I fear that the next great tragedy for justice in this country will be that I. Scooter Libby will get a reduced sentence or a presidential pardon. In his usual thorough and concise way Bill Moyers has presented a clear eyed look into this matter which can be viewed at pbs.org/moyers/journal. Please take the time to read or view the story. Unfortunately, I'll bet the protest we just heard over Paris Hilton and the two justice systems in this country was louder than we'll hear if Libby gets off easy.
The potential damage could not have been assessed better than by former Virginia Governor, James Gilmore who said,"If the public believes there is one law for a certain group of people in high places and another law for regular people, then you will destroy the law and destroy the system." It's my belief that more than anything else, this perception is at the root of non law abiding behavior in a society. I still clearly recall the deleterious effect the pardon of Richard Nixon had on this country. I hope I'm not alone on this.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Monday, June 04, 2007
Democrats Round Two
A better Democratic debate this time to be sure. But not because of CNN as they would have you believe. Can you imagine Walter Cronkite on the air, basking in adulation from colleagues just for doing his job. Wolf Blitzer did it, and for me whether or not he did his job is questionable. Take his show of hands approach when questioning on such critical issues as firing missiles at a suspected Osama Bin Laden target or the use of force in Sudan. It was thoughtless at best and perhaps purposefully contrived. To her credit, Senator Clinton refused to take the bait.
Then there was the thinly veiled question about how the candidates would use President Clinton in their administration. Why be phony? Why not just ask the question of the person it was intended for, Senator Clinton, and get on with it. Like I've said before, President Clinton is not revered nearly as much as some would have you think and CNN knows that candidates will answer this type of question affirmatively even if it hurts their campaign. I guess this is their idea of cutting edge reporting. Don't hold your breath waiting for a similar question about President Bush asked of the Republican candidates by CNN.
Some of his follow-up questions sounded like Blitzer hadn't been listening to the answers. At one point Rep. Kucinich gave an appropriate answer, right or wrong, to a question about restoring the military, Blitzer says "but the question was..." and repeats it. Kucinich, looking stunned rephrased his answer. Maybe Blitzer preferred another answer but he clearly didn't listen to what Kucinich had just said.
I'm sure they would argue as journalists that these questions were designed to find "the best obtainable version of the truth" but they missed the mark. The whole event seemed out of balance. CNN will have to start getting up a lot earlier if they think they're going to out smart these candidates, Democrat or Republican.
The bottom line is that CNN is chasing Fox news. Hopefully they're only envious of their ratings. They appear to be willing to try anything including heaping kudos on themselves to catch up, maybe thinking that a certain number of people watching will mindlessly agree. It's sad to watch the process of a formerly respected news source go the way of an entertainment show. Particularly when their competition never had to go through such humiliation. Yep and let me just take a moment to say goodbye to any Fox news fans who should ever stumble on this site.
After the debate there was a lot of comparing the candidates to their last performance which is alarming because therein lies some of the negative value of these early parades through the paddocks. I can't tell you how many times over the years I've seen people promoted or bestowed with bonuses, honors or other rewards for being "most improved" and they still didn't meet the necessary standard that those who were overlooked routinely met. The media gets sucked into this all the time. A reference point makes their job easier I suspect but it has no place in evaluating someones performance or abilities.
As usual the most substantive answers seemed to come from what they call the second tier candidates. But the style masters or front runners did well enough to hold their leads. For reasons I'll never understand, we like to play what we think is the safest bet and that's just the way it is. So even if Governor Richardson is a proven diplomat and we badly need one, or Rep. Kucinich is the least war mongering when that might come in handy, all we can hope for is that one of the front runners will remember their names when it comes time to fill positions requiring those skills.
A few other things stuck with me about this debate. First the negatives. I know it occurred on both sides to be fair but I'll never understand how someone could vote on the authorization to attack Iraq without reading the ninety page National Intelligence Estimate. And one of them was Senator Clinton who keeps repeating her famous line "if I knew then what I know now" statement. Go figure. Then there is John Edwards trying to differentiate himself from himself, I guess. He's the one guy who would keep me up at night if his numbers started improving.
And finally the positives. I was glad to see Senator Dodd repeatedly emphasize how grateful Democrats are to our troops. The opposition loves to say otherwise and saying this over and over is the only way to dispel this insinuation. I also liked Senator Bidens perspective on Iran and his attempt to moth ball "regime change" as a policy toward that country.
Then there was Senator Obama, perhaps the best orator of the group who said things like "it erodes our moral claims to act on broader universal principles" or " The strength of our military has to be matched with the power of our diplomacy to build alliances around the world." These are from memory so excuse me if they're not just right but I eat that stuff up and he is still holding my attention.
Finally, it's reassuring that the candidates, both Republican and Democrat are about the smartest bunch I've ever seen run. Most of them, quite likely could do a good job for America. So we have an interesting race with little downside and plenty of upside. It should be fun to watch. Goodnight.
Then there was the thinly veiled question about how the candidates would use President Clinton in their administration. Why be phony? Why not just ask the question of the person it was intended for, Senator Clinton, and get on with it. Like I've said before, President Clinton is not revered nearly as much as some would have you think and CNN knows that candidates will answer this type of question affirmatively even if it hurts their campaign. I guess this is their idea of cutting edge reporting. Don't hold your breath waiting for a similar question about President Bush asked of the Republican candidates by CNN.
Some of his follow-up questions sounded like Blitzer hadn't been listening to the answers. At one point Rep. Kucinich gave an appropriate answer, right or wrong, to a question about restoring the military, Blitzer says "but the question was..." and repeats it. Kucinich, looking stunned rephrased his answer. Maybe Blitzer preferred another answer but he clearly didn't listen to what Kucinich had just said.
I'm sure they would argue as journalists that these questions were designed to find "the best obtainable version of the truth" but they missed the mark. The whole event seemed out of balance. CNN will have to start getting up a lot earlier if they think they're going to out smart these candidates, Democrat or Republican.
The bottom line is that CNN is chasing Fox news. Hopefully they're only envious of their ratings. They appear to be willing to try anything including heaping kudos on themselves to catch up, maybe thinking that a certain number of people watching will mindlessly agree. It's sad to watch the process of a formerly respected news source go the way of an entertainment show. Particularly when their competition never had to go through such humiliation. Yep and let me just take a moment to say goodbye to any Fox news fans who should ever stumble on this site.
After the debate there was a lot of comparing the candidates to their last performance which is alarming because therein lies some of the negative value of these early parades through the paddocks. I can't tell you how many times over the years I've seen people promoted or bestowed with bonuses, honors or other rewards for being "most improved" and they still didn't meet the necessary standard that those who were overlooked routinely met. The media gets sucked into this all the time. A reference point makes their job easier I suspect but it has no place in evaluating someones performance or abilities.
As usual the most substantive answers seemed to come from what they call the second tier candidates. But the style masters or front runners did well enough to hold their leads. For reasons I'll never understand, we like to play what we think is the safest bet and that's just the way it is. So even if Governor Richardson is a proven diplomat and we badly need one, or Rep. Kucinich is the least war mongering when that might come in handy, all we can hope for is that one of the front runners will remember their names when it comes time to fill positions requiring those skills.
A few other things stuck with me about this debate. First the negatives. I know it occurred on both sides to be fair but I'll never understand how someone could vote on the authorization to attack Iraq without reading the ninety page National Intelligence Estimate. And one of them was Senator Clinton who keeps repeating her famous line "if I knew then what I know now" statement. Go figure. Then there is John Edwards trying to differentiate himself from himself, I guess. He's the one guy who would keep me up at night if his numbers started improving.
And finally the positives. I was glad to see Senator Dodd repeatedly emphasize how grateful Democrats are to our troops. The opposition loves to say otherwise and saying this over and over is the only way to dispel this insinuation. I also liked Senator Bidens perspective on Iran and his attempt to moth ball "regime change" as a policy toward that country.
Then there was Senator Obama, perhaps the best orator of the group who said things like "it erodes our moral claims to act on broader universal principles" or " The strength of our military has to be matched with the power of our diplomacy to build alliances around the world." These are from memory so excuse me if they're not just right but I eat that stuff up and he is still holding my attention.
Finally, it's reassuring that the candidates, both Republican and Democrat are about the smartest bunch I've ever seen run. Most of them, quite likely could do a good job for America. So we have an interesting race with little downside and plenty of upside. It should be fun to watch. Goodnight.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
I'll Take Free Speech Any Day
In 1971 I was in college and George McGovern made a whistle stop in town while campaigning for President. I was a McGovern fan for many reasons but most importantly he opposed the war in Viet Nam and I did to.
I attended a small rally on campus. I say small because it barely spilled out of one room. I helped to set up some tables with a few of McGovern's entourage.
One of them was Jon Voight, the actor. I knew he was in movies then but that's about it. He was young and lanky, long haired and interesting looking like an artist or musician. Looking back I suppose he was there in part for his image and in fact it worked because I didn't remember anything anyone said but him.
He was not a dynamic speaker by any means, in fact he was almost timid but listening to him was easy and unavoidable. You sensed that his belief in his own words allowed him to overcome some early discomfort and finish quite eloquently. He was smart but it was his passion and intensity that came through loud and clear. He was one of those people who made you believe you were hearing the truth.
I'm not one to think that people who have gained some stage or film celebrity have opinions any more insightful or valid than anyone else. It's actually quite the contrary. It seems illogical to me, given all the cuts they've made to get where they are, that many of them would be also intellectually endowed. Although, as much as it seems to bend the rules of probability, odds are such that some people, and I believe Jon Voight to be one of them, would be so blessed.
Over the years, even after his Republican conversion, when he speaks I'm still compelled to listen. So in his recent movie promoting appearances, sounding exceedingly conservative, he got me lets say, exceedingly curious.
I know that most people go through an aging process that delivers them more conservative than when they started. Remember the old saying, "Show me a man at twenty who isn't liberal and I'll show you a man with no heart, show me a man at forty who isn't conservative and I'll show you a man with no brains." So sure he has been influenced by experience and age, pushing 70 I believe, even so, this is not the same man I listened to in 1971.
What he said was that he is very concerned with the way in which people speak of the President these days and this dissension gives the enemy the "nutrients" they need to destroy this country. In one interview he said his heart is heavy, and he's really terrified by what is happening to this great nation and that our country is being divided by extremists who really believe all the propaganda that they are being fed on a daily basis by very cunning professionals.
He further said that the President in effect is America and that tearing him down was tearing down America. He spoke of discussions with injured soldiers that seemed to lead him to believe that the Iraq war was winnable. He said that he feels this situation is no Viet Nam so I take this to mean that he still feels OK with his position back in the 70's. He also claimed that the kids that come out of college today think that America is an imperialistic nation.
These are just a few of the things he said. Please check out his interviews with Joe Scarborough and Bill O'Rielly to get the complete picture.
To be honest I'm not exactly sure what to make of it. He was plugging a movie of course but I desperately want to believe that he wouldn't stage a controversy to promote a movie.
The Movie deals with the "Mountain Meadows" killings perpetrated by people of the Mormon faith exactly 150 years ago on September 11th. Voight implies this is somehow ironic and also says that some of his new concerns hit him while making this movie. In my opinion the date coincidence points much more to what movie producers will do to get people into theaters. For the revelation or whatever it was that he experienced making this movie, it looks more like an idea looking for a home than anything else. To compare Mormons to Muslims is ridiculous and I'm disappointed that he would even try. Mormons, who deplore this shameful part of their history will have to be the whipping boys this time around at the masterfully exploitative hands of Hollywood.
For me it is hard to comprehend why Voight is 180 degrees from where he once was. The current situation is different but not 180 degrees different. There doesn't seem to be a sliver of the man left and it forces me to be suspicious of his motives and saddened by the loss of a voice for good in this world.
Mr. Voight, free speech is the nutrient that this nation needs to remain great. Yes, the freedom that you have so enjoyed and it could be destroyed much faster by its denial than by any of your scary scenarios. I just pray that this is not you just reinforcing your belief that this movie was worth making by some redeeming value ratio approach. In the end the movie will be what it is and nothing more.
And finally, we would be well served if you would re-examine your current views to see if your heart is still in it like it once was.
I attended a small rally on campus. I say small because it barely spilled out of one room. I helped to set up some tables with a few of McGovern's entourage.
One of them was Jon Voight, the actor. I knew he was in movies then but that's about it. He was young and lanky, long haired and interesting looking like an artist or musician. Looking back I suppose he was there in part for his image and in fact it worked because I didn't remember anything anyone said but him.
He was not a dynamic speaker by any means, in fact he was almost timid but listening to him was easy and unavoidable. You sensed that his belief in his own words allowed him to overcome some early discomfort and finish quite eloquently. He was smart but it was his passion and intensity that came through loud and clear. He was one of those people who made you believe you were hearing the truth.
I'm not one to think that people who have gained some stage or film celebrity have opinions any more insightful or valid than anyone else. It's actually quite the contrary. It seems illogical to me, given all the cuts they've made to get where they are, that many of them would be also intellectually endowed. Although, as much as it seems to bend the rules of probability, odds are such that some people, and I believe Jon Voight to be one of them, would be so blessed.
Over the years, even after his Republican conversion, when he speaks I'm still compelled to listen. So in his recent movie promoting appearances, sounding exceedingly conservative, he got me lets say, exceedingly curious.
I know that most people go through an aging process that delivers them more conservative than when they started. Remember the old saying, "Show me a man at twenty who isn't liberal and I'll show you a man with no heart, show me a man at forty who isn't conservative and I'll show you a man with no brains." So sure he has been influenced by experience and age, pushing 70 I believe, even so, this is not the same man I listened to in 1971.
What he said was that he is very concerned with the way in which people speak of the President these days and this dissension gives the enemy the "nutrients" they need to destroy this country. In one interview he said his heart is heavy, and he's really terrified by what is happening to this great nation and that our country is being divided by extremists who really believe all the propaganda that they are being fed on a daily basis by very cunning professionals.
He further said that the President in effect is America and that tearing him down was tearing down America. He spoke of discussions with injured soldiers that seemed to lead him to believe that the Iraq war was winnable. He said that he feels this situation is no Viet Nam so I take this to mean that he still feels OK with his position back in the 70's. He also claimed that the kids that come out of college today think that America is an imperialistic nation.
These are just a few of the things he said. Please check out his interviews with Joe Scarborough and Bill O'Rielly to get the complete picture.
To be honest I'm not exactly sure what to make of it. He was plugging a movie of course but I desperately want to believe that he wouldn't stage a controversy to promote a movie.
The Movie deals with the "Mountain Meadows" killings perpetrated by people of the Mormon faith exactly 150 years ago on September 11th. Voight implies this is somehow ironic and also says that some of his new concerns hit him while making this movie. In my opinion the date coincidence points much more to what movie producers will do to get people into theaters. For the revelation or whatever it was that he experienced making this movie, it looks more like an idea looking for a home than anything else. To compare Mormons to Muslims is ridiculous and I'm disappointed that he would even try. Mormons, who deplore this shameful part of their history will have to be the whipping boys this time around at the masterfully exploitative hands of Hollywood.
For me it is hard to comprehend why Voight is 180 degrees from where he once was. The current situation is different but not 180 degrees different. There doesn't seem to be a sliver of the man left and it forces me to be suspicious of his motives and saddened by the loss of a voice for good in this world.
Mr. Voight, free speech is the nutrient that this nation needs to remain great. Yes, the freedom that you have so enjoyed and it could be destroyed much faster by its denial than by any of your scary scenarios. I just pray that this is not you just reinforcing your belief that this movie was worth making by some redeeming value ratio approach. In the end the movie will be what it is and nothing more.
And finally, we would be well served if you would re-examine your current views to see if your heart is still in it like it once was.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Peas in a pod
Hubris has claimed another victim. And in this case irony abounds. I'm speaking of Al Sharpton of course and no longer Reverend to me. Fresh off his Don Imus victory tour he now decides to choose off Mit Romney by questioning his belief in God. Sharpton said,"As For the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway."
Decency doesn't work in degrees. Relativism is a rhetorical tool used to wiggle out of trouble. There is simply a threshold between decency and non-decency and Don Imus and now Al Sharpton have each crossed that threshold. Neither should be viewed the same again.
What do we get out of such a stance? We give a loud and clear message that the shock approach has it's dangers and that participants do risk peril.
Until now I'm not sure I would have found the following statement by John Ridley, the Commentator and screenwriter, to be true but Al Sharpton has now convinced me it is. Mr. Ridley said, " Mr. Sharpton is hanging on by his fingernails to a position that never existed." If the media must persue "black thought" lets hope they start looking to the real African American leaders and not the likes of Al Sharpton.
Decency doesn't work in degrees. Relativism is a rhetorical tool used to wiggle out of trouble. There is simply a threshold between decency and non-decency and Don Imus and now Al Sharpton have each crossed that threshold. Neither should be viewed the same again.
What do we get out of such a stance? We give a loud and clear message that the shock approach has it's dangers and that participants do risk peril.
Until now I'm not sure I would have found the following statement by John Ridley, the Commentator and screenwriter, to be true but Al Sharpton has now convinced me it is. Mr. Ridley said, " Mr. Sharpton is hanging on by his fingernails to a position that never existed." If the media must persue "black thought" lets hope they start looking to the real African American leaders and not the likes of Al Sharpton.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Check your rudders at the door
Now to the first Republican debate. These candidates are going to have a much harder go of it than the Democrats. It's as if the Democrats were issued shotguns and the Republicans .22 caliber pistols. You'll need serious marksman on the Republican side to win.
It reminds me of Edward James Olmos in the movie "Selena" explaining how hard it is to be Mexican/American. He said, "We have to be more Mexican than the Mexicans and more American than the Americans, both at the same time! It's exhausting!"
On some issues the tolerances on the Republican side are measured in microns.
Take abortion, Republican candidates have to nail it and so far Giuliani and Romney still look tentative. Not only have they disenchanted conservatives, they have opened themselves up to criticism for disingenuous flip-flopping.
Romney was particularly foolish in seeking cover from other abortion mind changers like Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Henry Hide. Instead of bringing himself up he brought them down.
This and John McCain beating up George W. Bush for mismanaging the war seemed to seriously violate Ronald Reagan's famous and critical republican rule; never speak ill of a fellow Republican. And I'd add, certainly not in his library in front of his wife.
The Republicans always look like they're looking for someone to marry their daughter instead of a person that may actually exist. Setting the bar so high makes their candidates have to be something their not and look like they checked their rudders at the door.
It reminds me of Edward James Olmos in the movie "Selena" explaining how hard it is to be Mexican/American. He said, "We have to be more Mexican than the Mexicans and more American than the Americans, both at the same time! It's exhausting!"
On some issues the tolerances on the Republican side are measured in microns.
Take abortion, Republican candidates have to nail it and so far Giuliani and Romney still look tentative. Not only have they disenchanted conservatives, they have opened themselves up to criticism for disingenuous flip-flopping.
Romney was particularly foolish in seeking cover from other abortion mind changers like Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Henry Hide. Instead of bringing himself up he brought them down.
This and John McCain beating up George W. Bush for mismanaging the war seemed to seriously violate Ronald Reagan's famous and critical republican rule; never speak ill of a fellow Republican. And I'd add, certainly not in his library in front of his wife.
The Republicans always look like they're looking for someone to marry their daughter instead of a person that may actually exist. Setting the bar so high makes their candidates have to be something their not and look like they checked their rudders at the door.
Monday, April 30, 2007
When Whimps think they're Warriors
I can't seem to get the commentary that followed the first Democratic Debates out of my mind. The media who gas bagged about what a great job they did making a three ring circus out of the Virginia Tech tragedy felt we couldn't live without them and gave us another double dose of blather about a relatively meaningless so called debate. This stuff went on for hours.
Chris Mathews had a round table discussion and one of the very first comments was from Howard Fineman who was complementary to Hillary Clinton for her decisiveness in answering a question that went something like, what would you do if a forceful new terrorist attack occurred on U.S. soil? How quickly she used the word retaliate was his measure for praising her. He went on to say that the others were hesitant or indecisive. He also said that being a women makes it particularly important for her to show her toughness. This answer seemed to give her the edge in the debate according to Fineman although a day later a pole of North Carolinans, where the debate was held, showed Obama coming out on top.
Now, the question was obviously hypothetical and the answers were about winning votes. I'm not saying that what the candidates said doesn't reflect who they are to some extent but you have to keep the context in mind and you must sift through the performance to find the closest thing to the truth as possible. Something like the mantra that good journalist use when putting a story together.
Fineman's response was actually far more interesting to me than most of the candidates answers. He seemed eager to make this point like it was most certainly the opinion of the country and the rest of the panel seemed to agree. Andrea Mitchell only seemed less enthused about Hillary having to prove her toughness but let that slide.
What I gathered from this is that the air is still thick with the might-makes-right, shoot first, ask questions later approach to our security in this country. The standard justification for this is that 9/11 changed us as a nation. It is indisputable that 9/11 changed us and you can't hide under a blanket but what we're doing is not working. I believe 9/11 also gave the green light to a lot of people, mostly men, who for one reason or another were insecure to start with.
Granted, power is part and parcel to our system. If you think not then try to move up the ladder in a corporate environment or any organization for that matter. Capitalism, by it's very nature is no place for the faint of heart. We survive by it and it pervades our every thought.
But power, when used improperly is dangerous, particularly on the world stage and it can allow wimps to play the role of warriors even though real warriors are far better suited to deal with matters of strength.
I grew up in southern California where there was a small Samoan population. If you were lucky enough to have a Samoan friend you could go anywhere and no one would mess with you. Remember this is before hand guns became so prevalent. The Samoan guys I knew were big and tough. It seemed odd at the time that they were also nice guys, very gentle, kind and very sincere. They never started the fights even though their presence sometimes made wise guys want to. They were different than the tough white guy's I knew who were a little crazy. They all seemed to come from hard luck backgrounds, weren't very trustworthy and, they liked to start fights. Not Samoans, they had good families and were loyal to their friends and enjoyed peace.
Later in my life I spent some time working in American Samoa. It's a very interesting place with lots of unique traditions in a beautiful setting.
We were mostly on the outer Islands, actually where Margaret Mead, the anthropologist, did a lot of her work. I was assisted by a local fellow named Puna. He took us to all the villages and a translated for us.
Puna was a big tough guy. He could climb a coconut tree with bare hands. He started fires with a stick and was good with a machete and could run up a mountain in bare feet. Once he and another guy had to pull two big dogs apart that looked to be fighting till death. They were vicious and had their jaws clamped around each others throat. They got them apart somehow with the dogs snapping and biting them the whole time. Puna was fearless and well respected but he was gracious and kind just like the guys back in California.
We got friendly and talked a lot about this and that. He told me stories of the old days when Samoans were warriors navigating the Pacific with stick charts.
One day I was watching how Puna greeted the people in each village. When you spend day after day among people who speak a different language you start to notice non verbal things more. Samoa has a Chieftain system and respect shows up in body language and I'd try to figure out who the chief was but I was usually wrong. Chieftain status wasn't based on clothes, size or strength or appearance at all. When they were pointed out it usually made sense though. They always seemed calm and wise and very gracious and commanded respect. Powerful in their own right.
Another thing I noticed in Puna's greetings was the word Malo. He used it a lot and sometimes with other words and sometimes not. I knew the greeting "talofa," so I asked him once what he meant by "Malo" in greetings. He said, the best in English would be," you win, you know in case there was any problem, then you can get on with business," Well needless to say that has stuck with me my whole life.
My point is not about Howard Fineman because I don't know much about the man. But the impression he gives is typical these days and I think completely backwards. They use the tough act, the selfish arrogance, ignoring the rest of the world, picking fights and even suppressing female sensibilities where one might expect some help with perspective at a time like this.
I see it like this, truly wise self confident strong men who are unafraid, the kind that know what man is capable of, good and bad, can figure out ways to clear the air and get down to business. And the other, filled with uncertainty, knowing they're weak, use others to fight for them and try to make up for their shortcomings with a lot of bluff and bluster in the name of strength.
Chris Mathews had a round table discussion and one of the very first comments was from Howard Fineman who was complementary to Hillary Clinton for her decisiveness in answering a question that went something like, what would you do if a forceful new terrorist attack occurred on U.S. soil? How quickly she used the word retaliate was his measure for praising her. He went on to say that the others were hesitant or indecisive. He also said that being a women makes it particularly important for her to show her toughness. This answer seemed to give her the edge in the debate according to Fineman although a day later a pole of North Carolinans, where the debate was held, showed Obama coming out on top.
Now, the question was obviously hypothetical and the answers were about winning votes. I'm not saying that what the candidates said doesn't reflect who they are to some extent but you have to keep the context in mind and you must sift through the performance to find the closest thing to the truth as possible. Something like the mantra that good journalist use when putting a story together.
Fineman's response was actually far more interesting to me than most of the candidates answers. He seemed eager to make this point like it was most certainly the opinion of the country and the rest of the panel seemed to agree. Andrea Mitchell only seemed less enthused about Hillary having to prove her toughness but let that slide.
What I gathered from this is that the air is still thick with the might-makes-right, shoot first, ask questions later approach to our security in this country. The standard justification for this is that 9/11 changed us as a nation. It is indisputable that 9/11 changed us and you can't hide under a blanket but what we're doing is not working. I believe 9/11 also gave the green light to a lot of people, mostly men, who for one reason or another were insecure to start with.
Granted, power is part and parcel to our system. If you think not then try to move up the ladder in a corporate environment or any organization for that matter. Capitalism, by it's very nature is no place for the faint of heart. We survive by it and it pervades our every thought.
But power, when used improperly is dangerous, particularly on the world stage and it can allow wimps to play the role of warriors even though real warriors are far better suited to deal with matters of strength.
I grew up in southern California where there was a small Samoan population. If you were lucky enough to have a Samoan friend you could go anywhere and no one would mess with you. Remember this is before hand guns became so prevalent. The Samoan guys I knew were big and tough. It seemed odd at the time that they were also nice guys, very gentle, kind and very sincere. They never started the fights even though their presence sometimes made wise guys want to. They were different than the tough white guy's I knew who were a little crazy. They all seemed to come from hard luck backgrounds, weren't very trustworthy and, they liked to start fights. Not Samoans, they had good families and were loyal to their friends and enjoyed peace.
Later in my life I spent some time working in American Samoa. It's a very interesting place with lots of unique traditions in a beautiful setting.
We were mostly on the outer Islands, actually where Margaret Mead, the anthropologist, did a lot of her work. I was assisted by a local fellow named Puna. He took us to all the villages and a translated for us.
Puna was a big tough guy. He could climb a coconut tree with bare hands. He started fires with a stick and was good with a machete and could run up a mountain in bare feet. Once he and another guy had to pull two big dogs apart that looked to be fighting till death. They were vicious and had their jaws clamped around each others throat. They got them apart somehow with the dogs snapping and biting them the whole time. Puna was fearless and well respected but he was gracious and kind just like the guys back in California.
We got friendly and talked a lot about this and that. He told me stories of the old days when Samoans were warriors navigating the Pacific with stick charts.
One day I was watching how Puna greeted the people in each village. When you spend day after day among people who speak a different language you start to notice non verbal things more. Samoa has a Chieftain system and respect shows up in body language and I'd try to figure out who the chief was but I was usually wrong. Chieftain status wasn't based on clothes, size or strength or appearance at all. When they were pointed out it usually made sense though. They always seemed calm and wise and very gracious and commanded respect. Powerful in their own right.
Another thing I noticed in Puna's greetings was the word Malo. He used it a lot and sometimes with other words and sometimes not. I knew the greeting "talofa," so I asked him once what he meant by "Malo" in greetings. He said, the best in English would be," you win, you know in case there was any problem, then you can get on with business," Well needless to say that has stuck with me my whole life.
My point is not about Howard Fineman because I don't know much about the man. But the impression he gives is typical these days and I think completely backwards. They use the tough act, the selfish arrogance, ignoring the rest of the world, picking fights and even suppressing female sensibilities where one might expect some help with perspective at a time like this.
I see it like this, truly wise self confident strong men who are unafraid, the kind that know what man is capable of, good and bad, can figure out ways to clear the air and get down to business. And the other, filled with uncertainty, knowing they're weak, use others to fight for them and try to make up for their shortcomings with a lot of bluff and bluster in the name of strength.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
An old story about a new Iran
In the winter of 1978/79 I was in my twenties and an offer came my way to move a friend of a friend back to Los Angeles from New York city. I accepted as I did any offer in those days that got me anywhere. All expenses paid plus a few bucks-all we had to do was fly there, pack up his belongings and drive a truck back. It was the dead of winter but it sounded like great fun.
The fellow we moved was a successful magazine publisher who was closing his office in New York. It turned out for me to be a peek at how the "other half " lived. His office was maybe 20 stories up in a huge building in Manhattan. Moving some of the things in his office was part of the deal and I remember thinking, what did I get myself into? As it turned out it wasn't a problem. We just pulled the whole damn truck into the "truck elevator," took it right up to his floor and packed up. At the time I didn't know such things existed.
That memory lasted along with being surprised at how nice and friendly everyone was. I'd been warned about New Yorkers so many times I expected they all had horns. It couldn't have been further from the truth. There was one guy on the street we asked for directions, he patiently did his best, then opted to ride on the running board of the truck for what must have been 3 miles to get us to the highway. It was about 30 degrees outside. I'd never heard of that happening in Los Angeles even on a warm day.
It was my first experience in New York city and it had a feel to it that was very different than any other city I'd been to. There were little things I recall like pulling out of the truck elevator onto a street with traffic so tight I thought we would never get out. For me, the Californian, it was hectic and I was out of my element and getting nowhere fast. We had befriended a few of the girls in the office who came along with us. They kept telling me to just move into the lane which I finally did nervously until I put a crease right down the side of a car with the trucks bumper. I thought now I'd really done it, but one of the girls, Holly was here name said, "Go, the next guy will take you a little more seriously now." Well, the guy I hit never even stopped and we laughed and I soaked it all up like a sponge.
We stayed in the apartment of the guy we were moving which was on Beekman Place in a nice part of the city overlooking the East River. His place was wild, it had polished metal ceiling panels with slabs of glass sticking out of the walls for shelves that were backlit making the edges aqua blue.
We would pack up stuff during the day and go to night clubs at night. The place was Disneyland for adults. Everything was new and different. There was more than we could ever see and I finally got to find out what food was supposed to taste like. It was heaven but, sorry, this is going to have to wait for another post. I have a little more serious thought in mind.
The reason I bring this story up in the first place is 2 doors down from the apartment was a townhouse that was obviously of some importance to someone because there was always 2 New York city police officers standing nearby watching. There was also a large security camera above the door. Being young wise guys we would ham it up when we passed by. We would joke about who might live there as we came and went at all hours of the day and night. After about 3 days of this the officers had had enough and approached us and inquired about what we were doing. We explained and got to talking about California and the weather which they loved to hear about. We got pretty friendly and I guess they passed the word on to the next shift because nobody ever bothered us again.
One night we came in late and I remember asking the officers who they were guarding, they said "The Shah of Iran's wife." It sounded important but it didn't mean much to us at the time. We talked a little bit and said goodnight but I'll never forget as we walked away one of them said, "if you guys are gonna blow the place up, let us know first so we can get the hell outta here," we all laughed. I remember thinking New York cops are a lot cooler than L.A. cops.
I barely knew who the Shah of Iran was then but that little kernel of an experience created an interest. As I later found out this was right at the time he was thrown out of Iran. They left as a result of a revolution and I remember thinking that definitely seemed cool.
So fast forward to now and guess who's in the news. A little history and perspective seems in order. 27 years ago Iran has a revolution that succeeded in ousting their western backed leader. I don't know about you but I clearly remember Watergate. A little earlier perhaps but the only recent mildly comparable turbulent time for Americans. I also remember the effect it had on this country.
Now imagine a Nixon Monarchy including his father before him ruling America since WWI. Around WWII the father is removed and the son is installed by outsiders so they can help themselves to your natural resources, pay an unfair price and attempt to change the culture in the process. There are steady reminders along the way who the real boss is. There is political trickery, unfair programs, corruption, violent coups and no real democratic representation. Your autocratic leader slowly becomes known as a puppet for outside interests. Having no more of it you rise up and revolt. Then starting your country over and weakened from revolution your attacked by your outsider backed neighbor and suffer casualties of up to 1 million of which 100,000 are killed by chemical weapons.
The fact that this was an Islamic Revolution should have been a strong message to the world how sick and tired Iran was of the interventions in it's affairs and that western ways were not a good fit. A little generalization could have convinced smart people that it wasn't a good fit for much of the region but that's another topic.
I'm not going any deeper into the history of Iran and to say they haven't contributed to their own problems would be wrong but, if your not inclined to study the subject, know that the west, without question, played a huge role in the affairs of Iran and being fair had little to do with that involvement. You have heard it before and it's true, it was primarily about oil.
Unfortunately the actions against Iran in pursuit of this goal has hardened Iranians dislike for Americans to the extent that dealing with them today is nearly impossible. Add clever politicians exploiting these hatreds and fears and you have modern day Iran.
The sad thing is the damage is done and in light of possible new discoveries about Iran's uranium enrichment efforts there will at some point likely be a response from the west. My only hope is that whoever ultimately negotiates with the Iranians will be fair minded and able to know and embrace their troubled history.
The fellow we moved was a successful magazine publisher who was closing his office in New York. It turned out for me to be a peek at how the "other half " lived. His office was maybe 20 stories up in a huge building in Manhattan. Moving some of the things in his office was part of the deal and I remember thinking, what did I get myself into? As it turned out it wasn't a problem. We just pulled the whole damn truck into the "truck elevator," took it right up to his floor and packed up. At the time I didn't know such things existed.
That memory lasted along with being surprised at how nice and friendly everyone was. I'd been warned about New Yorkers so many times I expected they all had horns. It couldn't have been further from the truth. There was one guy on the street we asked for directions, he patiently did his best, then opted to ride on the running board of the truck for what must have been 3 miles to get us to the highway. It was about 30 degrees outside. I'd never heard of that happening in Los Angeles even on a warm day.
It was my first experience in New York city and it had a feel to it that was very different than any other city I'd been to. There were little things I recall like pulling out of the truck elevator onto a street with traffic so tight I thought we would never get out. For me, the Californian, it was hectic and I was out of my element and getting nowhere fast. We had befriended a few of the girls in the office who came along with us. They kept telling me to just move into the lane which I finally did nervously until I put a crease right down the side of a car with the trucks bumper. I thought now I'd really done it, but one of the girls, Holly was here name said, "Go, the next guy will take you a little more seriously now." Well, the guy I hit never even stopped and we laughed and I soaked it all up like a sponge.
We stayed in the apartment of the guy we were moving which was on Beekman Place in a nice part of the city overlooking the East River. His place was wild, it had polished metal ceiling panels with slabs of glass sticking out of the walls for shelves that were backlit making the edges aqua blue.
We would pack up stuff during the day and go to night clubs at night. The place was Disneyland for adults. Everything was new and different. There was more than we could ever see and I finally got to find out what food was supposed to taste like. It was heaven but, sorry, this is going to have to wait for another post. I have a little more serious thought in mind.
The reason I bring this story up in the first place is 2 doors down from the apartment was a townhouse that was obviously of some importance to someone because there was always 2 New York city police officers standing nearby watching. There was also a large security camera above the door. Being young wise guys we would ham it up when we passed by. We would joke about who might live there as we came and went at all hours of the day and night. After about 3 days of this the officers had had enough and approached us and inquired about what we were doing. We explained and got to talking about California and the weather which they loved to hear about. We got pretty friendly and I guess they passed the word on to the next shift because nobody ever bothered us again.
One night we came in late and I remember asking the officers who they were guarding, they said "The Shah of Iran's wife." It sounded important but it didn't mean much to us at the time. We talked a little bit and said goodnight but I'll never forget as we walked away one of them said, "if you guys are gonna blow the place up, let us know first so we can get the hell outta here," we all laughed. I remember thinking New York cops are a lot cooler than L.A. cops.
I barely knew who the Shah of Iran was then but that little kernel of an experience created an interest. As I later found out this was right at the time he was thrown out of Iran. They left as a result of a revolution and I remember thinking that definitely seemed cool.
So fast forward to now and guess who's in the news. A little history and perspective seems in order. 27 years ago Iran has a revolution that succeeded in ousting their western backed leader. I don't know about you but I clearly remember Watergate. A little earlier perhaps but the only recent mildly comparable turbulent time for Americans. I also remember the effect it had on this country.
Now imagine a Nixon Monarchy including his father before him ruling America since WWI. Around WWII the father is removed and the son is installed by outsiders so they can help themselves to your natural resources, pay an unfair price and attempt to change the culture in the process. There are steady reminders along the way who the real boss is. There is political trickery, unfair programs, corruption, violent coups and no real democratic representation. Your autocratic leader slowly becomes known as a puppet for outside interests. Having no more of it you rise up and revolt. Then starting your country over and weakened from revolution your attacked by your outsider backed neighbor and suffer casualties of up to 1 million of which 100,000 are killed by chemical weapons.
The fact that this was an Islamic Revolution should have been a strong message to the world how sick and tired Iran was of the interventions in it's affairs and that western ways were not a good fit. A little generalization could have convinced smart people that it wasn't a good fit for much of the region but that's another topic.
I'm not going any deeper into the history of Iran and to say they haven't contributed to their own problems would be wrong but, if your not inclined to study the subject, know that the west, without question, played a huge role in the affairs of Iran and being fair had little to do with that involvement. You have heard it before and it's true, it was primarily about oil.
Unfortunately the actions against Iran in pursuit of this goal has hardened Iranians dislike for Americans to the extent that dealing with them today is nearly impossible. Add clever politicians exploiting these hatreds and fears and you have modern day Iran.
The sad thing is the damage is done and in light of possible new discoveries about Iran's uranium enrichment efforts there will at some point likely be a response from the west. My only hope is that whoever ultimately negotiates with the Iranians will be fair minded and able to know and embrace their troubled history.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Pretty good week
What a week this was. Bad behavior caught up with more than just Don Imus. Moral and ethics proponents around the country have a lot to rejoice. Paul Wolfowitz, the hawkish so called brains behind the Iraq war took the apology route under cover of the Imus melt down about his involvement in his girl friends job transfer and raise to $193k(tax free) at a U.S. funded foundation. Hopefully his luck has run out. An association of employees at the World Bank has asked him to resign. It sounds like he didn't take Casey Stengel's advice and keep the guy's who hated him away from the guy's who were undecided!
Wolfowitz is a might-makes-right gun boat diplomat who's stuck in the past and would do us all a favor by just fading away. He got us into this war and has been wrong in nearly every aspect of it and now makes $300k a year at a cushy job and can't stay out of trouble and how's this for irony, his emphasis while there has been to reduce corruption and require accountability of recipients of World Bank aid.
And then you have the Justice Department caught in a lie saying that 7 of 8 prosecutors were removed without replacements in mind. I bet someones hating computers about now. I noticed the Vice President was washing his hands of the matter or "distancing the administration" as the euphemism goes. The crazy thing here is that the best I can tell there wasn't much wrongdoing until they decided to start lying about it. Hopefully we will get a little closer to the truth now.
But as a father of a young daughter what made my week was the deeper legal hole Joe Francis, the head pimp of the "girls gone wild" farce empire, got himself into. What I wouldn't give to see this degenerate disappear. He doesn't deserve further discussion.
So it's been a good week and by the way please don't listen to what you'll surely start hearing about the loss of Don Imus as a blow to freedom and the American way. Instead, fill a bucket of water, place your hand in the water and remove it and wait 10 seconds. The impression your hand made is about the extent of the impression Don Imus's work on the radio will have made on the world in a year from now. Trust me.
Wolfowitz is a might-makes-right gun boat diplomat who's stuck in the past and would do us all a favor by just fading away. He got us into this war and has been wrong in nearly every aspect of it and now makes $300k a year at a cushy job and can't stay out of trouble and how's this for irony, his emphasis while there has been to reduce corruption and require accountability of recipients of World Bank aid.
And then you have the Justice Department caught in a lie saying that 7 of 8 prosecutors were removed without replacements in mind. I bet someones hating computers about now. I noticed the Vice President was washing his hands of the matter or "distancing the administration" as the euphemism goes. The crazy thing here is that the best I can tell there wasn't much wrongdoing until they decided to start lying about it. Hopefully we will get a little closer to the truth now.
But as a father of a young daughter what made my week was the deeper legal hole Joe Francis, the head pimp of the "girls gone wild" farce empire, got himself into. What I wouldn't give to see this degenerate disappear. He doesn't deserve further discussion.
So it's been a good week and by the way please don't listen to what you'll surely start hearing about the loss of Don Imus as a blow to freedom and the American way. Instead, fill a bucket of water, place your hand in the water and remove it and wait 10 seconds. The impression your hand made is about the extent of the impression Don Imus's work on the radio will have made on the world in a year from now. Trust me.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Don Imus in a nut shell
The Don Imus spectacle brings to mind Victor Frankl, the Austrian Psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor who said there are only two races of men, decent and non-decent. Harsh? Absolutely but, I can't imagine any of the truly decent people I've met in my life ever uttering such words.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Wrestling with Religion
I know that I mentioned Thanksgiving was my favorite holiday but Easter is a perfectly reasonable holiday to. Colorfully dye and hide some hard boiled eggs, put out some baskets filled with a lot of egg and bunny shaped chocolates, watch the joy in children's faces and your good to go. Go where? If your me Church, and that would be Catholic Church and again, for me, a quandary. Why? Because believe me, I've tried to accept my religion without a fight and I sincerely envy those people who do and especially the ones who attribute their seeming bliss to it but, I just wasn't made that way. In fact you could call the questioning part of my life my religion. Without it my world doesn't make sense. For me, the quest for knowledge gives meaning to life and hope is as close to God as I know. What feels like blind acceptance of something this important is no more in my nature than attempting to fly without some form of airplane.
I do think organized religions around the world are important. They provide lots of hope and far be it from me to decide the role of spirituality in someone else's life, especially someone who wasn't as fortunate as I to have been born in a place like the U.S.
Religion is here to stay and although often criticized and rightly so as a continuing source of conflict, I believe that civilization would have evolved in a far less desirable way without it. I do wish moderation could receive a more important role, perhaps as an important pillar in their teachings but religion fills a void left by the enormous complexity of our lives which leaves most people unfulfilled.
In fact accepting certain truths without question frequently seems very appealing to me and at some point when I believe I've begun to chase my tail perhaps I'll reconsider. How does that square with now? Well I no longer feel the burden of guilt I once did about being askew with the Catholic religion and in fact we co-exist quite nicely. I've just learned like so many areas of my life to take it all far less seriously than I once did. And even in the convoluted world of religion I don't think anyone can argue that in the end it isn't all about hope.
I do think organized religions around the world are important. They provide lots of hope and far be it from me to decide the role of spirituality in someone else's life, especially someone who wasn't as fortunate as I to have been born in a place like the U.S.
Religion is here to stay and although often criticized and rightly so as a continuing source of conflict, I believe that civilization would have evolved in a far less desirable way without it. I do wish moderation could receive a more important role, perhaps as an important pillar in their teachings but religion fills a void left by the enormous complexity of our lives which leaves most people unfulfilled.
In fact accepting certain truths without question frequently seems very appealing to me and at some point when I believe I've begun to chase my tail perhaps I'll reconsider. How does that square with now? Well I no longer feel the burden of guilt I once did about being askew with the Catholic religion and in fact we co-exist quite nicely. I've just learned like so many areas of my life to take it all far less seriously than I once did. And even in the convoluted world of religion I don't think anyone can argue that in the end it isn't all about hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)