In the News...Baked Goods and Dinosaur Eggs.

Today I had an idea that I might post a roundup of my favorite news stories from this past week. It's been a slow cycle due to the low profile appointments Obama has been making recently. Sure, we've had the shoe-hurler to entertain us, but other than that things have been relatively quiet. I actually had two things in mind that I wanted to follow up on. Unfortunately I completely forgot one of them. The other has to do with a clamp-down on PA nail salons that have been fronting for a slavery ring. Reportedly these shops have been masking a trade of Vietnamesee women, who are lured to America with the promise of marriage and citizenship. I'm sure this practice is more common than we'd like to admit.

Just this morning I heard about recent scientific findings that seem to suggest that male dinosaurs of some species were the primary caregivers to their offspring. Archaeologists have been puzzled for years about clutches of eggs that appeared too numerous to have been carried by the animals whose skeletons were found nearby. Apparently they've followed up with research into creatures that aren't extinct, and discovered similarities in the behaviors of emus and ostriches. These abhorrent birds also tend to place child-rearing burdens on the fathers. So now the oviraptor (which was thought to prey on eggs) seems misnamed. When its remains were first discovered on top of a nest of eggs, it was thought to have been engaging in infanticide. To the contrary, it was just providing daycare.

While we're on the topic of parenting, I feel compelled to mention a controversy that a friend alerted me to the other day. In Eastern PA (Lehigh County), a couple is complaining that a local grocery store (ShopRite) refused to decorate their child's birthday cake. No, they weren't asking for boob icing, or anything of the sort, but rather for the kid's name to be simply spelled out on its surface. In our society, it is commonly expected that businesses will cater to the desires of customers. There are even adages that suggest the infallibility of clients. Why would any self-respecting business refuse a potential sale, especially one concerning such an ordinary request? Why take away something that might mean a lot to a little boy?

Well, the mother and father of three-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell seem to be asking themselves the same questions. In fact, the scandalized Dad himself summarized his feelings succinctly by stating, "Other kids get their cake. I get a hard time. It’s not fair to my children." And perhaps Heath Campbell has a point. Little Adolf, along with his sisters JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell , certainly deserve the benefit of a normal and wholesome lifestyle, punctuated by small pleasures like balloons and personalized baked goods. On the other hand, maybe Heath should have ceded the naming rights to someone with a clue... or maybe he should have simply sterilized himself before the controversy of offspring developed.


I could spend a lot of time writing about the mindset of the county I grew up in. Unfortunately the behavior of the Campbell elders isn't nearly as aberrant as it ought to be. Somehow they came to the conclusion that their pathetic lives (and the nation as a whole) would be improved if they just invested themselves in the pride of race. Still the level of self-delusion is astonishing to behold. Despite the presence of multiple swastikas throughout his home, Heath Campbell complains, "“[People] need to take their heads out of the cloud they’ve been in and start focusing on the future and not on the past." Fortunately for him (and his progeny), Walmart came to the rescue and decorated the baked good to his specifications. God Bless Sam Walton!

Black and Blue.

I was beginning to think that the presidential candidates had forgotten about my little village on the cusp of Pittsburgh. There has been a conspicuous lack of evident canvassing until quite recently. That observation seemed to run counter to the prevailing media narrative. We have been told repeatedly over the last several weeks that the Keystone State is the pivotal battleground in the 2008 race. Certainly the McCain campaign has made it a big point to identify this state as a "must-win". Time and again we have seen visits from the Arizona senator and the Alaskan governor. In fact Ms. Palin has been nosing about a lot over the last week. She appeared in Penn State, Hershey, York, Erie and Latrobe. Reports tell us that she has managed to attract fairly sizable crowds, even if they have been decidedly lukewarm about her running mate.

But what I haven't noticed very much is political activity immediately outside Pittsburgh. It's true that this is a historically Democratic area. Enthusiasm for Obama is definitely pervasive within the city limits. Travel through just about any neighborhood in the 'Burgh, and you are likely to see tons of Obama/Biden signs on lawns and in front windows. Still, as soon as you cross the rivers, the presence of political advertising decreases dramatically. People have been strangely circumspect about their voting preferences. In my particular neighborhood, it's not been that obvious that we are heading into a very important and contentious election. I've spent a lot of time thinking about why that is, and I've drawn a few conclusions.

Both my intuition and personal experiences have led me to believe that racism has played a large role in dampening spirits in Allegheny County. People here are fond of characterizing this place as "old school". There's a strong union vibe that is balanced by a bedrock of social conservatism. And folks aren't at all shy about telling you that they hold resentments against African-Americans. In the comment thread of a previous post, I told a story about a conversation I had with the neighbors while they were handing out Trick-or-Treat candy. To make a long story short, they have decided to support McCain because they wanted their party to nominate a "white guy" instead of a "stranger" that they are unsure about. They even suspect Obama of being a Muslim.

It certainly doesn't sound good when I say it out loud, but the truth is that the voters around these parts aren't exactly politically sophisticated. Maybe you've wondered over the last few months just exactly who McCain and Palin thought they were fooling with their excessively negative smear campaign. I've got that answer for you- come and meet my neighbors. If you rattled off a checklist of platform items from each of the candidates without identifying who each item belonged to, they would have no problem siding with Obama. Still there's just something about that guy that tells their collective gut that something is "wrong". It's not hard to figure out that it has to do with melanin.

This indeed is what the McCain/Palin ticket has counted on, and why they believe they can be competitive in a state that has consistently voted "blue" whenever it came time to pick the national executive. Perhaps this is that "Bradley Effect" that so many conservative pundits have put their faith in. However, I have to wonder if it will be a winning strategy for the GOP. It seems to me from knowing so many racists that they are more bark than bite. They have no problem letting you in on their feelings about black people, yet few of them will ever act upon those feelings. There is almost always an accompanying awareness of being unfair. I think most of them wish they didn't have the prejudices they have. The big question is how that racism will affect their voting behavior. I suppose we'll find out for sure on Tuesday.


NOTE: I should add that the Rooney Family and the Steeler Nation have been very clear in their whole-hearted and unabashed support for Barack Obama... one more reason to celebrate the Black and Gold.

More Race-Baiting From the GOP?

On the way home from work yesterday I tuned into Sean Hannity on FM 104.7 (mostly because I wasn't interested in the topic on Fresh Air). I remembered that he was going to be in Pittsburgh to cover the most important "battleground state", as identified by the McCain/Palin campaign. Around 3:45PM he interrupted his usual blather with breaking news from Matt Drudge- " MCCAIN VOLUNTEER 'ATTACKED AND MUTILATED' IN PITTSBURGH". Hannity promised to try to get further details. He couldn't believe his luck. After all, he was in town and all-the-way live! More information trickled in, and the blowhard pundit delivered the tale of how a young woman (from Texas) named Ashley Todd (who works at a McCain call center) was mugged at an ATM, and had the letter "B" carved into her face by the hateful perpetrator.

Supposedly the 6'4" black man, who used a knife at her throat to take $60, was walking away when he saw "McCain for President" stickers on her car. He came back and said he was going to "teach (her) a lesson!". Then he mutilated her. It sounds absolutely horrid. And of course the Far Right echo chamber was sent into a frenzy of melodrama and race-baiting. Obama hasn't even lost yet and already black people are rioting! What is society going to be like under an authoritarian, with his jack-booted thugs beating and mutilating dissenters? One blog I visited even compared the incident to what the Nazis did to the Jews. And then the picture was released of the victim. My bullshit meter started to vacillate wildly.

I decided I'd hit some of the blogs and join the dialog. I chipped in with this response: "Call me a cynic… but if I’m going to rob a woman at knife-point in front of an ATM on the busiest street in Bloomfield (which happens to be the almost-entirely-white Little Italy section of town), I’m not going to stick around afterwards to see what bumper stickers she has on her car, and then double-back to carefully scratch (it was certainly not “carved” as some would have it) a very neat backwards (or upside-down) “B” into her cheek (therefore making a political statement), and tell her I’m “teaching her a lesson”. Especially if I know that Sean Hannity just happens to be in town the next day."

As the hours passed more information became available that cast serious doubt on her story. The independent media began to ask questions. We started learning about some contextual information about Ashley Todd. Her profile quote on her MySpace page (now removed, but cached before she had the chance) was especially telling, grammatical errors and all- "Lying is the most fun a girl can have without taking her cloths off, but its better if you do." Then we found out that Ashley had a twitter page (also removed but cached), and it sure seemed like she was laying the foundations for the story ahead of time. Apparently she had a blackberry (not stolen) in her car (not stolen)... and she thought everyone should know ahead of time that she was looking for an ATM and that she was "pretty sure she (was) on the wrong side of town" (only an outsider could think Bloomfield meets that qualification).

The Pittsburgh Police are evidently suspicious of Todd's account of the "incident". The Pittsburgh Tribune Review is reporting this morning that "her statements about the attack conflict with evidence from the Citizens Bank ATM where she claims the incident occurred". Considering that this is the Richard Scaife-owned conservative rag that originally presented the story in town, this is a substantial development. While any allegations of supposed "hate-crimes" must be taken seriously, investigations by the proper authorities must precede judgment. I'm really not concerned about how this might affect the election (I don't think it will either way), but I am very protective of my hometown. This entire incident could give a "black eye" to a region that has already become a focal point in the last days before the election... and I resent that.


UPDATE: Apparently local talk radio host Marty Griffin (KDKA 1020) isn't buying it either. He's reporting that Ms. Todd called the McCain campaign office before reporting this incident to the police.

UPDATE: Ashley Todd has changed her story. She's now claiming that she was sexually assaulted as well.

UPDATE: Ashley Todd has confessed to making up the whole thing. Police are trying to figure out what charges she will face (Thanks to Ian for the heads-up).

Rush Limbaugh IS a Racist? Who would have ever guessed?

Former Bush Administration Secretary of State Colin Powell has announced his endorsement (read the transcript of his appearance on "Meet the Press") for presidential candidate Barack Obama. Powell is one of the most revered American figures in the political landscape. He is broadly respected across party lines. His public image was tarnished only by the false message he delivered in front of the United Nations during the run-up to the Iraqi invasion and occupation. But despite the fact that we now know that George W. Bush and his cronies knew that the information they sent through Powell was unreliable and likely false, conventional wisdom suggests that they had convinced Powell of its veracity. That's a clear indicator of just how trusted Colin Powell is by the American people. He remains unsullied, even by Bush.

It is for these reasons that the Powell endorsement is so meaningful to so many. The nation has been patiently waiting for his considered judgment since he told the media he would wait to make his pick until after the last debate. No doubt that this was out of deference to his friend of 25 years, John McCain. Perhaps in his heart Powell was hoping that the former "maverick" would convince him that he had not lost his much-vaunted integrity. Still the signs were already inscribed on the wall. McCain has been moving steadily toward the positions and philosophy of George W. Bush for the past four years. He has run a dishonorable campaign. It would have been difficult for Powell to support a man who has succumbed to the most extreme wing of his party, as evidenced by his choice of Sarah Palin for the VP slot.

Naturally many on the Right have bemoaned Powell's decision. Powell didn't just make a short comment about Obama, but rather implicated the entire GOP for its increased divisiveness. Certain high profile pundits have taken an almost violent exception to his words. George Will did not shrink away from suggesting that Obama benefits from his race. But the most appalling accusations came from (not unexpectedly) the wingnut Rush Limbaugh. As soon as he heard about Powell's endorsement, he couldn't stop himself from dashing off an e-mail message to the Politico website. Right from the start he questioned Powell's assertion that his endorsement was not about race.

Limbaugh said he would be doing research to find out what other "inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates" Powell had supported in the past. Of course all three of those qualities have been attributed to Obama by Limbaugh (and the like) in the past. Yet it was that last adjective that loomed so large within that sentence. Racism is (most appropriately) the elephant in the room for the GOP's propaganda machine. It's been entertaining to see them biting their lips and trying to contain it for these long months. Now it's out of the bag. Limbaugh has shown his true color(s). From his perspective, how could racial identity NOT be an issue when an observer considers the worth of a politician (especially if they are thought of as "black"). Apparently that's completely unthinkable for this pill-popping freak.

However, what I found most problematic in Limbaugh's message was not the obviously racist sentiment. It was the embedded revelation contained in a later part of his e-mail: "I guess he (Powell) also regrets Reagan and Bush making him a four-star [general] and secretary of state and appointing his son to head the FCC. Yes, let's hear it for transformational figures." From these words it is plainly evident that Limbaugh has ALWAYS considered Colin Powell the token Republican affirmative action case. In Limbaugh's mind, Powell didn't EARN these distinctions, but rather they were generously bestowed on him, as "a person of color". And now Powell is being ungrateful for the lavish gifts he has received. This is truly a disgusting insinuation, and I believe that "conservatives" everywhere should be pressured to denounce Rush Limbaugh.

Obama VS. McCain, Round 2.

The two presidential candidates met in Nashville last night for Round Two of their three-part match. This time the event was moderated by NBC's Tom Brokaw, and featured a "Town Hall" format. It seems to me that this style of debate should entail more interaction with the audience, but the eighty observers on hand appeared intensely somber, if not plain uptight. They read their questions off of cue cards, and there wasn't a moment of spontaneity during the course of the evening. John McCain did seize the opportunity to do a bit of bonding with a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy. While this might play well to McCain's diehards, I don't think it will add much to the understanding of the undecideds. McCain has ties to the military? No way?!

In assessing the outcome of this second debate, we must once again return to expectations. Obama had the easier task last night. All he had to do was continue to look presidential and consolidate his lead. By all accounts he did just that. He reassured me by identifying alternative energy as the number one priority of his prospective presidency. He deftly fended off attacks (most of which were repeated word-for-word from the 1st debate), and even made a point of directly addressing some of McCain's distortions. The old warrior himself needed a game-changer, and I couldn't find a single media source (no matter how biased) that suggested he achieved that objective. Meanwhile, mainstream media sources have been quick to point out that the dynamic of this race remains the same. They did seem hesitant about proclaiming Obama the outright victor, despite what viewer polls indicate (this one in particular seems telling).

There weren't a whole lot of new ideas introduced in the debate. McCain tried to hit for the fences with a suggestion that the government should buy subprime loans directly, rather than dealing in mortgage securities. There were a few problems with that proposal. To start off with, one wonders where this idea was when McCain was making his high-profile visits to DC (during his so-called "campaign suspension") to negotiate the bailout bill. The reality is that John McCain didn't favor this approach previously because it was actually Barack Obama that first suggested it. Also, it's clear that the national will would likely not support spending another $300+ billion of taxpayer money to purchase what many have characterized as loans to folks that couldn't afford them in the first place. This is a fundamental contradiction of the GOP's message of personal accountability.

And while we are on the subject of accountability, John McCain notably failed to level the kind of charges that both his running mate and his campaign have been flinging at Obama this past week. There wasn't a single insinuation of treason, nor any suggestion at all that Obama likes to "pal around with terrorists". In fact we didn't hear any mention of names like William Ayres or Jeremiah Wright. Nor did McCain go into specifics when he spoke of his opponent's purported links to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But Obama wasn't shy in his response. He was upfront in pointing out that McCain's own campaign chairman, Rick Davis, was a paid lobbyist for that very corporation up until a few months ago. Actually, I think Obama showed unwarranted mercy in not mentioning the fact that McCain currently employs at least eight other former Fannie/Freddie lobbyists. But he obviously wanted to deliver a different message.

While we heard a lot of the same lines we've been hearing for weeks, it's notable that there were a few things that went completely unmentioned. John McCain didn't mention the name "Sarah Palin" a single time during the debate. Perhaps that is because he feels a need to distance himself from his attack surrogate, who has been extremely irresponsible on the stump since her handlers decided it was time to "take the gloves off". Palin has been appealing to the lowest common denominator of the Republican base- the embedded racism and the abject fear of people that differ from them. In doing so, she is treading on very dangerous ground. I was appalled yesterday to see videos of her smiling without comment as her supporters shouted cries of "treason", "terrorist", and "kill him" in response to Barack Obama's name.

One has to wonder- is this the position that McCain thought he'd be in a month before the election? Did he know that his loyalists would stoop to this level of hateful invective in the absence of a substantial counterargument to his opponent's platform?

James Ellroy, "Destination: Morgue!" (2004).

Once again I've returned to the work of the hard boiled L.A.-scribe, James Ellroy. Previously I've read and blogged about The Black Dahlia and My Dark Places. Although there were things about those books that bothered me, I decided that there was enough in the author's work to continue my explorations. Thus I picked up Destination: Morgue! (2004) during a recent spending spree at Half Priced Books. I didn't know whether this title was supposed to be fiction or non-fiction, and after reading it I'm still not sure. That in itself would be no reason to discount the quality of the writing. Ellroy consistently dwells in a netherworld that seems to merge reality and fantasy. Just so, he probably shouldn't be using those kinds of labels.

Destination: Morgue! is broken up into two parts. The first is given the heading "Crime Culture/Memoir", implying that it fits under the True Crime category. If these tales are accurately classified, there are some troublesome associations for the author. I already knew that Ellroy had a tough upbringing, what with the unsolved murder of his mother, and the untidy and untimely death of his Dad. And I knew that the young Ellroy fell into some maladaptive behavioral trends... but I had no idea about the extent of his perversions. It's one thing to be drawn to the seedy and violent side of life if you can contain yourself to voyeurism. It's quite another to get directly involved.

By his own account, Ellroy was (at the very least) a bit of a miscreant. He started off with garden variety shoplifting, and worked his way up to eating Benzadrine inhaler cotton wads, peeping, breaking-and-entering, and stealing panties. Considering his literary (?) obsessions with "hot prowls" and rape/torture/murder, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy didn't flirt with more serious crimes. Even if he was able to hold himself in check, he certainly succumbed to a life of dissolution. After spending time in various forms of incarceration, and ending up close to death from sustained alcohol poisoning, Ellroy "went straight" and got a job as a caddy at an L.A. country club. It was during that period that he was first successfully published.

While Ellroy has a certain facility for describing crimes scenes and investigations in great detail, he appears to have a lot of difficulty keeping his internal and external lives separate. He often conflates his own deeds and drives with those of historical figures, as well as his own creations. What makes this tendency particularly irksome is how self-righteously judgmental Ellroy gets. Despite his own flaws he fails to see the humanity in others (a major disability for a writer). Just one example of his hypocrisy is a completely irrelevant condemnation of Bill Clinton that he tacked on to the end of his own litany of perversion and crime. It's as if he feels justified to label others "good" or "evil" based upon political affiliations (or race, gender, sexual preference, etc.).

Indeed, Ellroy's proclivities are reinforced in Part 2 of Destination: Morgue! Here he presents a trilogy of novellas about a far right wing vigilante cop who enforces justice without regard for civil rights. And he can't restrain himself from peppering his narrative with a string of offensive ethnic slurs of all types (EX: "color coonordinated Tommy Hipnigger"). As if this weren't enough, the author continues what becomes an almost interminable habit of throwing arbitrary alliteration into every single paragraph. Dig the square loner trying to come on hip- "Local louts loitered. Porch punks paraded. They hopped house to house and shared Schlitz malt liquor." You think that's cute? Try 389 pages of that unrelenting crap.

Independence Day Brings a Special Treat; The Death of Jesse Helms.

While it's always great to have the day off from work and the opportunity to see friends, the idea of the holiday itself left me a bit cold yesterday. As far as I'm concerned this isn't an era for nationalism. It seems that the urge to identify with the country is decreasing, just as the compulsion to go to church every week is disappearing for many people. In my opinion, it can't happen fast enough. Our problems truly are global nowadays and the entire border-state mentality seems to have been rendered largely ineffective. So what does that leave me with every Fourth of July? Should I search for some elusive kinship with the citizenry? No thanks- I'm not even that interested in mingling with the majority of inhabitants of the city I live in.

Truth be told I nearly despaired of finding anything to celebrate. Fortunately the fates conspired to provide me with a single shining ray of light. I turned on the radio to discover that Jesse Helms died earlier in the morning. It occurred to me that maybe it wasn't appropriate to let the death of a fellow human being put an extra little jaunt in my step. But that reservation only lasted about a second-and-a-half, and then I found myself beaming again. I do believe philosophically that the removal of certain individuals from the Earth would benefit not only mankind, but all living creatures. I would never seek to affect such a change personally (I'm not willing to pay that price), yet I'm not above the happiness such an event brings.

Maybe if I though the human species was sacred, I'd have a different viewpoint. But like I say quite often- we are no better than animals... and I eat animals. Helms death is simply addition by subtraction. It's a shame it didn't happen in 1972, the year he was elected into the US Senate, or even well before then. The man's single greatest enduring legacy will be his unwavering commitment to racial bigotry. In at least one way his succession to federal government was a milestone- he was the very first Republican Senator from North Carolina since before Reconstruction. But he was also a petty tyrant who sought to impose his extremely hateful views on the rest of the country.

His entry into politics was as an aide to the 1950 Senatorial candidate Willis Smith. During that campaign, Helms was credited with the creation of a series of attack ads in which he attacked Smith's opponent with the following copy- "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races." In the 1960's he notoriously attacked Black civil rights leaders (like Martin Luther King, Jr.), calling them "Communists and Sex Perverts". He hinted at his strategy for resolving race conflicts by saying, "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights."

Helms was a singular asshole, and his vitriol extended to homosexuals as well. He fought against government funding for AIDS research and punctuated his position by stating "There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy." He also notoriously opposed legislation extending voting rights, supporting the United Nations, funding the arts, and creating the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. His flaws were numerous and distinct, but (arguably) his greatest crime against humanity was helping to clear Ronald Reagan's way to the White House. In 1976 he was influential in making sure that North Carolina voted for "The Gipper" in the primary election, and that victory helped give Reagan a platform at the national convention. Good Riddance, Jesse Helms... many rejoice at your passing.

An Enlightened People.

If you (like me) grew up in an urban area, you would be astonished to hear some of the things that come out of the mouths of 14-year-olds in Fringe City, USA. I work with kids in an area far enough out of the real city to display the ugliest aspects of American provincialism. I've been at this job for awhile, and so I've pretty much gotten used to wincing when these boys and girls start trumpeting their true beliefs. What's especially disconcerting is that they are part of a social class that allows them to take their ideas out into the larger world, where they will vote in national politics and be considered first when legislators consult "The People". Naturally this doesn't bode well for the future of our society, but the First Amendment guarantees the right to communicate freely, despite the yawning abyss in logic and rationality that characterizes many views.

The topic of today's discussion was race. After covering the material that I had scheduled for the session, I opened the conversation up to include pretty much whatever any kid wanted to talk about. There's one boy in this group who can be counted on to present the most extreme viewpoints on any controversial subject. In all fairness, he was provoked to comment today. Someone mentioned that February is Black History Month, and proceeded to provide a few factoids about inventions devised by African-Americans. This was followed by a rash of complaints about the lack of any "White History Month". As you've likely guessed, the group was wholly made up of Caucasian youth. Had there been even a single Black kid in the room, I am certain that the flow of the talk would have varied tremendously.

Here was a homogenized collection of privileged youths, unhindered by the petty concerns of the working class, whining about some imagined lack of celebration of the white race. Apparently the overwhelming sense of entitlement these boys and girls regularly display has been so assimilated that it precludes compassion for the plight of any human being not immediately related to them. Big surprise, right? But the justifications that they employ to defend their own selfishness can be mind-boggling. Fortunately there are two kids in that section (strangers in a strange land evidently) who tend to take a more nuanced view of the happenings of the world. It's to their credit that they feel enfranchised enough to confront some of the more outlandish propositions put forth by the rabble. And I'm often grateful that they relieve me of any urges to directly tackle the most ignorant statements. I like to remain an objective moderator in such exchanges, so that I can minimize any claims of personal bias.

It wasn't until my outspoken token-racist got started that things got truly out-of-hand. He happens to be unabashedly Christian, and seems to filter all of his politics through a mesh of distorted religious doctrine. He is typically undisturbed by the strictures of scientific thought, but for the purpose of discussing his beliefs on race he conveniently adopted a mockery of the "theory" of evolution. He suggested that Blacks were where they were in society because they are somehow "stuck within evolution". Then he followed by proposing that God had made Blacks as "just another class of animal" to be subject to the domain of Adam and Eve, who were (not coincidentally) white. In his eyes it naturally followed that African-Americans should accept their subjugation, because it was obviously God's Will.

I don't know exactly what the majority of the class thought about what this precociously grating boy had to say, yet I can tell you that quite a few of them were laughing and cheering for his reasoning. More tellingly perhaps, it was left up to the aforementioned pair of 'brainwashed rationalists' (believers-in-science) to fight the tide of sheep-like amusement emanating through the room as the "War on Political Correctness" was being valiantly waged. What struck me was the unquestioned assumption that Adam and Eve were White. It didn't seem to matter that Eden was commonly accepted to be located in the Middle East. When I asked this youthful white supremacist to explain this disparity, he replied that God had made Adam and Eve in His own image- and (obviously) God is White. Who can argue with that?

Why Do I Support Barack Obama?

Once again I found myself (last Friday) discussing the presidential race of 2008. My friend and I had just concluded our viewing of a documentary, and we were now luxuriating in our speculations about our nation's future government. Perhaps an objective observer might say "How wonderful it must be to live in America, with it's inestimable freedoms... Where decidedly middle class citizens can sit around on a weekend night, and exchange their cynicisms regarding their country's political process." Or maybe that is just a typical example of conceit we all have about the extraordinary nature of the good ol' United Stated. It's a shining beacon of DEMOCRACY to the world, after all. Yet with all the skepticism I share with my friends, I am still grateful to be able to voice my opinions with some measure of confidence in the survival of our First Amendment rights.

Anyway the main topic of conversation the other night was our shared preference for Democratic nominee Barack Obama. A year ago I was almost convinced that the man actually had a chance to win his party's nomination for the highest federal office. Since then I've been on a bit of a roller coaster with steep declines of belief, and rather shocking periods of accelerated excitement. With the primary well under way, it looks increasibgly likely that Obama might actually prevail. This would be an incredible story in American politics for several obvious reasons, not the the least of which is his racial identity. The fact is that Obama is equally as white as he is black, but that's not the perception of the majority. Instead he presents the prospect of becoming the first "African-American" to become Commander-in-Chief. That, of course, is the most significant reason people have had to doubt his viability as a candidate. I wrote about that subject almost a year ago, and have no wish to revisit it in detail. Still it's obviously the "elephant in the room".

While I don't want to belabor the point about Obama's racial makeup, it has occurred to me that one of the main reasons I have always supported his candidacy is because of that very factor. Surely it's an example of my own perverse form of reverse racism, but I'm comfortable with my position on the matter. I would like to see a "black man" become president... even if he is half white. We've had enough time to see what the traditional establishment can do with the unlimited opportunities it has had. Even though Obama represents an upbringing consistent with that of previous presidents (a rather privileged background and the benefit of the best education that the Western World can offer), there's an undeniable value to be found in the symbolism of his mixed ancestry. The reality is that you must be connected to the leadership class to rise to the level he may attain. However his success so far suggests that there is at least one arbitrary distinction that no longer holds the same weight as it has in the past. A rich man of any genetic combination might grow to be POTUS.

Beyond race I have a hard time expressing why I am so drawn to Barack Obama. I suspect that my rather vague propensity to support him is echoed in the hearts and minds of many others that would like to see him prevail. I asked my friend if he knew about any specific ideas that Obama might have regarding an agenda for governance. I also wanted to know if my friend had any clue about what Obama would actually do if he does win. Frankly I didn't get any satisfying answers from our discussion. Even though he had read books written by the candidate, my friend couldn't really outline any policies that Obama might pursue. There was some nebulous reference to "universal healthcare", but no real points of distinction to use in comparison with the plan put forward by main rival Hillary Clinton. We also talked about Obama's steadfast opposition to the invasion of Iraq- although I pointed out that he was in an advantageous position to gain traction without losing anything by taking the stance. Obama wasn't in national office during the build-up to war. And since he has become senator, he has consistently voted to finance the continuing operations in the Middle East.

I think that Obama's main strength lies in public speaking. Regardless of his actual views and plans, he has convinced many of us that he means what he says. After seven years of obvious lies and dissimulation, the existence of apparent integrity and honesty in a politician is extremely refreshing. That is (in my opinion) the main source of his momentum as a candidate. People feel that they can trust this man. His critics will no doubt continue to emphasize his "lack of experience" while trying to bolster support for other candidates. But I think most Americans will get beyond those claims after the unfortunate example of George W. Bush. We have learned that the president is largely a front-man for a coterie of bureaucrats, analysts and advisers who actually form the executive branch. In that role, I think it's become quite clear that Obama can be extraordinarily effective... or at least much more so than the current president. His promises of "change" resonate with the hopes of many disenchanted citizens. It his ability to convince us that reform is possible that is most compelling.

Good Riddance to Trent Lott.

Political observers throughout the United States are in for an unexpected treat this December. Senator Trent Lott (R.-Mississippi) is finally retiring. He plans to "pursue something else" (i.e. get a job as a lobbyist). Lott first achieved political prominence when he was elected to the US Congress in 1972. He was swept into office by a rising tide of Southerners making the transition from lifelong Democrats to southern Republicans. Democratic efforts to bring about civil rights during the 1960's had poisoned their popularity among racist Dixiecrats. It's clear that Lott never forgot the reason why he had early success. He made a consistent effort to let his constituents know exactly where he stood on issues of race. His journey through Congress to the Senate was a foregone conclusion as he perfectly represented the charm and attitudes of the anti-progressive state of Mississippi.

In his early career he distinguished himself while on the House Judiciary Committee. He famously voted against the impeachment of disgraced president Richard Nixon. For his loyalty he would eventually garner the honor of becoming House Minority Whip. Later on he would make a successful bid for the US Senate, and eventually become Majority Whip and Majority Leader. As the head of his party he pushed hard for the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, despite the fact that there wasn't enough support for a conviction. Apparently he had idiosyncratic, but quite deeply held, ideas about what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" on the part of the Executive. Of course he was highly lauded by the extreme right wing for his hard anti-Clinton stance. Although he failed his quest to slay the great enemy of the GOP, he continued to assume authority in the Senate.

It was Lott's race-baiting legislative stances and commentary that would ultimately culminate in his fall from grace. As a US Congressman he had voted against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, the continuation of the Civil Rights Act, and the establishment of a federal holiday to commemorate Martin Luther King. He even had regular associations with white separatist groups. But it was only with his comments at a dinner celebrating Strom Thurmond that he was publicly outed in the media as a singular bigot. He spoke of his deep respect and appreciation for what Senator Thurmond had fought for when the elder politician made a run for the presidency in 1948. Many observers saw this as a thinly veiled promotion of Thurmond's single platform- racial segregation. Although the mainstream media was ready to bury the controversy, online bloggers continued to apply heat until Lott's colleagues on both sides of the aisle made him step down from his formal leadership position.

Some speculate that Republican party insiders were grateful to get the opportunity to remove Lott from his privileged seat in front of the Upper House. Apparently he had been tagged as a failure for his inability to bring Clinton down. Additionally, his support for ending the ban on using federal funds for stem cell research and a willingness to seek comprehensive immigration reform have further split his pool of possible defenders. It can't be especially rewarding for an increasingly marginalized politician of ample experience to hold on to public office. Lobbying holds out the promise of both huge financial gains and minimal public exposure. If Lott had decided to complete his present Senatorial term, he would have been forced (by new legislation) to wait an additional two years before claiming a spot along K Street. If he had honored his previous commitment (after Hurricane Katrina) to represent his state at this crucial time, he would have likely found himself increasingly disenfranchised- both within his own party and by the Democrat-controlled Congress.

It makes sense that Lott has decided to flee to the private sector. Besides the more obvious reasons, there are whispered rumors about impending troubles that could have also affected this move. A NYC radio talk show host (Brian Lehrer) supposedly reported today that Lott may have been involved in a "gay sex scandal". While this may sound bizarre, there is an online source suggesting that Larry Flynt has Lott's number on this issue, and was promising revelations by the end of the year. It will be interesting to hear what his political allies have to say about Lott if any of this proves to be true. Mississippi isn't known for its open-minded acceptance, especially when it comes to African-Americans or homosexuals.

Mark Essex... Race Warrior and Mass Murderer.

As I continue to read about some of the most violent incidents directed by individuals upon their fellow society members, I am occasionally surprised to come upon an unfamiliar name. Such was the case when I read about Mark Essex in Elliott Leyton's landmark study of multiple murderers- Hunting Humans (2001 ed. of a 1986 copyright). This well-respected book established Leyton's reputation as one of the foremost academics studying serial and mass murderers in America. It makes sense that Leyton would choose Essex as a representative case, because the author takes the unique approach of considering larger social factors when studying the actions of what many have characterized as "monsters". Throughout Hunting Humans Leyton examines the "tasks" of these individuals that may influence them to act out a bloody and horrific script.

Leyton is actually proposing that these killers are acting out some hazily-conceived rebellion against particular segments of society that they view (subconsciously or not) to have wronged them. This perspective certainly generates controversy as psychiatrists, law enforcement personnel, FBI investigators, and other observers have identified a litany of causes and predispositions that seem to override generalized social concerns. In some instances it does seem that Leyton is stretching the details of history to accommodate his theory. But at the same time I think it's fair to consider the behavior of multiple murderers on several different levels. It makes sense that developmental problems, genetics, a history of abuse, head injuries, mental illness, and (yes) sociological factors can all influence even the most extreme of human behaviors.

While it may not seem appropriate to look for social causes when we look at John Wayne Gacy or Jeffrey Dahmer, it seems hard to avoid the issue in the case of Mark Essex. Born to a loving and stable family in Emporia, Kansas, this young African-American grew up believing in a fair and essentially just society for all. According to all accounts he was a gentle and happy boy who got along well with almost everyone. Although he wanted to be a minister someday, he displayed a special aptitude for technical skills and decided to enlist in the US Navy. This is when his life began to spiral downwards. He was posted in San Diego after basic training, and was working as an assistant in a dentist's office. At first his superiors found him to be positive, soft-spoken, and eager to continue his history of engaging with all types of people. But gradually Essex became aware of a United States he never knew existed. He was increasingly subjected to racism from white sailors at the base.

As time went on Essex became frustrated with the inequalities he was now experiencing. He began to spend time only with blacks on the base and in the city, and became involved with outwardly militant political groups. After a clash between black and white sailors led to what Essex saw as a fundamentally unfair and inadequate formal resolution, he decided to go AWOL. This action would lead to a demotion and (eventually) an administrative discharge "for reason of unsuitability due to a character behavior disorder". Essex was by no means alone in his perception that the US Navy was a discriminatory body. There was widespread disillusionment among African-Americans in the military, and even sabotage on occasion. The resentful ex-sailor had been irrevocably altered- Essex went to New York City and then New Orleans, and ended up in the company of Black Panthers and other extremists.

While in Louisiana Essex continued to subscribe to an increasingly defiant revolutionary worldview. During a last attempt to assimilate into society as a vending machine repairman, Essex was distressed to learn of the local on-campus killings of two black student demonstrators. He responded by arming himself and becoming a recluse. Simmering in a small apartment alone, he "decorated" the walls with pro-Black and anti-white rhetoric and hateful slogans. When he finally emerged he initiated a stunning campaign of bloody violence. On New Years Eve (1974), he shot three police officers and cadets, killing two. Somehow he evaded capture. A week later he began a murderous rampage that ended with him being surrounded by 200 cops, on top of the roof of a Howard Johnson's Hotel. When he was about to run out of ammo, he left his hiding place and was riddled with bullets and killed. In the end Essex had managed to take the lives of nine people and wound ten others.

During the tense standoff at the hotel, a crowd of African-Americans sympathetic to Essex had loudly threatened to join the man in his rebellion. Each time he shot at the police, they chanted "Kill the Pigs!" in encouragement. Although the actions of this self-perceived Black Messiah did not touch off a full-scale revolution, it was clear that many of the disenfranchised blacks in society shared his sentiments. A twelve-year old boy that would later become John Allen Muhammed was a resident of the Baton Rouge area at the time- he would become famous as 1/2 of the infamous Washington DC Snipers.

Joseph L. Mankiewicz, "No Way Out" (1950)

For some reason, when I saw the Fox Noir release of No Way Out (1950), I thought that it was the original source for the 1987 movie with Kevin Costner. That turned out to be wildly off-base. It's unfortunate that a mediocre action flick by Roger Donaldson was able to steal the thunder from the classic Joseph L. Mankiewicz film. No doubt most modern film viewers haven't even heard of the latter. Starring Richard Widmark and Sidney Poitier, the 1950 film was a socially progressive, riveting, character-based thriller.

With even a cursory understanding of pre-civil rights era social politics, a viewer might expect that the idea of an African-American doctor treating white patients would be beyond controversial. This is indeed the case as Dr. Luther Brooks (Poitier), after completing his internship, finds himself stationed in the prison ward of a county hospital. There the Biddle brothers are wheeled in for emergency care- both with leg wounds incurred while they were plying their stick-up trade. For some reason one is far worse off than the other, despite the similarity of their injuries. Brooks quickly ascertains that Johnnie Biddle is suffering from a pre-existing malady, and moves quickly to address the problem. When he is unsuccessful, and Johnnie dies- Ray Biddle (played by Widmark) blames the death on Brooks. Ray is an inveterate racist, and vows to take revenge.

Fortunately for Dr. Brooks, he has a support system. Dr. Worden (played by Stephen McNally), the head physician at the hospital, has committed himself to seeing that Brooks negotiates the many challenges of being a pioneer. In addition Brooks has a supportive (if weary) family, including a long-suffering but loving wife. Finally, Brooks will find an unlikely ally in Johnnie Biddle's estranged wife. But that won't happen before Ray Biddle sets in motion a plan of mayhem that results in full-blown race riots.

Remarkably, Mankiewicz was able to make an issue film without completely vilifying its characters (other than the fanatically-bigoted Ray Biddle). I was especially struck by the the hardheaded realism displayed in a conversation between Dr. Worden and the executive administrator of the hospital. The theme of integration is examined in admirably complex terms. Almost sixty years later, film-goers can only hope for a treatment of race relations as intelligent as this one. The director was able to portray the dynamics that keep segregated sections of the lower classes fighting against each other. Meanwhile the flavor of the inner city is dramatically accentuated by the exceptional cinematography of Milton Krasner.

Ultimately the viewer is going to be most struck by the amazing performances of the diametrically opposed leads. Poitier is able to contain both strains of insecurity and quietly-borne nobility simultaneously. The true depths of his pain and inner conflict are notably exposed in his last line of the film (which I choose not to disclose here). This final reveal is so gut-wrenchingly telling that it will surely linger in your head. At the same time, nobody can overshadow Richard Widmark. He is so much fun to watch that it doesn't matter that he's gone completely over-the-top. No one could have played this role like Widmark. His performance alone would justify watching this film. But there are plenty of reasons for multiple viewings.