Gratitude

by DM

I try to live my life as a grateful person. It has been difficult the past few years as I watch my country slip from civilization into a theocratic mess of corporate anarchy; but I try to look at the positive things and I find them. I am employed, I am a parent, I am a spouse, I am a neighbor and friend, I am employed and with shelter, I have food and clothing.

Today, I am grateful that I am an American living in the safety of New York City. I am grateful that I am not in Mumbai (Bombay), India, where security has never been, nor will ever be as strong as I enjoy.

I am grateful that my government is going back into the hands of civilized Americans who will protect us from the kinds of attacks we see today in India, and the similar attacks against Americans on September 11, 2001.

We have had a small share of terrorist attacks within the borders of the United States since WWII. I think of three off-hand: (1) Lolita Lebron and a group of Puerto Rican nationalists attacked the House of Representatives during the Eisenhower Administration; (2) the Weather Underground (f/k/a the Weathermen) perpetrated a series of attacks during the Nixon/Ford Administration and committed one last crime during the Reagan Administration; and (3) a group of Muslim men with no known group moniker and whose names have slipped quickly into obscurity, hijacked jets in Boston and New York and rammed them into buildings, during the Bush Administration.

As our nation and the world slip into the waste of corporate anarchy, I am grateful we will have a Democratic President, who will in some tiny way try to bring some semblance of equity and sanity to our economic system; which efforts I believe will reduce hostilities internally and around the world, and will shift the burden of financing society so that the wealthy begin to pay their fair share of civilization (which they currently do not).

As bad as the world is today, there is hope that things will get better.

And for that I am grateful.

On the Political Theatre of the Absurd . . . from a Nattering Nabob of Nihilism

by AF

When the curtain came down, it all ground to an abrupt and halting revelation.

The political drama through which our leadership and representation is determined has proven once again to be little more than a charade that exists outside of any truthful concept of democracy.

Yet, for many of us watching the often surreal events leading up to the election of our next American President, political theatrics had ominously threatened to take over as a new way of life. While the world crumbles around us we have become all but inured to the increasingly petty battles and bitter straw man arguments that had grown more disturbing in tone and direction than anything we encountered along the low road that George W. Bush had led us down these last eight years.

By tradition, the drama of a Presidential campaign presents two stark and divergent visions of the future. This time was no exception. The ruling party made the usual appeals to stay the course with minor corrections. But as the status quo had become wholly intolerable its diehard supporters grew steadily more giddy and divorced from reality. They increasingly vilified any challenge to their hold on power with baseless attacks so twisted and easily debunked as to do little more than raise serious suspicions about their own compelling desperation. In real life this boded a frightening rift in our social fabric that could have proven disastrous and irreparable if things had played out differently.

Remarkably though, as the votes were tallied at the conclusion of this bitter spectacle the high pitch emotional celebration of the victorious side was met by a mood of relatively quiet resignation on the losing side. Even among the vanquished, there was evidence of an underlying awareness that the historic milestone represented by the election's outcome was always a matter of a shared karmic destiny.

As the curtain dropped on Tuesday, concluding the long-awaited last scene of this tragi-comic drama the cast of characters filed onto stage to take their bows. Those who had played villains finally pulled off their masks, suggesting that the roles they willingly stepped into did not necessarily define their real selves.

Did you remember to suspend your disbelief?

The performance of veteran actor John McCain was viewed as erratic at best in his role as the stalwart Republican who would deny destiny and do his best to prevent history from happening. Critics have nonetheless lauded his delivery of the anti-climactic concession speech wherein he was forced to give a gracious nod to the powerful significance of having been bested by a black man in his role as wanna-be President.

Pathetically ill-cast in the role of McCain's running mate, former beauty queen Sarah Palin gave an over-the-top portrayal of a "Real American" that was so unconvincing her critics now seem determined to thwart her far-fetched dreams of an acting career on the national stage. They have continued to hound the washed up actress with exposes of her backstage diva antics even as she retreated to her home in Alaska after the play's closing.

As a supporting actress appearing briefly in the final few scenes, the plainly conceited newcomer clumsily tried to upstage the lead players who could barely conceal their resentment of her even while still in character. Her simplistic interpretation of the part only played well with those audience members whose previous experience with the theatre was limited to attending the annual Thanksgiving pageant at their local grade school. Those parents, likely failed actors themselves, gloated over Palin as they would over one of their own bratty kids who fumble through the roles forced on them as Pilgrims, Indians or turkeys.

Palin's character was scripted to effectively hammer away at the Illinois Senator's supposed ties to terrorists, his seditious leanings toward socialism, his subversive disdain of real Americans, and any other lie that could be dreamed up and sometimes ad libbed in order to demean the man who would soon be President. Her exaggerations were amateurish and merciless. Yet slinking away from the national spotlight, even the ultimate loser Palin had to backpedal enough to cast a condescending wink in the direction of history.

Joe Biden, on the other hand, in in a role scripted as the equivalent of Palin's, pretty much played it straight. He did flub a few times particularly in those improvisational moments called for by the script. This provided plenty of fodder for critics always on the lookout for a gaffe. But as a long-time player on the national stage Biden's idiosyncrasies are familiar territory to most of them who maintain a measure of respect for him based on his body of work as a whole. In fact, Biden's acceptance of a supporting role is a departure from the traditional leading-man parts he has played for most of his career. That may have been a factor in his occasional awkwardness in the part. This time, however, the kind of gaffes he is known for would have cost him less as a secondary player than they have in the past when they totally derailed him as a lead.

The rising star who dominated the stage in every act, Barack Obama, wowed the swelling crowds with a natural coolness and thoroughly convincing portrayal of the eventual winner of this staged competition for the Presidency. Critics declared Obama's accomplishment to be just about the most believable portrayal of an American President in the history of political theatre. This despite his obvious personal attributes which, in other actors with his characteristics would demand an unlikely stretching of the imagination if an audience were to see the play as serious drama rather than farce. But if we ever actually had a black President, this is what he would probably look and sound like - a spot-on performance by an accomplished young actor. The role would only be considered to miss the mark by a flaw in the script regarding the character's name.

It may be feasible in some modern African nation but US Presidents just do not get elected with names like Barack Hussein Obama. George Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford - these are the waspy kind of names we give our Presidents.

But it has long been said that life imitates art. As if to prove it against all odds, when the lights went down on this drama's two year run, Barack Obama stepped out of his starring role to a standing ovation that will follow him right into the White House as the real-life President-elect of the United States.

Bravo, Obama, Bravo!

While we drink it all in, the conclusion of this electoral soap opera seems to portend a liberating return to reality that has already inspired an outpouring of passionate testimonies. To mark the genuine momentous occasion commentators from across the media spectrum of TV networks and weblogs, quickly shifted gears. Deftly moving from whatever it was they claimed to be doing - being "objective," "balanced" or admittedly partisan - they were now waxing eloquent on the meaning for all humanity that may be found in what happened here on Tuesday.


Digging deep for solemn words that may adequately express and record our awesome national achievement, writers are naturally prone to overreach. As a frame of reference they may stumble a bit over the inconsistencies in our national experience with prior historic moments. Of course, the most pertinent area of risk in assessing history as we make it is our persistent awkwardness with issues of race.

We are, after all, a country that still suffers from deep unresolved conflicts between racial injustice and resentment, shame and denial. Can any single moment of historic magnitude really negate the enduring effects of those none-too-rare racially based lapses of humanity that continue to belie the nobility of our nation's founding principles?

Much of the reflection we read today recalls those high-minded promises laid out by our founding fathers, who we exalt as visionaries, ahead of their time. In our unbridled esteem of them however, we must face up to their glaring failure in having allowed unconscionable exemptions among the lofty ideals they would bequeath to us: foremost among them that "all men are created equal."

Among today's diverse American population the idea of "equality" that our founders professed may rightly be seen as a sanctimonious, self-serving deception. Still unfulfilled, the promise of equality enshrined in our Constitution has always seemed to allow such extrene contradictions as the denigration of an entire race of human beings to non-human, slave status on the basis of skin color and national origin.

But putting that aside for now, nearly a century and a half since the abolition of slavery the man we have willingly elevated to rule over us from the highest office in the land is a modern descendant of a people once afforded nothing under our Constitution other than the right to be bought and sold as human chattel.

Truly, there is profound meaning in this. It is huge and I do share in the exhilarating emotional response to the daring feat We the People have finally pulled off with our participation in the vote. It is an awesome achievement made all the more so by the incredible obstacles that any non-white male candidate for public office still faces in most parts of this country.

I applaud anyone who has managed to rise to the occasion and articulate their feelings in strongly resonant words and images.

I admire the pluck and gallantry of those who have found a voice to register our shared sentiments at this time, resisting the temptation of cynicism or any pull to a normally fashionable sardonic point of view. The magnitude of this moment calls for reverent reflection. We are witnesses to a fundamental turning point in history, long in the making, and this imposes on us a solemn responsibility to those who will later look back on the record for an accurate assessment of its meaning and impact on their own time in the future.

I, for one, just feel overwhelmed by the responsibility.

Death Comes In Threes?

"Death comes in threes," somebody once told me.

I believed them.

I was stoned and they made some point about three famous people dying that week. Then they explained that three famous people had died around the same date in the recent past. They sounded convincing. I didn't care.

Then I eventually heard someone else say it. "Death comes in threes!"

It's sort of an adage, I guess.

It's a remark we make to help ourselves feel more comfortable about death.

In actuality, there is some empirical evidence to prove that death does not come in threes. The fact is that more than three people die every two seconds!

According to the U.S. Census Bureau's World Vital Events Per Time Unit 2006, 1.8 people die every second, globally. A tad less than "death comes in threes."

That's 105 people per minute! Just a tad more than "death comes in threes."

So . . . death doesn't come in threes; but it is intriguing when more than one famous person dies during the attention span of an average Western person in an industrialized nation.

This holiday season, there were a number of deaths announced. Most notable were James Brown and Gerald Ford.

Others who died this festive holiday season?

Dennis Linde, who wrote "Burning Love," which was Elvis Presley's last hit record. Linde was 63 and succumbed to a rare lung disease.

Carlos Rivera, a/k/a Carl Blaze, a New York hip-hop DJ whose body was riddled with thirteen bullets. He was thirty years old.

Frank Stanton, the former president of CBS. He was 93 and left no immediate survivors. An innovator during the advent of television broadcast, Stanton shocked the media world by broadcasting CBS commercial-free for the four days following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

So, when that short list of five people (Hardest Working Man in Show Business, former US President, Songwriter, DJ, and television executive) is culled from the 423,092, we still do not get three; nor do we account for almost half-a-million additional dead people.

So, death does not come in threes.

I want to return to two of those deaths. The deaths of James Brown and Gerald Ford.

They really are the big names on the list. At least James Brown is a big name. Gerald Ford is a moderately big name. (It's possible that Frank Stanton, the previously mentioned former president of CBS had a bigger impact on the United States than Gerald Ford ever did.) But, for the sake of discussion, we will consider the Thirty-Eighth President of the United States a BIG NAME.

After all, it was Gerald Ford who pardoned Richard Nixon of all his crimes. Well, he pardoned him of the crimes he was accused of. Ford couldn't pardon him for the war crimes he committed, because he was never charged with those crimes. Actually, Ford's pardoning of Nixon was pre-emptive, if I recall correctly, because no law enforcement agency had yet unsealed any indictments against the former President before Ford issued the Presidential pardon. A pre-emptive tactic. Sort of like bombing a heavily-populated city in a country with whom you have just signed a peace treaty.

But, I digress!

I have a questions: Which death has had a greater impact on America, James Brown or Gerald Ford?

Follow-up question: Which man had a more important impact on America, James Brown or Gerald Ford?

Both spent time in the White House. Ford as the resident, Brown as a guest of President Ronald Reagan.

Both lives were dramatically impacted by drug abuse: James Brown was imprisoned for crimes committed while loaded on drugs and being in possession of drugs, and Ford is the most famous spouse of a drug addict (he is more famous than Kurt Cobain, I think).

Ford's widow is Betty Ford, the woman for whom the world's most famous drug rehabilitation program is named. "Going to Betty Ford" is one of those remarks that everyone understands. And everyone knows that you are not going to actually see the widow of the Thirty-Eighth President. In many ways, the late President's widow might be the most famous woman in the Western World. Is that part of Gerald Ford's legacy. Famous husband of a drug addict?

Certainly, nobody remembers him as the Representative from Michigan, where he served 1949 - 1973, when he replaced Spiro Agnew as Vice-President. That's a pretty impressively long career in the House! Ford was an important member of the Warren Commission, which was empowered by President Lyndon Johnson to cover-up the assassination of President John Kennedy. Ford performed admirably.

Upon becoming President and pardoning his predecessor, Ford also issued a conditional amnesty for Vietnam-era draft dodgers who had fled to Canada. This pardon laid the foundation for the unconditional amnesty that found the light of day during the Presidency of Jimmy Carter (with whom he was close friends) that followed.

This little nugget is lost in the current adulation of Ford; and it might be the only progressive idea put forth to a nation whose heart and soul were broken by a long immoral war, a staggering economy, the strife of social and racial change, and an insipid fear of Communism.

If Ford is to be remember in a positive light for anything. Let it be his institution of conditional amnesty for draft-dodgers.

Prior to his death, Ford discussed the current American President and the War in Iraq, with Bob Woodward of The Washington Post:

"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."

In a conversation that veered between the current realities of a war in the Middle East and the old complexities of the war in Vietnam whose bitter end he presided over as president, Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.

"Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."

It is important to note that Rumsfeld was Ford's Chief of Staff, and Cheyney was Runsfeld's assistant! Woodward agreed to hold publication of the interview until after Ford's death; still, I think it is important to note that even at the highest ranks of the Republican Party, the current Administration has had no support for the War in Iraq!

And CBS' coverage of Ford's death? While ABC and NBC interrupted programming with special reports, CBS opted for a ticker crawl along the bottom of the screen. Wouldn't want to interrupt a Letterman re-run! So, forty years earlier, this network suspended four days of commercial revenue to cover the death of a president, but in 2006 they couldn't be bothered to interrupt a re-run! Times change!

And James Brown? Huge! James Brown was one of the most famous performers of all time. He released all of his 100+ LPs directly into the Hot 100!

I wrote about the James Brown of my youth earlier in the week, and my friend Adam pointed out that the concert I discussed is the opening discussion of the book Common Ground, by J. Anthony Lukas. Brown's concert is credited with preventing citywide rioting during that tension-filled time of American urban race wars. I did not know that the concert held historical significance for others . . . I just thought I was really lucky to have seen it!

James Brown touched the lives of many people. I think he touched more people than Gerald Ford could have.

"Papa's Got A Brand New Bag," "Super Bad," "I Got The Feeling," "I Got You (I Feel Good)" and scores of other songs are incessantly sampled and played everywhere around the world. Everywhere. I would hazard the estimate that James Brown songs are known by
over a billion people, and I would also hazard the guess that there are not a billion people that know about Ford (unless you then count him in the context of his wife's life story, which I will not).

We have seen James Brown in a suit and a pompadour on the silver screen and in underwear and stringy greasy hair on a mug shot. His entire life has been lived in our view.

I recall his performance with The Famous Flames in Ski Party, a ski lodge movie a la beach movie, that also featured Lesley Gore. Hilariously out of place, Brown was (as always) the consummate professional and showman.

James Brown has been everywhere! His entry at imdb.com is rather lengthy and impressive.

James Brown influenced everybody.

Everybody.

If the question is: whose death has the greatest impact on the world, Gerald Ford's or James Brown's? The answer is "James Brown's!"

(The following was added at 7:39 AM)

I forgot to mention that a colleague left our office in Midtown Manhattan at 11:30 A.M., yesterday, made it to the Apollo Theater, in Harlem by twelve Noon, and was through the line to pay her respects to James Brown by 3:30 P.M. She was back in the office by four! I was more than just a little bit envious of her outing.