readers: “What is Idol contestant Diana DeGarmo’s ethnicity, what is her heritage?” There is a fascination with this topic. I’ve gotten the question so many times, phrased in so many ways, that I've come to expect it. The truth is, I have no definitive answer. But for those who have emailed me, here is the sum total of what I know about Diana DeGarmo: 1. She is 16 and attends Shiloh High School in Snellville, Georgia. 2. Her school uses the auditorium for mass viewings of AI, followed by frantic voting on her behalf. 3. She has a half-brother named David Evans, who is 28, and an Army captain at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. 4. She was the winner of Miss Teen Georgia America, 2002 5. Last year she reached the finals of NBC’s “America’s Most Talented Kid.” 6. Her family is mum on the subject of Diana’s father. Mother Brenda will only cryptically say, “He’s just not in the picture at all. Everyone makes their choices.” 7. Many in the DeGarmo camp were not particularly pleased with the video package on AI that showed Diana as a child performer. They feared that at best it made her look like a ringer, and at worst a variation of Jon Benet Ramsey. Personally, I like Diana a lot, and find her to be smart and poised beyond her years. Nonetheless she has some maturing to do before she can run with the 3--oops, I mean 2--"divas." |
| 0 Comments |
| The DaVinci Code and the Catholic Church |
| 04.21.04 (12:35 pm) [edit] |
|
I recently did something simple, though for me, quite unusual, something that Ive rarely done since graduate school: I read a novel. To many of you, that doesnt sound like much, but for me this was a great departure from the norm. With some wariness, I pulled myself away from the humdrum world of journal articles, newspapers, and magazines to find out what all the fuss was about with the Dan Brown novel, "The DaVinci Code." Once engrossed in the book, I was struck by the book's cleverness, its suspenseful story line, and by the historical research that went into it. But more than anything, I was struck by the "subversive" premise of the book, that the Catholic Church had doctored the story of Jesus, and had hidden the fact that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were in fact lovers who had had a child. "The DaVinci Code" takes the view that Mary Magdalenelong seen as a prostitute--was actually a well-to-do woman of conscience and character. It suggests that the church had rewritten history with the motive of diminishing the role of women, and solidifying a male-dominated, authoritarian governing structure within the church. The two protagonists of the book engage in a perilous search to locate the Holy Grail, the missing historical information that would take the church to more enlightened, and less authoritarian spirituality. Because of the amazing success of the bookover 50 weeks atop the NY Times bestseller lista cottage industry has developed around its historical accuracy. Scholars and self-appointed experts have come out of the woodwork to either defend or debunk the historical facts presented in the book. The historical accuracy of the work I will leave to the experts; I am not knowledgeable enough, motivated enough, or for that matter religious enough to wander into that thicket. However, I will, without hesitation, address one of the less debatable issues raised by Dan Brownby design, the Catholic Church is a hierarchical and authoritarian institution. I recently wrote a blog about abuses in the American legal system, an essay that drew upon Lord Actons famous dictum, Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any organization that lacks any transparent, democratic review of its decision-making process--whether the organization is Enron, a closed prison system (the detention center at Guantanamo Bay is a case in point), or a church with a highly top-down governing structureleaves itself at great risk of poor judgment, malfeasance, and outright corruption. The Catholic Church, with its hierarchical structure, is the perfect test case of Lord Actons warning. No, Im not going to address the sexual abuse scandal within the Catholic Church. That situationcorruption that spans decades, and covers several continentsis so outrageous and is so amply documented, that there is little for me to add. However, I will address two different cases of corruption that have gotten relatively little attention in the US, but speak volumes about what can happen when unlimited power is given to individuals: Baltimore, Ireland Throughout the 20th century, the Catholic Church in Ireland, funded by the Irish government, ran a network of schools for the most vulnerable children in the countrykids who were impoverished, were orphans, were from broken homes, had been born out of wedlock, or had committed crimes. Ostensibly set up to educate and care for this neglected and at-risk population, these institutions instead became cesspools of filth, malnutrition, brutality, and exploitation. The story of this incredible breach of trust first emerged five years ago in Ireland, and has given rise to a full-blown inquiry into the medieval conditions that the children endured. In the view of most observers, the worst of these institutions was Baltimore Industrial School in Baltimore, Ireland. John Griffin, now 71 years old, details his experience there in a recent article in the Washington Post. It was bad enough, says Griffin that lice, rats, beatings were a daily experience for the students; his most salient memory however, was his unrelenting hunger: We were starving all the time and we were begging for food. Anything to keep alive..We were like a pack of wild animals. If you found a bone, you didnt bury it; you took it back to your bed and kept it. Created as a trade school, under the pretext of nurturing and enriching the lives of Irelands most troubled youth, Baltimore Industrial School became instead a model of brutality and neglect. Pupils were whipped with a leather strap or a cane for the smallest infractions. Says survivor Griffin, "They could inflict pain anytime, day or night, but they'd often wait until we were in bed at night. I was fortunate. My mattress had a hole in the middle and I would dive inside and hide. I called it my little submarine." Another survivor, Tony Treacy, states, "The state and the church conspired to totally neglect us. They neglected to educate us, they even neglected to feed us." The students were also subjected to rape. "Three or four did the raping," said Griffin. The lay staff, not the priests." States Mary Rafftery, the journalist who was instrumental in breaking the story, Baltimore was not the worst in terms of abuse. But it was unusual in terms of the filth. The squalor of Baltimore was in a league of its own." The aftermath of the horrible revelations has a dismaying familiarity about it. While 1,700 survivors in Ireland have filed legal claims for compensation for their years of suffering, the judge in charge of the investigation resigned last fall, outraged that the Catholic Church had not been cooperating with the investigation. Then it was revealed that the Catholic Church had cut a deal with the government, limiting its liability to $140 million. Journalist Rafftery sums up the position taken by the church: "The church was seen to be putting an enormous effort to get themselves off the hook. No financial responsibility, no moral responsibility." The commission which oversaw compensation for the victims ultimately awarded $135,000 per individual. The survivors anguish today is rendered poignantly by Christy Sutton, now 77 years old: I should have gotten three times as much for what we went through. Every day I was beaten and crippled." Magdalene Asylums The equivalent institutions for women in Ireland were the Magdalene Asylums, run by Sisters of Mercy. Named of course after the same Mary Magdalene about whom Dan Brown writes in the DaVinci Code, these institutions were set up to cleanse bad girls of their sins. For over a century in Ireland in Ireland, girls of questionable virtue were sent to these institutions to do penance, often laundry work. The first horrifying thing about these asylums was the definition of questionable virtue: Incorporated within that term were orphans, girls who were rebellious, sexually precocious teenagers, and even girls who had been raped and had thereby brought shame upon their families. The second horror was the way they were run. The asylums, "officially" voluntary, became literal prisons. Once in the asylum, the girls were held as slaves, beaten, overworked, and abused both physically and sexually. If a girl died, she was often buried anonymously with no notification of the family. In common with the schools for boys was the pervasive contempt in which these individuals were held. The last Magdalene Asylum was closed as recently as 1996, when the full story of these shameful institutions was publicized. At least as disturbing as the existence of these institutions has been the refusal of the Catholic Church to accept meaningful responsibility. When the movie about the Magdalene Asylums, The Magdalene Sisters first showed at the Venice Film Festival, where it took first prize, it was harshly criticized in a review in the Vaticans semi-official newspaper, LOsservatore Romano. Also disturbing, is the fact that these institutions existed for so long in such wretched fashion, the corruption had to be known to the upper levels of the religious hierarchy. How could such practices be ignored? It is highly implausible that they were not well-known to those within the church hierarchy. Commentator Steven D. Greydanus has an interesting take on the scandals: [i]The Sisters of Mercy who ran the Magdalene institutions were probably pretty much like anybody else, with some bad apples, some good ones, and most somewhere in the middle. This, indeed, is part of the horror: How could people who might perhaps turn out to be fairly human if you got to know them participate in something of this enormity? [/i]His comment harkens back to the telling phrase that philosopher Hannah Arendt used to describe the Holocaust, the banality of evil. These werent evil people; rather they were everyday people who worked in an evil system that allowed for no accountability. As such it fostered brutality and corruption. Indeed when such exploitation occurs, we all become complicitnot just the front line evildoers--for not asking more questions, demanding more accountability, and not protesting loudly enough. Given the magnitude of the scandals in the Catholic Church, the church should not simply be taking full responsibility, it should not simply be offering profuse apologies; it should not simply be compensating the victims; rather, it should be talking about wholesale institutional reform. These scandals make the corporate scandals in the U.S. look utterly trivial by comparison. Whatever that "Holy Grail" was in "The DaVinci Code," the Catholic Church needs a healthy dose of it. |
| 1 Comments |
| Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" |
| 04.17.04 (11:46 am) [edit] |
|
Plan of Attack, Bob Woodwards 468 page book, which will be officially released on Monday, deals with the decision-making process, the infighting, and the preoccupation in the Bush White House with the potential invasion of Iraq. By the accounts in both USA Today and The Washington Post (Woodwards home newspaper) the book eerily confirms the allegations of both former Treasury Secretary Paul ONeill and counterterrorism expert Richard A. Clarke: The invasion of Iraq was an obsession of the administration from the time it came into office. With respect to politics, Woodwards book shows us the tactical lunacy of this administration: Despite the attempt to destroy the reputation and credibility of Richard Clarke for the past month, it turns out that within the past year, Bush twice sat down with author Bob Woodward for three and-a-half hours of interviews, and gave information that largely confirms the allegations of Clarke. My intention today is not to critique to the administrations policy decisions; a quick perusal of my earlier blog entries will offer more than enough of that. My focus instead is psychological: Why would George W. Bush give information to a reporter that is almost certain to tarnish his administration and erode support for the war in Iraq? Actually, the answer is quite simple and revealing. When Bush granted Woodward the interview, he was still possessed of the nave view that the war would be a breezy success, and that Bush would be viewed as a strong and decisive leader. This book was to be Bushs victory lap, a carefully etched picture of how a great leader makes decisions, and changes the course of history. In other words, Bush is the victim of his own overweening narcissism, his need to puff his chest out at what, at the time, he thought would be certain success in Iraq. This is the Bush of mission accomplished, the Bush without sufficient vision to wonder about all the logistical, financial, cultural, religious, and political pitfalls that lay ahead. Even as a stand-alone book, it appears to make him look like a fool. Offered as a trilogy with the information from ONeill and Clarke, the effect is devastating. If one of Bushs underlings had by name supplied the same information to Woodward, it is likely that that individual would now be looking for work. If there is a tragic figure in the book, is it Secretary of State Colin Powell. To his credit, Powell strongly opposed the pell-mell rush into Iraq, and as a result was effectively cut out of the decision-making loop. Woodward reports that he and Cheney are now barely on speaking terms. We will have to await Powells own memoirs to find out how he got suckered into giving a UN address that was chock full of disinformation. In a blog that I wrote on February 6 (The Bush War and Impeachment: What Would Linda Tripp Say?) I offered my own view of the psychodynamics that motivated Powells presentation to the UN. I offer it again: [i]Powell seems to have fallen prey to the kind of dynamic one sees in street gangs: He had a rep of being not as tough, as macho, as some of his peers. As happens in a gang, the individual whose machismo is in question is asked to go out and prove himself, commit an act so brazen that no one in the group could doubt his bona fides. Secretary Powell, to the lasting detriment of his legacy, complied.[/i] It may turn out that Woodwards book is less damaging to the publics perception of Bushs policies, than it is to the perception of his character. Anyone who watched the Presidents press conference on Tuesday had to be struck by the number of questions that related to Bushs characterwhat mistakes have you made, will you apologize? I dont believe that Bushs reticence on those topics during the press conference represented a refusal to answer, as much as it did an inability to answer. Simply put, this may be the most unreflective president in American history. Indeed all the questions currently being raised by the 9/11 Commission are questions that Bush should have already asked of his top lieutenants: Why didnt this intel filter up sooner? Why werent A and B sharing information In these 70 investigations, what has the FBI turned up exactly? None of that seems to have happened. Likewise I was hoping that someone would ask the President during the press conference, Sir, who leaked the information that exposed Ambassador Joe Wilsons wife as a CIA agent? Once again, I suspect we would have heard something on the order of, I dunno, havent looked into itthats in the hands of the grand jury. The presidents lack of curiosity about the world around him is stunning. By all accounts, he skated through school with a gentlemans C (or perhaps, given grade inflation, a gentlemans B). The evidence suggests that his presidency is no different. John Kerry, by comparison, had a pretty good week, thanks to some pretty interesting political theater. At a town hall meeting at the City College of New York, accompanied by Congressman Charles Rangel, and Senator Hillary Clinton, Kerry was confronted by an angry, finger-pointing, retired math professor named Walter Daum, a self-described socialist, who accused Kerry of offering policies that were no different than those of George Bush. Bellowed Daum, By the end of your presidency, people will hate you for the same decision [as that of Bush]." The professors angry outburst had Secret Service agents edging closer with some concern. Kerry, to his credit, calmly rebutted the charges, citing his longstanding desire to internationalize the occupation of Iraq, and to give the UN real administrative authority in the country. While some, including a CBS report that I watched, saw this heated exchange as a problem for Kerry, I believe just the opposite: The debate reminded me of Bill Clintons adroit use of Sistah Souljah in the 1992 campaign, in which he took the community activist to task for extremist statements, and thereby bolstered his image as a centrist, and new Democrat. In fact, if I didnt know better, Id think that Kerry had planted the professor in the audience himself! So far, Kerry has paced himself well in the campaign, maintaining a busy but moderately low profile. Why make too much noise, when your opponent is busy falling on his own hand grenades? [By the way, anyone who hasn't seen it, should take a look at the [url=http://www.trumpfiresbush.com...]"Trump Fires Bush" video[/url] , which is listed in my "links" section. It's a hoot!] |
| 0 Comments |
| Myths About the Iraq Occupation |
| 04.14.04 (7:41 am) [edit] |
|
Just as the Viet Nam war gave rise to a set of assumptions that were eagerly embraced by four successive administrations, about the resolve of our adversary, the amount of resources needed to win the war, and the very value of the conflict itselfassumptions that now shock us in their naivetso the current conflict in Iraq has given rise to a certain conventional wisdom and mythology. It is important to look closely at some of our unchecked assumptions so that we dont make the same mistakes we made forty years ago. Accordingly, lets look at some of the myths that have attached themselves to the Iraq war, and to the overall war on terrorism: 1. Iraq will be a model of democracy in the Middle East. This wishful idea is tenaciously held by the Bush administration, and now serves as the raison detre of the occupation. Unfortunately, democracy is not some kind of plug-and-play software that can be easily added onto a countrys current system of government--least of all one that has no democratic history. Rather, it is a fragile form of government that is achieved and maintained with great difficulty and care. We know that from our own history: At the time of the ratification of the American Constitution, fewer than 10% of all adults were eligible to vote. Of that number, only a scant few actually voted. It took 140 years to extend suffrage to women, and almost 200 years to guarantee voting rights for all African Americans. Even today, if each of the articles in the Bill of Rights were subjected to popular referendum, the document would not survive intact. The realization of democracy in our own country was slow, fitful, and incremental. What does this mean for Iraq? Given that there are factions in the U.S. that still want to conjoin church and state, how successful can we expect Iraq to be in transcending its theocratic and authoritarian roots any time soon? The idea that Sunnis, Shia and Kurds will overcome their longstanding differences within even a generations time is unrealistic. It is perhaps instructive to look at the parallels between the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein: Both managed to tamp down the fundamentalist impulses of their populations through iron-fisted, quasi-secular rule. Once the dictators were deposed, however, the religious fundamentalism of the people emerged full force, creating the specter of a different but equally virulent form of tyranny. The long-term democratization of Iraq is a fine goal. But as the defining mission of the current occupation it is a pipe dream, a messianic notion that ranks along with the illusion that the deposing of Saddam will lead to a solution in the Middle East, or that Iraq oil would make the occupation cost-free. 2. Those who question our role in Iraq, demoralize our fighting men, and give aid and comfort to terrorists. This notion is wrong and troubling for two reasons. First, nobody knows more about the absence of WMD, the absence of any clear strategy of pacification of Iraq, confusion about our overall goals, and the lack of an exit strategy than our fighting men and women in Iraq. I can only imagine the frustration of a division that has just been told that they will be required to extend their tour of duty. Now thats demoralizing! The notion that something Ted Kennedyor any other war criticsays, is news to the troops is poppycock. Nor does such political dissent show a lack of support for the troops. When Ted Kennedy was on Meet the Press on March 21, he not only knew exactly how many soldiers from Massachusetts had been killed to date (17), he knew the circumstances of each of their deaths. This was a man who cared deeply about the troops. For Kennedy to stand up and question not only the premises for the war, but also the conduct of the war is honorable, not unpatriotic. Second, the view that wartime dissent is unpatriotic is further troubling because it suggests that we have not learned the lessons of the past. The equation of dissent with a lack of patriotism brings back the odor of the Viet Nam War itself; these are the same things that were said about John Kerry forty years ago. It is a clear reminder that the two wars are a lot more similar than they are different. 3. The French and the Germans are appeasers who sold us out. All the French-bashing in the U.S. notwithstanding, it has to be said: The French were right. On February 7, 2003, French Ambassador to the U.S. Jean-David Levitte gave an address to the U.S. Institute of Peace, and spelled out the French position on the looming war. He pointed out that the French were not weak-kneed when it came to the use of troops; they had sent 10,000 troops to Gulf War 1, they had been full players in the Bosnian conflict, at the time of his speech had 3000 troops in the Ivory Coast, and 12,000 troops serving with Americans in Afghanistan. This doesnt sound like the villainous country plotting to undercut U.S. interests, does it? Levitte began his speech by discussing Al Qaeda , which he recognized as a transnational threat, not one linked to Iraq: A few months ago, we had a huge tanker, the Limburg, attacked by al Qaeda off Yemen. And in December, we arrested a dozen of Algerians, or French from Algerian origin, who were closely linked to al Qaeda and were planning attacks in Paris. And you know that elsewhere in Europe, it was the same. Terrorist groups have been arrested in the U.K., in Spain, in Italy, elsewhere. So for us, the main threat is clearly al Qaeda. . for us it's obvious, the main threat is al Qaeda. It is al Qaeda simply because we are under threat today. Levitte went on to discuss WMD, the inspections have been quite successful and have destroyed more armaments between 1991 and 1998 than the Gulf War itself. So I don't say that Iraq is disarmed, but has been weakened by the war and the inspections because in a way, Saddam is in his box, and the box now is closed with the inspectors doing their job in the box. Finally, the ambassador expressed his concerns about the consequences of war: Iraq is a very complex country -- we all know that -- with the Kurds, the Shi'a, the Sunni; with a number of tribes, a tradition of violence. And so to bring democracy to Iraq is a great ambition, and we support it, but it will not be an easy task. The second consequence, possible consequence, of the war is in the region itself. The peace process in the Middle East is in a stalemate, and we don't see much action from all of us to give a boost to the peace process. And in that context, a war in Iraq could trigger more frustration, bitterness, in the Arab world and beyond, in the Muslim world. And third, as a consequence of these two elements, we fear in Europe that a war could trigger more terrorism, more recruitment for al Qaeda. You may say, Well, they already recruit. Yes, but if there is anger, bitterness, then you can expect more recruitment and -- by far. If you compare his realism and vision with that of Bush administration, it leaves no doubt as to who was the wiser of the two. 4. The 9/11 Commission is political and pointless, since we couldnt have prevented the disaster anyway. This view does a disservice to the victims of 9/11 because it misstates their basic criticism of our pre-9/11 readiness. The victims families are not saying, If you had done xyz, my loved one would still be alive. Rather, they are saying that a certain minimal standard of security is expected of a great nation, whether it would have helped in that particular case or not. They are not saying that 9/11 could have been prevented; they are saying that the attention to national security was so lax that well never know whether it could have been prevented. They are further galled by their suspicion that much of the reason for the laxity can be traced directly to George W. Bushs leadership: The reason the administration didnt sound any alarms was because they didnt want to do anything that would spook the faltering economy or drive their poll numbers down.. Prior to 9/11, this was the dont worry, be happy administration, whose first impulse was always political. To have called for a tightening of airport security or a securing of airplane cockpits, or for greater public awareness of the threat levels would have affected tourism, scared the bejesus out of the airline industry, and driven down the stock markets. What were the chances of the Bush administration creating such outcomes? Zero. 5. The Iraq War is nothing like the Viet Nam War. Actually, the number of parallels increases daily: 1) The false pretexts for escalating the wars (WMD and the Gulf of Tonkin). 2) The grandiose view that both countries were essential to regional stability: in Viet Nam there was a negative domino theory," whereas in Bushs Pollyannaish world, the dominos will all fall positively once Iraq is pacified. 3) The failure to gauge the hostility, the resolve, and the nationalism of the indigenous people. 4) The shifting rationales for why we are there. 5) The overly optimistic reports in the face of failed policies. 6) The erosion of domestic support. 7) The view that regardless of the evidence, we must plug on for the sake of American machismo and honor. 7) The absence of any collective and shared sacrifice by the country at large. Bush said in his speech last night, People know that when I say something, I mean it. Yes, that is part of the problem. Once the President gets a fixed idea, no evidence to contrary can budge him from that position, whether it relates to tax cuts or Iraq. Perhaps there is one silver lining in the cloud of the Iraq conflict: As the administration now eats crow and goes looking for international partners for the occupation, lets hope that this is the last time we hear the Neocons deride the United Nations as obsolete and irrelevant. Maybe well even grant the UN the respect of paying our dues. |
| 0 Comments |
| "Spin": The Selling of the Bush Administration |
| 04.09.04 (11:18 am) [edit] |
|
On July 15, 2003, then chief weapons inspector David Kay gave an extensive interview to NBC anchor Tom Brokaw. Said Brokaw, But theres no doubt in your mind, I gather, that in fact there was a [WMD] program and it was substantial. Responded Kay, Ive already seen enough to convince me, but thats not the standard. Ive got to have enough evidence to convince everyone of that. And thats why were going through this process. Brokaw went on, Whats the strongest case that youll be able to makeis it the biological, chemical, or nuclear? Kay answered, I think we will have a very strong case on all of those. I think well have a strong case on missiles as well that you didnt mention. The biological one is one of our highest prioritiesand probably will be the case that we may well have the earliest At that time, Kay was one of the head cheerleaders for the notion that Saddam possessed WMD. Even later, when he had not found what he was looking for, Kay reassured the public that 1200 personnel were working on the search, reminding us that Iraq was the size of California. However, by January 29, 2004, a week after resigning from the Iraq Survey Group of weapons inspectors, Kay had apparently had an epiphany. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "It turns out we were all wrong, and that is most disturbing," saying that it was highly unlikely that such weapons would ever be found. The Bush Administration must have felt like it had been kicked in the solar plexus. By contrast, Kays replacement, Charles Duelfer, a month before replacing Kay as chief weapons inspector had already stated in a PBS interview, The prospect of finding chemical weapons, biological weapons, is close to nil at this point." Continued Duelfer, There has been every incentive in the world for the Iraqi people and the Iraqi scientists to come forward and say this is where the weapons are. That hasn't happened Duelfer, once he replaced Kay, was asked about his previous comments, and dismissed them as the "prognostications of an outsider." Duelfers reversal did not stop there: I have now been given the responsibility of being in charge of the investigation and I don't know what the outcome will be. I don't want to prejudge that. Reading these reversals from two successive weapons inspectors is enough to give one vertigo. I offer them, not to shed new light on the issue of WMD; that is largely a settled matter. Rather, I offer them to underscore a fundamental principle of life within the Bush administration: When you are part of the Bush team, your core mission is to sell the administrations products. If you fail to carry out this task of salesmanship, you will not advance in the administration, and may find yourself looking for another job. Both Kay and Duelfer knew this fact instinctively: They told truths while outside the administration that they were loathe to tell while inside it. In this administration, the highest goal isnt truth, its the sale. Nothing exemplifies this more than the recent statements of Bush advisor Karen Hughes, who is now involved in a project of dual salesmanshipthat of her new book, Ten Minutes From Normal, and the agenda of the Bush administration. Last Sunday, April 4, on Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked Hughes why the President had been so strongly opposed to the creation of the 9/11 Commission in the first place. Replied Hughes, There were concerns about what impact it might have on our ongoing foremost priority, which again, is to protect the American people from attack. Huh? You mean that a commission charged with the task of examining the nations preparedness prior to 9/11 is somehow a risk to national security? This rationale for opposing the commission is so flimsy as to be embarrassing. Russert went on to ask why the President and vice-president were insisting on testifying before the the Commission together. Responded Hughes, I'm not sure what the rationale specifically was, but I think the White House believes that it is an effective use of their time. Who does Hughes think shes kidding? After Bushs failed effort on Meet the Press several months ago, the White House realized that there was safety in numbers, and recruited Dick Cheney for some timely hand holding. I know it, you know it, and the administration knows it. The administration's MO seems to be that if you cant spin well, then just spin shamelessly. Take the case of former counterterrorism expert Richard A. Clarke. In an ironic bit of political jujitsu, Bush apologists have accused him of perjuring himself, because he once told a congressional committee positive things about George W. Bush. Back in 2002, Clarke made George W. Bush sound like a counterterrorist dynamo, What we ended up with was a strategy to eliminate al Qaeda. So the president recognized very early on that you don't want to roll back al Qaeda over this long period of time, you want to eliminate al Qaeda on a much more accelerated timetable. When asked about this apparent praise for the presidents agenda on terrorism two years ago, Clarke was unusually candid: I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done," he said. "As a special assistant to the president, one is frequently asked to do that kind of thing. I've done it for several presidents." Yes, we get the message loud and clear; you were told to go out and spin. Its enough to make even the most cynical among us cringe. While this does not undercut Clarkes current allegations, which are free of administration influence, and well supported, it does cast a cloud over all pronouncements that come from current White House officials; these individuals are clearly salesmen first and public servants second. I would be remiss if I didnt say a few words about the administration spokesperson who has been most tarnished by his role as salesman Colin Powell. Powell, when currently asked whether he would like to serve a second term as Secretary of State, will only give the cryptic answer, I serve at the pleasure of the President. That suggests to me that Powell is less than pleased with his current role. Indeed, a man as smart and proud as Powell is, must feel great dismay when he reflects on his misleading address to the United Nations. That misguided speech will be studied in graduate schools of international relations for decades to come. Finally, there is a very real political cost to the falsities that have come from the Bush team. If Bush ever thought that having an African-American as both his National Security Advisor and as his Secretary of State would produce inroads with black voters, he had better rethink his strategy. The African-American community has a sixth sense about when its members are being used as show ponies. The use of Powell and Rice as the lead mouthpieces for a failed and flawed policy has not only tarnished the reputations of both, it has further alienated the black community. As conditions in Iraq further spiral out of control, the silver lining for Colin Powell is that in 2004, he may be relieved of the burden of having to decide about a second term. |
| 2 Comments |
| American Idol Revisited! |
| 04.07.04 (10:42 am) [edit] |
|
Over the five months that Ive been writing this blog, Ive covered everything from the Democratic Primary season, to gay marriage, to the run-up to the war, to Colin Powells infamous U.N. address, to the merits of a Bush impeachment, to the issues of lynching and domestic terrorism. I have to concede, however, that no single blog entry has generated a level of interest and email response equal to that of my 2000 word discussion of American Idol (American Idol: My Guilty Pleasure, March 18). Since writing that piece, I am now one month older and wiser. In keeping with the policy on AI, where each performance is seriously scrutinized and critiqued afterward, today I will look back at that original blog and serve as my own judge and jury. Allow me to look at some of the opinions I offered then, and evaluate them with the keen eye of hindsight: 1. I wrote that the show was not in any way edgy, that it strived instead for the safe and marketable. Hearing Clay Aiken perform his song Solitaire, completely confirmed this notion. I happen to like Clay as a person. He seems bright, has a good perspective on his success, grew enormously during the competition, and seems like a thoughtful, likable guy. However, I have only one word for his multi-platinum song: pabulum. Clay is well situated to make a lot of money. Indeed, he might be the perfect opening act for Celine Dion in Las Vegas for the next 20 years. However, at his current pace, he will leave no footprint on pop music. Self-rating: A 2. I said that many of the historical greats from rock and soul would have been banished at the first American Idol tryout. I left out two examples: Jim Morrison would have made it onto the show, but would have been busted for drug possession in the fourth week, and kicked out. We would have found out about it in USA Today. Vanessa Williams (whose contributions to pop culture far exceed anything I expect from any AI winner) would have been discovered to have x-rated pictures in her past, and summarily booted off the show. Self-rating: A 3. I was lukewarm about the judging panel, describing them as the triumph of chemistry over quality. Well I have to amend this judgment a bit. Randy still shows, week in and week out, the best ear, noting with unwavering accuracy which contestants can and cant sing on key. However, Paula has shown an ever-so-slight tendency to take more risks in her critiques, and to move away from her characteristic blandness. (However, Id still like to trade up for Naomi Judd as the middle judge.) Simon, is still something of an ill-tempered flake, whose criticisms are far too often of a non-musical nature. His bizarre, gratuitous, not to mention inaccurate comparison of Amy Adams looks to those of Jay Leno should have embarrassed even him! Self-rating: B+ 4. I commented that AI has a built-in 'affirmation action' program that gives white males (particularly teenage males) an advantage. Was this notion spot on, or what!? John Stevens and JPL have hung on, largely through the efforts of their legion of white, teenage, female followers. It may even be, as one commentator pointed out, that a bad performance elicits more votes than a good one, because the performer's supporters are galvanized by the fear of their heartthrob leaving the show. To some of us this is an embarrassment and an injustice; to FOX it simply means mo money. Self-rating: A+ 5. I called the voting system terrible, and strongly recommended that viewers be asked to vote against the worst performer, rather than for their favorite. I also suggested that all telephone numbers be allowed only one vote. The wisdom of these suggestions has been bolstered 10-fold by the scandalous results of the last several weeks. Self rating: A+ 6. What about my predictions for the individual contestants? [Please note that all the letter grades refer to how accurate my original assessment of the performer was. The grades refer to the quality of my earlier prediction, not to the performer.] Jasmine Trias. I put Jasmine in my top tier, and indicated that she had a chance to win it all. Simply put, I was wrong. Her performances have been mediocre of late, too often sliding in and out of key. However engaging she is as a person, her musical level right now is not of professional caliber. Self-rating: C Diana Degarmo. I also made a mistake with Diana. Of late she has also offered a set of mediocre performances, not to mention descending to a level of cutesiness that has further detracted from her overall appeal. I can no longer put her in the top tier. (As an aside, to those who have been wondering about Degarmos ethnicity: beyond the apparent Italian in her name, I havent a clue.) Self-rating: C LaToya London. I spoke of her poise, versatility, and overall vocal excellence, and nothing she has done since has made me feel any differently about her. I hear people complaining about her lack of personality. Since when did singers have to present themselves like contestants on The Price Is Right? Only on American Idol would this even be an issue. She has a quiet dignity and charm about her. LaToya is a star performer, who should still be standing in the final week of the show. Self-rating: A Camille Velasco. I said that Camille was a fine singer, who, given the right song choices, could make a move on the pack. What the hell was I thinking? Since then, Ive taken the wax out of my ears. She is terrible, and not only sings badly, but doesnt even seem to have the right feel for any of the songs that she chooses. She should have been sent packing long ago. Self-rating: D Fantasia Barrino. I originally put Fantasia in my second tier, in terms of quality. I was wrong. She is clearly one of the top three performers. Week in and week out, Fantasia has put forth a professional effort, and always with her own personal styling. Her version last week of Heard It Through the Grapevine (a great classic, but a song weve heard a few too many times), gave it a fresh and compelling feel. I also gave her bonus points for the way that she interacted with the Funk Brothers band members during the song. Further points go to Fantasia for the fact that she never misses a note. I apologize for underrating you, Fantasia. Self-rating: B- Jennifer Hudson. I credited Jennifer with being a good singer, who lacked a distinctive sound. Nothing I have heard since has budged me from that view. Self-rating A George Huff. I said that George had grown on me, that I liked him, but that he could not win. I have to eat some crow on this one. George has continued to evolve as a performer beyond anything I had imagined. His version of Elton Johns Take Me to the Pilot was perhaps the standout performance of the night last night. Ever since this guy shaved off his mustache, he has blossomed. Some kind of reverse-Samson effect at work here? He may not win, but based on recent performances, he certainly can win. Self-rating: C Amy Adams. While I did predict that Adams would soon be off the show, I have to admit that I was fundamentally wrong about her. Given the quality of her performances the last two weeks, Amy should still be on the show. Her version of the Dixie Chicks Sin Wagon was excellent, and her Dancing in the Streets, was more than acceptable. Amy Adams is so far the biggest casualty of the flaws in the voting system. Self-Rating: B- John Stevens. He is in way over his head! I can only repeat verbatim what I wrote about John Stevens in the earlier blog: "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 only 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." Sadly, I was right, both about his lack of talent, and his durability. Self rating: A+ John Peter Lewis. I said about JPL, This guy has no more business winning the competition than his father does. I thought he was a mediocrity then, and the judges have finally come around to agree with me. Self-rating: A I said in closing, that if anyone in my bottom tier (Matt, Amy, JPL, John Stevens) won the competition, I would have to swear off the show forever. Matt and Amy are gone. Stevens is not long for this world, and JPL is on life support. I think Im safe. I expect that when all the dust has settled, the top three performers will be LaToya, George, and Fantasia. I can't predict a winner. All in all, my own report card is mixed: My overall criticisms of the show have been borne out aplenty. However, I was premature and off the mark in my assessments of several of the performers. Theyve changed and evolved, both for the better and worse, in ways that I would not have anticipated. But, hey, thats what makes "American Idol" so weird, wacky, and watchable, isn't it!? |
| 0 Comments |
| The Democratic Veepstakes--Thinking Outside the Box |
| 04.04.04 (12:06 pm) [edit] |
|
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi gave John Kerry some wise counsel this week: Pick a running mate, she said, and fast! I strongly agree with Pelosi, for several reasons. Kerry is currently fighting a one-against-two battle, and could use a partner to carry some of the rhetorical load. In addition, having a running mate would draw more energy and attention to the ticket, something which Kerry currently needs. The Republican advantage in fundraising has had the effect of increasing the Democrats reliance on free media. After all, it is largely through clips on the nightly news, public affairs television, and the late-night talk shows that many Americans get their political information. Having two members on the team would help keep pace with the level of exposure that Bush and Cheney receive automatically as incumbents. Further, Kerrys campaigning to date has had an unfortunate stop-and-start quality to it, with a week off for vacation, and another week off for shoulder surgery. Kerry would have benefited from having a lieutenant take over the campaign duties during such down time. Finally, there are certain tasks that are better carried out by the second in comand than by the top guy: Let someone else mud-wrestle with Dick Cheney, let someone else engage in barbed debate with Bush surrogates, leaving Kerry the option of remaining above the fray to pick his battles. A running mate also would have been the perfect person to weigh in this week on Richard Clarkes charges concerning the Bush administrations dereliction on terrorism. While Clarkes charges carry great weight, and are so damning that they will have legs up through Election Day, a running mate will give the Democrats the option of a good-cop-bad cop strategy in addressing this issue, a kind of one-two punch. In a previous blog (Short Takes, February 13) I already made it clear that my preferred vice-presidential choice is Senator Bob Graham, of Florida. The state of Florida is very much in play this year, and Graham would help solidify Democratic prospects. Graham is a bright guy, a veteran of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, an expert on foreign intelligence, opposed the war early, and is a fiscal moderate. His temperament, smarts, and eighteen year tenure in the Senate all inspire confidence. Likewise, John Edwards has also shown that his charisma and speaking ability would serve him well as the Veep nominee. One can also make a case, albeit a weaker one, for Dick Gephardt. That being said, however, the point of this essay is to travel outside the box for a moment, and consider some Veep possibilities that you wont hear mentioned in your daily newspaper. Here are my are you kidding? choices for John Kerrys vice-presidential nominee: 1) Ralph Nader. Yes, you heard me right. While Nader has created significant heartburn among Democrats (including me) with his decision to run as an independent, the fact remains that Nader is still an American hero, and a powerful voice both on behalf of working Americans, and against corporate greed and corruption. What might he add to the ticket? Several things: First, Nader is a symbol of integrity and conviction, whose contributions over a lifetime have transcended party labels. Second, choosing Nader would obviously give Kerry back the lions share of the 4% of the vote that would be lost to Nader as a third-party candidate. Third, even though Nader has no particular state or regional appeal, he offers the ticket a valuable counterpoint to Kerrys personality: Nader is every bit as firm, committed, and stalwart in his views as Kerry is elusive and nuanced in his. I watched Nader announce his candidacy on Meet the Press on February 22, expecting to be horrified by his performance. Instead, I heard a forceful, compelling presentation from a man who was not afraid to propose a large public works program in order to create jobs and to revitalize the nations decaying infrastructure. (As more municipalities find lead in their drinking water, this idea will look smarter and smarter.) I heard a man who was not afraid to wonder aloud whether administration misrepresentations prior to the war rose to the level of impeachable offenses. I heard a man who offered a scholarly critique on our historical relationship with Iraq, one which further highlighted the folly of the war. It was apparent that given the right stage, the right platform, Nader would be a tenacious and effective campaigner, the perfect nemesis for Dick Cheney: The greatest consumer advocate in US history vs. the poster child for big business. What are the odds of this happening? Close to zero. Temperamentally, John Kerry is not a great risk-taker, and Nader might not want the job anyway. However, they do have a meeting scheduled this month. 2) Dale Bumpers. Who is Dale Bumpers, you ask? Bumpers is the former governor (eight years) and senator (24 years) of Arkansas, who ended his senate career in 1998. He is revered in Arkansas, is smart as a whip, and is a political icon throughout the South. Bumpers, over his four term senate career, was the embodiment of the new, progressive South, being instrumental in getting his hometown of Charleston, Arkansas to integrate their public schools in the 50s when most other cities were involved in massive resistance to civil rights. Bumpers went on to defeat segregationist Orval Faubus in 1974, and wasand still isone of the great orators of the Senate. So much so, that during the impeachment hearing of Bill Clinton in 1999, Clinton called upon Bumperslong known as a Constitutional expert--to give Clintons closing argument to the Senate. If Kerry wants to maximize the regional balance of the ticket, and partner with someone who is respected throughout the South, Bumpers would be a terrific and creative choice. Downside? Bumpers, at 79, is not a young man. However, he is still sprightly, charismatic, folksy, energetic, and currently works in a Washington, DC law firm; Im sure his health compares favorably with that of Dick Cheney. Last year, Bumpers published his autobiography, The Best Lawyer in a One-Lawyer Town. This guy is the original, real-life Matlock! 3) Joseph Biden. Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, often flies below the radar as a vice-presidential prospect, largely because he comes from a minuscule state with only three Electoral votesone that will almost certainly vote Democratic anyway. Biden, however, as the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee on Crime, has assets that offset this geographical shortcoming. He is an excellent speaker, and a no-nonsense expert in both international affairs and in domestic crime, two areas of likely focus during the campaign. Biden, in 2000, was the author of the Violence Against Women Act, which strengthened the law and directed greater funding to the neglected area of domestic violence. He knows foreign policy--the Middle East, in particular--inside and out, and is respected on both sides of the aisle for his foreign policy expertise. To see him on discussion panels is to immediately observe his signature bluntness, a speaking style which is clear, transparent, tough, and to the point. He would bring those attributes to the campaign trail. Only at their peril would Republicans accuse Biden of being soft on terrorism. Indeed, picking a Veep with such strong defense credentials, without regard for his geographical appeal, might actually serve Kerry well, by highlighting his defense priorities. Ultimately, of course, Kerrys choice for Veep should be governed by Kerrys own comfort level with the individual and by the concept of teamwork. The person heading Kerrys vice-presidential search is Jim Johnson, who was Walter Mondales presidential campaign manager in 1984. In that year, Johnson was instrumental in the choice of Geraldine Ferraro as the vice-presidential nominee. Oops! Hopefully they will get it right this time! |
| 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.