Zwedru, Liberia -- As Colonel Gaddafi continues his pillage in North Africa, harrowing skeletons from his closet remain buried deep in the soil along the continent's western edge. The brutal conflicts of West Africa -- in Liberia and Sierra Leone -- were led by men, like Charles Taylor, who trained in camps sponsored by Gaddafi in the 1980s. In 1990, militias deployed those tactics to terrorize our home country, Liberia, and ignite a civil war that claimed the lives of a quarter million Liberians. The rest of us were turned into refugees.
Today, Gaddafi's West African nightmare lives on in Ivory Coast. Fighters he directly or indirectly trained, including Liberian mercenaries, waged violence in Ivory Coast when Laurent Gbagbo refused to yield the presidency he lost. His arrest earlier this month ushered a turning point in the political crisis. But, the violence continues. And, as wars typically are, this one has been depicted only through the eyes of powerful men.
The Ivorian women who fled the violence tell a different story. Over 170,000 Ivorians -- primarily women and their children -- have poured across Liberia's eastern border in recent months. A Human Rights Watch (HRW) report on April 9 revealed their horrific testimonies. They have seen their husbands shot point blank, their children raped in front of their eyes, and their villages burned to the dirt.
Last week, our colleagues at Tiyatien Health, a health organization founded by survivors of Liberia's civil war, provided care for one of those women, Marie, at a public hospital in Zwedru, a Liberian town near the border with Ivory Coast. Three weeks earlier, her village had suddenly been ambushed by rebels. As the guns fired, Marie took cover with her husband on the floor of their hut while shielding her three girls with her own body. The rebels then dragged her out of her hut into the open. Four bullets had already entered her chest -- one only four inches from her heart.
Somehow, the blood and sweat dripping from Marie's body convinced the gunman her fate was sealed -- "he told his men I'd die, so it wasn't worth wasting another bullet on me." She darted, children in tow, into the forest. That was the last she saw of her village and her husband. After carrying her girls through the bush and across a river, a man found her collapsed in a cassava field near Zwedru and brought her to our hospital.
Marie's bullet wounds are healing. We are her beginning to address her emotional pain. But, when she leaves the hospital, what will become of her? What of her three girls? Another report issued by HRW last week paints a grim prognosis.
According to HRW, refugee women and girls report "no choice but to engage in sex" with men who promise to give them food. The challenge is that most of the refugees have taken shelter, not in camps, but with their Liberian relatives, whom (ironically) they hosted not long ago when Liberians lived in exile in Ivory Coast. Food shortages were already rampant in southeastern Liberia, among the poorest places on earth according to the UN. The refugee influx has only made matters more desperate. Last week, a two-week-old Ivorian infant died at our hospital after her mother's breast milk ceased because the mother herself had gone hungry for weeks.
Writing, respectively, as a doctor and peace activist who have worked on the front lines of war, it is clear what's needed now is justice and aid. The international community should support justice on both sides of the border for the women and children who have suffered physical and sexual violence.
But, justice for the victims also requires meeting their basic needs. The international community must fill the UN's current $300 million emergency humanitarian appeal for food, shelter and medical assistance for the 170,000 Ivorian refugees in Liberia and the other million displaced within Ivory Coast. Thus far, only a fraction of the funds have been pledged. But individual Americans can do something too. Combined together, even small donations ($20 or $50), critical in relief efforts in places like Haiti and Japan, will help Ivorian refugees like Marie and her girls receive needed shelter, food and medicine. Simply put, dollars will save more lives.
We remember in 1990, after our families fled Liberia, when Taylor captured then Liberian President Samuel Doe. Many looked away after what they thought marked the beginning of the end of a conflict. It turned out be only the beginning of our war; many of our neighbors remained refugees for more than a decade. Today, two other men have been the center of attention in Ivory Coast. Let us not forget the women and children who have been left in their shadows.
Dr. Rajesh Panjabi is a physician at Harvard Medical School and Co-Founder of Tiyatien Health, a Liberia-based charity providing medical relief to Ivorian refugees; Leymah Gbowee is executive director of the Women Peace and Security Network Africa and the central character in the 2008 documentary film, Pray the Devil Back to Hell.
If you're curious about this kind of thing -- what goes on inside the submission process of publishing -- there follow, a few paragraphs down, eight edited examples of the rejection notes I got, through my agent, for 25,000 words of a memoir. The book is about my childhood, work at the New Yorker, and twelve years in the book business and is tentatively titled My Mistake. (The title seemed apter and apter as these "nos" piled up-if aptness admits of degree.) Those who know the business may enjoy a guessing game here. Those who don't may enjoy a glimpse of book-business manners and lack of them. I post them here because in a way they are all part of a coded conversation. You can read between the lines, assaying the praise for sincerity -- I believe half of it, maybe, but am pathetically grateful for all of it, and was of course inclined to accept all of it prima facie, especially "sublime." And finally, these notes give a taste of how disappointing and frustrating the writing game can be, especially these days. In case you think it's vanity at work here, remember this: a rejection is a rejection.
That said, there exist in my mind at least two perfect examples of ego-sparing ways in which a book can be turned down. One is in Ian MacEwan's Atonement -- a fictional rejection sent to the novel's protagonist from a real and very famous editor, Cyril Connolly, which includes such specific and helpful questions as "If this girl has so fully misunderstood or been so wholly baffled by the strange little scene that has unfolded before her, how might it affect the lives of the two adults? Might she come between them in some disastrous fashion?" The other letter was perhaps an urban legend I once heard about a titanically self-effacing Japanese publisher who said, more or less, "Your book is so wonderful that if we were to publish it, we would have to go out of business completely, since we would never again be able to match its excellence."
I've edited out only identifying information. And a deal has now been made, I'm glad to say-with a great publisher and editor. If they had all declined, it would have been on to Mushroom Spore Press, in Weehawken, New Jersey, and Raccoon Scat Books, P.O. Box 43,227, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Or, seriously, self-publishing -- an option that in fact gave me great comfort throughout this process, as the tide inexorably turns against the traditional models of offering books to the public.
REJECTION 1
Dear _____:
I regret I'm going to have to pass on Dan's memoir. I'm sure you and Dan will understand why this book would be tricky for us to do. I remember Dan once telling me that he loved my "sense of mischief," so I appreciate the spirit in which this came my way. I'm sorry not to get the chance to work with him on this....
I particularly enjoyed the reminiscences of Pauline Kael and of the school days in Nyack, and Dan's wry and bemused portrait of all the infighting and incestuousness at William Shawn's New Yorker.
REJECTION 2
Dear _____,
Thank you very much indeed for sending me Dan Menaker's My Mistake. I truly love the narrative energy of these pages, the sharpness of the humor -- which spares no one, including Dan himself...
That being said, I must add something far harder to say, and that is that I'm afraid that there is some concern here about the size of the audience for this book...Therefore, I feel I must decline, though I do so with regret, and wishing you and he every success with the book: I am certain that you will soon find another editor who feels differently, and the right house for Dan and My Mistake. REJECTION 3
Dear _____,
After much thought, I've decided not to offer on Dan Menaker's memoir. I loved the parts on the New Yorker -- as did everyone who read it here. But the family history sections, with the exception of the devastating pages on his brother, were not as striking -- to me in any case...
Thank you and Dan for including me.
Best, ______
REJECTION 4
Dear ______,
I love the humor and playfulness and intelligence of Dan's writing. I have too much trepidation about the marketplace for a memoir to move forward. I had previously suggested to Dan that he put his personal stories in the service of a larger idea, beyond memoir, as he did so well with conversation, but that's just my bias. I understand and appreciate Dan's desire to tell his story in the most direct and personal way. I'm sure he'll do it brilliantly, and I wish both of you great success with it. Thanks, as always, for the opportunity.
REJECTION 5
Hi, ____
The easy pass here is to say, truthfully, that _______ is largely in business to feed paperbacks to _______. And I don't think there is going to be much paperback action for a publishing memoir. So it's really not right for the list....
This book will get reviewed everywhere, but I don't think we are going to be able to get readers to come to it based on the name dropping, and I can't figure out how to position it in a bigger way.
Best, ______
REJECTION 6
Dear ____,
Thanks for the chance to consider Dan's memoir but I don't see this as working for me.
Sincerely, ______
REJECTION 7
Dear _____,
Thanks for this. Dan is a sublime writer and I enjoyed reading about his childhood... But I'm sorry to say that I don't think the draw of these subjects is strong enough to drive sufficient sales for us....
Thank you for letting me read this, and please give my thanks and best wishes to Dan.
Yours, ______
REJECTION 8
Sorry for the slow response regarding Dan's manuscript; I had spoken to _______ about it and I've been meaning to get in touch.
I enjoyed the pages. The two narratives bounce off each other in intriguing and suggestive ways, and both are infused with great energy and charm; a tantalizing kind of tension is developed. The shifts between the two stories are sometimes rather abrupt, the pacing sometimes off, but I'm sure this will get worked out in the writing.
Ultimately, though, ______ and I felt we should step aside....
Thanks for the chance to look at the chapters; please give my regards to Dan. I hope we'll connect on something else before too long,
Have a good weekend.
Best, ______
The last letter, from one of the smartest and most likable editors I know, gave me a bit of a laugh, to go along with the tears. I mentally filled in the blank inadvertently left by "I've been meaning to get in touch" with "but there was a tiger sitting on my keyboard who would have killed me" or "but Obama called me in for some help with bin Laden" or "but there was this one word in the crossword puzzle I just couldn't get."
Arnold Schwarzenegger's long list of past indiscretions -- including the recent revelation that he fathered a child with a member of his household staff -- shouldn't be any of our business. As long as he didn't break the law, nobody beyond his immediate family should be concerned with his private affairs. But is it too much to ask that Schwarzenegger, and other politicians who have found themselves caught up in messy family situations, extend to all Americans what they say they want for themselves: to not have others meddle in their private lives?
I am still angry at Arnold Schwarzenegger. Not because he hid a personal secret from the public and from his own family, but because he did so while working to deny thousands of California citizens the right to have legal families at all.
Sure, Schwarzenegger was not one of those politicians who regularly use inflammatory anti-gay rhetoric, but nobody in state office has done more to hold back marriage equality for more people. Despite Schwarzenegger's often gay-friendly tone, he is the only governor ever to have vetoed marriage equality legislation twice...twice! Now, Schwarzenegger wants to be known for his refusal to defend the discriminatory Proposition 8 in court. But while he was in office, he had the chance to do the right thing and failed...twice. This is what Americans should remember about Schwarzenegger's gay rights record. A friendly tone doesn't mean a thing when it's paired with hateful policies.
Schwarzenegger, despite his purported unwillingness to join the ranks of the fire breathing gay-bashing Right, has placed himself with the likes of John Ensign and Newt Gingrich on the long and growing list of GOP officials who accused gay people of ruining the institution of marriage while they themselves flouted their wedding vows.
No politician, however squeaky clean his or her personal record is, should be in the business of telling grown adults who they can love and marry, or demonizing people who are trying to achieve the financial and emotional security of marriage. But the people who make my blood boil are those who accuse gay people of harming the institutions of marriage and the family while causing real harm to their own marriages and families. These men expose the real hypocrisy behind efforts to stop gay equality. They insist that family is a personal matter and beg for privacy in their personal affairs. We should all expect -- no, demand -- that they extend that belief to their public policy when and where it really matters.
On the afternoon of April 28, a black cloud rumbled over Haiti and unleashed violent winds and torrents of rain that tore through an already ravaged landscape, setting off a wave of panic. Debris flew through the air, canals and streams overflowed and for a brief, agonizing moment it appeared that a natural calamity had again struck the beleaguered island nation.
Nowhere were the effects of the raging storm more apparent than in the many camps for Haiti's internally displaced people (IDPs). Throughout the city of Port-au-Prince, tens of thousands of tent homes were torn apart by the wind or swept away by floods. Though the tempest was short-lived, it left fresh tragedy in its wake and provided a bitter reminder of the helpless predicament in which Haiti's displaced continue to live.
Indeed, almost 700,000 Haitians who lost their homes in the quake are still living in appalling conditions. Despite a massive international commitment to assist Haiti, the majority of these people still lack access to basic services like healthcare, clean water, toilets, sanitation and live in tattered shelters. This environment is no match for the tropical storms hitting Haiti now, or the hurricanes that may strike within months.
The increasing gravity of the situation in the camps requires an urgent response. This is why we and 50 other members of Congress sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking the U.S. administration to "take decisive action" and "work with the incoming government of Haiti and the international community to ensure that the rights and vital needs of IDP communities are addressed in a timely and efficient manner."
The letter notes that in many camps the situation is worsening: shelter installations are rapidly deteriorating; rape and other forms of gender-based violence are increasing, and a quarter of camp residents are threatened with forced eviction. Few transitional or permanent homes are available for the displaced, and according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), many families are being forced to move to even more precarious dwellings.
The onset of the rainy season has added another layer of misery to the lives of displaced families. Tropical rains and winds not only threaten the flimsy tents, tarps and bed sheets that serve as shelter; they also cause constant flooding. This greatly increases the likelihood of the spread of cholera and other diseases.
The effects of flooding are compounded by the lack of basic sanitation in many camps. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Haiti has warned that without sanitation services in camps, "latrines are going to overflow [and] it's going to be a source of cholera contamination..." Partners in Health, an aid organization servicing Haiti for over 20 years, has already reported a large spike in cholera cases in recent weeks.
In short, an already intolerable situation is about to get worse. Swift, efficient action is needed if we are to avoid another full-fledged humanitarian crisis.
Providing IDP communities with transitional and permanent housing must be a priority. However, the first priority is ensuring that basic services, security and adequate temporary shelter are provided to tent communities. Such a task is possible if -- with our Haitian and international partners -- we strive to correct the inefficiencies and errors that have plagued past aid efforts.
As our letter to Secretary Clinton states, our government needs to bring "accountability and transparency... to the task of IDP assistance," in particular with regard to the efforts of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and IOM. USAID plays a central role within the international relief mission and should use its leverage to ensure that contracting NGOs provide full coverage of the needs of displaced persons and collaborate more closely with Haitians, particularly the very Haitians living in camps.
While our people and government have responded to Haiti's crisis with great generosity, the alarming conditions in tent camps make it imperative to ramp up and reappraise our efforts. It's time for us to step up to the plate, once again, and make sure that the next violent storms don't succeed in destroying more lives and killing the hope that remains among those who saw their homes crumble on January 12th, 2010.
Triage: the process for sorting victims into groups based on their need for or likely benefit from immediate treatment, when limited resources must be allocated.
The delay in acting to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases means that more and more anthropogenic climate changes are now unavoidable. Climate impacts are already evident and they are going to get worse and worse. It's the "new normal." In coming years, we are going to be faced with increasingly difficult decisions in what must now be called climate triage -- choices about who and what is going to be protected and saved, versus abandoned and lost.
The recent decision to open the Morganza spillway and other relief valves on the Mississippi River is a clear example of climate triage. Officials had a difficult choice: intentionally divert part of the Mississippi to flood a 3,000-square-mile area affecting more than 25,000 people, or risk even worse catastrophic flooding in Baton Rouge and New Orleans. Society is going to be faced with more and more such decisions.
As sea levels rise, communities will have to make choices about where to build costly seawalls and what coastal properties to completely abandon. As temperatures rise, the poor and elderly will face higher risks of heat deaths if adequate resources to protect them are not made available. Increased flooding on some of the world's major rivers will threaten communities over larger areas, and more frequently, than in the past. Some agricultural lands will have to be abandoned because the climate will no longer be favorable or limited water resources will be diverted to more valuable demands. There has already been talk about "endangered species triage" in California as conflicts over water resources, land management, urban and agricultural priorities, and ecosystem protections grow, with the explicit acknowledgement that climate change will make these conflicts worse.
A recent study by the Pacific Institute on the impacts of sea-level rise on the California coast identifies half a million people already living in areas that are at risk of future flooding, hundreds of miles of roads, billions of dollars of homes and businesses, airports, wastewater treatment plants, power plants and much more. These assets cannot possibly all be protected given the level of financial resources and institutional will that will have to be found and mobilized. What will be protected and what will be abandoned? And who decides?
A few marginal, irresponsible voices still desperately deny the reality of climate change. A few argue that it's happening but due to natural causes, and a few argue that while real, climate change isn't going to be bad or else it will be too expensive to fix. But Bob Dylan said it best: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." Just look outside, as scientists have done. "Normal" is over. Climate change is now influencing every weather event.
The insurance sector is already changing how they view, and cover, climate risks, acknowledging that climate change is already influencing weather-related catastrophes. Munich Re (one of the world's leading reinsurers) has said:
"The only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change. The view that weather extremes are more frequent and intense due to global warming coincides with the current state of scientific knowledge".
The triage decisions along the Mississippi were part of long-term plans for the river -- we knew that some communities living in the floodplains were at risk. But climate triage decisions are going to come as a surprise to many because we've denied or ignored the risks for so long. Getting on board with that kind of thinking and planning needs to become the new normal.
Arnold, welcome to the club! I've been through a divorce myself, and I totally get it. Women -- you can't live with them, you can't live without them tolerating your constant infidelity while you father a secret baby with the maid -- am I right? Look, I know it doesn't feel like it now, but you're going to be okay. You see, when a relationship ends after 25 years, it's like a death, and there's a rhythm to the grieving process. Buck up pal, there's a mere five stages between today's pain and tomorrow's clarity and guilt-free grab ass with the help!
Stage 1 -- Denial: This stage is temporary, and I imagine you'll work through it quickly once you realize that the TMZ camera crew isn't going anywhere. According to the classic model, denial is often replaced with a heightened awareness of the individuals left behind after the loss, i.e. that kid who's spent the last 10 years calling you Uncle Arnie.
Stage 2 -- Anger: This is when you get together with your bros to talk trash about chicks. You say you're actually glad that Skeletor Shriver (take it -- it's yours) is finally gone, Sly and Dolph take turns drunk dialing Brigitte Nielsen, and you all tell Van Damme-- again -- that of course you wanted him in The Expendables, but couldn't find his email. Then you do shots of HGH, laughing that at least none of you is Seagal!
Stage 3 -- Bargaining: Do yourself a favor and skip this, "I'd do anything if only we'd lasted until..." step. You got out at the right time after a great run -- the kids are grown (oops! -- old enough to know they should side with mommy), and you made it to 25 years and for 10 of them got away with a live-in baby mama. Mr. Olympia indeed! Plus, in exchange for assuming the role of Not Husband of the Year, we all get to stop hating Jesse James a little bit. Maybe he'll build you a new bike!
Stage 4 -- Depression: A little down? Of course you are -- you're not good at playing the bad guy and you haven't taken a blow like this since the reviews for Jingle All The Way. But look at the upside -- you may be the fading pop culture reference and serial philanderer who played at politics while his constituency suffered, but if you were a citizen those would the credentials that put you on the 2012 ticket alongside Newt Gingrich! Yes, you're 63 and every day looking more and more like K.D. Lang, but you've still got your health -- no way Maria's Hyannis Port goons can take half of that! (I don't think.)
Stage 5 -- Acceptance: Just because this is happening doesn't mean you can't come out the other side wiser and ready for your next starring role as America's most eligible "Bachelornator!" (I already bought this domain name -- we should talk.)
Remember Arnold, love is more resilient than any "metal man," and a franchise that can sustain an infinite number of sequels. But why not play it safe and freshen up your image? I say drop the whole uptight Orange County Republican thing and go back to the 'roiding, weed-steeped foreigner we all originally fell in love with. I'd be happy to write your Match.com ad. (Though I registered the "Bachelornator" handle there, too -- seriously, make me an offer.) I just know that in no time at all ... "you'll be back!" (I had to, just once.)
Imagine if in It's A Wonderful Life, Mr. Potter had actually prevailed and George Bailey, a ruined man, had to relocate.
That couldn't happen in a Frank Capra movie, of course, but sadly it can and did happen in real life, at Carnegie Hall, and without that much fuss or fall-out.
Photographer Josef Astor's new documentary,Lost Bohemia, which opens this Friday at Manhattan's IFC Center (and for you non-New Yorkers out there, will also appear soon on DVD) tells this fascinating, revealing tale. And anyone concerned with the role of art and artists in modern society should see it.
First, some background, which starts with a humbling admission.
As a native New Yorker, I've attended numerous Carnegie Hall concerts; I even appeared on its stage once. That said, I had little to no idea about the special world above its stage, formerly known as the Carnegie Hall Studios.
In 1895, these studios (165 of them to be precise) were constructed above the newly completed concert hall as residences and teaching spaces for musicians, painters, photographers, dancers, poets, writers, actors and designers.
And indeed they served admirably in that capacity for a little over a century. As "Lost Bohemia" makes abundantly clear, the history made in that space, which few non-artists even know about, is astounding.
What precisely happened there?
Mark Twain wrote. Enrico Caruso made his first record. Charles Dana Gibson invented the "Gibson Girl". Living affordably in their own private spaces, Isadora Duncan danced, Leonard Bernstein composed, and both John Barrymore and Marlon Brando rehearsed their lines.
Among the other artists and writers who honed their craft in the studios: George Balanchine, Martha Graham, Bob Fosse, Norman Mailer, Paddy Chayefsky, Cecil B. DeMille, Spencer Tracy, Elia Kazan, Marilyn Monroe, Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Jane Fonda, Jason Robards and John Turturro.
If these walls could talk, indeed.
When Josef Astor, a noted photographer who moved into the studios in 1985, started to film Lost Bohemia over a decade ago, his purpose was not only to celebrate the rich history of the place, but also capture the special bonds and camaraderie shared among his fellow tenants.
To that end, we first meet a host of colorful characters among the studios' long-time residents, including Bill Cunningham, photographer for the New York Times (and subject of his own documentary, Bill Cunningham New York; writer Andrew Bergman of Blazing Saddles fame; singer Jeanne Beauvais, who entertained Judy Garland after the latter's historic concerts downstairs, and pianist Don Shirley, who'd host Duke Ellington and Count Basie after their gigs.
Perhaps most memorable among this tight-knit group is photographer Editta Sherman, a spry, spirited lady in her mid-late nineties, often called the "Duchess of Carnegie Hall" for having lived and worked there for over six decades.
Then, as often happens with documentaries, breaking events take Astor's film in an unexpected new direction.
Without a word of warning, in 2001 eviction notices started appearing on residents' doors, and soon enough, the Carnegie Hall Corporation makes it official: studio residents are to be relocated, and the Studios themselves knocked down for eventual conversion into enhanced teaching spaces and administrative offices.
Captured by Astor's camera, what ensues is a noble but futile legal battle for the artists to maintain their homes and work-spaces against a calculated, implacable, well-funded effort to remove them and in effect, systematically demolish all that they-and the studios-stood for.
In their resistance, the residents are up against the imposing figure of Sanford ("Sandy") Weill, former Citigroup chairman, who chairs the board of Carnegie Hall. (Mr. Weill may smile more than Lionel Barrymore's "Mr. Potter," but when it comes to hard business, he may be an even tougher customer.)
It seems Mr. Weill and his posse have lined up city officials to do their bidding in advance; even considering all he's done for New York, let's not forget our current mayor is also a sober man of business.
Since the city technically owns Carnegie Hall and leases it to the Corporation, the Bloomberg Administration could have interceded, but even after appeals from some of the city's most prominent artists and architects, the folks at Gracie Mansion sat on their hands. (Ironically, when Carnegie Hall itself was first threatened with extinction back in 1960, the city ended up buying the structure and giving it landmark status, in order that it be protected).
In addition, apparently Mr. Weill saw nothing improper in awarding the renovation contract for the studios to the architectural firm, Iu + Bibliowicz, even though its principal, Natan Bibliowicz, happens to be his son-in-law.
Lost Bohemia plays out this tragic contest, whose outcome is never in doubt (indeed it feels rigged from the get-go), all the while maintaining its human focus, capturing the emotions and attitudes of the victimized residents, Mr. Astor's neighbors, for whom he clearly feels both allegiance and affection.
As do we. And why not?
Endearing and warmly nostalgic as it is, the film did set me to thinking about where we're headed as a culture, specifically in terms of who's prevailing in the age-old struggle between art and commerce.
To me it's pretty evident that more and more, purely commercial considerations are undermining our appetite and desire for what true art really provides: fresh, original perspectives on what it means to be alive and human.
I'm talking about work that challenges established norms and expectations, that may provoke, move, or even mystify us, but regardless, makes us feel and think on a higher plane than our everyday routines and concerns normally allow.
In an age that leaves less time for reflection, art of this kind, in whatever form, would seem like a vital antidote to the numbing superficiality pervading our culture. And yet it's only getting harder to find.
Look at our own country. In resource terms we still outstrip our European counterparts, yet I'd argue they show a more pronounced respect and reverence for serious art and culture than we do.
Italy and France, to name but two examples, view the arts as an integral part of their identity and history, and so allot public funds to support their finest and most promising practitioners.
Meanwhile, any effort to do the same thing here smacks of socialism.
While we lead the world in light, escapist, bubble-gum entertainment, we have gradually de-emphasized anything more demanding than a comic book movie, a reality show, or a Chelsea Handler bestseller. We have more TV channels, but less intelligent programming, than ever before. PBS once again is under threat of extinction, and most not-for-profit arts institutions face significant challenges.
And inevitably, we marginalize the artists themselves. The word "bohemian" actually means a "socially unconventional person, especially a writer or artist", and watching the film, you recognize swiftly that this descriptor truly applies to most of the Carnegie studio residents profiled in the film; there are no household names to be found.
That said, how many artistic geniuses never experienced a hint of recognition in their lifetime? (Van Gogh and Poe immediately spring to mind, but it's a long list.)
Artists who create work ahead of their time have always suffered, but somehow they've still always been driven to create. One wonders: if the very concept of serious art is increasingly devalued, will the Van Goghs of tomorrow even be moved to pick up a brush in the first place? And what price do we pay if they don't?
In addition, though the combined assets of the last studio residents might not look so hot on a balance sheet, so what? All of these people created great work in their own fields, and contributed to the vibrant arts culture that's traditionally defined this greatest of cities. Who can put a figure on that?
In the end, the Carnegie Studios made it possible for them to live as true bohemians: to enjoy the freedom of being deliciously different and quirky in outlook, joyous and often flamboyant in spirit. That freedom in turn informed and inspired their work.
I suppose it was simply too good to last.
I do think it's a blessing that violinist Isaac Stern, who was instrumental in saving Carnegie Hall back in 1960, did not live to see this happen.
In his own time, he referred to Carnegie Hall -- and by extension its fabled studios -- as a "crucible of democratic creativity... bringing together all that is best in America's myriad ethnic and cultural strains... proving that we have built not just a nation but a civilization."
Sounds quaint, doesn't it?
For a fond and stirring tribute to a grand tradition and a fading way of life, by all means see Josef Astor's Lost Bohemia.
Arnold the Sperminator, this is a doozy of a cheating scandal to land on your children, your love child and wife.
Not only did you cheat on your supportive wife of 25 years, who publicly had your back when you were accused of groping other women in 2003, but you cheated on your four children and Maria with a woman that they knew, no doubt liked, and trusted. She worked in your house for 20 years!
No doubt your children also knew their step-sibling without knowing that they were related. How disconcerting is that?
And what about your love child who grew up for ten years thinking his or her father was one man and is now learning that it's their mother's boss? How confusing and devastating is that? Your love child has been raised and loved by a man he or she thought was their "dad." Will that man abandon the child because he just learned the child was fathered by you? That would be terrible.
Arnold, in your statement this morning, you say you told your wife about "an event that occurred over a decade ago," as if it was some small incident that had no ongoing aftermath. ARNOLD! This is a ten-year-old child -- not "an event that occurred!"
When you and Maria announced your separation last week, it was revealed that Maria had moved out of the family home and into a hotel. That seemed strange -- Why wasn't it you that moved out?
I also wondered why now, after 25 years and numerous rumors about your cheating, would Maria finally throw in the towel? It seemed like another shoe would drop.
Now we know what the other shoe was -- the affair with a household staffer of 20 years, plus a love child. That might also explain Maria's decision to move out. Maybe her house no longer feels like a safe haven. It's where an affair took place right under her nose and where a terrible secret was kept for 20 years. She must feel creeped out!
Maria has issued a statement saying "This is a painful and heartbreaking time. As a mother, my concern is for the children. I ask for compassion, respect and privacy as my children and I try to rebuild our lives and heal."
How compassionate that Maria is expressing her concern for "the children," in other words, all the children involved in this tragedy. Her own four -- Katherine Eunice, 21, Christina Maria Aurelia, 19, Patrick Arnold, 17, and Christopher Sargent Shriver, 13, and the unnamed 10-year-old.
That's a lot more consideration than you, Arnold, had for the past 10 years. You knew about this affair and child before you campaigned for governor of California in 2003 and had Maria speak out for you and against the accusations of cheating that you faced at that time.
You never would have been elected if Maria hadn't had your back. And certainly you never would have been elected if the voters knew about the affair that produced this child.
You chose you political career over your family and your love child. You chose your sex drive over your family. You chose your ego and sense of entitlement to have affairs over your family.
Rightly you now say "I deserve your criticism, my family does not." But it's way too late to ask for the public's forgiveness.
I hope for you and Maria's sake, and the sake of all your children, that you will work hard to receive forgiveness from all of them and that you will strive to be a much better father to all, from now on.
Good luck Maria -- you are so smart and talented and you can do anything you want now. You have all of our support -- doesn't she Hollymoms and Hollywoodlifers? --Bonnie Fuller
Has Paul Ryan killed a promising bipartisan approach to Medicare reform -- premium support -- by presenting it in a form unacceptable to most Democrats (including me) and many Republicans? Ryan's critics correctly argue that his version of premium support, passed by House Republicans, would ultimately end traditional Medicare and likely cause many seniors to pay considerably more for health care than the current system. But it would be a serious mistake for health care reformers to demonize the concept of premium support without recognizing that a better constructed version of the same idea could attract support from many Democrats, as well as Republicans, and become the basis for a sustainable bipartisan redesign of Medicare.
The basic concept of premium support is to provide beneficiaries with a subsidy to select among comprehensive health plans offered on a regulated exchange. The plans can all be private or can include a public option. The plans must accept all eligible beneficiaries -- guaranteeing access and preventing cherry picking -- but the plans will be fully compensated for taking care of older or sicker people. The government subsidy will be capped at a predefined level and growth rate, so it is a defined contribution system, but the cap can be changed by law. If this general structure reminds you of the Massachusetts Connector, the subsidies and exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act, or even Medicare Part D, then you get the idea.
The Bipartisan Policy Center's Debt Reduction Task Force, which I co-chaired with former Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), proposed transitioning Medicare to premium support starting in 2018. In our version, all Medicare beneficiaries would have a choice: Either stay in traditional fee-for-service Medicare or choose a comprehensive health plan on a newly created Medicare Exchange. The growth of the total subsidy -- both for traditional Medicare and for the Exchange -- would be capped at the growth of the economy (GDP) plus one percent. If the cost of traditional Medicare grows faster than that, then its beneficiaries would either have to pay an additional premium or move to the exchange. To protect lower income beneficiaries, the premium could be related to income, although we did not actually spell this out in our plan.
In contrast, the version of premium support in Ryan's budget plan does not preserve the traditional Medicare option. Newly eligible beneficiaries beginning in 2021 would have only the exchange option. Moreover, the Ryan plan has a lower growth rate for the subsidy (only the rate of inflation). In a negotiation with Democrats, these two features, among others, would have to be on the table.
Why would premium support produce better care for Medicare beneficiaries at more sustainable rates of growth? First, with competition among the plans on the Exchange and improving information about plan outcomes, seniors can be expected to migrate to lower cost and higher quality plans. Second, capping the subsidy's growth at a sustainable rate would make the government's contribution predictable and incentivize movement to more efficient health care delivery. Of course, if Congress thinks the cap is too low, it can always raise it.
Premium support has bipartisan origins. The term was coined by two Democratic economists, Henry Aaron and Robert Reischauer, and premium support was the main recommendation of the bipartisan Commission on Medicare Reform, chaired by Senator John Breaux (D-LA) in the late 1990s. Subsidies and exchanges (called "alliances") were proposed by President Clinton and are the basis of the expansion of coverage in President Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Chairman Ryan has had trouble explaining why he is for exchanges in his Medicare reform and against them in ACA, and President Obama has the opposite problem. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that the rising cost of Medicare is unsustainable and that health care delivery -- especially in a fee-for service system -- is inefficient and often ineffective. If Republicans and Democrats could put partisan rhetoric aside for a while, they might recognize that premium support is a good approach to subsidizing health care. It uses market forces to enhance efficiency and makes the public cost controllable. Then they would just have to get to work on the all-important details of design and level of support.
Presented at the Orange County Freethought Alliance Conference May 15, 2011, Irvine, CA.
"People of faith" are universally treated with great deference. The religious are assumed to be persons of the highest moral standards -- exemplars of goodness, kindness, and charity. But why should that be? How does faith qualify anyone for such high esteem? After all, faith is unquestioning belief in the absence of supportive evidence and even in light of contrary evidence. How can one expect such a frame of mind to result in any special insight? While a false belief may be comforting or even temporarily useful, it cannot be a guide to life or the foundation for a successful society. Are we not then irresponsible to build a society based on faith? And how foolish are we, the unfaithful, to defend the beliefs of people of faith?
Religion and science have long been at war with one another. Given the dominant role that religion plays in American society today, most scientists and many national scientific organizations have compromised their principles in order to stay on good terms with religious groups. They try to divide up the territory, leaving science to decide what "is" and religion to decide what "ought to be." However, nowadays, religious leaders and their political supporters are increasingly, and more stridently, trying to define the real world on their own terms. In the process, they are undermining scientific consensus on issues of great consequence to humans everywhere, such as overpopulation and planetary climate change. Scientists and those who believe in reason and empirical evidence have to stop sitting back and letting ideology rather than data control public policy.
Some authors claim that, historically, religion and science have contributed constructively to one another. However, over the millennia religion has been more of a hindrance than a help to the development of science. It was surely no accident that the scientific revolution of the eighteenth century happened only after the revolts against Church authority in the Renaissance and Reformation opened up new avenues of thought.
Religion is based on faith. By contrast, science is not based on faith but on objective observations of the world. This makes religion and science fundamentally incompatible. Science poses the question, "What are you going to believe: the dreams and fantasies of ancient mystics or your eyes, ears, telescopes, magnetic resonance imaging, hadron colliders, and above all, reason and rigorous questioning of all extraordinary claims?"
Let's take a look at the incompatibilities between religion and science. The battle between evolutionary biologists and creationists is well known. Less well known are the ways theists and spiritualists misuse and misrepresent physics and cosmology to claim scientific support for their belief in a supernatural creation. They falsely claim that cosmology supports a created universe. They falsely claim that the parameters of physics are fine-tuned for human life. They falsely claim that modern physics provides a means for God to act in the world without being detected. They falsely claim that quantum mechanics implies that humans can make their own reality -- just by thinking they can.
At the current stage of scientific development, we can confidently say that there is no need to introduce supernatural forces in understanding the universe.
Allow me to give some of the reasons why I believe that science and religion are fundamentally incompatible. And then I will show why it matters.
All religions, even Buddhism, teach that a reality exists that goes beyond -- transcends -- the material world that presents itself to our senses and scientific instruments. Many believers and nonbelievers alike claim that science has nothing to say about the supernatural. But they fail to acknowledge that if the supernatural exists and has effects on the material world, then those effects should be observable and subject to scientific study.
While science is willing to consider any evidence that comes along, so far none has appeared that requires any immaterial entity be added to the models that already describe our observations of the world around us with great precision.
Basic to most religions is the notion of divine creation. Prior to the twentieth century there were good reasons to think that the universe could not have come into existence naturally, that a miraculous creation was required that violated basic laws of physics. Today, however, we can say that a purely natural origin of the universe is fully conceivable based on existing knowledge.
A question often asked is "how can something come from nothing?" The simplest answer is that our universe is just one of many in a multiverse that always existed and so did not have to come from anything.
Similarly, biologists have found no special "vital force" within living organisms that might be associated with a soul. And, neuroscientists have found no sign of immaterial components to the human mind.
For centuries thinkers have argued that the observed order we see around us is evidence for divine design in the universe. We now understand that the existence of cosmic order does not violate any principles of physics. Today's intelligent design creationist movement argues that complex biological structures require an architect and builder and that natural processes cannot generate new information. They are wrong. The generation of complex systems from simpler systems can be seen in many physical situations, such as the natural, spontaneous transitions from gas to liquid to solid. The condensing of water vapor to a liquid, and liquid water to ice, is the prime example of how complexity arises naturally from simplicity
Complex life on Earth evolved naturally from simpler forms. Despite overwhelming evidence, only one-third of Americans say they accept evolution. This would seem to indicate that at least some Christians agree with evolution. However, this is misleading. Surveys that ask what people actually believe indicate that virtually no Christians accept the theory of evolution as understood by modern biology. For example, during his recent Easter address, the Pope told Catholics that while they can believe in evolution, they must accept that it is still God-guided. Quoting the Pope:
It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason.
Prove it Mr. Pope.
In fact, God plays no role in the conventional Darwinian theory, or conventional cosmology for that matter. Polls show that virtually no Christians really believe in evolution by random mutations and natural selection, which is the accepted theory among biologists. Those Christians who say they accept evolution really believe in another form of intelligent design, God-guided evolution. Darwinian evolution is godless. It says humanity was an accident. This is completely incompatible with Christianity, which assumes humans are a special creation of God.
I need not review all the other issues that fundamentally divide science from religion. Other speakers and authors have amply covered these matters. Rather I would like to show why the incompatibility between religion and science matters and why it is so important that we not just sit back and let this nation become a theocracy ruled by blind faith rather than science and reason.
The war between theology and science would not matter much if it were just an academic dispute. Unfortunately, religion seriously hampers science from being put to use for the benefit, indeed the very survival, of humanity. Darwinian evolution is the foundation of modern biology. Yet in America our best biological knowledge is not being taught in many if not most high schools. This neglect is bound ultimately to have a negative impact on human health sciences as well as basic biological research.
In America, religious groups are being manipulated by corporate interests to work against their own members' best interests, in health and economic well-being. They are being used to cast doubt upon well-established scientific findings in important issues such as overpopulation, pollution, and global warming. This would not be happening except for the diametrically opposed world-views of religion and science. In America today, corporate interests and the conservative politicians they have purchased use religion to stifle science.
When belief in ancient myths joins with other negative forces in our society, they hinder the world from advancing scientifically, economically, and socially at a time when a rapid advancement in these areas is absolutely essential for the survival of humanity. We now may be only about a generation or two away from the catastrophic problems predicted to result from global warming, pollution, and overpopulation. Our children and grandchildren could be faced with flooded coastal areas, severe climatic changes, epidemics caused by overcrowding, and increased starvation for much of humanity. Such disasters would generate worldwide conflict on a scale that is likely to exceed that of the great twentieth-century wars, possibly with nuclear weapons in the hands of unstable nations and terrorist groups.
Now, I understand that anthropogenic global warming is a very controversial issue. Whatever the truth, whether or not the current warming trend is caused by human activity, surely this finite planet cannot withstand a continuation of humanity's current exponential growth in population and exploitation of natural resources. Ten thousand years ago, a blink in time in the history of life, there were just one million human beings on Earth. Two hundred years ago the population was one billion. Today we are almost at seven billion. The estimate for 2050 is nine billion.
There simply is no way that we can sustain this rate of growth. Earth cannot possibly handle it. Something has to give, and give soon. And the cause of this problem can be laid directly at the feet of religion and its unsupportable positions on when life begins, reproductive rights, environmental controls, as well as its general distrust of science.
Of course, I am not saying anything here you haven't heard before. The less familiar argument I want to make is that powerful corporate interests are using religion to throw doubt upon the work of climate scientists and others who are warning us about the dangers ahead. This is dirty politics -- not legitimate scientific debate.
The role of religion in climate change denialism is not widely appreciated. Let me just give two examples that illustrate the thinking:
1. The Rev. Jim Ball, senior director for climate programs at the Evangelical Environmental Network has said, "It is hubris to think that human beings could disrupt something that God created" (as quoted by Leslie Kaufman, "Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets, New York Times, March 3, 2010).
We believe Earth and its ecosystems--created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence --are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. . . . We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth's climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry.
In other words, trust in God. He won't let us destroy life on earth. Could there be any better example of the folly of faith?
In conclusion, it is time for scientists and other rationalists to join together to put a stop to those who claim they have some sacred right to decide what kind of society the rest of us must live in. We must act for the sake of the betterment of humankind, and the future of our planet. Based on the favorable signs that young people are increasingly abandoning religion, I have great hope that perhaps in another generation America will have joined Europe and the rest of the developed world in casting off the rusty chains of ancient superstition that stand as an impediment to science and progress. I just hope it's not too late.
Less than a week after launching his presidential campaign, Newt Gingrich's candidacy has already been declared "done" and "over" by conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer. Gingrich's mouth -- always faster than his brain -- has been gorging on his foot. He's provided Democrats with great ad copy, denouncing the Republican plan to end Medicare as "radical" and "right wing social engineering." He managed an astounding 360 overnight, from having "consistently favored" an individual mandate on health care to calling it unconstitutional the next day. He's received well-deserved scorn for dog whistle race bait politics in declaring Obama the "food stamp president." And of course, in the run-up to his announcement, he retired the trophy for the most creative excuse for cheating on your wife, declaring that it was his passion for his country that led him astray.
Despite Gingrich's gift for self-immolation, even with his own candidacy already sapped by the licentiousness of his mouth and his libido, he shouldn't be dismissed. He has provided the clearest statement of how Republicans will run against Obama and Democrats in the next election -- in the Reagan tradition, combining city on the hill economic homilies with back alley racial allusions. Consider Gingrich's calling card:
"President Obama is the most successful food stamp president in American history. I would like to be the most successful paycheck president in American history." "We're at a crossroads. Down one road is a European centralized bureaucratic socialist welfare system in which politicians and bureaucrats define the future. Down the other road is a proud, solid, reaffirmation of American exceptionalism." (Gingrich toned down his invective for the campaign, previously denouncing Obama as leading a "secular socialist machine" based on "Kenyan anti-colonial behavior.")
The barely coded racism of the food stamp crack invokes Reagan's "welfare queen" stories. But note the frame. All of Washington is mired in a debate about deficits and debt, about what to cut and when. Gingrich is arguing not about debt but about jobs -- paychecks -- and the economy. Obama will spend nine months wrestling with Republicans about cuts. But Republican presidential candidates won't talk about deficits -- they'll indict Obama for the economy, the slow recovery, and the lack of jobs.
In making his case, Gingrich ignores any discussion of Bush's misrule, or the conservative policies that led up the Great Recession. Rather he focuses on the aftermath, describing Obama as a failure, attributing the slow recovery to his "big government" programs, and painting Republicans as the salvation.
Not surprisingly, Gingrich rolled out a nine point jobs plan to detail what he would do to get the economy going. Despite his reputation as an ideas man, it is bereft of any new thought. Rather it is a rerun of the conservative homilies from the last thirty years -- more tax cuts for corporations and the rich, roll back regulations including replacing the Environmental Protection Agency, repeal and replace Obama's health care reforms, create an "American energy plan" (or "drill, baby, drill" in Gingrich's old formulation), balance the budget by doing all of the above. He also calls for "strengthening the dollar" by returning to Reagan era monetary policies (presumably not referring to the Volcker reign at the Fed that hiked interest rates to 20% in 1981, driving the economy into recession). And, naturally, he repeats the Republican threat to Social Security and Medicare, masked as "fundamental reform of entitlement programs with the advice and help of the American people."
One problem with all this. Been there, done that. These are the very policies America has followed over the last three decades of conservative domination of our politics. Top end tax cuts contributed to concentrated wealth not seen since before the Great Depression, with the wealthiest Americans already paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. Deregulation contributed to the explosion of the casino economy, not only Wall Street speculation but CEOs with multi-million dollar incentives to cook the books, sell off their companies or ship jobs abroad. The strong dollar multinational trade policy hollowed out American manufacturing, leaving us borrowing $2 billion a day from abroad. Drill, baby, drill has left us dependent on a global oil market, shipping billions abroad even while contributing to catastrophic climate change that is a real and present danger. And trying to privatize Social Security and end Medicare as we know it rather than taking on the insurance and drug companies has left us with a health care system that costs twice per capita as the rest of the industrialized world while producing worse results.
This is not an answer likely to appeal to any but the faithful. But Gingrich gets the question right. The question is not how to balance our books, which he treats in passing. The question is how to create an economy that works for working people, that puts people back to work, revives the middle class, and puts the American Dream once more within reach for our children.
In his State of the Union address, Obama offered the beginnings of an alternative -- saying that to win the future, we had to invest in education, 21st century infrastructure and innovation, arguing that we had to insure that we built the new sources of renewable energy from windmills to solar panels here at home. But his argument assumed a recovery that most Americans don't feel and asserted an economy "poised for prosperity," which most Americans don't share.
At the beginning of his administration, Obama argued convincingly that we could not go back to the old economy, built on bubbles and bust, with a declining middle class. He called for a "new foundation," including public investment in areas vital to our future, and capturing a lead in the new green industrial revolution. In different speeches, he argued for curbing Wall Street, balancing our trade, empowering workers to gain a fair share of the profits they helped to generate, reforming health care to make it affordable for all, insuring our children had the opportunity for the best public education in the world.
Much of that reform agenda has been blocked or diluted. Some was abandoned or shelved by the White House. Now the bold argument for a new course is seldom heard, except in Republican speeches scorning it as anti-American "centralized, bureaucratic European socialism."
This is an argument that the president cannot and should not duck. The fact is America is at a crossroads. The conservative policies of the past decades -- tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation for Wall Street and the CEOs, trade for the multinationals, policing the world, rolling back unions -- have failed us. The wealthy are doing fine, but the vast majority of Americans are struggling. The middle class is sinking.
Gingrich is right. This election will be about how America goes forward, about what we will do to create an economy that works for most Americans. But the old history instructor is blind to America's history. When we faced this crossroads before, after the Great Depression and World War II, we did not rely on the myth of untrammeled markets or trickle down economics. We educated the generation that came back from the war, subsidized home ownership and built the suburbs. We built the interstate highway system. We converted wartime plants to peacetime production. The top tax rate was 90%. The Marshall Plan and other programs helped build markets for US exports. Banks were shackled by New Deal regulations and went 50 years without a banking crisis. Unions represented over 30% of the workforce and helped lift wages across the economy. America's debt was over 120% of GDP after World War II. We continued to borrow but we grew faster and the debt was down to about 33% of GDP in 1980 when Reagan started us down the road to ruin.
The American middle class was not inherited. It didn't result from trickle down tax cuts. It was built, by good policy and hard work from the bottom up. Americans are still willing to work hard -- they labor longer hours than workers in any other industrial nation. Now we've got to get the policy right. Gingrich gets the question right but the answer wrong. We can't go back to the policies that led us to the mess we are in. We've got to go another way
Nothing surprises me more than when I read that trading on insider information is a victimless crime. In the wake of the conviction of hedge-fund giant Raj Rajaratnam, the claim has come up time and again. In fact, it is entirely untrue. The victims are all those who sold Raj a stock or other security at a lower price than they might have if they had the same information he had. In other words, the victims are pensioners, mutual fund investors, bank trusts holders, and on.
It's like what happened in the 1800s when some insiders knew the railroad had planned to build a track through a certain territory. They bought land from unsuspecting farmers, ranchers and maybe even the federal government on the cheap. That activity disgusts us. Same with stocks when the fund managers know about good earnings news to be reported the next day or a merger announcement to come.
What the details of the Rajaratnam scandal also shows is that he who pays the most money for inside information also makes the most money. Money begets money, the big get bigger. That's a pretty good example of what's happened over the past thirty years in American finance.
Now, when you can leverage that money up -- borrow to the hilt at low rates -- inside information really pays off. Many hedge-fund managers don't make money for the insights but for their sheer chutzpah. Meantime, market integrity is out the window.
Wall Street's always had some kind of advantage over the rest of us. The pros could often call someone up at a company to get an edge. But passing out outright inside information -- the kind that will move a stock price one way or the other substantially -- should clearly be illegal.
One of the more interesting facts about hedge funds is that, according to those who measure risk statistically by deriving 'betas' and 'alphas,' they do better on average than the amount of risk they take suggests they should. Mutual funds on average do not.
Some interpret this as proof of how astute the hedge funds are compared to other investors. The data could also be interpreted another way. That given their size and wealth, they have more information about company strategies and results, takeovers, and the trading patterns of the market. They may even be able to push prices their way and bail out before others catch on. Cornering markets can be against the law. How often does "mini-cornering" -- momentary attempts to buy enough supply to determine a quick price change -- go on? That's perhaps the main reason why they do better than the risk they take suggests they should.
This is seedy stuff and there is no simple way to prevent it adequately. If such practices are common, it makes good sense for investors who have the money to sign up with hedge funds and get a piece of their unfair advantage.
On the other hand, some hedge funds are totally honest. How can we tell which ones make it on smarts, good instincts and genuine preparation? Only if the government aggressively cleans up the act. Fear of prosecution is perhaps the only effective weapon.
Meantime, good money flows to funds, often unwittingly, who exploit and take advantage -- and that only distorts the efficient allocation of capital in America.
The Egyptian Revolution Does Not Request, It Demands.
That was one of the public statements of the imam at the Omar Makram mosque in Cairo. That mosque did not use to be so well known -- there are many older, larger, even more beautifully designed mosques all over Cairo and Egypt. But now, Omar Makram is known all over the Arab world -- because his is the mosque on the edge of Tahrir Square.
In other words, it's the unofficial sermon provider for the revolution. Every Friday during the uprising, in its aftermath, and right up until now, the mosque of Tahrir delivers a sermon that invariably is one to listen to. On this past Friday, the imam brought those in attendance to tears -- people in the square, men and women alike, were sobbing out of emotion for what he was referring to. Indeed, while there is much reason to be optimistic in the new Egypt, there is much to mourn. And on this past Friday, it was not simply mourning for Egyptians. It was mourning for the Arab world -- for those who had perished in Libya, in Syria, in Yemen, in Bahrain. On this Friday in particular, the imam and the protestors especially recalled the struggle of the Palestinians with the Palestinian flag waving across the crowd. The imam accused former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak of selling out the Palestinian cause, in order to keep himself and his sons in power -- a suspicion that is widespread in Egypt.
After the prayer, there was a mass funeral prayer for those who had departed. Muslims around the world often pray the ritual funeral prayer in the absence of the bodies of the deceased if they could not be there when the appointed time had come. Muslims are often reminded in their religious teachings to remember death for death is a good reminder of the world to come, and what is most important in the Islamic world-view is not this world, but the world everlasting.
But the sermon was not all "other-worldly" -- there were statements on politics, to be sure, and in particular the unity of Egyptians was a theme that this imam, like many others around Egypt, was keen to emphasise. He bemoaned that Egyptian Christians and Egyptian Muslims might be brought together by Tahrir Square, or a commitment to the Palestinian cause, and then separated over insignificant sectarian issues. Perhaps to prove his point, he quoted both the Quran and the Bible in his Friday sermon. One witness commented that this reminded her of old Egyptian nationalists who were from religious communities. Religion has always been a part of Egypt's public sphere, but that does not translate into support for sectarianism, necessarily.
The sermon reminded many in Egypt that while religion can be used for division, it can also be used for unity -- and in this case, for activism. As the imam said: "our revolution does not request, it demands." Because Egyptians no longer request, they demand. Because Egypt, as far as they are concerned, demands no less.
In March of 1941, Nazi Germany seemed to overrun the Middle East and deprive Britain of its historic and hegemonic role in the region. The British government under Winston Churchill made an offer, supposedly very enticing to the Turkish Government. "Help us to occupy Syria, and we will share the spoils with you -- the north of the country to you, the south to us."
The elusive ally, as Turkey was described by a historian of its foreign policy, justified its reputation and turned down the unprecedented offer. Its Foreign Minister Saracuglu told the British, that the Syrians were tough customers, alluding to the 400 years of Ottoman Turkish rule over Syria.
This was another Middle East, and this was another Turkey, still dominated by the Kemalist ideology, looking towards Europe for inspiration, rather than back towards its lost lands in the region, Syria included. Turkey under the moderate Islamic AKP -- with P.M Erdogan as the undisputed leader -- is engaged in a comprehensive reevaluation of its regional role. There are many reasons for that, among them the reluctance of the EU to accept Turkey as a full-fledged member, for fear of changing its character by the inclusion of such a vast Muslim population, something that is widely resented by most Turks including the secular element of the Turkish people.
The fact is that almost for a decade the AKP gradually pulled Turkey away from the basic tenets of the Kemalist ideology and that is the culmination of profound developments inside Turkey itself which seem to have much greater effect than European attitudes.
Be as may, the new Turkey has already started to flex its muscles in a way which leaves small room for doubt. P.M Erdogan wants to become the new strong man of the Middle East, so much so that he is already called the new Sultan.
Turkish relations with Israel, which evolved for 3-4 decades into an undeclared strategic alliance, were first to feel the brunt of the new policy. The last three years have witnessed a sharp deterioration in the relations and very little is left of the alliance. Yet the two parties are very careful not to go beyond the point of no return. In the case of Turkey, Erdogan is subjected to some pressure from the military establishment, the traditional proponent of the old alliance as well as some secular groups. Erdogan who proved himself to be an astute diplomat knows also that a final, complete rift with Israel will bring about a crisis with the US. Turkey and Israel may still heal some wounds, though the intimacy of previous years is no more.
Erdogan has made major strides towards Iran, but let's not be fooled by that. In the Middle East, history usually repeats itself, and Turkish-Iranian relations have always been problematic, tensed and competitive rather than cooperative. Turkey being the largest Sunni state in the Middle East, Iran being the Shi'ite power. Love lost has not historically characterized these relationships, nor will it be the case in the foreseeable future.
Syria may prove to be one of the potential collision points between the two regional powers. In the last few years, Erdogan promoted Turkey's relations with Syria, overcoming the legacy of longstanding mistrust. Some Middle East observers went as far as to suggest that Bashar Assad looked to Turkey as a possible alternative to his alliance with Iran, as well as a shield against possible future Israeli aggression against his country.
Bashar Assad is still around -- it's not clear for how long -- but Erdogan is already preparing for the post-Assad era in Syria and its likely regional implications. Iran, on the other hand, sees no horizon beyond Assad, and knows full well that his downfall will be a crucial setback to its regional aspirations. Not so for Turkey, which stands to gain from a post-Assad Sunni-dominated Syria.
There is an unmistakable buzz in diplomatic circles in the region clearly indicating that Turkey is engaged in behind-the-scenes efforts, in conjunction with some Arab countries, to find ways to smooth the expected transition in Syria. The fact that this new new situation may mean a defeat to Iran is among the prime calculations of the countries participating in these talks, Turkey included.
In public, Erdogan has sharpened his rhetoric when talking about Syria in general, and Bashar Assad in particular. The tone is clear, and the music is that Syria will have to change. Here is a challenge also to the US and the NATO Alliance. When the time comes to intensify pressure on Bashar Assad, give a major role to Turkey. This time around, the Turks may not refuse.
This week I got to hang out at the Air New Zealand lounge at LAX to see off a bunch of hugely excited kids leaving on a trip to London. Four girls and four boys, ages 11 and 12, from various LA Unified elementary schools.
They were going to Europe because they had won an essay contest conceived by LA's Best, the best afterschool program in the city, and Brit Week, which highlights the many British contributions to cultural and business life in California.
The kids had to read a classic British novel... Treasure Island, Alice in Wonderland, Roald Dahl's Matilda, King Arthur, and Harry Potter, among others. Then they chose a character and wrote about why they most identified with him or her.
It was a voluntary program in their afterschool book clubs, called Joy of Reading. There were over 450 submissions. None of the children knew what the prize was going to be ahead of time. Along with Henry Winkler and Jane Seymour, I had the honor of being one of the judges (after the essays were narrowed down by other more qualified smarties). It was tough. The essays were personal, thoughtful, funny and well written.
The kids really examined themselves... one girl talked about being a survivor, like Ben Gunn in Treasure Island, another girl had courage, like Matilda, and was able to tell her friends she wouldn't do something that she knew was wrong, a boy identified with Long John Silver because of his struggles between his good side and bad side, and another boy wrote of being sneakily skillful and a brave spirit like Mr. Fox.
LA's Best serves more than 28,000 elementary school kids, nearly half of them English language learners in some of the most economically challenged communities in Los Angeles.
This program was designed to promote literacy. It surely did that. All of the kids had big fat books to read on the airplane. Their imaginations were soaring. Nobody had to tell them to smile for photos. Their parents were proud. The counselors and sponsors of the event were proud. I was proud. Everyone was.
It's rare that young children are so majorly rewarded for their academic and personal achievements. And why not? A pat on the back can go a long way in encouraging a kid to do great things. A trip to London is a pat that will be felt for a lifetime.
"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose" -- Janis Joplin (Kris Kristofferson)
"It's my money and I want it now" -- Commercial for JG Wentworth, a company that buys structured settlement payments from injury victims.
I hate the J.G. Wentworth commercial where people are screaming, "It's my money and I want it now." I even hate it worse than the Cialis commercial where they are sitting in bathtubs in the middle of a field.
I have an obvious bias. I am in the business of setting up structured settlements for injured people. Wentworth is in the business of ripping them apart. 14 years ago, I spent a lot of my time and my own money convincing some legislatures to regulate Wentworth and companies like it. We made it tougher on Wentworth, but they are still around.
Wentworth has an easy task. All they have to do is get people to focus on the immediate and forget about the future. I try to get them to focus on the long-term.
If you look at the actions of Wall Street, Main Street and Washington during the past 20 years, you can see that the Wentworth philosophy is winning.
If you look at Washington's trillion dollar deficits, Main Street home foreclosures and Wall Street chaos, you can't really say "I want it now" has worked out.
Both Wentworth and I have a different view of "financial freedom."
Wentworth's idea of financial freedom is that you can get your hands on a wad of money and spend it immediately.
I have a different view of what financial freedom is really about. To me, real freedom means stability, security and independence.
It means never running out of money. It means never having to work at a job you hate, because you can't afford to quit. It means never becoming a slave to your creditors.
In short, it means having control and stability in your life.
That is what real financial freedom is about.
Not many people have true financial freedom. And many who have the opportunity to gain it, screw it up.
It's been said that 90% of people who win the lottery run through the money in five years or less. Sports Illustratedsaid that 78% of NFL players run out of money within two years after their football careers end. Similar ratios holds true in other sports.
In her book, Living Richly, Myra Salter said that 70% of all wealth transitions fail. That means that if you leave money to a loved one, it will be gone within two generations, no matter how much or how little you leave.
I've spent 28 years working with injured people and their money. My primary goal is to keep them from blowing it.
It's harder than you think.
The three hurdles to overcome are complications, choices and lack of controls.
The world is an increasingly complicated place, but one rule has held true for centuries: People who have financial security control the destiny of the people who don't.
As the late John Savage, a frequent speaker at the Million Dollar Round Table, once said, "Spenders in the world always work for savers. It never happens the other way around."
The rich get richer for many reasons, but one is that they take a long term view about their money.
You don't hear Warren Buffett yelling, "It's my money and I want it now."
There are a lot of financial choices in the world. Many companies prey on the "I want it now" mentality. As Gary Rivlin noted in Broke USA, payday lenders, tax refund anticipation loans, car leases, sub-prime mortgages and credit cards are fairly recent additions to the world of personal finance.
All of those vendors will get you immediate cash -- at a huge price to pay in the future.
Our grandparents didn't have credit cards. Debt absolutely frightened them.
Maybe we should be frightened, too.
As Joe Nocera pointed out in A Piece of the Action, his classic history of personal finance, the rise of credit cards, mutual funds, 401(k) plans and individuals investing in the stock market are all things that have happened primarily since the mid-1960's.
Our parents lived in an era where they worked a lifetime at one company and got a monthly pension when they turned 65.
Our children will switch jobs frequently and will need to depend on contributions, and the investment results, of 401(k) plans to allow them to retire.
Our parents and grandparents had systems to protect them. Our children and grandchildren are on their own.
I preach a simple gospel: Think about the long term. Tear up your credit cards. Don't trust Wall Street, your government or your employer to take care of you. Move your money to a local bank or credit union and let the money help your community.
Janis Joplin sang, "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose." Actually Janis, (and Kris Kristofferson, who wrote the song), had it semi-right.
Real freedom means living in a way where you can have fun, enjoy life and know that you are never going to hit a time when you are out of cash and out of luck.
Instead of "It's my money and I want it now," a better way to think is "It's my money and I want it always."
Don McNay, CLU, ChFC, MSFS, CSSC of Richmond, Kentucky is the founder of McNay Settlement Group. He is the author of the book, Son of a Son of a Gambler: Winners, Losers and What to Do When You Win the Lottery. He has appeared on the CBS Evening News With Katie Couric along with numerous other television and radio programs.
You can read more about Don at www.donmcnay.com
McNay has Master's Degrees from Vanderbilt and the American College and is in the Hall of Distinguished Alumni of Eastern Kentucky University.
McNay is a lifetime member of the Million Dollar Round Table and has four professional designations in the financial services field
If you follow the words, one Middle East comes into view; if you follow the weapons, quite another.
This week, the words will take center stage. On Thursday, according to administration officials, President Obama will “reset” American policy in the Middle East with a major address offering a comprehensive look at the Arab Spring, “a unified theory about the popular uprisings from Tunisia to Bahrain,” and possibly a new administration approach to the region.
In the meantime, all signs indicate that the Pentagon will quietly maintain antithetical policies, just as it has throughout the Obama years. Barring an unprecedented and almost inconceivable policy shift, it will continue to broker lucrative deals to send weapons systems and military equipment to Arab despots. Nothing indicates that it will be deterred from its course, whatever the president says, which means that Barack Obama’s reset rhetoric is unlikely to translate into meaningful policy change in the region.
For months now, the world has watched as protesters have taken to the streets across the Middle East to demand a greater say in their lives. In Tunisia and Egypt, they toppled decades-old dictatorships. In Bahrain and Yemen, they were shot down in the streets as they demanded democracy. In the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, they called for reforms, free speech, and basic rights, and ended up bloodied and often in jail cells. In Iraq, they protested a lack of food and jobs, and in response got bullets and beatings.
As the world watched, trained eyes couldn’t help noticing something startling about the tools of repression in those countries. The armored personnel carriers, tanks, and helicopters used to intimidate or even kill peaceful protesters were often American models.
For decades, the U.S. has provided military aid, facilitated the sale of weaponry, and transferred vast quantities of arms to a host of Middle Eastern despots. Arming Arab autocrats, however, isn’t only the work of presidents past. A TomDispatch analysis of Pentagon documents finds that the Obama administration has sought to send billions of dollars in weapons systems -- from advanced helicopters to fighter jets -- to the very regimes that have beaten, jailed, and killed pro-democracy demonstrators, journalists, and reform activists throughout the Arab Spring.
The administration’s abiding support for the militaries of repressive regimes calls into question the president’s rhetoric about change. The arms deals of recent years also shed light on the shadowy, mutually supportive relationships among the U.S. military, top arms dealers, and Arab states that are of increasing importance to the Pentagon.
Since the summer of 2009, President Obama, by way of the Pentagon and with State Department approval, has regularly notified Congress of his intent to sell advanced weaponry to governments across the Middle East, including Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Under U.S. law, Congress then has 30 days to review the sale before the Pentagon and associated military contractors enter into more formal contract talks with individual nations.
In July 2009, according to an analysis of Pentagon documents by TomDispatch, notifications were sent to Congress regarding the sale to Kuwait of Browning machine guns, advanced targeting systems for armored vehicles, KC-130 aircraft, and technical support for F/A-18 attackaircraft. Later that summer, the White House announced plans to outfit both Bahrain’s and Jordan’s militaries with advanced air-to-air missiles to the tune of $74 million and $131 million, respectively, to equip the United Arab Emirates with $526 million worth of Hellfire missiles and other materiel, to send more than $2 billion worth of advanced surveillance and navigation equipment to aid Saudi Arabia’s air force, and to see to it that Egypt’s military received a shipment of new Chinook troop transport helicopters and other high-tech equipmentvalued at $308 million.
In the fall of 2009, Pentagon documents show a $220 million bid by the administration to outfit the Jordanian military with advanced rocket systems and tactical vehicles, a proposed sale of advanced fighter aircraft, parts, weapons, and equipmentto Egypt worth as much as $3.2 billion, and another to equip Kuwait’s military with $410 million in Patriot missile technology. Then, in November and December of that year, Congress was notified of plans to sell helicopters to Iraq, Javelin guided missiles to Jordan,Hellfire missiles, anti-ship cruise missiles, jet engines, and other military materiel to Egypt, and helicopters and thousands of advanced bombs, among other high-tech equipment,to the UAE.
Last year, notifications also went out concerning the sale of F-16 fighters, armored personnel carriers, tank ammunition, and advanced computer systems to Iraq, C-17 military transport aircraft for Kuwait, mobile missile systems for Bahrain, and Apache attack helicopters and tactical missile systems for the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia, however, was the big winner by far with a blockbuster $60 billion agreement for helicopters, fighter jets, radar equipment, and advanced smart bombs that will represent, if all purchases are made, the largest foreignarms deal in American history.
Deficits, Ducats, and Dictators
The agreement to broker the sale of tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia sheds light on the Pentagon’s efforts to shield itself -- and its favored arms dealers -- from the shakiness of the American economy, as well as President Obama’s stated goal of trimming $400 billion from projected national security spending of $10 trillion over the next 12 years. Last October, the Pentagon started secretly lobbying financial analysts and large institutional investors on behalf of weapons makers and other military contractors. The idea was to bolster their long-term financial viability in the face of a possible future slowdown in Defense Department spending.
Since then, Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn and other Pentagon powerbrokers have made regular trips to New York City to shore up Wall Street’s support for weapons manufacturers. “We are in this for the long term. We need industrial partners and financial backers who think and act likewise,” Lynn told investors at a recent defense and aerospace conference in that city.
Along with Ashton Carter, the Pentagon’s undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics, and Brett Lambert, the deputy assistant secretary for industrial policy, Lynn is creating a comprehensive plan to sustain and enrich weapons makers and other military contractors in the coming years. “We’re going sector by sector, tier by tier, and our goal is to develop a long-term policy to protect that base as we slow defense spending,” Lynn said. America’s Middle Eastern allies are seen as a significant partner in this effort.
It’s often said that the Pentagon is a “monopsony” -- that is, the only buyer in town for its many giant contractors. As has been amply demonstrated since Barack Obama took office, however, it's not true. When it comes to the Middle East, the Pentagon acts not as a buyer, but as a broker and shill, clearing the way for its Middle Eastern partners to buy some of the world's most advanced weaponry.
And Arab allies have distinctly done their part for the Pentagon. From 2006 to 2009, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service issued late last year, the United States accounted for 52.4% of all arms agreements inked with Middle Eastern nations -- to the tune of $47.3 billion. (By comparison, the United Kingdom, in second place in arms sales in the region, accounted for only 15.7% and third-place Russia just 12.8%.)
The purchases of the chief buyer in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, have been climbing steadily. From 2002 to 2005, Saudi Arabia inked $15.3 billion in arms-transfer agreements with the United States. From 2006 to 2009, that figure jumped to $29.5 billion. The multi-year $60 billion deal in 2010 signaled far more of the same and will help ensure the continuing health and profitability of Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and other mega-defense contractors even if Pentagon spending goes slack or begins to shrink in the years to come.
The Pentagon’s reliance on the deep pockets of Arab partners across the Middle East, however, has a price, which may help to explain the Obama administration’s willingness to support dictators like Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak until their ousters were givens, and to essentially look the other way as security forces in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and elsewhere, sometimes using American-supplied equipment, suppressed pro-democracy activists. After all, the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council -- Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, along with regional partner Jordan -- are set to spend $70 billion on American weaponry and equipment this year, and as much as $80 billion per year by 2015.
“The Middle East Military Air Market: Revenue Opportunities and Stakeholder Mapping,” a recent analysis of just one sector of defense spending in the region by U.S.-based defense consultants Frost and Sullivan, projects yet more growth in the future. “[The] regional military air market is… set to generate revenues of $62.9 billion between 2010 and 2020,” it reports. Frost and Sullivan analysts add that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are likely to be the biggest spenders and will continue to buy most of their arms through the United States for the sake of “political influence.”
For his part, Deputy Secretary of Defense Lynn wants to make it ever easier to put sophisticated military technology in the hands of such deep-pocketed allies. On his recent trip to New York, he spoke of streamlining the process by which tanks, jets, and other advanced weapons systems are sold around the world. “To keep our base healthy, it is in our interest for defense companies to compete globally,” he explained, while deriding the current system for selling arms abroad as “archaic” and in need of an overhaul. “The barriers that we place at this point in the export control system look something like a marriage of the complexity of the Internal Revenue Service with the efficiency of the Department of Motor Vehicles,” he said. “It’s something we have to change.”
Sending a Message
In February, in Baghdad, Fallujah, Mosul, and Tikrit, Iraqi protesters took to the streets, focused on ending corruption and chronic shortages of food, water, electricity, and jobs. In response, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who has in recent years consolidated power with U.S. military backing, unleashed government security forces. They arrested, beat, and shot protesters, leaving hundreds dead or wounded. In the weeks since, the Obama administration has not only failed to forcefully rebuke the Maliki regime, but has announced its intent to bolster those same security forces with another $360 million in military materiel ranging from radios to radar systems.
In March, the United Arab Emirates sent security forces into neighboring Bahrain to help put down pro-democracy protests. Early the next month, UAE security forces disappeared leading human rights activist Ahmed Mansoor and, in the days thereafter, detained at least four other prominent democracy activists. Before the month was out, however, the Obama administration announced its intention to arm the UAE with advanced Sidewinder tactical missiles.
Saudi Arabia also sent troops into Bahrain and has been cracking down on nonviolent activists at home with increasing vigor. At the beginning of this month, for example, Human Rights Watch reported the arrest of “at least 20 peaceful protesters, including two bloggers.” Within days, the Obama administration notified Congress of its intent to see the Saudi security forces receive $330 million worth of advanced night vision and thermal-imaging equipment.
This year, U.S.-coordinated arms sales have resulted in the delivery of helicopter gunships to Yemen, navy patrol boats to Iraq, and the first of six cargo aircraft to the UAE. At the moment, used armored personnel carriers are being refurbished for shipment to Iraq later this year.
Whatever “reset” may be in the works for Obama administration policies in the Middle East, the president and the Pentagon are already on the record. Since 2009, they have sought to arm some of the most anti-democratic regimes on the planet, while repeatedly highlighting the need for democratic reform and now for a fresh start in the region. Even as the “reset” begins, the Pentagon is leaning ever more heavily on rich rulers in the Arab world to prop up the military-corporate complex at home. If the Pentagon and the weapons makers have their way, the provisional successes of the demonstrators in Egypt and Tunisia will turn out to be outliers as an Arab Spring turns distinctly wintry.
In June 2009, President Obama traveled to Cairo University to give a heavily hyped and much-lauded speech (“On a New Beginning”) to "the Muslim world.” In his remarks, the president spoke of an American Cold-War-era attitude “in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.” Then came his first call for a reset of sorts in the region. “I've come here to Cairo,” he said, “to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” Before that summer was out, however, Obama notified Congress of his intent to send Cold War-era autocrat Hosni Mubarak a shipment of new helicopters to beef up his security forces.
During that speech, Obama talked of his “unyielding belief” that all people yearned for free speech, a say in their governance, the rule of law, freedom from corruption, and other basic civil liberties. These weren’t, the president insisted, just American ideals, they were human rights. “And that is why we will support them everywhere," he said to waves of applause.
In its actions, however, the Obama administration almost immediately left its reset rhetoric in the dust. Whether the president does any better in the Arab Summer of 2011 will depend mightily on whether he can stand up to the Pentagon and its weapons-makers.
Nick Turse is a historian, essayist, investigative journalist, the associate editor of TomDispatch.com, and currently a fellow at Harvard University’s Radcliffe Institute. His latest book is The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan(Verso Books). You can follow him on Twitter @NickTurse, on Tumblr, and on Facebook. This piece is part of Turse’s ongoing coverage on U.S. military impacts on the Arab Spring and the third in his TomDispatch series on the subject.
AREA 51 sits inside of the largest government-controlled land parcel in the United States, the Nevada Test and Training Range. It's a little smaller than Connecticut, three times the size of Rhode Island, and more than twice the size of Delaware. It is the most famous military installation in the world and the most secret. Everything that goes on at Area 51 is a black operation, and most of what goes on at the Nevada Test and Training Range is classified. These operations take place in the name of national security and they all involve cutting-edge science. "AREA 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base" is the first book based on recently declassified documents and interviews with firsthand eyewitnesses to base history--seventy-four individuals linked to the secret base, thirty-two of whom lived and served the base proudly and secretly for extended periods of time.
It's official. As of Monday, May 16, the United States of America has reached its debt limit ($14.294 trillion). That means that the Treasury Department can no longer borrow money to pay the debts or meet the expenses of the U.S. government. You may say, wait, the sky didn't fall. People are not running in the streets in chaos. The stock and bond markets haven't crashed. I had my latte this morning and it was delicious. So what's the big deal?
The reason those things haven't happened (yet) is thanks to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Geithner sent a letter to Congress on Monday explaining how he is able to "move money around" and keep things running until August 2.
He's "fudging" the debt constraints right now by "suspending investments in federal retirement funds." Depending on the level of U.S. government expenses, he may also have to pay just interest due to bondholders (rather than principal) -- and generally pick and choose which debtors to pay off and which to put off -- on a day-to-day basis. This strategy, said Geithner, is akin to a homeowner who pays his mortgage at the expense of his car loan and credit cards.
While the sky isn't falling today, or even this week, Geithner says that he can't keep this juggling act up forever. In his letter to Congress, he wrote that we must "increase the debt limit in order to protect the full faith and credit of the United States and avoid catastrophic economic consequences for citizens." Fifty-six percent of Americans agree with this prognosis, according to a POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll.
If the debt ceiling is not raised -- at a minimum -- "our bond market and stock market would crash," said former Congressional Budget Director Rudolph Penner. It's hard to imagine what a maximum would be.
Despite this looming disaster, it doesn't seem like Congress is in too big a hurry to do anything about it. Quite the opposite: Tea Partiers and many Republicans are hoping that this coming financial apocalypse will force the Democrats to make big cuts fast to the U.S. budget.
Speaker John Boehner said in response to Geithner's plea: "There will be no debt limit increase without serious budget reforms and significant spending cuts -- cuts that are greater than any increase in the debt limit." And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell threatened that he would not vote for an increase in the debt ceiling without "serious" reforms to entitlements like Medicaid and Medicare.
Meanwhile, Democrats argue that any solution must include raising tax revenue -- a position that Republicans have said is unacceptable. Democratic House leaders are in New York this week meeting with Wall Street execs, to present their vision of deficit reduction. (Speaker John Boehner met with Wall-Streeters last Monday.) Meanwhile in D.C., Vice President Joe Biden is leading a bipartisan, bicameral panel charged with coming up with long-term deficit solutions -- even as House members are on recess.
The difference, of course, between Democrat and Republican strategies, is that the Republicans are willing to drive this game of chicken all the way off the cliff if they don't get what they want. We learned this in the last round of budget negotiations in April -- and that's a difficult position with which to negotiate. Democrats are full of warnings, but they are willing to negotiate. Republican are full of threats and they're willing to pull the trigger.
Will we get a compromise? As of today, the bond markets haven't collapsed. Neither has the stock market. Most well-respected financial analysts are betting there will be an accord. But -- given this year's tough budget negotiation -- maybe the question we should be asking is: at what price?
Technically, the federal government has now reached the limit of its capacity to borrow money.
Raising the debt ceiling used to be a technical adjustment, made almost automatically. Now it's a political football.
Democrats should never have agreed to linking it to an agreement on the long-term budget deficit.
But now that the debt ceiling is in play, there's no end to what the radical right will demand. John Boehner is already using the classic "they're making me" move, seemingly helpless in the face of Tea Party storm troopers who refuse to raise the ceiling unless they get their way. Their way is reactionary and regressive -- eviscerating Medicare, cutting Medicaid and programs for the poor, slashing education and infrastructure, and using most of the savings to reduce taxes on the rich.
If the only issue were cutting the federal deficit by four or five trillion dollars over the next ten years, the President and Democrats wouldn't have to cave in to this extortion. That goal can be achieved by doing exactly the opposite of what radical Republicans are demanding. We can reduce the long-term budget deficit, keep everything Americans truly depend on, and also increase spending on education and infrastructure -- by cutting unnecessary military expenditures, ending corporate welfare, and raising taxes on the rich.
I commend to you the "People's Budget," a detailed plan for doing exactly this -- while reducing the long-term budget deficit more than either the Republican's or the President's plan does. When I read through the People's Budget my first thought was how modest and reasonable it is. It was produced by the House Progressive Caucus but could easily have been generated by Washington centrists -- forty years ago.
But of course the coming battle isn't really over whether to cut the long-term deficit by trillions of dollars. It's over whether to shrink the government we depend on and to use the savings to give corporations and the super-rich even more tax benefits they don't need or deserve.
The main reason the "center" has moved so far to the right -- and continues to move rightward -- is radical conservatives have repeatedly grabbed the agenda and threatened havoc if they don't get their way. They're doing it again.
Will the President and congressional Democrats cave in to their extortion? When even Nancy Pelosi says "everything is on the table" you've got to worry.
We can fortify the President and congressional Democrats and prevent them from moving further right by doing exactly what the Tea Partiers are doing -- but in reverse.
Call it budget Jujitsu.
The message from the "People's Party" should be unconditional: No cuts in Medicare and Medicaid or Social Security. More spending on education and infrastructure. Pay for it and reduce the long-term budget deficit by cutting military spending and raising taxes on the rich. The People's Budget is the template.
But what if the President and Dems show signs of caving? This is the heart of the progressive dilemma. Are we prepared to say no to raising the debt ceiling our demands aren't met? That way, the responsibility for rounding up the necessary Republican votes shifts to Wall Street and big business -- arguably more eager to raise the debt ceiling and avoid turmoil in credit markets than anyone else. They're also better able to push the GOP -- whom they fund.
Which leads to a more basic question: Are we ready and willing to mount primary challenges to incumbent Democrats who cave?
This is a picture of me -- when I was 20 years old -- with a family I met when I was visiting a homeless shelter. Michael, the boy on the far left, became my "little brother," and I've been his big brother for the last 27 years. Michael and I wrote a book in dual narrative about our lives together and apart, called Unlikely Brothers, and it comes out today via Random House.
In the book I write a lot about why I first took notice of what was happening in Africa. I describe my first few trips to the continent, and how I ended up in war zones as a human rights activist. I touch on the close calls I've had, as well as some of the amazing African success stories that I've been able to witness. And I cover the birth of the Enough Project and what we're trying to do here to build a permanent constituency to battle human rights crimes like genocide, rape as a war weapon, and child soldier recruitment.
Through my long relationship with Michael, which endured my living and working in African war zones while Michael was growing up in a different kind of war zone only minutes away from the White House, I learned anyone can make a difference in another's life if we take a risk and make a commitment. Through the book, we'll be helping Big Brothers Big Sisters recruit new "bigs" as well as mentors and tutors and others willing to take that step.
Through my years of working on war and peace in Africa, I have learned that there are solutions to some of the greatest human rights challenges, and we all can be a part of those solutions. Liberia, Sierra Leone and Angola wouldn't be peaceful today if we didn't raise our voices about blood diamonds. Apartheid would still be the law of the land if we didn't join forces with South Africans to support peaceful change there. Unlikely Brothers talks about the importance of citizen action, and shows why and how we can make a difference.
I wrote my share of this book to chronicle my life, warts and all, in the hopes that I might be able to inspire others to get involved and act both locally and globally. As you'll find out if you read the book, if I can make a contribution, trust me, ANYONE can.
I look back at my father's rage when I was too young to understand it, our constant relocation throughout my childhood, Michael's living out of Hefty bags in the shelters when he was a kid, the near misses we both endured, and the extraordinary paths to redemption we both traveled, and I realize the only way we had a chance to experience all the things we did and have any success is that we dove in head first and tried our best. Michael and I put our hearts and souls into Unlikely Brothers. We hope you'll read our book, and that it inspires you to make a commitment locally to being a mentor and/or globally to helping to end Africa's deadliest wars.
Wow, this is Arnold Schwarzenegger's most embarrassing pregnancy since Junior. On the other hand, this could be considered the Governator's single most Kennedy-esque moment yet. But I suppose it's like Arnold always said, it's so good to find a staff that makes you hard. Mark this Cal-i-fornian down as Team Maria.
WOULD I LIE TO YOU? - The Eurythmics WHO ARE YOU WHEN I'M NOT LOOKING - Blake Shelton ALWAYS THE LAST TO KNOW - Del Amitri I HATE YOU BIG DADDY - Dewey Cox CHEATIN' - Gin Blossoms UNFAITHFUL - Rihanna THIS LOVE WILL BE YOUR DOWNFALL - Ellie Goulding BUST YOUR WINDOWS - Jazmine Sullivan GIVE ME EVERYTHING - Pitbull featuring Ne-Yo FORGET YOU - Cee Lo LIVING LOVING MAID (SHE'S JUST A WOMAN) - Led Zeppelin BORN THIS WAY - Lady Gaga HOW LONG (BETCHA GOT A CHICK ON THE SIDE) - Pointer Sisters DADDY'S COME HOME - Gary U.S. Bonds DADDY'S SONG - Harry Nilsson CONFESSIONS PT. 2 - Usher BEFORE HE CHEATS - Carrie Underwood LYIN' EYES - The Eagles DOG DAYS ARE OVER - Florence + The Machine HOW LONG - Ace SOMEONE ELSE CALLING YOU BABY - Luke Bryan
It was a primitive form of surgery. Almost 10 years ago, the United States and its allies stuck a knife deep into Afghanistan in an attempt to remove two malignancies -- al Qaeda and the Taliban. One of those, Osama bin Laden's crew, is nearly gone. The Taliban, after going into remission for a brief period, has come back.
The knife remains in the patient.
With bin Laden gone, the debate has intensified: What to do with the knife? The generals want to keep it in there. Remove the knife, they argue, and the patient will bleed out. Wrong, says the other side. The knife is doing more harm than good. Remove the knife immediately and the patient still has a chance of recovery.
If the initial surgery were primitive, then these post-operative choices are equally unsophisticated. But before turning to a more reasonable plan of care, let's look more closely at the patient's vital signs.
Approximately 100,000 U.S. troops are currently in Afghanistan, alongside about 30,000 coalition forces. More than 1,400 U.S. soldiers have died in the conflict, and thousands of Afghan civilians have died as well. Washington spends about $10 billion a month on the war. As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama argued for drawing down the war in Iraq and refocusing on the "good war" in Afghanistan. As president, he pushed for more troops in sooner and out sooner: the so-called surge. Obama pledged that the United States would start removing troops in July 2011, though Secretary of Defense Robert Gates almost immediately began suggesting that this was not a firm deadline.
Before the raid that killed bin Laden, the U.S. government drew up a plan to withdraw 5,000 troops from Afghanistan in July and as many as 5,000 more by year's end. After the raid, pressure has built to accelerate this timetable. A bipartisan group of lawmakers has sent a letter to the president calling "to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan that are not crucial to the immediate national security objective of combating al Qaeda."
This is a popular position. Now, nearly half of all Americans -- 42 percent, according to a recent USA Today poll -- think that we made a mistake invading Afghanistan. Mistake or not, a majority of Americans want out, and that includes 62 percent of those politically crucial independents.
And the Afghans? It's not easy to gauge public opinion in strife-torn countries. But according to a poll commissioned by the Washington Post and others published last December, more than half of all Afghans want U.S. troops out, the sooner the better, and 77 percent of respondents trust the local police to protect them versus only 36 percent who put their faith in foreign troops. According to the Asia Foundation's 2010 annual country report, 83 percent of Afghans support negotiations with and reintegration of armed opposition groups.
The surgery has had some significant side effects. Our military funding of Pakistan and our reliance on the country as a supply conduit for U.S. troops in Afghanistan has created a monster out of Pakistan's army and intelligence service. Our drone attacks in the tribal areas of that country are creating the conditions of a potential failed nuclear state. As for the patient itself, Afghanistan remains poor, dependent on opium production, and divided by myriad internecine conflicts. Our counter-insurgency campaign has failed to win hearts and minds.
The costs of the war have been immense. The people of the United States, most NATO countries, and even Afghanistan no longer support the military intervention. And, with bin Laden dead and the number of his operatives in Afghanistan down to a hundred or so, the central military objective of neutralizing al Qaeda has been accomplished.
Nurse, please sew up the patient and let's move on. Resources are limited.
But wait, the critics caution: the war in Afghanistan was never about al Qaeda. I was on the Diane Rehm Show last week, and journalist Jonathan Landay made a case for staying in Afghanistan to separate all the factions in the country's civil war, serve as a check on the neighboring countries that are jockeying for position, and ultimately prevent India and Pakistan from going to war. Pull out the knife, in other words, and not only will the patient bleed out but the infection will spread rapidly and destroy others.
Obviously it's time for a consult. Once we take a step back to consider a range of options, the choice between pulling out the knife immediately and keeping it in indefinitely resembles the choice between a lobotomy and decapitation.
First of all, it is neither militarily nor politically feasible to remove all U.S. troops tomorrow. And few make this argument. The recent bill introduced by John Garamendi (D-CA), for instance, proposed that the United States reduce our commitment by 90 percent by 2013. Most congressional efforts, including Howard Dean's latest grassroots campaign, have focused on getting the president to provide a timetable for withdrawal.
Second, the withdrawal should be accompanied by a significant uptick in economic and political assistance. Compared with the amount of money lavished on destroying the country, the United States has provided only modest sums for its reconstruction. And, frankly, much of the latter was wasted, as administration officials concede. The U.S. Agency for International Development has overhauled its programs, but more can be done to involve Afghans -- rather than just non-native NGOs -- in the rebuilding process.
Third, the administration has to be serious about political negotiations with the Taliban. Washington has reportedly accelerated its direct talks with the Taliban. But it has also conducted air strikes on precisely the layer of Taliban leadership most likely to respond to such overtures. We can't continue to shoot now and talk later. There will never be a military solution to the Afghanistan war. Bring in the diplomats and empower them to make real deals.
Finally, Afghanistan is a regional problem, so the solution must be regional as well. We're not going to keep Pakistan and India from each other's throats with 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Our presence hasn't prevented Iran and Tajikistan from pursuing their own national interests in the country either. We can only hope to restrain the efforts of neighbors to play out their conflicts on Afghan territory as part of a deal that constrains our military ambitions as well.
Now, let's go back to the hospital. A patient comes into a doctor's office with a knife in his chest. "Doctor, what do you suggest?"
The doctor examines the wound. "I could stick it in deeper," he says.
"No, I don't like that option," the patient responds.
"Okay, I could take it out immediately and discharge you," the doctor offers.
"Those are the only two choices?" The patient looks around. "Isn't this a hospital? Can't you pull out the knife in a way that minimizes the pain, stanches the bleeding, reduces the risk of infection, and actually makes me better?"
The doctor looks around. "Ah, yes, we are in a hospital. I suppose I could pull together a team to come up with a better plan."
As a Latino, family heritage is important to me. I believe we can all learn from the journeys of our ancestors. For some, these may have involved crossing the border without papers, seeking freedom from persecution, or fleeing the violence of revolution. These struggles and sacrifices have made our country great.
By the way, I'm not talking about my family. I'm referring to the uniquely American story of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. I only wish the former Massachusetts governor's views on immigration were informed by the reality of his background, rather than the generic Republican Party rhetoric he's espousing more and more often.
Romney says undocumented immigrants should all go home, because they're breaking the law. But his family history encompasses the flouting of the laws of two countries. His great-grandfather Miles Park Romney fled Utah for Mexico in 1884 to avoid persecution for the Mormon practice of plural marriage. Miles promised the Mexican government that his large family -- he had five wives -- would live peacefully and in accordance with all local laws. Still, he continued to practice polygamy, which was illegal in Mexico, even after it was banned by the Mormon Church in 1892.
Mitt Romney has spoken out against "sanctuary cities," municipalities that protect the rights of the undocumented. He says they wrongfully harbor unauthorized immigrants. How ironic. His own family obtained sanctuary in Mexico when the U.S. government was imprisoning Mormons, stripping them of their rights, and even killing them because of their beliefs.
Romney also thinks the border should be secured, because we can't have people coming across without papers. Yet in 1912, when the chaos of the Mexican Revolution threatened the Mormon settlements, his family returned to El Norte with no apparent need for papers or legal authorization from Washington. Mitt might never have had the chance to become a successful American businessman, the governor of a key state, or the savior of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City were it not for our porous border with Mexico.
Under normal circumstances, the children of Americans who are born abroad are still considered citizens. But the Romneys' Mexican roots run deep. Three generations of the family lived there. Four of Mitt's great-grandparents died there. His father was born there. Mitt's father George, who served as the governor of Michigan, himself could have been a poster child for the DREAM Act. He was the son of a foreign-born immigrant who entered the United States without documentation with kids in tow.
So, if the nation were to deny the children of immigrants birthright citizenship, as some GOP legislators believe we should, could Mitt be deported?
That's why I find the story of the Romneys quite fascinating. Mitt's ancestors sought religious freedom and the chance of a better life. They took their future into their own hands. They did what they needed to do to survive -- just like millions of undocumented people continue to do today, including many from Mexico.
And while I don't condone polygamy, I do admire the Mormon pioneers who risked everything for what they believed in. If only Mitt had such strong principles. As the governor of Massachusetts, he was in favor of accessible healthcare for all. Now he soundly opposes the federal government's new health program. He was once pro-choice but now favors outlawing abortion. He takes a firm stance against employing undocumented immigrants, yet has been caught twice with workers without papers who were mowing his lawn and doing other work on his property. This kind of flip-flopping and fudging on the issues hardly shows a commitment to leadership.
During his last run for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney told the Christian Science Monitor that he was proud of his Mormon faith. "These are my beliefs," he said. "They form who I am." Sadly, I have to wonder about that, for the Book of Mormon itself instructs compassion towards all immigrants. In 2 Nephi 1:6, the prophet Lehi speaks of the New World (America) and his message could not be clearer: "There shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord." Cross-posted at Other Words.
With all the attention on marriages these days (the Royal Wedding, Newt Gingrich and wife No. 3, Mitch Daniels and his happy remarriage to his ex, and so on) shouldn't we be paying more attention to one very troubled marriage: the one between the American public and our teachers?
No doubt it's troubled, but can this marriage be saved?
Like any long-married couple, teachers and the public have been fighting off and on for years -- in their case for more than 150 years! To me, that's a good sign. After all, fights are evidence of passion, and there's no way this particular marriage will "drown in still water." But just because the two still care for each other, and for their 50 million children, that's not enough to keep them together.
Because it's the 50 million children who are being hurt by the vicious fighting.
I don't believe in "staying together for the sake of the children" if the marriage is toxic, so let's examine the facts.
Teachers are acutely sensitive to any perceived slight, which is, for me, strong evidence of just how delicate the situation is. Last week we reported on PBS NewsHour on "Last In, First Out," focusing on Hartford, Connecticut:
It's a nuanced piece of reporting by my colleague John Tulenko and producer Audrey Baker, but judging by the reaction of some teachers, you'd think we worked for Fox and were being paid by the Koch Brothers. For example a teacher in Wisconsin wrote, "Well, once again the Newshour uses biased reporting to slant educational woes into the lap of teachers unions. Are you truly paying attention to what you are saying?"
And from Maine: "I feel you gave a very anti-union program concerning teachers unions, and thus supported the 'use and throw away' culture that treats people and things like trash."
This, from Washington state: "You have oversimplified the issue, and performed some sort of 'slight of mind' trick. ... your reporter's lack of objectivity and condescending tone toward experienced teachers stunned and disillusioned me. I never knew PBS had so little regard for people like me who have devoted their whole working life to public service."
I urge you to take a look for yourself, and note how the piece twist and turns, "unpeeling the onion" the way any good reporting should. For example, the Hartford superintendent is very upset about having to follow LIFO, but test scores in Hartford have risen dramatically, which contradicts his dire predictions of disaster. But our critics, those teachers, don't deal in nuance. Apparently ANY criticism amounts to "teacher bashing."
That's evidence of a troubled marriage. One party, in this case the teachers, is so used to being dumped on that it has lost perspective. And the public, the other party in the marriage, has also lost perspective and gives voice only to negativity. All teachers ever hear from their "spouse," the public, is that they are the sole reason our children are being outperformed by children in other nations. "It's all your fault," teachers are told, over and over. No wonder they are in a hair-trigger state.
How does this constant bickering affect the children?
I recall interviewing teachers in Washington, D.C., where under Michelle Rhee, the criticism of teachers was rampant. Teachers told me that some of their students said to them, "We don't have to listen to you or do what you say, because you are going to be fired." When one spouse is actively disrespecting and undermining the other, children learn a lot of bad lessons.
Can this marriage be saved? Yes, of course, but we need a cooling off period. We need some serious listening, by both sides.
And maybe both parties in this marriage need to talk about what they want for the children. The public, it seems to me, has been sold a bill of goods about test scores, as if that's the only measure of how well they have raised their children. Teachers want to do their part in child-rearing, but that's hard to do well when they are told that it's all about test scores and that the results -- if bad -- are entirely their fault. They are afraid to try new things but instead are driven to teach to the test. (And they don't get credit when scores are good, which adds salt to the wounds.)
I'm only being slightly facetious here, because all this heat is actually quite dangerous. We need to sit down with ourselves to talk about the purposes of public education. What do we want our children to grow up to be able to do? Pass tests? Or how about this list: "Work productively, raise families, vote, pay taxes, think critically, support their communities, and adapt to change" for starters? Is passing tests the appropriate marker and legitimate predictor for all this?
Not for me. For my children, and now for my grandchildren, I want adults to look at them and wonder "How are you smart?", not "How smart are you?"
The NFL received a major leverage shift from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (the Court) on Monday night with a ruling that keeps the NFL-imposed lockout in place through the appeals process, likely until late June or early July, at the earliest.
Labor dispute, not litigation
The NFL has stayed on message since the NFLPA decertified on March 11th, both in their comments and court filings. Their message has been: the battle with the NFLPA is a labor dispute, not litigation; it should not be in court, as the courts do not have jurisdiction in labor disputes. The Eighth Circuit (Court) majority opinion in this stay ruling was receptive to the NFL's position.
The 2-1 opinion of the Court featured the following highlights:
Likelihood of Success on the Appeal
Both in the NFL's brief and in oral arguments by lead attorney David Boies on April 6th, the NFL argued that the DIstrict Court did not have the power to grant an injunction (stop) of the lockout due to a broad reading of the Norris-LaGuardia Act (the Act), a law used primarily by employees, not employers, to ban injunctions arising from labor disputes.
The Eighth Circuit agreed with this broad reading of the Act. The judges focused on the plain language of the Act and emphasized that it evenhandedly applied to lockouts and to strikes.
Moreover, the Court - in a rebuke to District Court Judge Susan Nelson's interpretation of the case - had serious doubts that Nelson had jurisdiction to stop the lockout.
This is foreboding to the Players on appeal. Essentially, two of the three judges that will hear the appeal are saying that the lockout cannot be prevented by the District Court. It is hard to see this view changing after the appeal hearing.
Balancing harm to the Owners and Players
The Court agreed with the NFL that absent a stay, it is the NFL - not the Players - who would suffer harm, as it would difficult to unscramble the potential mess created by transactions done in the interim.
I thought that when the schedule came out showing this appeal to be on an expedited schedule - the hearing is June 3rd - that the Owners would get the stay. The fast track of the appeal process should minimize the harm to the Players and allow the case to be resolved before the 2011 season.
Lone Dissent
As with the temporary stay, Judge Bye stood alone from his counterparts, emphasizing that the NFL did not satisfy their burden required to grant the stay.
As before, Judge Bye was emphatic in his opinion and in his belief in the Players' side of the case. As before, however, he represents the dissenting opinion.
Post-Stay Ruminations
The expedited appeals process is the best news of the lockout: after the appeal ruling, there is plenty of time to resolve things prior to training camp - if, of course, both sides are motivated to do so.
I do not hold much hope for the mediation presently going on under Judge Nelson's watch, but I do think that the losing party from the appeal hearing - I would favor the Owners in that now - will have great incentive to work out a CBA.
The bottom line is still the bottom line: both sides need to make a deal. Courtroom football is and has always been about tilting leverage. The Owners have the leverage now but the Players have some perceived leverage of a pending award from Doty in the next couple of weeks.
Perhaps both sides use this window - prior to both the Doty ruling and the appeal hearing - to work a deal.
Forks Over Knives is, in its own eat-your-spinach kinda way, a feel-good movie. Roger Ebert's declared it "a film that could save your life." So, once you get past the inevitable indictments of our disease-inducing diet, and the stock footage of headless obese people waddling down the street, you'll find yourself ultimately uplifted by the vitality the film's formerly sick and unfit subjects exude as they embrace a plant-based diet.
Unless, of course, your heart's been hardened by all those artery-clogging animal fats that the film implores you to rethink. The premise of Forks Over Knives--that we could save millions of lives and billions of dollars simply by switching to a diet of fruits, whole grains and vegetables--offers a compelling solution to both our financial and physical woes.
Mark Bittman made essentially the same case in his recent column How to Save a Trillion Dollars, in which he noted that "a sane diet alone would save us hundreds of billions of dollars and maybe more."
The film's vegan agenda may inflame the meat and dairy industries, but when it comes to inflammation, Forks Over Knives has got nothing on meat and dairy. The film makes effective use of graphics, animations and case studies to illustrate how animal proteins adversely effect our health in multiple ways, from inducing inflammation that appears to spur tumor growth, to blocking our blood flow. And not just the blood flow to our hearts, but to the rest of our bodies as well--which doesn't bode well for you, whether you think with your brain or other appendages located further south.
In fact, the film notes that erectile dysfunction is "the canary in the coal mine" for heart disease. Can't you just hear those hipster "hegans" having the last laugh--and maybe, the better bonk?
The film also features Esselstyn Jr.'s son, Rip Esselstyn, the Austin firefighter who's got his own best-selling vegan cookbook, The Engine 2 Diet. Rip Esselstyn studiously avoids the 'vegan' label, preferring the term "plant-strong." And that's probably just as well, because asking Americans to forego all the animal-based foods that form the cornerstone of our diet--including cheese and dairy--is a pretty tough sell as it is.
But Forks Over Knives doesn't just dwell on the harmful consequences of eating anything that "has a mother or a face." The movie devotes equal emphasis to the many life-enhancing, disease-fighting nutrients and other compounds contained in the fresh, whole foods that most of us don't eat enough of. As comedian Bill Maher notes in the film's opening segment:
There's no money in healthy people. And there's no money in dead people. The money is in the middle: people who are alive, sort of, but with one or more chronic conditions...Someone has to stand up and say that the answer isn't another pill. The answer is spinach.
The film's writer and director, Lee Fulkerson, serves as one of the case studies in the movie, working with a pair of physicians who successfully treat his high cholesterol and elevated CRP level (a risk factor for heart disease) by putting him on a whole foods, plant-based diet. Fulkerson's numbers improved dramatically in a matter of weeks, further proof that such health issues can be addressed through diet instead of drugs.
Other folks featured in the film overcame diabetes, heart disease, and even cancer. The film does not imply that conventional medicine can't be effective at treating these illnesses, but rather faults it for too often treating the symptoms while ignoring the underlying causes.
I wanted to confirm the powers of a plant-based diet to prevent and even reverse illness from a credible source who wasn't affiliated with the movie. So I spoke with Dr. Kelly A. Turner, co-founder of Shuniya Health & Healing, where she treats cancer patients with a holistic approach that combines the best of eastern and western medicine.
Dr. Turner told me, "I have seen many, many cancer patients help turn their health around by changing to a whole foods, plant-based diet. And although the woman in the film chose not to have western treatment, I've seen this diet change work wonders for many cancer patients who are in the midst of their western treatment. The two are not mutually exclusive, not at all."
She added that for those of us who aren't facing a life-threatening illness, it may seem like too much of a sacrifice to give up all animal products cold turkey." Yes, doing that will have a profound effect on your health," she said, "but most people who feel fairly healthy won't feel the need to do that. I would encourage them to see the film and hopefully be inspired (and informed) to make small, gradual changes to their diet...even gradual changes will have very healthful effects on your cell membranes, your blood glucose level, and your colon health."
But fresh, unprocessed, wholesome foods haven't got K Street lobbyists and Madison Avenue marketers to promote them, while Viagra and Lipitor are making a fortune for Big Pharma, helped along by Big Food's low-cost, high-calorie, nutrient-poor products.
Forks Over Knives could have been subtitled "Pork Over Lives," because it highlights the addled agricultural policies and industry meddling that keep our government agencies more focused on protecting corporate profits than promoting good health. Michelle Obama's Let's Move! campaign may be wholehearted, but our government's overall efforts to halt the diet-related diseases that are crippling Americans young and old have been half-assed, to be blunt. The Federal Trade Commission's latest dietary guidelines are as toothless as a gummy bear, and only marginally more sound, nutritionally.
The free-market fanaticism that lets our children to be shamelessly targeted by food corporations sets them up for a lifetime of ill health. The end result is profits for those companies, their shareholders and the health care industries who profit from disease.
Meanwhile, our politicians insist that we're bankrupting our childrens' future with our reckless spending. They're slashing budgets left and right, pulling the plug on crucial programs, all so that little Ethan and Emma won't be saddled with crushing debt in a few decades.
But forget about unbalanced budgets. It's unbalanced diets we really need to worry about. Because the soundest economy in the world won't save a nation of ballooning bellies and mushy muscles.
If you haven't already discovered him on your own, let me introduce you to my new friend Daniel Klein, the chef and star behind web series cult favorite, The Perennial Plate (ThePerennialPlate.com). This young lad does it all; he forages, he hunts, he fishes, he cooks. His skills take him from terrine's to ceviches, from homemade ice cream frozen in the snow to braised squirrel -- all in the pursuit of socially responsible, adventurous eating. And lucky for us, he is also a gifted filmmaker too.
A graduate of NYU, Klein made a sharp left turn into the kitchens of some of the worlds best restaurants including Bouchon, The Fat Duck, Craft and Applewood. Culinary stops in Spain, India, France and a childhood spent in the kitchen of his mom's bed and breakfast in England rounds out the profile. Two years ago Klein left NYC for hometown Minneapolis with the thought that maybe it was time to open his own restaurant. As is his pattern, he got sidetracked there too and instead of laboring above a hot stove, he decided to go out and tell every local food story he could find in Minnesota.
One year and fifty-two short films about good food later (and no culinary rock left unturned) Daniel discovered his passion and has now set his sights on the rest of the country. Yay for all of us!! Two weeks ago, Daniel packed up his apartment, loaded up the car and set out on his "Real Food Tour" heading south to visit farms, co-ops, fishing holes, restaurants, gardens and home kitchens. Keep your eye out for a grey Toyota Prius packed to the gills with film equipment, two bikes, sleeping bags, a cooler, treasured cast iron pans, a few knives, one signature red sweatshirt, a few cookbooks (Harold Mcgee's On Food and Cooking as well as some edible mushroom and plant field guides) and his vegetarian girlfriend/ camerawoman Mirra Fine (one side note: she wasn't a vegetarian until she started filming some of Daniels "butcher your own meat and use head to toe" episodes!)
This is a journey worth tagging along on (especially since we get to sleep in our own beds at night). It's truly inspiring to watch Daniel explore the many faces and stories of local food. A walk in the woods turns up treasured morels which he later sautés on his small apartment stove; an interview with a family farmer movingly reveals why so many young people are returning to small scale farm life.
The Perennial Plate's weekly short webisodes not only entertain and inform but also have the added magic of leaving you feeling happy. Maybe because Daniel and Mirra are the real deal and we feel lucky to be included on this adventure that brings us so close to a simpler, cleaner way of life, one that is authentically real; homegrown food, respect for the animal, the land, the farm, the people who make it all happen, the joy of cooking and sharing food. The way life used to be and could be again if we choose it. Culled from over 500 email submissions from every corner of the country and funded by over a hundred small donations from fans and friends, the Perennial Plate's Real Food Road Trip kicks off with their first video posting right here on the Huffington Post. No need to pack your bags, just cozy on up to the computer, bring the kids and watch!
After attending the Google I/O developers conference in San Francisco last week, I'm starting to feel as if the company is trying to become all things to all people.
With its Android phones and tablets, Google is competing with Apple. With its Chromebook laptops, it's competing with Microsoft. Google Voice is competing against Sprint, AT&T, Verizon and now Microsoft, which just acquired Skype.
Google Maps has practically put traditional map makers out of business, and now that it's on smartphones, it's having an impact on the sale aftermarket and factory-installed navigation devices. Google TV is trying to compete with set-top box makers. Google has also disrupted the advertising business and, if it has its way, Microsoft Office and what else is left of the desktop software business will be eclipsed by Google Docs and Spreadsheets, Gmail and other Google Web apps.
Come to think of it, Google is even competing with GM, Ford and Chrysler now that it's working on driverless cars.
Google has justified all of these projects as fitting its corporate mission to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
I suppose you could make a case for how each of these product categories fits into that rubric. Phones, tablets and laptops are the hardware that facilitates accessibility of information. Google Maps certainly fits, and Google Voice sort of qualifies because it lets you record and store incoming phone calls, transcribe and store voice mail, and makes text messages accessible via the Web. And driverless cars obviously qualifies because once we no longer have to concentrate on the road, we can be Web surfing while we're driving.
As if all that weren't enough, Google last week expanded its empire even further by announcing a music storage service and adding video rental to its Android marketplace.
I'm not complaining. As a consumer, I love having choices, and as long as Google isn't driving competitors out of business, it's adding to our choices. And in some cases, Google products work well as companions to competing products. As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, I installed an after-market navigation system in my car, but I still find myself using Google Maps on my cellphone when I want to quickly search for something like "the nearest sushi bar" or a particular restaurant or business. Not only is its cloud-based database a lot more up-to-date than the one in my navigation system's firmware, but it's also much easier to search and its voice-recognition system works almost every time.
I'm very happy to see Google compete with Apple. I love the iPhone and the iPad, but it's important not to let one company dominate the marketplace. Apple would continue to innovate even if it didn't have Google at its back because it makes a lot of its money by selling annual upgrades to existing customers. But now that it has to worry about losing customers to Google, Apple is under pressure not only to keep innovating, but also to keep its prices in check.
Speaking of competing with Apple, last week Google handed out pre-release versions of Samsung's Tab 10.1 to all attendees of its conference, including press covering the event. The new tablet is slightly thinner and lighter than the iPad 2 and, so far, is performing admirably. That doesn't mean it's better than the iPad 2, which is the current gold standard for tablets, but it's a serious competitor. Google announced that there are now 200,000 apps in the Android marketplace. That's still a lot fewer than are available for Apple phones and tablets, but it's a very respectable number, and it will only get higher.
One area where Google will probably never catch up with Apple is with cases and other accessories that attach to the devices. Google tablets don't even have a consistent power and data connector. The Samsung 10.1's power cord has a standard USB connector that goes into the power brick but what appears to be a proprietary connector that plugs into the tablet. The Acer Iconia Tab that I wrote about last week has yet a different power connector. What's ironic about this is that Google CEO Larry Page made a big pitch at his 2006 CEO keynote for getting the consumer electronics industry to standardize on power supplies.
I could write even more about Google products, including some categories I don't have room to mention. If you want to learn more, you can do a search for "list of Google products." And, yes, "there's an app for that" -- it's called Google.com.
This post also appeared in the San Jose Mercury News For more from Larry visit LarrysWorld.com
Give your stove and microwave a much-needed vacation and get grilling! Whether you have an outdoor grill or condo rules make the great indoors your only way of making grill marks, build yourself a better barbecue this year with the healthy tips and tricks below:
Buy Better-for-You Burgers
Four out of 5 people say burgers are their favorite grilled food. Typical burgers made of ground beef can average 300 calories and nine grams of artery-clogging saturated fat per one four-ounce burger. Here are options that are lower in calories and saturated fat:
- Read bun labels for the word "whole" since whole grain versions provide more fiber, vitamin E and healthy minerals, such as zinc and magnesium, than white, processed ones. - Try whole grain pitas or English muffins as an alternative since they are fewer calories than bulky buns.
Be Condiment Conscious
- Ketchup contains lycopene, a natural cancer fighter. Choose organic options without high fructose corn syrup. - Mustard is not only low in calories, but also contains mustard seeds, which help reduce inflammation (this is good for achy joints and heart health). - BBQ sauce adds great flavor, but be sure to buy brands with tomatoes, not sugar or high fructose corn syrup, as the first ingredient.
Barbecue Beyond Burgers
Even though burgers are the most popular BBQ food, here's a list of other healthy proteins to put on the barbie: Salmon Filet (4oz): 160 calories, 1g saturated fat Chicken Breast (4oz): 135 calories, 0.5g saturated fat Chicken Sausage (2.5oz link): 130 calories, 2g saturated fat Tofu Cutlet (4oz): 110 calories, 1g satuated fat Shrimp (14 medium, 3oz): 60 calories, 0g saturated fat Scallops (10 medium, 3oz): 60 calories, 0g saturated fat
Cut Out Charring
The bad news: Grilling and charring meats can produce compounds called Heterocyclic Amines (HCA), which some studies have linked to cancer. The good news: Marinating for 30 to 60 minutes will help decrease dangerous HCA compounds by more than 80 percent. The best marinades contain three things: 1) oil, 2) acid such as vinegar or citrus, 3) dried herbs. Here's a Universal Marinade recipe for one pound of your favorite fish, chicken, beef and even veggies and tofu:
1/4 cup grapeseed oil (good grilling oil since it can handle high temperatures) 1/4 cup red wine vinegar 2 cloves fresh garlic, minced 1 Tablespoon dried oregano 1 teaspoon crushed red pepper flakes Sea salt and black pepper, to taste
Take Temps
Whether you are a grill novice or a seasoned veteran, use a thermometer to determine when it's time to take your grilled goodies off the burner. Cooking to the right temperature ensures you aren't over or undercooking your food and that means you'll have both optimal juiciness and safety. Stick a thermometer in the thickest part of the food and you know it's done perfectly when it hits the following proper temperatures:
145 degrees F for fish 160 degrees F for hamburgers & medium-steaks 165 degrees F for chicken breasts
Pile on Produce
Vegetables and fruits are low in calories and high in nutrition. Aim to have 50 percent of your grill loaded with veggies, while the other half is cooking your favorite lean meats, poultry or fish. Grilling brings out natural sweetness of fruit, so they become a natural sweet treat to end a summer meal. Here are some of my favorite grilled produce ideas:
- Vegetable kebobs (mushrooms, onions, bell peppers, zucchini) - Whole carrots - Heads of broccoli - Spears of asparagus - Fruits such as pineapple, strawberries, bananas, peaches, plums and even watermelon.
Get Grill Gadgets
- Take the guesswork out of grilling by using a Cuisinart Digital Grill Thermometer with a color changing display (Bed Bath & Beyond, $29.99). With this thermometer, you can set your desired temperature and an alarm will sound when your food is ready! - Get a grip on flipping delicate fish and produce with a Stainless Steel Flexible Grill Basket (Crate & Barrel, $14.95). It is also a master at managing small items like calamari, potatoes and cherry tomatoes -- preventing your food from falling through the cracks. -Go beyond burgers and become a global grilling gourmet with the help of a Stainless Steel Grill Basket/Wok for grilled Asian stir-frys and Pizza Grilling Stone for perfectly grilled Italian pizza pies (Crate & Barrel, $19.95 and $36.95). - Indoor grills and grill pans can do the trick if outdoor grilling is not an option. Try a grill pan made out of cast iron to transform your stovetop into a grill (Sur La Table, Lodge Lodgic $59.95 or Le Creuset $169.95).
Amidst the current kerfuffle of Republicans and Democrats blaming each other for ever higher gas prices, focusing on issues ranging from oil company tax breaks to impediments on new drilling, the most significant item of information extant is barely focused upon.
Last week in Congressional hearings none other than the Darth Vader of all things oil, Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil bravely informed his Congressional interlocutors that the price of oil should be no higher than $60 to $70 a barrel. He attributed the difference from the plus $100/bbl current at the time of his pronouncement, to speculation and trading on the commodity exchanges. It is a position that this corner has promulgated for years. Well and good. But coming from Tillerson, that is truly from the horse's mouth.
In addition, there was another core nugget of information coming forth at the hearing. That the average cost of producing a barrel of oil is circa $11/bbl. Thereby, and for once giving oiligopoly credence to the enormous profits at hand in the oil sector. It is as though General Motor's Chevrolet Volt was being built at a cost of $25,000 and selling for well over $200,000 plus, and with much less fuss and bother.
And yet, and yet, this news barely reached the headlines of the business press and the forever endless parade of talking heads on our television screens.
And all this within the recent flood of attention to manipulated pricing with the formation of the Oil and Gas Pricing Fraud Panel under Attorney General -- "there may well be lawful reasons for increases in gas price given supply and demand" -- Eric Holder. This after endless months/years of hearings and blather coming forth from the forever ineffectual CFTC.
And there, in recent weeks, was President Obama himself taking up the cudgel of speculation -- blaming it for rising oil prices in a recent address to a community college.
Well, here for once we have smoking gun evidence of one piece of the high oil/gas price puzzle -- the impact of speculation. There are many others such as OPEC manipulation, crude oil hoarding by bank holding companies and oil traders, reckless judicial interpretation of sovereign immunity, thereby precluding antitrust legal proceedings in this country against the national oil companies of OPEC nations. The list goes on. But with this piece of evidence in hand will the government act forcefully, or will oil interests once again prevail!?
Nicholas Kristof's bombshell article yesterday probing into the notes, letters and thinking on Afghanistan by Richard Holbrooke has a number of good journalists, including Politico's Ben Smith, scrambling to reassess where one of the Democrat Party's foreign policy titans really stood on America's longest war.
Thanks to Kati Marton, the late Richard Holbrooke's wife, Kristof was given access to key files and notes of Holbrooke's in her possession -- and with these, Kristof has painted a compelling picture that Holbrooke strongly believed that the Afghanistan War needed to be ended through tough-minded negotiations and eventual reconciliation with the Taliban.
Just as important, Holbrooke felt that the Obama administration has over-militarized its tool kit for dealing with Afghanistan and winced when General David Petraeus referred to him as his "wingman." During the Bosnia War, the tables between the diplomatic team and the Pentagon were reversed -- with General Wesley Clark delivering the military moves that Holbrooke needed and directed.
Kati Marton has done a great service in showing Kristof these papers -- particularly now as decisions on the Afghanistan War are again under review. Kristof has now helped underline and put in exclamatory bold Richard Holbrooke's final words: "You've got to stop this war in Afghanistan."
The revelations of Holbrooke's views were not a surprise to me -- in part because of numerous conversations I was privileged to have with both Holbrooke and Kati Marton in the past but also with key members of his SRAP (Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan) team.
Holbrooke and his people were officially supportive of (while in some cases privately opposed to) the President's plan to use a military surge to gut-punch the Taliban and hopefully maneuver them towards negotiations -- but ultimately a negotiated end state leaving Afghanistan better off than when this all started was the key goal in their mind. Many others in the Obama administration -- particularly on the Pentagon side of the equation -- have had a tough time keeping that goal in sight.
But Richard Holbrooke telegraphed his views on Afghanistan publicly at a historian conference featuring Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clinton, himself, and others hosted by the State Department on the release of the updated Foreign Relations of the United States volumes on Southeast Asia -- with a focus on the Vietnam War. These volumes are considered the reconciled history of the US -- with secrets that had recently become declassified woven into public accounts of America's foreign policy.
At this meeting, I asked Holbrooke to compare his work in the early years of the Vietnam build-up in which he was also tasked with non-military roles in building up the economic and civil society institutions of Vietnam with what he was doing today in Afghanistan.
Holbrooke's entire commentary is here, but here follows our specific exchange on Afghanistan and Vietnam:
QUESTION [Steve Clemons]: Ambassador Holbrooke, thank you so much for your comments. I think the purpose of these foreign relations volumes is not only to set the record straight, but to give us a digest of issues so that - to help us in foreign policy decisions that we make later down the road. And you were on the field in - on the ground in Vietnam, as you said, looking at this through the portal of civilian - the civilian dimensions of the war, like your task today. And it would be interesting to know, both positively and negatively, what your experiences in doing that in Vietnam, how those have affected the way you've organized your teams work today in Afghanistan.
AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: I was wondering how long we could avoid that question. (Laughter.) And it has to be a friend who asks it, right? Steve, that's a - of course, I've thought about it a lot. And so let me start by making a very simple statement about then and now.
There are many structural similarities between the two situations, but there is a fundamental strategic difference. And there's a fundamental difference about how we got involved. In Afghanistan, we entered the war because we were attacked in the most serious attack on American soil in history, and the nation unanimously on a bipartisan basis, without any significant descent, myself certainly included, felt that we had to go into Afghanistan because the people who were in charge of the country had sheltered Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida and could not remain there. And whatever happened after that, the root cause of our entry into Afghanistan was instantaneous, Pearl Harbor- like and totally justified.
We slid into Vietnam accidentally. Little known fact, Eisenhower already had advisory troops there before Kennedy became President. Eisenhower had told the president-elect not only about Laos, in response to this gentleman's question, but also about the importance of Vietnam. It was Eisenhower who laid out the domino theory which became the dominant metaphor of the war and which turned out to be false. The dominoes didn't fall unless you count Cambodia and Laos, which were part of the strategic space.
And so we slid in a thousand soldiers under Eisenhower, at the time of President Kennedy's death, maybe 15,000, 16,000, at the time Lyndon Johnson left office, over 500,000, and then the drawdowns that Henry described. So we slid in.
Had people sat down and said, you know, we're going to go in there, we're going to end up with 500,000 troops, I cannot imagine any administration, any political system would have agreed to that intervention. But as Henry pointed out, that's the hand that they were dealt on January 20th, 1969. And so that is a - that is the fundamental difference.
But structurally there are obvious similarities. And leafing through these books here, they leap out at you. Many of the programs that are being followed, many of the basic doctrines are the same ones that we were trying to apply in Vietnam. And I believe in history. I think history is continuous. It doesn't begin or end on Pearl Harbor Day or the day Lyndon Johnson withdraws from the presidency or on 9/11. You have to learn from the past but not be imprisoned by it. You need to take counsel of history but never be imprisoned by it.
So this is not Vietnam, but there's a lot to learn. And it's not an accident that David Petraeus, my counterpart for the first year-and-a-half of this Administration, until he went back to Kabul, had written his Ph.D. thesis at Princeton about this, about the war, and he and I have talked many times about it.
Richard Holbrooke believed that Vietnam was a massive mistake by the United States and didn't want to repeat the errors today that America made then. While he was right that the factors that animated US intervention in Vietnam differed greatly from what drove America's decision to invade Afghanistan, he suggests that there are many "structural similarities."
During Holbrooke's opening comments at this historian's conference, Holbrooke made very clear his rejection of America's Vietnam escapade:
I must conclude that our goals in Vietnam did not justify the immense costs of the war. Nor do I believe that success was denied to us because of domestic events and lack of patience on the part of the American public.
And then in commenting about Dean Rusk's private reservations about the Vietnam engagement, I saw and felt Holbrooke using this as a metaphor for his own reservations about Afghanistan while nonetheless serving President Obama and carrying out his policies:
And - but while Dean Rusk harbored deep internal doubts about the war, he felt an absolute obligation to support the troops and the President's policy. He believed deeply in the theory of American invincibility, something I would emphasize to a younger generation, was instilled in every one of us in high school in those days, in those far away days, when we were taught and endlessly reminded that America had never lost a war. All the strength of Dean Rusk's convictions - convictions we all still would like to be able to hold, of course - were inadequate to the fact that on the ground, as we slid deeper and deeper into the morass, and later as it spread to Cambodia.
And so we failed the first test. Our beloved nation sent into battle soldiers without a clear determination of what they could accomplish and they misjudged the stakes.
The trends in America's engagement in Afghanistan bothered Richard Holbrooke greatly -- and it's important, as the Kristof article ends, for the administration to take serious account of Holbrooke's concerns as the next steps on Afghanistan are weighed.
-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog,The Washington Note. Clemons can be followed on Twitter@SCClemons
"I'm like a shot a Levittown right in your ass, like a B-12 -- boom!"
Those were Jon Stewart's last words to Bill O'Reilly in his guest appearance on Monday night's O'Reilly Factor, in a virtuoso duel where comedy eviscerated farce.
The two highly rated cable stars squared off over one of the more inane controversies in a political season full of inane controversies -- whether the White House was wrong to invite the socially conscious rapper Common to perform at a poetry slam. If you haven't heard:
Basically, (some) conservatives said Common's music was vile because he questioned murder convictions and police authority. Also, he has been seen R.W.B -- rapping while black. Then, Liberals (and fact-checkers) retorted that Common is a conscious and even cuddly musician, with credentials that include recording a pro-life duet with Lauryn Hill and starring in Tina Fey's last movie. Plus, GOP administrations have hosted edgier musicians who have also questioned murder convictions and police authority.
So when O'Reilly doubled down on his hypocritical case and challenged Stewart to come debate the nontroversy, it was a no-brainer.
In two short segments, O'Reilly walked through his case, responded to factual charges of hypocrisy with some fairly sad parsing and then, when desperate, with rank "pettifogging," to use a term bandied by both men. Meanwhile, the Daily Show anchor's rebuttals were striking because, even in this casual mode on a minor item, he was more persuasive than the vast majority of people who are called on to represent a progressive view on TV.
Stewart really seized control of the terms of debate near the end of the first segment, when he asked whether O'Reilly would revoke Bono's White House guest pass, issued by several administrations, because of his song about Leonard Peltier. "It's the exact same thing: A guy convicted of killing a law enforcement official, no?" asked Stewart, adding "Boo-yah!" to emphasize the point. (He salted his rhetoric with rap slang throughout the debate.) And that's when O'Reilly started to melt. "Did Bono, did he actually come out and say that [Peltier] was innocent?" O'Reilly asked, groping for a distinction. "No, I think he was raising questions about it," O'Reilly offered. "Now who's pettifogging?," Stewart countered, "I can't even see you, through your pettifog!"
Stewart closed with a critique that is familiar to Fox's critics, but may be worthwhile for O'Reilly's audience to hear directly, noting that Fox operates a "selective outrage machine" that kicks into gear "only when it suits the narrative that suits them."
Ari Melber writes for The Nation magazine, where this was first published. He is on Facebook and Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment