Inactive Rebunk
Thursday, June 30, 2005
The Unappreciated Genius of News Radio
Now that Marc is gone, let’s lower the level of the discussion a little bit. Courtesy of Sportsguy’s intern, we get a site that reminds us that the most underrated show ever might have been News Radio. If you need a reminder, check out this site. And if it does not depress you too much to realize that the loss of Phil Hartman was the greatest tragedy in the history of comedy (and if you know Hartman's work from SNL, the Simpsons [Hi! I'm Troy McClure, and you might know me from such public service videos as "Designated Drivers, the Lifesaving Nerds" and "Phony Tornado Alarms Reduce Readiness."] and News Radio, you know what I mean), make sure to focus on the quotations from the show’s incomparable Bill McNeal. All of the quotation pages are absolutely worth your while, but you will hear Hartman's voice throughout his.
See you next month
I am going on vacation and will not be able to post another blog entry until late July. I want to thank Derek again for inviting me to Rebunk, and look forward to posting again when I get back. Take care everyone and enjoy the summer!
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
The Wonder of the Indie Rock Subculture
One of the defining characteristics of your average indie-rock (or, as Robert Christgau calls it, “semi-popular music”) fan is their passion. This passion manifests itself in a range of ways that range from the inspiring to the annoying to the disturbing: Loyalty that borders on obsession; condescension toward those outside of the inner sanctum of the cognoscenti; rampant elitism; proprietary claims to the music that are utterly inexplicable; and an almost preternatural sensitivity to perceived slights. This last trend manifests itself especially when the band or bands in question change direction and become, or try to become, more popular. The backlash from the true believers can be ruthless. These fans love having a connection to what might best be called a fetish property, part of the appeal of which is that they are part of a select group. Nothing will turn the indie devotee off like when their band suddenly becomes known. This is especially selfish because the fan effectively begrudges the success of bands about which they purport to care so deeply. It is solipsism run amok.
If this sounds like a negative portrait, it is not intended to be. The same fans (and in many ways I am one of them) care deeply about good music, buy cds, and help keep alive a subculture of devotion to music, of believing that music can actually change someone’s life. Music for these people, for us, is more than just background noise. It is an essential part of a way of life, as crucial as food and water and sex and air. If it can be insufferable it can also be inspiring. And so much of it is simply better than most of what passes for popular music these days, whatever the subgenre.
Of late there have been a couple of pieces that have appeared in the the New York Times about this particular subculture in both its endearing and grating manifestations. This piece introduces Ric Harcourt, a radio dj for Los Angeles station KCRW whose show, “Morning Becomes Eclectic,” is a vital voice for getting semi-popular acts much deserved air time. This one discusses the problem of overearnestness in much of the writing about indie rock, leading readers to The Shins Will Change Your Life which allows the overwrought prose of those who write about this music to stand on its own. (Please note that the link in the Times piece was inaccurate at last check, but my link should work). I do want to mention The Believer, a magazine that gets a mention in the second Times piece, because I do not want to leave the wrong impression. While Kalefa Senneh is critical of The Believer for its perhaps overearnest embrace of a narrow strata of music in its recent music issue, it is also the most vibrant, intelligent, interesting magazine I have seen in years. Its focus is mostly literary, but it covers a range of topics, including music, film, and anything else that might be interesting or quirky or that crosses it radar. I cannot recommend it highly enough, even if its tastes seem to run toward the esoteric and its cover price ($8) might give you pause. I owe Sean Chadwell, one of my colleagues at last summer’s National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Institute, my eternal gratitude for exposing me to The Believer, which comes to us via the Valencia Street folks in San Francisco (David Eggers, Zadie Smith, Nick Hornby, etc.).
Plus, if bands like the Shins, Modest Mouse, Pinback, Sleater Kinney, the Decembrists, and many, many others in this interesting but, alas, obscure subgenre won’t exactly change your life, they will make it just a little bit better. That seems reason enough to get to know this world and its rabid, passionate, and sometimes obnoxious inhabitants.
America’s greatest sacrifice for Iraq? Press conferences that occasionally disrupt local programming
Of all of the problems I had with Bush’s speech, perhaps the following line was the most divorced from reality:
“America and our friends are in a conflict that demands much of us.” Bush then recalled the Revolutionary war, the Civil War, and “the hard-fought battles against tyranny in the 20th century” as evidence of our ability to remain dedicated to a moral objective.
The problem is that this conflict does not demand much from us at all, quite the opposite. Other than the military personnel doing the fighting and their families, what demands does this conflict make of us? No one is being told to cut back on anything (like oil, fuel, etc.), there are no war bonds people can purchase, in fact people have been told by the administration to go out and buy CD’s and clothing, to go to the movies or on vacation. In other words, while the administration tells us how demanding this conflict has been, it also tells us that we should go on with our lives as if nothing is happening, and indeed we are.
Congressman Strickland of Ohio expressed this reality last year , when he made the following statement:
“We are not paying a price. We are not even paying for this war. The cost of this war is being passed on to the children and the grandchildren that will follow us. They are the ones being asked to pay the cost of this war. What did the President asked us to do to sacrifice for this war? He told us to go shopping. He told us to go shopping. Where is the sacrifice other than those who are at this very moment risking their lives for us, the moms and dads who are grieving and will grieve for the rest of their lives over the loss of their son or daughter, the husbands and the wives and the children who will live out the rest of their lives without their loved one because of the miscalculation of this administration and their unwillingness to even recognize what they have done?
That is what bothers me. We all should be sacrificing and sharing in the sacrifice, but we are not being asked to do so. Go out and live our life. Go shopping, go to the ballgames, spend money, do what we want to do, and let someone else's kid fight this war for the Iraqi Interim Government. That is totally unacceptable.”
The reason Bush has hesitated asking anything of the American people is partly ideological, in my opinion, but even more political. Ideologically, he is convinced that tax cuts are the ends to which any means possible must strive towards, and that the American economy depends on it. He believes that wars in the 21st century need to be fought quickly and inexpensively because we may have to be fighting a lot of them in the future. Politically, this conflict was never overwhelmingly popular with the American people until shortly after it was waged, and asking them to pay anything for it would make it far less popular than it is already.
Because of this, the war in Iraq is barely even noticed by Americans (judging from its minimal coverage on the national media networks) let alone sacrificed for. Apparently, supporting the troops and buying an American flag is all that constitutes sacrifice today. Despite the mounting debt this administration has incurred, and our addiction to foreign oil that shows no signs of abetting, Bush’s conservative political agenda remains unchanged since before 9/11.
The sole sacrifice Americans are being asked to pay is the surrendering of their civil liberties through the PATRIOT Act, which has done a wonderful job of keeping the homeless out of train stations , or monitoring what I read from my local library , but whose actual effectiveness or necessity in fighting terrorism remains controversial.
Perhaps there is no need to rethink any of Bush’s policies and perhaps this war is best fought far away, by other people, and we’ll just have our children pick up the tab. But I do wish politicians would stop making such lofty and inaccurate statements about the sacrifice of the American people that simply does not exist in any systematic fashion.
Poor George
I must confess, part of me almost feels sorry for our president. Having launched this war against Iraq on the basis of false information and outright deception; having waged the war itself incompetently; having not been able to locate Bin Laden; having an administration that continues to utter inconsistent and inaccurate statements on interviews; having caused massive national deficits, presided over increased trade deficits, and rising gas prices; having done all of these things, I really can not think of anything the president could possibly have said last night that would have made much of a difference to anyone.
Pity. Here is the speech he should have given (or something like it):
“My fellow Americans,
Today, this nation is engaged in a conflict in Iraq against an insurgency that seems to be getting more deadly and more organized. I have spent the past several years ignoring or antagonizing much of the international community that could potentially help us, but that is going to change.
It is time to put this country on a better path, which is why I have outlined this 6-step process for improving this nation’s security.
First, I will allow foreign governments, particularly those in the region, to train Iraqi troops on their own soil, rather than follow our current policy of forbidding such actions. This will be accompanied by inviting foreign companies into Iraq for reconstruction, even if their host countries did not participate in the conflict.
Second, I will ask the United Nations for their assistance in rebuilding much of the Iraqi infrastructure and civil service. Although this administration has rightly focused on building a democratic government, no such government can long sustain itself in the face of water shortages, power outages, and other problems ignored by much of the American press, caused mostly by insurgents who target those facilities. The UN, for all its faults, has the best experience in this area, and the most credibility in the region.
Third, I will meet with the leaders of Bulgaria, Japan, Ukraine, and other hesitant allies and discuss with them how we can go about keeping their troops in Iraq, rather than have them pull out. I will not order them to do this, and I may even have to make some concessions to their governments in order to justify this, but keeping this campaign as international as possible is vital, and more troops, not less, may be needed to finish this job.
Fourth, it is time that the United State recognize the other nations that threaten us. Our current policy on North Korea was bold, assertive, and disastrous, and although the US media have forgotten the fact that North Koreas has been developing nuclear weapons for the highest bidder, this administration has not, and will begin immediately with two-party talks. During these talks, this country will do what it has been incapable of doing in the past: negotiating rather than demanding. Because of this, we hope to find some agreement that will end with a disarmed North Korea. I will also give some encouragement to European leaders whose attempts at dealing with Iran have proven unsuccessful. While the United States will push the Europeans privately about the need for action, we will no longer make veiled threats against Iran, or inflame the situation by immediately making accusations against Iran’s new leader.
Fifth, our national security is directly related to our fiscal health, which is why it is time to ask Americans what they have never before been asked by me, to actually sacrifice something for this conflict that was once so popular. I am sending a bill to Congress to repeal part of the tax cuts and cut all necessary spending in order to being this nation’s deficits under control.
Finally, my fellow Americans, it is time to start being honest with you. I am optimistic that Iraq will succeed and can assure you that we will do whatever it takes, no matter how long it takes, and no matter how much it costs, to make that happen. But it may be years, and the number of lives may continue to increase. No more rosy exaggerations, no more talk of the insurgency being in its last throes without evidence, from now on, I am going to give honesty a try.”
Had Bush delivered THAT speech, it would certainly have made an impression on me.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
The Odd Couple
There is something really touching about seeing former President George H.W. Bush invite former President Bill Clinton for a boat ride in Maine , or the two men playing golf and eating dinner together .
Of course there is the political angle, which I might as well dispense with. Clinton is only helped by the seemingly genuine friendship between the two former rivals. It makes him look bipartisan and statesmanlike, images he has been desperately trying to cultivate, and it undoubtedly though indirectly helps his wife that people have a positive image of him. As for Bush the elder, I can see no political benefit or downside to the association.
However, the satisfaction of seeing two presidents of opposite parties together in friendship is far more than just a political curiosity. It is a reminder that at the end of the day, these men are more than just caricatures their enemies have painted. They are people whose ideological differences have been tempered by serving in the post powerful position in the world. How much politics and world events come up in conversation between the two, I wish I knew, but I know that this is the way Americans want to think that their national leaders, as being able to separate political differences and personal ones, and when the fighting is all over, go out and play some golf.
The relationship began, of course, when both men headed a relief organization to help the victims of the tsunami, and reports were already circulating of a closer connection when Bush expressed gratitude in an interview about Clinton’s deference to Bush’s seniority (in age, that is) by sleeping on the floor and giving Bush the only bed on the plane. "We could have switched places, each getting half a night on the bed,” Bush recalled later, “but he deferred to me. That was a very courteous thing, very thoughtful, and that meant a great deal to me.”
Maybe I am alone on this, but something about seeing the two former presidents together means something to me as well.
The Culture of Death
The undeniable reality is that the Palestinians have developed what Thomas Friedman has accurately called a “culture of death.” Friedman has traveled extensively throughout the region for decades and was referring to the Saudi Arabian education system when he used the term, but it applies equally to the Palestinians as well.
The following is just one excerpt by Nonie Darwish , who grew up in Gaza in the 1950’s and has talked about the indoctrination of children:
“Terrorism coming out of the Muslim world did not happen by coincidence; it is the direct result of a culture that has been promoting hate, jihad and anti-Semitism for generations. ...
The reason jihad has developed into the epidemic of suicide bombers is because of the deterioration of Arab educational system that has based its curriculum on hate, vengeance and retaliation against non-Muslims, especially Jews.
After several generations brought up under this severe indoctrination, many Arab children were brainwashed like robots to value suicide bombers as someone to look up to in the hope of going to heaven. This unprecedented and extreme form of jihad produced the current generation of suicide bombers who kill non-Muslims with no mercy.
The indoctrination was not just in schools but also in songs, poetry, movies, cartoon and every facet of life. The divine mission of every generation was to take over the endless duty of jihad.
The goal of education was to instill a commitment to destroy the state of Israel; which became the Arab national obsession. Arabs convinced themselves that the existence of Israel gives them a carte blanche to do anything, and nothing was more sacred. The end result is a culture -- out of control, fueled by oil money, and contaminating the world with terror.”
Here is an article in the BBC about a father’s lament over his son’s decision to become a suicide bomber. According to the article, “Posters glorifying Ali's "martyrdom' line the streets of” their town. What kind of message does this send? Apparently none from the international community.
"From kindergarten we were taught that Jews were dogs," says Walid Shoebat , a former member of the PLO whose visit to the United States proved as enlightening as Malxolm X’s to Mecca. According to Shoebat, "We were taught that Jews were the converts of monkeys, that Jews were Sabbath breakers and prophet killers. We even considered Arabs in pre-1967 Israel traitors because we could not understand how they could co-exist with Jews." He went on. "I was taught songs about killing Jews. You need to get rid of the education system where they are teaching this type of thing and get rid of the terrorist groups. It will take a generation, but until then, there's not going to be peace, it doesn't matter what kind of land settlement you have."
I could go on with stories and studies that would undoubtedly leads one’s mind to so many similar societies in Western history that were no less pathological and no less deadly.
None of this excuses or justifies any act of murder by any Israeli soldier, nor does it somehow imply that we should not feel the fullest sense of sympathy for the Palestinian people, many of whom live in squalor and destitution in camps throughout the region, buttressed between corrupt and uncaring leaders and opportunistic neighbors who use them s pawns without helping them. It does however reveal a pattern of brainwashing and indoctrination that the world will have to contend with if it wishes to involve itself in the conflict.
If anyone wants to know the so-called “root-causes” of terrorism, look no further than the many testimonials, articles, and studies that witness the insanity that has engulfed this society.
America and the World (Or: Do They Like Us? Should We Care?)
The recent Pew Global Attitudes Project Report has some interesting, disquieting, fascinating date about how citizens of an array of countries perceive other countries. America’s standing in the world is up slightly, but is still in the depths. As my colleague, area coordinator (i.e. boss) and periodic Rebunk reader Roland Spickermann (who first sent me the link to the full report) pointed out to me, China is more highly regarded than the US in much of the world. My response to that initially was to ask how seriously one can take such a report. But then Pew is highly respected, and since that is what the data concluded, then at minimum, we have a perception problem, and it may be worse than that. It is simply not a healthy state of affairs when countries, most of whom are our allies, are genuinely afraid of or dislike us. Perhaps we can laugh off the fact that the Jordanians pretty much seem to hate us. But when majorities polled in Spain, Russia, Germany, France, England, and the Netherlands (with Canada falling within the margin of error) all have more favorable views of the tyrants in Beijing than of the democrats in Washington, we need to do some self-assessment.
Although she does not write explicitly in response to Pew's findings, Anne Applebaum is aware of the data on Anti-Americanism. She has a piece, “In Search of Pro-Americanism,” in the latest
Monday, June 27, 2005
Paths Not Chosen
For some reason, at first reading, this story of terrorism in Israel gave me pangs of anguish more than many among the unrelenting deluge of atrocities we have all read about in the last five years. (Thanks to Judith Apter Klinghoffer for the heads up.) Here we have a young Palestinian woman who has suffered from an egregious household accident in which she suffered extensive burns. It seems at least in part as a result of that, she becomes the ideal woman terrorist, even though it is clear that she has gotten a great deal in terms of medical care and the like from the state of Israel. And yet she crosses the border in hopes of committing an atrocity in which she would kill as many Jews as possible. “Today I wanted to blow myself up in a hospital,” she testified to a gathered assemblage of the media, “maybe even in the one in which I was treated. But since lots of Arabs come to be treated there, I decided I would go to another, maybe the Tel Hashomer, near Tel Aviv. I wanted to kill 20, 50 Jews …'' When asked if she wanted to kill babies and children, she answered in the affirmative.
Maybe it is that the story is well written and thus poignant. Maybe it is that I fear that the more potential there is for women to become suicide bombers will inevitably bring about more children deciding capriciously to kill themselves for a cause they cannot possibly understand. Or perhaps it is simply that I am tired of it. I am tired for the Israeli people who deal with these attacks on a constant basis. I am weary for Palestinians who do not realize that there will be no path for them that crosses through the rubble of destroyed Israeli lives, and that the only way they have a legitimate case to press is if they foreswear terrorism. I am exhausted from having to argue with friends and colleagues about the best way to combat those who want to kill us. I am weary for our soldiers who fight under a plan so haphazardly thrown together it looks almost willfully incompetent. I am weary of so much of this. But then I realize that maybe that is what they want. They want for us to be tired. They want for us to decide that it is not worth it. They want for us to have that moment of doubt. And we cannot. Tired feet must march onward.
One of the ironies attendant in the resolution of this grim snapshot of Israel’s daily confrontation is that once that woman was discovered to have been strapped with explosives, she was lucky to have been stopped by soldiers from the country she so viscerally hates as to want to kill its citizens in its hospitals. Had she been discovered in Syria or Iran or Yemen or any other of dozens of countries in the world, she would have been shot. If she was lucky. Perhaps she would have been stoned to death after being gang-raped. The fate of her family would have been just as bad, perhaps worse. And we would know nothing of it. There would have been no free press to cover it. There would be no court proceedings to follow. The soldiers would not have had clear rules of engagement that meant that even after the woman tried to set off deadly explosives intended to kill them they still were to try to subdue her if at all possible and only use deadly force if it became absolutely necessary.
All of this is ironic because were the Palestinians to have given up violence, the intifada, the uprisings, they would be closer to a state for their own people. Had Palestinians finally understood that Israel is not going to succumb to obliteration, and that while the Palestinians are not going to get everything they ask for they can get so much more than they have now, they would have much of that for which they fight. And had they been able to develop a non-violent struggle against those civil rights and human rights violations that do occur in their troubled land they would have garnered the sympathy of people like me, for whom the talk of rights is almost innately hardwired into our system. People like me could have said “Israel, our ally, is a good state. It must be a better state. Israel is a country based on justice and democracy and liberalism. It must be more just, more democratic, more liberal.” And perhaps we could have said similar things about a Palestinian state that would be inevitably flawed, but also hopeful and, yes, democratic and liberal, just and good. But we do not have these options. A country that sees its citizens die in clubs and restaurants and cafes and buses and hospitals cannot hear cries for civil rights in the midst of such uncivil wrongs. And those of us who support Israel cannot ask it to make concessions to murder. If only that young woman at the border crossing had realized this. If only so many hundreds, thousands, of others had realized this, things might be different now.
Justice
Apparently, the Justice Department is taking advantage of the absence of their old puritanical boss by uncovering the statues of justice that sat in the Great Hall.
Speaking of justice, SCOTUS was right to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in Texas but their decision to prohibit it in Kentucky makes it difficult to find where the line is. As the majority itself has said, “No exact formula can dictate a resolution in fact-intensive cases such as this.” The Ten Commandments is more than just a Judeo-Christian set of rules (that neither follow in large numbers anyway) and it is more than just an old Charlton Heston movie. They have become a symbol of the law itself, or at least as it has evolved in Western Civilization, no less so than Hammurabi's Code. Although I am very sympathetic to those who fear increasing encroachment of religion in American politics and lives, I do not believe that this particular issue is the right one for people to target their objections.
SCOTUS was wrong, however, in ruling that
Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally.
Such services as Limewire, Kazaa, and countless others undoubtedly facilitate copywrite infringement, but why should the companies themselves be held liable? In fairness, I have argued the same point when gun manufacturers or alcohol companies are held liable for crimes involving their otherwise legal products.
In the case of Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios Inc. (1984), the Supreme Court held that sellers of VCRs were not liable for users' copyright infringement -- rejecting the claim that selling VCRs amounted to contributory infringement. Of course, there is a world of difference between VCR’s and file sharing networks, but the fundamentals are the same- a new technology that has emerged that allows people to acquire information that would otherwise cost money. This is the nature of the world, it is the nature of globalization and the world wide web. Movie and song companies (who certainly don’t seem to be starving and whose profits and salaries remain astronomically high compared to almost any other industry) are going to have to adapt just as painters adapted to the invention of the camera, or theater adapted to the invention of movies and TV. Guess what: today, we still have painters and we still have theaters and 20 years from now, I can assure you, we will still have movies and songs.
Rumsfeld the cynic?
It is good to see someone in the administration actually giving an honest evaluation of what is going on in Iraq for one. While the administration has spent the entire post-war (as well as pre-war) period exaggerating the ease, inexpensiveness, and effectiveness of the Iraq campaign, much to the contradiction of military and intelligence analysts, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged on Monday that "That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years,” adding that the insurgents' attacks "are more lethal than they had been previously; they're killing a lot more Iraqis," and he said the insurgency "could become more violent" in advance of a referendum on a new Iraqi constitution and elections in December.
This marks a sharp contrast to Vice President Cheney , who said only a week ago that the insurgency is "in the last throes," and predicted that the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office.
Of course, in a time of war, every nation wants a leader that exudes confidence and optimism. The difference however, between a Roosevelt and a Johnson is the simple difference between hope and lies. Although administration supporters can claim honestly that certain statement made in public speeches indicated a long struggle, the general tenor of the rhetoric and numerous statements of administration in interviews and speeches clearly indicated a pretty sort and cheap episode whose success could hardly be questions (at least not without being accused of treason).
Cabbage Now Illegal in South Korean Baseball
How is this for your weird baseball story of the week (courtesy of Peter Gammons' latest column for espn.com):
According to the Korean News Bureau, South Korean Doosan Bears' pitcher Park Myung-hwan twice lost his cap while delivering a pitch and each time frozen cabbage leaves fell off his head twice in a game on June 19. The frozen cabbage leaves inside the cap were used to keep his head cool.The Korea Baseball Organization has been moved to rule that wearing cabbage leaves inside a baseball cap constitutes an "alien material" that may disrupt a game, prohibited according to the organization's rules, the organization said in a statement Tuesday.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Durbin, Rove, Limbaugh, Amnesty International, and Selective Outrage
I would like to be clear on something. I think that it is always wrong to use the Nazi analogy (or the Communist/Stalinist/Fascist ones) especially when labeling someone. It is easy, it is cheap, it is tawdry. Thus in the past week, when I found myself defending Richard Durbin, (On Big Tent and the main comment pages at HNN) it was probably fair to ask why I seem to have exempted him from my argument. I think it is a legitimate point, and one about which I want to be clear. This is especially so since while I have been critical of the left and liberals in the past with their profligate use of words like “Fascist” and “Nazi,” I am a liberal, so it also may have seemed that in providing cover for Durbin I was trying to protect one of my own.
Senator Durbin made an extremely poor choice of words. But I simply do not think he said that which some have accused him of saying. And I am trying to be intellectually honest about this. In any case in which someone calls someone else a Nazi (or any of the other things) someone ought to be able to show clearly how they did so, and the construction should always be fairly easy to show – there should be a subject, a verb such as “is” or “are,” and then something about Nazis or Communists. No one can do this with Durbin without adding words or phrases that change the meaning of what he said. If you have to do this, you are not honestly addressing the words he actually spoke. Who did he actually call a Nazi?
Thus this week when Karl Rove said that “liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers … or "liberals saw what happened to us and said, 'We must understand our enemies' " I was outraged, but I was further outraged by the fact that none of the conservatives who were so exercised by Durbin’s words saw fit to say anything. There is no question as to what Rove said and meant. None. And of course what he said is demonstrably wrong. Many, many, many liberals – Thomas Friedman, The New Republic in its entirety, dozens of politicians, small fries like myself, indeed, of folks who called themselves liberals, more than 80% supported military action in response. ( Andrew Sullivan has simply been fantastic on this Rove calumny.) Durbin, meanwhile, did not say that any particular people or group were Nazis. He tried to make a point, and it is clear, even as I defended him, that the point offended many, although I think it is as accurate to say that it allowed a lot of people to feign more outrage than they actually felt. For that I think Durbin was right to apologize, even if there was more than a little sense that conservative criticism browbeated him into making it.
Furthermore, what in particular was Durbin arguing? That mistreatment and torture, or things that look like torture, are wrong, are un-American, and that we should not be doing it. This is a pretty reasonable argument to make. This is why when some argued that Trent Lott stepped down from his leadership position, so Durbin should do so too, I was enraged. Trent Lott, 54 years after the defeat of the Dixiecrats, argued that it would have been better for America had Strom Thurmond, and not Harry Truman, won the 1948 election. The idea that there is any analogy whatsoever between Trent Lott advocating five decades after the fact a party that advocated white supremacy and implying that they were right and Dick Durbin making an ill founded comparison (if this is what he did) in which he opposed torture and other behaviors is simply ludicrous. In the end, the substance of someone’s speech – what they advocate – has to be more important than how they advocate it. That does not mean that we do not speak out against poor use of language, and especially hurtful language. But the difference between advocating the segregationist South and condemning actions while comparing them to Nazism is quite another.
There is also more than a hint of opportunism by the right on this matter. For most of the Clinton Presidency and beyond (more on this momentarily), Rush Limbaugh referred to feminists as “feminazis.” Consider this in all of its audacity: women who supported legislation providing for pregnancy leave, or who wanted a form of universal health care, or who simply sat on the Democratic side of the aisle were being compared to Nazi killers. This clever usage of the pun was part of the name Limbaugh had given them! Where were the critics on the right? I challenge those who disagree with me to name five prominent conservative columnists, politicians, academics, or other figures who spoke out against this ruthless, awful, craven bit of demagoguery.
Some might try to dismiss Limbaugh’s importance. This is nonsense. Limbaugh did not gain a profile that was high enough to get him a brief and ill-fated gig on Monday Night Football because he had critical insight into the intricacies of the zone blitz. As a cultural and media voice in the conservative sea change of the 1990s, Limbaugh was a crucial player. He still is. More people listen to his show than any other talk show on radio, and far more people – 20 million -- get their news and information from Limbaugh than from, say, the New York Times. Limbaugh even defended his use of the term as “right” and “accurate” the other day – after Durbin’s comments! (And after lying and saying he had not used it in years, despite having used it twice in April 2004, once in May 2004, and as recently as February of this year.)
Some might say that Durbin is a United States Senator, and Limbaugh is a radio personality, and thus it is right and just that we condemn one and ignore the other. But this in fact is all the more reason to be outraged at Limbaugh. The voters of Illinois can make the decision whether or not Durbin represents them. They can, in effect, fire him. We do not get this luxury with radio hosts or columnists. Furthermore, the right has already (rightly) expressed outrage over the fact that Amnesty International compared Guantanamo Bay’s prison facilities to a Gulag (even though, in the end, Amnesty International wanted to stop particular objectionable behaviors – what exactly is the motivation for using the term “feminazis”?). It is rather convenient for those on the right now to feign outrage while they apologize for Karl Rove or continue their silence regarding Rush Limbaugh. It is, alas, not surprising.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Personal Rugby Reflections
Nothing brings people together like sports. This is especially true if alcohol is involved. Thus this morning I woke up on a Saturday before 8:00 to go to a pub to catch the New Zealand-British Lions rugby match that was played in Wellington. Waking up at 8 was tough enough for me, but I was carrying the handicap of having been up until after 3:00 am to follow not only the end of the Red Sox game (an 8-0 win over the Phillies) but also the finals of the Yankees-Mets (Pedro pitched 8 innings of I’m-Your-Daddy ball) and Orioles-Braves game (O’s lost, coupled with Sox victory = Sox in first place).
In any case, I watched the All Blacks soundly thrash the Lions squad in wretched conditions down in Kiwi-land, came back to the office to work, and then went back at 2:00 to watch the Springboks pound the Tricoleur (French) in Port Elizabeth. This was an especially satisfying win for Amobokkobokko in light of the fact that the two teams played to a 30-30 tie last week in Durban.
Inevitably, this got me to thinking about my own experiences, modest as they are, playing rugby, which in turn got me to thinking about South Africa. My last blast of athletic glory, if you want to call it that (and I do; construct your own damned narrative if you have a problem with it.) came in 1997 when as the result of a confluence of circumstances I ended up playing rugby for Rhodes University in South Africa.
The first rugby game I ever saw in my entire life came from a rather interesting perspective – starting at right wing for Rhodes’ 2nd XV. Within two minutes of the start of the game, I found myself with this bloated, seamless oblong ball in my hands, running like hell, realizing that I was a good four years too old for this. Fortunately there was not too much time to think, and within seconds two chaps from King William’s Town had pummeled me. Somehow in my apprenticeship I had learned how to get rid of the ball, and while I brushed myself off, checked for missing parts, and let out the requisite profanity, we continued to move down the field and score a try.
Now keep in mind, all through college I had thought of rugby players as being akin to, say, the chess club, or more generously, the Ultimate Frisbee team. In college, these were the former high school athletes who knew they were never going to play a sport in college but still fancied themselves jocks. They drank during their games. We drank after winning NCAA competitions on Saturdays. They were from Venus. We were from a planet that did not suck at sports. I had friends who played rugby, just as I had friends who were sociology majors and friends who were Yankees fans. But these were not the sorts of things you brought up in polite company.
But when I got to Rhodes, things were different. For one thing, the beer was cheaper. For another, a lot of my buddies were athletes. And at Rhodes, as just about anywhere in South Africa, that meant one of only few things. It could have meant track, but the fact is, my track career was done. I was good enough to do well in college and even to compete for a while beyond that. But each torn hamstring made it less and less fun, taking me from being the sort of guy who was a threat to win or place at most any meet to being the guy hobbling around on hamstrings that had each been ruptured once each and knees that looked like my grandfather’s. So instead it meant soccer or cricket or rugby. I had no soccer skills. Not compared to the Africans in my house for whom the sport was religion, except more serious. Cricket season had not yet come. And so the drunk guys with whom I consorted at the Rat & Parrot or Peppers were rugby players. They knew I had been a track athlete, and that in a distant past I had played (American) football.
Well, drunk people can easily put 2 and 2 together and get an answer of “Crazy.” They thought that it was only natural that a guy who had never seen a rugby game in his life and who was four years past his college days really and truly and “ag-man-why-not” ought to try out for the university rugby team. Outside of the US, of course, sports operate on a club level. I had affiliation with the university. And obviously I was insane. So I said yes.
A few weeks later, there I was, starting at the wing, wearing #14 (my football number had always been 41, which means absolutely nothing to this story or the larger scheme of things) and staring out at guys who looked like they wanted to kill. Me. Later I would discover that this perception was accurate. I survived that game, which meant that my teammates came up with a thousand excuses to fill me with beer. I became the regular starting wing for a team that was, while not great, was also above .500 for the year. I had some good moments, like the game where I drew from some deep reserve of my football, past and introduced to South African sport, in one rather impressive run, both the stiff-arm and the hurdle/high-knee. In the game of my life I was nonetheless named “Mare of the Match” because after a 50+ yard run I did not take the try myself, but rather passed to a teammate coming up alongside me as I approached the 22-yard line (rugby thing). So much for selflessness.
Apparently I did not become a real rugby player until Tri-Varsity weekend, our equivalent to homecoming, against the University of Fort Hare. Until just a year or two earlier, it had always simply been “Intervarsity Weekend” (“Varsity” being a name for “University”) against the University of Port Elizabeth, but with the fall of the apartheid regime it was decided that it would be ok for the young African men of Fort Hare and the young men or Rhodes to meet on the sporting field and especially to pound the hell out of one another on the rugby pitch. Progress manifests itself in interesting ways, and so it became a three university affair. In our game at the Rhodes Great Field, Fort Hare played us a lot tougher than we expected. Late in the second half we were up by something like 12-7. I had the ball and had a run that took me to within about five yards of the try line, at which point I got beaten like a hippie at a Hell’s Angel rally. In the process of my bludgeoning, someone from some obscure angle (they are all obscure angles when you are twisted and turned and are upside down and if, I am honest, crying for my or at least someone’s mother) kicked me square in the face. It was like the prom scene from Carrie. There was blood everywhere. And these days, especially in South Africa, when you are bleeding during a sporting event, they take you off the field, no questions asked. But the team cannot replace you. The woman was trying to cut a neat strip or tape for my wound. My teammates, meanwhile, were entreating me to get back out there because, well, rugby is tough enough at even strength, never mind when they get a man advantage. I took the tape from the trainer, tore off a large piece, placed it over my eyebrow and forehead, and continued playing (Yeay me!). In the locker room a few minutes later, after the win, I was told that I was finally a real rugby player. (Yeay me, again!). Then I went and got a bunch of stitches. That made me popular. And we all want to be popular.
Two more stories on this walk down memory lane. These are a bit grimmer than the sepia-toned reminiscence.
The head coach of the Rhodes rugby program was a man by the name of Frans Erasmus. This name means nothing to any of you. But in South African rugby terms, he is a giant. He played for the South African team that played a squad of world All-Stars during South Africa’s period as a rogue nation. He was capped as a Springbok many times. He played in the scrum, as a prop, where he was a powerful sparkplug of a man. He was not as tall as I am, but he weighed 300 pounds, and it was a solid 300. He was a barrel, and his days in the scrum are still the stuff of legend. His nickname was “domkrag,” which basically means “jack,” as in the hydraulic lever with the power to lift your car. The nickname was a double entendre – first because he was a mechanic by trade, but second, and most evocatively, because he seemed able to hold other big men in the air almost on his own in the scrums. He also spoke very little English. And almost none of it to me, who he referred to as “the fucking American.” It was not, from what I understood, a term of endearment. I learned Afrikaans in my time in South Africa, mostly for reading and research and in any case not well enough to understand Frans as well as I would have liked. In any case, as the season came to a close, Coach was having guys on the team over to his house. I had not gotten the indication that I had been invited, and so when he said “Hey, American – are you coming?” I tried to demur. “Well, fuck you then.” I ended up at Frans’ house, a gorgeous home in the hills overlooking Grahamstown. When Frans had been over in Japan for the World XV, he had gotten some sake that had never been touched. We touched it. Intimately. Then out came the witblitz, Afrikaans for “white lightning.” Egads. It was a night not to remember. Consequently, there are parts that I don’t. But after that night, Frans seemed to like me. Or at least he used fewer expletives referring to me in my presence. Again – progress manifests itself in interesting ways.
That story has a tragic ending. Not even a year after I first left Grahamstown (and retired from rugby), Frans’ wife died tragically in an automobile accident. Frans never really recovered. A month or so later, Frans Erasmus died in an automobile accident on the same corner where his wife was killed earlier. Police ruled it an accident. I guess I will always wonder, though.
And then, of course, there was always the issue of race. Rugby has a long history of being associated with Afrikanerdom. It is a sport for boers, or so many believe. My teammates and many of my coaches were drawn from the Rhodes student body. They were white. My fellow wing went on to do graduate work in economics at Cambridge. Another did his PhD in pharmacology at Rhodes. They got to know me, and they got to know that my work was on race in both the US and South Africa. It did not take long before they gave me the nickname “kaffir.” It is hard to capture what “kaffir” means, except to say that it is a lot like “n-----,” but worse, given the South African context. It is an awful, shameful, ugly word. At one point, rather Pollyanna-ishly, I’ll admit, I asked them if they had to keep using “the k word.” That did not help my cause in the locker room, though I think they genuinely liked me, even if they always sought (and found, curiously) reasons to take the piss out of me. At the end of-year banquet, I was honored to receive an award for my time on the team. Unfortunately, making the link between the US and South Africa, they called it “The KKK Award,” which was written on the certificate. I do not have a certificate to honor my rugby playing in South Africa, as much as that experience meant to me.
How the mighty has fallen
Someone in Italy didn’t get the joke. You know, the one where the United States sends in CIA agents to friendly, democratic governments in order to secretly abduct Muslims and fly them to Egypt for torture.
As a result, Italian authorities have issued arrest warrants for 13 people they claim are agents “linked to the CIA.” Don’t they realize that in order to fight ensure our way of life, we have to resort to kidnapping and then send suspects off to be tortured anywhere it’s legal?
In all seriousness, what is happening here? Why is much of the American population (for mostly partisan reasons, it often seems) completely okay with these kinds of practices.
“According to Italian daily Corriere della Sera ,” one man, Mr Hassan, was abducted by the CIA, driven to the US base at Aviano north of Venice and transferred to another base in Germany, before eventually being taken to Egypt. The 42-year-old imam called his family in Italy after being released last year, and said he had been tortured with electric shocks during his detention.
This is nothing new. In 2002, a Canadian citizen had the misfortune of being in New York's Kennedy airport while on the way back to Montreal from a family vacation in Tunisia. Despite the fact that he had lived in Canada since he was a child, and despite his Canadian citizenship, the US deported him to Syria , where he was tortured until Canada was finally able to secure his release!
If stories like the UN being refused to visit Guantanamo Bay to ensure human rights are maintained and Amnesty International calling it “the gulag of our times” do not bother you; if the following FBI statements outlining the treatment of prisoners don’t both you:
"On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more.
"On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. ...
"On another occasion, the (air conditioner) had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night."
If none of that bothers you, surely the violation of another nations sovereignty, a friendly nation at that, a democratic nation, surely must repulse anyone who believes in freedom, justice, and the rule of law. At what point will Americans start to say to themselves, “maybe that last move went a bit too far”? Conservatives (real conservatives, not just Republican devotees) have rightly condemned these things as against the core of our government for a long time now, while liberals tend to lament the current situation with such hyperbole and exaggeration as to hardly be taken seriously.
Aside from the moral problems with all of this, the natural consequence of these activities is an even further declining image of the US over seas. This concern is often dismissed with an arrogance that has become media and political clichés of “they would hate us no matter what anyway.”
In a wonderful article by Richard K. Betts lamenting the militarism of American society, Betts notes how “In the unipolar world there is no longer anything to hold the United States in check but our own good sense.” If we cannot stop such sense from falling into paranoia, arrogance, and war mongering, let us at least take a moment to lament its decline.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Why Israel is right to resume “targeted killings”
I want to thank Derek for his generous words and confidence, and especially for his flattering invitation to join Rebunk. I am a long-time fan of HNN and this is the first blog I have ever written for. I look forward to contributing to Rebunk as competently and thoughtfully as I can.
For my first entry in this blog, I thought I would comment on one of my favorite topics, the conflict in the Middle East, and why I think that Israel’s recent decision to resume targeted killings is the correct course of action.
In a recent interview with Time Magazine on Sunday, Porter Goss said that he had an “excellent idea” where Osama bin Laden was hiding. The bold claim immediately sparked controversy from people who logically wondered, as Jon Stewart asked on the Daily Show segment the next day, if we knew his whereabouts, why we did not simply go and get him.
An editorial in Asia Times by B. Raman , director of the Institute for Topical Studies in Chennai, India asks the question: “If he has such an excellent idea of where bin Laden is, why is the CIA not using Predator aircraft to kill him?”
White House press secretary McClellan was asked to address exactly that question, when a reporter asked him the following:
“Porter Goss said in Time Magazine that he has an excellent idea where Osama bin Laden is, and that perhaps the problem is that sanctuaries -- that sovereign nations are giving sanctuary to Osama bin Laden. First of all, does the President have an excellent idea of where he is?”
McClellan responded that “if we knew exactly where Osama bin Laden was, we would go get him. I can assure you of that.” I don’t doubt it, nor should anyone.
In other words, if bin Laden’s location were known, but he was in a place where American forces could not operate due to the national sovereignty of another state, we would “go get him” anyway.
I bring up Goss’s statement and its reaction to offer some perspective on Israel’s decision to resume “targeted killings,” a practice that has been utilized by the United States in the war against terrorism, been endorsed by the British, but condemned when done by Israel. This practice was put on hold in Israel since a truce was declared in February but resumed after “a spate of attacks on Jewish settlements at the weekend.”
Many in the international community have condemned these killings, or assassinations, or what have you, on the grounds that the violate international law and human rights. In fact, Israel’s decision to rely on targeted killing is the most humane option available.
Let us examine the alternatives. The first, and most obvious alternative would be to do nothing. In the face of intelligence indicating the precise location of a known murderer who will strike again and often, Israel could simply hold its hand, continue with negotiations, and pretend that the PA has any intention of stopping the terrorists. In a Democracy where political leaders are accountable to the people, this is simply not a viable option. It would be as if President Bush had announced after 9/11 that it refused to pursue bin Laden because it was waiting for the moral sanction of the international community to compel the Taliban to turn him over and that bring justice to bin Laden would only enflame the local population.
The second option would be to go and try to arrest the terrorist. This would undoubtedly take a great deal of force, putting in harms way not just the Israeli soldiers sent on this awful mission, but also any civilians who get caught in the struggle. Any attempt to forcefully remove a terrorists would likely require urban warfare, as the soldiers fight street to street trying to locate his (or, sadly, her) whereabouts.
Thirdly, Israel could re-occupy whatever community the terrorist hails from in an effort to prevent any future attacks and keep the community under close watch.
I have a great deal of sympathy for Abbas, as he seems genuinely aware of what will be required for peace but unable to being it about. His decision to engage the terrorists rather than confront them is a matter for him of either political necessary at best, or the same cowardice that marked his predecessor at worst.
In 2004, the United Nations did what has become its hallmark: they met to condemn Israel for taking any action against known murderers (or as the UN treats them as, victims). In response to the obvious hypocrisy, Israel’s UN ambassador Dan Gillerman noted the following in his usual compelling and rational way, and said the following:
“We are engaged in an armed conflict against terrorism of an unparalleled scale, magnitude and brutality. It is no good to affirm in theory Israel's right to defend itself in this conflict, but then in practice seek to deny us the right to specifically target those illegal combatants directly responsible, as well their command and control structure. We do so in a manner that is both necessary and proportionate, and when no other realistic option of detention or prevention exists. In these circumstances, such actions are wholly consistent with international law and we have little doubt that nations similarly faced with such a horrific choice would act accordingly - and indeed have done so, and are doing so, with the support or acquiescence of the international community.”
Of course, he is right. Remember in the beginning of the Iraq war, when 2,000 pounds of bombs on a building in a residential area after intelligence reports said that Saddam Hussein, his sons, and other Iraqi leaders were inside? An editorial in the
Jerusalem Post lamented the double standard by certain members of the international community, which applies one set of moral rules for the US, and the war on terror, and another set of rules for Israel.
In short, Israel’s behavior is perfectly consistent with international norms. It is justified, it is proportional, and it is the most viable means of holding terrorists accountable.
The Newest Horse in the Rebunk Stable
We at Rebunk are happy to introduce our newest (and youngest) blogger, Marc Bacharach, a PhD student in political science at Miami University of Ohio. Although he continues the Ohio pipeline, this is the first appointment based solely on merit and not on a personal connection to me. Basically, we’re classing up the joint.
You all know Marc, you just do not realize that you do. He is, hands down, one of the most thoughtful participants on the comment boards at History News Network. But when we changed to a more open system in which pseudonyms were discouraged, in an effort to prove a point that such a system was flawed, he posted under the name of “Adam Moshe.” He wanted to change back, but the system is a bit tricky, and “Adam Moshe” was working well enough, and since he never flamed anyone, no one knew or cared about his actual identity. All of his past comments have been changed to his actual name. For all of my problems with anaonymous blogging, trust me when I say that I have no qualms about Marc being part of our rollicking band of fun.
I asked him for a little bit of autobiographical background, and here is what I got
I was born in the big city to wealthy parents, whose deaths I spend my life trying to avenge. Once, in a prison in Asia… oh wait, that was Batman (great movie by the way).Actually, I was born in Philadelphia, and then attended York College of Pennsylvania, where I studied Political Science and History, and also met my wife, Nicole. I went to Miami University for graduate school, where I am now, and am currently working on my Ph.D. in Political Science. My occupations have included being a waiter, a cell phone salesman, a jewelry salesman, a portrait studio photographer, and a Sunday school teacher at a local synagogue.
Please welcome him aboard.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Come Fill Your Glasses Up, To Williams! To Williams! To Williams!
Only one school has ever been ranked #1 in both the US News & World Report top colleges list and in the Director's Cup (formerly Sear's Trophy) competition for overall athletic excellence. That school was Williams College, which accomplished the feat in 2004. Well, guess what school just repeated that double? GO EPHS!!!
Barack Obama and the New American Liberalism
The art of political speechwriting has seemed dead for so long that it is our automatic instinct to be skeptical when it seems to have arisen from its crypt. So it is especially welcome to see that Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois who went to Washington to such great acclaim, may have revived it. On June 4, at Knox College’s graduation in Obama’s home state, he gave a wonderful address that managed somehow to evoke three of the finest political speakers in the last twenty years: Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Mario Cuomo. This is the sort of writing and speaking and thinking that might just be able to wake liberalism from is somnolence. (For the take of former Clinton speechwriter David Kusnet in The New Republic, see here.)
Obama explored themes that should be part of a new liberal century: A belief in America’s inherent greatness coupled with an awareness of our shortcomings; a belief that people and government can work together to improve all of our lives; a sense of shared burdens, rights, and responsibilities; a sense of the past linked with the present. But it was also a speech characterized by: a lack of vitriol and recrimination; an overarching sense of hope; an inspiration driven by a shared sense of what we are as Americans; humility, humor, and self-deprecation. It is far too early to label this young man with greatness; too many prematurely anointed such people have disappointed us profoundly. Nonetheless, if Barack Obama represents the future of liberalism, we will be in good hands.
A Gulag By Any Other Name . . .
OK, let's test the hypocricy guage: Paul Jacob, a Senior Fellow at a Townhall.com member group, Americans for Limited Government, and regular on talk radio, has written a piece (dated June 19, 2005) about Canadian healthcare in which the words “communism,” “Gulag,” and “totalitarian” feature prominently. “Gulag” even appears in the headline, so obviously this is more than just the sin of Jacobs, given that editors obviously ok’ed and more than likely titled this. And there is no doubt as to meaning here – unlike Durbin’s comments, about which reasonable people (and even unreasonable ones) have had honest disagreements. There is no gray area in this case. I trust that Townhall and its member affiliates will act accordingly. Oh, wait, no I don’t. (Mouseclick to Andrew Sullivan, who in turn credits Micheal Demmons, who in turn credits henry . . .)
Style Over Substance
Am I missing something, or is there almost no substance to this piece in today's New York Times? What is the point? Al Gore is a hell of a guy? That may well be. Many Muslims feel ostracized? I think we need more than that to give the precious space for an op-ed piece in the Times. Or is the lesson that if someone at the Kennedy School runs into the former VP and Democratic nominee at the health club, and can spin it into a homily, they can get their big break? That, alas, seems closer to the mark.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Because Other People Talk Funny . . .
For some reason, I find this endlessly amusing. It changes any webpage into any of several dialects -- Cockney, Elmer Fudd, Redneck, Jive, Swedish Chef, Moron, Pig Latin, and Hacker. Someone on the web did this to Rebunk today, and I found out about it and checked it out. Rebunk should be set as the default so that you can see your favorite blog commentary translated! Endlessly entertaining.
"Duke" Cunningham and a New Low
We may have reached a new low. While the right excoriates Dick Durbin for, er, apparently for opposing torture, this one managed to slip under their delicately tuned critical compass: Here is California Republican Randy "Duke" Cunningham's justification for passing the nonsense known as the Flag Burning Amendment: "Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment." Out of craven political opportunism, this man is claiming to be able to divine the political stances of the victims of 9-11. (Tip of the mouse to Andrew Sullivan.)
But here is what gets me about the Flag Burning Amendment: It is being supported by the same types who argued that the Koran is "just a book," as if that somehow justified doing damage to a book that is nonetheless freighted with tremendous symbolic value. It is also more than a bit telling that people who constantly whine (wrongly most of the time) about supposedly liberal judges "legislating through the courts" want to take the foundational document of our republic and pass legislation in the form of an amendment. Galling. Just galling. It is actually these people who hate the United States and all of the values that we try to represent.
The Word is Quotation
A new debate, similar to the last one:
AFI's 100 YEARS...100 MOVIE QUOTES.
Number one is "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn," from Gone With the Wind. I think "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse" is better.
Notable exclusions (to be expanded in comments):
Happy Gilmore: "The price is wrong, Bitch."
Southpark: "Blame Canada," or any number of things too profane to print here.
Big Lebowski: Anything John Goodman utters, for example, "Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it was an ethos."
Braveheart: "Every man dies, not every man truly lives," or "Freedom!"
Amistad: "Give us us free," or the historian's favorite, "We are who we were."
Saving Private Ryan: "Earn this."
The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring: "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."
The Full "Spin Top 100 Since 1985" List
100. The Strokes - Is This It
99. Afghan Whigs - Gentlemen
98. Cornershop - When I Was Born For The 7th Time
97. Neutral Milk Hotel - In The Aeroplane Over The Sea
96. The Pogues - Rum, Sodomy, and The Lash
95. Elastica - Elastica
94. Slint - Spiderland
93. Pearl Jam - Ten
92. Big Black - Atomizer
91. XTC - Skylarking
90. Sonic Youth - Sister
89. Yeah Yeah Yeahs - Fever To Tell
88. Stereolab - Emperor Tomato Ketchup
87. Blur - Parklife
86. Meat Puppets - Up On The Sun
85. REM - Automatic For The People
84. Soundgarden - Superunknown
83. At The Drive In - Relationship Of Command
82. Jeff Buckley - Grace
81. Beck - Mellow Gold
80. D'Angelo - Voodoo
79. Moby - Everything Is Wrong
78. The Stone Roses - The Stone Roses
77. Wilco - Yankee Foxtrot Hotel
76. Belle and Sabastian - If Youre Feeling Sinister
75. Le Tigre - Le Tigre
74. Portishead - Dummy
73. Pulp - Different Class
72. Raekwon - Only Built 4 Cuban Linx
71. The Jesus And Mary Chain - Psychocandy
70. Jay-Z - The Blueprint
69. DJ Shadow - Entroducing DJ Shadow
68. Tricky - Maxiquaye
67. Slayer - Reign In Blood
66. Outkast - Aquamini
65. Basement Jaxx - Remedy
64. Eminem - The Marshall Mathers LP
63. Pavement - Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain
62. Missy Elliott - Supa Dupa Fly
61. Weezer - Pinkerton
60. De La Soul - De La Soul Is Dead
59. Modest Mouse - The Lonesome Crowded West
58. Metallica - Master of Puppets
57. The White Stripes - White Blood Cells
56. PJ Harvey - To Bring You My Love
55. The Chemical Brothers - Dig Your Own Hole
54. The Breeders - Last Splash
53. Rage Against The Machine - The Battle Of Los Angeles
52. Beastie Boys - Licensed To Ill
51. Nirvana - In Utero
50. New Order - Low-Life
49. Lauryn Hill - The Miseducation Of Lauryn Hill
48. Radiohead - Kid A
47. Eric B & Rakim - Paid In Full
46. The Fall - This Nations Saving Grace
45. Kanye West - College Dropout
44. Green Day - Dookie
43. Boogie Down Productions - Criminal Minded
42. Jane's Addiction - Nothing's Shocking
41. Smashing Pumpkins - Siamese Dream
40. Run DMC - Rasing Hell
39. Lucinda Williams - Lucinda Williams
38. A Tribe Called Quest - The Low End Theory
37. Guided By Voices - Bee Thousand
36. Pixies - Doolittle
35. Dr Dre - The Chronic
34. Elliot Smith - Either/Or
33. Ice Cube - AmeriKKKa's Most Wanted
32. The Replacements - Tim
31. Dinosaur Jr. - You're Living All Over Me
30. The Notorious BIG - Ready To Die
29. Fugazi - 13 Songs
28. Oasis - Definitely Maybe
27. The Cure - The Head On The Door
26. Bjork - Post
25. Nine Inch Nails - The Downward Spiral
24. Sleater-Kinney - Dig Me Out
23. Outkast - Stankonia
22. My Bloody Valentine - Loveless
21. Public Enemy - Fear Of A Black Planet
20. Wu Tang Clan - Enter The Wu Tang 36 Chambers
19. Hole - Live Through This
18. Guns and Roses - Appetite For Destruction
17. Nas - Illmatic
16. Beck - Odelay
15. Liz Phair - Exile In Guyville
14. Sonic Youth - Daydream Nation
13. Husker Du - New Day Rising
12. Beastie Boys - Pauls Boutique
11. U2 - Achtung Baby
10. NWA - Straight Outta Compton
9. PJ Harvey - Rid Of Me
8. Prince - Sign O The Times
7. De La Soul - 3 Feet High And Rising
6. Pixies - Sufer Rosa
5. The Smiths - The Queen Is Dead
4. Pavement - Slanted and Enchanted
3. Nirvana - Nevermind
2. Public Enemy - It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back
1. Radiohead - OK Computer
OK -- now discuss -- what's missing? What does not belong? What (artist, genre, era, demographic) is over-represented? Under-represented? Obviously Steve deserves props for this one first and foremost for bringing this up to begin with.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Manslaughter for Killen
Edgar Ray Killen has been found guilty of manslaughter in Mississippi. The jury rejected murder charges, but each of the three counts carries with it a twenty year sentence.
Listmania
Spin's top 10 records since 1985:
1. Radiohead "OK Computer"
2. Public Enemy "It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back"
3. Nirvana "Nevermind"
4. Pavement "Slanted and Enchanted"
5. The Smiths "The Queen Is Dead"
6. Pixies "Surfer Rosa"
7. De La Soul "3 Feet High and Rising"
8. Prince "Sign o' the Times"
9. PJ Harvey "Rid of Me"
10. N.W.A. "Straight Outta Compton "
Discuss.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Race and Reminders
A confluence of events has placed the Civil Rights Movement (and, perhaps of equal importance, those who opposed it) squarely in the news cycle. Each of them reminds us how the past and present are inextricably intertwined.
Probably the most prominent story involves the trial of Edgar Ray Killen, who is being tried for his alleged part in the murders of James Chaney, Mickey Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman during Freedom Summer in 1964. For the most part the trial is symbolic as much as anything – Killen is 80, he was not the triggerman, and few seriously believe that the main motivating factor is either vengeance or the chance to rehabilitate “Preacher Ray.”
One unexpected element of the story involves what appears to be the small town of Philadelphia’s opportunity finally to, in the words of the Boston Globe, “Forge a hopeful future from” its “racist past.” Neshoba county’s reputation among civil rights workers was legendary. Several years after the killings (represented, in a rather ham-handed way, in the movie “Mississippi Burning”) Martin Luther King Jr. visited and came away calling Philadelphia the worst town he had ever seen in terms of racism. Given King’s experiences, that is a striking assertion. Philadelphia was in the news again in 1980 when Ronald Reagan chose, naively, stupidly, callously, to give his first major campaign speech (devoted to State’s Rights, natch) in Philadelphia at the behest of young Mississippi Congressman Trent Lott. In 1989, when then-Mississippi Secretary of State Dick Molpus apologized to the families of the three young men, the backlash proved harmful to his career. Perhaps this will be the opportunity for Philadelphia to remove this blot from its escutcheon.
But let us not be too hasty in cheering all Mississippians for going gently into that good night of racial tolerance. When the Senate gathered recently to apologize for its failure to enact lynching legislation throughout the 20th century, a symbolic but powerful move, Trent Lott and Thad Cochran, the state’s two Senators, were nowhere to be seen. No one was shocked by Lott’s lack of support for the legislation. The former Ole Miss cheerleader who opposed James Meredith’s entry into his university, who changed political parties almost solely over the issue of civil rights, and who believed in 2002 (and presumably still does) that the Dixiecrats ought to have won the 1948 presidential election was not likely to take a stand for anything with even a whiff of a civil rights imprimatur. But Cochran's ommission came as more of a surprise. When asked about his lack of support for the feel-good resolution, Cochran’s response was terse: “I’m not in the business of apologizing for what someone else did or didn’t do,” he told Washington Post columnist William Raspberry (who responded with this piece). Problem is, (well, there are many problems with this fatuous answer, but time is a factor here) that as Raspberry reveals, on two separate occassions Cochran’s name managed to make it on to the co-sponsorship of apologies to Native Americans and Japanese Americans. Apparently Cochran simply is not in the business of apologizing to black folks who suffered worse in his home state than anywhere else.
Meanwhile, Senator Robert Byrd has come out with a bulky memoir in which he still is unable fully to confront honestly his past ties with the Ku Klux Klan. Eric Pianin in yesterday’s Washington Post puts the Senator’s feet to the fire. Oddly, unlike, say, Trent Lott (or even Ronald Reagan, to be honest), Senator Byrd’s record on race since the Civil Rights Movement is better than anyone could have expected from the man who shamefully filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 14 hours. Since 1980 it has been rather good (he consistently receives 80% or thereabouts favorable ratings from the NAACP; Lott usually weighs in at about 10%). But his rhetoric has been wretched (who can forget Byrd’s inane, baffling, and offensive-to-all tirade against “white n------” a few years back?). His disingenuousness on the realities of his involvement in the Klan is a further problem for him. That involvement went on far longer than it ought to have, but it also ended before, say, the rise of the Dixiecrat Party from which Trent Lott today thinks Americans would have benefited. And Byrd's Klan past is not a secret. There is no plausible denial. Byrd had a chance with this memoir (which will appear today from West Virginia University Press) to address his personal history honestly. Instead, he seems to have tried the same old obfuscation and half-hearted apologia in lieu of staring uncomfortable truths square in the face.
Finally, on HNN’s main page, the University of Delaware’s Gary May writes about his own investigations into the parts played by the FBI and the KKK in the 1965 Klan murder of Viola Liuzzo in Alabama. The central figure in this tale is Gary Thomas Rowe, someone whose activities I have come to know well, as he played a vital and seamy role as an FBI informant while a member of the KKK during the Freedom Rides and in the years after. May’s new book, The Informant: The FBI, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Murder of Viola Liuzzo, not only will be a must-read for Civil Rights historians, but also for those interested in the inner workings of government organizations that often tie themselves to bad guys in order allagedly to hunt down worse guys. May goes even further, though, in connecting his explorations to the role of informers in our global war against terrorists today.
Race is still with us. Incidents such as these will continue to reemerge. Sometimes when they do, they will bring about healing. Other times they will open old sores. And often they will simply serve to pick at scabs that serve as ugly, painful, festering reminders of self-inflicted wounds from our past.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Get Overcharged, I Would!
It is a Sunday evening here in Oxford, and I half decided, after walking around a bit on a hot and muggy evening, to go to see a movie. I have not yet seen Star Wars Episode III: Back For More Cash, and I figured tonight would be a good time to do so.
So I go up to the counter to see if I could get an early ticket (and maybe a convenient, and possibly air conditioned, seat to read the Sunday Times). I could. If I had been willing to pay £13.50. That's right -- basically the equivalent of $25. It is my understanding that they go with supply and demand prices here in Britain, by which I mean they charge more for popular movies, less for less popular ones. But £13.50 is just a bit usurious. Unless Yoda is refilling my popcorn, serving me peeled grapes and fanning me with palm fronds, I think I'll wait and see it on dvd in the States.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Jeb Bush: Scumbag
So let me get this straight: The Schiavo case comes to a merciful end. Then, weeks later, after the autopsy results are announced, it is made quite clear that there was no way for her to have ever awoken from that coma. She was dead. Now Jeb Bush wants to launch an investigation to “clear up discrepancies” in Michael Schiavo’s testimony about the precise time lag between when he found his wife and when he called 911 on what must have been the worst year of Schiavo’s life fifteen years ago? Wow.
An editorial in today’s New York Times understates substantially when it calls this situation “heartbreaking.” It is far worse than that. “Loathsome” springs to mind. What kind of Governor, what kind of person, takes vengeance for a political defeat on someone who has gone through what Mr. Schiavo has?
Jeb Bush is a scumbag. There. I said it.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Survey on Political Memory
A group of students at Leipzig University in Germany are conducting an online survey concerned with questions of political events in individual and collective memory.
They are asking respondents to fill out a survey that can be found here. On the first page you will need to choose the language in which you would prefer to do the survey. From there it is easy and takes little time.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
First Impressions
Here are some scattered first impressions after a couple of days in Oxford:
The Rothermere American Institute is going to be a great place to work for the next couple of months. The centerpiece of the RAI is the Vere Harmsworth Library, which has a growing collection of useful materials on the United States. The building itself, dedicated by Bill Clinton in May 2001, is a gleaming, glass-encased edifice that does not fit my conception of Oxford University. But Oxford is actually something of an architectural mishmash, with plenty of new buildings erected next to the centuries-old ones. The RAI fits into its immediate environs in any case, as the much larger chemistry building next door is similarly modern in its form and function. The people here have generally been great and helpful and supportive. Most fellows come in during the regular year, so I get the sense that I am a bit of an anomaly, and they are going to great lengths to facilitate my presence.
It took a couple of days to get me straightened out with regard to my computer and all that, but today I am off and running. I wrote a book review and am getting squared away to spend serious work on a manuscript on civil rights. I do not mean to be oblique about this project, but much like the Freedom Ride dissertation-turned-manuscript, this one has a senior historian working on the topic. In this case, however, this particular senior historian has shown a tendency to make people’s lives miserable (I’m pretty certain he nailed me once already in an anonymous, but ruthless, way), especially wee junior ones like myself. If that is going to happen, I’d as soon have it come after I have a book contract, not before. In any case, I hope to get into a rhythm pretty soon, as in, tomorrow. My goal is to have a completed manuscript by the end of the summer.
The city itself is big in a sprawled out, that might be a long way to walk, kind of way. Each evening I will go out and try to walk and find a place to eat dinner and read and then find a coffee shop or bookstore or what have you. Oh, and I recall that there is something called “pubs” here in England as well.
One thing I do not expect to see or here is a lot of anti-Americanism. It has long been my experience that some Americans like to overstate how much the rest of the world hates us. I think that elides the real issue, which is that many people have no difficulty liking Americans but taking issue with American policy. I am sure that such criticisms will be even more prominent at Oxford. That said, there are so damned many Americans here (which, selfishly and a bit hypocritically, I always hate when I spend a significant amount of time abroad) that it would be hard to take seriously that Oxfordians are anti-American.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Richard Holmes, Talking Head?
In yet another sign that Rebunkers know everything, Our Boy, Richard Holmes, is cited in Court TV's "Fifteen Most Memorable Movie Lawyers." His moment in the sun comes at # 9. Very, very cool.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Tagged
Getting Tagged
John Moser at No Left Turns has “tagged” me with some hard-hitting questions. I have been out of town (still out of town—I am writing this in a coffee shop in Athens, OH) so I haven’t been able to respond. Due to the wonders of the internet I have been able to get most of the needed information by looking at my purchase history at Amazon.com.
Here goes:
1. How many books do I own?
Hard to know. I have a couple thousand books that never made the move to Ohio or Colorado and reside in boxes at my dad’s house. I probably have about 500 at home at around 700 in my office.
2. What’s the last book I bought?
According to Amazon.com I went on a book-buying binge on March 28 and purchased:
The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made by Walter Issacson and Evan Thomas
Kennedy Versus Lodge: The 1952 Massachusetts Senate Race by Thomas J. Whalen
Press Gallery: Congress and the Washington Correspondents by Donald A. Ritchie
Watergate: The Presidential Scandal That Shook America by Keith W. Olson
The Vietnam War Files: Uncovering the Secret History of Nixon Era Strategy (Modern War Studies) by Jeffrey Kimball
Nixon’s Civil Rights: Politics, Principle, and Policy by Dean Kotlowski
3. What’s the last book I read?
--Press Gallery by Donald Ritchie. I had been waiting for that book to come out and couldn’t wait to get my hands on it. Ritchie didn’t disappoint me either.
4. What are the five books that mean the most to me?
This is the toughest question. Some of the books are obvious.
Alonzo Hamby’s Man of the People is the book that made me want to move to Ohio and study under the man. I got a Ph.D., met my wife and changed the course of my life because of Hamby. He remains the single most important intellectual influence in my life. I could easily add Chester Pach’s and Charles Alexander’s Eisenhower books for the same reason. I met my wife in Pach’s class and Alexander is one of the greatest men I have ever known. He used to overpay me to clean the rain gutters at his house and his wife is and was wonderful to my wife and me. But this is supposed to be about books.
This next one might not be too hip a choice in certain circles but Stephen Ambrose’s two-volume biography of Eisenhower is the book that got me thinking about the subjects I still work on. I would be lying if I denied its influence on me.
Isaiah Berlin’s The Proper Study of Mankind is probably the book that most influenced my ideas about relativism, truth, totalitarianism—you name it.
Edmund Morgan’s American Slavery, American Freedom is just about the most perfect history book ever written.
I read Victor Davis Hanson’s The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece in his class and have admired him and his work since then..
Monday, June 13, 2005
Good News for People Who Like Good News
Rebunk has been slow lately, and for good reason. The three original Rebunkers just congragated in Athens for Ohio University's graduation. On Friday Steve walked (after having officially received his PhD in August, 2004) as did Tom, who at that time received his PhD.
This seems as good a time as any to share some good news on the Rebunk front.
The most important news comes from Tom. In addition to receiving his degree (at only 28 years of age -- overachiever) Tom has received some great and much-deserved tidings of late. He will be moving to the Washington, DC area. He has received and accepted an offer to be a historian at the Center for Military History. He starts in mid-July and will be moving from Athens in three weeks. this carries with it some sadness for all of us, of course, as it is clear that the likelihood of us returning to southeastern Ohio any time soon has just been reduced substantially. On the plus side, Tom will be able to feed his family, which includes a new addition due on Thanksgiving Day.
Stephen is thriving in Greeley, where he will continue to teach at the University of Northern Colorado after rave reviews following his first year. His lovely wife Erica is settling into a job that closely fits her own strengths and interests, and the two are still happy newliweds. Steve has for the time being set aside his dissertation-turned-manuscript on pundits and the presidency to focus on a book project on the 1970s. If all goes well, that will be under contract by the end of the year.
Richard could not join us in Ohio. He is taking a bit of time right now to figure out the next step in his career. Last I heard from him he was sitting on the beach. Not a bad way to kill time while waiting for the next opportunity to strike.
And on my end things are well. In a few hours I will be flying to England where I will be spending the summer as a fellow at the Rothermere American Institute at Oxford University. My goal is to finish off an edited collection that I am doing with a graduate school colleague, to polish off a second book, which should be my first post-dissertation monograph, and to write a chapter of a book on terrorism. Meanwhile I received a very favorable reader's report on my Freedom Rides manuscript and so that might actually appear before too long. We'll see. And to top it all off, the Red Sox Diary might just have life with a publisher after all, though I am not holding my breath.
So things are great at Rebunk, but that explains why we have been silent for most of the last couple of weeks. There is talk of a reunion at the Southern in Atlanta this year. We'll invite you all to come if it happens, but what goes on in Atlanta stays in Atlanta, and mistakes might be made.
When next you hear from me, it will be from England. But congratulate Steve and Tom. They deserve it. Do watch where you step if you find yourself behind Tom's garage, though.
Monday, June 6, 2005
Rebunk Reviews
Following my review of Cinderella Man, here are some recommendations for pop culture you should, you must, consume. In keeping with Rebunk traditions that Tom and I in particular have embraced and made our own, some of these are not especially new, although just to keep you on your toes, a few are.
Books:
Last fall when I was over in England I almost picked up a copy of Mark Haddon’s the curious incident of the dog in the night-time. Waterstone's, the UK's equivalent to Barnes & Noble, was having one of its pretty regular three books for 15 pounds sort of deals, and in a last minute decision I passed over Haddon’s book in order to grab a couple of other things that caught my eye. I know now that I made a big mistake, but I have recently rectified it. This wonderful little book tells the tale of (presumably) autistic Christopher John Francis Boone and his attempt to solve a mystery of a dog that turned up dead in his neighborhood. Haddon tells a remarkable, empathetic, clever, funny story. Boone is a character who will stick with you. The story reminded me most of another wonderful book from the last couple of years, DBC Pierre’s Vernon God Little, which presents a title character reminiscent of Holden Caufield, but in a post-Columbine world. Buy them both. They will make your weekend.
CDs:
I have been on a serious cd buying spree in the last few months. Books and cds are my two main consumer passions. Indeed, these two pleasures pretty much justify my support for capitalism. Any socialist with great bookshelves and cd racks (and any person worth their salt possesses and fills both in the plural forms) is a poseur and a hypocrite. And probably is a Phish fan as well, but I suppose that is redundant. In any case, here are some of the many new cds filling my earhole of late, with brief capsule reviews:
Eels: Blinking Lights and Other Revelations -- Super ambitious two-cd album. As with most of its ilk (see Ryan Adams, below, and Guided By Voices) sometimes less could be more, but these discs represent a concept album, I think, and a hell of an accomplishment in any case.
Kevin Devine: Make the Clocks Move Sublime pop with an opening song, “Ballgame,” that makes you ache for the lead singer. Redolent of Elliot Smith.
Kings of Leon: Two albums:Aha, Shake, Heartbreak; Youth & Young Manhood - If you do not like these guys, you do not like rock & roll. The first song on Youth, “Red Morning Light,” might be the greatest rock song ever. And it has prominent cowbell.
Oasis: Don’t Believe the Truth - Not as good as their two mid-90s stunners, Definitely Maybe and What’s The Story Morning Glory?, better than most of the dross they have produced since, this album will have the British music press going ga ga. And since I’ll be over in England for the summer, I find that strangely enjoyable.
Pinback: Summer in Abaddon Almost indescribably good. These guys are hard to describe. Just get the album.
Sleater Kinney: The Woods A bit of a changeup from one of my three favorite new bands of the last ten years (alongside Kings of Leon and Whiskeytown), this album evokes classic hard rock while still staying true to the Olympia-based threesomes you-go-punk-grrl roots.
Ryan Adams and the Cardinals: Cold Roses Ryan Adams is so disturbingly talented and prolific (this two disc set will be followed by another two-discer in a couple of months, and the rumor is that 2005 will see yet another album from the genius behind the aforementioned Whiskeytown) it is frightening. Adams is a bit more polished, but reminds me of Guided By Voices in one crucial factor – he is too prolific for his own good. Cold Roses would be far stronger were it just one disc, but as with everything he has ever done, parts of it are transcendent. Unfortunately by all accounts he is one of the biggest pricks on the planet. Oh well – trust the art and not the artist.
The ICC and Darfur
The International Criminal Court is launching a formal investigation into the crisis in Darfur. (Link courtesy of reader Chris Pettit).
I have no aversion to this. My problems with the ICC reside in its makeup and its politicized nature, but with the Security Council providing its support, and with the dire need to do something, this would seem to be a logical place for ICC action. The question, of course, becomes efficacy after they find something. Genocidaires tend not to respect the rule of law, international or otherwise. That is why they are genocidaires. This stems back to one of my main skepticisms about the court – what sort of enforcement mechanism does it have? If this proves fruitful, I am all for it. I am just not certain that it will. Courts rule with the consent of the governed. When that consent is not present, more coercive measures are almost always necessary. I do not see the Sudanese leadership and their janjaweed henchmen paying much heed to whatever the ICC does. I sincerely hope that they do.
Sunday, June 5, 2005
Cinderella Man
Go see Cinderella Man. It matches the hype. Ron Howard’s true-life tale of Depression-era boxer James Braddock hits its marks nearly flawlessly. Russell Crowe solidifies himself as one of the truly great actors of our time as he gives emotional heft to the role of a down-on-his-luck heavyweight who through a series of coincidences and his own effort manages to gain a shot at the heavyweight championship against the seemingly indomitable Max Baer (perhaps best seen as his generation’s Sonny Liston or Mike Tyson, a seemingly indomitable fighter who had never been seriously challenged, and who was as much schoolyard bully as impenetrable force). In keeping with the title of the film (Spoiler alert! Although in fairness, no more so than giving away the ending of any historically-based movie) Braddock won in a slugfest, taking a heavyweight championship that he would hold for two years, until Joe Louis wrote his own fairybook tale.
Crowe is wonderful, and Renee Zellweger, who with each passing year looks more and more like one of those apple dolls we used to make every fall in New England, except maybe she’s a bit cuter, grows into her role as Braddock’s loving and concerned wife. (Some of her lines seem stolen from the Adrian Balboa school of concerned spouses). Paul Giamatti continues his run of excellence as Crowe’s manager. He is just oily enough to carry the part but just human enough to be likeable. Craig Bierko is the wonderfully unlikeable Max Baer.
The area of the film of most significance to historians (other than the boxing aspects) is the depiction of the Depression. Howard manages to present an era that is grim, but also human. Americans survived in the 1930s, and it seems to me that the easiest thing to do as a filmmaker (or writer for that matter) is to make the era so unremittingly, indeed cartoonishly, wretched that it almost defies credibility. The Depression tableaux rang true for me. I’ll be curious to know what our readers think.
One of my favorite sportswriters, ESPN’s Sportsguy, Bill Simmons (formally Boston Sports Guy, for those of you who do not know) probably wrote the least positive review I have read of Cinderella Man. (He still gave it a “B,” by the way, which says something about how good this film is). His criticisms were of the boxing scenes. As he writes:
Here was the problem: The boxing scenes. They're a mess. They're confusing. They're not that entertaining to watch. Eventually, you end up more frustrated than anything. Wait, who's getting hit? Is that Russell Crowe? Why are they showing his legs? Cool, a wide shot, now I can see ... whoops, back to somebody's torso again. Who just got punched? I can't see ... is someone bleeding? Why's the crowd cheering? Why do they keep freezing the film as someone lands a punch? Wait, whose shoulder is that? Why are we looking at the crowd again? On and on it goes. These fights made me so dizzy, I started hoping for quick knockouts so we could be treated to more of the Great Depression.Was Crowe realistic as a boxer? After two-plus hours, I still couldn't tell you. He looks like a '30s boxer, right down to the natural muscle tone and the thick trunk below his chest, and he held his hands the right way and seemed to be snapping punches. Other than that, your guess is as good as mine. Because director Ron Howard edited everything briskly, avoided wide shots and filmed everything tighter than Fox's dugout close-ups during the baseball playoffs – seriously, when has that ever worked in a sports movie??? – you can't get a feel for the little stuff like "Wow, Crowe has great footwork!" and "Holy crap, he actually took that punch right in the jaw!" Isn't that one of the enjoyable subplots in any boxing movie?
While I take his point, my impression is somewhat different, and I certainly think Simmons overstates his case. Howard’s purpose in the boxing scenes clearly was to show the chaotic experience that boxers have in the ring. The vertiginous nature of it made the fight scenes harrowing. Yes, at times it got to be too much. Yes, at times I wish he had done more toe-to-toe Rocky-esque slugfests, but I was not as disturbed as Simmons, and furthermore, I do not think that a sports movie makes or breaks on its sports scenes unless those scenes are wretched. Do I know if Russell Crowe is a decent boxer? No. But I have a sense for what James Braddock might have experienced against a bigger, stronger, more menacing fighter. Howard did not show me what the fight was like to watch. He gave as us close to a sense of what it might have been like to be in the ring. Anyone who has ever been in a fight knows that it is a chaotic experience. One can only imagine how that multiplies if the guy trying to deck you is both sober and the heavyweight champion of the world and he just popped you with a hard overhand right.
The movie is not perfect. Historically, Ron Howard tends to ooze treacle, and so the big concern was that he would overdo what was already a compelling story – that he would overdirect to the point of being manipulative. On the whole, he manages to keep a lid on this trait. But there are a few points when he cannot help himself. These moments almost universally involve various forms of flashbacks or dreamscapes peppered throughout the film. The most saccharine is when Braddock is fighting, taking some serious blows, and then he suddenly sees gauzy views of his family. Call this the “Contender” approach to directing. The point is to show WHY HE FIGHTS. And the answer, which should not have eluded anyone who has up to this point watched the movie, is that HE FIGHTS FOR HIS FAMILY. But as a testiment to his directorial skill (and the luminous acting) Howard has made this clear. The flashbacks and dreamscapes are just superfluous and distracting.
Those qualms aside, Cinderella Man is the best movie I have seen in some time. It is the first bona fide Oscar contender of the year, and it will probably receive a dozen or more nominations. It deserves it.
Saturday, June 4, 2005
American History and the World
New York Times Book review editor Barry Gewen’s “Forget the Founding Fathers” is an absolute must-read, and not just because it lauds my mentor Alonzo Hamby’s eminently laudable For the Survival of Democracy.
I am inclined to be sympathetic to an essay espousing an international context for American history – broadly writ, my work is on race, politics, and social movements in the United States and Africa, with interests in global terrorism (an interest that itself stems from my American and Southern African work) and sports (because sports are awesome). But I’d like to believe that I endorse many of Gewen’s arguments because they reflect ideas I have long had. One of the most exciting trends, for example, in American and African history is one that is not really diplomatic history, and it not comparative, per se, but rather addresses what can best be called “transnational history.” Some of the best works by Thomas Borstelmann and Mary Dudziak and Francis Njubi Nesbitt and James Meriwether and Brenda Gayle Plummer and Penny von Eschen and Lewis Baldwin (with whom I am engaged in a spirited exchange in the wonderful Safundi: The Journal of South African and American Comparative Studies-- the latest installment can be found here) and others too numerous to mention take this tack. These authors explore connections and linkages between societies and cultures, such as the impact of the Cold War on the Civil Rights Movement, the role of African Americans in the anti-apartheid struggle, and the interrelations between Africans and American blacks. Combine this with the explicitly comparative work of the incomparable George Frederickson, and suddenly we have a new trend in the historical profession that is worth embracing, unlike much of the faddish, naval-gazing obscurantism that has passed for recent historiographical eruptions.
Gewen’s essay is wide-ranging, but it has a central focus on the internationalization of that seemingly most American of subfields: The Founding Generation. The essay goes in unexpected directions and really speaks to trends that more historians are likely to pursue in the years to come.
Friday, June 3, 2005
U2 vs. The Old Course
Which would Rebunk readers rather do, given a choice between the following?:
1) Seeing U2 in Europe and possibly in the UK or Ireland
or
2.) Attending the British Open at the Old Course at St. Andrews
This is not entirely a moot exercise.
Thursday, June 2, 2005
Mbeki's Silence as Mugabe Roars
Back in March I wrote about Robert Mugabe and what were then the pending elections in Zimbabwe (here and here). The gist of my argument, especially in the first piece, was that whatever appearances Mugabe was making of being kinder, gentler and more tolerant of dissent were probably chimerical, intended for an outside audience to ingest and to give the elections that he knew he would win one way or another the imprimatur of legitimacy.
I wrote then:
(Regarding the outlook for the elections) On the surface, things seem positive. Mugabe has pulled back his dogs, ordering his barely-controlled young brigands to keep their hands in their pockets for the upcoming parliamentary elections. Pre-election violence is down. Both the cities and the countryside seem relatively placid.Unfortunately, my skepticism was warranted. According to today’s Times,Is Mugabe softening? Is the last of southern Africa’s Big Men feeling the effects of the Mandela-ization of the region, albeit belatedly? Perhaps. But color me skeptical. As with his predecessors on the continent – Mobutu Sese Seku and Charles Taylor and Daniel arap Moi and Laurent Kabila (and the list runs on depressingly) – Mugabe knows when to bet and when to bluff. He realizes that with each passing election cycle he is closer to his last, and that thus maneuvering himself to win this campaign will suffice to maintain his power. Mugabe realizes that Condi Rice is watching and that Tony Blair will not cease with his noisome criticisms. In such a context, Mugabe realizes that it is wise to soften, to give in where he can in order to continue to rule. He knows that once the election is over with, he will have virtually free reign to operate however he wants to whitewash his sins and promote his legacy and exact his punishments.
Facing rising unrest over a collapsing economy, Zimbabwe's authoritarian government has apparently adopted a scorched-earth policy toward potential enemies, detaining thousands of people, burning homes and street kiosks and routing large numbers of people from makeshift homes in major cities.And so it goes. Zimbabwe’s crisis is a bad one, destined to get worse, all for the sake of the ego of a doddering old man besotted with power. And the only plausible solution is for Thabo Mbeki or someone in South Africa with the spine, the bully pulpit, and the wherewithal to speak forcefully and show the resolve to back words with action. The United States is not equipped to do so – hell, we won’t even take serious steps to stop genocide in Africa, never mind intervene in what merely qualifies as cruel and draconian dictatorship – and given its past, it is incredibly tough for England to be regarded as an honest broker in the region, even if Tony Blair has been one of the most forthright critics of Zimbabwe's nightmarish regime. But the African National Congress would not have to put up with any of Mugabe’s knee-jerk allegations of colonialism. Thabo Mbeki does not need lectures from Mugabe on struggle against tyranny. It is increasingly clear, however, that Mugabe does need such lectures. Mbeki’s silence is deafening.
Wednesday, June 1, 2005
Not Much Interested in Deep Throat?
I’m not convinced about W. Mark Felt as Deep throat. I believe that he was a confidential source for Woodward and Bernstein. I believe that he thinks that he was Deep Throat. I imagine that the Post. believes it. But I am not convinced that we've heard the last of this story. And I am not at all surprised to find out that Joan Hoff is not convinced either.
When Professor Hoff was at Ohio University I took a graduate seminar from her that focused solely on Watergate. Hoff is a bit of a contararian and has been skeptical of just about everything that passes for common wisdom on Watergate. In the class we traced the history of the event and did as much investigation as was possible from Athens, Ohio. Obviously as a huge part of that work, we looked into Deep Throat. And I have never forgotten Professor Hoff talking about something that astounded me, and which she mentions in her article: The proposal for All the President’s Men apparently had no mention of Deep Throat, or of any one mysterious interloper who filled in the missing pieces as the story progressed. Their agent asked some questions. Lightbulbs went on. Suddenly and coincidentally the two intrepid reporters either found or remembered Hal Holbrooke standing hidden by shadows in parking garages.
Hoff admits that we do not know the chronology of Deep Throat’s emergence, but it would not surprise me if he (or she) is not yet either a figment of their imaginations or, as has long been suspected, a composite. I would guess that this story will play out further in the weeks to come. Apparently Woodward and Bernstein are fessing up. I remain unconvinced. At some point someone else is going to come forward and say, “Wait a minute, I gave some information on the down low as well. Where is my fifteen minutes?” And on top of this, there are many figures for whom being seen as Deep throat would be catastrophic. Perhaps upon their deaths we’ll find out that they too provided information attributed to the character named after Linda Lovelace in the eponymous porn film.
Truth be told, there is an enormous part of me that does not care. It is an inconvenient fact of history that Woodward and Bernstein opened the story but got most of it wrong. Go and read ATPM again. Then go find one of the many histories of Watergate, such as Stanley Kutler’s work, and compare. Woodward and Bernstein did some fine (if at times questionable) investigative journalism to get the ball rolling, but their story of Watergate was not really the story of Watergate. Theirs was largely about something as prosaic as money. The real story went far deeper and had substantially more significance. This being the case, Deep Throat is not really all that important; certainly not as much so as the mystery surrounding it has made it seem. And it has been in the interest of Bernstein, and especially Woodward (a glory whore who has never met an anonymous source who could not further his career, facts and evidentiary standards be damned) for Deep Throat to remain a shadowy figure, enshrouded in danger and romance and cigarette smoke. If he has revealed himself in the form of Felt, and if that really is the end of the story, then fine. A piece of the puzzle has emerged, but despite the seemingly central location of that piece, we already knew what the picture looked like.
Recent Entries
- The Sunset
- Iraq and American History
- Uzbekistan
- Could this be the first ideological victory in the war on terror?
- The Iranian Threat
- Excellent editorial, as usual, from Mr. Friedman
- In this administration, some things will never change
- Psychological Armor?
- Some random judicial thoughts
- Memorials
Recent Comments
- David Allan McGinnis on The VP Debate
- YJ Lee on Hotel Rwanda
- Mitch E. Milo on Honor
- Ashley Young on The Supreme Court and Judicial Activism
- Charles V. Mutschler on The Sunset
- E. Simon on The Sunset
- Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach on The Sunset
- Oscar Chamberlain on The Sunset
- Marc "Adam Moshe" Bacharach on Iraq and American History
- Oscar Chamberlain on Iraq and American History
Archives
August 2005July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
