Monday, April 22, 2013

Swimming the Rapids


So much about American democracy needs fixing.  The planet’s burning up,  and we can’t fix it because we dance to the tune of Exxon, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron and BP.  90% of Americans are in favor of greater gun control and 60% of the Senate votes against.  The media are full of evidence that American democracy is in shambles, and everybody I know has victim fatigue.  Many of my friends tell me they don’t read my downer diatribes anymore.  If you’re going to write, send more music and doggie pictures, they tell me.

Solutions are elusive because the issues are complex.  We don’t want to give up our cars, and Republicans get a lot of mileage out of scaring people about rising gas prices.  The people of Wyoming get the same representation in the Senate as the people of California do, even though we outnumber them 66 to 1.  So while it makes sense for Dick Cheney to go hunting in Medicine Bow, Wyoming, Dianne Feinstein normally doesn’t carry a gun when she goes to Oakland, California.  He speaks of “the rights of law-abiding citizens” to carry guns. She knows how many kids die on the streets of Oakland.  We see things differently, depending on where we come from.

I tried all week to avoid the misery that came out of Boston, but there was no escaping it.  It was top news around the world for a while.  My first encounter with the story came following the Huffington Post coverage, when I found myself getting terribly frustrated by one of the first sources I normally turn to.  They were going on and on about “the suspect’s whereabouts.”  I had tuned in on the chase, so this is perhaps excusable, but I wanted to know why these two young brothers were suspects.  It took me forever to get the story, and in the meantime I was listening to interviews with their mother and father who claimed they were set up.  Considering how common it is to hear of overzealous police and prosecutors, one has to wonder.

I am satisfied, now that it has come out these guys shot and killed some of their pursuers and that they hijacked a car and apparently confessed to its driver that they were indeed the Marathon killers, that “suspects” did in fact mean “killers” in this case.  But it still bothers me that the two words are now apparently used interchangeably by so many people so much of the time.

The whole story went on that way, mixing good news with ugly suspicions.  I was happy to see people burst into applause as the cops drove through Watertown in a kind of victory lap after the capture.  They put their lives at risk and deserved such happy recognition.  But what ruined the scene was the thuggish people shouting U-S-A!  U-S-A! and pumping their fists, suggesting we had just gone to war and won against enemies who had threatened us. 

It’s the whole thing about war.   Some Saudi Islamicists bomb the Twin Towers and we manufacture lies to justify an invasion of Iraq.  Most Americans still today accept that as perhaps a mistake, in retrospect, but no big deal.  A political error.  Out of our hands.

Excesses from the liberation movements of the sixties leave us with a serious drug problem.  Nixon has the opportunity to declare a medical emergency and to identify the addicts as victims.  Instead, he creates "pushers" and "users" as enemies in a “War on Drugs.”   For a history of that folly, see Dan Baum’s Smoke and Mirrors.  

Tamerlan Tsarnaev is now dead.  His little brother, Dzhokhar, is in the hospital in critical condition.  After killing four people at the Boston Marathon and injuring 170, they ran into the great American war machine – a thousand FBI agents, many thousands of SWAT officers, all aided by the fact that everybody and everything is filmed these days, and they were tracked down in very short order.  They contributed to their own demise, by admitting they were the Marathon killers to that guy whose car they hijacked, but mostly it was modern-day sleuthing that got them.  A story with a happy ending.  Really.

I know there’s probably no way to keep this from being defined as a terrorist act.  It was exactly that.  The problem is, once it is so labeled it gets to be part of the “war” on terrorism.  That war on an abstract notion, as opposed to a tracking down and punishing of individuals with brains fried with hatred at real and perceived wrongs done to their religion.

Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Kelly Ayotte and Peter King, the Muslim-hater, Republicans all, are all over this, wanting to make sure young Dzhokhar doesn’t get any legal protection.  No Miranda rights, say our fearless leaders.  Enemy combatant.  Guantanamo for this guy.  Oops, can’t do that, he’s an American citizen.  No matter.  Enemy.  Enemy.  Enemy.  No rights.  

We’re at war, you see.  We don’t need no stinkin’ badges.  No stinkin’ rights.  We can withhold Miranda.  Alan Dershowitz, by the way, is suggesting that decision may bite them in the ass if they want to apply the death penalty.  Dzokhar’s defense lawyer can argue you can withhold Miranda only if there is a clear and present danger and an urgent need to get more information out of the prisoner.  The police had announced they got the guys and the danger was over.  Careless, this is.  All because we need to act like gang busters all the time.  Start with the Big Berthas, bypass the normal procedures.  Go to red alert.  Go to war.


Look at this story.  Two boys from Central Asia, from the Caucasus.  Chechens running from the War in Chechnya with their mother and father.  They come make a home in Boston, where most of America’s Chechens live, I understand.  They grow up here.  Speak English natively.  They are Americans.  Immigrants, like so many of us, but Americans.

Something goes wrong.  They get caught up in religious fanaticism.  Tamarlan does, at any rate.  We don’t know how much independent thinking went on on Dzhokhar’s part.  He seems to have been following the tribal value of following his big brother, not the more common American value of being your own man.  We will have to wait and see if he speaks and if he can tell his story.  At the moment, the injuries to his throat suggest this may be a long way off.  He’s been charged with use of a “weapon of mass destruction” – you know, like the weapons the Americans used in Iraq – for which he could get the death penalty.  

Bottom line here, for me, is that with our clumsy American ways, our bull in the China shop tendency to panic, to shut down the city – effective as it was – to call every conflict a war, thereby laying the ground for military solutions – we’re always going to be destructive instead of smart.

The French sociologist, Olivier Roy, has made the case several times over that France’s problems (and this would apply elsewhere in Europe, as well) with politicized Islamic movements are as much home-grown as they are rooted in terrorism generated abroad.  Young people of Muslim heritage get caught between the religion and ethnic identities of their parents on the one hand, and the outsider label in France, the only home they’ve ever known.  While women in Muslim countries fight to take off the hijab, many French Muslim girls go against their mothers’ wishes and put it on.  I suspect something like this is going on in the case of the Tsarnaev boys.  Just a guess, of course, since my knowledge is limited to my attempts to read between the lines in all the news reports.

But one thing seems clear.  The information-challenged right wingers who want to blame immigrants, or Islam, or some other “other” are wrong.  There may be reason to fear terrorist groups in Pakistan or Yemen or wherever we drop bombs from drones.  But that’s not the whole story, by any means.

You can call this 19-year old Muslim boy named Dzokhar, lying in critical condition in a Jewish hospital, a terrorist if you want.  You’d be technically correct.  But don’t miss the fact that he’s also a boy.  That his horizons up till now have been limited.  That he grew up mostly in Boston and formed his view of the world in large part by what he was exposed to in the United States.  It will be relatively easy to try him, find him guilty, and execute him.  But if you want to understand him, don’t lay the blame on Islam.  Look for answers in the struggle young people go through looking for identity and getting caught in the cracks, being too much exposed to America’s killer side and not enough exposed to its idealism.  Overwhelmed by the challenge to make sense of the fight between tradition and modernity. 

I used to say I was little more than the last book I read.  Susceptibility to fads and to any given zeitgeist is part of the rapids kids have to swim in their teens and twenties.  Dzokhar, I’m convinced, got caught on the rocks. 

We could take any number of paths from here on.  We could try to understand him and educate ourselves about what thousands of young people all over the world are facing in this struggle with modernity.  Or we could do what we are far more likely to do.  Listen to politicians who will whip us up and make us cry for blood, because it will get them votes.

I wish things were otherwise.



photo credit

Thursday, April 18, 2013

The Difference a Song Makes


I fell in love with a song yesterday.  Went absolutely ape-shit bonkers over it.  Couldn’t stop listening to it.

The song is the Maori love song, Pokarekare Ana, and it serves as New Zealand’s unofficial national anthem.  Imagine.  A country with a national anthem that is a love song.

I already had a powerful admiration for New Zealand - for its willingness to lead in opposition to nuclear proliferation, for the fact it was the first modern state to have universal suffrage (in 1893), and for being the first country to have its three top positions held by women (Prime Minister, Helen Clark; Governor General, Dame Silvia Cartwright; and Chief Justice, Sian Elias).  But yesterday my admiration went off the charts.  And I can’t be sure whether it was because they became the thirteenth nation to extend the civil right to marry to gays and lesbians, or because when they did so their parliament was ground to a halt by the singing of a love song.   Have a look at the video of the vote count announcement for the full experience.  Make sure you have your hankie at the ready.  

If you’re a New Zealander, you’re probably shaking your head at my naïveté, or wondering where I’ve been all these years that I shouldn’t know this melody.  Or at my presumptuousness to think this song might get picked up by gays and lesbians as their theme song, as well.  I was probably overdoing it there, but no matter.  The song went straight to the heart and began to dance there.

It’s not just the melody that got to me, obviously.  It’s a rather plain song, not in the same league as some of the more dramatic show tunes – think Alfie Boe singing “Bring Him Home,” for example, at the 25th Anniversary performance of Les Misérables at Albert Hall.  It’s more in league, maybe, with Amazing Grace in singability and for the way it lends itself to rich harmonies by choirs and large groups of people.  It’s a song, in other words, that spells community.  And solidarity.  And optimism.  Listen to this version, for example by a college men’s group called the Front Row Chorus.

And that’s not to say it doesn’t hold its own when kicked upstairs (or schmaltzed up, depending on your degree of music snobbery)  and sung by soloists who know how to knock you over with their talent.  This operatic duet version with Welsh tenor Bryn Terfel and that New Zealander popular singer with the purest of voices, Soprano Hayley Dee Westenra.  Or, Hayley Westenra doing it solo.  Here, for example, if you'd like it with Japanese subtitles. 

Then there are the many versions by New Zealand’s own Kiri Te Kanawa, herself of Maori origin. This Millenium New Zealand performance, for example.   Or this one, where she sings it a capella:

Apparently it has made a huge hit not only in Japan, but in Korea, as well.  Here are a couple versions done by Korean groups, here and here.   If your tear ducts haven't had enough flushing, consider that the reason the song is so big in Korea is that Maori soldiers came to the aid of South Korea during the Korean War and taught it to Korean children.  Or so I'm told.  If you'd like to sing along in Korean, here are the words in romaji (with some liberties taken with the English translation, as you can see).

As the periculous storm calms down
[Biba ram E chidun bada, Janjan hae juh oh Myun]
Hoping for your arrival today
[Oh Neul Guh dae oh shi ryeo nah]
Acrossing the sea
[Juh Bada Gunnuh Suh]
Although the shining stars at night are beautiful, you amorous eyes are more beautiful than ever
[Bam ha neul eh ban Jjack E neun byulbit do arumdapjiman Sarang Seurun gue dae nun en, deo ook ah reum da wo rah
I will wait for you, I will wait for my love x2
[gue dae man el, gidariri nae sarang...]
Don't stop here.  The many versions keep spilling out of YouTube like clowns out of a telephone booth.  Some are exquisite, some merely good, some terribly schlocky - the Xena the Amazon Lady version, for example.  Nice harmony, but the video is strictly you gotta be kidding.  

In digging around for more information about New Zealand and about this song, I came up with all sorts of interesting information.  New Zealand has, besides God Save the Queen, I mean, an official national anthem that is also head and shoulders above most national anthems as a beautiful melody.  How do they do it?

And how do they know to treat their Maori minority with such respect?  About half a million of New Zealand’s four million inhabitants are Maori, only just over 160,000 of whom have even conversational ability in the language.  About 70,000 are native speakers today.  But just as Switzerland accepts Romansch as one of its four official languages, New Zealand is not concerned with numbers, but with historical representation and respect.

Not only is their national anthem a thing of beauty, it shouldn’t be missed that it is sung first in Maori, and then in English.

And you haven’t heard it all yet.  Besides considering Pokarekare Ana an unofficial national anthem, they actually have one more official one:  The third language is New Zealand Sign Language.

It occurred to me at some point yesterday while I was going on and on over what had just happened in New Zealand, that I had given Uruguay short shrift.  They, too, had just passed legislation granting same-sex couples the same rights opposite-sex couples have to have their life partnerships recognized officially.  And, for that matter, I didn’t hop up and down when Argentina granted its people those rights, either, despite the fact I have a special affection for Argentina for that wonderful period in my life when I lived there in 2007. 

The only way I can explain it, is that there was something about the music.  Watching people cry and shout with delight is one thing.  Watching them burst into song – a love song, at that – is another.
            


picture credit of the New Zealand Parliament leader making the announcement that the vote was 77 to 44 in favor.

Don't miss, while you're at it, the great speech by Maurice Williamson leading up to the vote.

And that woman in the rainbow-colored coat at the center of it all in the first video of the vote count announcement?  Her name is Louisa Wall, and she's the Labour MP for Manuwera.   She's the major force behind it all.  Kudos!  Kudos too to the woman behind the woman, her partner, Prue Kapua.



Monday, April 15, 2013

Obama the Dooh Nibor


A friend just sent me an article by William Rivers Pitt, editor and columnist at Truthout, letting Obama have it for agreeing to reduce Social Security benefits for no apparent reason other than because it might help him in negotiating with the intransigent Republicans.

Unless everything I’ve been reading lately about the Republican Party is a lie, they are coming apart at the seams.  Why on earth should this be a smart thing to do?

"All Mr. Obama had to do,” Pitt writes,  “…was hold his coalition together, a task easily within his means. Instead, he threw a live hand grenade at his own people."

What on earth can Obama be thinking?  Are we going to hear him say some day that he couldn’t tell us what he was up to because it was a secret and if he did it would ruin the trick he is trying to pull on the Republicans?  That’s hardly a thought that inspires confidence.

All week I've been debating whether Maggie Thatcher gave us any reason not to dance on her grave.  Some of my friends are trying to make the case that her policies pulled Britain out of the doldrums.  From my perspective, they only divided Britain into two nations, rich and poor, increased the wealth divide and destroyed the sense of a common purpose - or at least damaged it considerably.  I also just listened today to one of those brilliant debates the Germans put on television, this one about whether and how wealth inequality in Germany should be addressed, if at all.   Germany, like Britain and the U.S. is increasingly a country where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  Worse, there are signs that there is less and less social mobility and the lines between the classes seem to be hardening.  Not only are the people at the bottom out of sight to the people at the top, but their children are unlikely to be any better off.

It seems to be in the zeitgeist that it’s perfectly fine to declare “I've got mine and what happens to you is not my problem.”   The reverse Robin Hood problem, taking from the have-nots so the haves can have some more.

For a very long time now it seemed that we had reached the end of history, the moment where there is sufficient democracy, sufficient equity in our societies, a sufficient number of safety nets to protect people from falling through the cracks, and we could not merely allow the rich to get richer, but to encourage them to do so, on the grounds that some of their wealth would trickle down and they’d create a tide of national wealth to raise all boats – pick your metaphor.  That’s the Republican line today, even after the evidence is now clear that trickle-down doesn’t work.

But you know the figures.  Everybody is talking about them:

From 2009 to 2011, average real income per family grew modestly by 1.7% (Table 1) but the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 11.2% while bottom 99% incomes shrunk by 0.4%. Hence, the top 1% captured 121% of the income gains in the first two years of the recovery. From 2009 to 2010, top 1% grew fast and then stagnated from 2010 to 2011. Bottom 99% stagnated both from 2009 to 2010 and from 2010 to 2011.  (source) 

How can a Democratic president, in this day and age, under these circumstances, justify taking more from the people with the least among us?  What is he thinking?

I know, I know.  It’s because we don’t have a democracy.  Because the Democrats who run the government have the same goals as the Republicans who run the government – to serve the interests of corporate America and Americans with money.  That’s what you’re going to tell me, right?

Right?

But it’s not really true, is it?  You’re exaggerating, right?

photo credit