D.C. Sniper John Allen Muhammad is Dead, and I Don’t Feel Any Better

November 11, 2009 — jamieumbc

Last night, the state of Virginia executed convicted D.C. sniper John Allen Muhammad. Many commentators had said (as they always do), that this final act was really about “closure” for the victims’ families, and yet, none of those family members admitted to feelings of closure last night, and a few denied it outright. I suspect that the only true instance of closure last night belonged to Muhammed. Yes, I know that he deserved it, but it still made me feel uneasy, and more than a little bit conflicted.

Don’t think that I’m just someone who can’t stomach the death penalty (there are plenty of crimes I think are quite suited for it, especially where children are involved).  I believe that the reason I, like many Americans, feel sympathy for the condemned killers at the time of their execution is more logical. When the crimes are committed, and fresh in our memories, we surge with horror and outrage. We imagine what the last moments of the victims must have been like, and try to empathize with their families. At that moment, our sense of justice cries out for retribution against the perpetrator.

However, the wheels of due process grind very slowly. Gradually, over time, our outrage fades, new crimes replace the old, and we forget the faces of the innocent. At the time of trial, our attention may be regained briefly, but only with a fleeting, passing glance – certainly not with the same intensity as it had been at the time of the crimes. By the time the killer is sentenced to die, our emotional state is approaching something more akin to ambivalence than righteous fury. The process has begun.

The process of emotional dissociation accelerates throughout the ensuing years, as appeals are filed, motions are lost and requests for new trials are denied. Time passes. As the final appeal winds its way toward the Supreme Court, and the date of execution draws closer, the media once again becomes conscious of the story, but the perspective has changed. At this point the stories do not revolve around the horrific nature of the crimes, or the suffering of the victims and their families, but on the condemned’s struggle to survive.

In the final weeks leading up to the execution, we are peppered with professions of innocence, lawyer’s statements that detail the several and serious errors from the original trial and the testimony of credible-sounding people who claim that the convicted person could not possibly have done the thing of which he is accused. We listen, we read, and slowly, imperceptibly, we find our imaginations caught up in the plight of a killer to live just one more month, one more week, one more day.

During the final few days, we become increasingly uncomfortable as it becomes apparent that the condemned is, in fact, doomed to die. We might wonder how one faces the idea that no matter what he does, his life will suddenly end in a now easily quantifiable number of hours. Does he try to stay awake, squeezing out every conscious hour of life that he can? Does he stare at the clock, watching his life inexorably drain away? So much is made of the last meal; how can a man that will be killed in a few hours enjoy anything, much less food? Who could have an appetite at a time like that?

And then, the day arrives. We are busy living lives that have a tomorrow. Still, at moments throughout the day, we may see a clock and quickly do the math: Three hours until he dies. Again we wonder: what is he doing? What is he thinking? Is he keeping his composure? More to the point, could I keep my composure?

The hours pass and we are made aware of a man’s sudden death by a scrolling text at the bottom of a television screen. We consider this for a moment and then return to more immediate concerns, such as whether Daniel will finally get voted off of The Biggest Loser. For us, life goes on, albeit a little more gingerly than before, for a few days anyway, until this death too passes from our conscious memory.

Clearly, it is the buffer of many years’ time that allows our sympathies to be transferred from the victim to the killer. Not that long ago, justice was swift, catching up the convicted while the blood lust of the people was still fully aroused. When the condemned met his fate, there was a sense that balance had been restored; few tears were shed for a person who had done such terrible things, things that had not yet passed from common recall. A primal need for revenge had been satisfied.

I do not long for a return to the days when crime, conviction and consummation all took place within a period of weeks. Justice cannot be accomplished where doubt remains, and my unease is hardly worth mentioning when compared with the need to be absolutely certain of the guilt of the criminal and the guarantee of due process.

I do, however, find myself wondering: Is this what justice is supposed to feel like?

Honestly? I hope not.

Posted in capital punishment, crime, Current Events, jurisprudence, Policy Debate. Tags: , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

In Britain, “The Wire” is Reality and Baltimore is a Scary, Dangerous Place

November 10, 2009 — jamieumbc

A truly fascinating adventure in journalism is playing out this week.

British journalist Mark Hughes, in an exchange program with the Baltimore Sun (who sent their crime reporter, Justin Fenton, to London), has been in Baltimore recently, hanging out with our beleaguered police department. While he’s here, he’s been filing reports for his own The Independent, a London daily. Let’s just say that his stories have not been helpful for the Baltimore Tourism Department. The English best know Baltimore from the HBO crime drama “The Wire,” which portrays Charm City as, well, let’s say less than charming. Baltimore officials have long complained that the show promotes a false image of the city for the sake of ratings. Are they right?

Here’s an excerpt from a Hughes story:

“This was Baltimore exactly as I have seen it countless times on The Wire, but on this occasion it was real life. It was a Tuesday night, on the corner of West Fayette and North Carey streets, and it was the evening’s first shooting. There would be four more before the end of the shift. Two of the five, including this one, were fatal.”

Hughes has also reported on the corruption trial of Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon, and her contentious relationship with the Baltimore City Police Department. Unfortunately, neither Dixon nor Police Chief Bealefeld would make themselves available to be interviewed for the stories, no doubt because there’s little good to be said about Baltimore’s out of control crime problem. Not that Dixon and Bealefeld are entirely to blame – there have been five Police Commissioners in the last ten years, and Dixon is relatively new to the job. They’re just the latest in a long line of politicians and appointees to be swallowed up by the hopeless morass that is Baltimore City, and they are obviously very touchy about it.

Others are less hesitant to explore Baltimore’s deficiencies. In 1989, Maryland Senate President Mike Miller told a WBAL TV 11 reporter that “Baltimore is a (expletive) ghetto. It’s worse than inner city Washington, D.C.” In 1997, authors David Simon and Edward Burns released “The Corner,” an expose of Baltimore’s drug and poverty-driven neighborhoods. Of course, if you live in the city, this is not art, this is your reality.

Meanwhile, Fenton’s stories note that Britain’s police use of DNA evidence is futuristic compared to Baltimore’s, and that the sound of fireworks reminded him of home. His fourteen hour ride-along to the “underbelly” of Manchester produced contacts with a car full of pot-smoking teenagers, a kid whose bike riding behavior raised false suspicions, a slightly inebriated (but not technically drunk) driver, and a fruitless search for a man with a vegetable knife and a home that was wrongly believed to have been burglarized. Hughes, on the other hand, found himself at the scene of a shooting only minutes after he got into town. Awesome.

The two reporters have also been blogging about their experiences. These blogs reveal a contrast that could best be described in a SAT-type analogy: London is to Baltimore as Paris is to Mogadishu. Tremendous.

What all of this journalism convincingly demonstrates is that we big-city Americans exist in a frightening world largely unknown to the people of other industrialized nations. Because of our equal devotion both to the rights of gun owners and the rights of criminals, we suffer from a preponderance of both. It’s a bad combination.

Of course, were we to give up these rights, we might begin to address the violence inherent in American society, but we all know that’s not going to happen. Americans fear government encroachment and the loss of civil liberties far more than they fear for their lives. Is this rational? Probably not, but it’s part of the American DNA, and there’s no escaping it. As a people, we will consent to be destroyed from within rather than give an inch where personal freedoms are concerned.

So yes, London, I guess “The Wire” is a pretty accurate portrayal of Baltimore after all. There’s no need to pity us – this is the society we have chosen. We complain about it ( a lot), but really, we wouldn’t have it any other way.

And congratulations, Baltimore – this is your life.


 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Baltimore, constitutional issues, crime, Current Events, Europe, journalism. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 4 Comments »

Lessons Learned Since Those Heady Days After the Wall Fell

November 9, 2009 — jamieumbc

In 1989, I was the proud father of my first child, a son. It was also the year my wife and I bought our first house. And that year, I, along with much of America, watched the fall of the Berlin Wall on television. That’s also where I heard about the execution of Nicolae and Elena Ceauşescu, and the arrest of Erich Honecker. For me, it was like seeing Allied soldiers shaking hands at the Elbe River.  The Cold War was over, and we won.

Later the next year, my mother gave me a small cardboard box. Inside the box was a tiny chip of concrete, which the box claimed had been part of the Berlin Wall. I doubted the authenticity of the “relic” almost immediately, but I cherished it anyway. Not because of its monetary value, or even its supposed historic significance. I kept that box because to me it represented the day we gave communism the final beatdown it had so long deserved. For me, a child of the Cold War who had grown up with Third World War nightmare scenarios, that box represented the day the good guys won, and the oppressed people of Europe took back their countries. The box didn’t hold a fragment of dusty concrete; it held the self-righteous vindication of my entire worldview.

Of course, I was a lot more idealistic in 1989. (To give you a sense of my naiveté, it hadn’t even occurred to me that nature didn’t make humans with the body types of Jose Canseco and Mark McGuire.)  I can distinctly remember thinking that the people who had lived behind the Iron Curtain were going to join us in repudiating their pasts and that before too long, the entire industrialized world would be (relatively) friendly bastions of pro-Western capitalism and democracy. I assumed that Cuba would fall to revolution within weeks and that China couldn’t stand alone forever. Once China had “converted,” of course, their North Korean dependents would beg their cousins in the South to reunify. Vietnam would finally come to its senses, demonstrating that we had known what was best for them all along. President George H.W. Bush spoke of a “New World Order.” At the time, there was little doubt which nation would be directing this “New World Order.” In my view, the new boss had arrived.

As it turned out, Communism hung tough in a few small pockets of the globe, and one really big pocket. The euphoria of the young democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square, with their cardboard Statue of Liberty and willingness to stand before tanks, couldn’t bring freedom to China. Tyranny dies hard, I suppose. Russia’s path to democracy has been filled with stops and starts, and some there remember the old Soviet Union with a whitewashed fondness, because those were the days when Russians felt powerful. Rather than being our democratic partners, the Russians have opted to be the loyal opposition. So have the reunified Germany and France, for that matter. Cuba continues to poke a stick at us from across the Straits of Florida and Vietnam hasn’t admitted to the error of its ways.

November of 1989 seems like so long ago now. The United States, knowing what was best for everyone else, tried to direct the “New World Order,” with mixed results. Nowadays, I wonder whether world leadership is really worth all of the grief. I suspect many others wonder, too. I guess people just don’t like to be led, even if it is by the “good guys.” But, you know what? I am the father of teenagers, so, I understand. I didn’t understand much in 1989, but in 2009, I understand more. Maybe not a lot, but more than I did then.

Posted in Current Events, Europe, Germany, Politics, U.S. History, world history. Tags: , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

The Fort Hood Massacre as the Price of Free Speech

November 9, 2009 — jamieumbc

At what point, and to what degree, will Americans be willing to impinge upon their freedom of speech if they believe that lives are at stake? That question bubbles to the surface again today as more becomes known about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in the Fort Hood massacre, who apparently was angry about the United States’ prosecution of the War on Terror.

According to wire reports, Hasan’s family was connected with a Virginia mosque that at one time hosted the preaching of radical imam Anwar al Awlaki, and where two of the September 11th hijackers worshiped.  Writing from Yemen, the imam, author of the controversial “44 Ways to Support Jihad,” praised Hasan’s actions and condemned Muslims critical of the attack as “hypocrites.” Awlaki has been often accused of intentionally inciting English-speaking Muslims to violence against the Western World.

This is where the whole “freedom of speech” thing gets somewhat sticky. If it can be demonstrated that Awlaki’s words led to Hasan’s actions, do we still consider those words protected speech? Remember, the element of religious freedom exists to even further complicate the matter. If preaching hatred from the pulpit causes others to deem it God’s will, or perhaps just acceptable, to harm others, should that speech be banned?

Be careful. Before you reflexively answer “yes,” consider the implications. If this ban were enacted, could radical anti-abortion groups be targeted for “hate speech?” How about Rush Limbaugh? Still on board? What about a President who openly condemns insurance interests for their opposition to health care reform? What would seem like an overreaction is only so until there’s an incident involving a desperate man whose child has been denied coverage for what he considers a life-saving treatment. If that were to occur, the culpability of public figures under the new law would immediately come into question, and no doubt countless lawsuits would be filed by the aggrieved.

This is the problem we run into as Americans who profess to defend freedom above all else. If we choose to allow speech that amounts to public attacks upon individuals and organizations, attacks that are intended to arouse individuals to action (as all political attacks are), attacks that we now consider as a normal part of the political process, we must also allow the speech of hate-spewing imams in Virginia.

Of course, there are limits which have been consistently applied over the years, such as removing from that protection speech which can be construed to have the deliberate, intentional purpose to cause harm to another individual or to deprive that individual of their rights under the law. However, in this case, that doesn’t seem to be what was going on in Virginia.

In the coming days, there will be plenty of calls for a rethinking of what’s being preached in America. There may also be condemnations of the patriotism of certain Muslims in America. While it may be easy to point out that inciting people to hate is wrong, it is a far more difficult task to regulate it. I suspect that after the dead of Fort Hood are buried, and the final notes of taps drift away in the autumn breeze, we will discover the price of that regulation to be too steep, and in the end, a poor tribute to those who were, in the end, martyrs of a society based upon free speech.

Posted in constitutional issues, Current Events, Policy Debate, Religion, War on Terror. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Ravens Post Mortum: Silver Linings and Prioritizing Offseason Needs

November 8, 2009 — jamieumbc

Now that we can safely put the lid on any legitimate hopes of the Ravens appearing in the postseason, it’s time to look for silver linings, and to begin thinking about what the Ravens need to address first in the off seson.

This season will be remembered as a time of transition for the team. For the past ten seasons, the Ravens were all about defense. The main job of the offensive unit was to not get in the way while the angry, opportunistic defense annhilated opponents. No more.

Now, in what seems like a “back to the future” turn of events (“back” being the Vinny Testeverde-era Ravens and “future” being the Joe Flacco-era Ravens), the offense needs to score 30+ points if the team is going to win.  The defense can no longer be counted on for key stops, especially when faced with a quality quarterback. This season has been instructive in that it has mercilessly exposed the Ravens’ weaknesses, and has given the front office solid evidence of what needs to be done. I’ll address those needs shortly. But first, there are some silver linings in what is quickly becoming a very disappointing fall:

1. The NFL is a quarterback league. If an organization is to have long term success, it almost always builds its team around a franchise quarterback. For the only time in its short history, the Ravens have that in Joe Flacco.

2. The Ravens have usually done well playing a third or fourth place schedule, coming off of a bad year. Next season should be better.

3. With every loss, the Ravens draft position improves.

4. As expectations fall, the agony of losing winnable games lessens, mainly because we begin to subconsciously redefine what “winnable” is for this team.

5. As it becomes clear that future home games will have no bearing on the playoffs, the chances of buying a reasonably-priced Ravens ticket from a disappointed season ticket holder improves. (This is really the only way I’ve ever been able to see a game since the new stadium opened.)

Now, on to the needs assessment.

1. A quality pass rushing down lineman. It’s no secret that the Ravens secondary can’t cover quality receivers, and they’re not just one player away, either. The fastest, easiest way to paper over a weak secondary is with an effective pass rush, which the Ravens haven’t had in years. They’ve tried to compensate with equally ineffective blitzes, which, when picked up, just results in one-on-one coverage and big plays. With just one monster pass rusher, much of the poor secondary play would fade away.

2. If that monster pass rusher can’t be had, the Ravens must act to upgrade the secondary, because this unit is absolutely killing the Ravens. They don’t cover, tackle or create turnovers very well. Ed Reed, limited by chronic neck and shoulder pain, is so busy trying to compensate for his mates that he’s forever out of position, which just exacerbates the problems. Samari Rolle’s career is over, Domonique Foxworth has proven to be no better than a nickle back and neither Fabian Washington, Frank Walker nor Chris Carr would start anywhere else in the NFL. LaDarius Webb seems promising, but it’s too early in his rookie season to tell. This group needs a major overhaul.

3. A playmaking wide receiver. Now that the Ravens have a franchise quarterback, they need a receiver that can consistently win deep battles to take advantage of his talent. Right now, Mark Clayton is the closet thing the Ravens have to a “burner,” and that by itself is a statement. Derrick Mason will likely retire at the end of the season, which makes this need even more pressing.

4. A dependable placekicker. Oh, Father Time, why did you have to take Matt Stover? For over a decade, this was one position that the Ravens never had to think about. But last year, it became apparent that if the Ravens needed a 44-yard field goal outdoors, Matt Stover couldn’t get it done. Steve Hauschka seemed like the answer, but now it seems as though he develops an ugly case of the “yips” when under pressure. The Ravens need a new answer in a position that delivers points every week. (What are the “yips?” Click here.)

5. A dominating inside linebacker. This is another position the Ravens haven’t had to think about since, well… ever. But Ray Lewis can’t go on forever, and even now he’s showing signs of advancing age. It was hoped that Jameel McClain or Tavares Gooden would step up this season, but that hasn’t happened. Within the next year or two, the lack of an enforcer in the middle of the defense is going to become glaringly obvious to opposing offensive coordinators. The Ravens need to be proactive to make sure that day never comes.

6. A quality kick returner. Chris Carr has been a major disappointment, and LaDarius Webb seems destined for full time duty in the secondary. The Ravens have tried to use Ed Reed occasionally to provide a spark, but this is a dangerous tactic, considering Reed’s questionable health, his importance to the defense and how thin the secondary is on talent.

What do you think?

Posted in Baltimore, Baltimore Ravens, Football. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

Elizabeth Lambert – Soccer’s Miss Congeniality

November 6, 2009 — jamieumbc

My daughter plays soccer. But not like this:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4628040&categoryid=2378529

I understand that sometimes it gets a little rough between the sidelines, but what this ONE PLAYER did in this game in so over the top that I have to wonder if there isn’t sometime else going on:

Was she off her meds?

Is she the team’s “goon” who was sent out to do the coach’s dirty work?

How did she only manage to get a yellow card?

Is this the way she always plays? Why haven’t we heard of her before?

And now the important question –

How long until we can make her ambassador to North Korea?

Update: 4:09PM – From the University of New Mexico’s website:

‘University of New Mexico head women’s soccer coach Kit Vela announced today that junior defender Elizabeth Lambert has been suspended indefinitely for her actions in Thursday’s match against BYU in the semifinals of the Mountain West Conference Championship in Provo, Utah.

Effective immediately, Lambert is prohibited from participating in all team practices, competition and conditioning activities.

“I am deeply and wholeheartedly regretful for my actions,” said Lambert. “My actions were uncalled for. I let my emotions get the best of me in a heated situation. I take full responsibility for my actions and accept any punishment felt necessary from the coaching staff and UNM administration. This is in no way indicative of my character or the soccer player that I am. I am sorry to my coaches and teammates for any and all damages I have brought upon them. I am especially sorry to BYU and the BYU women’s soccer players that were personally affected by my actions. I have the utmost respect for the BYU women’s soccer program and its players.”

“Liz is a quality student-athlete, but in this instance her actions clearly crossed the line of fair play and good sportsmanship,” said Vela.

“Liz’s conduct on the field against BYU was completely inappropriate,” said UNM Vice President for Athletics Paul Krebs. “There is no way to defend her actions.” ‘

And the response from the MWC:

‘In consultation with the University of New Mexico, the Mountain West Conference endorses the disciplinary actions being taken by the institution to address the unacceptable conduct of the UNM student-athlete involved — which violated the MWC Sportsmanship Policy.

The MWC commends the University of New Mexico for its prompt response. The decisive manner in which it was handled is consistent with the MWC Sportsmanship Policy and the principles under which the Conference conducts intercollegiate athletics.

The MWC will continue its internal review of the overall dynamic involved in the match. The Conference will have no further comment regarding this case. The provisions of the MWC Sportsmanship Policy can be found in Rule 4 of the MWC Handbook – which can be accessed via the http://www.TheMWC.com Web site. ‘

Posted in Soccer. Tags: , , , . 1 Comment »

Worst. Wars. Ever.

November 6, 2009 — jamieumbc

As I mentioned in a previous post, warfare is as much a part of human nature as is romantic love or the need for community. That doesn’t mean that all wars are necessary; in fact, some wars are positively pointless in their origins, destructive in their execution and meaningless in their result. Today’s Friday History List is what I believe to be the five most pointless wars in history. Let’s see if you agree.

5. The Siachen Conflict – This pointless war is to resolve ownership of an uninhabitable glacier that lies on the border between India and Pakistan in Kashmir at a height on 20,000 feet. It began in 1984 and continues to this day, which makes it the only ongoing conflict on my list. The problem started when the treaty ending the Indo-Pak War of 1971 (which would result in the creation of Bangladesh), forgot to mention who owned this icy plateau (frankly, the people who drafted the treaty didn’t think it was a big deal). The war has mainly consisted of raids and counter-raids against enemy outposts, resulting in over 2,000 casualties in 25 years. Certainly not a big number, I know, but completely pointless nonetheless.

4. The War of 1812 – On June 18, 1812, the United States declared war on Great Britain, largely because of British impressment of American sailors. (Impressment was the forcible repatriation of individuals thought to be deserters from the Royal Navy. The United States’ grants of citizenship meant nothing to the English, whose laws did not allow for the renunciation of British citizenship. Therefore, once a limey, always a limey. Americans claimed that many of the repatriated sailors had never been English.) Remember that the British at the time were engaged in a titanic death struggle with Napoleon, and were far less concerned with the complaints of offended Americans than retaining naval supremacy in the Atlantic.  Oddly enough, by the time war was declared, Britain had rescinded its Orders in Council authorizing the impressments – thus removing the major cause of the war. Unfortunately, the news failed to reach the United States in time. After three years of sporadic fighting, both sides could claim victories, but neither side achieved its strategic objectives. Eventually, the Treaty of Ghent ended the war and reestablished the status quo ante bellum (nothing changed from before the war). Four thousand were dead of wounds and twenty thousand were dead of disease, in what was at best a tactical draw.

3. The Iran – Iraq War – In 1980, Saddam Hussein, hoping to take advantage of instability in Iran after the Islamic Revolution, invaded Iran, looking to settle an old border dispute. However, his army quickly stalled and was driven back by the surprisingly resistant Iranians. Soon, both sides settled into its positions as an ugly, costly war of static attrition ensued. Before it ended in 1988, 500,000 were dead and the two nations had suffered economic losses of $1 trillion. When the war ended, nothing had changed.

2. The Russian Campaign of 1812 – One of the many Napoleonic Wars, this was the Emperor’s response to the Russian Czar’s withdrawal from Napoleon’s continental system, and it was a disaster. Russia, dependent on foreign trade but denied it under Napoleon, dared to challenge Bonaparte by removing themselves from his economic orbit. Napoleon, needing to demonstrate the costs of insubordination, invaded Russia in the summer of 1812. The French Grand Army made rapid progress as the Russians withdrew before him. By September, Napoleon had captured Moscow (which had been stripped of anything of value before its abandonment) and then settled in to wait for the inevitable surrender offer. It never came. What did come was the Russian winter. By the middle of October, Napoleon gave up and set out for the return march to France. His Grand Army, 600,000 strong, was caught in an early (and brutal) winter, attacked incessantly by roving bands of angry Cossacks and slowly ground away. Of those that left Moscow in October, only 40,000 made it home alive. The Grand Army had been crippled, setting the stage for the demise of Napoleon in the years that followed.

1. World War I – Easily winning the prize as the worst war ever, the Great War started for almost no reason, killed tens of millions, settled nothing and then, as if needing to prove itself again, set the table for World War II. In 1914 Europe, following years of military buildups and the creation of constricting alliances, was like a tinderbox just waiting for a spark. That spark came in June with the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Serbian extremists (probably with the tacit approval of the Serbian government). Soon, threats were being exchanged, mobilizations were being issued, and by August the great powers of Europe were at war. Stalemates followed invasions, and a war between the trenches was inaugurated. The war itself was typified by thousands of senseless frontal assaults against heavily armed positions by hundreds of thousands of doomed troops. By the time of the armistice in November of 1918, nearly 40,000,000 were killed, wounded or missing, the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires had fallen and France and Belgium had been laid waste. From the peace came the Bolshevik Revolution, the poorly conceived and only somewhat executed Treaty of Versailles, and an unstable Germany that would soon respond with the greatest evil known to mankind – and an even more deadly world war to settle the remaining issues from this one. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner.

Posted in History List Friday!, War, world history. Tags: , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Oh, Sweet Irony, Thou Art A Hard Mistress

November 5, 2009 — jamieumbc

Irish rockers U2 will play a free concert at the Brandenburg Gate tonight in Berlin, celebrating the 20th anniversary of the destruction of the Berlin Wall.  The show is part of MTV’s European Music Awards and is expected to draw a walk-up crowd of about 100,000.  Organizers, however, have decided that capitalism can’t survive in an atmosphere where large numbers of people can get to see the show for free. Their response? Sheer genius.

The Berlin Wall was constructed beginning in 1961 to protect communism by keeping East Germans in their place – and away from a clear view of freedom. Now, somehow oblivious to the irony, U2 concert promoters have ordered a 12-foot wall erected to protect capitalism by keeping non-ticket holders in their place – away from a clear view of the band.

So now, we have a large wall separating the people of Berlin from a show that is celebrating the destruction of a large wall separating the people of Berlin.

Perfect.

Maybe 20 years from now, the surviving members of U2 can be wheeled onto a stage in Berlin to celebrate the destruction of that wall, too. If you want to see that show, though, you’d better make sure you get there early to get a ticket, just to be on the safe side.

Posted in Celebrities, Current Events, Germany, Music. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »

This year’s playoffs are a symptom of all that’s wrong with baseball, and a warning to the NFL

November 3, 2009 — jamieumbc

First, let me say this: Don’t blame the Yankees. They didn’t create this monstrosity, they’re just taking advantage of it, the way any well-run organization would. Yes, their payroll is almost twice as much as any other team, and is larger than the Nationals, Pirates, Padres and Marlins combined, but they’re only doing what the system rewards them for doing: buying talent. If the Yankees close out the series tomorrow night as expected, it will not be a victory achieved between the baselines, it will be a triumph of the checkbook. And that’s what’s wrong with baseball.

In sports, what we cherish are the values that are reinforced through competition. We revel in the success of the team that overachieves and becomes greater than the mere sum of its parts. We cheer for the athletes who overcome obstacles and reach heights previously thought to be out of their reach.  We expect hard work, perseverance and discipline to be rewarded. We root for the underdog, all the while knowing that he will usually fail.

Major League Baseball, as it exists today, reflects not the value structure of athletic competition, but the value structure of the corporate boardroom. Organizations vie with each other to increase their cash flow through lucrative television deals, palatial stadiums and mass merchandising. Teams with large population bases from which to draw have an inherent advantage in these calculations.  As a result, there is no level playing field in major league baseball; an upcoming season’s results can be quite comfortably predicted by analyzing payroll statistics. (Of this year’s eight playoff teams, six had team salaries in excess of $100 million. The two teams that did not, St. Louis and Minnesota, were both swept from the postseason without having won a single game.)

In years past, we could debate which players would be the difference makers for a team; now that debate must include owners and front office personnel, because that’s where games are won and lost, often before a single pitch is thrown. Today, the game’s true heroes are those who know how to acquire talent well, while the goats are those that squander large sums of money on players who underperform (yes, I’m looking at you Mets and Cubs).  Major League Baseball, as it is now constructed, reflects the crass values of free-market capitalism, disguised as sport. It rewards those who can afford to spend enormous sums of money, and punishes those who cannot.  Even those teams that work hard to develop young talent are denied the fruits of their labor, as often they are unable to keep pace with the exorbitant salary demands of rising stars.

And now, to make matters worse, the Valhalla of modern sports leagues, the NFL, teeters on the edge of experimenting with the same disastrous system. Jerry Jones, the wealthy owner of the wealthy Cowboys, has made little attempt to hide his glee at the prospect of unrestrained spending. Dan Snyder of the Redskins could actually buy his way out of the perennial train-wreck that is his team.  In places like Minnesota, New Orleans and Pittsburgh, however, the outlook is far grimmer. For franchises like this, it will quickly become impossible to keep their star players, and they will soon become the Pirates, Royals and Nationals of the NFL. Always poor, always losing. To be fair, one or perhaps two of these teams won’t stay poor long. Remember, the second largest metropolitan area in the nation, Los Angeles, is just waiting for its chance to get back in the game. While the nicknames Vikings or Saints would have no local connection, oddly enough, with a slight change in spelling, the Los Angeles Stealers would actually be a nice fit.

So, if you want to look into the crystal ball and see what the future of competition in the NFL is like, just replace the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers and Angels with Cowboys, Redskins, Giants and Jets. If you’re a fan of some other NFL team, this would be the time to change allegiances, before you’re forced to experience the heartbreak of seeing your guys reduced to the role of generic schedule-fillers for teams that matter.

Of course, for those lucky fans of big-market teams, there’s always next year. But for fans from places like Kansas City, Pittsburgh or San Diego, next year promises just more of the same. Their seasons were over before they began. Thanks, Major League Baseball. And welcome aboard, NFL.

Posted in Baseball, Football, Sports. Tags: , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Ten Most Effective U.S. Presidents

October 30, 2009 — jamieumbc

American presidents can (and routinely are) ranked in vague categories such as “Best” and “Worst.” Of course, these terms are wholly dependent on your political philosophy, and so are poor choices for assessing value. They make for great arguments, but that’s about all. I’ve taken a different approach here.

In my view, a president arrives in Washington with an agenda, and is either successful or unsuccessful in implementing that agenda. Often, their agenda is expanded or modified by changing events in their times, and again, they are either successful or unsuccessful in responding to these dynamics. This Friday’s History List examines how effective presidents were in implementing their agendas: how much legislation they initiated, to what degree they set the tone for government policy, the extent to which they shaped their times.

Let the second-guessing begin:

10. Richard Nixon: Love him or hate him, the late 1960s and early 1970s were all about Richard Milhous Nixon. He entered office with the undeclared war in Southeast Asia as the nation’s albatross, and personally directed its prosecution. Without a mandate to do so, he escalated the conflict, and then shifted the emphasis from ground forces to air power, and eventually negotiated with the North Vietnamese. He successfully split the Soviets and the Chinese from Hanoi by playing the two superpowers off against each other, and then initiated the foreign policy objective of Détente to reduce tensions between the East and West. In doing so, Nixon laid the groundwork for much that was to follow. Domestically, he implemented new economic policies and rallied the “silent majority” to action, and was returned to office for a second term in a landslide of historic proportions. The only real threat to Richard Nixon was, in the end, himself. Were it not for his self-inflicted wounds, his presidency would have been seen as an unmitigated triumph.

9. Woodrow Wilson: Entering the White House as a progressive, Wilson is credited with a number of legislative landmarks, such as the Federal Reserve Act (which created a banking system that is largely unchanged in a century), the Federal Trade Commission, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and America’s first-ever federal progressive income tax in the Revenue Act of 1913. Wilson lowered tariffs where others had failed to do so, and generally had his way with a like-minded Democratic Congress. (Before you write off his accomplishments because of his legislative majorities, remember the examples of the Clinton Administration in 1993 and the Obama Administration today. It’s not as automatic as you might think.) Wilson was also a wartime leader, mobilizing a nation completely unprepared for war in 1917, and eventually sending millions of troops to France in 1918, in what would be the death blow to Imperial Germany. He also raised the international profile of the United States at the Paris Peace Talks, making America one of the world’s major powers for the first time. Like Nixon, Wilson’s failure, his inability to get the Versailles Treaty ratified, was largely due to the quirks of his personality. A devastating stroke effectively ended his presidency in 1919.

8. Ronald Reagan: For eight years, Ronald Reagan was America’s chief cheerleader and its patron saint of conservative politics. Under his leadership, the Republican Party regained its prestige, and the nation enjoyed a period of economic prosperity fueled by lowered taxes and greatly increased spending, especially in the area of national defense. Entering office during a period of economic stagnation, with high unemployment, interest rates and a general feeling of cynicism about the nation’s future, Reagan, ever the professional actor, took center stage and personified America’s newfound optimism and vigor. His rapid recovery from an assassination attempt just a few weeks into his presidency cemented his image as a tough, unflappable leader. Democrats found that policy attacks, even when seeming to be successful, did little to Reagan’s approval ratings; this led to one one his many nicknames, “The Teflon President.” He was also known as “The Great Communicator” for his ability to share his vision of America as a land of prosperity and opportunity, and he easily won a second term. The Iran-Contra scandal tainted his image and his effectiveness in the waning months of his administration, but the American people stayed largely supportive of him. A testament to his influence can be seen even today in the way in which conservatives invoke his name to add gravitas to their ideas.

7.  James Knox Polk: Responsible for the second largest land acquisition in U.S. history, Polk came into office committed to Manifest Destiny and intent on extending the country’s borders north, south and west. Upon his election, Texas was immediately allowed to enter the union, pushing the U.S. border to the Rio Grande, which aggravated Mexico. He then moved aggressively to initiate war with Mexico in his second year, a war which was swiftly won, in spite of the Americans having a typically small professional army that would be compelled to invade and conquer its enemy. (Many observers, including Wellington himself, predicted disaster for Winfield Scott’s army as it marched on Mexico City.) In the peace treaty that followed, Polk confiscated what is now the Southwest United States, including California, from his defeated neighbor. He bluffed an intention to take the Oregon Country as far north as the 54th parallel, and then negotiated a treaty with Britain to split the territory at the 49th parallel. Domestically, he reduced tariffs, established an independent treasury system and the Department of the Interior. Having achieved everything he wanted in one term, Polk retired to Tennessee and exhausted, died a few months later.

6. Lyndon Johnson: In his five years in office, LBJ accomplished almost everything that his predecessor, John Kennedy, could not. While Kennedy dreamed of a civil rights bill but was incapable of getting Congress to pass one, Johnson muscled and maneuvered legislation through Washington like it was his private playground.  With over twenty years on Capitol Hill, including six as Senate Majority Leader, Johnson was highly skilled in the delicate nuances that were necessary to get bills successfully to his desk. Johnson championed his vision of “The Great Society,” which he saw as a second New Deal, and was responsible for The Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Voting Rights Act of 1965, aid to education, Medicaid, Medicare, urban renewal, conservation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, and other programs to funnel federal funds to economically depressed regions. Were it not for increasing American involvement in a war Johnson inherited, and the ugly public backlash that became associated with it, LBJ might be remembered as one of our greatest presidents. Like a doomed hero in a Greek tragedy, Johnson saw his future clearly but was powerless to change it: “I knew from the start if I left a woman I really loved — the Great Society — in order to fight that bitch of a war in Vietnam then I would lose everything at home. My hopes my dreams.”

5. Andrew Jackson: Old Hickory rolled into Washington with such force that an era is named after him. Ending years of what he (and many Americans) considered to be elitist government, Jackson threw open the doors of power to the people, and remade the executive branch in the process. Previous to Jackson, Presidents tended to work with Congress to shape the national agenda. Jackson determined that he would have his way in spite of Congress, or the courts for that matter. Jackson distrusted big government, and he hated debt. The two ideas combined as Jackson became the only American president to completely pay off the national debt. Jackson called for the abolishment of the Electoral College and encouraged the regular replacement of government bureaucrats with his loyalists, and punished those who were suspect. The “spoils system,” in many ways, lives on today.  Jackson came into office planning on ejecting all Indians living east of the Mississippi to what is today Oklahoma, resulting in the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which even the Supreme Court could not stop. Hundreds of millions of acres in the American South were soon free for development. Jackson also personally destroyed the Second National Bank of the United States, which he considered a bastion of privilege and corruption. When South Carolina, angered at tariffs that favored northern manufacturing,  began to speak openly of secession and nullification, Jackson made it policy that the state would remain loyal by force, if necessary. South Carolina opted to compromise instead. At the end of his second term, hating banks and paper money to the end, Jackson enacted his “specie circular” that forced all government lands to be purchased in coin, which he thought would end speculation and leave the land to common people. What it did instead was help to hasten an economic depression (but he would leave Martin Van Buren to wrestle with that). The sheer force of Jackson’s dynamic personality defined a generation and rippled across the American political landscape for decades to come.

4. George Washington: Washington ranks this high on my list because everything he did established a precedent, and almost everything he did is still practiced today, which in my view, is pretty strong evidence of effectiveness. To provide you with a sampling, Washington initially saw it as the president’s duty to take a prospective treaty to the Senate, and then work alongside the senators on the details of the treaty. This is how he read “advice and consent.” He only had to experience this once before he determined that he would never do it again. From that point forward, all presidents have executed treaties on their own, and then sent the finished product to the Senate for a ratification. Washington fought to have his executive officers (cabinet members) reporting not to Congress, but to him. Washington, in eschewing the trappings of a European head of state, forever established the position as one close to the people. By not seeking a third term, he established by custom that which is now a part of the constitution. By acting quickly to enforce federal taxing rights, he established the authority of the federal government to use force against its own people, if necessary. The Jay Treaty, while immensely  unpopular, was critical in keeping the then-fragile United States out of a potentially disastrous war with England.  Lastly, it must be noted that Washington, D.C. is aptly named, as it was George Washington who worked so hard to enshrine the capital within a day’s ride of Mount Vernon, on land he knew well and had surveyed often. When he had finished his second term, he (along with Alexander Hamilton) penned a farewell address, another presidential practice that continues today. Washington perhaps wasn’t the policy force of many other presidents, but then again, he was probably too busy creating the office of President of the United States to notice.

3. Theodore Roosevelt: Roosevelt entered the White House unexpectedly, after the death of William McKinley. TR never would have been elected in his own right, because no party machine in its right mind would have set such a wild and independent spirit at the controls of government. Roosevelt was a 180° change from the low-activity standpatters who had preceded him. Not beholden to party politics, and determined to make a difference, TR sued mega-conglomerates or trusts, dissolving them into smaller, less threatening companies that were no longer monopolies. For this he earned the epithet of “Trustbuster.” Roosevelt also got legislative approval for stricter food and drug laws, and his “Square Deal” economic program focused on helping average Americans at a time when 95% of the nation’s wealth was controlled by the top 1% of the population. Theodore Roosevelt was a great lover of nature, and as president, he set aside hundreds of millions of acres of federal land, created wildlife preserves where none had ever existed before, and restricted federal land sales in protected areas. TR was a committed expansionist, and he worked hard to build up the U.S. Navy; at the end of his second term he sent much of it around the world on a goodwill cruise to display American power and reach. Roosevelt’s greatest display of presidential power may have been in the creation of the Panama Canal. When Colombia, which controlled the Isthmus at the time, refused to let Teddy construct his canal, TR interjected the U.S. into a Panamanian rebellion against Colombia, and then negotiated with the people he had helped into power the rights to build and control the canal. While Congress debated his excesses, the Canal was completed in record time and under budget.  And, during his spare time, he helped negotiate the end of the Russo-Japanese War, earning himself a Nobel Prize. By the time he was done, Roosevelt had turned the office of the President into a “bully pulpit,” and remade American conceptions of presidential power forever.

2. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: No one has been president for so long (12 years) or faced quite so much hardship in his time of office (the Great Depression and World War II). Four times elected president, FDR became the personification of American power and perseverance, and projected it while carrying two ten-pound metal braces on his legs so that he wouldn’t fall down. Elected with a mandate to rescue the nation from its worst economic crisis ever, Franklin Roosevelt exuded hope to a people accustomed to despondency. Acting immediately, in his fabled first hundred days in office, FDR enacted much of the framework of his “New Deal” economic program, intent on getting Americans working again, even if it cost the government a fortune to do it. Roosevelt recognized that being employed was key to a person’s sense of dignity, and he created agency after agency in an attempt to put people to work. Some programs worked; others failed. As the years went by, Roosevelt kept getting legislation passed, much of it regulatory in nature, hoping to reign in the excesses of free market capitalism that he blamed for the crisis, such as the establishment of the  Securities and Exchange Commission and the FDIC. Roosevelt also looked to protect Americans at risk of impoverishment by establishing federal programs to support individuals financially with programs like Social Security and the establishment of a national minimum wage; Roosevelt protected unions with the passage of the National Labor Relations Act. And after briefly skimming over his domestic agenda, then there’s the whole “world war” thing. While FDR was trying to spend America out of the depression, Europe and Japan were coming under the influence of militaristic and expansionist governments. By 1939, the world was once again at war. Roosevelt, for his part, professed neutrality while quietly helping England to stay afloat. Two years later, Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor settled the matter, and FDR became a wartime leader. As always, the United States had no peacetime military to speak of, so the early months were about calming fears and revving up the war machine. Roosevelt became part the Allied triumvirate that included Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin. For the next three years, FDR, his health fading, led America through its greatest military challenge. In 1945, with the war winding down in Europe and the atomic bomb almost completed in the deserts of New Mexico, Roosevelt began a historic fourth term.  By April he was dead of a cerebral hemorrhage, having endured what was probably too much for any man.

1. Abraham Lincoln: Abraham Lincoln entered office in the worst possible way. Half of the nation that had elected him was so outraged that they had rebelled rather than submit to his authority, a sizable portion of those who stayed loyal thought little of him personally, and the politicians with whom he would have to work thought even less of him. He was threatened with assassination before he had even taken office. The leadership of his own republican party, almost to a man, thought that they would make a better president than he, and some secretly plotted to take the nomination from him in 1864. Once forced into a war he did not want, he was compelled to create an army he did not have, spending money that did not exist. Before Fort Sumter, the regular United States Army numbered 17,000 men, fewer than those who fell in one day at Antietam a year and a half later.  Complicating the matter even further, there was no great moral imperative at the war’s outset, no grievous outrage to avenge. Men were being asked to die to restore a political arrangement between local governments, but die they did, in numbers that were incomprehensible to Lincoln’s constituents. Once it became clear that the Union as it had been could not be restored, Lincoln chose to create a new nation from his own vision, no matter that most people in 1862 disagreed with that vision. His Emancipation Proclamation was to be the single most unpopular act of his administration; his top generals, far more popular than was he, referred to him as “the original gorilla.” His party lost seats in the Congressional midterms and sought to replace him as candidate for president. None of this changed Lincoln’s singular purpose and his ability to focus on the task at hand. He worked eighteen hours days, even as his eleven-year old son lie dying of fever in the White House.  With a patchwork army, precarious financing and shrewed political maneuvering, Lincoln stayed the course and saw the war through to its completion. When it was over, he had expunged America’s original sin of slavery, realigned the balance of power in the federal government and given the nation “a new birth of freedom.”

Posted in History List Friday!, U.S. History. Tags: , , , , . 3 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »