Thoughts, Observations, Interpretations, and Dissent

My Killer Cutie

2012-02-10T15:57:00.001-05:00

I have waited far too long to write you a letter my little C. I have written John and Diana several times, but never to you. Now that your personality has been fully developed for several years it's time I tell you how I feel. Considering John and Diana are such extraordinary children, you really had little chance from the start to equal their accomplishments...and, combined with the fact that we could not give you nearly as much attention, we kept our expectations of you in check, but thus far, at least in terms of athletics, you have far exceeded them.

What makes you different is the fact that you're tough as nails. You are way tougher than J and D who are fairly tough themselves...and you always have been this way. I remember vividly having you practice with my fourth grade girls team when you were in kindergarten and watching our best player Rhen Blake (you will remember the name) catch you flush in the face from ten yards out with an absolute bullet. You were knocked fully horizontal and landed flat on your back. The kids and parents who witnessed this were horrified, as was I. You got up and you did not cry. I swear to you I couldn't help but laugh and say to myself "this chick is fucking tough....and I love it." While you are very loving, you have never been girlie at all, a few stuffed animals yes, but no dresses, just t-shirts, jeans and sambas. No dolls, no princesses, no toy babies, no girlie tv shows, only sports. From when you were little, you always loved to play sports and you played soccer endlessly with your brother and sister four years older than you, both who are excellent athletes, and to their credit, they never excluded you from anything. Consider your immense talents a wonderful gift from them. But to some degree you are self made, and your internal desire to improve is a testament to you, and you alone. I simply could not pitch enough softballs to you from when you were two or three, you always wanted more....and tonight coincidentally I threw football passes to you as you dived across the bed to catch them, not wanting to stop until you caught a few in a row....you simply love to compete. I had written a letter to John a few years ago about what an extraordinary feeling it is to be the parent of the best player on the team year after year, and Diana, both on the basketball court and on the soccer pitch, gives me very much the same feeling. Now with you doubling their efforts, you have truly earned your place as our family's best athlete.

Aside from being by far the best player on both your softball and basketball teams, and a great skier, you are a goddamn killer on the soccer pitch. You have always loved the game, watching full 90 minute matches with me since you were a toddler. When you were in first grade you played on the fifth grade indoor team...a good team, a rarely defeated team...and you scored goals!...no joke, quite a few actually....to this day I still hear other dads tell me how amazed they were while watching you, this little tyke dribbling around girls twice your size and slotting home. Anyone else reading this might think I am exaggerating for effect, but that is not the case here, and you darn well know that is the truth Caroline. In second grade you tore up the league and scored most of the goals in your first travel season. In your first tournament, Columbus Day 2011, you scored all the goals in the undefeated qualifying rounds and hit for two in the final in a 3-1 win....your first of many trophies. You know I was at Diana's tournament for that and missed seeing it, but as Mr. Garvey, Mr. Settle, and I got the running text updates from the moms: "2-0/Caroline 2," "1-0/Caroline 1," "2-0/Caroline 2," and finally "3-1/Caroline 2," you could only imagine my deep sense happiness as we all high fived each other on your teams victory. When you, and a few of your teammates showed up at Diana's tournament later that evening with trophies in hand, I could not have been more proud.

A few months later in another tournament; and as I said, I already knew you were tough and did not like to lose, but when down 0-1 in the final against an equally talented and physically stronger squad from Fort Lee you put on another show for us. With ten minutes to play the coach pulled you aside, grabbed you by the shoulders, got right in your face and said "win this thing will ya!" You proceeded to pump in four goals in those final ten minutes, two of them, spectacular hits. The parents went nuts; they all honesty love you. You are not a ball hog at all, you are an excellent passer...a true attacking number 10, and you can defend with the best...you have exceptional soccer acumen. In addition, you, like your brother, do not celebrate when you score...the ultimate in modesty. After the final whistle, your teammates chased you around the pitch until they tackled you and piled on top....from the stands this was a heartwarming sight, heart melting actually.

So now as I sit here at your first basketball scrimmage watching you outclass all others on the floor I realize a few things. First of all, I don't care for hoops. I mean know hoops, watching games that is, but I do not like playing it and I have never practiced or watched one game with you. The talent you have comes from within,....an unteachable skill. You have never been told to practice, you do it endlessly all on your own. This is a personality trait that will do you a wealth of good in the future. I was a good baseball player but went to college on a golf scholarship, but I was never, ever a great athlete like yourself; you are a pure natural, but driven...a great combination. I would have traded all my golf exploits and accolades for that kind of ability. At the half of this game you came over to the stands and asked for your water bottle which I forgot in the car. I ask if you want me to get it...most parents will just get it but I'm testing you...I want to see if you can grind out the second half without water. You just shrug it off and says nah, I'm good... so typical of you. So as you start warming up for the second half, some of the gals are taking silly shots from long range and none of them are close. You step up to the three point line and drain your very first one, all net. As always, you looked over to the stands to see if I saw it, and I wink, and you smile. I will never be able to repay you for the wonderful moments like this and all others you have given me thus far, and to think, you are still so preciously young. I'm inclined to think I will be the beneficiary of a boatload more.

Oh, little Miss Caroline, you are not perfect, none of us are, you academic ability is not what your brother and sister's is, but neither your mom or I ever question your effort....you try very hard. I am confidant you will succeed at whatever you do on this quality alone. It is our job as parents to keep you focused, and we will, you can be assured of this. Is athletics everything? No, clearly not, but it does teach valuable lessons of confidence, teamwork, responsibility, discipline, and hard work, and at the end of the day you will have earned everything you get in life based on these qualities, I am sure of it.

Love Dad

The Kid and The Death of My Childhood

2012-01-20T21:05:00.001-05:00

As the former catcher for my team Gary Carter lay on his deathbed, an unfortunate victim of cancer, I figured this much belated post was in order to hearken back to a time when life was so much simpler and yet so darn grand. As a product of Astoria, Queens and born exactly 12 days after the New York Mets 1969 World Series victory, I was indoctrinated into the world of baseball at a tender young age by family that were staunch Brooklyn Dodger fanatics. Being a fan of anyone other than the Mets was simply not an option. But as the 70's moved into the early 80's, my team was essentially a laughing stock for much of this period. There is indeed a side benefit to years of losing I have only recently come to realize, it simply makes your thirst for winning that much more intense. It was not until 1983 and the arrival of my eventual idol Keith Hernandez to my beloved team that began a series of events that changed my life forever.

As Keith and the boys, in a fun filled summer, got closed out in the final week of the season by the Chicago Cubs in 1984, I had by then acquired a taste for winning. 1985 saw the arrival of "The Kid" Gary Carter and in that 1985 season, from Carter's game winning home run at Shea in his first game as a Met, to the final series of the year, the Mets had gone toe to toe with their arch rivals the St. Louis Cardinals. That summer of Keith, Doc, Daryl, Darling, and Gary himself lighting it up was pure joy, albeit monumentally crushing upon their inability to seal the deal in the final days of the season. I was 15, and I cried.

At 16 years old and a senior in high school, the Mets embarked on a journey that transformed my perennial losers into the brash, hard talking, hard partying squad that essentially tore up the National league with 108 victories. The ride that all of us die-hards took on that particular summer was the stuff of legend, and nothing short. For those of us that endured much of the prior decade of miserable losing and then winning but always falling a hair short, life was truly great. With Davey Johnson at the helm and the take no prisoners attitude of "we'll come to your city, tear up you bars, sleep with your women, and rough you up on the field," the Mets were brutally arrogant winners, and we all loved it! Gary Carter, with his infectious smile and pure class, endeared himself to the New York faithful like few had ever done before, and for this we all had a true sense of love for this man. The team's penchant for the dramatic continued in the playoffs versus the Houston Astros and in the World Series versus the Boston Red Sox that to this day is considered one of the best runs in baseball history. The final outs in both series caught by the Kid himself are images etched into the soul of every Met fan of this era. I recall vividly, like it was yesterday where I was for both the legendary "Game 6" and game 7 of that epic series.

I had originally been offered tickets to game 6, but turned them down in favor of the best high school keg party of the year held on my entire block, there were no less than 200 kids in attendance. As we all gathered on my neighbor's huge deck peering into a 15 inch black and white television for the game, the crowd's mood hinged on every pitch, and in the waning moments, when Boston took a two run lead in the 10th innning, there was much hugging, holding hands, and plenty of tears. The miraculous turn of events on that particular evening is something that all in attendance, in fact most of the baseball world will never, ever forget as long as one lives. Upon Ray Knight's touch of home plate in the bottom of the 10th forcing a deciding game 7 the following day, the crowd erupted into a joyous celebration of hugs and kisses and other expressions of love, in some cases with folks I had never barely had a conversation. The neighbor's deck wobbled during the celebration and I would swear was not far from collapse. We toasted to the unlikely victory and to another day and partied deep, deep into the night.

But ultimate victory was still one game away, and after a rain out on the following day, the stage was set for a Monday evening at Shea Stadium that would change all of our lives for the better. Sid Fernandez, Keith Hernandez, and Ray Knight's late inning heroics secured the trophy for the city and again, my friends and I drank Don Perignon, blew off fireworks, and danced and hugged and cried to Queen's "We Are the Champions" and Madonna's "Celebration" until the wee hours.....all on a school night! To this day, including the days when my children were born, I have never felt such an overwhelming sense of euphoria. My life could have ended that next day and I would have felt complete. In retrospect, is too much made about sports and winning and losing, when there are serious matters to tend to? Yes, too much is indeed made of those things. But for a 16 year old who knew no better, this was the ultimate, a truly glorious and wholesome experience.

Since that day I have followed my Mets through thick and thin, but the truth is I really don't care anymore. I have my trophy, it is mine, it is my only one, and I will forever value and embrace it, one can only wish to be so fortunate. Those beautiful days are simply not easily forgotten. Now, Gary Carter, the heart and soul of that team and a wonderful man, lay dying, and upon his passing, so too will be buried the most cherished period of my childhood. There is no question I will cry like a baby when this happens, and I am not too prideful to say so. Thank you Gary for those wonderful moments you brought us, your light will shine forever in this heart of mine, and I know for many, many others,...may you go in peace.....PG

RIP Hitch

2011-12-16T21:32:00.000-05:00

Christopher Hitchens, the master polemicist and intellectual, matters to me for reasons beyond simply his body of articulate written work. His rhetorical style, in both his engaging speech and his thoughtful pages, was deeply cynical, brash, confrontational, dead serious, and at times, quite hysterical. To say he was not an activist would be an egregious error of judgement. His message, even his staunch defense of the war in Iraq (a position I do not share), was always based in elementary morality and reason. Among his many volumes on controversial subjects such as the non-value of religion, a stinging indictment of Kissinger, a near blasphemous exposé on Mother Theresa, angled portraits of Paine, Jefferson, and Orwell, all worth reading, is a slim one entitled "Letters to a Young Contrarian" that offers counsel to those who question the conventional and has given me priceless advice and direction. In particular for me as well is his obituary for his friend Edward Said, an incredibly honest and moving piece, and my personal favorite, his 1985 essay, "The Chorus and Cassandra" which defends Noam Chomsky from irrational slander, is a masterstroke of debate journalism.

His death today delivers a harsh blow to the intellectual community, folks that actually write and speak about serious and important subjects. Adventurist and deep thinker, always deferring to logic and reason, places him in the Pantheon with the likes of Chomsky, Zinn, Pilger, Vidal, et. al. He was regularly awash in good scotch and spoke in biting British, all the while silhouetted in cigarette smoke leading to his premature demise, but his wit and wisdom shall live on. "I tend to burn the candle at both ends," he would often say, "and I find it gives a lovely light." I happen to agree..........PG

Maradona, Naples, and the '90 World Cup: The Greatest Story Ever Told

2011-11-15T15:18:00.001-05:00

There is no doubt that Lionel Messi will obliterate Diego Maradona's goal scoring feats at club level. His trophy cabinet, both with the club and personal achievement will dwarf that of the man who preceded him as the greatest Argentine player of an era. But when his career comes to a close, will there be a voice that screams, "yes, but he did it all with the best club side in the history of football!" I am not in that lot of folks, for Messi has been the player for the greatest club side. However, Maradona's greatest achievements in the club game came at a team with no legacy of success, in a deprived area in the south of Italy, not the rich cultural capital of Catalunya. In the years either side of his spell with Napoli, the club have won a grand total of zero national titles. In the space of four years between 1987 and 1990, Maradona inspired them to two. He became a socio-cultural force in Naples, a focus for intense pride and a near-religious icon. In transforming Napoli into Italy's pre-eminent side, Maradona transcended football and entered the realms of deity. For all of Messi's ability, the heir to Maradona's throne is yet to inspire that kind of fervor, or to completely transform a club.

Born into poverty and raised in Buenos Aires, Maradona rose to prominence with Argentinos Juniors and the mighty Boca Juniors, before completing a world record 7 million dollar move to Barcelona in 1982. His time in Spain was marked by frustration and injury and with Terry Venables arriving as their new coach, Barca were ready to let Maradona go, but few could have anticipated where he would move to. Defying expectation, Napoli, a club who had won only two Coppa Italia titles and had battled relegation for three successive seasons, made an audacious attempt to sign the best player in the world. News of Maradona's potential arrival was greeted like the second coming of christ: before he had even signed, some Neapolitans had already written his name on ballot papers for the national elections; bonfire vigils were held and people were heard to chant "Maradona or death" in the streets. Local politician Vincenzo Scotti exploited his connections to convince four banks to loan Napoli the record transfer fee, declaring of the downtrodden Naples: "It is time that this city stops suffering, at least in the stadium." An impoverished citizenry felt a jubilant release of euphoria when, after 43 days of talks, it was announced that Maradona would be walking amongst them. Supporters reacted by leaping into the sea and setting off fireworks. It was not the last time he would provoke such a reaction.

As many as 90,000 attended Maradona's presentation at Stadio San Paolo. Pibe d'Oro (the Golden Boy) had made quite the impression on his new public. The unexpected turn of events that had seen a neglected area of Italy suddenly become the center of the football universe was not lost on one local newspaper, which wrote: "We have no mayor, housing, schools, employment, buses, sanitation, money or ideas, but we have got Maradona".

His arrival sparked an upturn in form as Napoli finished eighth in his first season and third in his second. However, Napoli's greatest feat would come in the 1986-87 campaign as their saviour inspired them to the domestic double...the Scudetto and the Coppa Italia. Though the club boasted Ciro Ferrara in defense, Fernando Di Napoli in midfield, and Bruno Giordano in attack, there was little doubt as to who the star of Ottavio Bianchi's side was. With his mesmerising dribbling ability and wonderful imagination, Maradona was essentially untouchable on the pitch. Such was the reverence with which he was treated in Naples, in the build up to the decisive game against Fiorentina on May 10, a prayer appeared in shops over the city. "Our Maradona, who takes the field," it read, "blessed be thy name, thy kingdom is Napoli, lead us not into disappointment, but deliver unto us the championship. Amen". Perceptions of Maradona were now being expressed in overtly religious overtones. Naples' prayers were answered. Andrea Carnevale scored for the Partenopei, and while a young forward by the name of Roberto Baggio bagged his first league goal for Fiorentina to ensure the game finished in a 1-1 draw, Napoli claimed their first Scudetto success. The man of the hour declared in his usual third person: "Maradona didn't do this. God did it".

Napoli's maiden Scudetto success was an immense source of pride, and prolonged street parties and intense celebrations marked the feat. Famously, as John Foot recounts in Calcio: a history of Italian football, one supporter sprayed graffiti on the wall of the local graveyard that read: Guagliu! E Ch eve sit pers! (Neapolitan dialect for: You do not know know what you are missing!!). A city and region of Italy marginalised and demonised by their northern compatriots had broken the stranglehold imposed by the industrial powerhouses of Milan and Turin and, for the first time, a mainland team from the south were champions. The famous victory only accelerated the cult of personality that had grown around Maradona as floats were constructed in his honour, murals painted and, in one district of Naples, 25% of new-born boys took the name Diego. With his humble beginnings and rebellious character, Maradona was adopted as a son of the city.

Napoli finished second in the 1987-88 season and then triumphed in the UEFA Cup the following year with a two-legged victory over Stuttgart. By this point, 1986 World Cup star Careca had joined Maradona and Giordano in a frontline that was christened 'Ma-Gi-Ca'. Under coach Alberto Bigon, Napoli had also brought through a talented, but tiny young forward by the name of Gianfranco Zola, nicknamed MaraZola.
But Zola's mentor had shown little inclination to start the 1989-90 season with Napoli, and had even threatened to "throw his contract" at president Corrado Ferlaino after being denied a move to Marseille. He finally returned from Argentina after missing the first four games of the season, and further controversy would follow in October when he failed to appear for two training sessions and was dropped for a UEFA Cup tie against Wettingen. But amid the rumors of drug abuse, Maradona was still capable of sublime football. His excesses were forgiven by an adoring public and, once again, Napoli became champions, topping Arrigo Sacchi's great Milan side. Sacchi admitted: "Napoli could have hardly won the Italian title without Maradona."

Once again, Maradona had brought an eruption of joy to the streets of Naples. In the following days, the city partied hard and they did so in the image of their walking deity. One banner, displayed during the title-clinching win over Lazio, summed up the fervor that Maradona had engendered among the population as it read: "The immensity of the heavens is not enough to explain the love we have for you." No amount of controversy could ever shake that faith in a man who lifted the spirits of an entire city.

But here is where the story of Maradona takes on epic proportions. On the heels of that second Scudetto, the 1990 World Cup was to be played in Italy and Maradona, in an ironic twist of fate, marched his Argentine albiceleste into the semi-finals versus the Azzurri at the Stadio San Paolo! The drama that ensued was the stuff of movie scripts and nothing short. Maradona took the opportunity to speak to "his" people the night before the much anticipated match and declared with sincerity "I don't like the fact that now everybody is asking Neapolitans to be Italian and to support their national team. Naples has always been marginalized by the rest of Italy. It is a city that suffers the most unfair racism. For 364 days of the year, they do not consider you Italian, but now in this match they embrace you? I am one of you, and I hope you will root for me, a son of your city."...a more than justifiable reason for them to acknowledge his plea. The following day, for the first time during the entire tournament, the 90,000 spectators did not jeer the Argentine national anthem. Maradona answered with a bow to the Napoli tifosi. But as the match was to about to get underway, the curva unsheathed a huge banner in response..."Maradona, Napoli ti ama, ma l'Italia è la nostra patria!"...simply translated..."Maradona, Naples loves you, but Italy is our blood, our homeland!" So it was not to be, the stadium backed the Azzurri for the match and after the match ended tied at 1 and 1, Maradona in a storybook ending took and buried the final penalty kick for the visitors eliminating the Italians from their own tournament. The crowd, having been stunned to the core, slowly broke into polite applause as the jubilant Maradona rejoiced with his compatriots. Then, in a typical flair for the dramatic, Maradona took a bow in each corner of "his" house to which he was given a rousing standing ovation from the Napoli faithful.

Maradona returned to Napoli the following season but finally failed a drugs test in March 1991. He received a 15-month ban and would never play for the club again. A year later, the most sang about player in Neapolitan history with no fewer than the 19 songs dedicated to the him fled the Peninsula without saying goodbye to his adoring fans. It would be 14 years before he returned to wave farewell. Invited to appear in a testimonial for former teammate Ciro Ferrara who was retiring from the game, Maradona returned to the San Paolo and gave a lap of honour. His life has been one long scandal and fall from grace since. But for those incredible few seasons, he brought joy to a city that had previously had precious little to cheer for. His number 10 was retired by the club, an unheard of gesture in soccer circles, and adhering to an archaic Italian law, the Stadio San Paolo will be renamed the Stadio Diego Maradona, but only after his death.

Letter to PBS/Channel 13

2011-11-15T13:31:00.002-05:00

Dear Sirs:

I have followed Professor Finkelstein's career from back at his Hunter College days and thus the documentary on his life "American Radical," for me, was quite redundant. However, for those who are unfamiliar with this man's courageous efforts towards peace and justice, "American Radical" is a more than worthy introduction. For anyone that has read his books or listened to him speak will know that he only deals in facts....and derives reasonable and fair conclusions based upon them. In these turbulent times it may be to all of our benefit to take Professor Finkelstein's fact based approach to resolving conflict with a bit more fervor. I am well aware of the controversy that swirls around him relating to his positions on the Israel/Palestine conflict and how a public network may want to avoid such controversy, but I implore you that his battle over academic freedom in the university is a vital issue that transcends any opinions on that subject. Please consider airing this well made and entertaining film on an enlightening and thought provoking subject.

Very truly yours,

Paul J. Guarino
West Nyack, NY

Response:

Dear Mr. Guarino,

Thank you for taking the time to write with your request that Thirteen air AMERICAN RADICAL: THE TRIALS OF NORMAN FINKELSTEIN. Thirteen values suggestions from its viewers, and I will convey your request to appropriate staff in our weekly report of viewer opinion.
Please know that we appreciate your interest in Thirteen.

Sincerely,
Minda Dolmatch
Member and Viewer Relations, Thirteen/WNET

The English Premier League: Perception v. Reality

2011-10-05T18:09:00.010-04:00

Somebody's gotta explain this to me. I know the English Premier League is considered the world's best and most watched league by many........my question is: who, and the logical corollary, why? Or let me restate my query as a statement; I do not think the EPL is the most watched, nor do I think it the best, but rather a product built upon vast riches, tremendous profits, and a first rate marketing plan targeting a specific socio-economic market; and quite possibly, dare I say,....the good looks of David Beckham? This is essentially my thesis.

Before the venomous tirade in response begins and you're inclined to read no further, let me lay out my case rationally and with a level of appropriate objectivity; my frame of reference being significant only in that I neither watch the Premier League with any regularity, nor do I coalesce with anyone who watches it either. I will stipulate that it is probably the most watched league by English speaking countries, although I have no evidence to support that assertion. There can be no argument about the quality of the EPL....every aspect of the brand is flawless; the pitches, the television production and their pom-pom waving broadcasters, and especially, much to my envy, the stadium environments. Most, if not all, as far as I can see are a wonderful combination of quality structures and awesome displays of emotion....organic emotion, not contrived. Whether prompted by the Heysel disaster or reasons otherwise, the match day hooligan culture in England seems to have been eradicated or at least mitigated to where it does not resonate much in international circles. At the very least, match day violence in parts of South America, Eastern European countries and even my very own Italy are by far more of a scourge to the game than anything seen in England. This alone is a wonderful testament to the EPL.

But let us get to my main point here.....the football itself. First the raw facts, then some logical conclusions based on them. Please forgive my occasional wandering off topic or my David Foster Wallace-esque affinity for parentheses, sidenotes, and monster run-ons, as I do not mean for this to be some sort of doctoral dissertation. For starters, judging the English national team and it's history should not be considered a superficial place to start....it has a significant correlation to the style of football which is played in a particular nation, which is a large part of my argument; .....the football in England is both wholly unattractive and not successful enough internationally to be considered the best, although we are told repeatedly in the English speaking media outlets the opposite. What we can't dispute is that regardless of what we might think about how the power rankings are derived, I have my own set of issues there, the English have never been ranked by FIFA higher than they are now, 4. England's average ranking since the rankings began in '93 is 10 and they have fallen as low as 21 in '95. So it would be fair to say, using the average ranking, that nine nations have a more successful track record; and at least two, Japan and Mexico (who have difficulty ranking higher because of their sheer size), it has to be said, have a quality of football that is highly skilled, more tactically sound, and for sure much more enjoyable on the eyes than the English game....South Korea is a possible third. Even with their fancy, highly paid, Italian coach, the English still play a specific way, that is to say, their style....combining neck-breaking pace, strength, power, and intense fervor. All aside, it is completely fair and not controversial among serious people to say the English game lacks a certain grace and beauty in terms of skill level and tactics....not talking Brazilian unpractical nonsense flair here, simply a crispness, a neatness to the touches, a maturity to the movement, and a high level of creativity. But It is also must be noted that the intrinsic football value sets are different in England and the Anglo nations than in other nations, comparatively speaking. I do not mean to diminish stylistic differences; as styles make good prize fights, so to the beautiful game (the English game being the lumbering brawler, while the Spanish, Dutch, or Italian game, the scientific boxer). All of this theory on the English style of play and it's historical basis is well researched and chronicled in Gianluca Vialli's interesting book "The Italian Job" which compares the Italian and English styles and gives the well thought out mathematical reasons as to why the English play as they do. Simplified, using mountains of match data, possession becomes less a concern than time spent in your opponents end, so the priority becomes to put the ball into the opposing end, and then obtain possession, whereas the Italian approach is the exact opposite. Additionally, much attention is paid to the direct correlation between balls delivered into the area, set pieces, and goals. As the value sets differ, so to the youth training systems and eventual skill sets. Once again, this is not an indictment of the values, priorities, or skill sets, rather an assertion of facts. Although deriving any conclusion from one match is indeed superficial, I gave the England-Wales recent Euro qualifier (9/2011) a look-see figuring it would let me see how they might look in possession against a weaker opponent. The fact is it was clear they weren't interested in possessing at all, preferring instead to attack through the air and attempting to outpace the Welsh making for a sloppy spectacle, albeit one-sided. Aside from the abstract rankings, the Three Lions performance and achievement, or lack thereof, in World Cup competition in the last 20 years is well documented and certainly adds to the validity of the thesis. The UEFA coefficient for national sides in European competition has England ranking 5th which seems accurate and having appeared in the final four only twice in thirteen European Championship tournaments while never playing in a final corroborates further the thesis.

Moving to league analysis. It is not arguable that the EPL spends more money on players and coaches than any other nation by far. It also generates more revenue due to the quality of the product (the packaging, not the football) combined with a broader global presence and accessibility (much of it due to language and broader media outlets) and at least a somewhat higher socio-economic status of its supporters worldwide. While the top sides in all of the big 4 leagues and most of the secondary leagues such as France, Holland, Turkey, Portugal, Russia (and now quite a few Arab nations), spend a ton, it is the middle table spending and gross revenue that sets the EPL apart. The EPL is currently ranked number one by UEFA, and rightfully so at the moment, and it has been ranked number one for a total of 14 years, second to La Liga at 15, one ahead of Serie A at 13, and four more than the Bundesliga at 10. This does not demonstrate dominance, in fact, since 1985 Serie A has more than double the amount of years holding the top ranking (13 to 5), while La Liga has spent approximately one-third more years at the top (8 to 5). If we look at the top ranked individual clubs in the history of the power ranking coefficient, La Liga crushes all others with 21 years spent at the top, while Serie A, the Bundesliga, and the EPL had clubs ranked number one 9, 8, and 7 years respectively. English sides have 18 appearances in the Champions League Final while hoisting 11 cups, the German sides 14 and 6, Italian sides 26 and 12, and Spanish sides 22 and 13. If we move to the relatively young Europa league, which is a fairly good gauge of middle table quality, the EPL has 7 appearances in the final with 6 trophies, Bundesliga 8 and 6, La Liga 6 and 6, and Serie A 11 and 9. Additionally Serie A had three founding members of the short lived G-14, more than England, France, Holland, Germany and Spain's 2 each. Based on this historical data we can conclude there is no evidence that suggests any level of historical superiority for the EPL.

Because of money, as in all big leagues (although foreign ownership in other leagues is limited or simply not permitted), the EPL is able to attract some of the world's best players, and quite frankly a lot of them. However, if one simply researches the data on the FIFA's World Player of the Year annual three nominees, their nationality and their club affiliation, one will find zero English nationals have garnered the award, and while 4 have been nominated they are a long way off the pace set by Brazil with 14 nominations and 8 wins. Even more incriminating is that both Serie A and La Liga have employed the large bulk of nominees 33% and 42% respectively to the EPL's 12%. Regarding Ballon d'Or winners, where they originate from, and where they ply their trade, Germany and Italy have produced the most winners with 5 each, while Serie A and La Liga have employed the most winners at 18 and 13 respectively compared to the EPL's 6. All told, if we are honest, this data clearly reveals that any superior posture taken by the EPL's legion of supporters in terms of individual talent is without any factual basis.

To each of their credit, each of the big leagues have been able to keep their talent at home with only a handful of exceptions. There is no doubt that this is a good thing for each of the nations as it must be disheartening for a nation, such as the Dutch, to watch as it's finest footballers go off and excel in other leagues. The stats reveal that the English Premier League employs more foreigners, with 358 or 62% of the league’s 577 players listed in 2010...this should not indict the EPL as only a rare few play outside the UK, but it does tell you something....England does not produce enough high quality footballers. The EPL's percentage is way out in front of second place Germany (241, 48%), with Italy (208, 40%), France (190, 35%) and Spain (186, 35%) following. Now, if you include the "oriundi" or ethnic Italians and Spaniards born elsewhere in Serie A and La Liga (such as Lavezzi, Zanetti, Mascherano, and Messi,... Italians from Argentina; Cavani and Forlan, an Italian and a Spaniard from Uruguay; Kaka and Thiago Motta, a Spaniard and an Italian from Brazil; and even Giuseppe Rossi, an Italian from Teaneck, New Jersey, etc... along with many, many others in South America as well as oriundi from Switzerland, France, even England [Simone Perotta is a World Cup winner born in Ashton under Lynne, England]. Say what you want, Italian blood is Italian blood, and the internal culture associated with this blood is immune to borders.)....needless to say, when you consider these oriundi, you raise that percentage significantly....in the case of Serie A, approximately 10 full percentage points. What this means in terms of league strength is admittedly debatable, but to me it means my league is comprised of Italian owners (even the first foreign owner in Serie A, American Thomas DiBenedetto, is Italian) and primarily Italian footballers and the sense of pride associated with that fact.

Now the global perception, and I'm too lazy to do the research and start conducting polls here, so I don't mean to be anything but subjective, just a point of view from my little frame of reference solely. In full disclosure, I started writing a brief essay about the stylistic differences between the EPL and Serie A almost two full years ago, but felt any such piece would be limited in that I only had a narrow perception of the EPL and English football in general, mostly based on hearsay, stereotypes, and statistics. Since that time I have read quite a bit, watched a fair amount of matches, and had several interactions with Englishmen on this exact subject. My findings were enlightening in that I gained a new found appreciation for a few EPL squads, Arsenal and Manchester City in particular, certain managers and individual players, but mostly, as mentioned earlier, an appreciation for the the wonderful match day environments. However my point of view, even after my investigative research, has not changed all that much. I do still abhor the English game's frantic pace, but I can appreciate it as a divergent style. What I do have a real tough time appreciating is the sheer violent nature of reckless unskilled challenges. In truth, I have never once in my life felt English football or the English Premier League was in any way stronger or better than Italy or Spain and Serie A or La Liga, in fact I have felt strongly the opposite. Certainly any Italian or Spaniard will agree with that sentiment. However, it is safe to say 9 in 10 or 10 in 10 brainwashed Americans will assert the EPL as the greatest league by simply regurgitating the conventional slogans. Now the squad I support, A.C. Milan, has a trophy case that is overflowing, and they are not even the most successful club on the peninsula, and correct me if I'm wrong, but there are four stars on the Azzurri shirt, no?...and a Baggio PK from having 5, and Brazil only 4 (oh, to dream). Forgetting the English national side, as mentioned there is nothing to discuss, I do fully acknowledge the EPL is, and has been for quite some time, extremely powerful and chocked full of class and I, as a Milan supporter, fear Champions League fixtures with EPL sides. It was only a few years ago Sir Alex, Benitez, Mourinho, Wenger, and their respective squads were all loaded to the hilt. Now with the sheiks of Manchester City throwing their petrodollars all over the pitch they too have assembled a world class squad. But, was I watching a mirage when I watched Barça make Sir Alex's champagne side look silly, twice in the last three Champions League finals?....don't sugar coat it, the class of the EPL, the powerful Manchester United, looked flat out silly. Did not Mourinho's mighty Internazionale (albeit a Roberto Mancini built powerhouse that won 5 Scudetti in a row) defend and counter Messi and Co. successfully in 2010 CL semis for 180+ minutes...actually in the second leg, mostly defend,...clinically.... and then go on to beat Bayern Munich in the final. Sure Manchester United beat Chelsea in 2008, both strong and deserving squads, no argument at all, but was not my Milan the winners before all that in Athens, 2007 beating Rafa Benitez's well stocked Liverpool (a healthy dose of revenge after Istanbul two years earlier). To make a comparative point, Steven Gerrard and his boys were essentially a collection of going forward machines during that period. That type of football I find completely insane and I yell from my couch for everyone to stop running, settle down and play the game. In the case of Milan-Liverpool '07, tactics and skill beat effort and pace, while the Milan-Tottenham two-legged affair in the 2011 CL round of 16 was the polar opposite. While this level of pace is not attractive to me, it may be to you, but I believe strongly, as does most of the world, that in soccer, calcio, futbol,...superior skill and team organization ought to be rewarded. The Englishmen or the brainwashed American reader, may disagree on what his preference is, but there is no doubt the facts are not in his favor as to which "style" is more successful....and do I even have to say, more beautiful.

Please note, I am not adverse to giving credit where credit is due. Squaring off against an EPL side in any competition comes with a certain level of hell bent ferocity that you must be prepared to face or risk getting run out of the park. But the Spanish and the Italians have always valued more the spectacle, the show, the display of skill, and the interplay between superior talent. Effort and miles logged on the pitch alone are not valued...nor is selfish, non-practical showmanship. At the youth level in Italy every team's best footballer is his central defender and it is what every Italian kid aspires to,...to be Baresi, Maldini, Cannavaro. Players of flash and flair alá Baggio or Cassano are rare. Berlusconi said only recently that while he was thrilled with last years Scudetto, he was more pleased that Milan achieved the championship while employing an entertaining style.....well organized tactical catenaccio or "door bolt" defending, and vision and creativity up the pitch.....and that "Milan will never sacrifice quality and entertainment on the pitch for victories." I am not trying to imply this is a proper thought process, but simply noting the radical difference in philosophies. Englishmen forever cry about the diving, and we can all agree the antics of a Totti, Busquets, or any other chronic diver is infuriating and has no place in the game, but the fact is non shoulder to shoulder contact is by rule a foul, as is any challenge that is considered dangerous, even if there is no contact or the ball is clearly won. A ball winning challenge in the EPL, regardless of potential danger, is simply not called. An Italian views this as reckless and juvenile, wasteful, brutish, "anti-football" and flat out ugly. There probably is an underlying theme here in that while an American looks at the English as their more refined brethren, Italians look at the English as cultureless heathens, and thus choose to play the game in a more civil and refined way as a matter of spite. When Italians suggest the idea of organized defending and that once the advantage is obtained it is not to be relinquished, this is considered "anti-football" by the English....simply different perspectives on the same tactic. But if we are serious, losing by way of a typical EPL score of 5-0 or 6-1 cannot be entertaining and in Italy doesn't get you bad press, it gets you sacked,.... immediately. There is no hyperbole in that statement.

It would be foolish to diminish the role of football in culture. The fact that the United States does not have a significant football culture says something about us...something very profound....something like our embarrassing and consequential exceptionalist attitude toward the rest of the world. That, of course, is a thesis for another day, but to say that EPL supporters have a similar exceptionalist attitude is accurate as they fully expect global football fans to kneel at their alter. Well, we've already run through the historical record, so we know it is not based on success or quality on the pitch,...what is it then? I had the pleasure of watching David Beckham for a handful of terms at both Madrid and Milan; all class and heart, but while he was an excellent player, does not his popularity exceed greatly his quality, much like the EPL itself? The fact is all major footballing nations are stubbornly proud of their style of play, but to a large degree England has in recent years sought to introduce new ideas into their game. Perception aside, the EPL has a long history of foreign managers and when Mourinho, Benitez, Wenger, Ancelotti, and Mancini have all been at the helm of some of the leagues richest clubs and with Don Fabio conducting the national side, clearly there is a certain line of thinking....a wise line of thinking....a line of thinking that reveals a need for tactical adjustment. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery, no? Suffice to say no such thing exists in Spain or Italy.

To assert that the EPL is the most popular or "best" league in the world is a rather bold statement; thus repeated enough to the ignorant and gullible American, they buy it. Make no mistake, the MLS is a complete joke, Americans have little appetite for soccer, let alone bad soccer, however, if one consults the Spanish speaking population in America you will be met with surprise that no such bias toward the EPL exists. In Spanish speaking football cultures one is likely to get a wide array of answers as to the most popular player, team, league. The Mexican league and the perennial rivals of Club America and Chivas de Guadalajara are enormously popular in this hemisphere, much more than any European league. The annual champions league of South America, the Copa Libertadores is an incredible year long tournament that garners huge television ratings and enthusiasm on the continent. With monster squads like Peñarol, Santos, Sað Paolo, Fluminese, Flamengo, Internacional, River Plate and the mighty Boca Juniors, there is too much good futbol to be had to be concerned with anything in Europe other than the possibility of to whom their best players might be sold. I personally have been to enough European and South American cities to see with my own eyes that very little EPL media coverage (other than covering individual coaches and players of nationals) and no EPL merchandising exists......zero.

So why does the English Premier League have this false reputation? I'm inclined to think it simply doesn't have the reputation it thinks it has. I'm inclined to think this is nothing more than a propaganda campaign in order to sell a product. The violent nature of the English game is merely a marketing ploy no more under the surface as the fights in hockey or the wrecks in NASCAR. Keep in mind also, by falsely asserting the fact that the EPL is the "best" shapes the discourse on the subject. The next logical question to the casual observer becomes "how much better is it?" A common example of this type of effective shaping of discourse would be when the media is characterized as "liberal." The logical follow-up is "how liberal is it?" Anyone that can think their way out of a paper bag realizes that the media only profits from selling audiences to the business sector, thus any critical liberal exposé of business simply does not serve the particular media outlet well. The examples of false assertions are not always as overt as print ads and television commercials. Most of the time the assertions are subtle like what I'm listening to right now: at this very moment I'm 37 minutes in to a Champions Leage tie on FSC between Barcelona and a squad that I have yet to determine whether they are Russian, Ukraine, or neither (turns out they are from Belarus), and I have to listen to this announcer with an English accent ragging this minnow non-stop, in their first Champions League appearance mind you, for keeping 9 men below the ball, calling it "negative football," while any idiot knows it is completely proper football!! ....do I even need to explain how utterly stupid it would be to attack Barça? ....or to explain how this attitude is pervasive in the broadcasting ranks?....and how it is an attempt to shape attitudes?... the preferred attitudes of the marketer of the artificially overhyped product.......PG

My Margarita:

2011-06-24T15:13:00.004-04:00

I've tired of answering questions about my margaritas, so I thought it might be wise to get this simple procedure down on paper once and for all.

This Margarita is not an original recipe of mine, but rather was prepared tableside at a Mexican restaurant in Hawaii while Dawn and I were on our honeymoon in 1994. I have never tasted a margarita better than this one, period.

In a large pitcher, at least 32 oz., add:
the juice of 6-8 large limes
the juice of 6-8 large navel oranges OR 16 oz Tropicana OJ
1/2 cup of honey or agave nectar
one 12 oz. Mexican lager beer (Dos Equis green, Pacifico, Sol, Corona)
1/2 teaspoon kosher salt
Premium silver or blanco tequila to taste (Herradura, Patron, etc...)

Stir the mix until honey is dissolved. Pour over crushed ice (no exceptions) into a margarita glass and let sir for a minute or two keeping in mind this mixture is concentrated and the ice will melt and offer the proper dilution.

No salt rim, no straw, no fruit garnish necessary. Salute!

Farewell Bob Herbert, Your Will Be Sorely Missed

2011-03-28T14:07:00.025-04:00

On Saturday Bob Herbert, longtime voice of reason in the New York Times Op-Ed pages, wrote his final column for the paper after 18 long years. I have espoused his writing in this forum before, most notably for his piece upon the death of the great Howard Zinn, as well as emailing his columns to friends and posting them on my fridge for my children and visitors to read. Week after week Mr. Herbert churned out provocative fact-filled pleas to the Times readership of elementary morality and heartfelt common sense. Just the way in which he strung the words together to articulate his points in a handful of allotted lines, to think, to consider, to provoke, has been for many years my inspiration to write. His voice at the paper was essentially a lone one and his message, largely ignored. Brooks, Kristof, Friedman, even Krugman, and I love Paul Krugman, are simply not able to convey the issues of the day and the hardships endured of the average folk like Bob Herbert, whose columns were always a lesson. He leaves a legacy of compassion, brotherhood, and social justice and the oft-neglected look in the mirror to ask the question: "what have we become?" His departure makes for a large void at the very much pro-establishment Times and his replacement is likely not to belabor "depressing" American self-reflection. His final column is, in short, a masterpiece......and unfortunately very accurate. For anyone serious about the state of the country we are likely to leave our children, it is mandatory reading.
Be well Bob, I shall miss your wise words....PG

Losing Our Way
By Bob Herbert
Published in The New York Times 3/25/11

So here we are pouring shiploads of cash into yet another war, this time in Libya, while simultaneously demolishing school budgets, closing libraries, laying off teachers and police officers, and generally letting the bottom fall out of the quality of life here at home.

Welcome to America in the second decade of the 21st century. An army of long-term unemployed workers is spread across the land, the human fallout from the Great Recession and long years of misguided economic policies. Optimism is in short supply. The few jobs now being created too often pay a pittance, not nearly enough to pry open the doors to a middle-class standard of living.

Arthur Miller, echoing the poet Archibald MacLeish, liked to say that the essence of America was its promises. That was a long time ago. Limitless greed, unrestrained corporate power and a ferocious addiction to foreign oil have led us to an era of perpetual war and economic decline. Young people today are staring at a future in which they will be less well off than their elders, a reversal of fortune that should send a shudder through everyone.

The U.S. has not just misplaced its priorities. When the most powerful country ever to inhabit the earth finds it so easy to plunge into the horror of warfare but almost impossible to find adequate work for its people or to properly educate its young, it has lost its way entirely.

Nearly 14 million Americans are jobless and the outlook for many of them is grim. Since there is just one job available for every five individuals looking for work, four of the five are out of luck. Instead of a land of opportunity, the U.S. is increasingly becoming a place of limited expectations. A college professor in Washington told me this week that graduates from his program were finding jobs, but they were not making very much money, certainly not enough to think about raising a family.

There is plenty of economic activity in the U.S., and plenty of wealth. But like greedy children, the folks at the top are seizing virtually all the marbles. Income and wealth inequality in the U.S. have reached stages that would make the third world blush. As the Economic Policy Institute has reported, the richest 10 percent of Americans received an unconscionable 100 percent of the average income growth in the years 2000 to 2007, the most recent extended period of economic expansion. Americans behave as if this is somehow normal or acceptable. It shouldn’t be, and didn’t used to be. Through much of the post-World War II era, income distribution was far more equitable, with the top 10 percent of families accounting for just a third of average income growth, and the bottom 90 percent receiving two-thirds. That seems like ancient history now.

The current maldistribution of wealth is also scandalous. In 2009, the richest 5 percent claimed 63.5 percent of the nation’s wealth. The overwhelming majority, the bottom 80 percent, collectively held just 12.8 percent. This inequality, in which an enormous segment of the population struggles while the fortunate few ride the gravy train, is a world-class recipe for social unrest. Downward mobility is an ever-shortening fuse leading to profound consequences.

A stark example of the fundamental unfairness that is now so widespread was in The New York Times on Friday under the headline: “G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether.” Despite profits of $14.2 billion — $5.1 billion from its operations in the United States — General Electric did not have to pay any U.S. taxes last year. As The Times’s David Kocieniewski reported, “Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore.”

G.E. is the nation’s largest corporation. Its chief executive, Jeffrey Immelt, is the leader of President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. You can understand how ordinary workers might look at this cozy corporate-government arrangement and conclude that it is not fully committed to the best interests of working people.

Overwhelming imbalances in wealth and income inevitably result in enormous imbalances of political power. So the corporations and the very wealthy continue to do well. The employment crisis never gets addressed. The wars never end. And nation-building never gets a foothold here at home.

New ideas and new leadership have seldom been more urgently needed.

*This is my last column for The New York Times after an exhilarating, nearly 18-year run. I’m off to write a book and expand my efforts on behalf of working people, the poor and others who are struggling in our society. My thanks to all the readers who have been so kind to me over the years.

Booze and Brotherly Love in the Land of the Red Stick

2010-12-07T18:30:00.012-05:00

A recent trip to Baton Rouge revealed to me that I need to get out more, especially within our borders. While I've ranted before about how nasty and individualistic people have become and how much nicer our neighbors to the north in the New England area are, the sweet folks down on the bayou take "friendly" to another level.

Upon setting out for an LSU game in Death Valley after a debaucherous two days on Bourbon Street, a simple question posed to the hotel concierge as to recommended spots to party/tailgate beforehand was answered simply, "just go to the game." When the same query was directed at the golf pro before our morning round of golf, the reply was similarly vague....."Y'all from Newe Yorke?....yea, yea, just head for the stadium," ....way too vague for the crew I was with. What the heck is with these southerners I could hear these Long Island Irishmen thinking, DETAILS brother, that's what we want!....the name of a bar, a street, a color of a tent, anything but walking around aimlessly on a huge college campus. At least in my mind the case was settled when the beverage cart gal, a Taylor Swift look alike, suggested in her sweet twang "people er reale freendly over there, yower from Newe Yorke so they'll take good care of ya." Wow, since when does being from New York get you anything but a sneer? By then I had understood, just show up!.......but alas, the folks I was with felt the need to go the route of buying everything for a traditional tailgate. $350 later, loaded with a full menu, a grill (which required assembly), charcoal, and lighter fluid in hand we trekked up to Tiger Stadium for the festivities.

No sooner upon our arrival than the first sip of the first beer, were we asked by some sweet talking southern belles enjoying their annual homecoming to engage in an unfamiliar but addicting drinking game called "flipcup." As veterans of this competition will tell you, and I quickly learned under the gun, less is truly more. Several beers and burgers and dogs and whatever one could possibly want later, including a satellite driven flat screen with some other SEC game on, we realized what these pleasant folks all meant....."just go to the game" was to be taken literally...talk about southern hospitality! Being six guys with thick Long Island accents, we were a novelty, and they were sincerely honored to have us. After more than several hours of partying with our newest closest friends we handed them a "thank you" package of $350 worth of food, condiments, candy, drinks, coolers, charcoal, lighter fluid, and an unsuccessfully assembled new grill. They gave us a brief tour of the campus, which truth be told I do not recollect due to my inebriated state, and took us on the traditional walk to the stadium amongst scores of stumbling drunk fans....but amazingly no fights, no cussing, no drunken nonsense of any sort. We parted ways with a simple "it was a pleasure" and for once the figure of speech actually had true meaning. The atmosphere in the stadium was electric and wholesome all at once. Refreshingly, no commercialism anywhere, no one hawking wares; you couldn't spend a dollar in this place on anything but food if you wanted to. When LSU finally took the field after a several sets from the marching band, the place erupted. Upon collapsing into my seat in the student section, exausted from a day of golf, travel, and partying, I noticed the young coed in front of me with a shirt that read:

And I must say, it was 100% accurate.........PG

FC Barcelona, Més Que un Club

2010-12-02T13:09:00.022-05:00

Several days ago, FC Barcelona once again brought their unique brand of football to the world stage in "El Clásico," pounding the richest club in the world and their arch-enemy, Real Madrid 5-0 in fantastic style. Unlike American sporting rivalries, their global soccer counterparts typically have a secondary raison d'étre i.e. the Catholic-Protestant conflict of Rangers and Celtic in Scotland, the rich-poor animosity between Boca Juniors and River Plate in Buenos Aires and the genuine dislike between liberal cosmopolitan AS Roma and conservative ultra-nationalist SS Lazio in Italy. Thus, the bad blood between fans of opposing clubs often runs deep and is much more personal than just "I don't like you because you're a fan of the opposing team," it is, rather, a passion fueled refrain of, "I despise you, your team and it's supporters, and all which they represent."

El Clásico is exactly that, a deep ideological war of politics, culture, language, sovereignty, and of course, style of football. Phil Ball, the author of Morbo: The Story of Spanish Football, calls El Clásico essentially "a semi-annual re-enactment of the Spanish Civil War." Though the first socialist party in Spain was founded in Madrid, almost all the progressive ideas that have shaped the country's modern history....anti-monarchism, democracy, socialism, federalism, anarchism, syndicalism and communism have been introduced via the region of Catalonia, or as they say, Catalunya, the capital of course being Barcelona. During the dictatorships of Miguel Primo de Rivera and of Francisco Franco, all regional languages and identities were frowned upon and restrained. In this period FC Barcelona gained their motto "més que un club" (more than a club) because of it's connection to progressive beliefs, views on sovereignty and equality, and their representative role in Catalunya. Real Madrid, and their granted royal moniker, are seen throughout Spain as the establishment club, and though no longer a symbol of the monarchy or neo-fascist central authority, they still represent the wealthy capitalist class within Castilla.

Catalunya is politically sovereign and is listed as an "autonomous community" and are significantly self-governing within Spain. Catalans are different, want to be different, barely even considering themselves Spanish with their clear French and Italian influences, but they have maintained that proud Spaniard-like air about them and that wonderful lust for life and it's simple pleasures. Rather than spend exorbitant amounts to purchase the best players from within Spain and around the world as Real Madrid does, hence the term "Los Galacticos," Barça instead chooses to spend their money on youth development within Catalunya. They have also a crack international youth scouting system, occasionally finding souls at a tender age that fit their system of skill and possession such as the likes of the Argentine, Lionel Messi. Sure they spend a few Euro on an accomplished foreign player or two that meet their philosophical criteria on the pitch, but the fact is, the team is almost entirely home grown.

And get this, on principal alone, for 111 years they have not received one euro for a sponsors name on the front of their shirt! In fact, for the last five years they paid 1.5 million annually for the UNICEF logo to be displayed on their sleeve. This year, due to financial difficulties, FC Barcelona for the first time will accept 160 million euros over 5 years from The Qatar Foundation, fittingly a major sponsor of humanitarian efforts and education in the Middle East. Interestingly, they are also a major sponsor of Al-Jazerra as well as the Palestinian political faction Hamas. This decision has already caused the predictable short-sighted controversy, especially in Israel, but FC Barcelona is a serious club with a serious message, a global icon, with a keen eye toward social justice and the largest and most devout following in the world. Such righteous organizations without the insatiable pursuit of profit are rare and ought to receive our praise.

When you see a child wearing the blaugrana colors, make sure he is aware he is wearing more than a shirt, he is making a strong political statement. Like a Che Guevara image, those colors represent above all socialism, humanism, and justice. Go to Barcelona.......experience the freedom of independent democratic socialism, the culture and cuisine of Catalunya, the beauty of the Camp Nou grounds.......and witness the greatest and most beautiful football on earth.......PG

Everybody Talks About the Weather.......I Don't

2010-11-24T18:23:00.023-05:00

Nah, I'm not that serious. I am not even as close to as serious as Ulrike Meinhof, the writer-intellectual-philosopher of the early 1970's West German revolutionary group The Red Army Faction and author of the social critique "People Talk About the Weather...We Don't." Nor am I in the same stratosphere as my favorite member of the RAF, Gudrun Ensslin. Ms. Ensslin, the eerily beautiful, fiercely intelligent, and merciless revolutionary terrorist whom, when asked about the son she left behind before going underground replied with a wicked calmness, "if you are serious, you must be prepared to make such sacrifices." (authors note: Johanna Wokalek's chillingly accurate portrayal of Ensslin [thick black eyeliner, Mao quotes and all] in the film "The Baader-Meinhof Complex" won her the Bambi award, the German equivalent of the Oscar, for best actress...I highly, highly recommend the film for quality and context.)

These two gals, along with the charismatic Andreas Baader were the driving force behind the anti-imperialist/capitalist/fascist RAF or, as they were called by West German police, the Baader-Meinhof Gang. In an ironic twist, Baader, Meinhof, and Ensslin would become the first "celebrity" terrorists, before Carlos, before Osama; interestingly Ulrike Meinhof had often chided her fellow West German citizens as being concerned with only "celebrity" and "profit,"...sound familiar? And no, silly folks, Che Guevara was clearly an international celebrity, a noble status he righteously earned, but he was certainly not a terrorist; know the definition, do the research. But the truth is, I have a soft spot for those who give up lives of comfort to pursue ends that bring justice to the exploited, the oppressed. The courage of the individual that chooses to vacate a life of material pleasure is different than that of say, the Native American of the plains or the slave in Virginia or the Jew in Warsaw; they have no choice but to revolt...their very existence depends on it. However, when a high level of intellect is able to identify the propaganda that masks injustice toward a third party and the level of indignation toward the complicit and the silent is too much for them to bear and thus compels them to act, well, I find great moral courage in these types of folks. Praxis, was the word Ms. Ensslin used; the idea of acting upon political and philosophical ideas.

We can certainly debate the means of many of these revolutionaries; I would prefer peaceful diplomacy, in fact, I strongly believe once one resorts to violence against innocents, any position is delegitimized, but even Gandhi was not a committed pacifist...and George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan well,...should I continue? Is it fair for us to criticize both Che and Ensslin and Malcolm and the Palestinians, etc... on their belief that violence is the only way to answer violence? Civil Rights activist Stokely Carmichael once made the point that "non-violent activism assumes our opponent has a conscience,...the United States has none." Most would prefer not to think about the fact that the United States, as Martin Luther King, Jr. said 40 years ago in his "Beyond Vietnam" speech "is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." 40 years later, not much has changed. We'd all like to believe this is not the case, however to assert such a premise is laughable. Recent EU polls have the US at #2 behind client state Israel as the greatest threat to world peace today...greater than Iran, greater than North Korea. Beyond that, however, we might want to take note of the message of these revolutionaries, that governments are held for ransom by big money. That architects of policy always design policy in their favor. That to speak of austerity, in the richest country in the world, should be embarrassing. That we ought to reconsider how we want to be perceived internationally. That we need to be more aware, more serious, talk less about the weather and other meaningless conversation and be less distracted, mesmerized, and wholly intoxicated by utter nonsense. Can we really look ourselves in the mirror and say we are paying attention? I am afraid to say, no, we are not......PG

A Day Worth Remembering

2010-10-03T23:19:00.014-04:00

I believe playing sports has always had a very significant and purposeful place in society. One can not argue that it can teach our children valuable life lessons of effort, teamwork, dedication, and responsibility to one's fellow man. Involvement in sports also can enhance the qualities of leadership, obedience, competitiveness, honing a craft, not to mention it's healthy and fun. John, tonight I thought I'd recap what was a great day for you, your Mom and I.

The cool autumn Sunday morning of your fifth ever travel game was not unlike many others. We watched soccer in the AM, Napoli vs. Roma, got bagels up the street, and drove an hour upstate through rolling hills where rotting barns and grain silos dot the landscape. After a summer's worth of practices the newly formed team had played poorly, not having yet figured out how to play with each other. The coach too was tactically green, although he did know how to run a practice. The team had been outscored 22-1 in it's 0-4 start. Playing in the center of a 4-4-2 formation your flashes of brilliance were equalized by your collisions and turnovers in the midfield traffic. In the first game, the other team had two boys that were at least 140lbs., you weigh in at 65. Sometimes watching you is like watching Messi or Xavi; small in stature but smooth and skilled with the ball at your feet.

Suffice to say, ever since preschool, you had been a bit of a soccer prodigy with your fancy footwork, effort, and vision, a Messi of the rec league of sorts. Your games amongst friends and neighbors made weekends fun for us. Never a ball hog, you always looked to involve others and you rarely celebrated a goal of which you had many. Over the years dozens of people have told me directly how much they enjoy watching you play. It's a great feeling for a parent to hear that. What's more is that Diana and Caroline are great athletes as well. I wished you would have liked baseball, but that was not to be, and that is fine. I had been a good athlete, not a great one and had never advanced past the rec league in soccer myself . I don't recall "travel" clubs back then......it was all about New City Rams football, CYO Basketball, and West Nyack Little League, to which I was mediocre, bad, and was an excellent hitter respectively. I guess it makes sense that I became a good golfer....good at hitting things....odd what we call talent, no?

I digress. Your game today was in Pine Bush, an hour north. The field, unkempt and uneven natural grass was amongst open fields of harvested crops of some sort. On this day, however, you started at the front of the 4-4-2. From the opening whistle you were on the attack instead of the casual read and react style of a central midfielder you had begun to adopt with the travel squad. You kept possession well and put two shots on goal within the first 5 minutes, one of which was a rocket on the volley. Playing above the ball took you out of the crowded midfield and into space. On more than three occasions you pushed the ball down into the empty corner and delivered good, well struck crosses...one of them with the left foot. You had a few turnovers on the day, but they were easily put aside with the countless good touches you had, especially along the touchline, and you stretched the defense with your ghost runs. Like the assistant coach told me before the game, a father and former rec coach, "John knows the game,..... he gets it," I simply responded, "I know."

At 1-0 up, your first goal was off a throw in, pouncing on a loose ball after a scramble just above the box. Mom of course missed it as she was yelling to Diana who, of course, wasn't listening, but as the woman who sat next to us described it to Mom, you went flying through the air, caught it square on the volley (tell mom that's why we juggle in the street!), and put a bullet to the left of the keeper from 25 yards, bouncing once, two yards in over the line before crashing into the back of the net. A true golasso! As always you took congrats from your teammates modestly and simply retook your position. Mom didn't see it, but she was proud, and most of all, happy for you. I must say I was thrilled as well. In fact, all the parents were jubilant as a two goal lead in the second half insured that barring a complete collapse, we wouldn't lose on this day.

After a brief period under pressure the team gave one back and then gave away a penalty. The sideline was tense as Pine Bush lined up the spot kick. Only a miraculous save by your keeper who guessed right and was fully extended prevented the tie. The momentum had swung back and not two minutes later you killed off the game with your second goal as a perfectly placed, although slightly heavy cross found you alone at the far post. You clinically finished with a perfect chest high settle and strike on the half-volley from 5 yards out. I can't say you caught this one on the laces, but in scuffing it you essentially chipped the goalkeeper and it shook the back of the net on the fly sending us parents on the sideline into delirium, high-fiving everyone in sight!

John, you've had your share of accolades.....more than most will ever have, but on this day you not only played beautifully, you acted like a captain calling for the ball, alerting your teammates of pressure, and deciding who would take the corners. Although everyone played hard, only your buddy Ryan "Tut" was as valuable as he played a hard, error-free game at the back. Everyone was genuinely thrilled to get that first win and we parents set up a high-five gauntlet. You boys all had glowing faces as you ran through that I'm sure lasted well into the night. It is showings of effort like today after a string of brutal losses that build character for the team and the individual. I really look forward to watching this team grow together. I also look forward to when I will be able to tell your children the story of the day in Pine Bush, New York when you earned that prestigious number 10 on your shirt.....PG

......have you ever read Hunter S. Thompson?

2010-09-12T21:41:00.006-04:00

Hey, have you ever read Hunter Thompson? His words, basically stream of consciousis analyses of noteworthy and "historical" events, in an altered state,...and somwhere between crazy and genius, are chosen meticulously over a typwriter on a small desk in the center of a hotel room sometimes lavish and sometimes......... motor lodgeish. As you can see, I am writting in the mode of HST, except that I am not a crazy genius like him, like Lenny Bruce, like Andy Kaufman, like Sarah Silverman....you know, like that.

Although most of his works are worth reading, Thompson's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 72'" might be my favorite book of all time and I have never finished it!.....it's too good to finish and its not like I don't know the ending. It is brilliant day to day analysis of the 1972 presidential race between soon to be disgraced Nixon and the compassionate liberal George McGovern. HST's intellect and his experience from the 1968 campaign, which he also covered, soon revealed, to his disbelief, that one of the candidates was a good to the core, smart, and successful man which rarely existed in a time firmly in the wake of Viet Nam, assasinations, civil rights conflict and youth counter culture. He was exactly what the country needed, an Abe Lincoln type, a rational and honest Carter or Spitzer (sans the whores) type, he understood the youth and the opressed and of their individual activism. Hunter Thompson, a true American, and lover of America writes a brilliant critique of her, all the while on viscious functional benders of coke, pot, booze, an assortment of pills and a billion cigarettes. It's insane really....and worth reading real, real slow......PG

On Cooking Part Two: Anthony Bourdain

2010-09-06T22:21:00.013-04:00

Anthony Bourdain is celebrating his 100th show with the Travel Network this evening and I must say, Bourdain is tremendous as always. I don't mean to overrate the guy, he can be a jerk, but there is no denying he is a true food intellectual, as are his friends and acquaintances. If you like food, cooking, and/or eating in fine restaurants, reading his "Kitchen Confidential" is a must read, and his television show a must watch. If you don't, it's as if you would prefer to leave the training wheels on your 10 speed. Rachel, Giada, Bobby Flay, et al are teaching you a way to "think" about preparing food and subsequently demonstrating it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that (although Bourdain loves to rank on them often), in fact, this type of instruction is essential to any aspiring home cook. Emeril, my personal favorite, was a truly a genius at this, although I'd wished he'd never did all that "Bam!" and "Kick it up a notch!" nonsense which has skewed for the worse his notoriety; sans that, he has the mind of a great chef. However, amidst all this great instruction and visually stimulating hosts, ingredients, and settings, there is no intellectual discussion of the art of cooking itself. No analysis of culture or how and why the particular dishes were developed, what factors influenced it, how they are cooked, eaten, where, when and with whom.

But Bourdain is different. As I've stated before in this forum, his ability to provide analysis of the world's cuisines and to find beauty in the natural simplicity of the cuisine of the regular folk, the poor, the indigenous is noteworthy....and his writing, all of it, is brilliant. Tonight Bourdain is chatting food, in Paris, with Eric Ripert of New York's Le Bernardín and two local chefs debating the new Parisian popular movement away from the "classical" French cuisine and the Michelin Star system of rating restaurants. The discussion is deep, intense, and has a political core. This new breed of chefs have a firm belief in the use of local organic food products, time honored cooking techniques and a healthy distaste for anything overly expensive or labor intensive just for "show." They also have essentially shunned the rulebook in favor of "whatever works," and any grading system of their efforts such as Michelin, offends them. In France, the birthplace of classical cuisine, this is truly revolutionary.

This is the beauty of Bourdain. No one is having these discussions. Next week he'll be strolling the aisles with a Japanese fishmonger at the famous Tokyo fish market discussing what's new and exciting, supply and demand issues, environmental regulations and their effects. To anyone with interest in the culinary arts, I suggest you tune in.......PG

The Ugly American is Fat, Arrogant, and Stupid Too

2010-08-01T12:51:00.014-04:00

I take no joy in stating such a damning fact as the United States is, indeed, my country, my children's country. My blood may be Italian, my culture may be New York and Italian inflected, but the reality is I am an American. This simple fact gives me both the liberty and credibility to offer an honest critique, a look in the mirror, if you wish. I see no moral courage in criticizing the deeds or qualities of others without having laid the magnifying glass over one's own record first. And of course in a democracy, any criticism lays at our very own feet, my own included, and no one else's.

While acknowledging that there are "two" Americas, no doubt, I choose to implicate all with broad strokes. I realize this may seem unfair, but at some point silence must be deemed complicity. For all of our natural beauty and wonderful pockets of diversity, culture, and cuisine, we are a truly a brutal breed. The majority of America, unbeknownst to them, is, in short, an international embarrassment void of moral character in their unquenchable pursuit of self gratification. Is it possible for the citizens of this country to be any more repulsive?

A rant if I may: we eat, and celebrate eating, garbage...chemically altered shit that makes us fat and unhealthy, all while we complain about our doctor and pharmacy bills which are too high for the poor quality of the care we receive; but nobody complains because the last thing we want to do is have a national system (that's socialism!) where god forbid we give free medical care to the poor legal Mexican on who's back this damn country resides.....sure, we'd all prefer if young American kids mowed our lawn, washed dishes in restaurants, and picked produce as it might build some semblance of a work ethic, but nah, the newest video game is out and our kids need to be proficient in it ASAP....that takes hours of work don't you know.....and, of course, the side benefit of that is it keeps those pesky kids quiet while we catch up on serious things like People Magazine and Nancy Grace.....and when we are ready to send those kids to college we remortgage the house so Johnny can drink in frat houses nightly all for that cherished diploma, which in no way implies Johnny actually learned anything (except for his mastery of the art of rolling a quarter off his nose right into a shot glass, which is really quite stunning to witness).....so like the inefficiency of our health care, our kids become more and more dumb while we have the highest education costs in the world.......but wait, it's all those teachers fault!.....yeah, that's it....the $80,000 a year teacher who after 25 years gets medical benefits for life......yikes, can you believe that? All the while we think it's perfectly rational that the CEO of XYZ company got a 10 million dollar bonus because he increased profits by smashing the union, reducing benefits, closing two factories, and shipping 1,200 jobs to India where they can pay a $2.75 hourly rate...and no benefits....jackpot!....let's give this guy a parade, not the guy on who breaks his back daily for a fucking crumb, the worker. So let's leave the lights on and hop in to our gas guzzler with the cool looking peace sign bumper sticker, turn up Justin Bieber on the radio, and hit the McDonald's drive-thru....America at it's finest!

I digress. If American exceptionalism exists, and I believe it does in rather large swaths of our population, it is surely sheer ignorance, or at the very best, false bravado. It is said that ignorance, at it's core, is merely a lack of vision, and it is our reluctance to peek in to the mirror from time to time that disturbs me greatly. Simply put, we DO NOT live in the greatest country in the world, sorry to say, not even close, but then again, most folks have rarely ventured outside of our borders to know this. We blindly pray to god, but don't listen to the message. We butcher our one language, but snicker at the accent of the foreigner who can speak four. We have little, if any, appreciation for the arts of any sort, barely ever read, have virtually no understanding of our nation's history, and regularly make gluttons of ourselves at life's buffet. We incessantly rail about bad government, but never openly discuss real issues and have embarassingly low voter turnouts. Although we repeatedly chant slogans of "liberty" and "freedom," we do little but use this freedom to make asses out of ourselves,..............all while the world laughs........PG

Play to Your Strengths

2010-06-21T14:03:00.001-04:00

Printed in the June 24 edition of the Our Town:

These days, it seems, there certainly is no shortage of golf discussion topics. Conversations typically consist of the newest, hottest irons, or rescue club, or ball, or what shaft this guy or that guy on tour is using. The thirst for those "extra ten yards" is never quenched; it continues without end in every corner of the golf domain. If you have even once watched the Golf Channel, read Golf Digest, or strolled into a retail golf outlet, you know exactly what I mean. Unfortunately, for every golfer who is frustrated with a lack of improvement and has spent countless dollars on a litany of new equipment, this is the wrong way to go about improving your game and I beg you right now to stop!

For a moment, I would like to engage you with a few philosophical thoughts. First, let me make a few elementary assumptions: you play golf; you like golf; your equipment is structurally sound and relatively modern. With that said, let's focus on the thought process. If you want to improve your game you must figure out what you already do well and keep the focus on the score, and not on those "extra ten yards." If a choked down, three quarter swing of the driver produces a 210 yard drive down the middle, embrace it. Eliminate the swing from the heels approach that, although occasionally impressive, rarely hits a fairway. This might be radical, but forget the specific par of a hole, instead play each hole to your specific strength. If that means a second shot on a long par 4 is played to the 100 yard marker instead of the well bunkered green, that's what it means. Forgive my getting all Zen here but my college coach was a Zen Buddhist who stressed thinking outside of the conventional wisdom. His philosophy was to pick out a few aspects of your game that are above average and work hard to exploit them. Just as in a simple game of chess or Lao Tzu's "The Art of War," you must always consciously maneuver into positions of strength, even if that means bucking convention. Logic would then dictate that you must also actively choose to reduce the exposure of the aspects of your game that are below average. If you can think this out, embracing the unconventional, using just your brain and without hitting one shot off the practice tee, you can become more consistent in your scoring and likely shave a few strokes.

This golf paradigm we are immersed in today did not exist fifty years ago, equipment was almost identical in terms of club heads, shafts, and balls. Golfers relied primarily on their strategy of play and often used their intellect to outwit their opponents. Consider this, in order to take full advantage of his strengths, Ben Hogan famously used to walk a course in a practice round backward starting on the 18th green. He would first look at the green and knowing he preferred uphill and right-to-left breaking putts, he would determine a spot to land his approach. He would then ask himself, "where do I have to hit from in the fairway to have a nice, clean, level shot to this spot?" He would pick the spot, walk out to it and then turn to the tee box and ask, "what do I have to hit from here to the tee?" This was considered completely unconventional as he might hit 6 iron-2 iron on a par four, but seriously, would anyone argue with his 9 wins, 6 second place finishes and 39 top-ten finishes in 57 career starts in major tournaments?.....those numbers make Tiger and Phil look silly! ....PG

Letter to Noam Chomsky

2010-06-19T15:16:00.004-04:00

Professor Chomsky:

In the first DVD of the Chomsky Sessions with Michael Albert your definition of intellectuals seems quite narrow. I preface by saying I agree with the majority of your lifelong work and admire that your opinions, properly, are imbedded in the presentation of facts as opposed to being a more forward thrust. So my question is, must an intellectual be in a position of power or command large audiences? Could a person who has all the qualifications in terms of intellect, degrees, IQ, depth of broad knowledge, critical thinking skills, as you often say, thinking things out to their conclusion and all their externalities; as well as being in a position of leadership in a small business and heavily involved in the community be considered an intellectual?

Let's assume the "responsibility" part is met to some degree. Let's assume he or she is a good spouse and parent, a benevolent boss who runs his company democratically, ethically, ...has introduced profit-sharing, solicits input from every employee, involves himself in their personal lives, learns their languages, and his community involvement is for the most part altruistic. Let's assume he or she is well traveled, talks to people, openly discusses issues, writes opinion pieces for the local paper, the Times, in his or her blog, researches, studies, reads incessantly and is a bastion of knowledge amongst his or her family, friends, employees and acquaintances. Even then, no?

I don't mean to quibble about titles or monikers, but I have always held, based on your essay "Robert McNamara," that although he was considered a genius, ran Ford, defense secretary, etc..., that he was not an intellectual. That yes, he could crunch numbers and devise efficient ways for this or that, but that he was an anti-intellectual of sorts. That no man of his stature and position, who failed to see the the fraud or comprehend the devastating results of his decisions, could possibly be considered an intellectual. Based on your opening remarks in the DVD, I conclude something different: smart, benevolent boss A is not an intellectual and Robert McNamara is an intellectual, albeit grossly irresponsible.

Do I have this correct? If so, it would be one of the rare times I would disagree with you. Regardless, you have inspired me to lead a certain life; and for that I am forever grateful.

Please be well,

Paul J. Guarino
West Nyack, New York

Chomsky's Response:

The term has no fixed meaning. It's commonly used in the manner I described, but as I probably said in the interview, that has little to do with intellectual capacity, insight, understanding, etc. Those who are considered intellectuals and have power or command audiences bear the greater responsibility. It must be noted that being considered an intellectual and actually being an intellectual may be two separate things. Just as in my own personal life, one of the most influential thinkers and most educated people I've ever met never went past 4th grade.

NC

Letter to Norman Finkelstein and His Response

2010-06-18T12:21:00.002-04:00

Professor Finkelstein:

After patient waiting, my copy of "American Radical" arrived yesterday and I had the opportunity to view the DVD in full last night. As a decade long admirer of your work, I must say I did not believe the documentary would bear any new found information; the idea being to introduce my wife to the individual that I often talk about or refer to. I did, however, find the film very revealing in many ways.

I preface by saying that I had my Chomsky epiphany in 1994 at the age of 24. We can agree this finding, for anyone who is serious, is transformational. Years of reading his works, listening to his talks, and doing the work he often suggests to find the truth has been both enlightening and frustrating. In the non-academic world, one can at times feel as if they are on an intellectual island, the majority of folks uninformed, ..uninterested, ..distracted. The way Professor Chomsky frames an argument, both with the pen and the voice, is the allure for me. The clear presentation of facts grounded in elementary morality and allowing his audience to make their own rational conclusions, rather than spoon-feeding folks what they ought to think is a rarely used technique these days. You, Professor, are clearly cut from the same cloth as Professor Chomsky and I can not think of a higher compliment.

Years of reading and listening to your words, I feel as if I know you, but after last night I realize you are not just a fact-speaking, fact-checking, crusading machine. Particularly revealing was the extent of your mother's influence. Recently, you had mentioned her disgust at the non-seriousness of "The Firing Line" in an interview with Amy Goodman and I thought your mother's analysis was brilliant; I wanted more. Your website delivered. The documentary delivered. Her pacifist nature, her principled firmness, her analyses and perpetual method of deriving lessons out of everyday situations, ...where are people of this caliber, may I ask?

I must admit the film contains too much Dershowitz for my liking. Finkelstein newcomers see the name, followed by Harvard Law and they get a sense of credibility, even though his words, in the film alone, are wholly un-credible. But in the end, however, I was most struck at my own naïveté. Your response to the driver who asked if you were aware of a circulated pamphlet called "The Finkelstein Industry" was deeply sobering. Your reflective questioning of your choices near the end of the film was human to the core and you closing comments at the University of Chicago condemning the incivility argument as a red herring, accurate and powerful. In all honesty, my thoughts over the past several years, especially after that wonderful symposium at the U. of Chicago on Academic Freedom, was "who needs DePaul!" Finkelstein will get a tenure track position in three seconds, hopefully back home at Colombia or NYU so I can see him more often. I figured your book writing and lecturing was by choice. I clearly was wrong and I grossly underestimated how much it meant to you.

Well, I'll have you know Professor, I've often wondered who will carry the torch upon the passing of Chomsky, Zinn, Said? The answer is you, among few others. This is the regard in which you are held by simple folks like myself who see wrong in the world and wish it righted. When I hear the name Norman Finkelstein, ...I think of courage and integrity, ...justice and morality. This is also the regard in which you are held by your academic peers, and that says a ton.

Please keep your head high and may your faith in the cause not waver. You have more than fulfilled your intellectual responsibility.

Be well,

Paul J. Guarino
West Nyack, New York

Dear Paul Guarino,

It's hard to answer an email like this. I am flattered, but it also burdens: I can never meet the standards to which I am held. I am a person of a thousand flaws. I can only say that I do my best, which I know is never good enough. I never saw American Radical and don't recall the exchange with the driver about "The Finkelstein Industry." Please remind me what I said.

Best,
Norm Finkelstein

Dr. Finkelstein:

The purpose of my email was not necessarily for a response, nor for an ass-kissing session, and certainly not to further burden. In fact, that was my point....the film portrayed the depth of the burden in a wholesome, humanistic way. I understand the film was not made for folks like me who are aware of your work and tribulations (and your humorous side); the opening scene displays text that reads, "You don't know who Norman Finkelstein is." It seems the producers had righteous intentions in debunking myths about your work as I would imagine they did not put forth this kind of effort in order to make boatloads of money. Suffice to say, the film makes it's case by giving the history and the proper perspective with only a smidge of Hollywood fluff. That smidge will work well with objective audiences. An example of that smidge is simply the cinematography used in that exchange with the driver over your knowledge of the "Finkelstein Industry" pamphlet. The driver glances back, shows you the pamphlet, asks if you are aware that you are essentially being called a hypocrite; profiting from the same thing you are condemning others for doing. I must be truthful, my mind had originally parsed (and quickly dismissed) this same question. To use your phrase, I think it's a reasonable question. And so you lean back, sort of glare into nothingness and with a bit of sarcasm, but also sadness, you say and I'm paraphrasing, "I guess if you call losing your job, not being able to find employment, having difficulty publishing, profiting, well then yeah, I guess so." The scene hit me hard. This man who wants nothing more than to teach, to speak to the consciousness of our youth, and to publish, was reduced to quasi-martyrdom, a life on the road, perpetually defending himself from a array of attacks. As I mentioned in my last note, it shattered my previous juvenile assumptions. Martyrdom, however, implies a level of failure, and to this I disagree. Hilberg's word, triumph, is what I see.

Paul Guarino

Mrs. Sona

2010-06-01T15:56:00.005-04:00

Delivered at the West Nyack Elementary retirement dinner, Thursday, June 17th 2010:

As many of you may know, I was a student of Ava’s way back in 1974 and her remarkable career ends, interestingly enough, with my youngest child Caroline. Mrs. Sona’s fingerprints are all over each of my children, and I know I speak for my whole family in saying we consider ourselves blessed for that. It was only a few weeks ago, before her retirement plans were known, that I had the pleasure of attending an awards ceremony at Rockland Community College where Mrs. Sona was recognized as a Master/Mentor to student teachers. Prior to the event I sat down at my computer and figured I would compose a few words of gratitude for her as this occasion was a fitting opportunity to do so. Instead of writing to her, as I believe she already knows how I feel, I chose instead to speak to a third party, …her mother, her husband, her children, one day her grandchildren, or a colleague,…but from my perspective, a former student’s perspective, a father’s perspective, an engaged citizen’s perspective…and that if ever the occasion arose for me to say a few words in her name, this is what I would say, and how I would say it. I jotted down a few thoughts, gave it a quick edit, and gave it to her that night. So now, ironically, as I have this honor, here is what I wrote:

I was a young 5 year old out of Queens when I entered Strawtown Elementary's kindergarten class. For reasons that are still unclear to me I was terrorized at the prospect of entering the room. Mrs. Sona's gentle coaxing was met with, I must be honest here, violent kicking and screaming. This continued for several days, but Mrs. Sona allowed me to sit in the hall, checking on me regularly, until I was ready. Within a week or so I was fully assimilated in the classroom and for the duration of the year, in fact my lifetime, my deplorable behavior was never held against me.

While we can all debate how much cognitive clarity one has at the age of 5 or 6, the kindergarten years, what is known, is that this is the age of learned reason, of lessons of elementary morality, of responsibility, compassion, and of respect. I cannot recall the specifics of her curriculum, but I do recall with lucidity her ever present smile, her way. With a simple look or hug, she could extract a smile, even when there was none. The level of joy in her classroom, as many of you know, is pervasive, even through the school. And now, having been fortunate enough to witness her nurture each of my three children, I understand why so many have lasting impressions of her. If Mrs. Sona’s philosophy is correct, and I believe it to be, that parents and teachers have equal responsibility in crafting young minds and hearts, she has more than fulfilled her responsibility.

I make no effort to delve into the current political debate over teachers, unions, and budgets, but I will say this: ...I am deeply concerned with the declining value we place on our children's teachers. In my view, in light of the current global concerns, it would seem logical that their perceived value should be increasing. And that to even consider reducing funding for compensation or classroom tools of any good educator, let alone one of Mrs. Sona's caliber, would be a travesty,...the negative externalities of which can not be calculated. And I would venture to say, and I don't mean this in passing or as a cliché, but rather with conviction and without doubt, that if we were to consider modeling this nation's kindergarten curricula to resemble that of Ava Sona, with her radiant smile, genuine love, and of course her guitar,... the world would be a more beautiful place.....PG

Letter to Clark Hoyt, New York Times Public Editor

2010-05-07T13:21:00.006-04:00

This letter was in response to a harsh and unfairly critical review of Tony Judt's Ill Fares the Land by German writer and author Josef Joffe. Mr. Judt is a lifelong left leaning liberal who deeply admires Scandinavian social-democratic forms which he believes the United States and Great Britian should emulate. His profound writing on the predatory nature of capitalism, erosion of societal values, and academic freedom is extraordinary. He also, as a Jew, has approached the Israel-Palestine conflict with an objective hand and because of it has been the target of intense pressure from the Israel Lobby.

Mr. Joffe is the embodiment of the subservient to power, quasi-intellectual. He merely toes the line of neo-liberalist free trade doctrine and neo-conservative geo-politics.....PG

Dear Editor:

I've always thought Tony Judt was a bit over enamored with state socialist society (hadn't he read his Orwell?), but when in a review of the Mearsheimer/Walt essay The Israel Lobby, he referred to Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky as "loonies of the crazy left," I felt his credibility was severely compromised. The fact is, however, while we can debate the means, Judt's philosophy of what ends we ought to strive for (participatory democracy, social equality, justice, mutual aid) is more than noteworthy. In addition, his critique of capitalism is painfully accurate and his own critical assessment of Israel, courageous.

So why does the New York Times feel it necessary to commission Josef Joffe, someone who less civil writers might construe as a "loony of the crazy right," to review his book Ill Fares the Land? Readers not familiar with Joffe, or savvy enough to google him, might assume he is an objective critic, which he is not. His views, both in print and in think tank forums are diametrically opposed to Mr. Judt's. The New York Times must know that the choice of Mr. Joffe essentially discredits the entire review. This is simply another glaring example of the, increasingly less subtle, marginalization of those in favor of discussing alternatives to our current ill-ridden society, and truly, truly unfortunate. What else are we to think?

Paul J. Guarino
West Nyack, New York

On Knives:

2010-04-28T23:15:00.016-04:00

...So it is that I like knives. As most know, I am into many things and one of them is a healthy respect for good kitchen cutlery. Just as I do with my guitars, I choose which knife I will spend an evening of cooking with. I am preferential to some while others are cuisine specific. Some knives have a narrow culinary function and some can do everything. You cannot ever enjoy cooking, no less cook at all, with bad knives, period. Anyone who has cooked for a paycheck knows this. Anthony Bourdain, in his classic Kitchen Confidential, does not mince words in stating his rule number one in learning to cook..."You need, for god's sake, a decent chef's knife!" (Bourdain's boldface) Agreed! Please...I beg you, get rid of the slap chop and other useless gizmos and empty that drawer full of shitty serrated edge nonsense. One decent chef's knife, per Bourdain, and some easily learned knife skills and you're golden (and with more drawer space!) Sidenote: Bourdain is arrogant and often distasteful, but his ability to find beauty in simplicity and the cuisine of the regular folk, the poor, the indigenous is noteworthy....and his writing, all of it, is brilliant.

Outside of utility or task specific knives, most Western chefs use as their main foil the chef's knife, some call it a French knife. It's widely accepted and widely used. I have worked with dozens of chefs and with the exception of one or two, they all swear by it. A descendant of the butcher's knife, the chef's knife is highly versatile and can bone out a hind quarter, slice a roast, pound scallopine, pare an apple, as well as chiffonade basil for garnish. The French version has a somewhat straight edge and a triangular look (pictured at right), while the German version (my preference) has a more pronounced convex blade which can be rocked back and forth. There is no denying the functionality of this style of knife. A good one, comfortable in both length and weight, is indeed, a few more dollars than one might think ought to be spent on cutlery. But I assure you, do it, become intimate with it, showcase it; well maintained, it will last a lifetime.

However, consistent with my personality, I prefer something completely different. I am not, contrary to popular belief, rebellious by nature. What I am, is inquisitive, and my constant inquiry has led me to this, a more perfect kitchen utensil, ...the Chinese chef's knife, more commonly refereed to as (although erroneously), the Chinese cleaver. Not the ultra heavy, thick bladed butcher's cleaver used to chop through bones, but a lighter, sleeker, ergonomically perfect version of it. This particular design is used, with some variation, throughout most of Eastern Asia for it's high degree of functionality. Rather than list the knife's attributes, I'll simply say it can do almost everything in the kitchen and is incredibly comfortable. The best one you can buy, like woks, is amazingly $25.

The Japanese, true to their perfectionist nature have their own spin on this knife worth noting. Shun, a high end Japanese knife producer employs a samurai sword like procedure whereby a thin, razor sharp, however brittle, high-carbon steel blade is encapsulated with an incredibly strong, but more malleable lower-carbon steel. It just feels sharp. If you've ever handled a genuine samurai sword and felt the sheer sense of power and danger that drips from that weapon, you know what I mean. Not quite Hattori Hanzo, but Shun does make precision cutlery and while I find the popular santoku blade useful, I am particularly fond of the Nakiri blade (pictured below).

To be fair, although one must acknowledge their beauty, I must say that the $200 Shuns can do no more than the $25 Chinese chef's knife and with in this in mind I share this brief anecdote: I recently took a week long class on Asian cooking at the Culinary Institute of America in Hyde Park, New York, the premier chef school in the country. On day one, after lecture and product ID, we proceeded to the kitchen during which time four teams of four crank out 5 or 6 authentic Asian dishes each. So picture it, 16 chefs plus student aids and faculty members, all dressed in the standard chef's coat, chex pants, chef's hat, two side towels all calling one another "chef," as is CIA protocol, yelling "excuse me, chef....how'd you do that chef?...chef, could you chop me some....oooh, that smells good chef!" It's all a bit bizarre, even for someone whom has been working in, and around kitchens all his life....did I mention I had dishes of mine voted "best plate" three out of the five days?...... I digress. So a chef/instructor calls for a "demo" as is routinely done to demonstrate a particular technique, and he asks for a knife. Well all these fancy country club and chic eatery guys step up and offer their Henkel or Wusthof. The instructor, who is from China, brushes them aside. At this point a famous chef, whom shall remain nameless, from some snooty restaurant in the Hamptons that everyone's heard of except me says, "hold on!" as he unsheathes his prized Japanese blade with ridiculous confidence. With that, the instructor leans in, grabs my $25 Dexter Chinese chef's knife, holds it up and says, "you wanna cook Chinese, this is what you use, no exceptions!" That is a true story.

We must cook, ...obviously. So it would be wise to attempt to enjoy it. If we look at daily cooking metaphorically like, say, a daily commute, then can we see how the quality and functionality of the tools we use can affect our feelings toward the task. If we commute in a Lexus with reliability, performance and all the accoutrements of luxury, we may actually enjoy the hour spent on the road; conversely in a 1985 Pinto, not so much. Similarly, your knives and pots and pans (lose the Farberware, please!) are your vehicle to getting quality ingredients from point A to point B. Thus, using this conjecture, we can rationally assume the cooking "experience" can be enhanced with the addition of good tools and subtraction of bad ones. It's worth a try. Not to be rude or arrogant, but only on the rarest of occasions have I perused the knife drawer of any friend or client and said, "wow, you have a great knife here!"

Letter to Randy Cohen-"The Ethicist:"

2010-02-12T15:16:00.003-05:00

A hiring lawyer from Greenwich, Conn., wrote to The Ethicist of the New York Times with this question: Is it ethical to recommend rejection of members of the Federalist Society simply because you disagree with their conservative politics?

The Ethicist, Randy Cohen, said politics should not be a factor....
The lawyer, who made recommendations on summer and full-time associates, had noted the review was intended to take account of judgment and personality. The Ethicist countered that reasonable people differ over politics. “I am tempted to believe that those whose politics differ from mine lack ‘judgment and personality’ and taste in clothes and finesse on the dance floor,” Cohen said. “But this proposition is unsupportable.”

The lawyer ignored the advice, Cohen wrote in an update. He or she...rejected every Federalist Society member.

12/10/09

Dear Ethicist:

As one who has views on ethics fairly consistent with yours, I make it a point to discuss your column routinely with my family over dinner. I must say, however, this week, for the first time, I was stunned at the shortsightedness of your response. While I understand the concept of "the simple answer, is usually the right answer," I believe you have not considered the more important externalities of your advice.

If we are to assume that ethics is guided by a code of elementary human morality and conduct within the scope of a societal construct (assuming it embraces at least modest forms enlightenment principals of personal freedom and equality), then it is imperative we have a dim view of any "society" or ideology that violates the fundamental idea of equality so openly and egregiously. And while we probably share these views, to then suggest we should ignore this aspect of ones character seems grossly irresponsible to our all important civic duty toward "a more perfect union." The Federalist Society is a notorious protector of property from democratic forces and loud opponent of equality; it is not controversial to claim this particular ideology violates even the most benign religious doctrine, as a notable columnist and one who calls himself "the Ethicist," you must know this. While I believe there is a place for classic conservative thought in our political discourse, without question, this issue transcends politics. It is, in fact, a matter of morality and ethics. Not to mention, the hypocritical exclusionary tactic of freedom of discretion from within the protected corporate structure is the very same principal for which the Federalists so passionately fight. Kudos to the hiring attorney for exercising not his legal, but his moral judgement.

Paul J. Guarino
West Nyack, New York

Howard Zinn, American

2010-02-01T21:30:00.012-05:00

Lately, I've thought often of what might happen after Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn pass away. What might the reaction be? Who will continue their commitment to informing Americans about injustices committed in their name? What will be their legacy be in academia? If it is true that dissent is the ultimate form of patriotism, and I make no attempt to hide my belief that it is, Chomsky and Zinn are with no equals. Few Americans have this same belief, American exceptionalism is indeed rampant; "Love it or leave it" being about fifty percent of the country's idea of debate and critical thinking. All while, as the ultra cynical dissident Gore Vidal so correctly says, "Americans lack of knowledge of global affairs is the joke of the world."

For over fifty years, yes fifty years, these two men, Chomsky and Zinn, have traveled the country and the globe, many times together, speaking to people, reviewing the historical record, uncovering injustice, revealing the intentions of power and privilege and celebrating progressive figures. Last Thursday evening, half of this enormous equation, passed away. Howard Zinn was 87. Zinn taught me a thing or two. His masterwork "A People's History of the United States," most notably, just by reading the introduction, teaches us that there are large holes in our doctrinal system; that history is written by the intellectuals of the "victors," and that academia is often merely a servant of power. Who would have taught me to know that the the most powerful words ever written in any language are of Frederick Douglass in his "What to the American slave is your Fourth of July?" Unless nothing of what I've said makes sense, read this speech; vow to yourself now, that you will read it. I wish that what Douglass describes was not the case, but it was, and it still is. Critics of power, subsequently, are pushed to the margins and labeled as radicals. Thus, John Brown is condemned as a villain, Helen Keller's life-long socialist message conveniently ignored, Eugene Debs simply dropped from history, and Muhammad Ali labled a traitor. It was Howard Zinn who taught me to understand why Martin Luther King's critical "Beyond Vietnam" speech is largely ignored while the more benign "I Have a Dream," speech is lauded. There were reasons for this worth knowing! Zinn speeches were often filled with curious humor and he would often say things like, "doesn't it seem odd that over 30 American transnational corporations had profits larger than the GDP of Mexico?"

Simply put, Howard Zinn challenged us to critique conventional wisdom; a line of thinking all too rare these days. In a society that takes democracy seriously, Howard Zinn's passing would be front page news, but if what Zinn and Chomsky assert is correct, it would likely not be at all. In fact, in terms of the disparity of the attention from deserved to received, it might be the world record holder, it might deserve Elvis, and receive close to zero. No major network attention and moderate public media attention. Only the lack of attention, or should I say the enormous sigh of relief from privilege, upon the death of Chomsky could possibly top it. Needless to say, this says something about our society to me; it says something very unfortunate. Rather than continue, Bob Herbert, in a NY Times op-ed piece, or what should have been Zinn's obituary, provides worthy, brilliant prose, no exaggeration, and more than anything I could possibly conjure. I mean he knew the guy!....of course it's gonna be better. Not to mention Bob Herbert is a wise man....in typical fashion, as Zinn or Chomsky might say, his ethical patriotic message goes no further than the Times and the occassional appearance across the table from Charlie Rose. Here is his assessment of the radical and the saintly, Howard Zinn.............PG

A Radical Treasure

by Bob Herbert

I had lunch with Howard Zinn just a few weeks ago, and I’ve seldom had more fun while talking about so many matters that were unreservedly unpleasant: the sorry state of government and politics in the U.S., the tragic futility of our escalation in Afghanistan, the plight of working people in an economy rigged to benefit the rich and powerful. Mr. Zinn could talk about all of that and more without losing his sense of humor. He was a historian with a big, engaging smile that seemed ever-present. His death this week at the age of 87 was a loss that should have drawn much more attention from a press corps that spends an inordinate amount of its time obsessing idiotically over the likes of Tiger Woods and John Edwards.
Mr. Zinn was chagrined by the present state of affairs, but undaunted. “If there is going to be change, real change,” he said, “it will have to work its way from the bottom up, from the people themselves. That’s how change happens.” We were in a restaurant at the Warwick Hotel in Manhattan. Also there was Anthony Arnove, who had worked closely with Mr. Zinn in recent years and had collaborated on his last major project, “The People Speak.” It’s a film in which well-known performers bring to life the inspirational words of everyday citizens whose struggles led to some of the most profound changes in the nation’s history. Think of those who joined in — and in many cases became leaders of — the abolitionist movement, the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the feminist revolution, the gay rights movement, and so on. Think of what this country would have been like if those ordinary people had never bothered to fight and sometimes die for what they believed in. Mr. Zinn refers to them as “the people who have given this country whatever liberty and democracy we have.” Our tendency is to give these true American heroes short shrift, just as we gave Howard Zinn short shrift. In the nitwit era that we’re living through now, it’s fashionable, for example, to bad-mouth labor unions and feminists even as workers throughout the land are treated like so much trash and the culture is so riddled with sexism that most people don’t even notice it. (There’s a restaurant chain called “Hooters,” for crying out loud.)
I always wondered why Howard Zinn was considered a radical. (He called himself a radical.) He was an unbelievably decent man who felt obliged to challenge injustice and unfairness wherever he found it. What was so radical about believing that workers should get a fair shake on the job, that corporations have too much power over our lives and much too much influence with the government, that wars are so murderously destructive that alternatives to warfare should be found, that blacks and other racial and ethnic minorities should have the same rights as whites, that the interests of powerful political leaders and corporate elites are not the same as those of ordinary people who are struggling from week to week to make ends meet? Mr. Zinn was often taken to task for peeling back the rosy veneer of much of American history to reveal sordid realities that had remained hidden for too long. When writing about Andrew Jackson in his most famous book, “A People’s History of the United States,” published in 1980, Mr. Zinn said: “If you look through high school textbooks and elementary school textbooks in American history, you will find Jackson the frontiersman, soldier, democrat, man of the people — not Jackson the slaveholder, land speculator, executioner of dissident soldiers, exterminator of Indians.” Radical? Hardly.
Mr. Zinn would protest peacefully for important issues he believed in — against racial segregation, for example, or against the war in Vietnam — and at times he was beaten and arrested for doing so. He was a man of exceptionally strong character who worked hard as a boy growing up in Brooklyn during the Depression. He was a bomber pilot in World War II, and his experience of the unmitigated horror of warfare served as the foundation for his lifelong quest for peaceful solutions to conflict. He had a wonderful family, and he cherished it. He and his wife, Roslyn, known to all as Roz, were married in 1944 and were inseparable for more than six decades until her death in 2008. She was an activist, too, and Howard’s editor. “I never showed my work to anyone except her,” he said. They had two children and five grandchildren. Mr. Zinn was in Santa Monica this week, resting up after a grueling year of work and travel, when he suffered a heart attack and died on Wednesday. He was a treasure and an inspiration. That he was considered radical says way more about this society than it does about him.

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Coup de Grace: April, 1967

2009-11-20T12:26:00.016-05:00

A master of words and delivery, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave this groundbreaking speech several times in April, 1967, most notably at Riverside Church in Harlem, New York and Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia. Whether you choose to call it "It is a Dark Day in Our Nation," or "Why I am Opposed to the War in Vietnam," or "Beyond Vietnam: Breaking the Silence," Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. took this opportunity to change course in his valiant fight for social justice. This clear message of dissent on imperialism and biting commentary on the three "ills" of America; militarism, racism, and economic exploitation sent shock waves through the keepers of power and privilege. The text is expertly arranged, the emotion given to the words is captivating and powerful, and no individual has ever invoked God in a more righteous cause since. The speech is considered a masterpiece. It was also to have sealed his fate. Dr. King was assassinated exactly one year later in April, 1968.

This message is timeless and prophetic, and now more than ever, needs to be heard. I implore you to listen and read along.....PG

The sermon which I am preaching this morning in a sense is not the usual kind of sermon, but it is a sermon and an important subject, nevertheless, because the issue that I will be discussing today is one of the most controversial issues confronting our nation. I'm using as a subject from which to preach, "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam."
Now, let me make it clear in the beginning, that I see this war as an unjust, evil, and futile war. I preach to you today on the war in Vietnam because my conscience leaves me with no other choice. The time has come for America to hear the truth about this tragic war. In international conflicts, the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. "Ye shall know the truth," says Jesus, "and the truth shall set you free." Now, I've chosen to preach about the war in Vietnam because I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.
The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing, as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we're always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on. Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony. But we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for in all our history there has never been such a monumental dissent during a war, by the American people.
Polls reveal that almost fifteen million Americans explicitly oppose the war in Vietnam. Additional millions cannot bring themselves around to support it. And even those millions who do support the war [are] half-hearted, confused, and doubt-ridden. This reveals that millions have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism, to the high grounds of firm dissent, based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Now, of course, one of the difficulties in speaking out today grows the fact that there are those who are seeking to equate dissent with disloyalty. It's a dark day in our nation when high-level authorities will seek to use every method to silence dissent. But something is happening, and people are not going to be silenced. The truth must be told, and I say that those who are seeking to make it appear that anyone who opposes the war in Vietnam is a fool or a traitor or an enemy of our soldiers is a person that has taken a stand against the best in our tradition.
Yes, we must stand, and we must speak and I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam. Many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns, this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" Peace and civil rights don't mix, they say. And so this morning, I speak to you on this issue, because I am determined to take the Gospel seriously. And I come this morning to my pulpit to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation.
This sermon is not addressed to Hanoi, or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Nor is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in a successful resolution of the problem. This morning, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans, who bear the greatest responsibility, and entered a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.
Now, since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is...a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed that there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the Poverty Program. There were experiments, hopes, and new beginnings. Then came the build-up in Vietnam. And I watched the program broken as if it was some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money, like some demonic, destructive suction tube. And you may not know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend $500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people that are not poor. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor, and attack it as such.
Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hope of the poor at home. It was sending their sons, and their brothers, and their husbands to fight and die in extraordinarily high proportion relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with a cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same school room. So we watch them in brutal solidarity, burning the huts of a poor village. But we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago or Atlanta. Now, I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.
My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years--especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through non-violent action; for they ask and write me, "So what about Vietnam?" They ask if our nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without first having spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence I cannot be silent. Been a lot of applauding over the last few years. They applauded our total movement; they've applauded me. America and most of its newspapers applauded me in Montgomery. And I stood before thousands of Negroes getting ready to riot when my home was bombed and said, we can't do it this way. They applauded us in the sit-in movement--we non-violently decided to sit in at lunch counters. The applauded us on the Freedom Rides when we accepted blows without retaliation. They praised us in Albany and Birmingham and Selma, Alabama. Oh, the press was so noble in its applause, and so noble in its praise when I was saying, Be non-violent toward Bull Connor; when I was saying, Be non-violent toward [Selma, Alabama segregationist sheriff] Jim Clark. There's something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that will praise you when you say, Be non-violent toward Jim Clark, but will curse and damn you when you say, "Be non-violent toward little brown Vietnamese children. There's something wrong with that press!
As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1964. And I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was not just something taking place, but it was a commission--a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for the brotherhood of Man. This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances. But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men, for communists and capitalists, for their children and ours, for black and white, for revolutionary and conservative. Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved His enemies so fully that he died for them? What, then, can I say to the Vietcong, or to Castro, or to Mao, as a faithful minister to Jesus Christ? Can I threaten them with death, or must I not share with them my life? Finally, I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be the son of the Living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood. And because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned, especially for His suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come today to speak for them. And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak not now of the soldiers of each side, not of the military government of Saigon, but simply of the people who have been under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution until some attempt is made to know these people and hear their broken cries.
Now, let me tell you the truth about it. They must see Americans as strange liberators. Do you realize that the Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation. And incidentally, this was before the Communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. And this is a little-known fact, and these people declared themselves independent in 1945. They quoted our Declaration of Independence in their document of freedom, and yet our government refused to recognize them. President Truman said they were not ready for independence. So we fell victim as a nation at that time of the same deadly arrogance that has poisoned the international situation for all of these years. France then set out to reconquer its former colony. And they fought eight long, hard, brutal years trying to re-conquer Vietnam. You know who helped France? It was the United States of America. It came to the point that we were meeting more than eighty percent of the war costs. And even when France started despairing of its reckless action, we did not. And in 1954, a conference was called at Geneva, and an agreement was reached, because France had been defeated at Dien Bien Phu. But even after that, and after the Geneva Accord, we did not stop. We must face the sad fact that our government sought, in a real sense, to sabotage the Geneva Accord. Well, after the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come through the Geneva agreement. But instead the United States came and started supporting a man named Diem who turned out to be one of the most ruthless dictators in the history of the world. He set out to silence all opposition. People were brutally murdered because they raised their voices against the brutal policies of Diem. And the peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States influence and by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown, they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace. And who are we supporting in Vietnam today? It's a man by the name of general Ky [Air Vice Marshal Nguyen Cao Ky] who fought with the French against his own people, and who said on one occasion that the greatest hero of his life is Hitler. This is who we are supporting in Vietnam today. Oh, our government and the press generally won't tell us these things, but God told me to tell you this morning. The truth must be told.
The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support and all the while the people read our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps, where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go, primarily women, and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the towns and see thousands of thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers. We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the United Buddhist Church. This is a role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolutions impossible but refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that comes from the immense profits of overseas investments. I'm convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be changed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation. It will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
Oh, my friends, if there is any one thing that we must see today is that these are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. They are saying, unconsciously, as we say in one of our freedom songs, "Ain't gonna let nobody turn me around!" It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo, we shall boldly challenge unjust mores, and thereby speed up the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the rough places shall be made plain, and the crooked places straight. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together."
A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies. This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing, unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of mankind. And when I speak of love I'm not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of John: "Let us love one another, for God is love. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us."
Let me say finally that I oppose the war in Vietnam because I love America. I speak out against this war, not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and, above all, with a passionate desire to see our beloved country stand as the moral example of the world. I speak out against this war because I am disappointed with America. And there can be no great disappointment where there is not great love. I am disappointed with our failure to deal positively and forthrightly with the triple evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism. We are presently moving down a dead-end road that can lead to national disaster. America has strayed to the far country of racism and militarism. The home that all too many Americans left was solidly structured idealistically; its pillars were solidly grounded in the insights of our Judeo-Christian heritage. All men are made in the image of God. All men are bothers. All men are created equal. Every man is an heir to a legacy of dignity and worth. Every man has rights that are neither conferred by, nor derived from the State--they are God-given. Out of one blood, God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. What a marvelous foundation for any home! What a glorious and healthy place to inhabit. But America's strayed away, and this unnatural excursion has brought only confusion and bewilderment. It has left hearts aching with guilt and minds distorted with irrationality.
It is time for all people of conscience to call upon America to come back home. Come home, America. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on." I call on Washington today. I call on every man and woman of good will all over America today. I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God."
Now it isn't easy to stand up for truth and for justice. Sometimes it means being frustrated. When you tell the truth and take a stand, sometimes it means that you will walk the streets with a burdened heart. Sometimes it means losing a job...means being abused and scorned. It may mean having a seven, eight year old child asking a daddy, "Why do you have to go to jail so much?" And I've long since learned that to be a follower to the Jesus Christ means taking up the cross. And my bible tells me that Good Friday comes before Easter. Before the crown we wear, there is the cross that we must bear. Let us bear it--bear it for truth, bear it for justice, and bear it for peace. Let us go out this morning with that determination. And I have not lost faith. I'm not in despair, because I know that there is a moral order. I haven't lost faith, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. I can still sing "We Shall Overcome" because Carlyle was right: "No lie can live forever." We shall overcome because William Cullen Bryant was right: "Truth pressed to earth will rise again." We shall overcome because James Russell Lowell was right: "Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne." Yet, that scaffold sways the future. We shall overcome because the bible is right: "You shall reap what you sow." With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when the lion and the lamb will lie down together, and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid because the words of the Lord have spoken it. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when all over the world we will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we're free at last!" With this faith, we'll sing it as we're getting ready to sing it now. Men will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. And nations will not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore. And I don't know about you, I ain't gonna study war no more.

Letter to Steve Carlton

2009-11-06T13:51:00.000-05:00

Mr. Carlton:

As a child of the 70's in Astoria, Queens I was naturally raised a NY Met fan. As the Mets floundered during much of this period, you often had trouble with them including your famous 19 strikeout loss. I was drawn to you and your impressive box scores, both because I was lefty and because I admired your non-selfserving stance on the media. Around 1977 I became a full fledged Carlton fan, complete with being also being a little league pitcher with the nickname "Lefty." The decade of the 80's saw me learn everything I currently know about baseball from Tim McCarver, which is to say alot, as every Met fan of that generation can attest to. Every night in my living room was baseball "school" with Tim. Although he was your "personal" catcher for the better part of a decade, he would rarely discuss you and your style, your approach, pitch selection, etc... much to my dismay. Through the years, especially on national broadcasts, he rarely mentions you at all. Now I'm well past the point where I care all that much about sports in general, but I enjoy a game with my children now and again, and some old friends have annual ritual of catching a few playoff or world series games at the local bar. And it was last night that they confronted me, again, for the umpteenth time...."why doesn't McCarver talk about your boy Carlton?" As the local Carlton "expert," (let's face it, growing up around NYC, to root for anyone other than the Mets or Yanks is considered silly or odd) I could not give them a rational answer. I mean he did catch you for a long period of time...he talks about Gibson endlessly....you guys are friendly I suppose...could it be intentional, in other words, is he honoring your wishes of privacy?

Now by no means am I trying to pry....in fact, I respect your right to privacy so much, I admire it. I also consider myself a freethinker. I'm 41 years old, and although I make a point of teaching my children to idolize no one (especially sports figures), you were, indeed, an obsession of mine from the time I was age 7-13. It it a pleasure to be able to have your e-mail address available. Is it possible you could shed some light on the McCarver subject....if not, that's ok, just thought I'd try. Be well.

Very sincerely,

Paul J. Guarino

Response:

Paul,

I was just out at a youth baseball dinner in Syosset, so I have to commend you for being a fan of anyone that was not a Met or a Yankee. That's a good question about Tim and the only thing I can think of is that over the years Tim has been asked endlessly about being my "personal" catcher. This is a real disservice to a great player (64 WS MVP) who has helped shape the careers of Hall of Fame pitchers. He's a great announcer and was a great teammate. Thanks for the kind words and keep your mind open to free thinkers.
Steve

The Curious Case of Mario Balotelli

2009-10-13T02:00:00.002-04:00

Within a years time the ancient peninsula nation of Italy is likely to stand toe to toe with an international dilemma the likes of which they have rarely faced. It seems odd that a country that was so warmly moved by the by the United States' election of a black man with a Muslim name to it's highest office would find itself in such a predicament. Italy's most common morning headline on November 5, 2008 "Il Mondo Cambio" (The World Changes) was an ironic foreshadow of what lay ahead.

Born to Ghanan parents on the island of Sicily, raised since the age of three in Brescia (northern mainland) by the Balotelli family and blessed with extraordinary soccer skills, Mario may very well be the first man of non-Italian blood to be in Le Nazionale. Historically, ethnic Italians born elsewhere (Camoranesi, Perotta, G. Rossi) have been permitted to wear the Azzurri shirt. I could have worn the Azzurri shirt for god's sake (if not for a devastating knee injury in college..... at least that's what I tell my kids) and I believe this is a good thing. Historically ethnic Italians in Argentina, Switzerland, Australia and the United States have had seats in Parliament, whereas a non-ethnic Italian born in Italy has none. Now I'm all for social justice, but I can understand the philosophy of pride and retention of cultural purity, especially living in a country that has none......zero (unless you call country music, Walmart, and barbecued meat, culture). In fact I applaud that rather bold stance. When I see the Les Bleus of France are 50% Algerians, I say "hey, they're not French!" And when I see the German Mannschaft with Khedira, Ozil, Boateng, Klose, Podolski, Cacau, and Mario Gomez, I'm like "wha?" something just doesn't sit right...they're not fucking German! Admittedly the issue is debatable but do keep in mind we're talking football here, not democratic representation in government.

The point is, however, that Mario Balotelli's name could go down in Italy's history akin to Jackie Robinson's in the United States. Jackie Robinson, hand selected for the task of breaking a massive barrier, was an educated, dedicated family man was the epitome of class and restraint. He endured the scourge of vicious racism of all types, including death threats to him and his family. He had the uncanny ability to understand he was representing an entire people and fully understood the externalities of his actions would reverberate for several generations. In the face of it all he continued to perform at a high level and to win over skeptical coaches, teammates, fans, and eventually a nation with his behavior, paving the way for all men of color. But, unfortunately, the likelihood of a similar outcome for Mario Balotelli is slim; it is clear he possesses none of the qualities of Jackie....PG

History Will Absolve Jimmy Carter

2009-10-08T17:15:00.005-04:00

Note: This article was published by The Nation, October 20, 2009

It is pleasing to see the shine rubbed off the Reagan presidency as time moves along. Completing the deconstruct of post WWII world order begun by Nixon and Kissinger, Reagan, and the people holding his strings, wiped out a half century of popular struggle damaging the US so massively it may never recover.

At the same time Jimmy Carter, the man, has had a well deserved new found level of popularity. There is no denying, even he has agreed, his presidency was hesitant, disjointed, and fractured and was no match for the stone wall of Washington partisan politics. But Jimmy Carter has some serious resume: Naval Officer, engineer, nuclear physicist, peanut farmer, businessman, state senator, Governor, President of the United States, author, and Nobel Prize winning peace and human rights advocate. His Law Day speech at the University of Georgia is pure brilliance. His "Crisis of Confidence" speech to America was decades ahead of its time. His efforts to bring attention to global crises are unmatched. His criticism of Israel, monumentally courageous. And always the kindest, most sincere man in the room. Steeped in the teachings of Jesus, only a fool would question his righteousness.

In retrospect, the country ought to have listened to him and took a long hard look in the mirror as he suggested. We may very well have been better off for it.....PG

The Enigma that is Robert McNamara

2009-09-11T14:11:00.014-04:00

The groundbreaking documentary "The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara" (2003), directed by Errol Morris, is aptly titled, albeit in my opinion because of it's saturation in irony. Is it possible for an individual to be so mathematically and computationally brilliant and so deficient in historical perspective and elementary morality? In other words, can one be so lost in the analysis of the numbers that they lose sight of reality? Robert S. McNamara is exactly that paradox and it is his passing that reminds us of the incredible complexity of human nature.
McNamara's look of disbelief at his chilly reception at Harvard Yard in the above photo demonstrates exactly this point. Was he expecting a warm welcome at his alma mater with so much blood on his hands? Apparantly, yes.

It is true that is rare for a high level policy maker to offer heartfelt apologies, however, he is to me exactly what my title suggests, a very large enigma. Thus aside from highly recommending the video documentary by Morris, I present to you several pieces in which to formulate your own thoughts. Jonathan Schell's personal account of the man gives the reader the duality (realized over time) of the man. Chomsky's harsh critique, as usual, is loaded with undeniable facts and convicts McNamara rather convincingly as an idiot savant of sorts, in fact, an anti-intellectual, with the inability to think critically and thoroughly, with above average analytical ability wrapped in the body of a historical lightweight and a diplomatic fool with an extraordinary lack of basic human understanding.

I also included the "lessons" of McNamara, both from the book and documentary which are laden with hindsight and remorse as well as glaring modern day critiques. I think, to be fair, they must be included. I followed them up with two The Nation letters that offer particularly interesting perspective, the second of which gives a rather striking comparison between McNamara and Kissinger.

The failings of McNamara are monumental and well documented, but how much sympathetic weight do we give remorse, or more accurately, regret...especially regret with, fittingly, detailed analysis?

Unfortunately, none of the following puts the issue to rest....PG

Remembering Robert McNamara
By Jonathan Schell
Published July 7, 2009 in The Nation

I first met Robert McNamara in the summer of 1967. The meeting had been arranged by Jerome Wiesner, then the provost of MIT. I had just returned from a trip to South Vietnam, where, as a reporter for The New Yorker, I had witnessed the substantial destruction, by American air power, of two provinces, Quang Ngai and Quang Tinh. Flying in the back seat of Forward Air Control planes--small Cessnas that coordinate the bombing and strafing runs by radio contact with both ground forces and the bomber pilots--I measured the destruction that had already occurred and witnessed at first hand the destruction of villages as it transpired. The policies were clear. Leaflets dropped on villages had announced, "The Vietcong hide among innocent women and children in your villages.... If the Vietcong in this area use you or your village for this purpose, you can expect death from the sky." Death from the sky came. After it had, more leaflets were dropped, informing the villagers, "Your village was bombed because you harbored Vietcong.... Your village will be bombed again if you harbor the Vietcong in any way." The results were also clear. As I could see from the air, in Quang Ngai province some 70 percent of the villages had been destroyed. All this, in one of the euphemisms that were the lingua franca of the Vietnam War, was called "the air war." Actually, it was one-sided air slaughter, mostly of civilians. I was 23 years old at the time, and had no notion of what a war crime was; but it became clear to me later that that was what I had been witnessing, day after day. (Five months after I left, in March of 1968, American troops committed the massacre at My Lai, in which some 350 people were killed.)

Wiesner, a friend of McNamara's, thought he should know what I had seen, and the purpose of the meeting, which by agreement was to be held confidential, was to tell him. I didn't know it, but his loss of faith in the war was already well underway, and that November, he would leave office to take up the presidency of the World Bank. The familiar figure with the glinting, rimless glasses and the rigid hair forced back, as if it were spun glass, greeted me at the door of his seemingly tennis-court-size office overlooking the River Entrance of the Pentagon and, in the distance, the Washington monument. In the man I met, I felt a prodigious, ceaseless, restless energy that I suspected he could not turn off if he wanted to. Doing one thing, he seemed already to be thinking about the next, or the thing after that. At rest, he seemed to be moving more quickly than most people when running. As I began to recount my observations, he pinned me with a stare. My feeling was that he was not precisely a good listener but might, in his self-directed way, be a good absorber of information. He took me to a map of Vietnam on an easel at the back of his office, and asked me to locate the areas of destruction. I felt that the request was a test--one I happened to be excellently prepared to take, as I had carried maps with me in the forward air control planes, and measured levels of destruction in the entire province of Quang Ngai. He seemed deeply engaged, but made no comment, asking me only if I had anything in writing. I said I did, but that it was in longhand. He suggested that I produce a typed copy, and provided me with the office just down the hall of a general who was away, if memory serves, in Africa. What he did not know was that the article was book-length. It turned out to take three days to dictate the piece into the general's Dictaphone, with chapter after chapter emerging perfectly typed from the bowels of the Pentagon.
I handed the finished project to McNamara, who thanked me, but said nothing further about the matter, either then or at any time thereafter.

Yet there was a sequel. Fifteen years later, in 1982, when Neil Sheehan was researching his classic book about the war, A Bright Shining Lie, he came across several documents concerning my Pentagon-assisted manuscript, and brought me copies. It appears from the documents that McNamara had promptly sent the manuscript to the American ambassador in South Vietnam, Ellsworth Bunker, who in turn ordered a certain Hataway to retrace my steps in Quang Ngai and Quang Tinh, and also requested a Bob Kelly to write an overall report, with a view to discrediting my reporting, and arranging to get The Atlantic magazine (where Bunker mistakenly thought it was scheduled to appear) to "withhold publication." A memo recommending these things was circulated to McNamara, Under Secretary of State Nicholas Katzenbach and Assistant Secretary of State William Bundy. The "action" officer was Secretary of State Dean Rusk. Those I had interviewed, including the forward air control pilots, were re-interviewed, and affidavits were taken from them. Two civilian pilots were dispatched to over fly the province and check my calculations of the damage. Plans were considered to publicly rebut my findings. However, the resulting report inconveniently found that that "Mr. Schell's estimates are substantially correct," and it appears that no further action was taken. In any case, Robert McNamara, disillusioned with the war, announced his resignation as Secretary of Defense around this time.
Perhaps frustrated by his failure to find factual errors in my reporting, the author of the report offered some editorial comments that inadvertently epitomized the flawed thinking on which the entire war rested. I had been unaware, he thought, of some extenuating factors for the destruction I had witnessed. I had not known, he thought, that "the population, is totally hostile..." Indeed, in the eyes of the Vietcong, "the Vietcong are the people." Thus did the main reason for not fighting the war in the first place, namely the perfectly obvious hatred of the majority of the population for the American invasion and occupation become, in this calculation, a justification for continuing the war.

When I next spoke at length with McNamara, in 1998, it was not about Vietnam but about nuclear arms, on which we were agreed as much as we had disagreed about Vietnam: we both believed that the only decent and sensible thing to do with the bomb was to get rid of it. McNamara's turnabout in the nuclear matter was dramatic. More than any other government official, he had been responsible for institutionalizing the prime strategic doctrine of the nuclear age, deterrence, otherwise known as mutual assured destruction. Now he wanted to dispense with it. But in fact, by then we were closer on Vietnam as well, for he had, after two decades of silence regarding the war, published his book In Retrospect, in which he repudiated his former justifications for the war, famously writing of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, "We were wrong, terribly wrong." He had also revealed an emotional side under the platinum exterior. We know now that at a meeting within the government to say farewell to him as Secretary of Defense, he wept as he acknowledged the uselessness of the bombing of Vietnam. Was he thinking of the devastated villages of Quang Ngai? I don't know. On many occasions when confessing his errors regarding Vietnam, his voice shook or cracked and tears came to his eyes. Like a certain kind of man of his generation, he was emotional without being introspective. The book was "retrospective," not introspective--it was public reflection on a public matter, and contained almost nothing in the way of soul-searching. In its tone and style the book, though it had to be written out of a profound reservoir of feeling, reached for the stable- ground objective analysis.

Many critics have asserted, rightly, I think, that he stopped short of full understanding, that he sought to hold fast to claims of noble intentions that the record cannot sustain. The issue is how noble intentions really are when the facts that show their results turning to horror are readily at hand yet overlooked. Should McNamara have been more forthcoming in his regrets? He should. Should he have expressed them earlier? Certainly. Should he have resigned in protest once he understood that the war was futile and wrong? Yes. Should he never have recommended the war or presided over it in the first place, and should there never been an American war in Vietnam? Oh, Lord, yes! Recent American history with Vietnam subtracted? What a vision of a better country that was attainable but lost. Certainly, if one puts McNamara's tears in one pan of a scales and the deaths of 3 million Vietnamese and almost 60,000 Americans in the other, there is no doubt which way the scales would tip.
On the other hand, how many public figures of his importance have ever expressed any regret at all for their mistakes and follies and crimes? As the decades of the twentieth century rolled by, the heaps of corpses towered, ever higher, up to the skies, and now they pile up again in the new century, but how many of those in high office who have made these things happen have ever said, "I made a mistake," or "I was terribly wrong," or shed a tear over their actions? I come up with: one, Robert McNamara. I deduce that such acts of repentance are very hard to perform.
If a statue is ever made to him, as probably there will not be, let it show him weeping. It was the best of him.

Robert McNamara
Noam Chomsky
Excerpted from Class Warfare, 1995

QUESTION: ... [In Robert McNamara's #1 bestseller In Retrospect, he] writes, "We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why. I truly believe that we made an error not of values and intentions, but of judgment and capabilities."
CHOMSKY: Actually, he's correct about the values. If somebody tries to disobey us, our values are that they have to be crushed and massacred. Those are our values. They go back hundreds of years, and those are exactly the values they acted upon. His belief that it was a mistake -- personally, I agree with the hawks on this. He's been criticized by the doves who say, You came around too late, and by the hawks who say, Well, it was a victory. And the hawks are right, it was a victory. So, it wasn't a mistake. He doesn't understand that. He doesn't understand very much, incidentally. The one interesting aspect of the book is how little he understood about what was going on or understands today. He doesn't even understand what he was involved in.
I assume he's telling the truth. The book has a kind of ring of honesty about it. What it reads like is an extremely narrow technocrat, a small-time engineer who was given a particular job to do and just tried to do that job efficiently, didn't understand anything that was going on, including what he himself was doing.
...There's only one criticism that he sees, or that any of his critics see, or even his supporters, the whole range of discussion, including people who were very active in the peace movement, I should say. I've been shocked by this, the people who are active in the peace movement who are saying, "We're vindicated because he finally recognized that we were right. It was an unwinnable war."
What about the maybe, if you count them up, four million Indochinese that died, something on that order? What about them? Actually, he has a sentence or two about them, and even that sentence is interesting. He talks about the North Vietnamese who were killed. An interesting fact about the book -- and you can't blame him for this, because he's just adopting the conventions of the culture that he comes from, he's completely uncritical and couldn't think of questioning it -- throughout the book the "South Vietnamese" are the collaborators whom we installed and supported. He recognizes that the population was mostly on the other side, but they're not "South Vietnamese." The attack on them doesn't appear.
The most interesting part of the book, in my opinion, the first thing I looked at when I read it, is what he would say about the two major decisions that he was involved in. He was involved in two basic decisions. He implemented orders, of course. One [decision] was in November and December 1961, when the internal resistance was overthrowing the U.S. client regime after it had already killed probably 80,000 people, eliciting internal resistance which Washington's terror state couldn't withstand. Kennedy just turned from straight terror, which it had been before, to outright aggression. They unleashed the American air force against Vietnamese villagers, authorized napalm, started crop destruction. They also started attacks against the North, which was not involved seriously at the time. That was the first big decision. He doesn't even mention it. I don't think he's concealing anything. I don't think he thought of it as a decision. Because, after all, we're just slaughtering South Vietnamese, and that doesn't harm us at all. So why shouldn't we do it? Nobody's going to get angry. Nobody's going to harm us if we kill South Vietnamese. So, when we send U.S. planes to napalm Vietnamese villages, what could be the problem? So that's not even mentioned.
The second one is even more interesting. In January 1965 they made the decision to escalate radically the bombing of South Vietnam. They also started bombing North Vietnam at the time, February 1965. But the bombing of South Vietnam was tripled in scale, and much more devastating. That was known. In fact, one person who describes that right at the time -- and this is a very interesting aspect of McNamara's book and of the commentary on it -- was Bernard Fall, a French military historian and Indochina specialist. A big hawk, incidentally. It's "we" and "them." He was on "our side" and that sort of thing. But he happened to have a missing gene or something. He cared about the people of Vietnam, although he was a hawk and a military historian who supported the French and then the Americans. He didn't want to see the place destroyed. In 1965, he wrote that the biggest decision of the war was not the bombing of North Vietnam, not the sending of American troops a couple of months later, but the decision to bomb South Vietnam at a far greater scale than anything else and to smash the place to bits. He had also pointed out in the preceding couple of years that the U.S. had been destroying the so-called Viet Cong with napalm and vomiting gases and massive bombardment and it was a massacre. He said in 1965 they escalated it to a much higher attack, and that was a big change. He was an American advisor. He describes how he flew with the American planes when they napalmed villages, destroyed hospitals. He described it very graphically. He was infuriated about it, but he describes it.
McNamara refers to those articles. He says Fall's reports were "encouraging" and justified the U.S. escalation. McNamara didn't mention the decision to vastly increase the bombing of South Vietnam. That's just passed over. Nor is there discussion of the bombing of South Vietnam in general. He just passes over it without comment. He cites Fall's articles and says, Part of the reason that we were encouraged to proceed was that Fall was a fine analyst and knowledgeable person and was very impressed with what we were doing and thought it was going to work. There's a certain truth to that. Fall was saying, Yes, these guys are such murderous maniacs that they may succeed in destroying the country. In that sense, he thought it was going to work.
Then McNamara has a footnote in his book. He says, two years later, Fall had changed his mind about the efficacy of American actions and took a more pessimistic view about the prospects for an American victory. That was 1967. Look at what [Fall] wrote in 1967. He said this just before he died. He said Vietnam is literally dying under the worst attack that any country has ever suffered and it was very likely that Vietnam as a cultural and historical entity was going to become extinct under the American attack. And McNamara reads this and says [Fall] changed his mind about the efficacy of what we were doing. Not only did he write that, but every reviewer read it. Nobody comments on it. Nobody sees anything funny about it. Because if we want to destroy a country and extinguish it as a cultural and historical entity, who could object? Fall was talking about South Vietnam, notice, not North Vietnam. The killing was mostly in South Vietnam. The attack was mostly against South Vietnam.
In fact, there's an interesting aspect of the Pentagon Papers, too. The Pentagon Papers were not very revealing, contrary to what people say. I had advance access to them, since I was helping Dan Ellsberg in releasing them, so I wrote about them in a lot of detail and very fast because I had already read them. But one of the very few interesting things about the Pentagon Papers which I wrote about at that time was the disparity between the planning for the bombing of the North and the planning for the bombing of the South. On the bombing of the North, there was meticulous detailed planning. How far should we go? At what rate? What targets? The bombing of the South, at three times the rate and with far more vicious consequences, was unplanned. There's no discussion about it. Why? Very simple. The bombing of the North might cause us problems. When we started bombing the North, we were bombing, for example, Chinese railroads, which happened to go right through North Vietnam. We were going to hit Russian ships, as they did. And there could be a reaction somewhere in the world that might harm us. So therefore that you have to plan for. But massacring people in South Vietnam, nothing. B-52 bombing of the Mekong Delta, one of the most densely populated areas in the world, destroying hospitals and dams, nobody's going to bother us about that. So that doesn't require any planning or evaluation.
Not only is it interesting that this happened, but also interesting is the fact that no one noticed it. I wrote about it, but I have yet to find any commentator, scholar, or anyone else, who noticed this fact about the Pentagon Papers. And you see that in the contemporary discussion. We were "defending" South Vietnam, namely the country that we were destroying. The very fact that McNamara can say that and quote Bernard Fall, who was the most knowledgeable person, who was utterly infuriated and outraged over this assault against South Vietnam, even though he was a hawk, who thought Saigon ought to rule the whole country -- you can quote him and not see that that's what he's saying -- that reveals a degree of moral blindness, not just in McNamara, but in the whole culture, that surpasses comment.
QUESTION: Just a couple more things on McNamara and his mea culpa. He's sort of taken the Nazi Nuremberg defense, following orders, allegiance to the Fuhrer, that's why he didn't speak out while he was Secretary of Defense.
CHOMSKY: I don't agree. He does not recognize that anything wrong was done. So there's no question of a defense.
QUESTION: On [PBS'] Macneil-Lehrer [Newshour], he now says he had misgivings about the policies.
CHOMSKY: What were the misgivings? The misgivings were that it might not succeed. Suppose that some Nazi general came around after Stalingrad and said, "I realized after Stalingrad it was a mistake to fight a two-front war, but I did it anyway." That's not the Nuremberg defense. That's not even recognizing that a crime was committed. You've got to recognize that a crime was committed before you give a defense. McNamara can't perceive that. Furthermore, I don't say that as a criticism of McNamara. He is a dull, narrow technocrat who questioned nothing. He simply accepted the framework of beliefs of the people around him. And that's their framework. That's the Kennedy liberals. We cannot commit a crime. It's contradiction in terms. Anything we do is by necessity not only right, but noble. Therefore, there can't be a crime.
If you look at his mea culpa, he's apologizing to the American people. He sent American soldiers to fight an unwinnable war, which he thought early on was unwinnable. The cost was to the U.S. It tore the country apart. It left people disillusioned and skeptical of the government. That's the cost. Yes, there were those three million or more Vietnamese who got killed. The Cambodians and Laotians are totally missing from his story. There were a million or so of them. There's no apology to them.
It's dramatic to see how this is paired once again -- I've been writing about this for years -- with discussions of the inability of the Japanese to give a fully adequate apology for what they did during the Second World War. The Prime Minister of Japan has just been in China, where he apologized profusely for the atrocities that Japan carried out and the suffering of the people of Asia caused by Japanese aggression. That's been discussed in the New York Times, critically. Because, well, yeah, sure, he said it, but there are some Japanese parliamentarians who think he shouldn't have said it, so that the Japanese are still unwilling to face up to what they did. Next column over, we're facing up to the fact that we harmed the U.S. by destroying three countries and killing millions of people. It's pretty interesting. I don't think any country in history could have exhibited this shocking farce on the front page without comment. Incidentally, there's no comment in the whole West. It's not just the U.S. In the British and the European press, to the extent I read it, it's exactly the same. This is part of Western culture. It's what Adam Smith called the "savage injustice of the Europeans," which already in his day was destroying much of the world.
QUESTION: Long before McNamara wrote this book you had compared him to Lenin. What did you mean by that?
CHOMSKY: I compared some passages of articles of his in the late 1960s, speeches, on management and the necessity of management, how a well-managed society controlled from above was the ultimate in freedom. The reason is if you have really good management and everything's under control and people are told what to do, under those conditions, he said, man can maximize his potential. I just compared that with standard Leninist views on vanguard parties, which are about the same. About the only difference is that McNamara brought God in, and I suppose Lenin didn't bring God in. He brought Marx in.
QUESTION: The [New York] Times, the day before yesterday, had a front page story: "The Radical Right Has an Unlikely Soulmate in the Leftist Politics of the Sixties." It states: "There is the sense that the Vietnam era war turmoil tore a hole in the post-World War II social fabric and that although it was the left that opened the rift, it was the right that has driven a truck through it." What do you think the newspaper of record has in mind in comparing the sixties with what's happening in the nineties?
CHOMSKY: That makes perfect sense from their point of view. Since everything the U.S. does is by necessity correct, except maybe it fails, or maybe it costs us too much, but otherwise it is by necessity correct, therefore the Vietnam War was of necessity correct and legitimate, except maybe for its failures, and the left was criticizing and therefore opened up this rift.
I doubt if Pravda would have gotten to this level, but maybe it would have. Suppose you had read [in] Pravda about the invasion of Afghanistan, which was criticized. They say, You've got these critics, like Sakharov and these people, who are tearing a hole in the body politic by undermining Russian authority by saying we shouldn't defend the people of Afghanistan from terror. I suppose you can imagine that appearing in Pravda. I don't know for certain that it did. If so, Pravda would have descended to the level of the New York Times, which sees it exactly that way. They saw it that way at the time, as did the leading doves, who questioned the war because of its apparent failures and its costs, primarily its costs to us. By those standards, no one had a right to criticize the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia: it worked and casualties were very few. Virtually no one in the mainstream was capable of even imagining the position that everyone took in the case of Czechoslovakia: aggression is wrong, even if it succeeds and at a small cost. The criticisms were so tepid they were embarrassing. Almost nobody, including me, dared to criticize the U.S. attack on South Vietnam. That's like talking Hittite. Nobody even understood the words. They still don't. But from their point of view, it's true: Actions taken to try to stop a murderous, aggressive war that was massacring people and destroying three countries -- that's tearing wide the body politic, and now the right can drive a truck through it. So, yes, that's the picture....

R.S. McNamara's eleven lessons of war:

Empathize with your enemy
Rationality will not save us
There's something beyond one's self
Maximize efficiency
Proportionality should be a guideline in war
Get the data
Belief and seeing are often both wrong
Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning
In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil
Never say never
You can't change human nature

Ten additional lessons from R.S. McNamara:

The human race will not eliminate war in this century, but we can reduce the brutality of war—the level of killing—by adhering to the principles of a "Just War," in particular to the principle of "proportionality."
The indefinite combinations of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will lead to the destruction of nations.
We are the most powerful nation in the world—economically, politically, and militarily—and we are likely to remain so for decades ahead. But we are not omniscient. If we cannot persuade other nations with similar interests and similar values of the merits of the proposed use of that power, we should not proceed unilaterally except in the unlikely requirement to defend directly the continental U.S., Alaska and Hawaii.
Moral principles are often ambiguous guides to foreign policy and defense policy, but surely we can agree that we should establish as a major goal of U.S. foreign policy and, indeed, of foreign policy across the globe: the avoidance, in this century of the carnage—160 million dead—caused by conflict in the 20th century.
We, the richest nation in the world, have failed in our responsibility to our own poor and to the disadvantaged across the world to help them advance their welfare in the most fundamental terms of nutrition, literacy, health and employment.
Corporate executives must recognize there is no contradiction between a soft heart and a hard head. Of course, they have responsibilities to stockholders, but they also have responsibilities to their employees, their customers and to society as a whole.
President Kennedy believed a primary responsibility of a president—indeed the primary responsibility of a president—is to keep the nation out of war, if at all possible.
War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective. Therefore, we should build a system of jurisprudence based on the International Court—that the U.S. has refused to support—which would hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity.
If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy—I don't mean "sympathy," but rather "understanding"—to counter their attacks on us and the Western World.
One of the greatest dangers we face today is the risk that terrorists will obtain access to weapons of mass destruction as a result of the breakdown of the Non-Proliferation Regime. We in the U.S. are contributing to that breakdown.

Eleven lessons from the Vietnam War:

The documentary's lessons-learned concept is McNamara's eleven-lesson list of In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam (1995).
We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
Our judgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine.
We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.
After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did.
We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgement of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.

Astoria, N.Y.

As one of those men Robert McNamara sent off to fight in Vietnam after he had already concluded that the United States could not win there, I was entirely confident that I could and would never forgive the man. But on reading Jonathan Schell's truly thoughtful "Remembering Robert McNamara" [August 3/10], I find my implacable anger a little less implacable.
Schell asks how many of our fearless leaders have ever acknowledged that they'd made a mistake, or said, "I was terribly wrong." He comes up with one--McNamara. I reluctantly agree. McNamara, no matter how badly I want to deny it, helped show us the direction in which we should be heading.
And yet. McNamara apparently continued covering his own ass long after he understood his folly, while hundreds of thousands continued to die. This still sounds pretty much like the behavior of everyone else involved in promoting that ill-begotten war.
GLENN PETERSEN

San Francisco

I am of a '60s antiwar movement that can never forgive Robert McNamara for his central role in the Vietnam War, though of course he had the decency to acknowledge many years later that the war was wrong. Not so Henry Kissinger, who took up where McNamara left off.
I interviewed both men in 2001 for a PBS documentary, The Sixties: The Years That Shaped a Generation. McNamara told me that he'd come to realize the war was a tragedy that could have been avoided. He said his "greatest regret" was urging President Johnson in 1965 to commit American troops to a land war in Asia.
But Kissinger was unreconstructed, unapologetic. "If you are going to ask whether I feel guilty about Vietnam, the interview is over," Kissinger said before I asked my first question. "I'll walk out."
I told him I had just interviewed McNamara. That got his attention. And then he did something I'll never forget: he began to cry. Actually, he pretended to cry.
"Boohoo, boohoo," Kissinger blubbered, rubbing his eyes. "He's still beating his breast, right? Still feeling guilty." He spoke in a mocking, singsong voice and patted his heart for emphasis.
It was one of those private moments, before the camera rolls, when you get a rare glimpse into someone's character and it's even darker than you ever dreamed.
STEPHEN TALBOT

Ted Kennedy: His Finest Moment

2009-08-29T13:00:00.003-04:00

Delivered June 8, 1968, St. Patrick's Cathedral, New York City

Your Eminences, Your Excellencies, Mr. President:

On behalf of Mrs. Kennedy, her children, the parents and sisters of Robert Kennedy, I want to express what we feel to those who mourn with us today in this Cathedral and around the world.
We loved him as a brother, and as a father, and as a son. From his parents, and from his older brothers and sisters -- Joe and Kathleen and Jack -- he received an inspiration which he passed on to all of us. He gave us strength in time of trouble, wisdom in time of uncertainty, and sharing in time of happiness. He will always be by our side.
Love is not an easy feeling to put into words. Nor is loyalty, or trust, or joy. But he was all of these. He loved life completely and he lived it intensely.
A few years back, Robert Kennedy wrote some words about his own father which expresses [sic] the way we in his family felt about him. He said of what his father meant to him, and I quote: "What it really all adds up to is love -- not love as it is described with such facility in popular magazines, but the kind of love that is affection and respect, order and encouragement, and support. Our awareness of this was an incalculable source of strength, and because real love is something unselfish and involves sacrifice and giving, we could not help but profit from it." And he continued, "Beneath it all, he has tried to engender a social conscience. There were wrongs which needed attention. There were people who were poor and needed help. And we have a responsibility to them and to this country. Through no virtues and accomplishments of our own, we have been fortunate enough to be born in the United States under the most comfortable conditions. We, therefore, have a responsibility to others who are less well off."
That is what Robert Kennedy was given. What he leaves to us is what he said, what he did, and what he stood for. A speech he made to the young people of South Africa on their Day of Affirmation in 1966 sums it up the best, and I would like to read it now:
"There is discrimination in this world and slavery and slaughter and starvation. Governments repress their people; millions are trapped in poverty while the nation grows rich and wealth is lavished on armaments everywhere. These are differing evils, but they are the common works of man. They reflect the imperfection of human justice, the inadequacy of human compassion, our lack of sensibility towards the suffering of our fellows. But we can perhaps remember -- even if only for a time -- that those who live with us are our brothers; that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek -- as we do -- nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can.
Surely, this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something. Surely, we can learn, at least, to look at those around us as fellow men. And surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our own hearts brothers and countrymen once again. The answer is to rely on youth -- not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease. The cruelties and obstacles of this swiftly changing planet will not yield to the obsolete dogmas and outworn slogans. They cannot be moved by those who cling to a present that is already dying, who prefer the illusion of security to the excitement and danger that come with even the most peaceful progress.
It is a revolutionary world we live in, and this generation at home and around the world has had thrust upon it a greater burden of responsibility than any generation that has ever lived. Some believe there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation; a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth; a young woman reclaimed the territory of France; and it was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and the 32 year-old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that "all men are created equal."
These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. *It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped.* Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.
Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe.
For the fortunate among us, there is the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who enjoy the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty. But they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. All of us will ultimately be judged, and as the years pass we will surely judge ourselves on the effort we have contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which our ideals and goals have shaped that event.
*The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American Society.* Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live."
That is the way he lived. That is what he leaves us.
My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.
Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today, pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will some day come to pass for all the world.
As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him:
"Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not."

Confessions of a Tone Junkie...Gibson vs. Fender

2009-08-16T17:58:00.001-04:00

Admittedly, this subject is debatable and certainly worthy of one. Short of that I offer you my humble but educated opinion as it relates to tone. Because, let's face it, it's all about the tone. If we look at the guitar itself, in terms of in what ways it affects a vibrating string and the resulting sound achieved, it is clear we have two schools of thought.

The Gibson line of guitars, and I'm speaking solidbody electrics: Les Paul, SG, Firebird, have several features which contrast them greatly with the Fender solidbody electrics: Stratocaster and Telecaster. A glued, neck through body construct, dense girthy wood, flat fretboards, high crowned frets, Tune-o-Matic fixed bridges, bound necks and bodies with generous amounts of lacquer, and humbucking pickups make for a beautiful, well constructed instrument, there is no doubt. Gibson's goal, it seems, is to have created an uninhibited conduit for the sustainable sound of the vibrating string and into the amplifier. Any dynamics (guitar-speak for nuanced playing, bends, vibrato, etc...) achieved come from the hands and pass directly to the amp. Dial in a fancy tone (preferably of the high volume kind) and you're cooking.

Fender guitars differ significantly in that their construction directly affects and inhibits the tone. The bolt on neck, single coil pickups, lightweight wood and hardware make for a rapid decay of the sound of the vibrating string. Incorporating the palate of sounds achieved from rapidly decaying notes makes for an exiting acoustic result. Single coils provide a bigger, rounder, smoother sound compared to the sharper, more biting sound of the Gibson. Fenders can be played both clean and "wide open" and still sound soulful. But the trick is you have to play a Fender, whereas you can glide around on a Gibson. The Fender requires work; this work comes from the hands and body and it is this work that gives the unique tone of the individual.

With very few exceptions, every great guitar player has had either a Gibson or Fender as their main axe. I prefer the Strat through Fender tube amps, you may like a Les Paul through a Marshall, whatever, it's all good....PG

Response to a friend regarding anti-healthcare reform e-mails

2009-08-06T13:06:00.002-04:00

OK, I think the Obama's plan is severely deficient as well, but for radically different reasons than the e-mail. Let's talk in facts for a moment, because emails such as this one lack serious substance and do not allow for debate. We ought to seek out the facts and critically analyze them together instead of being told how to think. The following is excerpted from Manufacturing Consent.

When we say things in a forum such as this one we are relegated to a few sentences and thoughts. Much like our mass media, where one must say things between two commercials or, say, in 600 words, we have this rather strict condition of concision. That debate constricting concept is very important in that the beauty of it is that you can only repeat conventional thoughts. So suppose I say in an email: Reagan is wonderful, or Iran is evil, or Barney Frank is an idiot, or the French are borderline communists, etc..., I don't need and evidence, everyone just nods. However, on the other hand, suppose I say something that just isn't conventional wisdom; suppose I say something that is unexpected or controversial. Suppose I say Che Guevara is an international hero, or the only nation ever convicted of terrorism in the World Court is the United States of America, or the US remains the only industrialized nation without a single payer healthcare system, or the US vetoes an annual UN Security Council resolution calling for the halt and elimination of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.

So suppose I say something like that...well people, quite reasonably, will expect to know what you mean. Why did you say that? I've never heard that before? If you assert a fact like that, you better have some evidence, in fact, you better have a lot of evidence. Well you can't give it if you're stuck with concision. That is the genius of that structural constraint. It does not allow for debate. It allows for high rhetoric absent of facts.

Fact: The majority of Americans believe it is the responsibility of the federal government to assure all citizens of proper health care coverage...http://www.blogger.com/ Latest NY Times/CBS polls (Front page Sunday Times, June 28) have 56% of all Americans want a single-payer national health care system, and 78% of people making 100k or less.

Fact: National single-payer health care is the most progressive and accepted method of providing quality healthcare to citizens as evidenced by Australia, England, Canada, etc... Although national Health Care would technically be a subsidy, by definition it does not need to be efficient, that is, subsidies are for people and not profit; however it cannot be a taxpayer sieve other wise you will not be able to maintain popular taxpayer support. In other words we cannot continue to maintain providing free health care and hospitalization to non-citizens, specifically illegals as the costs would be too great. National Health Care only works when you limit the services to citizens and can control immigration...this fact is often overlooked.

Opinion: We can debate what our immigration policies are and whether they're too harsh or lenient, but what we cannot debate is that if we did not provide free health care to illegals AND did not allow their children to have immediate citizen status upon birth, it may work to curb illegal immigration, no? I mean, who are they, and why do they come here? Well, they're Mexicans, Colombians, Guatemalans, Haitians, Dominicans...countries that do not provide a level of welfare for their citizens. Argentines, Venezuelans, Uruguayans do not come, their countries have a well established democratizing force, namely the people, who hold their leaders accountable and assure their needs are met. That is not to say there is not dissent and struggle, in those countries there is lively, ongoing public debate. In Colombia they drag you into into the jungle and shoot you if you organize or speak out....and Colombia is the largest recipient of American "aid" outside of Israel and Egypt. So hooray for our support of democracy! Instead we may want to reconsider NAFTA and other oppressive and regressive "agreements" which are at the root of the emigration.

Fact: The United States is the richest, in terms of gross wealth, country in the world, by far. It is ranked number one in percentage of GDP spent on health related services. Number 2 actually, number 1 is the Marshall Islands, an American Protectorate, population <5,000. title="http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_2005.html" href="">http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_2005.html
But we're number 24 in life expectancy. http://www.blogger.com/
We're number 72 in health care performance. http://www.blogger.com/
37th in overall health care ranking, have an embarrassingly high infant mortality rare, and on and on and on.

Opinion: So we spend the most money and receive below average at best care AND 40 million people don't even have coverage AND we have the highest pharmaceutical prices in the world. This is a scandal! Anyone that argues against that is simply being ignorant of the facts. This exact fact was brought up in discussion on Bill Maher's show last Friday and the more important fact of why it is not reported in the media so that the public can know. The public can't be outraged if they don't know. But hey, they can't report it for a very simple reason...think it out...Aetna, Phizer, Oxford, Aflac, Wyeth, and countless other healthcare related firms have multi-million dollar advertising budgets. Single-payer healthcare means insurance companies go out of business the next day, pharmaceutical companies monster profits are slashed overnight....that's a problem for the "liberal (only on issues that don't really matter like guns, abortion, gay marriage) media" who run their ads (not to mention the shareholders). So it's not reported, and instead we're blitzed with propaganda and e-mails like this one on how our pay-or-die health care system is the best in the world, blah, blah, blah, ...which of course is a huge joke, like laughing in the streets funny, in other parts of the world.

Fact: 2nd quarter 2009 lobbying expenditures in Washington of 133 million dollars for health care related firms (Sunday, August 2 New York Times)...that's three months. You can bet our representatives in Washington pay attention to them. Thus, any new "reform" may hurt them, but rest assured, won't kill them.

One last thing...consider the motive of such an e-mail...do you know the source?...I could speculate, but let's break it down for a minute. Question: why is health care "reform" in congress right now? Answer: Corporations have found it too costly to insure employees and have the power in DC to push them to fix it; public opinion has never swayed legislation on this issue. Question: who, exactly, benefits from capitalist forms in the sector of healthcare? Answer: health care service providers, right? doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, huge mega-corporations and their shareholders...certainly not the population, we have the worst dollar for dollar care in the world. Question: who stands to benefit if the population is properly propagandized by e-mails such as these and mobilized to move against any type of reform? Is the motive now not clear?

The issue is indeed complex, 500 words 'aint gonna cut it for an explanation and I simply cant guesstimate what the economic repercussions of eliminating the private health insurance sector would be. Our government, like many others, has a poor track record running anything efficiently and without waste and corruption. I don't have the answer and I don't envy Obama's position, he can't score points here with a plan that tries to appease both, which is what the current plan attempts to do. Both sides will feel a partial sense of outrage.

My only thoughts are the same lessons I try to teach my kids; when presented with options, always choose the righteous one, even if it is more difficult. Do we continue to stuff the pockets of our profit hungry friends or do we have justice? Then again, those that represent the less fortunate Lincoln, JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Guevara, Galan, Allende, Mossadeq, Arbenz, Chavez, Zapata, Dominique, Gandhi, Aristide, Mandela, Romero, are demonized, overthrown, jailed, or assassinated.

For a country that speaks loudly about justice, we don't practice it much. Worth thinking about, no?

As I feel fortunate, I also feel compelled to help the less fortunate.....I simply witness too much injustice on a day to day basis to not be affected....PG

Testamonial to Photographer Peter Simon:

2009-07-15T09:30:00.005-04:00

In response to a request for a testamonial:

From my first impressions of Peter's work at his Vineyard Haven gallery, I was struck mostly by the faces; not who they were, but rather the sentiment each face evoked. Shot mostly in black and white, photographs of the iconic figures of Bob Marley, Bruce Springsteen, Mick Jagger, Jerry Garcia, Bob Dylan and countless more each suggested a time and a place, a mood, the mood of a generation, in fact. They were the type of photographs that mesmerized; that encouraged you to explore every corner of the frame. It was, however, when I turned to see the collection of historical images Peter had managed to capture that I realized there was a virtuoso behind that lens. From the somber "JFK is dead," the Robert Kennedy "man of the people," the intensity of Martin Luther King, McNamara's gaze of arrogance turned upside down, the classic DC Mall panorama, to the anti-war masterpiece "Jennifer Thomas," I was both envious and in awe of what this man had simply seen, let alone lived. Not poses nor portraits, the images leapt off the paper and seemed to shout, to cry, to strike a chord deep in the soul. This, I must assume, is the goal of the photographic artist.

My wife, who was equally moved by his rich display of work, suggested she wanted Peter Simon to shoot a family portrait on the Vineyard as a gift for her 40th birthday, I was only too happy to oblige. Peter's unassuming way and eagerness to discuss the subjects of much of his work was refreshing. His relaxed attitude during our shoot was all about fun and laughter, even a tad zany; the feeling was contagious and our kids had a ball. When it was said and done, my wife and I got more than we bargained for, considering even that our expectations were fairly high, let's face it, Peter doesn't come cheap. In addition to the many beautiful, portrait quality shots of our family and children, we received that one piece of timeless art, you know, the kind you hang over your mantle, the type that mesmerizes and makes you examine every corner of the frame; shot with the very same lens that has seen so much. Suffice to say we enjoyed the experience very much.

Paul, Dawn, Diana, John, and Caroline Guarino
West Nyack, New York

On a personal note, I am not typically "star-struck," in fact, I tend to be much the opposite. It is one of the reasons why I prefer the "egregious displays of wealth are offensive" attitude and culture of New England to my beloved and diversity rich New York City/Metro area, at least for vacations. You're aware, I'm sure of my admiration of your body of work, not so much the landscapes, but rather the people and the faces. As a life-long frustrated political dissident (a college professor turned me on to Chomsky, Zinn, Guevara, et al., during the Reagan era and it was all downhill from there) I found your historical images moving and disturbing, in that I long for a day in this era where people are motivated, or simply angry enough to see through the propaganda, look at ourselves critically in the mirror, at make real attempts to organize for social justice and avoid hypocrisy. Based on Chomsky's 1968 essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals," my activism is, and has always been, based upon talking to people, putting aside the "politics are personal and not to be discussed" attitude and encouraging robust debate and analysis of the real issues, the ones that actually affect peoples lives. Your politics ooze out of your photographs, but the message seems clear to me; real change occurs, and has occurred, via movements. Younger folks, including myself, need to be reminded of this historical fact.

On the lighter side, as I perused through your book and came across a photo of Jackie Robinson and yourself. A product of Brooklyn parents and grandparents, I grew up peppered with stories of Snider, Pee Wee, Gil, Scoonge, Campy, and Jackie, and of course, the '69 Mets. I was born in Astoria, Queens, two weeks after that miracle win and subsequently immediately indoctrinated. I was a week short of my 17th birthday when the Mets, my boys who were trying to make up for a decade of losing tore up the National league and in classic fashion took game 6 and 7. Children aside, the '86 Mets provided me with some of my fondest lifelong memories. And you, a man who was seemingly everywhere of significance, shot the team that year! The photo of Hernandez, the ultimate gamer and my favorite player, at his locker, smoldering cigarette in hand, is a classic. I must have it.

Thank you very much for working with us, we enjoyed the experience, and I wish you luck in the shop. We are certain to be back in Martha's Vineyard in the near future.

Truly yours,

PG

Response:

Paul....thanks so much for writing this....so well worded and passionate! Meanwhile, the Vineyard Gazette used the photo of the three kids running quite boldly in today's issue! If you send me your snail mail address, I'll send you a copy! Take care....Peter.

On Golf:

2009-06-29T16:57:00.001-04:00

"What a beautiful thing a swing is, what a bottomless source of instruction and chastisement! The average golfer is hooked when he hits his first good shot; the ball climbs into the air all of its own, it seems-a soaring speck conjured from the effortless airiness of an accidentally correct swing. And then, he or she, that average golfer, spends endless frustrating afternoons, whole decades of them, trying to recover and tame the delicate wildness of that first sweet swing. Was ever any sporting motion so fraught with difficulty and mystery?"
The Spirit of Golf by John Updike: An introduction to Golf, The Greatest Game, 1994 HarperCollins

Aside from the obvious attractive features of golf, the fresh air and green landscapes, the exercise, the competition, the lure of the game of golf, it seems, is how elusive the ability to play the game well actually is. We watch in awe week after week the touring professionals and their ability to hit the round ball with the flat stick with sheer precision. Our futile attempts to imitate are frustrating and yet paradoxically contagious. A former coach of mine used to preach "boys, it 'aint as hard as they make it out to be." He was, at least, partially correct. His rationale was simple; we are born with perfect timing. Our muscles and joints do indeed work in concert with one another in every physical activity we do. You swing an ax, you hit the target with power and precision, you throw a ball with force and accuracy. Why even with a small amount of practice we can hit a fungo, a moving ball with a round bat, mind you, with accuracy to each of the eight positions on the baseball field without much trouble...and more amazingly, without much thought. You simply throw it up and hit it. Yet we stand over the stationary golf ball, with a flood of thought processes and self-talk consisting of loose grip, smooth takeaway, turn hips, head down, follow through, etc.., is it any wonder the majority of us can barely make square contact with the darn ball! Thinking about it from this slightly different angle makes the famous quote "the art of golf is learning to do nothing," appear to have some merit.

But golf (noun, like tennis; one does not tennis or go tennising; just a pet peeve of mine) beyond its rich history as a gentleman's game and professional entertainment, is also a teacher of many fine character traits. The management of one's emotions during the round is no small task and mastered by a precious few. The etiquette learned toward the golf course and one's fellow competitor in victory and defeat is forever priceless, and throw in a healthy appreciation of nature, topography, and wildlife only a fool would overlook. Of course, the game can be revealing. If one cheats in golf, chances are, he cheats somewhere in life and vice versa.

Perhaps, however, all this is nonsense and golf is simply an excuse to spend five hours with some good company. Perhaps that is all it should be. Someone once told me "learn to play golf, you'll be able to play with your children and if you're lucky, your grandchildren." That day, for me, has not yet arrived, but as I teach my little ones to swing a club, I look forward to it with great anticipation and I know my father, whose had the joy of 25 years of playing with his son, does too. Indeed, some of the best advice I've ever heard....PG

Classic Essays: Part One

2009-06-10T17:19:00.000-04:00

Forty years ago Noam Chomsky wrote this classic essay in the midst of the conflict in Vietnam. His goal was not to ask the question as to who is responsible, as Macdonald had 20 years before, but rather to lay the blame squarely on the intellectuals of society. This is simply the introduction....

The Responsibility of Intellectuals
Noam Chomsky
The New York Review of Books, February 23, 1967

TWENTY YEARS AGO, Dwight Macdonald published a series of articles in Politics on the responsibility of peoples and, specifically, the responsibility of intellectuals. I read them as an undergraduate, in the years just after the war, and had occasion to read them again a few months ago. They seem to me to have lost none of their power or persuasiveness. Macdonald is concerned with the question of war guilt. He asks the question: To what extent were the German or Japanese people responsible for the atrocities committed by their governments? And, quite properly, he turns the question back to us: To what extent are the British or American people responsible for the vicious terror bombings of civilians, perfected as a technique of warfare by the Western democracies and reaching their culmination in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, surely among the most unspeakable crimes in history. To an undergraduate in 1945-46—to anyone whose political and moral consciousness had been formed by the horrors of the 1930s, by the war in Ethiopia, the Russian purge, the "China Incident," the Spanish Civil War, the Nazi atrocities, the Western reaction to these events and, in part, complicity in them—these questions had particular significance and poignancy.

With respect to the responsibility of intellectuals, there are still other, equally disturbing questions. Intellectuals are in a position to expose the lies of governments, to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions. In the Western world, at least, they have the power that comes from political liberty, from access to information and freedom of expression. For a privileged minority, Western democracy provides the leisure, the facilities, and the training to seek the truth lying hidden behind the veil of distortion and misrepresentation, ideology and class interest, through which the events of current history are presented to us. The responsibilities of intellectuals, then, are much deeper than what Macdonald calls the "responsibility of people," given the unique privileges that intellectuals enjoy.

The issues that Macdonald raised are as pertinent today as they were twenty years ago. We can hardly avoid asking ourselves to what extent the American people bear responsibility for the savage American assault on a largely helpless rural population in Vietnam, still another atrocity in what Asians see as the "Vasco da Gama era" of world history. As for those of us who stood by in silence and apathy as this catastrophe slowly took shape over the past dozen years—on what page of history do we find our proper place? Only the most insensible can escape these questions. I want to return to them, later on, after a few scattered remarks about the responsibility of intellectuals and how, in practice, they go about meeting this responsibility in the mid-1960s.

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies. This, at least, may seem enough of a truism to pass over without comment. Not so, however. For the modern intellectual, it is not at all obvious. Thus we have Martin Heidegger writing, in a pro-Hitler declaration of 1933, that "truth is the revelation of that which makes a people certain, clear, and strong in its action and knowledge"; it is only this kind of "truth" that one has a responsibility to speak. Americans tend to be more forthright. When Arthur Schlesinger was asked by The New York Times in November, 1965, to explain the contradiction between his published account of the Bay of Pigs incident and the story he had given the press at the time of the attack, he simply remarked that he had lied; and a few days later, he went on to compliment the Times for also having suppressed information on the planned invasion, in "the national interest," as this term was defined by the group of arrogant and deluded men of whom Schlesinger gives such a flattering portrait in his recent account of the Kennedy Administration. It is of no particular interest that one man is quite happy to lie in behalf of a cause which he knows to be unjust; but it is significant that such events provoke so little response in the intellectual community—for example, no one has said that there is something strange in the offer of a major chair in the humanities to a historian who feels it to be his duty to persuade the world that an American-sponsored invasion of a nearby country is nothing of the sort. And what of the incredible sequence of lies on the part of our government and its spokesmen concerning such matters as negotiations in Vietnam? The facts are known to all who care to know. The press, foreign and domestic, has presented documentation to refute each falsehood as it appears. But the power of the government's propaganda apparatus is such that the citizen who does not undertake a research project on the subject can hardly hope to confront government pronouncements with fact..........

Mother's Day: It's Origin and Meaning

2009-05-12T11:51:00.007-04:00

Mother's Day was originally concieved after the Civil War, as a protest to the carnage of that war, by women who had lost their husbands and sons. In 1872, Julia Ward Howe, author of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic," proposed an annual Mother's Day for Peace committed to abolishing war. For the next 30 years, Americans celebrated Mothers' Day for Peace on June 2. Many middle-class women in the 19th century believed that they bore a special responsibility as actual or potential mothers to care for the casualties of society and to turn America into a more civilized nation. They fought slavery, battled for improved working conditions for women, public health services, and social welfare assistance to the poor. To activists, the connection between motherhood and the fight for social and economic justice and the kind of governmental assistance provided by every other industrialized society seemed self-evident. Some will think it odd to alter our current way of celebrating Mother's Day. But public activism does not preclude private expressions of love and gratitude. Nineteenth century women dared to dream of a day that honored women's civil activism. We can do no less. We should honor their vision...PG

Here is her original Mother's Day Proclamation:

...........Arise, then, women of this day! Arise all women who have hearts,whether our baptism be that of water or of fears! Say firmly: We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies. Our husbands shall not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy, and patience. We women of one country, will be too tender of those of another country to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs. From the bosom of the devastated earth a voice goes up with our own. It says "Disarm! Disarm! Dis-arm!! The sword of murder is not the balance of justice! Blood does not wipe our dishonor nor violence indicate possession!" As men have often forsaken the plow and the anvil at the summons of war, let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel. Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead. Let them then solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means whereby the great human family can live in peace, each bearing after their own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar, but of God. In the name of womanhood and of humanity, I earnestly ask that a general congress of women without limit of nationality may be appointed and held at some place deemed most convenient and at the earliest period consistent with its objects, to promote the alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace.

Julia Ward Howe
Boston 1870

Words of Wisdom from David Foster Wallace:

2009-05-05T13:50:00.001-04:00

Transcription of the 2005 Kenyon College Commencement Address - May 21, 2005

(If anybody feels like perspiring [cough], I'd advise you to go ahead, because I'm sure going to. In fact I'm gonna [mumbles while pulling up his gown and taking out a handkerchief from his pocket].) Greetings ["parents"?] and congratulations to Kenyon's graduating class of 2005. There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says "Morning, boys. How's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the hell is water?"
This is a standard requirement of US commencement speeches, the deployment of didactic little parable-ish stories. The story ["thing"] turns out to be one of the better, less bullshitty conventions of the genre, but if you're worried that I plan to present myself here as the wise, older fish explaining what water is to you younger fish, please don't be. I am not the wise old fish. The point of the fish story is merely that the most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about. Stated as an English sentence, of course, this is just a banal platitude, but the fact is that in the day to day trenches of adult existence, banal platitudes can have a life or death importance, or so I wish to suggest to you on this dry and lovely morning.
Of course the main requirement of speeches like this is that I'm supposed to talk about your liberal arts education's meaning, to try to explain why the degree you are about to receive has actual human value instead of just a material payoff. So let's talk about the single most pervasive cliché in the commencement speech genre, which is that a liberal arts education is not so much about filling you up with knowledge as it is about quote teaching you how to think. If you're like me as a student, you've never liked hearing this, and you tend to feel a bit insulted by the claim that you needed anybody to teach you how to think, since the fact that you even got admitted to a college this good seems like proof that you already know how to think. But I'm going to posit to you that the liberal arts cliché turns out not to be insulting at all, because the really significant education in thinking that we're supposed to get in a place like this isn't really about the capacity to think, but rather about the choice of what to think about. If your total freedom of choice regarding what to think about seems too obvious to waste time discussing, I'd ask you to think about fish and water, and to bracket for just a few minutes your skepticism about the value of the totally obvious.
Here's another didactic little story. There are these two guys sitting together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness. One of the guys is religious, the other is an atheist, and the two are arguing about the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer. And the atheist says: "Look, it's not like I don't have actual reasons for not believing in God. It's not like I haven't ever experimented with the whole God and prayer thing. Just last month I got caught away from the camp in that terrible blizzard, and I was totally lost and I couldn't see a thing, and it was fifty below, and so I tried it: I fell to my knees in the snow and cried out 'Oh, God, if there is a God, I'm lost in this blizzard, and I'm gonna die if you don't help me.'" And now, in the bar, the religious guy looks at the atheist all puzzled. "Well then you must believe now," he says, "After all, here you are, alive." The atheist just rolls his eyes. "No, man, all that was was a couple Eskimos happened to come wandering by and showed me the way back to camp."
It's easy to run this story through kind of a standard liberal arts analysis: the exact same experience can mean two totally different things to two different people, given those people's two different belief templates and two different ways of constructing meaning from experience. Because we prize tolerance and diversity of belief, nowhere in our liberal arts analysis do we want to claim that one guy's interpretation is true and the other guy's is false or bad. Which is fine, except we also never end up talking about just where these individual templates and beliefs come from. Meaning, where they come from INSIDE the two guys. As if a person's most basic orientation toward the world, and the meaning of his experience were somehow just hard-wired, like height or shoe-size; or automatically absorbed from the culture, like language. As if how we construct meaning were not actually a matter of personal, intentional choice. Plus, there's the whole matter of arrogance. The nonreligious guy is so totally certain in his dismissal of the possibility that the passing Eskimos had anything to do with his prayer for help. True, there are plenty of religious people who seem arrogant and certain of their own interpretations, too. They're probably even more repulsive than atheists, at least to most of us. But religious dogmatists' problem is exactly the same as the story's unbeliever: blind certainty, a close-mindedness that amounts to an imprisonment so total that the prisoner doesn't even know he's locked up.
The point here is that I think this is one part of what teaching me how to think is really supposed to mean. To be just a little less arrogant. To have just a little critical awareness about myself and my certainties. Because a huge percentage of the stuff that I tend to be automatically certain of is, it turns out, totally wrong and deluded. I have learned this the hard way, as I predict you graduates will, too.
Here is just one example of the total wrongness of something I tend to be automatically sure of: everything in my own immediate experience supports my deep belief that I am the absolute center of the universe; the realest, most vivid and important person in existence. We rarely think about this sort of natural, basic self-centeredness because it's so socially repulsive. But it's pretty much the same for all of us. It is our default setting, hard-wired into our boards at birth. Think about it: there is no experience you have had that you are not the absolute center of. The world as you experience it is there in front of YOU or behind YOU, to the left or right of YOU, on YOUR TV or YOUR monitor. And so on. Other people's thoughts and feelings have to be communicated to you somehow, but your own are so immediate, urgent, real.
Please don't worry that I'm getting ready to lecture you about compassion or other-directedness or all the so-called virtues. This is not a matter of virtue. It's a matter of my choosing to do the work of somehow altering or getting free of my natural, hard-wired default setting which is to be deeply and literally self-centered and to see and interpret everything through this lens of self. People who can adjust their natural default setting this way are often described as being "well-adjusted", which I suggest to you is not an accidental term.
Given the triumphant academic setting here, an obvious question is how much of this work of adjusting our default setting involves actual knowledge or intellect. This question gets very tricky. Probably the most dangerous thing about an academic education -- least in my own case -- is that it enables my tendency to over-intellectualize stuff, to get lost in abstract argument inside my head, instead of simply paying attention to what is going on right in front of me, paying attention to what is going on inside me.
As I'm sure you guys know by now, it is extremely difficult to stay alert and attentive, instead of getting hypnotized by the constant monologue inside your own head (may be happening right now). Twenty years after my own graduation, I have come gradually to understand that the liberal arts cliché about teaching you how to think is actually shorthand for a much deeper, more serious idea: learning how to think really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think. It means being conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from experience. Because if you cannot exercise this kind of choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed. Think of the old cliché about quote the mind being an excellent servant but a terrible master.
This, like many clichés, so lame and unexciting on the surface, actually expresses a great and terrible truth. It is not the least bit coincidental that adults who commit suicide with firearms almost always shoot themselves in: the head. They shoot the terrible master. And the truth is that most of these suicides are actually dead long before they pull the trigger.
And I submit that this is what the real, no bullshit value of your liberal arts education is supposed to be about: how to keep from going through your comfortable, prosperous, respectable adult life dead, unconscious, a slave to your head and to your natural default setting of being uniquely, completely, imperially alone day in and day out. That may sound like hyperbole, or abstract nonsense. Let's get concrete. The plain fact is that you graduating seniors do not yet have any clue what "day in day out" really means. There happen to be whole, large parts of adult American life that nobody talks about in commencement speeches. One such part involves boredom, routine, and petty frustration. The parents and older folks here will know all too well what I'm talking about.
By way of example, let's say it's an average adult day, and you get up in the morning, go to your challenging, white-collar, college-graduate job, and you work hard for eight or ten hours, and at the end of the day you're tired and somewhat stressed and all you want is to go home and have a good supper and maybe unwind for an hour, and then hit the sack early because, of course, you have to get up the next day and do it all again. But then you remember there's no food at home. You haven't had time to shop this week because of your challenging job, and so now after work you have to get in your car and drive to the supermarket. It's the end of the work day and the traffic is apt to be: very bad. So getting to the store takes way longer than it should, and when you finally get there, the supermarket is very crowded, because of course it's the time of day when all the other people with jobs also try to squeeze in some grocery shopping. And the store is hideously lit and infused with soul-killing muzak or corporate pop and it's pretty much the last place you want to be but you can't just get in and quickly out; you have to wander all over the huge, over-lit store's confusing aisles to find the stuff you want and you have to maneuver your junky cart through all these other tired, hurried people with carts (et cetera, et cetera, cutting stuff out because this is a long ceremony) and eventually you get all your supper supplies, except now it turns out there aren't enough check-out lanes open even though it's the end-of-the-day rush. So the checkout line is incredibly long, which is stupid and infuriating. But you can't take your frustration out on the frantic lady working the register, who is overworked at a job whose daily tedium and meaninglessness surpasses the imagination of any of us here at a prestigious college.
But anyway, you finally get to the checkout line's front, and you pay for your food, and you get told to "Have a nice day" in a voice that is the absolute voice of death. Then you have to take your creepy, flimsy, plastic bags of groceries in your cart with the one crazy wheel that pulls maddeningly to the left, all the way out through the crowded, bumpy, littery parking lot, and then you have to drive all the way home through slow, heavy, SUV-intensive, rush-hour traffic, et cetera et cetera.
Everyone here has done this, of course. But it hasn't yet been part of you graduates' actual life routine, day after week after month after year.
But it will be. And many more dreary, annoying, seemingly meaningless routines besides. But that is not the point. The point is that petty, frustrating crap like this is exactly where the work of choosing is gonna come in. Because the traffic jams and crowded aisles and long checkout lines give me time to think, and if I don't make a conscious decision about how to think and what to pay attention to, I'm gonna be pissed and miserable every time I have to shop. Because my natural default setting is the certainty that situations like this are really all about me. About MY hungriness and MY fatigue and MY desire to just get home, and it's going to seem for all the world like everybody else is just in my way. And who are all these people in my way? And look at how repulsive most of them are, and how stupid and cow-like and dead-eyed and nonhuman they seem in the checkout line, or at how annoying and rude it is that people are talking loudly on cell phones in the middle of the line. And look at how deeply and personally unfair this is.
Or, of course, if I'm in a more socially conscious liberal arts form of my default setting, I can spend time in the end-of-the-day traffic being disgusted about all the huge, stupid, lane-blocking SUV's and Hummers and V-12 pickup trucks, burning their wasteful, selfish, forty-gallon tanks of gas, and I can dwell on the fact that the patriotic or religious bumper-stickers always seem to be on the biggest, most disgustingly selfish vehicles, driven by the ugliest [responding here to loud applause] (this is an example of how NOT to think, though) most disgustingly selfish vehicles, driven by the ugliest, most inconsiderate and aggressive drivers. And I can think about how our children's children will despise us for wasting all the future's fuel, and probably screwing up the climate, and how spoiled and stupid and selfish and disgusting we all are, and how modern consumer society just sucks, and so forth and so on.
You get the idea.
If I choose to think this way in a store and on the freeway, fine. Lots of us do. Except thinking this way tends to be so easy and automatic that it doesn't have to be a choice. It is my natural default setting. It's the automatic way that I experience the boring, frustrating, crowded parts of adult life when I'm operating on the automatic, unconscious belief that I am the center of the world, and that my immediate needs and feelings are what should determine the world's priorities.
The thing is that, of course, there are totally different ways to think about these kinds of situations. In this traffic, all these vehicles stopped and idling in my way, it's not impossible that some of these people in SUV's have been in horrible auto accidents in the past, and now find driving so terrifying that their therapist has all but ordered them to get a huge, heavy SUV so they can feel safe enough to drive. Or that the Hummer that just cut me off is maybe being driven by a father whose little child is hurt or sick in the seat next to him, and he's trying to get this kid to the hospital, and he's in a bigger, more legitimate hurry than I am: it is actually I who am in HIS way.
Or I can choose to force myself to consider the likelihood that everyone else in the supermarket's checkout line is just as bored and frustrated as I am, and that some of these people probably have harder, more tedious and painful lives than I do.
Again, please don't think that I'm giving you moral advice, or that I'm saying you are supposed to think this way, or that anyone expects you to just automatically do it. Because it's hard. It takes will and effort, and if you are like me, some days you won't be able to do it, or you just flat out won't want to.
But most days, if you're aware enough to give yourself a choice, you can choose to look differently at this fat, dead-eyed, over-made-up lady who just screamed at her kid in the checkout line. Maybe she's not usually like this. Maybe she's been up three straight nights holding the hand of a husband who is dying of bone cancer. Or maybe this very lady is the low-wage clerk at the motor vehicle department, who just yesterday helped your spouse resolve a horrific, infuriating, red-tape problem through some small act of bureaucratic kindness. Of course, none of this is likely, but it's also not impossible. It just depends what you what to consider. If you're automatically sure that you know what reality is, and you are operating on your default setting, then you, like me, probably won't consider possibilities that aren't annoying and miserable. But if you really learn how to pay attention, then you will know there are other options. It will actually be within your power to experience a crowded, hot, slow, consumer-hell type situation as not only meaningful, but sacred, on fire with the same force that made the stars: love, fellowship, the mystical oneness of all things deep down.
Not that that mystical stuff is necessarily true. The only thing that's capital-T True is that you get to decide how you're gonna try to see it.
This, I submit, is the freedom of a real education, of learning how to be well-adjusted. You get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn't. You get to decide what to worship.
Because here's something else that's weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship -- be it JC or Allah, bet it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles -- is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It's the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It's been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.
Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they're evil or sinful, it's that they're unconscious. They are default settings.
They're the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that's what you're doing.
And the so-called real world will not discourage you from operating on your default settings, because the so-called real world of men and money and power hums merrily along in a pool of fear and anger and frustration and craving and worship of self. Our own present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that have yielded extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom. The freedom all to be lords of our tiny skull-sized kingdoms, alone at the center of all creation. This kind of freedom has much to recommend it. But of course there are all different kinds of freedom, and the kind that is most precious you will not hear much talk about much in the great outside world of wanting and achieving and [unintelligible -- sounds like "displayal"]. The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day.
That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing.
I know that this stuff probably doesn't sound fun and breezy or grandly inspirational the way a commencement speech is supposed to sound. What it is, as far as I can see, is the capital-T Truth, with a whole lot of rhetorical niceties stripped away. You are, of course, free to think of it whatever you wish. But please don't just dismiss it as just some finger-wagging Dr. Laura sermon. None of this stuff is really about morality or religion or dogma or big fancy questions of life after death.
The capital-T Truth is about life BEFORE death.
It is about the real value of a real education, which has almost nothing to do with knowledge, and everything to do with simple awareness; awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, all the time, that we have to keep reminding ourselves over and over:
"This is water."
"This is water."
It is unimaginably hard to do this, to stay conscious and alive in the adult world day in and day out. Which means yet another grand cliché turns out to be true: your education really IS the job of a lifetime. And it commences: now.
I wish you way more than luck.

Complicit, Complacent, or Committed

2009-04-28T11:25:00.002-04:00

Regardless of how we earn a living, we are all at least in part one of the three, but only one seeks change for the better...do what you can to be that one...PG

What Should We Make of the Recent Popularity of Ayn Rand's 1957 Novel "Atlas Shrugged:"

2009-04-28T09:51:00.004-04:00

Hey listen, there is no doubting the relevance of the concept of "rational self-interest" and it becomes even more appealing when you add the language of: "Rational self-interest, egoism, in Ayn Rand's perception is not being Bernie Madoff, not thinking short-term and satisfying just whims, and cheating and lying and stealing." It is about pursuing what's truly in your rational, long-term self-interest, figuring out what's good for you, without exploiting, taking advantage, without stealing from other people, without sacrificing from other people to yourself." But the concept (which is almost identical to Ron Paul's ideology) has flaws in that is assumes ultra altruism, it assumes common goals, it assumes a law abiding citizenry, and requires enormous helpings of honesty, which, although I'd like to think otherwise, is not as apparent as it ought to be. Plus it embraces libertarian economic doctrine which is capitalism, which by nature is anything but non-exploiting. Rational self interest also draws heavy upon William G. Sumner's concept of social Darwinism which leaves a percentage of the population unable to compete, defeated before they even begin due to any array of handicaps. Works in the animal kingdom, not so sure of the civility of it however. Potentially a case could be made that a society could improve and advance rapidly via this concept but with rather severe externalities...hey, Stalin moved Russia from a third world nation into a first within the span of a generation, an unprecedented historical feat, but that ought not to be celebrated. The concept undermines the "it takes a village" idea...everyone working with only their own self interest in mind. The whole thing seems to me to be a paradox...like many social ideologies, it's a nice idea, but it's a pipe dream reserved for the pages of fiction. Actually, it's not even a nice idea, if you think it out to it's conclusion it allows for uninhibited wealth accumulation which, in turn, drives people into wage slavery or non-rational methods to avoid starvation, which leads to dissention and then of course, revolution. It, like capitalism, is bound to implode. It's a rotten idea....PG

The Sociology of Ali-Frazier and the 70's Fight Game

2009-04-22T12:10:00.008-04:00

Amidst the collective turmoil of the late 1960's culture clash rose two distinct and diametrically opposed figures in the game of boxing. At a time when the fight game mattered, some might even say at the peak of it's popularity, each man represented very divergent sectors of society. Nothing remotely as significant exists today in the sporting world, and nothing remotely important has existed since. Simply put, the nation stopped, virtually came to a halt during Ali-Frazier at Madison Square Garden in 1971. Split down political and racial lines, the nation followed each of their three incredible contests with keen interest and attention, the last of which was a brutal 14 round slug fest in the Philippines in which both men could no longer continue. Do yourself a favor and get yourself a copy of both films: "Ali-Frazier I: One Nation...Divided," and "Thrilla in Manila," and watch them. Words can not convey the level of emotion. They are each thrilling, controversial, and sad. Looking at it objectively, each man emerges an inspiration, champions of both body and spirit....PG

How do You Like Obama Now?

2009-03-17T13:34:00.004-04:00

Dear Mr. Guarino:

Obama's campaign slogan -- change, change, change -- the little sucker even had me believing in him -- well now he's taken all my change -- and we are no better off for it -- His selling of the stimulus package to American citizens was deceptive, opportunistic, and akin to W's Iraq war -- (with the significant exception of course of several thousand lives). Further, his and the Dems rhetoric about cleaning up W's mess is insulting to our intellect -- the sins we are paying for now go back to Clinton -- Bush and his cronies perpetuated the irresponsible behavior and Obama has merely renamed it. We'll save the debate about viable solutions for another time -- There isn't enough room here for me to expound on my philosophical rationale for why I agree with your position that the Dems and Reps have hijacked our democracy -- suffice it to say that education, or lack thereof on the part of the general voting public is in my view the biggest culprit. And to a great degree the main ingredient in any revolution of values -- "The masses unfortunately are sheep -- and sheep get slaughtered. If you need a friend -- get a dog" -- to quote the infamous Gordon Gekko.

Speaking of Mr. Gekko -- he knew a long time ago that democracy was an illusion -- "You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you buddy?" (Oliver Stone for all his paranoia generally gets it but yet seems to still be blind to the fact, or unwilling to admit, that it is not unique to republican or democrats but inherent in both.)

Anyway -- I digress -- and I don't mean to be a pessimist but our society may be too far gone to drum up a revolution of values. On the one hand I often think that perhaps democracy is simply too flawed -- a victim of its own freedoms and just maybe other alternatives are better. But then I realize that all systems of government are subject to corruption -- and perhaps democracy is still the least flawed - -What I do know is that all systems require the aforementioned values as the fuel to drive the success of government -- and as a society unfortunately we are nearly bankrupt of values and morality....Mr.B

To a Real-Estate Broker Friend: A Response

2009-03-13T17:13:00.003-04:00

Someone once told me, "the one who educates you about his product is the best of salesmen." Of course I already knew that about you but I wanted applaud your efforts to promote knowledge of where some of our tax dollars are being spent, and exactly who they are assisting. If the government would do what you are doing, more people might take advantage of it. It makes you think they don't want us to benefit. No doubt that right now there are fantastic realestate opportunities with a down market (as far as pricing), cheap money (if you can qualify), and some tax credits sprinkled in. While we could debate the ethics of whom exactly is benefiting from these credits, the income and pricing limitations, a bit high in my opinion, in otherwords...this is only really a break for the middle class. But clearly, what we can not debate is the idea of stimulating qualified individuals to invest in a home. Real estate should be the main concern of this stimulus as historically growth of land ownership has helped nations out of rescession in a kind of "good for everyone" way; as opposed, say, to war. Instead they want to give breaks to guys on Wall Street by allowing them to claim large portions of their hefty incomes as capital gains instead of ordinary income, a difference in the tens of billions each year, and that's just one of their many fancy loopholes. Although I make no claims to understand the contents of each of the various stimulus packages, I do my best to understand at least who, and why. Emails like yours are the ones we should be getting daily, don't get me wrong, I like a good funny or interesting email just as much as the next guy, but you get my point. Anyway, thank you for that. I hope all is well with you and your family; and if I had a bunch of money I'd buy something, but I don't...we're still trying to fill this home....PG

Dear Mr. Financial Investor:

2009-03-13T17:02:00.004-04:00

I've never questioned your righteousness, Bill, and I appreciate the goal of having informed clients. I do, however, have an issue with the source of this confidence you are attempting to instill in your current and prospective clientele. We now, with the luxury of hindsight, can take a look at the prior e-mails you had sent of which the content was very least debatable, purely and irresponsibly speculative, and grossly mistimed.

Now, maybe I paid a bit more attention in my economics classes than most, but a fool could have seen a large scale correction and long term recovery were in order. I bought in to the whole Keynesian/demand-side theory at a time when it was not very fashionable and Reaganomics ruled the land. You, of all folks, equipped with your fancy charts and graphs had to know the dismal global historical record of free market economies, especially increasingly unregulated ones. Granted I saw this and acted upon it 1999, thus losing out on close to a decade of potential earnings. A good speculator, I am not.

The point is, while people clearly ought not listen to politicians; they are either dumb or lying, and we'll give their intellect the benefit of the doubt and assume they are lying, I'm not sure folks ought to hear from financial pundits or so-called investment "experts" either. It has a very disturbing, paradoxical quality to it.

The problem lies, I'm sure, with the fact that if you had any moderately bright economist or economic theorist come in to speak (which I would be first in line to come see), he would vehemently warn against any involvement in increased speculative investment at this time, as the case could be made that it is, in essence, the genesis of the crisis, as it has always historically been. Not necessarily for the risk of personal loss, which, of course, is great, but of the potential economic consequences for us all. But in any event, one with a bit more broader perspective on the situation, considering the scope, may be in order. Listening to an investment expert discuss economic issues as they pertain to us, it seems, would be a bit like listening to Summers or Geithner explain the stimulus; the goals of each party are no longer mutual, or at least ought not be. It certainly is not as if Ameriprise has remained squeaky clean in all this, although, as I mentioned I never questioned your righteousness Bill....PG

President Obama: An Early Critique

2009-03-05T17:05:00.007-05:00

By now most of you know that I was a last minute Obama voter. My reasons, were laid out in detail in my November 20 blog entry "A Feeling I Simply Could Not Suppress." The truth is, I am avidly not a democrat nor a republican. With few notable exceptions, (Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, etc...) these parties have hijacked our democracy, requiring conformity to the establishment or face ostracizing; see Ralph Nader. Do know this: I voted for Obama without any illusions. I knew perfectly well he was an establishment politician. I knew well his policy would offer retribution to his paymasters, e.g. Wall Street, the Clintons, etc.... I do think well of him as a man and an and intellectual, however, what I may be guilty of is underestimating the level to which Obama is a mere marionette. Objectively speaking, I find his cabinet selections egregiously insulting to his constituency.

I can't get detailed on all of them, countless pages have been dedicated to questioning these appointments, but from Rubin, Summers, and their piss boy Geithner, to Emanuel, to Gates, to the Clintons running the state department, jeeeez, enough said. Do the research...you will find these appointments clearly contradict the campaign rhetoric. The message has been abandoned. The only saving grace is the constituency. Progressives are not satisfied with political victory. They will push and prod the administration from the intellectual angle in their never ending search for a "more perfect union." Time, my friends, time will tell if the constituency's voice is heard. I've quoted Dr. King before, "America is in need of a revolution of values." Now, desperately so. What better place to start than at the bottom....PG

On Chopsticks...

2009-02-19T15:13:00.003-05:00

I would, without question, prefer to use chopsticks over any other utensil. Why is it that we have not figured out that chopsticks are the most simple, elegant, and refined tools for eating? Asian cultures feel our stabbing and sawing of food is barbaric. I cannot counter that assessment....PG

Conversations with a Free Market Friend

2009-02-11T14:51:00.010-05:00

October 1, 2008
Mr. B:
4 guests last night on Charlie Rose; a harvard economics professor, a member of A.I.G. board of directors, a NY Times economic journalist, and Mort Zuckerman, media mogul...they differed on many things including where to place the blame and how to proceed from here; but they all agreed on one thing...the Paulson plan was deeply flawed and the one that was voted down only less so. The consensus was we would be trading short term recovery for risk of potential long term complete disaster. 2 of the 4 thought a reformulated bailout was necessary with less risk of taxpayers dollars, but with no rush (after election, but before Jan 3) and the other two floated the idea of allowing it to collapse and rebuilding it correctly. All 4 said no less than 2 years of continued money crunch and as many as 10 for full recovery. This will affect main st. (us, small business/middle class)no doubt, both directly and indirectly; but this is only a small externality of a far greater issue: the culpable: predatory and high risk lenders, hedge fund managers, CEO's and book cookers who show false profits, (other)market and currency speculators, and anything that artificially inflates the market need to be taken to task and highly regulated from this point forward. The corporate lobbyists who pressure Washington for deregulation have to be marginalized (government can not simply be the "shadow cast by business over soceity"...Dewey). Overcoming that is a great task, rather revolutionary. Main St. (and let's get this straight, Main St. is a metaphor for the middle class, not the poor [the majority of the population] and unless your money is earning faster than you can spend it, you're middle class) will feel the blowback of the money crunch...politicians will play to that for votes or to approve any bailout. But ironically the strange bedfellows of righteous anticorporate left wing liberals and right wing freemarket capitalists (whom both feel an obligation to some forms democracy), may ultimately save the future of this country (from tyranny, or worse fascist tyranny). They have the ultimate weapon for opposing this plan...the people. Those who were loudly for this bailout are either well indoctrinated or are well aware of the reprecussions but, of course, can't say it as they have self interest at stake, which in a free market soceity where democractic forms barely function is a totally natural reaction (which one of those two you are James K, I'm not sure I've figured out...you lead me to believe you are a "victim of corporate propoganda," or is this merely a ruse? Hmmm...). Or, of course, in the case of politicians who have a corporate constituency to tend to, i.e. our two lovely candidates. Hence, my vote goes elsewhere.

October 2, 2008
Mr. Guarino:
But just to indulge you while you ponder the meaning of life and the incestuous functionality of the U.S. financial and political systems --- I concur with Dewey's notion of marginalizing Corporate influence on society vis a vis undue influence on any or all 3 branches of our government. I.e. I'm cool with corp america conducting their own agendas (within legal and generally accepted practices) but not cool with buying candidates and/or their causes in exchange for some implicit representation of a favorable position. --- (something we as a nation have clearly not figured out --and for more on that check out the latest version of our financial rescue bill). The issue as I see it is not very cut and dried however -- Consider some of the primary variables in this equation... greed, money, votes, fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, freedom to pursue happiness, etc. etc. etc. the list goes on and on and is predominantly subjective by definition. My point is that it is impossible to regulate corruption out of a system -- and any attempts to do so tend to place significant undue burden (in all its forms) on good, law-abiding, tax paying citizens of society while creating an even greater opportunity for the corrupt vis a vis a much more complex, tangled, and opaque regulatory and legal environment. What does all this mean -- in my view it means that in order for society to function in the effective and productive manner we endeavor towards, the key ingredients are INTEGRITY and INTELLIGENCE. (I.e. independant thought, sharing of differing viewpoints, moral fiber, and a minimal but flexible and supportive set of rules). This is the basis of what our country was founded on but something that is absent in most of our governmental representatives and as well in greater than 50% of society at large today. And it is this lack of both of these ingredients in our predominantly moronic, morally corrupt, instant gratification seeking society with an inflated sense of entitlement that has me experiencing the most severe inner conflict of my 38 years. In contrast to what the idealist in me just wrote, the realist recognizes that the American people to date have proven that we CANNOT handle the responsibility that comes with freedom! The examples are too numerous to list.

October 4, 2008

Mr. B:

Rational thoughts all. If your premise is to ground my idealism and to state that within our flawed system an injection of integrity and intelligence is desperately necessary, I must agree. We'll talk soon.

February 10, 2009

Mr. Guarino:

Go out and pick up Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, a slim volume a 1000 pages but a rational social commentary on the devisive nature of socialism. It's right up your alley.

February 17, 2009

Mr. B

Ah, without reading the full text and merely examining the main theme on "wikipedia" a case can be made for Ayn Rand's concept of rational self interest. Both the far right and far left have embraced similar philosophies, Ron Paul's libertarianism and Noam Chomsky's individualist anarchism. The concept of free and uninhibited pursuit of one's desires, at no detriment to others or society as a whole, is not debatable. Our differences arise in how a society achieves this goal. Democratic Socialism has a rather short but extremely successful historical record in this regard. Free-market Capitalism has an incredibly long and disastrous history of failure in this regard. The historical progression goes as follows; as the "village" mentality erodes from culture, brotherhood withers and individualism takes hold, greed infiltrates, corruption succeeds, wealth wrests control of all power and influence, wealth inequality widens....revolt of the masses is usually next in this equation. To be continued...

February 18, 2009

Mr. Guarino:

Your naievete regarding Democratic socialism is equal parts inspiring and maddening. I believe we are agreed on the end game -- however we have diverging views on the means --- While you accurately point out the flaws in free market capitalism (who could argue with them in these times) you fail to acknowledge that many of the same fatal flaws exist in democratic socialism -- e.g. greed, corruption, etc. -- There exist too many cases of 3rd/4th and even 5th generation beneficiaries of social welfare programs (i.e. redistribution of wealth) to purport that it is extremely successful -- In fact one could argue that the long term implications are disastrous as we are perpetuating a society of mediocrity -- or worse. While my fundamental views on free market capitalism have shifted somewhat over time I am no closer to embracing socialism that I was before --Yes, it embodies some admirable values however to be successful it requires some basic tenets and inherent traits in its participants that often come up short.

Notes from the United States

2009-02-04T18:06:00.003-05:00

Marsiconuovo, Italia
Cugini:

Anche se l'elezione di un uomo nero per la posizione più alta nel nostro paese è stato estremamente importante a livello nazionale e internazionale, il Presidente Obama ha reso molto chiaro sin dall'inizio che le sue politiche differiscono solo leggermente da quelli delle precedenti amministrazioni politiche. Il suo sostegno per la mega-società e le istituzioni finanziarie, Israele, la guerra, i tagli fiscali per i ricchi hanno dimostrato che è solo un fantoccio dei ricchi e potenti. A quanto pare ci sono anche il nostro cammino verso il fascismo. Sebbene la destra e il centro sembra felice finora, la sinestra (come me) sono stati molto delusi. Ho qualche speranza che la pressione dal sinestra pendente giovani e gli intellettuali d'America continuano il loro attivismo e le proteste del pubblico, al fine di influenzare alcuni cambiamenti. Sono, tuttavia, non sono ottimista.

Americani, purtroppo, sono più interessato con avidità, potere, denaro invece di pace, di fratellanza, di vita e di bene. Come il nostro Martin Luther King ha detto solo pochi mesi prima che fosse assassinato (dal nostro governo) in un discorso chiamato Perché sono Opposti alla Guerra in Vietnam, (available on YouTube) "L'america ha un grande bisogno di una rivoluzione di valori!" Sono assolutamente d'accordo.

Milan + Beckham = bella calcio!

Con affetto,

Paul

On Ski Culture...(suburban style)

2009-01-26T22:44:00.009-05:00

There is truly something good, something wonderfully soulful about skiing. There is no individual alive who could argue against the thrilling and absolute rush of wind in your face while ripping turns in your conditions of choice on a sunny 20 degree day. It makes you want to scream. Me, I used to prefer a lot conditions, powder, packed powder, crusted manmade, and truly, even the bad ones. I guess except for the slush. I'll drink at the bar before I jerk around in the slush. But short of that, I'll go at it on the ice, in the rain, cold, saturated, and skiing on garbage, I'm talking ice, stones, and dirt, and earn my beers after.

Skiing does, quickly, separate the men from the boys. One learns real early that the rush comes at a cost; that those sweet turns must be earned. At some point dad says, "OK son, you're haulin' your own gear from now on." Skis, boots, poles, gloves, goggles, gators is a lot of crap to carry for a kid through an icy parking lot that seems like its 3 miles long. Then, one figures out that one must become proficient moving around on flat ground otherwise by noon you'll have limp noodle arms. Freezing hands, freezing toes, braving the elements, it's all part of the deal. A few years later you're 12 years old and on your school ski trip, which you've saved, literally, all summer for, and you go up to Bromley during a warm spell of rain that's going to last through Sunday and the mountain is only half covered; what are you going to do? You're going to ski, that's what you're going to do! So all skiers have been there, and it's work, but it makes you appreciate the days when the chowder is hot and delicious, and the mountain is groomed to soft corduroy.

A few weeks back, my cousin called me on the eve of a blizzard and said, "What do you say we hit the powder in the morning," I answered without hesitation, "I'm in." I got on the road somewhere around 4:30am, pitch black, brutally cold, and snowing. Somewhere around New Paltz I stopped because my wiper fluid was frozen. After about the fourth time I stopped the car on the New York State Thruway, 18 wheelers roaring by, to manually pour wiper fluid on the windshield. When I got back in he said, "It's amazing the amount of crap we'll deal with just to get a few runs in." In this age of instant stimuli, hard earned pleasures are often brushed aside. In skiing, sacrifice is learned. At the bottom of our "first tracks" powder run we each agreed, this is why we put up with that crap.

Let's face it, we do not live in the mountains immersed in ski culture. It is desirable to me, as a matter of fact I grew up wanting to be a ski instructor. I have to believe I would have loved the life, small tight knit communities where people actually attend town hall meetings. Breathing the mountain air, viewing glorious landscapes, eating local cheeses and meats, going to the local bar in a complete whiteout on your "sled," and of course, the turns. It's a common practice and totally accepted in ski communities for people to come in to work an hour or two late mornings after a snowstorm just so they can get in some early morning turns in the powder. A great poster I saw today in the lodge had a silhouette of a man atop a mountain, skis on his shoulder, staring out into the expanse, and underneath inscribed "Let someone else climb the corporate ladder." My sentiments exactly....PG

President's Questions: Could You Imagine?

2009-01-26T00:37:00.007-05:00

One of the excellent presidential campaign promises John McCain made was a vow to institute a periodic open question forum in congress similar to Great Britain's Prime Minister's Questions. Every Wednesday, while Parliament is seated, the Prime Minister of the U.K. must answer questions from the nations elected representatives, for a half hour. It is publicly televised, even we can catch it on C-Span. The PM of the U.K., whether Blair or Brown, Major or Thatcher, must have a full running detailed knowledge of every issue presented to them and be able to discuss, debate, even argue their points coherently and intellectually. Tony Blair was a master, Gordon Brown does quite well also. Obama, even McCain, I'm sure, would do OK...but could you imagine George W. Bush? Yikes!....PG

Inauguration Day: A Brief Reflection

2009-01-20T12:04:00.015-05:00

This past year has been a emotional political roller coaster, the ups outnumbering the downs 10 to 1, or something close to that. The attention all seem to be paying is healthy and necessary. What I mean to say is, life in this country is good, it truly is, although we must realize not for everyone. We are at war and our economy teeters on collapse. This moment shall define us, our generation, whether choose it or not, in the annals of our history. But there is a glimmer of hope today. We, American citizens, actually, we, citizens of the world, on this beautiful day, welcomed a new President; a President with enormous global popularity and influence. I know one man can not do everything, but it must begin somewhere. Each of us doing our part. I won't talk about politics, today is not that day. So, I'll just say that on this day, for my children's sake, I am proud to be an American and so grateful that I am alive to see it all happen....
history in the making.....PG

On Cooking...

2009-01-04T00:03:00.010-05:00

Beauty in pragmatism ought to be the goal of great cooking, period.

Fluff, with little or no practicality has no place in the art and should be given no merit. Ultra complex preparations, incredibly expensive ingredients, or strict adherence to measurements ought to be frowned upon. The joy in cooking is in the journey, the planning, the acquiring, the preparation, the mis en place, the consummation, and, of course, the pleasure of the senses. There is no inherent destination. Because of the infinite variables, virtuosity never arrives. It is both an essential task and a wonderful craft, a rare blend. I once heard someone respond to the question, "What can I do to enhance my enjoyment of life?"...with this response, "First...learn to cook." I agree....PG

Pre-election Correspondence: A Compilation of Responses

2009-01-03T10:30:00.008-05:00

April 4, 2008
On the Youth Movement:

Outstanding! Clearly you are wise beyond your years. You should start an independent movement at your school. I would hesitate to call it "moderate" as that implies views that fall between the democratic and republican ends of the spectrum and thus would limit the scope of the base of students you wish to attract. It may leave out those that may have a view or two that goes beyond these ends. I could be wrong, but I believe you value independent thinking on each of the issues taken individually and not conforming your beliefs because of a particular party ideology (at least that's what your mom says). I also picked up your mention of Guiliani, who was a champion of political independents in his unsuccessful bid for the mayor of New York in 1990 and successful bids in 1994 and 1998 as he ran on BOTH the Liberal and Conservative tickets. I stress was because the rhetoric in his presidential campaign was significantly different (and had to be to appease the red states). But seriously, I commend your independent thinking and civic arousal (especially in these next 6 months of great importance for the future of this country); it is, unfortunately, rare these days. May I suggest reading anything by Nader, Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, Cornel West, and of course Noam Chomsky (if you haven't already), the leading voices of dissent, not necessarily to formulate your line of thinking, but to at least get the facts that you won't get in the Washington Post or on CNN. I have dozens of lectures on CD and DVD from Chomsky, who rarely, if ever, gives his opinion that I'll give to you when you get home, you will enjoy them (and you will have facts to back up your positions). Good Luck!!!

April 20, 2008
On Michele Obama:

You are clearly either a propaganda drone of the Clinton campaign or terribly misguided on your criticism of Michelle Obama. I shall assume for the sake of this response the latter to be true. In brief, you make as if Mrs. Obama is the first product of an Ivy league school to garner a handsome salary; extraordinarily shortsighted. To marginalize dissent or label dissent as unpatriotic or anti-American is widely considered the most egregious form of anti-democratic thought and, in fact, a key component of fascism and tyranny. Simply put, dissent is necessary for the idea of democracy. Not to mention you take her comments out of context as she is obviously speaking to a group of people and generalizing about the financial disparity and plight of the average person. Can you not see the economic war being waged on the poor by means of escalating tuitions, credit debt, lack of health care, gimmicked mortgages, all designed to maintain the wealth (and health) of the rich and keep the majority of the population indebted (another component of tyranny, albeit less violent). If you love your country, you should identify where it is lacking and in need and, yes, to criticize it; harshly if necessary.

August 20, 2008
On health care:

You are under the delusion that we have "the best health care system in the world," as President Bush sees it, or provide the "best medical care in the world," as Rudolph Giuliani said last week. That may be true at many top medical centers. But the disturbing truth is that this country lags well behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care.
Michael Moore struck a nerve in his documentary, "Sicko," when he extolled the virtues of the government-run health care systems in France, England, Canada and even Cuba while deploring the failures of the largely private insurance system in this country. There is no question that Mr. Moore overstated his case by making foreign systems look almost flawless. But there is a growing body of evidence that, by an array of pertinent yardsticks, the United States is a lagging and not a leader in providing good medical care.
Several years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th. More recently, the highly regarded Commonwealth Fund has pioneered in comparing the United States with other advanced nations through surveys of patients and doctors and analysis of other data. Its latest report, issued in May, ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations - Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom - on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it. Other comparative studies also put the United States in a relatively bad light. Below is a synopsis of the rationale.

Insurance coverage: All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients. The United States, to its shame, has some 45 million people without health insurance and many more millions who have poor coverage. Although the president has blithely said that these people can always get treatment in an emergency room, many studies have shown that people without insurance postpone treatment until a minor illness becomes worse, harming their own health and imposing greater costs.
Access: Citizens abroad often face long waits before they can get to see a specialist or undergo elective surgery. Americans typically get prompter attention, although Germany does better. The real barriers here are the costs facing low-income people without insurance or with skimpy coverage. But even Americans with above-average incomes find it more difficult than their counterparts abroad to get care on nights or weekends without going to an emergency room, and many report having to wait six days or more for an appointment with their own doctors.
Fairness: The United States ranks dead last on almost all measures of equity because we have the greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens. Embarassing in my opinion. Americans with below-average incomes are much less likely than their counterparts in other industrialized nations to see a doctor when sick, to fill prescriptions or to get needed tests and follow-up care.
Healthy lives: We have known for years that America has a high infant mortality rate, so it is no surprise that we rank last among 23 nations by that yardstick. But the problem is much broader. We rank near the bottom in healthy life expectancy at age 60, and 15th among 19 countries in deaths from a wide range of illnesses that would not have been fatal if treated with timely and effective care. The good news is that we have done a better job than other industrialized nations in reducing smoking. The bad news is that our obesity epidemic is the worst in the world.
Quality: In a comparison with five other countries, the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States first in providing the "right care" for a given condition as defined by standard clinical guidelines and gave it especially high marks for preventive care, like Pap smears and mammograms to detect early-stage cancers, and blood tests and cholesterol checks for hypertensive patients. But we scored poorly in coordinating the care of chronically ill patients, in protecting the safety of patients, and in meeting their needs and preferences, which drove our overall quality rating down to last place. American doctors and hospitals kill patients through surgical and medical mistakes more often than their counterparts in other industrialized nations.

September 23, 2008
Regarding stupid e-mails:

"There is a lot of talk these days about patriotism and dissent. Most Americans have confused Patriotism with Nationalism, though the two are often diametrically opposed. Waving a flag is Nationalism. Dissent is Patriotism. "My country, right or wrong" and "USA: Love it or Leave it" is Nationalism. Pointing out dangerous flaws in government policy is Patriotism. Telling people to "Shut up and get in line with the President" or "If you don't like it, move to France" is the antithesis of Democracy. - Thomas McCom

Sorry, I just can't help myself...and now I have to waste my lunch break but when I see such idiocy being circulated, I get furious! Newt Gingrich is a white collar collaborator of the highest order who has done well lying for a living. His "Contract for America" for the most part derailed, correctly, by congress had a few items slip through legislation; primarily deregulation of financial markets (with assistance of the Clinton Administration, I should add) which of course along with the ingredient of greed has led to our current financial crisis. So go newt! Real smart to listen to anything he has to say.
A small footnote from Noam Chomsky on Newt: Cobb County (Newt's former congressional district) receives more federal subsidies than any suburban county in the country, with two exceptions: Arlington Virginia, effectively part of the Federal Government, and Brevard County Florida, the home of the Kennedy Space Center. When we move out of the state system itself, Cobb County is the leading beneficiary of the "nanny state." Its largest employer is Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Company, which is designing the F-22 advanced tactical fighter and other military aircraft. 72% of the workforce are in white-collar jobs "in expanding areas of the economy like insurance, electronics and computers, and trade" -- all carefully tended by "the nanny state." It's remarkably easy for conservative entrepreneurial values to flourish while one is feeding happily at the public trough. Meanwhile praises to market miracles reach the heavens, notably where "conservatism is flowering among the malls."15
An interesting sidelight is the silence over this matter during the electoral campaign, when Gingrich propaganda was smashing the New Democrats. Notably absent is a simple rejoinder that would have stopped the juggernaut in its tracks: Gingrich is the country's leading advocate of the welfare state -- for the rich. The reasons for the silence are not hard to discern: class interests prevail over narrow electoral ones. It's agreed across the board that the rich must be protected from market discipline by a powerful and interventionist welfare state.
Hypocrisy personified indeed. And as I'm sure you all know Noam Chomsky is the leading dissident intellectual in the USA and one of the 10 most quoted people of all time and his facts are notoriously accurate, in fact, bullet proof. If your not familiar with him there's this thing called the internet where you could look things up, it works, really! Oh and there's these things called books too. Sorry to be like that, but the sheer and utter lack of knowledge and social understanding (even the educated class) of the people of the USA is remarkable. Chances are if you really like Sarah Palin and think she is a wonderful choice for VP, you probably haven't read this far. The fact is, and let me say she seems like a sweet lady, it is an utter embarrassment to every one of us, the American people, for a candidate for President to have made such a wildly absurd and dangerous choice. Forget the god nonsense, I will defend her right to be spiritual (although our Constitution delineates a separation of church and state), but this woman did not know the contents of the Bush Doctrine? Are you f-ing kidding me...the very clear, rather concise, post 9/11 approach to foreign policy (which Charlie Gibson did not outline thoroughly [and it's domestic counterpart the Patriot Act not mentioned?...who knows if she would have known that one.]), We are a world wide laughing stock, like it or not.

And speaking of Obama's senate record, as the eloquent Ms. Palin did so in her error filled (I'll assume they were errors and not lies...yeah right) convention speech, you could go to thomas.com (thomas for thomas jefferson) which is the library of Congress's website and check every Senators voting and initiative records...this is what you can find directly from the site (PS...I'm not voting for Obama):
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress.
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005.
Senator Obama has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate.

September 24, 2008
On taxes and the election:

Trust you? You just showed how stupid you are...you're dead wrong, READ EACH OF THEIR TAX PLANS, it's all available online...unless your business return is reading more than 250Gs in the adjusted gross column (which I doubt, unless you've got a really bad accountant) you aren't gonna pay a cent more...as a matter of fact, you may be eligible for an additional tax credit for health benefits provided (I don't know how many employees you have).

And you know what, if your adjusted gross (personal or business) is reading more than 250Gs (after writing off a mortgage, 3 kids, home office, company vehicle, business trips and expenses) then stop crying cause you ought to be paying pay more taxes.

Yes, Obama's tax plan is going to crush the rich (believe what you want to believe, but we flutter in the upper register of the middle class [unless you have a couple million in the Caymans earning 5% guaranteed that I'm unaware of] ) with income, capital gains, and estate taxes (over 7 million, which I think is fair, although 45% is a bit high)...but seriously, you said it yourself, fuck the ultra rich, they've had it too good for too long (since 1980, Reagan). Simply put, left to their own devices, people (not just Americans) will cheat, steal, oppress, etc...for a buck, often at the expense of society, when allowed to. We must regulate! Just look at the examples of the best countries in world, Holland, Sweden, Denmark (not my opinion, just a truism), they all have highly regulated banking and fiduciary laws, all with full transparency. Now they all pay very high taxes, but guess what, they get ultra clean streets, free quality education, free quality healthcare, free childcare and tax credits for stay at home moms, and tons of other shit we don't get including an extraordinary amount of personal freedom...much, much more than in the US. Now, yeah...it's socialism, but it works if applied correctly to a willing population.

Now you could argue, "but Paul, Denmark 'aint got no blacks and Puerto Ricans that I have to give my hard earned tax dollars to so they can goof off and collect welfare and food stamps," and you would be right!!!! 100% right, I mean we've got a uniquely diverse and rather large country and something needs to change culturally in the US (and let's be real, it aint gonna happen overnight), however, someone, and who better than a really, really smart, squeaky clean, black guy who came from nothing with a tremendous record of helping people on the ground level, to look these black, Puerto Rican, and other minority folks in the eye and say "Hey, get off your ass and get a job, kick the drug dealer off your street corner, go into the school and demand that your kids have new books, punish the shit out of your kids if you catch them with a gun, set an example for your kids and don't have 3 kids with 3 different moms...no more excuses!!!! If you want to get your family out of the gutter and graduate to the middle class, I will give you that opportunity, but you have to follow the rules, and you got to stop wanting and start giving back because guess what, you could be the fucking president if you want to!

Obama has clearly inspired the youth and intelligentsia of America but I think if he wants to see real change, he's got to look into that camera on election night and talk to "his" (I don't mean that in a racist way) people and inspire and encourage them to move toward that goal...who knows, it could work and it would be better for us all. Say what you want, regardless of how much he is actually able to accomplish (which I believe will be significantly less that what he has promised, even with a democratic congress) his message is more comprehensive, well thought out and flat out smarter that the republican message (which by the way is no longer a true "republican" message...the party has been hijacked by oil and the military industrial complex and let's face it money talks and bullshit walks...the flame of the REAL republican message still burns in the person of Ron Paul)

So maybe you get hit a little when you sell your beach house, but c'mon, for the sake of your kids who have to raise their kids in our mess, put some thought into it.

...and with that, I'll have you know I'm a registered Independent (former republican) and I have never voted for a democrat, and this election will be no different as I will vote for Ralph Nader.

Don't sent shit like that, dude, you align yourself with the yahoos in the red states that love sara palin and are as dumb as rocks.

Sorry for the rant, it's just shit like that makes me very angry, especially when it comes from a good friend.

October 3, 2008
On the Bailout:

4 guests last night on Charlie Rose; a harvard economics professor, a member of A.I.G. board of directors, a NY Times economic journalist, and Mort Zuckerman, media mogul...they differed on many things including where to place the blame and how to proceed from here; but they all agreed on one thing...the Paulson plan was deeply flawed and the one that was voted down only less so. The consensus was we would be trading short term recovery for risk of potential long term complete disaster. 2 of the 4 thought a reformulated bailout was necessary with less risk of taxpayers dollars, but with no rush (after election, but before Jan 3) and the other two floated the idea of allowing it to collapse and rebuilding it correctly. All 4 said no less than 2 years of continued money crunch and as many as 10 for full recovery. This will affect main st. (us, small business/middle class)no doubt, both directly and indirectly; but this is only a small externality of a far greater issue: the culpable: predatory and high risk lenders, hedge fund managers, CEO's and book cookers who show false profits, (other)market and currency speculators, and anything that artificially inflates the market need to be taken to task and highly regulated from this point forward. The corporate lobbyists who pressure Washington for deregulation have to be marginalized (government can not simply be the "shadow cast by business over soceity"...Dewey). Overcoming that is a great task, rather revolutionary. Main St. (and let's get this straight, Main St. is a metaphor for the middle class, not the poor [the majority of the population] and unless your money is earning faster than you can spend it, you're middle class) will feel the blowback of the money crunch...politicians will play to that for votes or to approve any bailout. But ironically the strange bedfellows of righteous anticorporate left wing liberals and right wing freemarket capitalists (whom both feel an obligation to some forms democracy), may ultimately save the future of this country (from tyranny, or worse fascist tyranny). They have the ultimate weapon for opposing this plan...the people. Those who were loudly for this bailout are either well indoctrinated or are well aware of the reprecussions but, of course, can't say it as they have self interest at stake, which in a free market soceity where democractic forms barely function is a totally natural reaction (which one of those two you are James K, I'm not sure I've figured out...you lead me to believe you are a "victim of corporate propoganda," or is this merely a ruse? Hmmm...). Or, of course, in the case of politicians who have a corporate constituency to tend to, i.e. our two lovely candidates. Hence, my vote goes elsewhere.

October 15, 2008
On open discussion:

Forgive my passionate style, but truth is, as an independent, I try to hear and understand as many different perspectives as to how people feel about different issues as it helps me shape my own opinions. What I do feel strongly about, however, is that it is important to discuss and even debate things publicly, as it promotes real democracy and accountability in our leaders. Increasingly more often I find, to my dismay, that people are not talking enough about it or think it's some sort of taboo to discuss. There is also this disturbing sentiment that people who take exception to our countries policies and practices are somehow anti American or unpatriotic. Truth is, the exact opposite is true...it has been said that "dissent is the ultimate form of patriotism." I am a dissenter and I love this country, I just want it to be better, that' all, and the thing is, you won't see me protesting in the streets or so much as even having a sign on my lawn, so my form of activism is simply talking about it.

October 17, 2008
On the estate tax proposal:

As per our conversation, the estate tax, which has and will continue to fluctuate through 2008, will become a flat exemption at 3.5 million per person and 46% above. Which means if your parents have 10 million set aside to leave to you (with some proper estate planning, of course) you will pay 1.38 million in estate tax and put 8.62 million in your pocket. We certainly could debate this but the current exemption is 2 mil, and as recently as 2006, was 600,000 with the same 46% rate. This affects me, but I think it's quite fair and rather progressive...I think he's hit the number on the head...if your parents leave you 2 million and thus you pay 0 tax, you're certainly not rich and thus you don't get hurt. If your parents leave you 10 mill, you still do quite well, and if your parents leave you 25 mil, screw you, stop crying and pay the tax (8.28 mil by the way).

October 23, 2008
Regarding the health care system:

It is a truism that we have a notoriously poor health care system (see below, and the WHO is the solitary authority on global health issues) essentially run by the insurance companies and doctors and hospitals that provide health care for profit and not people. This we could, of course, debate, but it's my opinion the system should operate similarly to the education or postal or NASA systems, essentially not for profit and losses being subsidized. Do not even mention Clinton's health plan, radically different from Obama's...not to mention she has the doctors lobby in her back pocket and received enormous sums for her campaign from them, so no wonder her rhetoric expounds the need to keep the health care system on the free market. Your comment about the best doctors being here in the US is utterly false as the best and most progressive doctors are well known to be in Europe. You do not see and English or French or Italian or even Canadian (as opposed to Indian or Korean) doctors leaving their country to practice medicine here, it doesn't happen...doctors there do quite well, and get paid on time, in those countries, true however, they do not become multi-millionaires. As far as patients coming here to receive care, we do not offer medical care as a right of citizenship, thus any one with cash qualifies...rich people from around the globe come here because they can receive treatment that is more advanced than in their own country (many South American countries, far east, etc...). Citizens of Holland or Sweden or Denmark do not come here for care as it would be foolish to pay for something that they can get for free (and with better quality) at home. Point is, all other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage to their citizens, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients. The United States, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, to its absolute shame, has some 45 million people without health insurance and many more millions who have poor coverage. Obama has chosen not to socialize health care, but rather, to make a move toward it. Funny how one doesn't even question socialized education as a right of citizenship, why not health care? Think about that.

October 25, 2008
On the United States of America:

For starters, I am admittedly a dissident. I believe we have lost our way and thus I dissent, as any patriot ought to...to see a wrong or an injustice and recognize it and shed light on it is patriotic. Chants of USA!, USA! as seen at Republican campaign rallies seethe with blind nationalism. We could debate the original conservative and liberal philosophies of say John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson respectively (arguably the two greatest American thinkers on government other than Lincoln who was more of an intellectual interpreter, in my opinion. I purposely leave out Hamilton as his aims were often in conflict with "the good of the public," and Franklin and Paine were philosophers whom had limited experience governing) but they both agreed on one thing, righteousness, and that a society ought to be judged by the way in which it's government provides for it's citizens. Although I respect and admire John Adams and agree with many of his conservative views (or the idea the Constitution be amended as infrequently as possible), that pragmatism was key as it relates to the Constitution's interpretation and that philosophy or continually attempting to re-invent the wheel in the rapidly changing world of ours stunts progress, binds us in political quagmire and thus we are left in the dust on social and economic progression. Jefferson's view was the polar opposite and his view stated that "one generation's laws should not bind another generation to them" and thus the constitution ought to be revised and rethought perpetually. Democratic Socialist societies, which have that same progressive legislative philosophy are considered the best in the world, and for good reason. The fact is, Mitchell Friedman/Adam Smith free market capitalism works only as an ideology and not in the real world. A good analogy I recently heard to explain free market is this: "As in the game of poker, after a few hands the chips become more concentrated in 2 or 3 players hands, the only way for the rest of the fellows to stay in is to borrow; when their credit runs out, the game stops."....just as our economy has. True free market exists only in books, just as communism does. The biggest inaccuracy in your comments is we DO NOT live in a capitalist society...we live in a democratic republic with forms of both socialism (our education system, welfare, social security) and capitalism. This country's disproportionate wealth distribution is embarrassingly bad, we have more billionaires and more children below the poverty line than any other industrialized country by far. Shit has got to change, this cannot be allowed to continue. Listen, I do not agree with all of the Democratic Party's agenda of unregulated banking and finance, free trade agreements, and globalization...just as the Republicans have drifted way too far to the right, I believe the Congressional Democrats (and the Clintons, who are as much to blame for deregulation as Reagan [who let's face it, once you move past his incredible rhetoric, righteousness and communication ability, had no idea what was going on behind his back, the justice, state and CIA agencies virtually ran rogue]) have moved way to close to the center, or let's face it, representing the corporate agenda, i.e. fascism....which with its huge campaign contributions and monster sized lobbies in Washington has rendered government, as the great John Dewey said, "the shadow cast by business over society," thus my vote for Nader...which I must honestly say is in question right now. Obama is a more traditional liberal plans are transparent and well researched; he has some of the brightest minds advising him, not politicians, but economists, diplomats, researchers, professors, etc... We shall see soon enough.

October 29, 2008
On Obama:

Probably because the majority of the contents are assumptions, had the nature of these assumptions been accurate, they would have been exposed. The relationships may exist, and certainly Obama would not be the first smart, charismatic individual to be encouraged and supported financially to enter the political ring (even if some of the dealings were underhanded). Individuals unwilling to play the political game are typically rooted out.

Now, some facts that are indeed true...the accusation that he has had first hand dealings with Palestinian sympathizers is accurate. Khalid Rashidi, born in New York, is the acting Edward Said professor (an incredibly prestigious title) at Colombia University and a known fighter for a state for Palestine. He has many other known contacts (he details this in his own book), yes, with other middle eastern scholars, some of which have sympathies for what they call, correctly "freedom fighters," and what we call, also correctly, terrorists. Now it is public knowledge that Israel's occupation of Palestine and their marginalization of the Palestinian people is morally wrong; but it is fact that is violates international law. It has repeatedly, since the late 40's, trampled on UN resolutions, all, unfortunately, with US support (financial, military, and with UN veto). Look at where our wonderful relationship with Israel has gotten us. Noam Chomsky, regarded at the single leading dissident intellectual in the world (one of the 10 most quoted people of all time along with Ghandi, Shakespeare, Marx, and Jesus), a jew, has heavily criticized our blind support for a Israel's brutal state. Go out and buy the book The Israel Lobby, a great read, for a detailed look at the paradoxal nature of our relationship and how much of the Islamic extremism stems from this support and questions if we'd be better off not supporting them. It continues to examine the power of the coalition of Jewish organizations, AIPAC, being one of the biggest, and Joe Lieberman being their republican hedge, and their influence in Washington. Based on these truths, it's my opinion we reevaluate our position on Israel, and although Obama has pandered to the Jews (to my dismay), I know he has perspective from both sides. What he actually does (depending on the power of the "lobby") we shall see. McCain stance on this is the same neo-con view...keep Israel as the target of Muslim ire, thus deflecting it from us. It could achieve the desires result, but it does not promote progress in the region, which is what most of the population wants, including the Israeli people!!

So, just like the Bill Ayres thing, he talks to him to get inside the mind of a radical anti-war activist (and terrorist), who lived in and was actively involved in the 60's anti-war movement, what's wrong with getting some more perspective. That's what smart people do.

So yeah, I understand how some could be leery. I will say that I know his full foreign policy advisory team, and he has several folks that are diametrically opposed philosophically within that team. Wise.

October 30, 2008
On taxes:

Your point is well taken Mr. Smith. The thing is though, President Obama is not taking it from you, or me, or skeets, he's going to take it from the rich and, yes, redistribute the wealth as he ought to. If we take T. Jefferson's idea that "a society is judged by how well it's government provides for it's citizens," not by how much wealth (not your wealth, but rich peoples wealth) we have, or number of millionaires and billionaires we have...and we see that philosophy of providing for the social welfare used in all of the successful countries on the globe (Sweden, Denmark, Holland, England, Australia, Canada, Finland, France, etc...), then why don't we try to emulate them. Why does 1% of the population own 50% of the wealth, this is the worst disparity of any 1st world country by a long shot. We have more billionaires and more children below the poverty line and without healthcare than any nation in the world, that's embarrassing.

As I told skeets, when you start putting 200K on your adjusted gross line of your federal return, then your argument has some merit. You are now, in essence, arguing against yourself, the people in your community, and your brothers at the firehouse, all of whom would be beneficiaries of a wealth redistribution. While the position of fighting for your wealthy fellow citizens is a noble one, I question your logic.

You and I both agree with one thing...and I believe the next president does as well...when you demand ethical reform at the top of government and corporations, you must also demand it at the bottom and, thus, institute social programs that must be earned!

October 30, 20008
On the election:

In the majority of prior elections (2004 not being one of them), an intellectual and logical case could be made for both candidates agendas, and many times it doesn't seem to work as congress derails their policy. But in this election, there is no intellectual or even logical case that can be made for the republicans, none whatsoever, one only need to look at the tax plan...this is why you are seeing every individual with a brain, notoriously republican news publications like the Chicago Tribune who in their 116 year history have never endorsed a democrat (Washington Post also), LA Times, that has never endorsed ANY presidential candidate, are going Obama...not necessarily because they are enamored with all of his plan, but because he represents progress so desperately needed right now and mainly because the McCain platform has no substance and is clearly illogical. Two of my closest, wisest friends whose knowledge I respect greatly and both work downtown, one a registered republican and the other a registered independent who has never voted for a democrat are strongly Obama. We have these types of written debates regularly (because it allows for more clear thought without interruption [I for one think rather slowly]) about different issues and I will be glad to CC you on some of them. I hope now you can see why I get angered at these right wing propaganda e-mails, they foster untruths and are incredibly divisive. Funny, but I do not see any coming from the other side, coincidence... I think not.

October 30, 2008
On taxes:

Not a rebuttal, but rather, a comment. I did not question you, as to whether you've earned what you have, in fact, I cite you as the example of one who earns his benefits. Now, if your adjusted gross income line reads 200K, after real estate taxes, mortgage interest, 403-B investment, your kids 529s, and whatever else you write off (and as a state worker AND a home office, you should be writing off plenty!), then you are doing better than basically anyone I know. It basically means you making minimum of 275k gross and based on the attached independent study by the Tax Policy Center you would receive a 2% increase in income tax, or $4000, I'm sorry, if you are a real patriot and are really concerned for the welfare of the US, then pay the tax.

PS...the other countries mentioned do not violate international law and thus would not have engaged in illegal and immoral military engagements. We are acting unilaterally in foreign affairs on a regular basis, to the dismay of the civilized world. The only way to stop it is to change the balance of power in the supreme court as soon as possible (as every UN resolution to be violated is presented there). Luckily the current conservative advantage of 5-4 will be shifted, correctly, to a 6-3 liberal advantage when 2 conservatives, as expected step down.

And lastly, yeah the hollywood types getting all involved rubs some the wrong way, no doubt, mainly because most simply don't know what the fuck they're talking about. I understand that, you are preaching to the choir on that one. Although, if I had a platform like they did, oh how I wish, you wouldn't be able to control me!

October 31, 2008
On right-wing e-mails:

Not quite sure of the motive of such an e-mail, but...

D.D. Eisenhower also famously said in his farewell address "beware of the power in Washington of the military industrial complex."

If the motive of the e-mail was to build hate toward Iran, et al, we may want to consider and exhaust the weapons of diplomacy and international law first before we send more boys off to war. This, of course, is not to ignore or diminish the inherent threat that exists, although I believe we need to disseminate between legitimate threat and manufactured consent.

Just thoughts...

October 31, 2008:
On another anti Obama e-mail:

For debate purposes only.

I'm really, really surprised. At least you have a few wise friends (not that you're not), actually I would bet that most of them disagree with that type of e-mail . Between you and I, you must know that the majority of that e-mail is inaccurate, even if you're only paying attention casually, and the balance of it twisted out of context. I also assume you must understand the motive and source of such an e-mail. Doesn't common sense tell you that if that info is true the media would be all over it. The majority of Americans feel drastically different than this individual, thankfully. When you accuse someone of having a liberal voting record, they say "that's good," they say the content of what Reverend Wright says is 100% accurate, that talking to a former anti-war activist is wise, that talking to Muslims sympathetic to the Palestinian people is wise, that talking and using diplomacy in foreign affairs is wise, that saying that white folks in rural areas cling to guns and religion and conservative rhetoric is accurate (see last weeks SNL), that referencing Teddy Roosevelt, who initiated our active imperialism, or Henry Kissinger, a convicted war criminal, is laughable, that it is even more laughable to suggest that Obama has run a dirty campaign. Thankfully the people have clearly chosen patriotism over nationalism, there is a stark difference. The idea now is to unite (all while respecting each others differences) and not fracture.

"Perpetrators, collaborators, bystanders, victims: we can be clear about three of these categories. The bystander, however, is the fulcrum. If there are enough notable exceptions, then protest reaches a critical mass. We don't usually think of history as being shaped by silence, but, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Read that two or three times and really let it sink in.

Although I am on the fence, it is between Obama or Nader.

You will receive my yet to be composed pre-election essay over the weekend, I hope you share it with your contacts.

November 5, 2008
Response to Rationale and Hope:

Fair points, all. Although I disagree with some, that is the beauty of our nation. My essay was not for one candidate, rather to look a bit deeper into it as a duty of citizenship. You, of course, I never doubted would do so. Just as a note, Obama is on the record regarding guns, technicalities of abortion, gay marriage, etc... as allowing it to be a state issue, and rightfully so in my opinion. I do strongly agree with you in that he must throw off the Clinton democratic vision and use better judgment, he certainly is wise enough to do so, can he move congress to do so? We shall see soon enough, there is a rough road ahead. Regardless of views, today is a great day to be an American.

November 7, 2008
To the Cousins:

Teresa,

Si, sono felice e io credo siamo entrati a un giorno nuovo per i nostri stati uniti. Egli, tuttavia, e un politico. Abbiamo la speranza e aspettative molte alte, ma dobbiamo anche avere patienza. E 'ora diventa il dovere di noi, il popolo americano, per mantenere la pressione sul nostro governo e la sua promessa.

Spero che lei, e la sua famiglia sono bene. I miei pensieri sono con Italia spesso.

Con affetto,
Paul

Letter to Editor-in chief of The Nation

2008-12-19T10:03:00.002-05:00

In response to the editor's request "What should The Nation Do?":

Ms. Vanden Huevel:

I've never considered The Nation in terms of a label plucked from the political spectrum, but rather as a progressive journal of ideas. Progressive meaning progress toward a "more perfect union." Any publication, especially one as morally committed and historically significant as The Nation, that promotes a sense of civic awareness and responsibility, I support wholeheartedly. May I also say, that while we have an engaged youth, and let us not discount the teens and pre-teens (my nine year old twins were able to digest many of the prevailing issues of the election), may we grasp the fact that we must continue to forge their sense of civic arousal starting NOW, to at least combat somewhat the level of atomization and the individuaistic cosumption attitudes they are indoctrinated with daily. Daunting task indeed, understood, but if breakthroughs occur, common sense dictates it will be on the more intellegent, more involved, more aware end of the spectrum. If we think in terms of generations, these sowed seeds could possibly reap revolutionary rewards.

With warm regards and holiday wishes to all,

Paul Guarino
West Nyack, NY

A Feeling I Simply Could Not Surpress

2008-11-20T15:45:00.013-05:00

I will never forget the summer my father decided to take our family on a month long tour of the South in a motor home. There is no better way, in my opinion, to see the country, and I vow to do the same with my children. One day, as we travelled through rural Alabama my father unexpectedly pulled over and grabbed his camera. I followed him out to a number of children playing on some railroad tracks. They were black children, very dark black children, laughing and giggling and talking in a barely comprehensible drawl. They were dressed in tatters, barefoot, and behind them was what I assumed to be their home. Suffice to say not much more than a shack with a roof of corrugated steel and not much different that the many I had seen along the roadside from the window of our motorhome in the Carolinas and Georgia. My father had me pose with these dirty but adorable children and he snapped a shot or two. He proceeded to hand out a few dollars to them as he waved to their adult guardians watching in the distance. On the short walk back my father said "those are poor folks son...many years ago they were slaves down here." It was a powerful image, and one that I would see again and again through Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

Now I was a product of the city and no stranger to people of color, nor was poverty and homelessness foreign to me; begging, drug addled, alcoholic, "bums" on the street were commonplace, but something about that episode was different. They were smiling. I've debated over the years whether my father had exploited those children, or was he simply trying to educate me. But from that experience, somehow, I came to realize that there were good folks who just happened to be less fortunate. Later I would learn the sad truth that the less fortunate were often targets of exploitation and oppression.

So as I waited in line at the voting booth last Tuesday, my mind wandered to the slave ship scenes of the film "Amistad," and to the humanizing yet brutal film "Roots," and from there to the struggles of early abolitionists, both white and black, and then to the great Fredrick Douglass whose autobiography is one of the few books I've read more than once. I thought about our often mistitled war over slavery and the devastation it wrought. I thought briefly about black folks participation in our wars, and to think, for a country that gave them little justice. I, of course, thought of Rosa Parks and the movement she inspired, Malcolm X and his moving transformation, Dr. King, his dreams and his "bad check" analogy, Bill Cosby and criticism over his "Pound Cake Speech," and the good Dr. Cornel West, whose motivation and inspiration for righteousness is good for all of America. And lastly I thought of the moment I answered a Resident Advisor's question of "do you have any reservations about living with four black guys?," and without pause I said "no, but question is, do they want me?" Herb Williams, Travis Tullis, Terrell Day, and Maurice Gibbs, my suitemates at Fairleigh Dickinson, turned out to be four of the finest men I have ever known. My roommate Maurice especially, whose elegant mannerisms and sharp intellect I admired and whose nightly debates on all subjects, including race, I will never forget.

As I stepped forward and into the voting booth, I immediately sought out Ralph Nader's name. I placed my finger on the lever and silently thanked this champion of the people for his more than 50 years of dedication and sacrifice to our precious, fragile, and waning democracy. A vote for him now, as in the past, is noteworthy and deserved. And then I reached up and pulled the lever for Barack Obama. He, a man who embodied the American Dream, whose campaign was run honorably, whose constituients were progressive, and a man who most importantly, has the ability to inspire like no politician I have ever seen. I simply could not bring myself to deny black folks, our brothers and sisters, their day. For us, to show them, that the racial divide is no longer wide, and I wanted to be a part of it.

At midnight, in the emotion of Grant Park, I again thought of Maurice and a smile turned to laughter as I knew he would be celebrating deep into the night; and I again thought of those children, playing on the tracks in Alabama.....PG

Like Fat Kids in a Candy Store

2008-11-18T17:01:00.009-05:00

I know most of you have heard me rail loudly against the bailout of the financial institutions. After a while, even I was sick of hearing my own internal voices considering both sides of this issue. Now I am not going to say "I told you so" because, truth is, I was debating the issue on principals of laissez-faire and Darwinist economics to which, even in my post Reagan enlightenment, I still give a shred of credibility. In instances where irresponsibility, lack of oversight, judgement, and sheer greed is at the root of a company's downfall, I say "let 'em fall...and take the shareholders with 'em!" regardless of the unfortunate externalities.
But our corporate puppets convinced us otherwise by continually invoking the chaos that might ensue on Main Street. So Happy Hank and the boys got their money and we have all assumed the best outcome; which may very well only be a stoppage of the bleeding. Now this writer had sat on his deck one early August Sunday morning, way, way before the financial mess was dinner table discussion, noshing on my onion flagel with lox and scallion cream cheese and a grapefruit juice while listening to Ken Dashow and "Breakfast with the Beatles" and I stumbled upon an interesting three page Sunday Business section article about a certain Mr. Henry Paulson, who despite all of his fancy credentials (that is, of course, if you consider robbing investors without a mask and a gun, credentials), said, and I quote "I have no idea how to fix this thing."....and I thought to myself, "just like George to surround himself with folks as dumb as he is."
So a month and a half goes by, Bear Stearns, AIG, et al, are in the shitter, Lehman is dead, and the Times releases a list of loss in value of personal holdings since September 1 of twenty or so CEOs of major financial institutions. Mr. Fuld of Lehman, for example, went from something like 300 million dollars to $250,000; and the list went on and on and on with most of the execs losing 50-90% of their holdings. Then we come to former Goldman Sachs man Hank Paulson. It seems Mr. P lost a cool 250 mil bringing his holdings to 550 mil, more than triple the total of the next closest CEO.
Now Paulson's holdings are frozen during his tenure as Tresury Secretary, but that doesn't answer my question of A. why is he allowed to have any significant holdings as treasury secretary(over 800 million upon his appointment) and B. why do the size of his losses not reflect the size of his peers losses? Dumb as a fox, I guess.

So my gal Naomi has a few words regarding what has been done with the money since we issued the Treasury Department the better part of a trillion dollars. If you're not familiar with Naomi Klein, you ought to beome familiar with her (as Bill Maher says, "she makes Sarah Palin look like a retarded stewardess...I'm sorry, that was insulting....to retarded stewardesses!") Seriously though, she's an excellect journalist, extraordinarily courageous (I'm surprised she's not dead), crazy smart, and fairly attractive, post-plastic surgery that is. Youtube some of her interviews....PG

The Bailout Profiteers
By Naomi Klein - October 31st, 2008, Rolling Stone

On October 13th, when the U.S. Treasury Department announced the team of "seasoned financial veterans" that will be handling the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, one name jumped out: Reuben Jeffery III, who was initially tapped to serve as chief investment officer for the massive new program.On the surface, Jeffery looks like a classic Bush appointment. Like Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, he's an alum of Goldman Sachs, having worked on Wall Street for 18 years. And as chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from 2005 to 2007, he proudly advocated "flexibility" in regulation — a laissez-faire approach that failed to rein in the high-risk trading at the heart of the meltdown.Bankers watching bankers, regulators who don't believe in regulating — that's all standard fare for the Bush crew. What's most striking about Jeffery's résumé, however, is an item omitted when his new job was announced: He served as executive director of Paul Bremer's infamous Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, during the early days of the Iraq War. Part of his job was to hire civilian staff, which made him an integral part of the partisan machine that filled the Green Zone with Young Republicans, investment bankers and Dick Cheney interns. Qualifications weren't a big issue back then, because the staff's main function was to hand over stacks of taxpayer money to private contractors, who were the ones actually running the occupation. It was this nonstop cash conveyor belt that earned the Green Zone a reputation, in the words of one CPA official, as "a free-fraud zone." During Senate hearings last year, when Jeffery was asked what he had learned from his experience at the CPA, he said he thought that contracts should be handed out with more "speed and flexibility" — the same philosophy he cited back when he was in charge of regulating Wall Street traders.The Bush Administration has since reversed the Jeffery appointment, perhaps thinking better of giving a CPA alum such a central role in the Wall Street bailout. Still, the original impulse underscores the many worrying parallels between the administration's approach to the financial crisis and its approach to the Iraq War. Under cover of an emergency, Treasury is rapidly turning into an economic Green Zone, overrun with private companies collecting lucrative contracts. Fittingly, one of the first to line up at the new trough was none other than the law firm of Bracewell & Giuliani — yes, that Giuliani. The firm's chairman, Patrick Oxford, could scarcely conceal his glee over the prospect of cashing in on the bailout. "This one," he told reporters, "is very, very big." At least four times bigger, in fact, than the post-9/11 homeland-security bubble, from which Giuliani and his various outfits have profited so extravagantly. Even bigger, potentially, than the price tag for the Iraq War itself.In Iraq, the contractors were tasked with reconstructing the country from the mess made by U.S. missiles. After years of corruption born of no-bid contracts and paltry oversight, many Iraqis are still waiting for the lights to come back on. Today, a new team of contractors is lining up to reconstruct the U.S. economy — reconstruct it from the mess made by the very banks, brokers and law firms that are now applying for contracts. And it's not at all clear that America can survive their assistance.See if any of this sounds familiar: As soon as the bailout was announced, it became clear that Treasury officials would hire outsiders to perform their jobs for them — at a profit. Private companies wanting to help manage the bailout were given just two days to apply for massive, multiyear contracts. Since it was such a mad rush — after all, the entire economy was about to implode — there was no time for an open bidding process. Nor was there time to draft rigorous rules to make sure that those applying don't have serious conflicts of interest. Instead, applicants were asked to disclose their conflicts and to explain — and this is not a joke — their "philosophy in fulfilling your duty to the Treasury and the U.S. taxpayer in light of your proprietary interests and those of other clients." In other words, an open invitation to bullshit about how much they love their country and how they can be trusted to regulate themselves.The first major contract to be awarded in the bailout was for legal advice — and the choice Treasury made was Halliburton-esque in its audacity. Six law firms were invited to bid, but four declined, either because they didn't want the contract or because they had too many conflicts of interest. Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said the fact that so many law firms chose not to bid "shows that the guidelines are sufficiently rigorous."Or it may just show that the bidder who won the contract — Simpson Thacher & Bartlett — takes a more relaxed approach to conflicts than its colleagues. The law firm is a Wall Street heavy hitter, having brokered some of the biggest bank mergers in recent years. It also provided legal support to companies trading mortgage-backed securities — the "financial weapons of mass destruction," as Warren Buffett called them, that detonated the banking industry. More to the point, it was hired to provide legal services to the Treasury in its negotiations to spend $250 billion of the bailout money purchasing equity in America's banks. The first stage of the plan involves buying stakes in nine of the country's top banks. Incredibly, Simpson Thacher has represented seven of the nine: JPMorgan, Bank of New York Mellon, Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch.According to its contract, Simpson Thacher has agreed not to represent any of the banks "against the U.S." when they negotiate with Treasury for the equity money. However, the firm has retained the right to represent banks when they apply for other parts of the $700 billion bailout not covered by its contract. (It has promised to erect a "firewall" to stem the flow of "confidential information" to those clients.) The firm will also continue to work for the banks on a range of other lucrative deals — and that's where the problem lies. Take Lee Meyerson, Simpson Thacher's lead lawyer on the bailout negotiations, who is specifically named in the contract as "essential" to the project. As the company's hotshot attorney, Meyerson has personally represented three of the nine banks that were bailed out in the first round, in addition to many others that will surely apply for cash injections. One of the bailed-out banks is Bank of New York Mellon, whose $29 billion merger Meyerson helped negotiate. Mergers like that can bill in the millions. Is Simpson Thacher able to put aside its loyalties to its biggest clients and negotiate deals for the taxpayer that could exact real costs from those very clients?It might be possible to set aside concerns about divided loyalties if it were clear that Simpson Thacher is helping Treasury to wrangle the best deals possible for U.S. taxpayers. But the firm's first test — the deal to give $125 billion to the nine big banks to ease the "credit crunch" that is crippling the economy — wasn't exactly reassuring. Secretary Paulson promised that the banks won't just "hoard" the money — they will quickly "deploy it" through the economy in the form of badly needed loans. There is just one hitch: Neither Paulson nor Simpson Thacher got that "deploy" part in writing — nor did they put in place any mechanism to require the banks to spend their taxpayer billions. Apparently, the part about lending the money to homeowners and small businesses was sort of implied."There is no obligation for banks to lend the money one way or the other," Jennifer Zuccarelli, a Treasury spokeswoman, tells Rolling Stone. "But the banks have the understanding" that the money is intended for loans. "We're not looking to control their operations."Unfortunately, many of the banks appear to have no intention of wasting the money on loans. "At least for the next quarter, it's just going to be a cushion," said John Thain, the chief executive of Merrill Lynch. Gary Crittenden, chief financial officer of Citigroup, had an even better idea: He hinted that his company would use its share of the cash — $25 billion — to buy up competitors and swell even bigger. The handout, he told analysts, "does present the possibility of taking advantage of opportunities that might otherwise be closed to us."And the folks at Morgan Stanley? They're planning to pay themselves $10.7 billion this year, much of it in bonuses — almost exactly the amount they are receiving in the first phase of the bailout. "You can imagine the devilish grins on the faces of Morgan Stanley employees," writes Bloomberg columnist Jonathan Weil. "Not only did we, the taxpayers, save their company...we funded their 2008 bonus pool."It didn't have to be this way. Five days before Paulson struck his deal with the banks, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown negotiated a similar bailout — only he extracted meaningful guarantees for taxpayers: voting rights at the banks, seats on their boards, 12 percent in annual dividend payments to the government, a suspension of dividend payments to shareholders, restrictions on executive bonuses, and a legal requirement that the banks lend money to homeowners and small businesses.In sharp contrast, this is what U.S. taxpayers received: no controlling interest, no voting rights, no seats on the bank boards and just five percent in dividend payouts to the government, while shareholders continue to collect billions in dividends every quarter. What's more, golden parachutes and bonuses already promised by the banks will still be paid out to executives — all before taxpayers are paid back.No wonder it took just one hour for Paulson to convince all nine CEOs to accept his offer — less than seven minutes per bank. Not even the firms' own lawyers could have drafted a sweeter deal.The day after it met with the nation's top banks, Treasury announced that it had selected the firm that would receive the juiciest contract of all: that of "master custodian." The winning company will be to the bailout what Halliburton is to the military: the contractor of contractors. It will purchase toxic debts from Wall Street, service them and auction them off in the future — a so-called "end-to-end process." The contract is for a minimum of three years.Seventy firms applied for the gig; the winner was Bank of New York Mellon. Describing the scope of the megacontract, bank president Gerald Hassell said, "It's the ultimate outsourcing — because the Federal Reserve and the Treasury do not have the mechanics to run the entire program, and we're essentially the general contractor across the entire program. It's going to cross our entire company."This raises an interesting point: Has the Treasury partially nationalized the private banks, as we have been told? Or is it the other way around? Is it Treasury that has been partially privatized by Wall Street, its massive rescue plan now entirely in the hands of a private bank it is directly subsidizing?Shortly after receiving the contract, Hassell told investors that his institution is now well-positioned to profit from the market meltdown. "There's a lot of new business that's going on even in this chaotic marketplace," he said, "and so some of those things have been very positive to us." Just how positive, we don't know, because Treasury has blacked out the 10 lines of the "master custodian" contract that reveal how much Bank of New York Mellon will be paid. Though Treasury says it will release the information eventually, the secrecy goes beyond anything the Bush administration attempted in Iraq. Even Halliburton's dodgy contracts came with price tags attached.Still, when the terms of the contract do become public, they may turn out to be surprisingly modest. Goldman Sachs has apparently offered to fulfill at least one bailout contract for free. Altruism may not be their only motivation. The real money at stake in the bailout lies not in payment for the work but in how the work is done. Think about it: If you're the one selling your debts to the government, wouldn't you also want to help decide which debts are eligible and how much they're worth? "The financial firms with assets to sell are in many instances the same firms the Treasury will rely on to value and manage the assets it is buying," The New York Times observed. "That is an invitation for these firms to set the price too high or to indulge in other mischief at the taxpayers' expense."Bank of New York Mellon has a bad record for mischief. It is embroiled in a $22.5 billion money-laundering lawsuit in Moscow and has been forced to pay out a $14 million settlement in a related case. Though the bank's "master custodian" contract with Treasury prohibits unethical conduct, the arrangement seems rife with opportunities for abuse. According to its most recent earnings report, Bank of New York Mellon holds $1.2 billion in subprime mortgage securities. That means that in addition to the $3 billion it will receive as part of the equity program, it will also be eligible to apply for taxpayer money from the program it is being paid to administer. Neither the bank nor Treasury would comment on this direct conflict of interest.On the same day that he allocated the first $125 billion to the banks, Secretary Paulson announced the largest federal budget deficit in U.S. history. Buried in his statement was a preview of the next phase of the financial disaster. The deficit numbers, he declared, reinforce the need to "pursue policies that promote economic growth and fiscal responsibility, and address entitlement reform." He was referring to Americans who feel entitled to receive Social Security in their old age and Medicaid when they are sick. Those programs, Paulson implied, might not be able to survive the budget crisis he is currently creating for the next administration.This is why the stakes of the bailout are so high: Unless we get a good deal, there will be nothing left over after the banks are done feeding to pay for the meager services now provided in exchange for taxation, let alone for the more ambitious initiatives promised on the campaign trail. The spiraling cost of saving Wall Street from its bad bets is already being used as an excuse for why we can't solve our many other crises, from health care to climate change.There is a better way to fix a broken financial system. Treasury's plan to buy up the toxic debts never made sense and should be immediately scrapped — a move that would also handily get rid of most of the crony contractors. As for purchasing equity in banks, the next round of deals — and there will be more — has to start from the premise that the banks are bankrupt and will therefore accept whatever terms we choose to impose, including real regulatory oversight. The possibilities of what could be done if a chunk of the banking system were genuinely under public control — from a moratorium on home foreclosures to mandatory investment in green community redevelopment — are limitless.Because here is what George Bush and Henry Paulson are hoping we won't figure out: When a society no longer has enough money to pay for its most pressing needs, there are worse things than discovering you own the banks.

The Anti-Rove?

2008-11-17T10:41:00.003-05:00

A fan of Bill Kristol and his "The Weekly Standard" I am not, but his column implores conservatives and the Republican party alike to do some economic soul searching, to which I agree. Any suggestion that understands that the success of a political ideology is obtained with positive tangible progress, and not a political strategy of manufacturing consent alone, is a good one for us all. Strong words from a wise, albeit warped, mind....PG

George W. Hoover?
By William Kristol
November 17, 2008 New York Times Op-Ed

Last week, assembled at Miami’s InterContinental Hotel for a meeting of the Republican Governors Association, the governors seemed cheerful. The G.O.P. had lost only one statehouse on Election Day. The prospects for a Republican pickup in Virginia in 2009 were decent, and good candidates were plotting runs in states like California, Pennsylvania and Ohio in 2010.

There was even a sense of liberation in the air. For the last 14 years, there has been either a Republican Congress or a Republican White House, or sometimes both. Now the Republican governors are free of those heavy taps on the shoulder from their “betters” in Washington. So for these governors, this seems a moment of opportunity, in which their policies, their examples and their successes can help shape the future of the G.O.P.

The governors will be important. But there was an almost-never-mentioned elephant in the Versailles Ballroom (yes, that’s its name) full of Republicans: George W. Bush. For the hard fact is this: The worst financial crisis in almost 80 years has happened on his watch. The Bush administration will leave behind probably the most severe recession in at least a quarter-century. Fairly or unfairly, this will be viewed as George Bush’s economic meltdown.
If Republicans and conservatives don’t come to grips with what’s happened — and can’t develop an economic agenda moving forward that seems to incorporate lessons learned from what’s happened — then they could be back, politically, in 1933.

From 1933 to 1980, Republicans repeatedly failed to convince the country they were no longer the party of Herbert Hoover — the party, as it was perceived, of economic incompetence, austerity and recession (if not depression). Only two Republicans won presidential elections in that half-century, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard M. Nixon. Both were able to take the White House only because we were mired down in difficult wars, in Korea and Vietnam. And Ike and Nixon were unable — they didn’t really try — to change the generally liberal course of domestic and economic policy. The G.O.P.’s fate on Capitol Hill was worse. The party controlled Congress for only 4 of those 47 years.

That’s what happens when a depression begins on your watch and when you can’t offer a coherent explanation of how and why it occurred and what you are going to do differently. That’s what happens when instead of having such an explanation, you spend decades in quarrels between pragmatic but unimaginative moderates who seek to be better tax collectors for the liberal welfare state, and principled but fanciful conservatives who hope for a wholesale rejection of that welfare state. And the fact that there were many successful Republican governors in those years didn’t much change the party’s status nationally.

Then there was a real moment of economic rethinking in the 1970s. Supply-side economics challenged demand-side Keynesians and austerity-minded conservatives by putting growth, entrepreneurship and incentives at the center of economic policy. Supply-side economics gave Ronald Reagan’s G.O.P. a new and different economic agenda in 1980, and Republicans were able to become a governing party.

Republicans and conservatives today face a similar challenge to that of 1976. A hawkish foreign policy, social conservatism and middle-American populism aren’t the problems. Those elements, as embodied on the Republican ticket by John McCain and Sarah Palin, produced a respectable 46 percent of the national vote — in the midst of an economic meltdown, with the Bush administration flailing and House Republicans rebelling and the Republican ticket lacking any coherent economic message.

I don’t pretend to know just what has to be done. But I suspect that free-marketers need to be less doctrinaire and less simple-mindedly utility-maximizing, and that they should depend less on abstract econometric models. I think they’ll have to take much more seriously the task of thinking through what are the right rules of the road for both the private and public sectors. They’ll have to figure out what institutional barriers and what monetary, fiscal and legal guardrails are needed for the accountability, transparency and responsibility that allow free markets to work.

And I don’t see why conservatives ought to defend a system that permits securitizing mortgages (or car loans) in a way that seems to make the lenders almost unaccountable for the risk while spreading it, toxically, everywhere else. I don’t see why a commitment to free markets requires permitting banks or bank-like institutions to leverage their assets at 30 to 1. There’s nothing conservative about letting free markets degenerate into something close to Karl Marx’s vision of an atomizing, irresponsible and self-devouring capitalism.

If conservatives do some difficult re-thinking in the field of political economy, they can come back. If they don’t — well, there were a lot of admirable conservative thinkers and writers, professors and novelists, from 1933 to 1980. But conservatives didn’t govern.

Rationale and Hope

2008-11-07T20:29:00.003-05:00

Notes on Civics to a Young Citizen in These Historic Times

By Paul Guarino November 3, 2008

There are many ways an individual can form an opinion or reach a conclusion. The methods that typically do not reach accurate or wise conclusions are countless. One of the ways employed by many successful individuals including businessmen, sport coaches, and generals is to go with your gut. It requires the individual to have the ability to analyze, often incomplete, available data and apply an immediate intuitive sense or instinctual feel to the situation. If more time is available, the process of building a consensus of varying and worthy sources can often provide enough perspective to make a sound choice. Both of these methods are reasonable and rational, however, they are far from foolproof.

The use of what is commonly referred to as logic necessitates two independent principals: valid data and demonstration, and inference. The collection of raw, base data and factual demonstration (or history), made exponentially easier with use of the internet, is still tedious and requires time; it is, however, available. It is imperative, that when one begins to apply inference, to negate preconceived notion and to seek proof and certainty. Logic is also not entirely foolproof, but we can be clear that this type of analysis, given the luxury of time, offers us the best possible method of reaching an accurate conclusion.

It is with this logical approach that we acknowledge three truisms:

1. That other than the phrase "We the people," the United States Constitution contains very little by way of original American philosophy. In fact, neither John Adams nor Thomas Jefferson was present during its construction and Benjamin Franklin was skeptical of it (see Franklin’s speech to the Constitutional Convention, May 17, 1787). That these three great, diverse thinkers did, however, collaborate on our country’s greatest document. That beyond the well known second sentence’s self evident truths of human equality and unalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, the document reads:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…….. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

2. That from that document we can assume, correctly, that beyond Jefferson and Adams differences in style of government, it remains the government’s duty is to serve the governed. That the governed have a responsibility, a civic duty, to critique, to dissent, and to revolt, if necessary. That we remain engaged in our democracy with robust conversation and debate. That it is our patriotic duty to combine an objective, yet critical view, with a strong will to progress toward a more perfect society. That nationalism is nothing more than blind lust. That it remain important we know well the difference.

3. That our current federal government’s philosophy is radically different from what was originally intended. That the much warned against corporate (merchant) influence in government is too great. That our government increasingly fosters the idea of profit over people in every sector of society. That their stranglehold of our two party system has marginalized dissent and indoctrinates us with, as Noam Chomsky states, "necessary illusions for the manufacture of consent." That our government has simply become what John Dewey predicted, "the shadow cast by business over society," and that the associated dogma is extremely pervasive.

When we accept those three truisms and acknowledge in this 2008 presidential election we are at an ideological crossroads, that we are in the midst of a social movement, a time when political opinion has reached a critical mass; then we must, at this momentous time in our nation’s history, use logic. So we sift through the mountains of political rhetoric and media punditry and look at the raw data: positions on foreign affairs, tax plans, senate voting records, committees sat on, initiatives chaired, laws passed, lists of closest advisors, history of character, sheer intelligence, source of campaign funding, and let us not forget or underestimate the ability to move people; differences begin to emerge.

So we begin to apply, not personal, but intellectual inference to this data. We seek out original intent, as in Jefferson’s ideas that "information be the currency of democracy", "that government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part", and "that a government that is feared by the people is tyranny and a government that fears the people is liberty," and we do the same for Adams, Hamilton, Madison, Jay, et al. We seek out historical demonstrations of greatness in the face of crisis and courage in the face of injustice and we learn that movements, labor, women’s suffrage, civil rights, anti-war movements have produced positive change. We look at a comparative view of our society to parallel global societies and learn that our system of government is archaic and has been greatly surpassed internationally, much to the delight of the international community. We see that for all of our government’s capitalist forms, we have an equal amount of socialist forms, working against, instead of in concert with one another. As we continue this process, issue after issue, we begin to get a real sense of clarity.

My personal litmus test, however, is always deference to the intellectuals. Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Cornel West, Samantha Power, etc…, they give flesh to the frames of ideology and philosophy. I also look to the "radicals" or simply non-mainstream individuals on all sides and hear Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, etc…, as they are often the spark of a movement. Votes for them are anything but wasted, in fact, to suggest them as such is utterly foolish. It always is wise to round up well respected mainstream opinion, industry leaders, scholars, economists, award winning journalists, former heads of state, news publication endorsements alike. Intellectuals, radicals, and mainstream opinion, together, do offer extremely valuable insight.

At this point the jury within the individual has been presented with the facts and they have heard the testimony, and now they are better prepared to make the all important decision. We have achieved a civic arousal. We can rationalize, and then we must hope. But what is equally important, however, is that our civic duty does not end with a vote. We must resolve to follow the process, to demand transparency, to continue the discussion, to engage in debate with one another regularly and of course, to hold our leaders accountable. That, my friends, is democracy.

"American civilization is wavering…that is real. American society, as we know it, is wobbling. The financial markets are near collapse and our precious children’s souls are empty more and more. We need leadership; we don’t need a masterful politician, we need a statesman; we don’t need another Clinton, we need a Lincoln!"

.....Dr. Cornel West 10/31/08