KillSilly

Chuck and Dave Without Vera

2009-10-18T07:19:00.003-04:00

Two men born in 1926 about five months and five thousand miles apart have made deep impressions on me. One is Charles Edward Anderson Berry, known to most of the general public as "Chuck" and the other is Sir David Frederick Attenborough.

Of all the people in the world, David Attenborough is the person I might most like to trade lives with. No one has witnessed more fascinating natural events than Attenborough and I challenge anyone to fashion a reasonable argument for somebody else. For those who do not know of Mr. Attenborough, he has for over fifty years researched and presented scores of television programs for the British Broadcasting Corporation, the vast majority of which involve filming flora and fauna throughout the globe. He has traveled to every continent, through dozens of countries, and seen creatures many of us would never have heard of if it weren't for him. A national hero in the United Kingdom, anyone on the west side of the Atlantic who is unfamiliar with his work and even remotely interested in biology is advised to seek out "Life on Earth", "The Living Planet", "Blue Planet", "Planet Earth", "The Life of Birds", "The Life of Mammals", or any of the rest of his absolutely astonishing television series.

And now, Chuck. From the man of science to one of sheer musical genius. Chuck Berry made music so definitively rock & roll and so American, it seemed like it must have always been there, the kind of of songs nobody in particular wrote but were always around. But somebody in particular did write "Maybelline", "Johnny B. Goode", "Let It Rock", "Sweet Little Sixteen", "Almost Grown", "Brown Eyed Handsome Man", "You Can't Catch Me", and "Around and Around."

His songs could be harmless fun or they could be stirring and profound and some of them--lots of them--could be either or both depending on the mood of the listener! "Brown Eyed Handsome Man" is a whimsical number in which the Venus DeMilo, identified in the song as "Marlo Venus", loses "both her arms in a wrestling match to meet a brown eyed handsome man". It's a fun song that gives silly names to classical sculptures. But what about the guy "rounding third and headed for home"? Does that refer to Willie Mays or perhaps another black baseball player, a "brown eyed handsome man" tearing up the big leagues following the relatively recent collapse of the color barrier?

The best word to describe Berry's music is glorious. It's not quite as lyrical as the best work of Bob Dylan, nor quite as melodic as the best Beatles, nor quite as angry and edgy as the best Rolling Stones, nor quite as driving and danceable as the best James Brown, nor quite as earthy and arresting as the best Howlin' Wolf and Muddy Waters, but it combines all those elements into something more liberating than any of them. If Freedom itself had a radio station, the first song played would be one of Chuck Berry's.

David Attenborough celebrated his 83rd birthday on May 8th while Chuck Berry turns the same age today, October 18th. Attenborough remains active in television and Berry still performs once a month at a night club near his native St. Louis, Missouri. I hope for many more birthdays from these two and that anyone previously unacquainted with their genius gets a taste of it soon.

Call It A (Not Terribly Welcome) Comeback

2009-10-11T16:57:00.003-04:00

The reason for my recent blog inactivity is a valid one: I'm working on a novel. It's good, too! I'll concede parts of it are rambling and convoluted but that tends to be the style I employ, for good or ill. I will dish out an obligatory summary of recent events, for what it's worth.

First, I wanted Chicago to get the Olympics. I love it there. It's far from a perfect place, but I consider it the definitive American city full of all the contradictions for which this country is known, loved, and loathed. However, I'm pleased South America finally gets an opportunity to host. Africa ought to be next. Cape Town put together an unsuccessful bid for the 2008 games but whether they're poised for another run in the near future is uncertain.

Reasonable opponents of Obama's health care plan could probably formulate sensible arguments and propositions, really adding something substantial to the proceedings. Indeed, they have probably done so already, but their voices are, for the most part, being drowned out by histrionics. Equating the Obama Administration with Nazism is offensive, over the top, and deeply insulting to people who actually had to endure the Third Reich. If it wasn't fair to compare the Bush Administration to Nazis--and it wasn't--it isn't fair to hurl the same epithets toward Obama.

Special recognition goes to Investors Business Daily. About two months ago, that publication printed an article indicating how fortunate physicist Stephen Hawking was not to be living in Great Britain, since someone with ALS was not "valued" by their health care system and therefore would not have survived to his current age (he's 67). There were two problems with this, one of which proved very embarrassing to Investors Business Daily while the other went largely unremarked. Stephen Hawking, as anybody capable of picking up one of his books or performing an Internet search can easily discover, was born in Britain and resides there yet. The other problem, obscured by IBD's egregiously lazy error or general disinterest in facts, is the sweeping generalization and assumption made in the first place, the idea that anyone can know for certain whether Stephen Hawking, or anyone, would have fared as well in another country. This is pure guesswork because it isn't merely a matter of the health care system employed by one country or another; so many other factors can influence patient outcomes--doctors, nurses, the patient's own behavior--that it is impossible to made accurate predictions about whether a patient would have lived or died in another situation. Besides that, it's crass. Stephen Hawking is alive and well and even if he weren't British, it's very tasteless to imply he'd be dead if he had a different address.

President Obama should not have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He has all but admitted as much himself. But he should accept it, then go out and earn it. Receiving an award before you deserve it is unorthodox, but instead of making him complacent, he ought to use it as motivation. That's what I'm hoping for anyway.

Is it just me or are the Pussycat Dolls even worse than most performers of their ilk? Not many contrived girl and boy groups make great music, but the Pussycat Dolls seem so derivative, overwrought, overproduced, and flat-out dull that I simply can't understand the appeal of listening to their alleged music. I do understand that dirty old men and pre-teen boys might find their gyrations alluring even if they are a canned and phony act. They are, in fact, canned and phony even by the standards of the genre. In terms of spontaneity and passion, the Pussycat Dolls make Destiny's Child look like the Donnas. "I Hate This Part", indeed!

Regrettably, there has been no desperate outcry for me to resume blogging. It seems the forces of the world still expect me to earn a living and this stands as yet another bitter disappointment.

It's Not But It Should Be

2009-08-19T02:45:00.003-04:00

Fifty years ago, on August 19, 1959, the life of Blind Willie McTell came to an end in Milledgeville, Georgia. McTell's date of birth is a matter of debate; though it is generally accepted his birthday was the 5th of May, the exact year he came into the world remains sketchy. Some sources say 1898, others 1901, and very occasionally a date of 1900 is given.

Today ought to be Blind Willie McTell Day in the United States, if not throughout the world. His story is as rich and fascinating as any blues legend, and that's saying something considering the legendary lore surrounding the likes of Tommy Johnson, Robert Johnson, Huddie Ledbetter, and Sonny Boy Williamson, among scores of others.

Among the most interesting, if unlikely, tales about McTell is the claim he once shot a marauding dog with a pistol. More plausible, though still remarkable, are anecdotes about his exceptional navigational skills in Atlanta, Georgia, where he assisted lost travelers in finding their way. What is known for certain about Blind Willie McTell is that he recorded under a variety of names--including but not limited to Barrelhouse Sammy, Georgia Bill, Pig and Whistle Red--and played the 12 string guitar with rare grace, speed, and beauty. He also had a distinctive voice and wrote pheonomenal songs. The best known of these is probably "Statesboro Blues", but a number of others are equally timeless, such as "Georgia Rag", "Stomp Down Rider", "Atlanta Strut", "Warm It Up To Me", "Dyin' Crapshooter's Blues", and the offensive but irresistible "Southern Can Is Mine."

"...mama died and left me restless; Daddy died and left me wild, wild, wild
No I'm not good looking, but I'm some sweet woman's angel child."
(from "Statesboro Blues")

"Went up the Kennesaw Mountain, gave my horn a blow
Prettiest girl in Atlanta came stepping up to my door
Hugged me and she kissed me, called me sugar lump
Throwed them sweet arms around me like a grape vine 'round a stump."
(from "Atlanta Strut")

"Boll weevil, he told the farmer, don't buy no Ford machine
Ain't gonna make enough money to even buy gasoline."
(from "Boll Weevil")

Don't deny it. Anyone who writes lyrics like this deserves his own day.

Trouble

2009-06-07T18:45:00.003-04:00

Lately, I've been working on a novel. This isn't my first attempt; in fact, I've even made it to the end of the story a few times, though more often than not the effort was aborted midstream. However, this time something is different: I've actually gotten good!

It's hard to say precisely when I turned the corner, nor can I definitively declare that I have, only that it seems so, but my skills at fiction have moved pleasantly from adequate to above average. Who knows what brought on this creative springtime? I just hope it continues.

Sixty-five years have passed since the Normandy Invasion. I don't think we should "retire" all talk of D-Day now that it's come of age, but I do hope we can always remember it without ever having to repeat anything of the kind. The world is not a peaceful place; one need not look very far to recognize this truth. But these days thousands upon thousands of soldiers perishing on heartbreakingly bloody battlefields is almost unheard of. Not that the changes in warfare give one much cause for celebration--guerrilla tactics, terrorism, "smart bombs"--but military institutions appreciate more than ever the value of human life, even if this is not always for the right reasons.

Whether out of compassion or expedient coincidence, wars just don't kill like they used to, not even in the world's most violent conflicts, the possible exception being the horrors within the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has cost an estimated three million lives over six years, mostly due to disease, famine and displacement rather than shells and bullets. Granted, these numbers pale compared to the lives lost in World War II in only four years, but the latter conflict had a far more massive scope and involved many more participants. Congo, however, is a desperately poor country fighting in, for lack of a better term, the "old school" way. This should neither trivialize its plight nor dissuade us from addressing the problem, but it is something of an archaic war being played out in modern times.

But let's face it: Congo's plight has already been trivialized. It's a punch line. Not a funny one, not something that makes most people literally laugh, but something that surprises few, another war-torn nation in the Third World. It diminishes us all to think this way, but what can we do from such massive distances and against such great odds? Whose job is it to stop the fighting, the conscription and exploitation of children, the masses of refugees? Other nations in Africa? The United States? The United Nations? Europe? China? No one is stepping forward into the quagmire. Perhaps they should reconsider from the perspective of enlightened self-interest, since empathy alone seems insufficient. Congo is one of the world's most mineral rich nations: they have diamonds, gold, copper, bauxite, and many other valuable commodities. A stable, healthy Congo benefits not only the Congolese but the entire world. So far, no one has deemed it worth the risk to step in, possibly because some of these industries are being exploited by ruthless factions within the country.

It's a sad example. On the other hand, while Congo's status is not unique in the world, it reminds us that locales enduring high casualty counts are relatively rare these days, at least compared to nations at war in the recent past. Part of that reflects where wars are occurring. Sudan and Afghanistan are large, desolate countries where the population density and the nature of the fighting keep the number of dead reasonably low. Is this what we want? In some ways, war seems crueler, more capricious and random, more absurd than ever. In others, it seems more contained and not as lethal.

Evidently, there are no good old days, not even now. But it could always be worse. We know this because it has been!

The National Insurance Lottery

2009-05-18T02:51:00.002-04:00

In the past, I have expressed reservations about a nationalized health care scheme. It is unfair to label the Canadian and Western European health care systems as disastrous just as it is absurd to say they are unmitigated successes. Fact is, like almost all large government programs, they giveth and they taketh away, solving some, rarely all, of the problems they hope to while at the same time creating new ones. Among the citizens of nations that employ these large scale health care initiatives, one is likely to find plenty of cheerleaders, plenty of critics and, most of all, plenty who are both, recognizing the system's virtues as well as its warts.

President Obama's tentative health care proposal represents a hybrid of the current system and a national one and is therefore unlikely to please hard-line conservatives or die-hard socialists. This is just as well, as these two groups make a point not to be pleased most of the time. The President's idea, sound on the face of it but probably not as straightforward as it seems, is to leave what's right about the system alone while building new programs to repair what's busted. Well, okay. I do not profess any expertise on this topic, but I do have thoughts on how to raise money for it.

There is some logic in a tax increase on unhealthy foods, but I have another idea: there should be a National Insurance Lottery. For, say, two dollars a ticket, purchasers could win a shot at the monthly grand prize, one million dollars and free health care for life. Impractical, you say? I respectfully disagree. If only one in ten Americans purchased only one ticket every week--again, one out of ten and only a single ticket--it would generate about a quarter billion dollars every month, not enough to pay for the program, but a handsome sum of money just the same. And the best part is, it's all voluntary.

Of course, there might be complaints that such a system encourages gambling. But that ship sailed a long time ago. States lotteries around the country already fund dozens of important initiatives and, in the words of the Cornelius Brothers and Sister Rose, it's too late to turn back now.

Get A Job, Man, You're Fifty!

2009-04-02T11:23:00.007-04:00

This is my message to the protesters at the London G20 Summit, even the ones considerably under the age of fifty and the ones who already have jobs. Yes, of course, I am painting with a broad brush here; some of those involved in acts of civil disobedience have noble intentions and likely are marvelous people. However, most of the attention falls to hostile, bitter loudmouths who are more interested in shouting slogans and slinging stones than genuinely advancing the cause of the planet's poor and downtrodden.

Understand, the overall points that the global economic system is not altogether fair and that power, money, and resources are concentrated in too few hands are not without validity. Solutions to these problems remain nebulous and elusive but, if nothing else, no -ism or -tion advocated by simplistic catch phrases will resolve the world's problems. As delightfully subversive as overthrowing or undermining the system might seem, it works much better as an idea than as a reality.

It is the ultimate self-delusion to believe destroying property and hurling insults at police officers will somehow change the world for the better or ease the misery of families in Cambodia or Sierra Leone. But a lot of protesters probably realize this already and are more cynical than idealistic; they are, in fact, more driven by revelry and mayhem, by perceiving the victims as themselves, as martyrs fighting for their rights.

Some people interpret criticism of a particular group of protesters as an assault on the right to protest. That's as nonsensical as the idea that one malpractice suit against an incompetent doctor is an indictment against all of modern medicine. The right to air grievances against any and all governments should be sacrosanct--even though it isn't in many parts of the world--but some petitioners raise better arguments than others and we should all be free to criticize those who criticize.

Pardon the Shoe Thrower

2009-03-13T03:22:00.007-04:00

Three years for attempted assault? Sorry, but that's absurd. This is not an attempt to embarrass former President Bush nor a defense of journalist Muntadhar al-Zeid's actions; he was dead wrong to do what he did and fortunate to be alive, because when you heave objects at a global leader, getting shot full of about fifty slugs is not unheard of. Critical as so many have been of Bush, he displayed impressive reflexes during this incident. However, following the footwear chucking, I believe he should have requested a meeting with al-Zeid and stated publicly that while he did not condone violence as a method of protest, he understood the frustration of the Iraqi people and the emotional scars left by the invasion.

Bush could not have pardoned al-Zeid, but as targeted victim and leader of the free world, his recommendation for clemency would have carried a lot of weight and perhaps provided a small measure of good public relations for a conflict that has enjoyed very few. Now that Bush is out of office, President Obama might appear to be tweaking Bush, showing him up, if he urged the Iraqi government to let al-Zeid off the hook. If Obama wishes to act now, he must do so by consulting Bush himself and making sure the two are on the same page.

This would be the right thing to do. Throwing a shoe at the President of the United States is reckless, unwise, and bellicose, but the man missed and people should not be punished for speculative damage and injury, except if this had been some type of failed assasination attempt, in which case conspiracy would be added to the charges. If al-Zeid had received a lighter sentence, it would not make sense to intervene, but if we are expected to set powerful examples for the Iraqi people on how to run a democratic government, it is prudent to include mercy and forgiveness among our values, particularly in cases where no real damage was done. Plus, let's face it, the whole thing gave almost all of us a good laugh. Some revered the shoe thrower for his guts and the sheer madness of what he did and others admired Bush for reacting quickly and managing to smile about the incident not long after it happened; but nearly everyone found some humor in it. And the Iraq War has not given us much to laugh about over the last six years.

Muntadhar al-Zeid was way out of line, but let's encourage the neophyte Iraqi government to set him free.

Down on the Coroner

2009-02-12T06:01:00.006-05:00

Recently, a retired coroner who had presided over some very high profile murder cases in Liverpool died in North Wales. This sad occasion prompted the following question: If the coroner dies, who gets called to examine the body? If it's a coroner from another community, imagine how self-conscious he or she would have to be while examining a colleague. Would the out-of-town coroner attempt to employ the same style of corpse examination used by the recently deceased coroner?

There is a reason coroner is an elected office in many parts of the United States. There may, in fact, be many reasons, but one of them is because under the old "spoils system" in political machines, city administrations often decided the best candidate for a high-paying was Cousin Fred, who learned everything he knew about post-mortem examinations from a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken. To combat this corruption, many reformers strove to hold elections for as many local offices as possible. At this stage, it often seems a bit unwiedly and superfluous. Does anyone really care what political party the coroner is? Has anyone ever employed the campaign slogan "The Dead Dislike Democrats"?

Here's what kind of person the world can do without: anyone who sits in the studio audience of a daytime talk show. And also daytime talk show hosts. These polygraph administering, paternity testing, conflict stoking, headline grabbing simpletons need to catch an airplane to Tuvalu and never, ever return. And all current citizens of Tuvalu are welcome either to move to the country of their choice or remain in Tuvalu and use the former talk show hosts as household appliances, such as doorstops or hat and coat racks. The former talk show hosts are not under any circumstances permitted to speak for the rest of their lives and should consider themselves fortunate to be living in a tropical climate in which they aren't mangled by Cape Buffalo.

As awful as the lying, cheating, deceitful guests on talk shows can be, members of the audience who boo, jeer, and taunt them are, if anything, worse people. The guests are merely guilty of being stupid enough to air out their asinine problems and pathetic lives on television, but the gawkers take delight in openly ridiculing others and that's just plain mean-spirited (and so are these words, but enough is enough!) Someone needs to open up a can of John 8:7* on these people? Not because it isn't human nature to sometimes be judgmental, even hypocritical, but because they are such hyperbolic nitwits about it. How about you tone it down a bit, Sir Laurence Olivier, and save the theatrics for your upcoming appearance in "The Iceman Cometh"?

Okay, so this comes across as a little bitter. What can I say? It's been a long winter!

*John 8:7 contains the passage "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", or some variation thereof.

New, Improved, Bigger, Better and Americaner

2009-02-10T12:06:00.005-05:00

The time has come for the United States of America to set herself apart in yet another way. What we need is a rotating National Anthem, because a nation such as ours can never be complete with only one.

"The Star-Spangled Banner" has taken its share of pounding from critics over the years, including claims that it is difficult to sing and that it's too war-oriented. The first claim has some merit, though because of the challenges associated with singing the song, our gratification increases when a vocalist really handles it (see Marvin Gaye, NBA All-Star Game, 1983). As for the second charge, well, what can be said? We cannot ignore history nor deny that some of our country's wars have yielded positive outcomes. War is not, and shouldn't be, all we're about, but nor should we forget the toil and sacrifice of the soldier.

Ultimately, "The Star-Spangled Banner" seems like a better poem than it is a song, but it's too important to leave out of the rotation. Two things to bear in mind are that Francis Scott Key originally wrote it as a poem and it was not set to music until years later and that the writing chronicles not a great victory, but a state of affairs much closer to defeat. The War of 1812's conclusion left the United States with a favorable treaty as Great Britain rushed her troops back to Europe to confront a resurging Napoleon, but Britain won nearly every battle, sacked Washington, and set the city ablaze. The events chronicled by Key in Baltimore in 1814 tell us a story of survival and resilience, not of glory and triumph. This, by the way, is a good thing and unusual for a National Anthem. You can't always prevail, but you can live to fight another day. And we have.

"The Banner" must not be abandoned, but its limitations are precisely why we need alternatives. The first and most obvious of these is "America the Beautiful", a stunningly wonderful number far more anthemic than Key's piece. The antithesis of "the Banner's" narrow focus, this song's first verse describes the beauty and grandeur of America's appearance. Also originally a poem by Katharine Lee Bates, the piece was set to music composed by Samuel Ward, who died before the song became popular and never met Bates. It's another perfect American story: sad, funny, and ironic.

Now comes the time for adventure. Forget "God Bless America" and "My Country 'Tis of Thee", not because these are bad songs, but because they are too similar in spirit and form to the previous two. Besides, "My Country 'Tis of Thee" has the same melody as "God Save the Queen" and we don't want one of our National Anthem's sounding exactly like Britain's. Continue to perform these songs, by all means, but leave them out of the National Anthem rotation. What we need here is variety without creating so many alternate National Anthems so as to become hazy and convoluted. In short, we need one more song to create a tidy rotation of three.

Probably the best way to do this is to proclaim "The Star Spangled Banner" and "America the Beautiful" permanent members of the mix, with various third songs working their way in and out over a period of a few years. All three songs would officially be The National Anthem, so at public forums, ceremonies, or sporting events, any of the three could be played, or all three could be played, assuming the audience is patient enough.

So what should the third anthem be? Many people are partial to Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land", and it's hard to blame them. The song does have some controversial lyrics in its later verses, but why shrink from controversy? Though this idea of multiple National Anthems originates somewhat out of the desire to illustrate and embrace the great variety of the United States, there is no possible way to please everyone. As it stands now, many people are unhappy with the present National Anthem. If that Anthem were replaced, at least as many people would be unhappy with that development. The various National Anthems won't delight everyone either, but at least in this scheme, "The Star Spangled Banner" doesn't disappear altogether, so the people devoted to the song can retain it and the people uncomfortable with it have options.

"This Land Is Your Land" is an undeniably great and glorious piece worthy of consideration for the third Anthem, but it shares one slight drawback with Francis Scott Key's masterpiece: the song never mentions any of the three words "United", "States", or "America." Not that there's any question what country the song is about, with its references to "the New York islands", but it does seem jarring that this kind of song never explicitly mentions this country.

Lovely as Woody Guthrie's composition is, there might be an even better one. In the late 1950s, reputedly following a trip to Australia where he witnessed hardships endured by the Aborigines, Chuck Berry wrote "Back in the USA". Though not exactly an obscure song, it is far less well-known than the others mentioned in this writing, so the lyrics are reprinted below.

"Oh well, oh well, I feel so good today
We just touched ground on an international runway
Jet-propelled back home from overseas to the USA

New York, Los Angeles, oh, how I yearned for you
Detroit, Chicago, Chattanooga, Baton Rouge
Let alone just to be at my home back in old St. Lou'

Did I miss the skyscrapers? Did I miss the long freeway?
From the coast of California to the shores of the Delaware Bay
You can bet your life I did 'til I got back in the USA

Looking hard for a drive-in, searching for a corner cafe'
Where hamburgers sizzle on an open grill night and day
And the jukebox jumping with records like in the USA
Well, I'm so glad I'm living in the USA
Yes, I'm so glad I'm living in the USA
Anything you want, you got it right here in the USA."

Those who have not heard the song before must also envision the Moonglows chanting "uh huh huh, oh yeah" in the background. Now THAT is an American song, performed in an idiom largely of American design--rock and roll--by a great American success story. Chuck Berry also happens to be a sex deviant, but in a way even that regrettable fact adds more than it detracts from the overall picture. Thomas Jefferson was both a great man and a slaveholder. That's America: we are weak and strong, brilliant and ignorant, big and noisy, subtle and graceful, war-mongering and peace-loving, selfish and generous.

So let's not waste another minute. We want three National Anthems: "The Star-Spangled Banner", "America the Beautiful", and "Back in the USA". We're just too big, varied, and insane for anything less!

This Could Have Been You

2009-02-01T11:19:00.005-05:00

Speculation of this type is more fun than fruitful, but surely many Republicans realize and have considered the possibility that they could have produced the first African-American president and not the Democrats. Among Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and J. C. Watts, it is not too far-fetched to believe one of them could have made a viable candidate for the nation's highest office. Powell and Rice have repeatedly insisted a lack of interest in the job and Watts withdrew from public office, though not entirely from politics, following a not-so-friendly parting of ways with the GOP. Rumor has it much of the split involved Watts' decidedly uncordial rapport with now-disgraced former House Speaker Tom DeLay. If this is true, it is a shame that Watts' career was hampered by a man so rapidly approaching outcast status.

Indeed, during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Watts stopped short of endorsing Obama, but criticized the Republican Party for failing to appeal to minorities. On a national level, Latinos are underrepresented in both major political parties, but they cast their lot with the Democrats this time because Republicans made no discernible effort to earn their votes.

What if all people named Watts were related and required to live in Watts, California? This might be the best idea to come along in a while. J. C. Watts could live next door to his brother and sister-in-law, Charlie and Shirley Watts, and their daughter Naomi could reside across the street. Think there would have been mid-1960s riots in Watts if they were all family? Hard to say since families don't always get along, but we can at least assume the riots would have taken a different direction. A direction such as "why are we forced to live so close to our stupid families?"

Another thing that would improve the world is if the French expression spelled viola exchanged pronunciation with the largely uncelebrated musical instrument also spelled viola. Then people could say "vy-oh-la" when presenting a pleasing and sudden conclusion and at band concerts you could hear people murmuring, "she's in the second row, playing the wah-la." Come on, who can deny this idea makes the world a better place?

Okay, how about this? Many cemeteries are home to ducks, who swim in ponds and streams and perhaps affirm life at a time when people are preoccupied with death. That's great. But what if it were possible to perform some kind of surgery on a duck and make its quack sound like a police siren? Every cemetery could have this procedure done on a single duck. If you walk beside the stream and over the little stone bridge one reflective afternoon following a relative's funeral and hear the police siren duck, it could be a sign of really good fortune, of better days ahead. And if you just hear normal quacking, it's just that sedate, life-affirming stuff. It could be called Duck Luck. Don't fight it; resistance is futile.

It Should Be Obvious

2009-01-30T10:36:00.008-05:00

Many things seem obvious, but obviously they're not. This explains why some advertisements for birth control devices or erectile dysfunction drugs note in fine print that said product cannot protect users from HIV or other Sexually Transmitted Diseases. The very fact this disclaimer appears indicates somebody somewhere assumed Viagra could keep him from getting gonorrhea.

So perhaps it would benefit the general public to compile a list of ideas that ought to be obvious, but for some reason have not made the rounds of common knowledge quite as well as they should. Observe:

Toads cannot give people warts.
Warts can be caused by a variety of viral infections and are sometimes passed from human to human, but never, as far as anyone knows, from toad to human. Even the toad-licking craze that swept across North America in the mid-1990s did not lead to an increase in warts, though it did drive home a curious dichotomy about certain members of the general public: on one hand, dumb enough to believe toads can cause warts, but on the other, dumb enough to seek hallucinogenic pleasure by putting one's tongue on this same type of creature.

The world won't end because someone you don't like is President of the United States.
Four of the five most recent Presidents--Reagan, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama--have generated adulation from their supporters and intense and vitriolic criticism from their detractors, and yet the nation and the planet carry on. Richard Nixon couldn't wreck the country, nor could Jimmy Carter. Neither paranoid narcissism nor hemorrhaging incompetence nor faulty intelligence nor White House soft pornography nor any of the myriad petty rivalries and scandals have ever managed to rend us asunder. So easy, tigers.

The Blues Brothers did not record the original version of "Soul Man".
No, sir, Sam and Dave did it first. And Little Willie John's rendition of fever came out before Peggy Lee's, too. To be fair, Lee did a superb job with it, though Willie John's is even better. Incidentally, it is not entirely clear who composed "Fever", but it might well have been Otis Blackwell, the same songwriter who penned "All Shook Up", made famous by Elvis Presley.

The severity of brown recluse spider bites has been greatly exaggerated.
Brown recluse spiders reside mostly in the American South and Midwest and hardly exist on either coast, though they turn up occasionally. Some arachnologists estimate that up to 80% of reported brown recluse bites are actually caused by something else, a different spider, an insect, an allergic reaction or rash. The kind of sickening necrotic damage depicted in a variety of Internet hoaxes is extraordinarily rare. People need to grow up about spiders, period. Understand, if a large, hairy, eight-legged gem were found on this writer's hand as he typed up this post, he would be understandably shaken. Otherwise, spiders are completely unworthy of the hysteria they generate. Sort of like the Jonas Brothers.

More Days Off

2009-01-19T22:05:00.002-05:00

Two friends and I had a discussion this week and ultimately arrived at the following possibly unanswerable question. If you were attending a party and the host said Oprah and Stedman were coming over, which is more likely?

A) Oprah Winfrey and Stedman whatever were actually coming to the party.

B) A different Oprah and Stedman were coming. Let's say Oprah Kubelsky and Stedman whomever.

Clearly, it's most likely that the party's host is simply a lying dirtbag, but leave that aside. Can the probabilities be determined?

A few years ago, I wrote a piece suggesting perhaps we ought to honor people like Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King on the days they died rather than the days they were born. Obviously, the idea is a bit morbid, perhaps even a little tasteless, but part of the overall point was these men were killed primarily for the principles they espoused and they were good principles. That's something Americans ought not to forget. That writing advocated making holidays of April 4th and 14th to honor the aforementioned men, but an idea occurred to me today that would retain a national holiday for the third Monday in January.

Benjamin Franklin was born January 17, 1706. I can think of no American who does not already have a holiday more deserving of one. It's strange that as revered and admired as Franklin was and is, he is not individually commemorated at any particular time during the year. Admittedly, old Ben was a notorious skirtchaser, a rake, and by some accounts a lamentable father. But so what? Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and King all were flawed men. Flawed need not mean "less great." And though this point should be obvious, we would honor Mr. Franklin on his date of birth rather than his date of death because he did not perish violently as a result of a courageous and controversial stand he took, though he was indeed a courageous man who risked a great deal to help found the country.

Not everyone can have a holiday, even though there are considerably more than 365 citizens of any country who probably deserve one. And not everyone can agree on who has earned a holiday either. Sometimes it seems like if a vote on whom to award a holiday in this were ever taken, it would result in a 300 million way tie with each person supporting him or herself. If I ever got my own holiday, I wouldn't want it to fall on my birthday or the day I died, but on the first really pleasant Friday of each year. Now that's a holiday!

No Need to Miss Piggy

2009-01-06T22:22:00.005-05:00

It's finally 2009 and there's no need to opine about football, politics, the economy, or Middle Eastern turmoil because every hack with a PC and a personal agenda is already doing that. Not that there's anything wrong with PCs or personal agendas, but sometimes the latter must be set aside so the world can attack a problem in a unified front.

And that problem is bacon. Grease-swimming pig nipples. They wrap bacon around fillet Mignon because a small, fat piece of steak just isn't enough and have the audacity to charge customers forty bucks even though few things come cheaper than dead cow and dead pig. They put bacon on any fast food sandwich that is allegedly spicy, though no direct connection exists between bacon and spiciness. Burger King has the Angry Whopper (angry because cows and pigs don't get along, maybe?), Dairy Queen has the Flamethrower Burger, Wendy's has the Spicy Baconator or something. Even Taco Bell has gotten in on the act with some sort of bacon cheese tortilla thingy. Clearly, the days of mistaking Taco Bell's food for actual Mexican cuisine have faded well into the past, but could they at least try? Nothing says Mexico like bacon, right?

This is not an attack on the existence of bacon, but on its overuse and overexposure. People have the right to eat all the bacon they want anytime they want, but the ubiquity of sowbelly really has crossed the boundaries of good--sorry--taste. Salads are sprinkled with bacon bits, baked potatoes become bacon potatoes, overpriced restaurants offer it, greasy spoon dives can't get enough of it.

If Jews and Muslims agree on nothing else, they at least share a religious aversion to the consumption of pork. Maybe they had the right idea, even if it isn't for the reasons the founders of these great faiths envisioned. God save us from bacon!

Ghana Way

2008-12-14T12:33:00.004-05:00

The United States is not the only country to experience an interesting election cycle this year. One of Africa's more prosperous nations will also replace a two term incumbent with a newcomer.

It now seems likely that a runoff election to establish a clear victor between Nana Akufo-Addo and John Atta-Mills will be held near the end of the year. According to Ghana's Constitution, a candidate must receive the majority, rather than a plurality, of votes to be declared the winner.
Despite a checkered history, this West African nation of more than 23 million is on the verge of becoming what some observers call a "mature democracy." This most recent election qualifies as Ghana's toughest test since 2000, when John Kufuor prevailed and the country successfully transferred power from one political party to another. After serving two terms, Kufuor will now be succeeded by one of the two aforementioned candidates; Mr. Addo is a member of the incumbent party while Mr. Mills heads the opposition.

In 1957, Kwame Nkrumah became the first President of an independent nation in Sub-Saharan Africa. For this reason, Ghana has long been seen as an inspiration for the rest of the continent. But for some thirty years between the 1960s and 1990s, Ghana raged with civil war, coups, and ethnic strife. Only during the last decade has this resource-rich locality began to realize its potential.

Ghana's assets include cocoa, gold, diamonds and even petroleum, which was recently discovered off the coast. Though smaller than the state of Oregon, Ghana also produces timber, bauxite, and rubber. Suffice to say, any country that can provide oil and chocolate will generate interest from the West. But generous natural resources alone cannot ensure a nation's wealth or stability; ask the citizens of Congo.

Even following a deeply contentious race during which Atta-Mills intimated his opponent might try to steal the election, the citizens of Ghana displayed remarkable equanimity and restraint, not merely by African standards, but by global standards. Regardless of which candidate wins, the policies pursued by the new President will likely remain similar to Kufuor's, with various programs to improve health and reduce poverty, as well as continued economic development with the help of Ghana's trade partners and benefactors, notably the countries of Scandanavia and the United States.

Though it is too early to declare the political process in Ghana has again succeeded without incident, all early indicators are positive. Ghana's increasing prosperity and stability are essential to the future of a turbulent West Africa. This triumph should serve as an example not merely to Africa but to all the developing world.

Sources: allafrica.com, voanews, 2009 World Almanac and Book of Facts

Generational Generalizations

2008-11-09T14:26:00.005-05:00

Is it too much to ask that we get our fabricated generations straight? Sometimes the "Baby Boomers" are identified as those born between 1946 and 1964 while other times the latter date is 1963. A recent treatise identified Barack Obama as the first "Generation X" president, even though the above dates would indicate he is actually one of the latter day Baby Boomers. But according to yet another source, members of Generation X were born between 1961 and 1976.

Clearly, these ideas were just made up by observers to simplify discussion. All of these generational breakdowns are artificial; a person born on 31 December 1945 would probably fit best with the "Baby Boomers" even though he or she is not a member according to these arbitrary standards. For analytical purposes, it often makes sense to categorize by generation or by decade, but what gets tiresome are the generational generalizations, the efforts to lump every individual born between this date and that one as perceiving the world the same way or possessing the same ideology. This all too frequently leads to dismissiveness ("Typical Baby Boomer").

Do the people who think Barack Obama's middle name means he might behave similarly to Saddam Hussein or renders him a closet Muslim also believe that John McCain was a threat to kill his own brother or that Bob Dole would have expanded the welfare rolls? And is Mitt Romney made of leather? Sometimes it's tough to distinguish where political manipulation ends and sheer idiocy begins.

During the first 55 Presidential Elections, no candidate other than a white male possessed even a puncher's chance of winning. And the first time a woman was ever on a major ticket as a Vice Presidential candidate, an immense blowout ensued, though it had almost nothing to do with Walter Mondale's selection of Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate and almost everything to do with the fact that Ronald Reagan was riding high at the time and was, in fact, running against Walter Mondale. Anyway, does it not seem a bit rich to hear people lament that Obama's election was buoyed by those who voted solely on the basis of race?

To imply race was the only reason Obama prevailed is fatuous. Sure there were voters on both sides who considered ethnicity as a contributing factor, but for most people it was probably not the only factor. And even if it was, it can't be stopped. People can vote for a candidate because they like his clothes. Or her accent. Or for any reason at all. If they choose to reveal this information to the rest of us, we may have the right to call them shallow and uninformed but not to negate their votes. Besides, if skin color was all he had going for him, why didn't previous black candidates--Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, L. Douglas Wilder, Alan Keyes, Al Sharpton, Carol Mosley Braun--dominate like Obama?

Obama's election is not a magic stroke that wipes racism out. As mentioned in a previous writing, his ascent is highly symbolic and impressive. Race relations may be affected by his presence in the White House but people who were racist before he was elected are not suddenly enlightened now. I don't buy into these clean declarations that the United States of America used to be a racist nation and now isn't. As a general rule, nations aren't racist or non-racist, people are. True, it's fair to say that many of the policies pursued by this country up until the mid-1960s were racist. So by that measure, America was racist. But the letter of the law has not been explicitly racist now for more than forty years, yet the bigots of this country did not all go hide in a box, though that might not be the worst idea ever.

In short, the best analogy for racism is probably a comparison to gravity. As two objects drift apart, their gravitational impact on one another declines but never quite drops to zero, no matter how much distance separates them. Similarly, as slavery and segregation recede further into the past, racism declines but will probably never disappear entirely. The difference between gravity and racism is that the former can be mathematically calculated and diminishes consistently as the bodies move away from each other. Racism moves in fits and starts and can flare up for a while, then wither away. That's because we're human, not celestial objects. But you knew that.

Surprise, Vinny Sausage Pizza Head!

2008-11-05T10:40:00.005-05:00

The above phrase can be credited to an old acquaintance of mine who was known to utter it from time to time. I have no idea of its origins, if he made it up himself or heard someone else saying it. All I know is how funny we found it.

I expected Barack Obama to prevail in this election, but did not anticipate such Electoral one-sidedness, even though it was predicted by some pundits who clearly know more than me about politics. But Indiana? New Mexico? Winning 52 percent of the popular vote? No, I didn't foresee it. Granted, except in Virgina, Florida, and possibly North Carolina--still undeclared for either side as of 10:00am November 5--Obama did not make the kind of impact in the Deep South many speculated he might. He did not merely lose in Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee, he was trounced. In the scheme of the overall election, he scarcely needed them, but whites in those states, if nowhere else, apparently would not vote for him. It would be simplistic, though tempting, to blame some of it on plain old prejudice, so I am not going to. The truth is, I simply don't know. But somebody does or will claim to, I'm certain.

So yes, I'm surprised. And pleased. This is the candidate I have supported for years, before he ever threw his hat into the ring. I obviously don't believe his election signals an end to the problems in either our country or our world. Obama cannot make Israel and Palestine close friends, end the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo, or induce extremists around the world to lay down their arms, abandon their grudges, and all be friends. And much as I marvel at the celebratory mood of Africans in general and Kenyans in particular, I don't think life changes much for Africa, at least not in the immediate future. There is a great deal of symbolism to Obama's victory and symbolism is not unimportant, but Obama will need to build some real achievements as President, probably quickly, to shake his reputation as a charismatic lightweight.

On the other hand, I don't believe Obama is a socialist, a communist, someone who is going to transform the presidency into a dictatorship. Such hysterical claims overlook the fact that the President's domestic power, though significant, is nowhere near boundless. So even if he has designs on creating a one-party Marxist state--and I don't think he has--it is highly unlikely such a move could be executed in a society whose institutions are as entrenched as our own.

If there is one thing about Mr. Obama that concerns me, it's his clear desire and zeal to be great. Aspiring to greatness is, of course, what we want and expect in our politicians and our people. But sometimes, to paraphrase Ralph Ellison, we can be blind to realities because of our ambitions. In short, I worry that he may try to do everything himself and his reach may exceed his grasp. Many of his supporters expect this greatness and may be disappointed if he falls short, so the pressure to end wars, to fix economies, to broker peace and good will throughout the globe may ultimately prove crippling.

Still, I voted for the man and I'm optimistic. I expect good things from Obama. Why not great things? Because I tend to hedge, to be guarded, to be mitigatory. And it's hard to be great these days because the spotlights are so bright, the media attention so overwhelming, and somewhere, somehow, everyone has a flaw. All our heroes have had flaws but the sheen of history tends to obscure them among those we revere. Mr. Obama will not have that luxury for at least another generation. So I say, don't be disappointed with mere goodness.

Defensive Postures

2008-10-25T14:54:00.009-04:00

Last month, Michael Medved of townhall.com penned an audacious column that attempted to mitigate the role of the United States in the sad institution of slavery. As is often the case when someone tries to make the harrowing reality seem less harrowing, Medved made some accurate statements. His overall point was, to simplify, sure it was bad, but it wasn't that bad.

It would have been somewhat like Saddam Hussein declaring, "Yes, I used chemical weapons on the Kurds and oppressed the Shi'ites, but it wasn't as bad as Stalin's purges, Mao's Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge, or the Holocaust, which by the way never happened." (For the record, it was Iran's president who publicly questioned the validity of the Holocaust, something Saddam did not do, as far as I know; remember, this is just an exercise) If Iraq's former dictator had engaged in this sort of moral relativism, most of us, Medved included, would have sneered dismissively. Medved himself wrote an August article attacking the use of "moral equivalency" and "relativism" with respect to the Russian invasion of Georgia. But in his slavery treatise, he practices the same thing he rails against.

What is most mystifying is that no public declaration by any fringe political group seems to have prompted Medved's writing. No high-profile figure appears to have claimed that American slavery was the single most barbarous institution in human history or that the United States is the worst country in the world for once permitting slavery to exist. Of course, some individuals somewhere have probably made this assertion, but "some individuals somewhere" have said almost everything. Medved goes on and on about how slavery had been practiced for centuries by other nations, that "though brutal, slavery wasn't genocidal", that some African groups helped advance the practice of slavery by acting as hired kidnappers for European tradesmen, that there is no guarantee African-Americans would be better off if they had never left Africa, and so on.

Medved's entire piece is a hyper-defensive load of twaddle. One thing he fails to understand when he gripes about "America-bashers", as he dubs them, is that a nation that espouses freedom and justice and is in possession of such astonishing military power and widespread prosperity will likely be held to higher standards than, say, Cambodia, Nazi Germany, or Angola. In fact, we typically hold ourselves to higher standards than those nations, as well we should. Medved seems to desire all the advantages that come with being American, but doesn't want to endure any of the criticism our preeminent position in the world inescapably elicits.

Certainly, it is possible to exaggerate the horrors of American slavery. But it is not possible to come off well when trying to, shall we say, paint slavery in a more favorable light. Most of what's true in Medved's article was already reasonably well-known--comparatively few Americans owned slaves, certain African tribes acted in collusion with European slave traders--and some of his claims are purely speculative and irrelevant. Who knows if current Americans of African descent are "better off"--when he says this, Medved undoubtedly means financially-- than if they had remained in Africa? Nobody can say with any certainty how different life in Africa or America would be if slavery had never occurred, though it would not be absurd to suggest our nation's legacy might be a bit less blemished, but our current culture and society greatly diminished.

Moral relativism is not always wrong. In fact, sometimes it would be hard to do without it in a complex and brutal world. But Medved mocks "liberals" who apply it in global affairs even as he relies on it to explain away our own country's transgressions. We don't need this sort of weak-kneed defense of one of our most appalling national episodes in order to be proud of the United States of America. What nation in history has managed to avoid cruelty and atrocity altogether? It is true we should not spend all our time obsessing over the past, but nor should we shrink from history's ugly realities when reminded of them. To borrow a sports cliche', own it!

Yes, for many years this country sanctioned and condoned slavery. It was a sickening, degrading practice, a source of national shame. But eventually, after a lot of blood and toil, slavery came to an end and, after a great deal more struggle, so did the post-slavery institutions of segregation and voting rights' infringement. No, we have not achieved absolute equality among the races and we may never, but we will never stop striving for that elusive goal. That's why we are great, not because we do no wrong, but because we confront the horrors of our past head on and try to right them.

Would this be "America-bashing", Mr. Medved? There's no denying that some people both here and abroad are overly critical of the United States. But here's the thing: at our best, we can take it! And we don't have to mitigate slavery to do so.

It's Too Much, But It's Just Right

2008-10-20T22:27:00.005-04:00

It's a bit late now, but could Joseph Biden have really said that FDR went on "TV" following the stock market crash? If he meant "THE" stock market crash of 1929, Franklin Roosevelt wasn't even President yet. One of the chief reasons he became President was because of that crash. In addition, television was not widely available in American homes until after World War II.

When Barack Obama first selected Biden as his running mate, it looked like it might be a mistake. But then Biden got off to a pretty solid start. Now the same questions about his Both Feet In Mouth Disorder are surfacing again. Not that McCain's choice looks any better at the moment. Vice Presidential selections of the past have provoked some wry observers to ask if a running mate was tabbed because of his or her--okay, mostly his--ability to make the presidential candidate look better by comparison. While that may be, it's difficult to understand why either McCain or Obama, both of whom are impressive figures for different reasons, would need to do this.

So what else is going on in the world besides financial crises and election overexposure? Well, while we may rightly gripe about too much election coverage, Makwaia wa Kuhenga believes there is too little coverage in his native Tanzania. In a column for Dar Es Salaam's The Citizen, Kuhenga laments the paucity of public debates in Tanzanian politics and praises the American system for its transparency and civility, at least in this respect. While clearly not delighted with all things American, Kuhenga nevertheless writes:

"It is not simply true that everything the Americans represent is 'imperialistic'. One may pick a quarrel with their fundamental path - that is that they are fundamentally capitalist and imperial in real terms in their relations with other nations of the world. But it is also true that they have virtues worth emulating such as making its possible for the electorate to make intelligible choices in the competing voices."

That last sentence was a bit poetic, was it not? Americans may bristle at being characterized as "imperial" even if Kuhenga admits not "everything" we represent can be described that way, but Tanzanians might not warm to some American perceptions and generalizations about them, either. As a sidebar, we may ask ourselves if these perceptions are, in either case, true. Does the United States really stand for greedy imperialism and bellicose foreign relations? Does Africa really stand for corruption, antiquated tribal conflicts, and incompetent governance? Sadly, like many questions, the answers are a little bit yes and a little bit no. There's scarcely enough space anywhere to chronicle the historical factors that contributed to this nation and the African continent winding up in their respective positions at this moment in history.

But back to the point. There's no doubt United States elections generate more than enough hectoring and grandstanding to test any sane person's tolerance. But as Kuhenga's piece demonstrates, if one must choose between too little attention and too much attention to the political process, opt for the latter. The television and radio can always be shut off for a while, the newspaper left unread for a day or so. But if there's no coverage at all, you may very well be sorry.

Kuhenga's article can be read in its entirety using the following link:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200810200906.html

Substantial Criticism

2008-10-14T20:48:00.010-04:00

Some people like to remind you how little they care what their critics think. "No matter what my critics say..." or "I don't care what the critics tell you..." are common refrains among public figures in sports, entertainment and politics. There seems to be an element of martyrdom and proud rebellion in these pronouncements, the notion that these people are pressing on against long odds. It's enough to make you sigh, really.

Well, I care what my critics think, assuming I have any. Because if I have critics, that must mean I have readers. I understand why people are disinclined to let detractors dictate their actions, but the very claim of not caring what critics think is most generally an admission that you actually do care quite a lot. And it's okay! There's no need to pose as such a brave contrarian.

After months of portraying Barack Obama as a celebrity without substance, it's a bit galling to witness some of the empty catch phrases and slogans conceived by the Republican side, which range from the disgraceful to the somewhat clever. However, even at their best, what they most certainly are not is substantive. For instance, one image displays something quite similar to the colorful "Hope" symbol used by Obama but instead shows a portrait of McCain and the word hope is replaced by "Hero." Worse, there's a similar depiction that dubs McCain "hero" and Obama as, you guessed it, "zero." Classy! Less offensive, but not terribly innovative, are the "NoBama" signs and t-shirts, as well as one that superimposes the letter "y" over "o" in "Hope" to spell "Hype."

On the last point, Republicans aren't wrong. Of course a lot of what sells Obama amounts to hype and buzz. Obama has created a "brand"--another word seeing so much use lately that it might soon need to face mandatory execution--and done a stellar job of it, too. At first, many tried to dismiss Obama as the chief of a personality cult, which might not have been altogether incorrect, though it should be remembered that a "personality cult" does not always translate into something sinister (ask Mohandas Ghandi). Still trailing in the polls and poised for possible, though far from definite, defeat, the GOP has now taken to the same type of vacant sloganeering they accused Obama of practicing. Only theirs isn't half as inspiring.

Who doesn't enjoy a little mockery? It's a practice most of us will probably never cease, even though we know at times it's a childish way to behave. But when it comes to Presidential politics, it should be regarded as a bad omen when one has to resort to it. Sarah Palin called her Vice Presidential opponent "O'Biden" during the debate. It was pretty funny. But it wasn't substance. It had nothing to do with policy or character or ideas. And Palin has now generated a hype similar to Obama's among the Republican base. It is unfair to imply Palin has no substance, but since she lacks Obama's flair for the spoken word and has not demonstrated anything resembling the encyclopaedic body of knowledge shown by the other three candidates, she may encounter difficulty proving herself "substantial."

Though far from a certainty, it is possible that Barack Obama could carry the state of Indiana this election, marking the first time a Democrat has won the state since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Despite this surprising development, Indiana's Republican governor Mitch Daniels has scarcely been threatened by Democratic challenger Jill Long Thompson, who has run a laughably lackluster campaign and failed to capitalize on the momentum generated by Obama. Ms. Long Thompson, a fixture in Indiana politics for two decades, has offered virtually no reasons why she should supplant Daniels as governor; she has merely supplied reasons why Daniels should not be governor. Not all her criticism is invalid, as Daniels has made some very poor decisions during his tenure, but much of it is vague. As a sharp contrast to her early career, when she seemed like a plucky underdog, Long Thompson now comes across as smug and snobbish. Or maybe that's not it. Perhaps she just doesn't care what her critics think.

Writer's Blockhead

2008-10-09T21:14:00.004-04:00

I have three entries pending for this blog and have so far been able to complete exactly none of them. So I decided to write about writer's block. In one sense, it's a subject on which I am somewhat of an authority because I experience it frequently enough. But I honestly don't know a cure and doubt there is any sort of universal panacea for the condition. Like any mental or emotional problem, one person's remedy is another's toxin.

The cause of writer's block--for me, anyway--generally has to do with trying too hard, either because I haven't written anything for some time and decide I'm "due" or because a great idea has dawned on me and I can't hammer out commensurately worthy prose. An oft repeated phrase about writer's block goes "it's all in your head." Which, of course, is the problem! Another alleged cause of the condition is stress, but that of course is the time people need to be writing and failing to write only adds to the anxiety, so the paradoxical nature of writer's block has no doubt occurred to thousands before I ever thought of it.

In "Pure Drivel", a delightfully off-the-wall collection of musings, Steve Martin defines writer's block as "a fancy term made up by whiners so they can have an excuse to drink alcohol." Martin, as is often the case when at his most absurd, has a point: writer's block can become quite a self-indulgent exercise. And a self-perpetuating one. That's one reason I hope this silly aside can help me get back to the marginally more meaningful material I began weeks ago and have as yet failed to finish.

Fall, Fall, Fall

2008-10-01T22:46:00.014-04:00

Everything's tumbling in a poetic sort of autumnal way. A financial crisis created by almost everyone has been blamed on, well, almost everyone. To summarize things very baldly, Democrats blame Republicans and greed, Republicans blame Democrats and their insistence on allowing the unworthy to borrow money, taxpayers blame politicians in general, and a few observers blame taxpayers.

The problem with such a blame merry-go-round is all sides produce evidence to establish their arguments but tend to ignore the evidence provided by everyone else. Plus, almost no one fully understands global economics enough to fully explain what precipitated this latest panic. Truth is, nobody's really wrong. Excessive executive pay and reckless lending and deregulation and deadbeat home buyers and a weak dollar and rising prices and unemployment and who knows what else are all likely contributing factors. Unfortunately, no public figure, to my knowledge, is both smart enough and objective enough to offer a detailed and balanced account of what has really taken place.

So whom can we ask? It would have to be a non-partisan person who pretty much knows and understands everything. I wish that person were me, but it ain't. How about Ken Jennings? Marilyn Vos Savant? Neil DeGrasse Tyson? How about a foreigner who has less stake in United States politics? Stephen Hawking? Nelson Mandela? It's pointless, really. No choice would satisfy everybody and no opinion would be likely to sway those who cling pugnaciously to preconceived notions.

During a crisis like this, the President of the United States very often receives a disproportionate share of responsibility. Even if you believe his policies have damaged the economy, it would be unfair to claim he created this problem all by himself. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to criticize the "Ownership Society" advocated by the Bush Administration and many other previous administrations of both parties (Only the moniker, not the notion, is novel). Emphasis on ownership, most specifically home ownership in this case, may not always be a bad idea, but somewhere along the line it began to be perceived among many as the key to the ever-elusive American Dream. Home ownership can, of course, be a marvelous thing and may fulfill the lifelong aspiration of many Americans, but a far more important component of the Dream is the ability to choose, the ownership--forgive me--of options. The freedom to decide for yourself what you want means far more than merely a house or an automobile. As a result of this political rhetoric, I fear home ownership has become greatly overvalued.

Crumbling fortunes and a plummeting stock markets may seem symbolically autumnal, but so far the weather remains quite summery. It is perhaps the only sunny news we're likely to get in the immediate future.

Spend Some Time In Mozambique

2008-09-24T08:48:00.010-04:00

Not so very long ago--fewer than twenty years--Mozambique rated at or near the bottom in United Nations living conditions surveys. Along with Angola, a nation with very similar colonial history, the former Portuguese colony was considered Hell on Earth in the early 1990s, a country plagued by drought, famine, and a protracted civil war.

Though it will not soon be mistaken for Beverly Hills, Mozambique has seen several years of substantial economic growth, in part because there was no direction to go but upward. Still, compared to Angola's preposterously tenuous version of peace, Mozambique has witnessed no large scale outbreak of hostilities since a late 1992 accord in Rome formally ended the nation's conflict. This relative stability permitted thousands of expatriates and refugees to return home and allowed for the rebuilding of much of the infrastructure that had been waylaid either by war or the destructive departure of the Portuguese in the mid-1970s.

These factors, along with increased cooperation with both African nations and western governments, have fueled the aforementioned economic advancement. According to allafrica.com, the World Bank recently lauded Mozambique for its decreased number of "at risk" projects funded by that body. And though a number of wealthy nations, including the United States and Sweden, have extended nascent development aid, their contributions have been auxiliary rather than essential.

Sadly, promising economic statistics cannot offset the scourge wrought by the AIDS virus nor do broad numbers alter the fact that most Mozambicans remain in abject poverty. However, without such macroeconomic growth, this developing nation would probably have no chance to allay many of its social difficulties. The question as to whether nations, rich or poor, should focus on large scale economic development or improving the quality of life of individuals on a smaller scale is a source of long and rancorous debate. The ideal answer, of course, is that both agendas should be pursued in a delicate and sensible balance, but nations tend to lack both the political consensus and the abundant resources often necessary to do both of these things simultaneously. In any case, a nation that has risen from the ashes in the manner Mozambique has must learn to relish small victories.

Be Very, Very Quiet

2008-09-19T16:11:00.013-04:00

With all due respect to family members and friends who engage in some type of hunting, I find the practice creepy. To be sure, I find it less creepy when the hunter makes efficient use of prey, most notably for food, though other uses also spring to mind. But unless you're a member of the Kalahari San or some other small hunting and gathering society that employs no currency and/or hours from any grocery, I'm not entirely convinced of the necessity of hunting. In other words, I fail to understand acting on the impulse to kill unless one's subsistence relies on it. Let me clarify that I don't outright condemn said impulse unequivocally, only that its rationale eludes me.

This comes from someone embarrassingly incapable of killing much of anything. The only visible creatures I terminate without qualification are mosquitoes, cockroaches, and flies; anything else will be spared barring extenuating circumstances. Kill a spider? Forget it! I've even developed a bit of a superstition about this, so a spider gets put outside. Maybe I could make an exception for a brown recluse or some other dangerous arachnid, but only maybe. I do believe I could kill most anything--even a human being--that represented a direct mortal threat, but beyond that I can't fathom taking a life.

Still, I don't eschew meat. A dedicated hunter might argue there is more honor in the exhaustive labor required for transforming a live animal into a meal ready to serve than there is in stopping by KFC on the way home. Well, maybe. On the other hand, millions of domestic animals are bred for the sole purpose of human consumption. Thus, my conscious is not terribly bruised simply because I'm largely unwilling to take a life even as I voice no objections to others doing my killing for me.

Some varieties of hunting assail my sensibilities more than others. For instance, I once watched footage of men in large four wheel drive vehicles aided by packs of hound dogs successfully trap a mountain lion in a tree before blasting the harrassed creature onto the ground. Sick. Where's the sport and the challenge and the risk? How can a person feel good about him or herself after doing something like this?

Similarly, a consultant contracted by my former employer once boasted of traveling to Argentina to kill doves. He further explained that the doves were garden pests who sometimes decimated the farmers' crops and their vast flocks needed thinning. So, in his eyes, he was doing the world a favor. Sorry, but I thought his claim was bogus. While I have no objection to a farmer taking shots at doves that threaten his livelihood, I can't fathom anyone beaming with pride after having snuffed out the lives of animals about a hundredth his size. I figured the guy just liked to kill. And I have a problem with that.

I don't want most types of hunting outlawed. It's not difficult to see the cultural importance of it. But I remain troubled by the rationalizations some individuals employ to defend certain types of senseless killing, especially where they involve rare and/or helpless creatures.

Death to All Capital Punishment Proponents

2008-09-16T09:59:00.005-04:00

Sweeping declarations typically get people into trouble, but I've never known anyone who opposed capital punishment for exactly the same reasons I do. This probably makes me crazy; I'm comfortable with that.

Twenty years ago, during a televised presidential debate, Bernard Shaw asked Massachussetts Governor and White House hopeful Michael Dukakis if he would want the death penalty imposed on the hypothetical rapist and murderer of his wife. It was a provocative question, one that required Dukakis to envision a horrifying scenario. Millions recall the question, but few remember the Governor's response. That's because the governor's response was rubbish, some dispassionate nonsense about the death penalty not being a deterrent to violent crime (I had to look up what Dukakis said, as I too failed to recollect).

Death penalty opponents make some reasonable arguments against capital punishment, but they make some bogus ones too. I used to be full of the same canned, predictable responses when it came to discussing the matter, but I've changed my tune. I won't say the song is unique, but I'll at least claim it's unusual.

Some people may deserve to die. And if I had been asked what I wanted to happen to the person who killed my wife or mother, I would have declared that I'd be tempted to destroy that person with my own hands. That's exactly what I would want to do! Given an opportunity, would I follow through? Who knows? But I know how I would feel. There's nothing wrong with those feelings when one experiences a devastating loss: rage and sorrow and misery. It's difficult to blame vicitms who confuse justice with revenge; after all, the difference between the two depends heavily on point-of-view.

But that isn't how our system works. We do not permit crime victims, direct or indirect, to carry out justice as they see fit. Doing so would be a prescription for chaos, disaster, anarchy. That doesn't mean victims should have no voice in the process, only that punishment cannot be meted out according to their desires.

Executions are not merely about what they do to the executed; they are about what they do to the executioners too. To us. I am not sorry Timothy McVeigh is dead, but I am sorry "we" killed him. Ditto for Saddam Hussein and for thousands of other depraved wretches who have been hanged, electrocuted, poisoned. It is fair enough to decide in one's own mind that someone deserves to die, but something else again to carry out the killing. In my opinion, government should never sponsor such killings, regardless of the crime.

There's more, of course. These are nearer to the conventional arguments made by death penalty opponents, but some of them bear repeating. Execution is the one thing you can't take back if a mistake is made. Recent DNA tests have exonerated a number of death row inmates. And since no system can ever be error free, it seems a dangerous risk to continue to advocate life's most irrevocable act. In addition, our formal justice system does not see fit to rob from thieves, to rape rapists, to beat up assaulters, to blackmail extortionists. So why should we kill killers when reciprocation is not acceptable elsewhere?

Opponents of the death penalty are not wrong to encourage compassion and forgiveness. But they sometimes come across as insensitive when they imply all people, especially the families of murder victims, who support capital punishment are bloodthirsty oafs. They are not. But neither are all death penalty critics weak-kneed bleeding hearts. We are not.

Capital punishment detractors often cite the "death penalty is not a deterrent" point and the compassion and forgiveness points and the "death penalty is too expensive" point and the "what if you've made a mistake?" point. All these possess some degree of merit, but aren't necessarily relevant to grieving families, most of whom don't care if executions deter murderers as a whole, aren't in the mood to forgive, aren't terribly interested in the cost, and are reasonably sure the only mistake was the murder. But there may be other ways to reach people that have yet to be tried.

For now, capital punishment is supported by most Americans. I accept that. But I believe most Americans are wrong about this. And instead of insinuating the majority consists primarily of thoughtless boors more interested in a pound of flesh than in justice, I would like to see deeper philosophical ideas discussed with less hectoring and namecalling. Of course, this is how I feel about most debates. Don't count on my wish to become reality anytime soon.

So Long To All That?

2008-09-11T18:30:00.008-04:00

The world now contains boys and girls who possess a reasonable awareness of the world around them but carry no or very little direct memory of the September 11th attacks. So what are we supposed to tell them? And should we imbue the narrative with the same kind of emotion we ourselves felt that day or convey the events in detached, logical terms?

Many variables must be factored in when determining the answers to such questions, not least one's own level of involvement. A lower Manhattan police officer will no doubt elucidate a chronicle quite unlike one relayed by an accountant from Spokane. Maybe the best approach of all, then, is simply to wait until they ask. After that, tell the tale from as many perspectives as possible: emotional, rational, first hand, international. Give these kids something we who experienced 9/11 were denied, that is, a decent overview of the events all at roughly the same time. Do you recall how difficult it was to clarify things in our minds, how many questions surfaced, the variety of allegations and outrageous claims, the endless speculation? It was chaos on a level most of us have not witnessed before or since. So tell them. But wait for them to ask. And they will, what with the endless retrospectives and references to September 11, 2001. No doubt they will ask.

I've known two people whose birthdays fall on September 11; my own is September 13. In 2001 and a couple years thereafter, I still felt the pall of 9/11 on my birthday, but for whatever reason that sensation seems to have subsided. I'm guessing the same may not be true of those born on the actual day.

But enough is enough. Seven years later, most of us, with a few notable and understandable exceptions, ought to be able to observe these events sans the misery and the rage. My hope is we carry the lessons with us, honor the fallen and the heroes but without allowing those old, sour emotions to cloud our judgment.