Stuart Connelly's Blog, page 3
April 7, 2011
Sneak Peek
If anyone out there in Goodreads-land would like to check out a sample short story from the new collection, it is downloadable and free from Barnes and Noble here:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-...
Would love to hear people's thoughts.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-...
Would love to hear people's thoughts.
February 9, 2011
Fighting Against Corporate America
I resent the corporate mentality that posits customers must give up certain rights before receiving the benefit of transacting business.
Fighting Against Corporate Mentality
I resent the corporate mentality that posits customers must give up certain rights before receiving the benefit of transacting business.
February 3, 2011
Dismembered
About fifteen years ago I paid a small fortune for an indoor parking spot at a private attended garage in downtown San Francisco. My car was broken into while I was shopping--window smashed and CD player taken. When I spoke to the attendant about their insurance coverage, he told me:
"We're not liable. It says so right there, on the back."
I flipped over the ticket, the one I had needed to take from the vending machine in order to get the gate to swing up. Sure enough, printed on the back was a contract. One whose terms I had apparently agreed to simply by taking the ticket. One whose terms, not surprisingly, favored the garage.
And I thought I was angry about the break-in... Compared to this nonsense, the smash-and-grab guy I'd fallen prey to was a pillar of the community. The garage's cynical perspective: they'd gone ahead and lined up my legal recourse in anticipation of my misfortune. No recourse at all. They weren't sorry, had no intention of making it right or filing a claim. And the attendant's goal was to scare me into accepting the situation as not only the logical norm, but something to which I'd actually consented.
That technique probably works on many if not most of the people who would find themselves in this situation--you can't fight City Hall--and that's what drove me crazy about it. It was a subtle form of intimidation. You took the ticket, we told you about your risks. it's not our problem you didn't read it.
But I never signed a contract, I had every right to believe to believe I was paying for the safety of my vehicle, and nothing printed on a ticket changed that fact.
I went Ralph Nader on them. Time meant nothing to me, this was a matter of principle. The result was a long and hostile series of shouting matches, calls to the Consumer Protection Bureau, letters to the insurance carrier and the garage's parent company.
I was the squeaky wheel, and eventually I was reimbursed for the robbery. The money was nice, but certainly not the point. I resent the fascist corporate mentality that posits customers must give up certain rights before receiving the benefit of transacting business.
I bring this up all these years later because recently a very large credit card company that I have a long history and a global airline known for service teamed up to use similar tactics on me. After transferring from credit card points to a partner airline (points that represent more than $200,000 worth of my spending) I am told that the free tickets I wanted come with fees in excess of two thousand dollars. With this revelation, I wanted to cancel the transfer. I was told that it was "irreversible."
Irreversible.
The terms "awards," "loyalty," and "customer service" were all over the titles of the people I talked with at both transnationals, but none of them had any interest in returning what I had rightfully earned. I had not redeemed the points or even booked any tickets. They were numbers one computer emailed to another that could not, under heaven or earth, be moved back.
Take it or leave it, they said. Read your membership agreement, they said. We have a policy, they said.
They think they're protected by their legal department. The same line of garbage as in San Francisco, on a much bigger scale.
But these people don't know what the garage owners learned.
There is the court of public opinion.
Stay tuned...
"We're not liable. It says so right there, on the back."
I flipped over the ticket, the one I had needed to take from the vending machine in order to get the gate to swing up. Sure enough, printed on the back was a contract. One whose terms I had apparently agreed to simply by taking the ticket. One whose terms, not surprisingly, favored the garage.
And I thought I was angry about the break-in... Compared to this nonsense, the smash-and-grab guy I'd fallen prey to was a pillar of the community. The garage's cynical perspective: they'd gone ahead and lined up my legal recourse in anticipation of my misfortune. No recourse at all. They weren't sorry, had no intention of making it right or filing a claim. And the attendant's goal was to scare me into accepting the situation as not only the logical norm, but something to which I'd actually consented.
That technique probably works on many if not most of the people who would find themselves in this situation--you can't fight City Hall--and that's what drove me crazy about it. It was a subtle form of intimidation. You took the ticket, we told you about your risks. it's not our problem you didn't read it.
But I never signed a contract, I had every right to believe to believe I was paying for the safety of my vehicle, and nothing printed on a ticket changed that fact.
I went Ralph Nader on them. Time meant nothing to me, this was a matter of principle. The result was a long and hostile series of shouting matches, calls to the Consumer Protection Bureau, letters to the insurance carrier and the garage's parent company.
I was the squeaky wheel, and eventually I was reimbursed for the robbery. The money was nice, but certainly not the point. I resent the fascist corporate mentality that posits customers must give up certain rights before receiving the benefit of transacting business.
I bring this up all these years later because recently a very large credit card company that I have a long history and a global airline known for service teamed up to use similar tactics on me. After transferring from credit card points to a partner airline (points that represent more than $200,000 worth of my spending) I am told that the free tickets I wanted come with fees in excess of two thousand dollars. With this revelation, I wanted to cancel the transfer. I was told that it was "irreversible."
Irreversible.
The terms "awards," "loyalty," and "customer service" were all over the titles of the people I talked with at both transnationals, but none of them had any interest in returning what I had rightfully earned. I had not redeemed the points or even booked any tickets. They were numbers one computer emailed to another that could not, under heaven or earth, be moved back.
Take it or leave it, they said. Read your membership agreement, they said. We have a policy, they said.
They think they're protected by their legal department. The same line of garbage as in San Francisco, on a much bigger scale.
But these people don't know what the garage owners learned.
There is the court of public opinion.
Stay tuned...
January 19, 2011
Downward, Christian Soldiers
Okay, it's been simmering for awhile, but the feeling will not go away. Time to go on record: this Giffords assault feels like a watershed moment to me. The time has come for this nation's fundamentalists to have a real "come-to-Jesus" meeting. Pulling maps that feature crosshairs off political websites is not the same as looking deep into the mirror and saying, What is it that I stand for as a human being?
I was recently speaking with Clarence B. Jones (the co-author of our new book Behind The Dream) about Martin Luther King's private side and some historians' concerns about King's personal behaviors. Jones told me, "Nothing I ever heard Martin say or saw him do was in any way inconsistent with his 24/7 commitment to the belief that our people should be free."
Inconsistency, at least with respect to morals, is a synonym for hypocrisy. It should be poison in politics. Somehow, people can praise Jesus and bomb abortion offices in the same day and still sleep at night. They can look at insurance as tyranny but attempted assassination as pilgrimage. And the rest of America may condemn the violence, but they never seem to point out the underlying philosophical contradiction.
As Buddy Blue once sang, "My two main men are Jesus and ol' John Birch." But he was mocking you, and somehow I get the feeling if you Tea Party members ever stumbled across his brilliant Gun Sale At The Church you wouldn't get the joke.
So I'm throwing down the gauntlet here: Fundamentalist voters, members of the Christian Coalition, Glenn Beck enthusiasts, Sarah Palin reality show viewers, pick a side. You clutch the Bill of Rights in one hand and the New Testament in the other. Time to drop one. Because if you are both Christian and some kind of amateur strict Constitutional constructionist, you have an inconsistency problem of very large proportions. (Members of the Far Right who are not Christians would certainly be excused from this exercise, though they seem to me to be exceedingly few and far between.)
Guns do one thing. They kill.
Christ taught us to love one another, turn the other cheek, forgive.
Time to get right with Jesus, Smith and Wesson.
Right now, in the privacy of your own mind, choose the make and caliber of the weapon you own that's closest to your heart, then choose your favorite Jesus of Nazareth quote. Got them? Now decide which is more important to you - your God or your Glock. If you had to give up one or the other. You know, Sophie's Choice... gun to your head...
Can you decide? I'm not going to get my hopes up. I suspect when I check back later in the comments section, most of you will take the opportunity to argue loudly with my premise. Because you've been led to believe you can have both Christianity and violence. But inside, you know that's a lie. A lie perpetrated by opinion leaders in the media and the political stage who prey on average Americans to get what they want: glory, fame, attention, book deals someone else can write for them, wealth, power. All at your expense.
Because there is one area I am certain Jesus and people like Sarah Palin share completely: they lead tremendous numbers of people in a direction of their own choosing. They are shepherds. The difference is the direction the sheep are moving together. The far right are the sheep who think they have a divine right to pack heat. And you don't even know you're being flocked.
The intersection of guns and god is really that both subjects deal with the fears people have. Genuine, understandable fears about death, insignificance, powerlessness. Bad interpretations of founding documents and scripture by the powerful simply attempt to soothe those concerns over. But at a dear price, as the events in Arizona last week can attest.
I was recently speaking with Clarence B. Jones (the co-author of our new book Behind The Dream) about Martin Luther King's private side and some historians' concerns about King's personal behaviors. Jones told me, "Nothing I ever heard Martin say or saw him do was in any way inconsistent with his 24/7 commitment to the belief that our people should be free."
Inconsistency, at least with respect to morals, is a synonym for hypocrisy. It should be poison in politics. Somehow, people can praise Jesus and bomb abortion offices in the same day and still sleep at night. They can look at insurance as tyranny but attempted assassination as pilgrimage. And the rest of America may condemn the violence, but they never seem to point out the underlying philosophical contradiction.
As Buddy Blue once sang, "My two main men are Jesus and ol' John Birch." But he was mocking you, and somehow I get the feeling if you Tea Party members ever stumbled across his brilliant Gun Sale At The Church you wouldn't get the joke.
So I'm throwing down the gauntlet here: Fundamentalist voters, members of the Christian Coalition, Glenn Beck enthusiasts, Sarah Palin reality show viewers, pick a side. You clutch the Bill of Rights in one hand and the New Testament in the other. Time to drop one. Because if you are both Christian and some kind of amateur strict Constitutional constructionist, you have an inconsistency problem of very large proportions. (Members of the Far Right who are not Christians would certainly be excused from this exercise, though they seem to me to be exceedingly few and far between.)
Guns do one thing. They kill.
Christ taught us to love one another, turn the other cheek, forgive.
Time to get right with Jesus, Smith and Wesson.
Right now, in the privacy of your own mind, choose the make and caliber of the weapon you own that's closest to your heart, then choose your favorite Jesus of Nazareth quote. Got them? Now decide which is more important to you - your God or your Glock. If you had to give up one or the other. You know, Sophie's Choice... gun to your head...
Can you decide? I'm not going to get my hopes up. I suspect when I check back later in the comments section, most of you will take the opportunity to argue loudly with my premise. Because you've been led to believe you can have both Christianity and violence. But inside, you know that's a lie. A lie perpetrated by opinion leaders in the media and the political stage who prey on average Americans to get what they want: glory, fame, attention, book deals someone else can write for them, wealth, power. All at your expense.
Because there is one area I am certain Jesus and people like Sarah Palin share completely: they lead tremendous numbers of people in a direction of their own choosing. They are shepherds. The difference is the direction the sheep are moving together. The far right are the sheep who think they have a divine right to pack heat. And you don't even know you're being flocked.
The intersection of guns and god is really that both subjects deal with the fears people have. Genuine, understandable fears about death, insignificance, powerlessness. Bad interpretations of founding documents and scripture by the powerful simply attempt to soothe those concerns over. But at a dear price, as the events in Arizona last week can attest.
November 12, 2010
Patriot Games: Why the New Valerie Plame Film Matters
Seeing the new Doug Liman film Fair Game last night was a chilling reminder of the power of the presidential agenda, and the cruelty with which those in the ruling class can crush the truth in the name of whatever they've got cooking.
November 6, 2010
October 14, 2010
What About The Wisdom? The View & Bill O'Reilly
I don't know if I have the stomach to be able to stand writing about either The View or Bill O'Reilly individually, so I actually welcome the opportunity to deal with them both in one posting. It's kind of a two-birds-with-one-stone situation.
Fortunately, The View doesn't require much attention. As many people know by by now (because it passes as news), both Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg walked off the stage in the middle of an interview with Bill O'Reilly, the tone of which they apparently found too offensive to handle. The discussion, about the possible building of an Islamic center near the former site of the World Trade Center, is certainly a sensitive topic. One that can stir strong emotions. But bailing out on a guest on your own television program is such a bush league move that it's hard for me to believe the show airs on an actual nationwide TV network and is not part of some local cable access programming obligation. When you invite Bill O'Reilly on your show, do you not know what you're going to get?
I'd like to imagine the bit was in fact some kind of publicity maneuver, but I can't give the show that much credit. These women just let their emotions get the best of them. You or I might have done the same, but we're not professional interviewers who get paid handsomely to control what goes out over the airwaves on our watch.
Not cool, but not that surprising either. Barbara Walters has always worked hard at erasing the already blurred line between news and entertainment, and this supposed issues-oriented show (with nearly a half-dozen hosts, most of whom talk at the same time) makes CNN's old Crossfire show look like coverage of the British Parliament.
Mr. O'Reilly's behavior, on the other hand, demands closer inspection. He played by the rules; he showed up, said some controvertial things, and was completely ready to engage in head-to-head (-to-head, etc.) debate with the hosts. He takes himself seriously as a political analyst, so I don't quite understand why he'd feel the need to be a guest on The View in the first place; surely he gets enough exposure as it is, and in the right arenas. But there he was, and what he said, just before more than a quarter of the hosts exited in protest, was that while he agrees it is unconstitutional to prevent the building of a Muslim-oriented complex near Ground Zero, he questions the "wisdom" of allowing it. Naturally, this comment was merely a jumping-off point that led to blaming President Obama's low approval ratings on the fact that Obama offered no opinion on the wisdom of this right. It bothers people, according to O'Reilly, that the president won't say it's a bad idea even despite the fact that the Constitution allows it. He claims that 70% of Americans don't want the Mosque built, and as a result, Obama's refusal to give his opinion on whether or not he fell into that group irritated people.
Is the picture clear? O'Reilly feels voters are turned off by a president who doesn't opine on the wrongheadedness of certain Constitutional rights.
Now, Goldberg tried to get in the fact that Muslims died in the terrorist attacks. But it was poorly focused and off point. Had she and Behar prodded this issue like professional interviewers we have an expectation to see on network television, they might have come up with something like: The Second Amendment gives people the right to carry guns, Mr. O'Reilly, and any time anyone brings up the wisdom of reexamining in a musket-era right semiautomatic world, the right screams about how the Constitution can never, ever be second-guessed.
One can imagine how someone like satirist Harry Shearer might've handled the opportunity. Every week on his NPR radio program Le Show, he throws away cutting lines that could be mined deeply and seriously for his entire broadcast hour. In a quick mocking of the controversy over the Ground Zero Mosque a few weeks back, Shearer suggested that surely no Christian groups have been allowed to build anything near the Federal Building site in Oklahoma City, since Timothy McViegh is a Christian. Funny stuff, but why? Because it's patently absurd and indefensible.
Yet O'Reilly's not joking. How would he answer this question about a Christian terrorist? Goldberg and Behar were too busy feeling affronted to delve into an area like that. Instead, they moaned and scowled and let O'Reilly say "Muslims killed us on 9/11" a couple times so they could storm off.
O'Reilly may have been wrong on the politics, but he was on-point about television appearances, which is more than I can say for the women of The View.
Fortunately, The View doesn't require much attention. As many people know by by now (because it passes as news), both Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg walked off the stage in the middle of an interview with Bill O'Reilly, the tone of which they apparently found too offensive to handle. The discussion, about the possible building of an Islamic center near the former site of the World Trade Center, is certainly a sensitive topic. One that can stir strong emotions. But bailing out on a guest on your own television program is such a bush league move that it's hard for me to believe the show airs on an actual nationwide TV network and is not part of some local cable access programming obligation. When you invite Bill O'Reilly on your show, do you not know what you're going to get?
I'd like to imagine the bit was in fact some kind of publicity maneuver, but I can't give the show that much credit. These women just let their emotions get the best of them. You or I might have done the same, but we're not professional interviewers who get paid handsomely to control what goes out over the airwaves on our watch.
Not cool, but not that surprising either. Barbara Walters has always worked hard at erasing the already blurred line between news and entertainment, and this supposed issues-oriented show (with nearly a half-dozen hosts, most of whom talk at the same time) makes CNN's old Crossfire show look like coverage of the British Parliament.
Mr. O'Reilly's behavior, on the other hand, demands closer inspection. He played by the rules; he showed up, said some controvertial things, and was completely ready to engage in head-to-head (-to-head, etc.) debate with the hosts. He takes himself seriously as a political analyst, so I don't quite understand why he'd feel the need to be a guest on The View in the first place; surely he gets enough exposure as it is, and in the right arenas. But there he was, and what he said, just before more than a quarter of the hosts exited in protest, was that while he agrees it is unconstitutional to prevent the building of a Muslim-oriented complex near Ground Zero, he questions the "wisdom" of allowing it. Naturally, this comment was merely a jumping-off point that led to blaming President Obama's low approval ratings on the fact that Obama offered no opinion on the wisdom of this right. It bothers people, according to O'Reilly, that the president won't say it's a bad idea even despite the fact that the Constitution allows it. He claims that 70% of Americans don't want the Mosque built, and as a result, Obama's refusal to give his opinion on whether or not he fell into that group irritated people.
Is the picture clear? O'Reilly feels voters are turned off by a president who doesn't opine on the wrongheadedness of certain Constitutional rights.
Now, Goldberg tried to get in the fact that Muslims died in the terrorist attacks. But it was poorly focused and off point. Had she and Behar prodded this issue like professional interviewers we have an expectation to see on network television, they might have come up with something like: The Second Amendment gives people the right to carry guns, Mr. O'Reilly, and any time anyone brings up the wisdom of reexamining in a musket-era right semiautomatic world, the right screams about how the Constitution can never, ever be second-guessed.
One can imagine how someone like satirist Harry Shearer might've handled the opportunity. Every week on his NPR radio program Le Show, he throws away cutting lines that could be mined deeply and seriously for his entire broadcast hour. In a quick mocking of the controversy over the Ground Zero Mosque a few weeks back, Shearer suggested that surely no Christian groups have been allowed to build anything near the Federal Building site in Oklahoma City, since Timothy McViegh is a Christian. Funny stuff, but why? Because it's patently absurd and indefensible.
Yet O'Reilly's not joking. How would he answer this question about a Christian terrorist? Goldberg and Behar were too busy feeling affronted to delve into an area like that. Instead, they moaned and scowled and let O'Reilly say "Muslims killed us on 9/11" a couple times so they could storm off.
O'Reilly may have been wrong on the politics, but he was on-point about television appearances, which is more than I can say for the women of The View.
September 16, 2010
Ideology in Action
There is concern among some in the GOP leadership that, by beating a more sensible candidate for the Republican spot in Tuesday's primary, Carl Paladino will have inadvertently handed the New York governorship to the Democrats this coming November.
Now what kind of can-do thinking is that? It smacks more of the weasel-like maneuvering of business-as-usual politics, and the rabid conservative movement doesn't strike me as the type of organization to concentrate on something as elitist as "strategy." Not when there are such important things at stake; things like honor, family values, and of course, Jesus Christ. I say to the Republican Party -- embrace the candidacy of one of those guys who's all angry and sweaty about some picture-book version of America getting yanked out from under our feet. Get behind him.
And if indeed the Republican Party stands for honor, why not commit? Fight the good fight, and let New Yorkers know what they'll get if they vote for Mr. Paladino. If they don't want what he's selling, so be it. You tried, right? It's not like a Tea Party candidate would be interested in the job if their agenda had to be watered down to get it.
Let's take the "mosque at Ground Zero" for an example. Here are candidate Paladino's own words from a radio spot during the primary campaign: "As Governor I will use the power of eminent domain to stop this mosque and make the site a war memorial instead of a monument to those who attacked our country."
How refreshing, conflating a vast religion in toto with a terrorist cell. (I wonder about Mr. Paladino's stance towards Christianity every time one of those serial killers says God -- you know, the Christian one -- to dismember teenagers.) Could the Republican leadership possibly be concerned that perhaps even right-leaning voters in New York might realize that the actions of a tiny number of zealots does not condemn an entire religion? And that realization might cost them votes?
Who cares, stand up for what you believe in, right? Isn't that what Glenn Beck's been saying? Everything about the movement grows from the roots of democracy. Unless, of course, those roots get in the way of stirring up emotions in voters.
In a July 22 article in the Albany Times Union, Mr. Paladino was quoted as saying, "A mosque would be unacceptable... This is an ideological question, not a freedom of religion issue."
Anyone who thinks that freedom of religion or any of the other concepts covered in The Constitution and The Bill of Rights is anything but an outlining of ideology is a perfect mascot for the Tea Party. Sadly, I don't imagine Mr. Paladino believes what he's saying about it not being a freedom of religion issue, but he does see this ideology phrase as a way to short-circuit critical thinking about his platform and getting people enraged about this perceived slap in the face.
There is your Tea Party philosophy in a nutshell: it's not about the facts, it's about those things I suggest that make you blindingly angry.
Trading in fear, frustration, and all the other pulse-points of human emotion is a time-honored political tactic. "Andrew Cuomo supports the mosque," Mr. Paladino said in a radio ad. "I say it is disrespectful to the thousands who died on 9/11 and their families, insulting to the thousands of troops who've been killed or injured in the ensuing wars and an affront to American people. And it must be stopped."
He's a pretty well-educated man to have his own definition of ideology. But lacking any evidence to the contrary, let's take him at his word. He believes his "ideology" trumps a little thing like freedom of religion. Good to know.
Now close your eyes, New Yorkers, and picture a Gov. Paladino sitting in Albany, contemplating other critical issues of life in the state he runs:
" ... This is an ideological question, not a civil rights issue."
" ... This is an ideological question, not a public heath issue."
"... This is an ideological question, not a legal issue."
Mr. Paladino suggests his war memorial might be a district that "could extend as far as the debris from the 9/11 attacks was distributed." But he's smart enough to know that the national psychic scars of the tragedy spread debris all across the country. The actual Ground Zero boundaries go from sea to shining sea. This understanding will certainly be something Mr. Paladino uses when he tires of the provincial power of governorship and sets his sights on the White House.
And if that happens, you won't be able to find a mosque in New York City... or Oklahoma City, for that matter.
Now what kind of can-do thinking is that? It smacks more of the weasel-like maneuvering of business-as-usual politics, and the rabid conservative movement doesn't strike me as the type of organization to concentrate on something as elitist as "strategy." Not when there are such important things at stake; things like honor, family values, and of course, Jesus Christ. I say to the Republican Party -- embrace the candidacy of one of those guys who's all angry and sweaty about some picture-book version of America getting yanked out from under our feet. Get behind him.
And if indeed the Republican Party stands for honor, why not commit? Fight the good fight, and let New Yorkers know what they'll get if they vote for Mr. Paladino. If they don't want what he's selling, so be it. You tried, right? It's not like a Tea Party candidate would be interested in the job if their agenda had to be watered down to get it.
Let's take the "mosque at Ground Zero" for an example. Here are candidate Paladino's own words from a radio spot during the primary campaign: "As Governor I will use the power of eminent domain to stop this mosque and make the site a war memorial instead of a monument to those who attacked our country."
How refreshing, conflating a vast religion in toto with a terrorist cell. (I wonder about Mr. Paladino's stance towards Christianity every time one of those serial killers says God -- you know, the Christian one -- to dismember teenagers.) Could the Republican leadership possibly be concerned that perhaps even right-leaning voters in New York might realize that the actions of a tiny number of zealots does not condemn an entire religion? And that realization might cost them votes?
Who cares, stand up for what you believe in, right? Isn't that what Glenn Beck's been saying? Everything about the movement grows from the roots of democracy. Unless, of course, those roots get in the way of stirring up emotions in voters.
In a July 22 article in the Albany Times Union, Mr. Paladino was quoted as saying, "A mosque would be unacceptable... This is an ideological question, not a freedom of religion issue."
Anyone who thinks that freedom of religion or any of the other concepts covered in The Constitution and The Bill of Rights is anything but an outlining of ideology is a perfect mascot for the Tea Party. Sadly, I don't imagine Mr. Paladino believes what he's saying about it not being a freedom of religion issue, but he does see this ideology phrase as a way to short-circuit critical thinking about his platform and getting people enraged about this perceived slap in the face.
There is your Tea Party philosophy in a nutshell: it's not about the facts, it's about those things I suggest that make you blindingly angry.
Trading in fear, frustration, and all the other pulse-points of human emotion is a time-honored political tactic. "Andrew Cuomo supports the mosque," Mr. Paladino said in a radio ad. "I say it is disrespectful to the thousands who died on 9/11 and their families, insulting to the thousands of troops who've been killed or injured in the ensuing wars and an affront to American people. And it must be stopped."
He's a pretty well-educated man to have his own definition of ideology. But lacking any evidence to the contrary, let's take him at his word. He believes his "ideology" trumps a little thing like freedom of religion. Good to know.
Now close your eyes, New Yorkers, and picture a Gov. Paladino sitting in Albany, contemplating other critical issues of life in the state he runs:
" ... This is an ideological question, not a civil rights issue."
" ... This is an ideological question, not a public heath issue."
"... This is an ideological question, not a legal issue."
Mr. Paladino suggests his war memorial might be a district that "could extend as far as the debris from the 9/11 attacks was distributed." But he's smart enough to know that the national psychic scars of the tragedy spread debris all across the country. The actual Ground Zero boundaries go from sea to shining sea. This understanding will certainly be something Mr. Paladino uses when he tires of the provincial power of governorship and sets his sights on the White House.
And if that happens, you won't be able to find a mosque in New York City... or Oklahoma City, for that matter.
August 31, 2010
King's 'Dream' Message Survives the Latest in 47 Years of Flawed Messengers
Last week in a commentary in the Huffington Post, we promised not to prejudge Glenn Beck's planned Lincoln Memorial rally to "Restore Honor" on the 47th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.s "I Have A Dream" speech. With the rally concluded, however, it is time to weigh in not in anticipation of the planned event, but on the event that unfolded.
In Sunday's New York Times, op-ed columnist Ross Douthat essentially suggested that the rally was bland enough that people on either side of the issue could see what they wanted in it:
It is easy to agree with Douthat on this point. But surely a man like Beck would not purposely design a television event to be so unfocused that it meant to be read as pep rally, a come-to-Jesus meeting and anything in between. In his eyes, at least, it must have been one or the other.
The significant differential between this rally and the Movement's March of forty-seven years earlier was a sense of purpose. However, if forced to choose, I saw Beck's rally principally as an attempt to strengthen a conservative political base through an evangelical call for the nation to rededicate itself to God. Make no mistake, that would be the Christian version of God.
This is strange. Surely if Beck sees the Gettysburg Address as "American scripture" (which, despite its brilliance, is not a founding document), how much more so must he consider the US Constitution? Yet this is the document that includes the phrase "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Religion seems to play big for Beck, possibly because it plays big for his audience and/or his political party. Honor was somehow de facto entwined with christianity in the DNA of the rally. Yet this quality, it could be mentioned, springs from all manner of people, including atheists.
But there was a heartening side to Beck's rally, what Douthat called "a strange, unlooked-for fulfillment of King's prophecies." He's referring to that fact that all these years after the "I Have a Dream" speech, on its anniversary, every time King's name was spoken or the Dream was referenced, the crowd, predominantly white, cheered. Many of whom, it is fair to imagine, are the descendants of those whites who opposed equality and, yes, "honor" for African-Americans a half-century earlier.
This is what bothers Rev. Al Sharpton, who organized a counter-"March" to reclaim The Dream. But it shouldn't. In trying to take ownership or view Beck's invocation of King as some kind of theft, members of the modern black struggle are turning off potential allies and, more importantly, missing the point that Dr. King's Dream was an American Dream, not just an African-American Dream.
One of Dr. King's most important intellectual contributions to the Civil Rights Movement was the idea that, representing such a minority percentage of the population, African-Americans could not hope to change the country unless we convinced a significant portion of the majority that it was in their self-interest to do so. In 1963 approximately only 20-25% of the attendees were white; last weekend, 80-90% of the estimated Beck participants were white. And it's worth saying again: They applauded Dr. King's legacy at every turn.
They certainly cheered when Sarah Palin said, "We feel the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr. who gave voice to our dream for a better America."
Have the conservatives come around? Not quite. Palin may have likened the rally participants to the civil rights activists from 1963, but shortly before the rally, she had come to the defense of syndicated radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlesinger's repeated use of the N-word during a conversation with a listener. Palin suggested that no apology was necessary, that Dr. Laura should just "reload."
The legendary labor and civil-rights leader and "godfather" of the original March On Washington was a man named A. Phillip Randolph. He constantly said that "We Negroes have no permanent friends, nor permanent enemies; only permanent interests. Your friend today could become your enemy tomorrow; your enemy today could become your friend tomorrow."
That may well be a description of Beck. In a radio interview, he is reported to have apologized for calling President Obama "a racist, who hates white people." (One wonders if Beck would have even convened such a rally if an African-American was not seated in the White House?) However, Beck told his radio listeners that Dr. King's Dream "has been so corrupted." In referring to his rally, he said "We are the people of the Civil Rights Movement. We are the ones that must stand for civil and equal rights, justice, and equal justice." Presumably in referring to our Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s, he said that his rally does not seek "special justice" nor "social justice," as if we were asking to be taken care of as opposed to our willingness to make the necessary sacrifices to achieve our own personal dignity under our U.S. Constitution.
Comments like this only undermine Beck's credibility. No serious, rational person, with even a passing familiarity of the history of America in the last half of the twentieth century, can assume that Beck really believes this nonsense. Rather, he found himself on the horns of a dilemma. He wanted to use the power of Dr. King's legacy to leverage his own agenda that doesn't square with the Dream. He wanted to trade on Dr. King's sacrifice without making any of his own. That doesn't sound very Christian at all.
While Dr. King's message of love and inclusion may endure, it is clear to see that his "Dream" has been only partially realized and celebrated by flawed messengers. Clearly, Beck has become another of these messengers who, even if otherwise intended, is corrupting and perverting the legacy of Dr. King. Consequently, no matter what other laudatory sentiments expressed at Beck's rally, as someone who worked with Dr. King, I can safely say it would not live up to his standards of social progress.
It's a shame, because Beck had the crowd, had the cameras, had the opportunity to change the game. He even had the 24-hour news channel, a daily radio program, the smart-phones, the Internet and all the social media to build up support. This is a lot more than Dr. King, Bayard Rustin, and the other true civil rights pioneers had in 1963.
In Sunday's New York Times, op-ed columnist Ross Douthat essentially suggested that the rally was bland enough that people on either side of the issue could see what they wanted in it:
A Beck admirer could spin "Restoring Honor" as proof that left-wing fears about the Tea Partiers are overblown: free of rancor, racism or populist resentment, the atmosphere at the rally resembled that of a church picnic or a high school football game. But a suspicious liberal could retort that all the God-and-Christ talk and military tributes were proof enough that a sinister Christian nationalism lurked beneath the surface.
It is easy to agree with Douthat on this point. But surely a man like Beck would not purposely design a television event to be so unfocused that it meant to be read as pep rally, a come-to-Jesus meeting and anything in between. In his eyes, at least, it must have been one or the other.
The significant differential between this rally and the Movement's March of forty-seven years earlier was a sense of purpose. However, if forced to choose, I saw Beck's rally principally as an attempt to strengthen a conservative political base through an evangelical call for the nation to rededicate itself to God. Make no mistake, that would be the Christian version of God.
This is strange. Surely if Beck sees the Gettysburg Address as "American scripture" (which, despite its brilliance, is not a founding document), how much more so must he consider the US Constitution? Yet this is the document that includes the phrase "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Religion seems to play big for Beck, possibly because it plays big for his audience and/or his political party. Honor was somehow de facto entwined with christianity in the DNA of the rally. Yet this quality, it could be mentioned, springs from all manner of people, including atheists.
But there was a heartening side to Beck's rally, what Douthat called "a strange, unlooked-for fulfillment of King's prophecies." He's referring to that fact that all these years after the "I Have a Dream" speech, on its anniversary, every time King's name was spoken or the Dream was referenced, the crowd, predominantly white, cheered. Many of whom, it is fair to imagine, are the descendants of those whites who opposed equality and, yes, "honor" for African-Americans a half-century earlier.
This is what bothers Rev. Al Sharpton, who organized a counter-"March" to reclaim The Dream. But it shouldn't. In trying to take ownership or view Beck's invocation of King as some kind of theft, members of the modern black struggle are turning off potential allies and, more importantly, missing the point that Dr. King's Dream was an American Dream, not just an African-American Dream.
One of Dr. King's most important intellectual contributions to the Civil Rights Movement was the idea that, representing such a minority percentage of the population, African-Americans could not hope to change the country unless we convinced a significant portion of the majority that it was in their self-interest to do so. In 1963 approximately only 20-25% of the attendees were white; last weekend, 80-90% of the estimated Beck participants were white. And it's worth saying again: They applauded Dr. King's legacy at every turn.
They certainly cheered when Sarah Palin said, "We feel the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr. who gave voice to our dream for a better America."
Have the conservatives come around? Not quite. Palin may have likened the rally participants to the civil rights activists from 1963, but shortly before the rally, she had come to the defense of syndicated radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlesinger's repeated use of the N-word during a conversation with a listener. Palin suggested that no apology was necessary, that Dr. Laura should just "reload."
The legendary labor and civil-rights leader and "godfather" of the original March On Washington was a man named A. Phillip Randolph. He constantly said that "We Negroes have no permanent friends, nor permanent enemies; only permanent interests. Your friend today could become your enemy tomorrow; your enemy today could become your friend tomorrow."
That may well be a description of Beck. In a radio interview, he is reported to have apologized for calling President Obama "a racist, who hates white people." (One wonders if Beck would have even convened such a rally if an African-American was not seated in the White House?) However, Beck told his radio listeners that Dr. King's Dream "has been so corrupted." In referring to his rally, he said "We are the people of the Civil Rights Movement. We are the ones that must stand for civil and equal rights, justice, and equal justice." Presumably in referring to our Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s, he said that his rally does not seek "special justice" nor "social justice," as if we were asking to be taken care of as opposed to our willingness to make the necessary sacrifices to achieve our own personal dignity under our U.S. Constitution.
Comments like this only undermine Beck's credibility. No serious, rational person, with even a passing familiarity of the history of America in the last half of the twentieth century, can assume that Beck really believes this nonsense. Rather, he found himself on the horns of a dilemma. He wanted to use the power of Dr. King's legacy to leverage his own agenda that doesn't square with the Dream. He wanted to trade on Dr. King's sacrifice without making any of his own. That doesn't sound very Christian at all.
While Dr. King's message of love and inclusion may endure, it is clear to see that his "Dream" has been only partially realized and celebrated by flawed messengers. Clearly, Beck has become another of these messengers who, even if otherwise intended, is corrupting and perverting the legacy of Dr. King. Consequently, no matter what other laudatory sentiments expressed at Beck's rally, as someone who worked with Dr. King, I can safely say it would not live up to his standards of social progress.
It's a shame, because Beck had the crowd, had the cameras, had the opportunity to change the game. He even had the 24-hour news channel, a daily radio program, the smart-phones, the Internet and all the social media to build up support. This is a lot more than Dr. King, Bayard Rustin, and the other true civil rights pioneers had in 1963.
