Dubya's legacy of Peace (?!)

In late 2006 George W. Bush made headlines in Israeli newspapers by publicly stating that he "would understand" if Israel launched attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. It didn't get major play in US media outlets at the time, but hardliners (on both sides) in the Midde East took notice. Even though Condolleeza Rice tried to downplay the comment, Bush's words were interpreted by some as a not-so-subtle approval of opening up a third front on the "War on Terror" (or was that "Axis of Evil"?). Speculation suggested that Bush would "go along" with an initiation of aggression in a preemptive strike to degrade Iran's ability to become a regional power. Obviously it didn't do much for US diplomacy with the Mullahs.

There were some in America that were perversely satisfied with the president's "hardline stance". Many on the Christian Right applauded their hero's willingness to encourage Armageddon. Zionists on the North American continent may have been a bit more circumspect about communicating their pleasure, but the signs indicated their favorable reaction. Certain civilian "thinkers" in the Defense Department licked their lips in anticipation. The war drums beat a trance-like rhythm that made forward momentum almost unavoidable. Yet bad news from the Iraqi front seemed to dampen the spirit, if only among the general population. Soon after the expression of "understanding", the political landscape changed through that year's election.

Now fast-forward to this past Fall, and the presidential contest between Barack Obama and John McCain. The Fourth Estate finally started doing its job, empowered somehow by Tina Fey and Katie Couric. The subject of possible strikes against Iran became an actual issue that inspired actual questions in an actual debate. Obama expressed his willingness to sit down and talk with the actual leadership of Iran (HINT: he wasn't talking about Ahmadinejad). For this he was mercilessly attacked by both his opponent and the Rightwing echo chamber. Meanwhile he wasn't getting much support from within his own party. No political figure wanted to risk alienating an important constituency capable of helping finance a successful campaign.

While YouTube footage of McCain's version of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann" continued to circulate among the discontents, NPR aired an interview between Terry Gross and Robert Baer. I happened to tune in that day and had all my assumptions about power politics in the Middle East challenged. So when McCain tried to batter Obama for his advocacy of "sitting down with our enemies", I paid very close attention. I tried to sort through the bullshit and figure out exactly what the candidates believed about the "threat" of Iran and the structure of influence in the Muslim world. I became acutely afraid that Bush would give the green light to Israel, and a conflagration would erupt. I slept fitfully until I distracted myself with other concerns.

Fortunately for Western civilization, we made it through one alluring window of opportunity for an Israeli raid on Iran. We still have a major issue to confront, but I feel better about our foreign policy direction. However, there's another piece of information that I have to absorb now. This week NPR and NYT are reporting that George W. Bush refused an Israeli request for "bunker busters" that they intended to drop on Iran. I find it ironic that the single greatest possible chance that Bush has for a positive legacy is the result of an inaction. The only way he could have topped that was not to run for the office in the first place. Our outgoing leader is fond of saying that history will be his judge, but I'd like to suggest that he's wrong... the consequences of his actions will stretch well into the future.

Robert Baer on NPR's Fresh Air, Part 1.

Note: This post is the first in a series of three...

Last Thursday I heard an interview on NPR's Fresh Air with Terry Gross that jarred me outside of the narrowing spectrum of presidential politics. Gross was interviewing former CIA agent Robert Baer, who has 21 years of experience working in the volatile Middle Eastern region. Baer was on air to promote his new book about Iran, which is entitled The Devil We Know. He shared some incredible and disturbing insights about this growing Shia nation that made me re-evaluate my thoughts about world politics and the United States' involvement in the Middle East. Like most of my fellow citizens, I rely heavily on media sources that have a diminishing journalistic presence abroad. This means that my understanding is limited to "conventional wisdom".

Baer's central message regarding Iran is decidedly different from what you are likely to hear about this key player in Bush's "Axis of Evil". It is his contention that this age-old Persian nation is actually the most stable and powerful player in the Middle East today. As a result, he believes that the trajectory of our involvement with this quintessential "rogue nation" will lead to one of two outcomes- either we will open negotiations with Iran, or we will find ourselves in a 30-year war with them. It should be clear to anyone with a sane assessment of our economic prospects that only one of these options remains viable. Iran can marshall a million soldiers for the battlefield immediately, and we are already pushed against our limits.

Of all powers in the Middle East, it is Iran that has most benefitted from our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Saddam Hussein and his Sunni contingent represented the most significant check on Persian power. The US attack on Hussein led to a democratically elected body that is overwhelmingly composed of Shi'ites.. The situation on the ground currently favors the Shia majority in Iraq, and Baghdad is now dominated by leaders of that sect. The New York Times reported in August that the Iraqi national government is in the process of rooting out the leaders of the Sunni Awakening, an organization that has been cooperating with the American military to quash violence in the Anbar Province. Meanwhile Iran has been instrumental in getting Shia militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr to stand down in the face of the Bush Administration's surge.

As far as Baer is concerned, Southern Iraq is already being managed by Tehran. He likens Iraq's relationship to Iran to that beteween Canada and the United States. Former Iraqi president, and current consultant to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is now a major player in the Iraqi oil market. Eventually, the Iranian leadership would like to see the United States leave Iraq peacefully, and cede its stabilization efforts to Iran. To that end Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been working with the American authorities to set a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. When this occurs, all pretense of Iraqi self-government will be called into question. But Baer insists that this doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing.

The main objective of Iran is indeed to consolidate its influence over Iraq and to reign unchallenged over the Persian Gulf. Baer is not denying Iranian imperial ambitions. But he is questioning the ramifications of its growing regional power. While the consensus in the US seems to be that we should stop Iran at all costs, Baer suggests that we might be better off exploring a partnership instead. His decades-long observation of Iran leads him to believe that the nation may be a better associate in the Middle East than current US-ally Saudi Arabia. Indeed he makes the point that the Iranian extremists he has met are actually much more rational than their Saudi counterparts. And he is impressed by the maturing worldview of the Iranian leaders.

... TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 2...

Lifestyle Matters.*

I had a strange realization this morning as I was sitting at my desk and sipping a "quad, nonfat mocha, with light ice and no whipped" from the predatory corporate retail "coffeehouse" whose product I have become sadly addicted to. Against a fair amount of conscious effort, I have adopted a consumer "lifestyle" as part of my identity. This insight came on as I was reading a book of essays by a whiny liberal author who often appears as a commentator on NPR. The truth is that this awareness is potentially accessible during most of my waking hours. At the same time it is also far from profound- anyone in America that doesn't know that such a dynamic is at work is either completely oblivious, or hopelessly naive.

How did all of this occur to me? The author of the book I was reading mentioned self-consciously sipping on a latte. He was obviously aware of the associations commonly made with this libation. For those of you who voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004, a "latte" is a coffee drink made with... um, coffee... and milk(!). More specifically it is made with shots of espresso- which is basically strong coffee. Now you know the truth. If you hang out with someone who drinks strong coffee with milk, then he/she is probably a "liberal"- which means that he/she hates family values, loves faggots, and wants to kill as many babies as possible. All of this especially applies if they call this concoction by a foreign name (usually chosen from a European country that hasn't won a war in centuries).

I suppose that most people can't be bothered with this type of self-realization. Yet they no doubt recognize the cues in their fellow citizens. If they didn't, how else would they be able to determine who belonged in their neighborhood, or church, or social club? They can't very well be expected to wait out in the parking lot to see what type of automobile each drives. Perhaps we can get the media to get behind a new promotion- key chain jewelry! That way you wouldn't have to subtly place your car keys in a conspicuous place on the table the next time you decide to buy a Jellybean Mojito for that attractive stranger. He/she could just look at your bling, and immediately recognize a fellow Lexus driver.

Presumably I'm not the only one who is mortified by the ubiquitous "lifestyle" categorization of modern global capitalism. Otherwise there wouldn't be any clothing without obnoxious brand advertising prominently displayed across its surface. And it would be impossible to buy flavored water in a plain container (oh right, never mind about that one). But I am certain that I'm part of a very small minority. If this were not the case, then the malls would disappear. Plus Hollywood might make something other than the next extended commercial. It doesn't seem that we are in any danger of these things happening. In fact this is the type of monoculture our society seems to be happily trying to push on the rest of the world. It's become our principal export (besides weapons, of course).

Perhaps you don't even understand why I'm complaining about this. Am I somehow against individuality? Isn't one's "lifestyle" what truly distinguishes them from the masses? Read that again and answer the question without irony. It's becoming more difficult to actually find an American that doesn't use "lifestyle" to define themselves. It's too convenient an option. Who has the time and energy to attempt an alternative. Increasingly all criticism of the paradigm vanishes. Still the question remains- what about personality as a motivating force? What about the freak that dares to be different in his/her own head, rather than just on the surface of their body. Where's their marketing demographic? Do they exist if they don't have one? This is the true 21st Century existential threat.


* Yes... I realize that this is an obvious rant, and likely completely gratuitous for anyone reading this blog, but I just happened to be truly sickened today by the fact that "freedom" is increasingly reduced to consumer choice here in the United States.

Tissue-Cultured Meat. Yum!

Occasionally science provides a potential solution to a problem that is so ludicrous that it ends up being of very little practical value. On NPR the other day, they suggested that the inconveniences arising from a household with both vegetarians and carnivores could possibly be solved in the near future. I want to be quite clear in stating upfront that this isn't a pressing issue for most of society. Yes, it is a bit of a shame that M. and I can't share more meals together- but it's hardly cause for too much concern. Sometimes we find ourselves colliding in the kitchen, while we both try to make our separate meals. To date this has yet to cause a serious injury. We also do our grocery shopping separately. This eliminates a lot of potential bickering about selections.

So what has science come up with to address this 'crisis' in mismatched diners? Tissue-cultured meat! Even the sound of it is a bit grotesque. Yes, we are talking about lab-grown meat. Despite the obvious aesthetic problems suggested by such a concept, the idea (as NPR helpfully pointed out) has been around for awhile. Winston Churchill is notable for having said a lot of memorable things, yet he's not known for his gastronomic expertise. In 1932 he said, "We shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium." Apparently a man named Alexis Carrel had been keeping a piece of chicken heart tissue alive for twenty years by the time Winston became a food critic.

It's natural to wonder how meat is created without the beast itself. Evidently it is not as simple as taking a skin cell from an animal, and placing it within a solution of nutrients. It turns out that meat is a complex combination of different types of fat and muscle cells. At least one researcher is getting close- Vladmir Mironov, a biologist in South Carolina is trying to figure out a way to make his artificial squares of meat into a commercially-viable product. The problem is that something this texture-less and formless is a bit of a 'hard sell'. Items like SPAM and other types of 'canned meat' became fodder for comedians everywhere, and that stuff is actually purported to come from a living creature we would recognize.

Certainly the biggest proponents of "tissue-cultured" meat are the animal rights organizations that decry the consumption of animals under any conditions. Last month PETA offered one million dollars to anyone able to create and market "in-vitro" (test tube) chicken meat. The condition is that it must be made and sold to the public by 2012. Not only that, but PETA stipulates that it must be sold at a "competitive price" in at least ten states. Oh yeah... it also has to be indistinguishable in taste and texture from chicken flesh ("to non-meat-eaters and meat-eaters alike"). What I'd like to know is who they are going to get to judge this stuff, let alone sell it. The vegetarians I know would be appalled at the idea.

In fact the greatest obstacle to this invention is that no one really wants it. Perhaps it's going to take drastic changes in our environment to make the concept of "tissue-cultured meat" more palatable. Maybe there are plenty of willing mouths in war-torn Africa. But here in America we still have a choice. Meat eaters are pretty conventional people- they are going to be innately suspicious of anything "weird" happening to their food. It may be cut into a square and placed on a 'fortified' bun, but it better be from a damn cow... and not a cow-like substance. And on the other side of the equation, animal lovers are still going to be reminded of the idea of 'sentient being'-flesh. They'll likely stick with their tofu.

StoryCorps.

Lately a pattern has been developing during my Friday morning commute to work. I'm generally feeling fairly positive because the culmination of the week is drawing near, and I'm relaxed and attentive. At some point, usually toward the end of my drive, a series called StoryCorps comes on and I tune in closer. StoryCorps broadcasts recordings of interviews between loved ones. It's a relatively loose concept, and there are a lot of unexpected twists within the several-minute-long edited segments. Strangely enough, it is not unusual for these tales to draw a tear or two from my eyes. I'm not a particularly emotional person, but something about the strange mix of detachment and poignancy of this experience is tremendously affecting.

So sometimes I show up to work in the morning with red eyes. I don't know what my co-workers think of my deportment on Fridays. I try not to make any eye contact, and simply mutter distractedly if someone greets me. All of this is NPR's fault for producing such a great project. It's not as if they pioneered the concept of interviews with ordinary folks (see Stud Terkel). But the idea of outfitting a vintage Airstream Trailer, and parking it outside of our cities' public libraries for public use, was nearly brilliant. Of course there was never any guarantee that people would be willing to tell their intimate stories so openly. There was no way to tell how much skill they would demonstrate as story-tellers. And yet it's a tremendous success.

This nonprofit project got its kickoff in October of 2003 with a StoryBooth in New York's Grand Central Station. Within two short years they were able to acquire two MobileBooths, and they launched them from Washington DC. If you find one of these moving recording studios and choose to participate, you will receive a CD recording of your interview. In addition, a copy of the recording will be housed in the Library of Congress in perpetuity. The StoryCorps idea has really caught on, to the point where it has received a Peabody Award- the most prestigious honor in broadcast journalism. Last year they produced their first book-Listening is an Act of Love, and issued an audiobook as well.

Anyway, this week's clip was especially sad. It was an exchange between an old man and his son. The father described having once beaten his boy for refusing to wear a raincoat to a piano lesson. It was clear that this had not been a regular habit of the man, but rather that he had just had a particularly bad day. Still he reported never having been able to forgive himself for the incident. He had been carrying that guilt with him for almost 50 years. Of course he started weeping, as his son reassured him that he had been forgiven. The son even pointed out that everything good that he had ever done was influenced by the father. It was a remarkable opportunity for catharsis. and a great example of what can happen in a StoryCorps booth.

This tale was especially moving for me, as I have just started the process of fatherhood. I wonder if some day I will have a similar burden to carry around with me... something that my son will resent for years. Is this inevitable? My father used to beat the hell out of me regularly, to the point where I would explode in an upside-down blood fountain, and I've moved past that. I even remember one time... (EDITOR'S NOTE: OK, slow down there, bucko! I feel some responsibility to jump in here and expose Merge's complete misrepresentation of his relationship with his father. His Dad NEVER beat him, other than one occasion where Merge was slapped on the leg during a temper tantrum. The impact left a hand-print for about two-and-a-half minutes before fading into nothing. Of course Merge, in his self-indulgent willfulness proceeded to sulk for the next day in an attempt to make his father feel guilty. -DG) ...(libelous text omitted) and I never lost my affection for the 'old man'.

So What if God Wants a Heat Wave?

I woke up this morning to find that the temperature outside was 60 degrees Fahrenheit. This was mildly surprising, but not shocking. The weather has (of course) been intemperately mild for more than a decade. Yesterday was unseasonably warm. It's almost gotten to the point that I expect a periodic break from the cold, even in the middle of winter. While I have to admit that I find this new phenomena pleasant, it seems to me to be an obvious case for concern. The previous record for today was 60 degrees, but today the high is predicted to be 65. I would have to be completely superficial to enjoy it without a second thought. Given the tone of many people who make offhand comments about the weather, I'd have to guess that quite a few of them have decided not to worry about what it means.

It could be a matter of resignation. After all, what can one individual do about global warming? It's not as if human activity will grind to a halt if I lose sleep over climate change. In fact there is a large proportion of the United States that still believes that rising temperatures are merely part of a natural cycle. Their argument is that we are foolish to think that we can have an effect on the Earth's functioning- we are just too small. (Incidentally, a lot of these same folks are pushing a foreign policy that could lead to a "nuclear winter"). Then there are the people that simply deny that the average temperature is rising at all, despite the factual data that clearly demonstrates that it is. They back up their beliefs by pointing out the conclusions of a small group of politically-motivated scientists that claims that climate change is an illusion. There is always going to be the dissenting voice.

Even among the population that accepts the proposition that human activity has caused global warming- the majority puts this problem low on the list of priorities. They may have gone to see Al Gore's documentary, but they're too busy facing daily challenges to engage in any activist work that could call the attention of politicians to the situation. Many of them are trying to figure out how to pay their bills in a time of increasing economic uncertainty. Still there are folks who get hit hard by the reality of climate change, and for them the effects are very immediate. Yesterday tornadoes swept through the Midwest and South, killing at least 27 in Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky. The amount of property damage caused by these storms is formidable. Of course these tragedies echo what we saw a few years ago with Hurricane Katrina.
Sadly there are few observers that make the connection between the growing intensity and frequency of natural disasters, and the behavior of "man".

The fact is that society seems to be becoming more and more out-of-touch with the environment. People in America are less active in outdoor activities. NPR reports that the number of citizens that engage in fishing, hiking, and camping is steadily decreasing every year. Hunting is the only wilderness pursuit that remains constant (1 in 10 Americans still do it), and that behavior is only dubiously aligned with a "Good Shepherd" philosophy toward nature. In short, not only do we ignore our natural resources- but we actively despoil them. The idea of the Earth as a living organism is not widely taught, whether in schools or in the media.

Perhaps it really doesn't matter whether the "bio-system" rejects humanity as a parasite. In the long run, the universe will remain relatively unchanged by our departure. The circumstances are not dire from a Christian perspective, because adherents look for their eternal reward in Heaven- not in Eden. Wealthy Americans meanwhile are diverting resources into space technology. Who can forget Dubya's announcement that we are going to put a colony on the Moon? Maybe we will be successful in fully exploiting this planet's resources to the extent that we can hop on the next inhabitable sphere as our atmosphere deteriorates. Anyway, it's not like a bunch of Americans don't enjoy the balmy weather in the meantime. And if the oceans rise, and New York is swallowed up by the sea- it's just God's punishment for the widespread immorality they practice in that modern-day Sodom.

Adrian Tomine on "Fresh Air w/ Terry Gross".

My normal experience when I tune into a media source is characterized by a feeling of complete disenfranchisement. I have a hard time finding that particular source that caters to my demographic. Hell... I have difficulty figuring out if I even belong to any definable demographic. On these occasions I wonder if I can even count myself as an American citizen. If I have no discernible consumer identity, then surely that means I am hopelessly lost... a man without a country. Still I tune in, hoping to find something to connect to. Very occasionally I am surprised, and I feel like I am where I am supposed to be, listening or watching something that makes me feel "at home". It usually doesn't happen in my car. I don't have satellite radio, or any of those other fancy pay-to-play amenities that help the average citizen define themselves. Maybe that's why the commute is so tiring.

I often end up listening to NPR's Fresh Air with Terry Gross on my way home. I usually find her obsessively examining the latest political issue. Sometimes it's informative, and at other times it's simply overkill. How many times can I hear an interchangeably disembodied voice pontificate on the Iraqi War troop surge? I have a similar sense of ennui when I have to listen to another analysis of our failing markets. Imagine my surprise last Thursday to find an interview with Adrian Tomine. Really... I hardly ever expect to find mention of an "alternative comics" artist outside my own house, or at the local purveyor of fine comics. Maybe one could expect an appearance by R. Crumb, or even Dan Clowes talking about his latest screenplay. But these are extremely rare occasions.

Adrian Tomine? He's not even a commonly recognized genius of his medium on the Comics Journal Message Board. In fact the regular posters there seem to be excessively negative when it comes to his work. I was always puzzled about the source of the animosity whenever his name came up. What was it about this individual creator that got under the skin of this small community that actually takes comics seriously? I was so puzzled that I asked the owner of the one store in Pittsburgh where I could reasonably expect to find Tomine's work. The answer was deceptively simple- in the opinion of one analyst, Tomine is disregarded and besmirched due to a generalized climate of envy. It turns out that Adrian Tomine has a reputation for getting laid. My source honestly believes that these eloquent nerds resent one of the few successful cartoonists working in art comics, merely because he is able to form meaningful human interactions with the opposite sex (in real time and space).

So take all the criticism (that you have likely never heard) with a grain of salt. There's something ugly lurking underneath. Certainly Tomine creates characters that may not be entirely sympathetic in their disaffected hipster poses. It's true that they are often world-weary and self-indulgent. And it's undeniable that Tomine appropriates the influence of Daniel Clowes in his work. But why shouldn't he? Hell, he's only 33 and it seems to have worked for him so far. Actually his first graphic novel Shortcomings does demonstrate a certain level of hard-earned maturity. Despite what you may hear from the peanut gallery, he is indeed developing as an artist. If (as he readily admits) he is partially responsible for the development of certain cliches in autobiographic comics- it is only attributable to a consistently present style in his work. Call it the visual equivalent of emo-core or post-indie music... it's a hallmark of Tomine's oeuvre.

I was actually very impressed by Terry Gross' level of insight in her interview with Tomine. I never knew her to be an explicit fan of art comics, but it definitely seemed like she did her homework beforehand. At one point she began talking about the artist's mother, and her background in psychology. She accurately highlighted the importance of the inner life in Tomine's work. She also identified him as something of an outsider, which you pretty much have to be (by default) when you make the kind of comics that Tomine creates.

Gross also brought up his peanut allergy, which she correctly guessed the existence of from reading his earlier comics. She asked if it had informed his perception of himself as a perpetual "outsider", and if it contributed to a type of hypersensitivity in his personality formation. In revealing this seemingly peripheral characteristic, Gross hit on an influence at the very core of Tomine's art. That something as inescapably physiological as a fatal allergen can make a little kid aware of the impermanence and fragility of life itself only seemed obvious to me after Gross pointed it out. That she was able to reach into Tomine's comics, and extract this subtle understanding is a testament to her skill and intuition about people. What could we expect next on Fresh Air? Maybe Gross will invite the inscrutable Chris Ware to the show, and give us a window into his process as well. No... that would just be pandering to my market niche.

Tales of the Supreme Court.

I recently caught an interesting segment of Fresh Air with Terry Gross. Her guest was JeffreyToobin*, who had been invited to promote his new book- The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. The main focus of this work is the conservative counterrevolution taking place on the bench in the wake of the George W. Bush presidency. This process has been in the works since Earl Warren (an Eisenhower appointee) set the tone of the court for the last half of the Twentieth Century. For decades a progressive approach was taken to most of the large decisions at the top level of our judicial branch. Roe Vs. Wade, integration, affirmative action, privacy laws and extended protections for free speech were just some of the priorities of the court during those heady years.

When Ronald Reagan became president, the worm began to turn. The Federalist society was formed at Yale, and was dedicated to crafting an enduring conservative transformation in the national legal arena. Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia were among the first faculty advisers of the group. Conservative groups like the Scaife and Olin foundations funded its activities, and the Federalist society soon established a presence in Washington DC. They railed against what they termed the "judicial activism" of the Warren and Burger-led courts. But they had their own agenda- they wanted to limit the power of the federal government to pass progressive legislation. They said that they were concerned with the "original intentions" of the founding fathers. They focused their attacks on the legal argument of "privacy" that the Warren Court had assumed in their support of a woman's right to choose abortion.

Of course twelve years of Republican presidential administrations accelerated the progress of this campaign. Although Bork's nomination to the bench was defeated, Antonin Scalia somehow made the grade. Meanwhile a young lawyer named Samuel Alito toiled under the Reagan presidency, trying to figure out a strategy to overturn Roe Vs. Wade. He was frustrated, but resigned to incremental progress. Anthony Kennedy was the next Reagan appointee, but he proved unreliable when it came to parroting the reactionary line. The tally still favored the pro-choice camp, but it was closer than ever. When the first Bush attained the highest office, there was confidence that the long awaited shift in the court would occur. David Souter was the first appointee under the new regime, and he initially appeared to be as conservative as Scalia. But he underwent an unexpected transition over time, and slowly adopted more liberal views.

Bush would not make the same mistake twice- after a controversial hearings process, Clarence Thomas became the newest justice. Thomas would go on to prove himself to be the most conservative justice since the 1930's. His subsequent opinions have shown that he considers the entire New Deal to have been unconstitutional. He became an important foot soldier in the battle to shift national values. Still... Sandra Day O'Connor (another Reagan appointee) was now the swing vote of the court, and she was an old school Republican who was less interested in engaging the country in a cultural war. Not only would the counterrevolution have to wait, but it needed to weather the Clinton presidency that would usher in two very strong progressives- Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

As the 2000 presidential election approached, folks on each side of the aisle realized that it would determine the fate of the supreme court for years to come. Several justices were on the verge of retirement and whoever sat in the oval office would fill in the gaps. It's certainly ironic that the existing justices actually got to decide the contest. As the state of Florida began working through a recount that suggested Al Gore had won, the court took the extreme step of shutting down democracy and declaring Bush the winner. The vote was 5-4 and fell along partisan lines. It was a historical low point for the nation's highest court, and left an indelible stain on a government branch that was supposed to be above politics. David Souter considered retiring in protest (but stayed so he could eventually get a full pension). Sandra Day O'Connor would later regret the fact that she let politics effect her judgment. As Dubya began to show his true extremist colors, she (reportedly) began to despise his presidency. Ironically, as Toobin points out, she would play an unintentional role in shifting the court even further toward the far right.

When Chief Justice William Rehnquist's health finally failed he was replaced by John Roberts, who had actually advised the GOP during the Florida election recounts. He had been rewarded for his fealty by the man he helped put into office. It is no surprise that he has joined Thomas and Scalia to form an ultraconservative bloc. News only got worse for the nation's progressives when O'Connor decided to step down in order to take care of her ailing husband. Her spot was taken by Samuel Alito- a man she held in contempt for treating women with an anachronistic paternalism. Tragically her husband's condition worsened to the point where he was beyond her help. But there is no going back after retirement from the high bench. Alito's appointment completed the plot of the Federalists that he helped initiate. The swing vote on the Supreme Court is now Anthony Kennedy, a notoriously unpredictable conservative. God only knows what this new group has planned for us.

*Toobin is a senior legal analyst for CNN, a former Assistant US Attorney and a writer for the New Yorker. Perhaps his most famous book (to date) is A Vast Conspiracy: The Real Story of the Sex Scandal That Nearly Brought Down a President (2000).

Are Men Pigs?

Yesterday on NPR's "What Do You Know?" quiz show, I heard an interesting statistic. It relates to the often heard platitude that "all men are the same". Certainly the vast majority of men would refute that claim. I mean seriously... what do Osama Bin Laden, George W. Bush, Michael Jackson, and Jeff Koons have in common? Actually, you might be surprised. They are 99% genetically identical. Isn't that odd? Isn't that just a wee bit disturbing- to think that (if you are a man) you are that close to the average serial killer? Then again, we can flatter ourselves with our similarity to guys like Michael Jordan, Matthew Barney or Ron Jeremy.

We might also consider this generalized genetic likeness when it comes to identifying normative behaviors in the modern male. Men tend to be competitive and ambitious for status, wealth and power. They often think in terms of hierarchies and value reason over emotions. These are secondary or tertiary characteristics, so (of course) we are talking more about predisposition than anything as concrete as causal factors. Whatever our instinctual drives are that underlie these traits is more difficult to determine or define.

When talking about the evolutionary development and social roles of the male half of the human species, there are some common assumptions that seem widely accepted. The male physique is built for hunting and initiating sexual congress. While some may find these conclusions controversial or even disturbing, one need only look at the world of sports for supporting evidence. Every decade or so a woman athlete comes along that a few speculate might be able to compete at the top levels with men, but somehow it never happens. Comparing the world records in track events simplifies the picture. Men (on average) can jump higher, run faster, and throw things longer than women can. This is indisputable. And these are clearly skills that would be highly valued for hunting game.

Slightly more debatable, but still consistent with the expectations of the successful hunter, is the assertion that men attend to phenomena in a qualitatively different way than women. They tend to scan the physical characteristics of creatures they encounter, assessing them for viability in terms of prey. I would argue that these habits extend to the search for a sexual partner. Whether or not a particular male has found their "mate", he seems to have some instinctual drive that makes them continue to look at women with a (frequently) subconscious analysis of their sexual fitness. Certainly the subject comes up often enough when several men get together (unless they see each other as rivals). I think there is ample evidence to believe that men are overwhelmingly visually oriented when evaluating the opposite sex. For starters, simply initiate a cursory study of commercial pornography. Seldom does it cater to women's desires.

Try to communicate this argument when your significant other notices your head turn to track another woman. You might have been completely unaware that you were doing it, but there is no chance of convincing her that you weren't doing it intentionally. While women are quite agreeable to acknowledging other gender-specific innate behaviors, they don't want to hear the explanation about the "hunter role". They have no problem with asserting their natural role as life-nurturers, but tend to gloss right over the instinctive formulation of the male. I do understand why women are upset by what they view as a double standard. Men certainly get territorial when it comes to their partners considering other males as prospective mates.

But that's simply another manifestation of the instinctual drives of the male. Perhaps you should ask your girlfriend or wife why she continues to apply make-up and wear fashionable clothing when she goes out. Hasn't she already succeeded in finding her mate? At some level, women do accept and understand the reality of our situation. To whatever extent we are animals... we have difficulty overcoming our nature(s).

Heavy Metal Week on NPR.

Now that I have resumed my long daily commutes, I'm back in touch with the news of the world. NPR is my staple station, mostly due to the lack of any decent alternatives. Even so I still lose reception on a few stretches of the road. There's a two-mile segment where a Christian radio station tries to interlope over the specific frequency. It's frustrating that there's just no getting away from that particular form of agenda-based media- at least not while you are in the car listening for free.

Anyway a regular part of my routine is listening to Fresh Air with Terry Gross. I've mentioned that fact quite often on this blog. This week they are running a series of rebroadcasts that deal with a specific theme- "Heavy Metal and Hard Rock". I'm a bit disappointed to return to this after my time away. One of the main reasons I tune in to NPR is to listen to substantial commentary about serious subjects. I am not always interested in the guests Gross invites onto her show, but I usually learn something despite my low expectations. It's a bit like Charlie Rose... Fresh Air gets politicians, corporate hacks, authors, musicians and a wide variety of entertainers. Even if I dislike the particular subject, Terry Gross often elicits some quality conversation that the typical educated layman can benefit from.

But Jesus... really? Heavy metal?? Why? Is this truly a subject with any kind of significant weight? Within any genre I am bound to find something I like, but Metal seems so juvenile to me now. I'll admit that when I was in the 13-16 age bracket, I listened to my share of bad hair bands. I remember loving Quiet Riot, and I can't deny once owning a Twisted Sister record. I dug those middle school girls with teased hair, feather earrings and jean-jackets. If I had to pretend to like Motley Crue, Def Leppard, Poison, Cinderella or Ratt... that was OK as long as a cute girl was sitting next to me. I was certainly no sophisticate. Everyone my age was listening to that stuff in the early 80's. I feel no need to have my puerile tastes justified by retrospective academic analysis. It wasn't that deep then, and it isn't that deep now. Like any other teenager I wanted to rebel- smoking cigarettes, dreaming about sex with hot chicks, and listening to metal were part of the equation.

The thing is that I have absolutely no nostalgia for those awkward days. If I did, I'd be tuning into VH-1 for a regular dose of it. Yet this week I heard from Rob Halford, the guys from Spinal Tap, Metallica, and Gene Simmons. What did I gain from that? Now I know that the lead singer of Judas Priest WAS gay. If "Hell Bent for Leather" wasn't the ultimate tip-off, then I'm not sure what to tell you. The guy from Metallica had a shitty attitude. No way, dude?! Christopher Guest IS a genius. Duh! And Gene Simmons is an asshole without even a hint of irony.

Actually the Simmons interview is illustrative. When Gross interviewed this iconic KISS member (by the way... the band sucked!), good old Gene dominated the conversation by making lewd come-ons to her, and trying his best to discredit public radio. One highlight of the segment is when Simmons suggests that the host should welcome him with "open legs". He kept making asides about how the listeners needed to "get out and live(!)" That's right folks- quit wasting time with books and intellectual discussion and get some ass! It's telling that this very interview got the biggest listener response of all-time. Instead of writing this clown off, people were actually offended by his antics. The guy is the perfect caricature of a man-boy, and the audience took him seriously.

Why do NPR and Terry Gross feel compelled to pander to this type of idiocy? I'm not completely humorless... once in awhile they could devote 20 minutes to some goof-ball with perceived pop-culture import. But an entire week devoted to Heavy Metal? I can tune into virtually any media outlet and experience this kind of typically American anti-intellectualism. There's no reason for NPR to reinforce the prevailing attitude.

Voter Fraud.

If there is one refrain in the political sphere that drives me up a wall, it is "Get Over it!" This, of course has been the Republican response to charges of widespread voter fraud in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. What bothers me most about this sentiment is that the GOP has incorporated the protection of our "freedoms" into their rhetoric for justifying just about every agenda they have had since 2001. I'd like to know what exactly they consider to be our "freedoms", other than the right of wealthy people to avoid paying taxes. Open participation in a "representative democracy" certainly does not seem to be among their priorities.

Recently there has been a rash of stories about specific incidents of election irregularities. Conservative extremist and harpy Ann Coulter has once again distinguished herself in the nation's media. There are reports that the loathsome pundit has refused to cooperate with an investigation into her personal voter misconduct in a 2006 election. Apparently she voted in a precinct in Florida in which she didn't even live. When Palm Beach County officials sent an inquiry to the address that she registered under, the correspondence went ignored. The reason for this was because it was actually the residence of her real estate agent. Her attorney himself has noted that Coulter doesn't even live in Florida (and she has told FOX News' Alan Colmes that she lives in New York). The positive side is that if Coulter is convicted of the charges levied against her, she could face a fine or prison term (fat chance of that happening). Ironically her right to vote would be rescinded in Florida once she is a convicted felon.

But Coulter's misdeed are relatively minor compared with the horror stories I heard today on NPR. While the Republicans are busy spouting rhetoric about voter fraud (see this detailed expose on the rightwing American Center for Voter Rights scam), house Democrats are proposing legislation to insure that this misbehavior is addressed. They are trying to make it a federal crime to intentionally deceive voters to stop them from casting a ballot. This is a long time coming. I would be shocked that the issue wasn't confronted previously had it not been for the fact that the Republicans controlled all three branches of government until this past January.

-Milwaukee voters (principally Democratic-voting African-Americans) were recipients of a flier put out by the "Milwaukee Black Voters League" (which evidently didn't even exist) informing them that they would face imprisonment if they tried to vote having been convicted of any crime- including traffic violations!

-In Pennsylvania a flier (printed on government letterhead stationary) warned that voter turnout was expected to be so high that authorities were asking registered Republicans to vote on Tuesday (the actual day of the election), and Democrats to wait until Wednesday. Of course by then it would be too late. Whoever composed the letter went on to apologize for any inconvenience this improvised arrangement would cause.

-A similar flier appeared in Franklin County, Ohio. Here's a detailed list of voter irregularities during the 2004 election. Note that the presidential contest was decided in the Buckeye state.

-Last year Hispanics in Orange County, CA received letters informing them that it was illegal for immigrants to vote. How many of our fellow countrymen know that every naturalized citizen is given the right to vote?

-A Republican flier in Prince George's County, MD (last November) fraudulently implied that black Democratic leaders supported Republican candidates for Governor and the Senate. In this case they even included a photo of an unsuspecting politician, who spent much time convincing his irate supporters that the thing was a hoax.


This is only a small list that I gathered from one single article on the internet. It's amazing to think that it's necessary to actually pass new legislation to outlaw such crimes. And it's even more disturbing to see people like Republican attorney Bill Canfield publicly oppose the bill. This is as concerted an attack on our system of government as ever posed by Saddam Hussein. Yet for some reason the perpetrators of these acts have not been targeted by our freedom-fighting commander-in-chief, or the legions of "patriots" with ribbon magnets on their SUVs. What gives?

What do you call a "conspiracy" when it is completely out in the open?

Reagan Babies.

It was inevitable. Eventually a new cohort was bound to come along and form an identity to supplant the "X Generation". My age group will no longer set the hippest trends in popular culture. It happens to everyone in turn. It is time for us to assume the mantle of adulthood, and let someone else play for awhile. Ladies and Gentlemen... meet the... "Y Generation"?

That moniker is at once unfortunate (for those tagged with it) and a testament to the cultural hegemony of the X Generation. What is it about us that led to such an indelible generational identity? Maybe it's just a function of the times that nurtured us. But I've commented profusely on my fellow X'ers, and in the meantime given short shrift to the young un's. Who exactly are these new people clogging the arteries of society? They were born beginning sometime in the mid-80's, and the last of them came in the 90's. Many of them are offspring of the baby Boomer Generation, and so have been referred to as Echo Boomers. The other name I've heard regularly attributed to this group is the "Millenial Generation"- which is just as vague and nondescript as its more common alternative. I personally like the idea of calling them Reagan Babies (which reminds me of Jerry's Kids).

I was listening to NPR yesterday morning, and heard some troubling commentary about these most recent additions to the workforce. Apparently they expect a lot of praise from their employers. Because of the nature of their childhood, these folks expect to be coddled. These were the kids who all got a prize no matter how well they performed. They believed it when the adults told them that everyone is "special". They consider self-esteem to be a quality of paramount importance- above ability, effort or intent. This perspective has been taken to heart in some places. I listened with a sense of skepticism, as the NPR segment described a boss that puts on an awards ceremony at the start of every day at the office. While we X'ers would roll our eyes and sleepwalk through such proceedings, these kids have come to feel entitled to this kind of reassurance.

I've seen this in my professional life. No matter what a kid's behavior is like, his/her parents feel a need to second guess every other form of authority. I've heard the exact same excuses from mothers and fathers as I've heard from their children.You don't have to look too far to discover the origination of a teen's personality. Just call home. In talking to these parents, one would think that they honestly believe their offspring to be infallible. I hate to fall back on the cliche, but when I was a kid my folks expected me to respect my elders. Nowadays you have to negotiate to get any problems resolved. These young bucks expect to be treated as equals without demonstrating any merit. The Boomer sense of entitlement has been passed right along to their spawn.

I've got a proposal for a more descriptive nickname for these prats. Instead of the "Y Generation", why don't we call them "Generation Whine"? That would be much more appropriate.

The JFK Assasination... Again?

When I was a kid I never was much of a reader. Of course I picked up and digested comic books quite often. I also remember enjoying a pulpy series of novels about Vietnam called the Chopper series. My literary life was indeed severely limited by my own choice. Instead I was physically active- pretty much the opposite of the way I am now. But I do remember being so captivated by a certain subject in ninth grade that I actually spent time in my high school library of my own volition. It was then that I discovered the Kennedy assassination conspiracy.

It should have been predictable that I was drawn to such macabre material. Even then I was enthralled with subjects of mystery. There were some surefire ways of getting my attention- all you had to do was bring up the Bermuda Triangle, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts or alien abductions. All these. of course, were phenomena that were outside the purview of the natural sciences. As I've mentioned before, I was not the kind of kid that was drawn to the conventional authority opinion about life. The stranger the better- I wanted to make up my own mind about things.

So I have a vivid memory of poring over trade paperbacks, examining photos of head wounds, eyewitness testimony, and diagrams reconstructing Dealey Plaza and the Book Depository. I was obsessed with enigmatic terms associated with the case- the Grassy Knoll and the Zapruder Film. I read all I could find about the "lone gunman", and delved into the mystery of the "multiple Oswalds". I was fascinated by Jack Ruby, who forever sealed the secret that Lee Harvey Oswald harbored. Somehow I though that if I could just read emough about it, I could find the missing piece, and forever end the rampant confusion as to the true nature of what happened in Dallas. I would identify the escaped killers- whether it be the CIA, the Mafia, the Russians, or Cuban exiles.

As time went on, I eventually got caught up in other things. But every once in awhile I would return to the JFK enigma. In 1991, when I was in college, speculation exploded through pop culture, as controversial director Oliver Stone released his movie JFK. The country once again became divided over the true import of the tragedy. Many were comfortable with the establishment version of the Warren Commission. Meanwhile many viewers were convinced that there must be something else to discover about the events. Others (like me) experienced a reawakening of interest in the whole story. For many who weren't even alive in 1963, it was an exciting time. Stone rallied the voices of an increasing number who wanted more answers. But the media and the government branded the director a delusional loony-toon, and excoriated him on national television. Somehow the term "conspiracy" started sounding like something only a paranoid schizophrenic would believe in. In fact it is still used in politics to silence dissenters, no matter the issue.

But listening to Fresh Air on NPR today, I got the impression that we may be revisiting the JFK assassination yet again. The guest was Salon.com founder David Talbot. He is releasing a book called Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, and it is likely to cause more discomfort to the establishment. Apparently he has found ample evidence that Robert Kennedy himself never believed in the "Lone Nut" theory, even though he publicly supported the findings of the Warren Commission. Talbot says that the younger Kennedy actually began his own campaign of investigation to find the truth. The plan was to run for the presidency and put the full weight of the executive department behind exposing the plot. Evidently RFK believed that the federal government was divided during the administration of his sibling, and that a conspiracy was hatched that included the Mafia and highly-placed CIA operatives who were mortified by JFK's "abandonment" of Cuba.

There will be many who discount the new revelations with the admonition that dredging up the controversy once again will have a negative effect on the nation and its government. While this is potentially true, I think it's imperative to seek out the authentic history of these formative events. The subsequent direction and development of the country may be better understood through a clean lens. The only reason to bury new information is to hide from our reality. Obviously the final chapter of JFK's killing has not yet been written.