Toppling a Lie

Today is the 10th anniversary of one of television’s biggest lies.

As a reporter trained to look for himself at the edges of the screen after covering a public event, my eyes scanned the perimeter of that TV shot in Baghdad when a few Iraqis were throwing shoes at the Saddam Hussein statue on April 9, 2003.

As the CNN camera pulled back, it exposed the typical distortion of television, specifically the fact there were only about a dozen people in the square. But at the edge of wide shot was a U.S. military vehicle with a crane on it and soldiers hanging off the side just watching -- and waiting. As the CNN live coverage drew even more Iraqis to the square as willing participants in a U.S. TV propaganda production, that military vehicle edged closer to the action until, unbidden, it pulled down the statue. Eventually a rogue soldier mounted a U.S. flag over the scene until some general made him take it down.

The footage and still photographs became an icon of how wonderful America was in bringing “freedom” to Iraq. It was, and remains, a lie; another example in a long history of television and the U.S. military manipulating the truth.

As with the staged photo of Marines raising the flag atop Mt. Suribachi, be skeptical of everything;  for as the basic rule of journalism states: "Believe nothing of what you read and only half of what you see."

And ask yourself if Iraqis, or Americans, are better off today than they were 10 years ago.

Fried Rice

Pardon me, but I am not that exercised about the Rutgers coach fired for verbally abusing and throwing basketballs at players in practice. I am exercised about the context in which the episode occurred, however. 

If coach Mike Rice had not used “anti-gay slurs” but used profanity or other insults, he would still be employed. It doesn’t mean he is anti-gay; it means he used whatever juvenile playground insult he thought (mistakenly) would motivate the players to play better. Clearly calling them faggots did not have the intended effect. But denigrating masculinity, politically incorrect as it may be, is a staple of coaching. Always has been. Maybe it won’t be anymore, and I don’t defend it. It is just another in a long list of immoral Neanderthal attributes of organized sports.

Collegiate sports has nothing to do with education or sportsmanship. It’ s a professional undertaking whose only purpose is bringing money into a university. Mike Rice follows in a long line of atavistic psychotic coaches in college and pro sports. His problem is not what he did, but what he did not do, and that is win. When an employee sought to extort Rutgers by presenting the athletic director with a tape of Rice’s antics, the A.D., suspended and fined the coach, who said he would clean up his act. The university president was informed and let the A.D. handle it. (The A.D., of course, is untouchable because he is the one who is bringing tens of millions of dollars into the state university of New Jersey by joining the Big Ten conference.) The system seemed to have worked, until ESPN got hold of the disgruntled employee’s tape. The A.D., and the university president, made a decision to fire the coach – based on bad publicity and the intervention of Gov. Chris Christie.

Other than elections, I don’t believe public opinion (especially on sports radio and the Internet) ought to be the basis for making decisions. As a student in the late 1960s when governors routinely interfered in the affairs of state universities, I will always object to craven university presidents caving in to political yokels whose commitment to public education goes only so far as cutting budgets and showing up at games.

I don’t think college sports has a place in American educational or cultural life. But since it isn’t going anywhere, I have little problem with these pissant incidents that supposedly compromise the uncompromisable.

Is marriage a right or just a rite?

A major argument for same-sex marriage is that it is a family value that conservatives ought to be happy to encourage.  But that argument is as silly as opposition based on what the Bible says. Face it: LGBT people want the same rights as other people, and opponents of same-sex marriage think that homosexuality is immoral. It seems to me that both views ought to be respected. But why on earth is marriage the arena in which notions of equality and morality are fought?

A long time ago, many progressive people scoffed at the notion of marriage. They asked how can either a civil or religious ceremony bind two people who should be able to live together as long as they both shall love? Now, many of these people say the marriage act is essential for two people in love, as long as both are gay. The argument seems to be that everyone is entitled to equal protection of the law, which now favors married couples at the expense of singles. It makes sense to me, but why on earth are married people getting breaks in the first place? The only reason I can figure is that the state, for whatever reasons, believes marriage is important.  But what I can’t figure out is why the legal framework for marriage is up to the 50 states (or any level of government, anyway).

I don’t care how two people (or three or four; or gerbils or hamsters) choose to amuse themselves in private. Why should the state care? If there is a social good behind the institution of marriage, it seems to me it is because children thrive when their parents are married, and historically the more children a marital unit has, the more hands there are to work and to make up for infant mortality (neither of which is a big problem right now.)

If one is to argue that the purpose of marriage is to procreate, the question arises regarding couples who are infertile, those who choose not to repopulate and those who marry past the age of fertility. Should they be prevented from marrying? Of course not. Nor should anyone else. But, again, I ask, why should they marry in the first place? And, more important, why is it any of the state’s business to approve or disapprove of historically notorious promises of love and fidelity.

 

As the old gag goes about why marriage is important: "Why fight with strangers?"

Highway Robbery

There is one constituency that someone ought to organize to put the fear of defeat into local politicians – those of us with excellent driving records who are shelling out tax money under the guise of violating speed limits as determined by remote cameras. 

I am not for speeding or any other traffic violation. And I am in favor of cameras that catch red-light runners because there is hard evidence that crashes are reduced at such locations. I am also in favor of placing a hidden cop at locations where traffic experts have found there to be a speeding problem. 

I have in more than 48 years of driving received maybe four tickets for moving violations. I have had that many speed camera tickets in the past year, and it infuriates me for the following reasons: 

1)  It is a hidden tax. As I told my county councilmen by email (no response, of course) that if he would like to raise my taxes, raise my taxes. Just don’t lie about how you are doing it.

2)  Another of my councilmen, who may well be reading this, assured me in a personal conversation that it is fair because you get a 12 mph grace speed. In other words, the camera doesn’t click until you are 13 mph over the posted limit. I find it an incredible coincidence that each of these highway robbery cameras has clocked me at exactly 13 mph over a 35 mph limit each single time. I am not THAT good a driver to go the exact same speed at various locations at various times. So it is clearly a rigged game.

3)  The cameras are placed at locations where the posted limit is much lower than the traffic will bear, so to speak. Yes, many of them are near schools but also on multi-lane roads that are heavily traveled. Yet during school hours on school days, the traffic is heavy enough to make speeding unlikely, if not impossible. Why are these cameras still operating on Sunday afternoons, or mid-evening, when there is not only little auto but no pedestrian traffic? 

 

My solution is twofold: I will avoid certain areas, which means I will do my shopping elsewhere, including other jurisdictions, and I will vote against every single local incumbent when they are on the ballot in two years.   

I am not a community organizer, but I am certain if someone would organize a political movement against speed cameras, politicians would take note. And no fewer people would be killed by speeders.

Hypocrites, Thieves and Bullies -- Observations on the 2012 Election

People who should know better sometimes ask me what I think is going to happen in an election. I used to give my predictions with a certainty born of pure guesswork. Now I am wiser, and my answer is, “How the hell should I know?” 

You have the same information as I do, my predictions have been wrong in the past and conventional wisdom has been wrong in the past, too. 

But I do have some observations about the 2012 election, stated here just in case I predict something correctly and can say, “I told you so.” 

 

Here are some near certainties: 

1) – If the election is very close, Republicans will use their governors and their federal judges to steal what they need to install Mitt Romney. 

2) – If Romney loses narrowly, it will be because Obama is a nominal Christian but Romney is a full fledged Mormon. As Chris Rock put it, “Do we want the son of a Mexican immigrant or an American who is the son of a white mother?” 

3) – If Obama loses narrowly, it will be because he is black. This country has never gotten over its racism and latent fascism. Romney is rich, white, handsome and utterly amoral -- usually a winning observation.  

4) – If Obama loses, it will also be because enough black and minority voters are too stupid or lazy to vote. On every major issue, blacks, minorities and a large portion of white establishment voters outnumber Republicans and conservatives. Therefore, Democrats should win every national election. But Republicans are very good at frightening people into voting against their own interests after lying about what those interests are. 

5) – The outcome of some Senate race heretofore thought to be a walk in the park for some incumbent will stun everyone, most notably the guy who was defeated. (Here, I share one of my favorite post-upset comments. It is from one of the true ignoramuses to ever hold a Senate seat, Gordon Humphrey of New Hampshire, who said, “All campaigns are sloppy. Winning campaigns have their slop moving in the right direction.”) 

6) – Early voting is a disaster and will be responsible for court challenges and ambiguous outcomes. Voting should occur for 24 hours on the appointed day, the same 24 hours from Maine to Hawaii, followed by announcement of the results. Absentee ballots should be allowed, as in the past, only for sworn reasons of expected absenteeism from one’s residence.  

Here are some guesses: 

1) – Romney will win the popular vote. If Obama wins the electoral vote, Republicans will be in the streets and courts, unmindful of the 2000 election. That is because Republicans are hypocrites, thieves and dastardly bullies who have no regard for their fellow man or for democracy.

2) – No matter who wins, he will be held in contempt by most of those who voted for him. As Democratic strategist Paul Begala once said, “Campaigning is about screwing your enemies. Governing is about screwing your friends.”

3) – If Obama loses, Democrats still will never realize they have to fight dirtier than Republicans. If Obama wins, he will continue to govern as a centrist Republican.

4) – About six months into a Romney presidency, people will wonder just what it is that he meant when he said of his business background, “I’ve done it and I will do it again.” The last presidents whose background was business were George W. Bush and Herbert Hoover. It was Calvin Coolidge, remember, who said, “The business of America is business.” What followed was the Depression.

5) – If Romney is elected, tens of thousands of Americans, many of whom voted for him, will die unnecessarily because of his foreign policy and health policy. 

6) – The largest demographic group in America consists of stupid people. But in a perfect manifestation of the democratic ideal, they are usually governed by  stupid people. It is because people vote not on issues or direction of the country but on who makes them feel good about themselves. We have survived this far, but had we as a people voted for the smarter and better human being most of the time, we would not be as close to terminal decline as we are at this moment. 

 

Because I wish to continue to feel good about myself, I will not be voting for president.

(Disclosure: My vote will not matter because the abominable Electoral College makes it meaningless anyway.) I am more concerned about whether my state will flush its history, good name and decent politics down the toilet of casino gambling. Vote No on Question 7.