As for what Allen's next move ought to be, maybe Southern California is calling him home.
Since 1985, in various formats, SLANT -- an independent voice based in the heart of Richmond, Virginia -- has offered its readers original commentary on politics and popular culture. Warning: Occasionally, that means wiseass cartoons and satirical content. Naturally, all rights are reserved.
Friday, November 16, 2012
California Dreaming for George?
As for what Allen's next move ought to be, maybe Southern California is calling him home.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Money mostly wasted?
After the Citizens United decision and the 2010 midterm wins for the Republicans, a lot of pundits, both on the right and the left, tried to sell us the idea that huge money funneled into advertising would deliver the White House and a majority in the Senate to the GOP in 2012.
Over and over we were told billionaires would open their wallets for the Republicans and Democrats were doomed!
Well, it didn’t happen. The money Karl Rove and his allies poured into the effort didn’t pay off.
Should we assume Romney would have lost by a larger margin without all the Super Pac dark money spent on his behalf? Or, was it that Romney and some of the Republican senatorial candidates were just so-o-o bad. Were their ads not as good as the Democrats’ ads?
Democrats would surely like us to believe the election proved that Americans prefer the way they stood on the issues. There is probably some truth to that, but I think it was probably more.
Once all the dust settles, it will be fascinating to read about why those predictions didn't hold up. Partisan considerations aside, could it be that political advertising, itself, just isn't as effective as it used to be?
Was all that money mostly wasted?
Over and over we were told billionaires would open their wallets for the Republicans and Democrats were doomed!
Well, it didn’t happen. The money Karl Rove and his allies poured into the effort didn’t pay off.
Should we assume Romney would have lost by a larger margin without all the Super Pac dark money spent on his behalf? Or, was it that Romney and some of the Republican senatorial candidates were just so-o-o bad. Were their ads not as good as the Democrats’ ads?
Democrats would surely like us to believe the election proved that Americans prefer the way they stood on the issues. There is probably some truth to that, but I think it was probably more.
Once all the dust settles, it will be fascinating to read about why those predictions didn't hold up. Partisan considerations aside, could it be that political advertising, itself, just isn't as effective as it used to be?
Was all that money mostly wasted?
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Benghazi-gate?
By all means, let’s have a full-blown investigation in the Senate over what happened in Libya, to do with the four Americans killed on Sept. 11, 2012.
While it may be a little premature to compare the Benghazi-gate investigation to the Watergate or Iran-Contra hearings, as some Republicans are already doing, I still want to know what went wrong and why. If what comes out makes the State Dept. look bad, then so be it.
However, I’m not interested in hearing Senators claiming everyone knew that something bad would happen on the anniversary of 9/11, so we should have been prepared ... everywhere in the world. Nor am I interested in hearing about how not invading Libya was Obama’s big mistake.
I am particularly not interested in combing through the salacious details of outed secret romances.
Hey, if we want to investigate how lies and miscalculations have gotten Americans killed, we could start with how the invasion of Iraq was sold to America. A lot more than four people died over that colossal foreign policy mistake.
So, let's see what happened in Benghazi. And, let's remember that some of the Americans in the State Dept. are still serving in dangerous places. No president can will that reality away.
While it may be a little premature to compare the Benghazi-gate investigation to the Watergate or Iran-Contra hearings, as some Republicans are already doing, I still want to know what went wrong and why. If what comes out makes the State Dept. look bad, then so be it.
However, I’m not interested in hearing Senators claiming everyone knew that something bad would happen on the anniversary of 9/11, so we should have been prepared ... everywhere in the world. Nor am I interested in hearing about how not invading Libya was Obama’s big mistake.
I am particularly not interested in combing through the salacious details of outed secret romances.
Hey, if we want to investigate how lies and miscalculations have gotten Americans killed, we could start with how the invasion of Iraq was sold to America. A lot more than four people died over that colossal foreign policy mistake.
So, let's see what happened in Benghazi. And, let's remember that some of the Americans in the State Dept. are still serving in dangerous places. No president can will that reality away.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Is Cuccinelli Yesterday's Conservative?
Republicans in Virginia need to wake up. The results from Election Day are there for all to see ... unless denial prevents one from looking at the harsh numbers.
A lot of Republicans around here were positive former-Gov. Mitt Romney would win. They were dead wrong.
Too many Republicans thought former-Sen. George Allen would be a good candidate.
They were dead wrong, too.
Allen’s baggage was too heavy, there were lots of ticket-splitters, who voted for Romney but couldn’t stomach voting for Allen. Being the conservative in the race just wasn’t good enough this time. The Old Dominion is changing.
Earlier this year, too many in the Republican caucus in the General Assembly thought their backward-looking proposals to do with abortion would slide through that legislative body without creating big problems with female voters.
They were doubly dead wrong.
Those photographs of mean cops, outfitted to control a monster riot, pushing around peacefully assembled women in Capitol Square must have turned plenty of politically moderate voters into Democrats in 2012.
Next year if Republicans offer up a gubernatorial nominee who is still spouting Tea Party talking points, warmed over from 2010, they will probably lose, again.
What about Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s future? Remember all the grandstanding legal action he initiated that has blown back into his face? If Republicans wise up and turn away from his swaggering, arch conservative style, how will he respond?
Maybe he’s the next Virgil Goode.
A lot of Republicans around here were positive former-Gov. Mitt Romney would win. They were dead wrong.
Too many Republicans thought former-Sen. George Allen would be a good candidate.
They were dead wrong, too.
Allen’s baggage was too heavy, there were lots of ticket-splitters, who voted for Romney but couldn’t stomach voting for Allen. Being the conservative in the race just wasn’t good enough this time. The Old Dominion is changing.
Earlier this year, too many in the Republican caucus in the General Assembly thought their backward-looking proposals to do with abortion would slide through that legislative body without creating big problems with female voters.
They were doubly dead wrong.
Those photographs of mean cops, outfitted to control a monster riot, pushing around peacefully assembled women in Capitol Square must have turned plenty of politically moderate voters into Democrats in 2012.
Next year if Republicans offer up a gubernatorial nominee who is still spouting Tea Party talking points, warmed over from 2010, they will probably lose, again.
What about Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s future? Remember all the grandstanding legal action he initiated that has blown back into his face? If Republicans wise up and turn away from his swaggering, arch conservative style, how will he respond?
Maybe he’s the next Virgil Goode.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Redskins Bandwagon, Not So Fast
On March 8, writing for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Michael Martz and John O‘Connor reported that the Washington Redskins and the City of Richmond had been talking about the pro football team conducting some of its preseason practices in Richmond in years to come.
Although I was somewhat puzzled with why the team’s front office would want to leave Northern Virginia, to hold three weeks of preseason football practices in Richmond, in July! it was delightful news. Naturally, I hoped for the best. After all, I’ve been a Washington Redskins fan longer than I can remember. It goes back to when I was a little boy watching games with my grandfather, who was a Redskins fan.
He was also a WWI veteran, so I’m thinking about him today.
On June 6, the RT-D’s Olympia Meola reported bigger news about the Redskins, this time from Gov. Bob McDonnell’s office.
On June 30, Robert Zullo wrote in the RT-D about a search committee devoted to finding the best site for the Redskins to conduct their practices next summer. The article said the committee would report its finding in mid-September.
On Aug. 31 Michael Martz reported on the site-choosing process.
It reminded me of when the Richmond Flying Squirrels pretended they were letting the fans pick the nickname for the team. But for a baseball franchise to use an old radio station type of phony contest, to drum up interest, was fine. And, it worked like a charm.
However, for a city to indulge in such a bogus promotion didn't make much sense to me. So, I wondered, what else could it be?
Then, on Oct. 23, came the devilish details: The Redskins/Richmond deal involves Bon Secours Health System, the old Westhampton school building and the grounds surrounding it. It also involves another development in the East End by Bon Secours. It's very complicated. Ordinarily, it would take months for a Richmond City Council to properly study such a far-flung agreement.
And, this piece by STYLE Weekly's Scott Bass followed on Oct. 30.
It looks to me like the mayor is trying to steamroll this thing through. That doesn’t mean anything illegal has been done. It doesn’t mean it’s a bad deal for tax payers in Richmond. What it does mean is that the mayor needs to be taught a lesson about what can happen to guy who is too pushy and too slick.
Vote on Redskins deal tonight?
Please, not so fast. And, didn't we just have an election? What do new members of council think?
City Hall needs to sell us this deal. City Council members, new and old, need to ask lots of questions of the salesmen who are in such a hurry.
Although I was somewhat puzzled with why the team’s front office would want to leave Northern Virginia, to hold three weeks of preseason football practices in Richmond, in July! it was delightful news. Naturally, I hoped for the best. After all, I’ve been a Washington Redskins fan longer than I can remember. It goes back to when I was a little boy watching games with my grandfather, who was a Redskins fan.
He was also a WWI veteran, so I’m thinking about him today.
On June 6, the RT-D’s Olympia Meola reported bigger news about the Redskins, this time from Gov. Bob McDonnell’s office.
The Washington Redskins will move their summer training camp to the city of Richmond in 2013, at a site not yet identified.Although "a site not yet identified" seemed strange, at first that didn't worry me. Hail to the Redskins!
On June 30, Robert Zullo wrote in the RT-D about a search committee devoted to finding the best site for the Redskins to conduct their practices next summer. The article said the committee would report its finding in mid-September.
A panel appointed by Mayor Dwight C. Jones will consider at least 10 city sites for the Washington Redskins summer training camp that is planned to arrive in Richmond next year. The 18-member committee is composed chiefly of representatives from local business, banking and higher education and is tasked with advising the mayor's office on locations and financing related to hosting the three-week training camp.The process that followed did begin to raise worries. At first I thought they were doing it backwards. Why conduct a study that should have been done before the Redskins and Richmond announced they had come to an agreement for a deal?
On Aug. 31 Michael Martz reported on the site-choosing process.
Richmond Mayor Dwight C. Jones says he has two "very good" sites for the Washington Redskins to bring their training camp next summer — City Stadium or behind the Science Museum of Virginia. Now, the city has to find $9 million to $10 million to build the facilities the NFL franchise expects at one of the sites by July.By this time it looked to me like the decision had been made behind closed doors to use the behind the Science Museum option, but for some reason the mystery was being perpetuated. Why the dog and pony show?
"Now we are in a position to put our (funding and sponsorship subcommittee) to work and figure out how we're going to bring in the money to get the job done," Jones said at a news conference Thursday at the McGuireWoods law firm in downtown Richmond.
It reminded me of when the Richmond Flying Squirrels pretended they were letting the fans pick the nickname for the team. But for a baseball franchise to use an old radio station type of phony contest, to drum up interest, was fine. And, it worked like a charm.
However, for a city to indulge in such a bogus promotion didn't make much sense to me. So, I wondered, what else could it be?
Then, on Oct. 23, came the devilish details: The Redskins/Richmond deal involves Bon Secours Health System, the old Westhampton school building and the grounds surrounding it. It also involves another development in the East End by Bon Secours. It's very complicated. Ordinarily, it would take months for a Richmond City Council to properly study such a far-flung agreement.
And, this piece by STYLE Weekly's Scott Bass followed on Oct. 30.
"We don't think a 'rush job' is fair to the public nor in the best interests of the city," Loupassi and Goldman write.Today’s RT-D story, “Richmond council set to vote on Redskins deal tonight,” by Robert Zullo, adds more to my sense that timing had a lot to do with the way this has played out. Now City Council is under the gun to act swiftly. Members don’t have much time to ask questions about all the facets of this deal.
Indeed, the mayor gleefully tells reporters at the Leigh Street Redskins site Oct. 22 that construction could start as soon as that afternoon. "The Redskins want to be ready to use this in 2013 so you might see something happening before you leave here today," Jones says to hearty chuckles. "It's got to happen very fast."
It looks to me like the mayor is trying to steamroll this thing through. That doesn’t mean anything illegal has been done. It doesn’t mean it’s a bad deal for tax payers in Richmond. What it does mean is that the mayor needs to be taught a lesson about what can happen to guy who is too pushy and too slick.
Vote on Redskins deal tonight?
Please, not so fast. And, didn't we just have an election? What do new members of council think?
City Hall needs to sell us this deal. City Council members, new and old, need to ask lots of questions of the salesmen who are in such a hurry.
Friday, November 09, 2012
Post-election musings: Is it third party time?
Most of the time, especially in the weeks leading up to a presidential election, I turn my back on discussions about third parties. But if there is a good time to talk about building a national alternative to our cumbersome two-party system, it’s now, just after the election.
Still, I would have little interest in a third party that would be primarily rooted in ideology. So, with the election now in the rear-view mirror, what about a third party that is tough on Wall Street, antiwar, but totally pro-environment?
Not traditional liberals. Not nostalgia-worshipping conservatives. This party would have no part of the culture war -- no religious fanatics onboard, please.
As a party, it would also stay out of most squabbles over immigration by simply advocating the pursuit of the most practical course, with few preconceived notions about what is proper. What we can't keep doing is ignoring laws, or selectively enforcing them.
This new party would advocate letting in more sunlight on the dark role behind-closed-doors lobbyists play in directing zillions of government dollars to benefit mammoth corporations. It would be about slashing the budgets for defense and foreign aid. It would call for ending another war the USA lost -- the drug war.
It would also champion campaign finance reform in a big way, calling for drastic measures to reduce the role that soul-sucking, big-budget advertising plays in elections.
Of course there are individuals in both major parties who say they support some of those ideas. None of it is new. But both parties, as they are presently constituted, would have trouble with actually doing a lot of the stuff mentioned above.
Hey, I’m not saying I would automatically support such a new political party, but I do wonder if a viable alternative organization, fashioned somewhat along those lines, may be more possible now.
Yes, as we looked forward to the wrangling of the upcoming lame-duck session in Congress, I'm wondering if a national political party that isn’t run by ideologues and old hacks could put down roots coast-to-coast, via the Internet, in 2013.
Still, I would have little interest in a third party that would be primarily rooted in ideology. So, with the election now in the rear-view mirror, what about a third party that is tough on Wall Street, antiwar, but totally pro-environment?
Not traditional liberals. Not nostalgia-worshipping conservatives. This party would have no part of the culture war -- no religious fanatics onboard, please.
As a party, it would also stay out of most squabbles over immigration by simply advocating the pursuit of the most practical course, with few preconceived notions about what is proper. What we can't keep doing is ignoring laws, or selectively enforcing them.
This new party would advocate letting in more sunlight on the dark role behind-closed-doors lobbyists play in directing zillions of government dollars to benefit mammoth corporations. It would be about slashing the budgets for defense and foreign aid. It would call for ending another war the USA lost -- the drug war.
It would also champion campaign finance reform in a big way, calling for drastic measures to reduce the role that soul-sucking, big-budget advertising plays in elections.
Of course there are individuals in both major parties who say they support some of those ideas. None of it is new. But both parties, as they are presently constituted, would have trouble with actually doing a lot of the stuff mentioned above.
Hey, I’m not saying I would automatically support such a new political party, but I do wonder if a viable alternative organization, fashioned somewhat along those lines, may be more possible now.
Yes, as we looked forward to the wrangling of the upcoming lame-duck session in Congress, I'm wondering if a national political party that isn’t run by ideologues and old hacks could put down roots coast-to-coast, via the Internet, in 2013.
One more question about predictions
Did Nate Silver make a prediction for what percentage of Tuesday morning’s swaggering Republicans would be hissy-fit-sore-losers-in-denial on Wednesday morning?
Then, the same on Thursday morning, and Friday morning…
Then, the same on Thursday morning, and Friday morning…
Thursday, November 08, 2012
What Can Stop the GOP's Meltdown?
The day after the election, Wednesday, I declared a one-day moratorium
on gloating and sarcasm over the election results. In the same spirit, I
resisted the urge to offer advice to any Republicans I encountered. At
happy hour at Chiocca’s, facing a few grumbling conservatives who were
itching to harass a handy liberal, it wasn’t easy to stay true to that
spirit of restraint.
Now the moratorium is over.
Accordingly, on Thursday, the Republicans who got their collective ass kicked royally on Tuesday ought to take a good look at some bad moves they’ve made since they celebrated their midterm victories in 2010. They need to cast off their dry-rotted blinders, pronto.
If they do they might see that the explanation for several of the losses the Republican Party absorbed on Tuesday was tied to how much the USA has changed in recent years. The percentage of the total vote that is white male has been steadily shrinking and it's going to continue to do so.
Which means it’s time for some conservative old goats to face the music.
Speaking of goats, if the Republican Party continues to allow the likes of Karl Rove, Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh to shape its agenda, while those three guys will do just fine, the GOP itself will continue its meltdown.
The Tea Party-driven strategy the congressional Republicans have used for the last two years blatantly turned its back on solving problems. Their only goal was to deny any success whatsoever to the president, in order to defeat him on Nov. 6. No doubt, if they continue to try to sell their obstructionism as patriotism, they do so at their own peril.
Given Tuesday’s results, it seems that nefarious strategy backfired. Now, facilitated by their own noisy denials of post-election reality, the meltdown process is intensifying.
Conservatives who despise the union movement have been bashing teachers as if they are the problem with government spending. Forget about borrowing money to prosecute wars, it’s the teachers! In doing so, Republicans come off as anti-public education and that will never set well with middle class parents and young voters.
Last night, professional wiseass Andy Borowitz wrote on his Facebook page: “To survive as a party, the Republicans need to welcome people who believe in different things than they do, like science and math.”
Feeling it had the momentum to elect almost anybody, the arrogant GOP fielded some Looney Tunes villains as candidates in 2012.
At the top of that list was Missouri’s senatorial candidate, Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin. As Akin is a plain fool, the Republican powers that be in the Show Me State had to know that. But it looks like they mistakenly thought anybody could beat Claire McCaskill.
In Virginia, George “Macaca” Allen was another obviously bad candidate. He was damaged goods and Virginia Republicans knew that. But they must have figured it was in the bag, anyway.
Hey, couldn’t almost anybody could beat that liberal Obama ally, Chairman Tim Kaine?
Apparently there was a good amount of ticket splitting in the Old Dominion, where Romney voters couldn’t vote the straight ticket, if it meant supporting Allen, a man widely viewed as an obnoxious bully.
A big part of how Republicans in Missouri and Virginia could believe those two Democratic candidates would be easy to beat was that so many conservatives live in a virtual echo chamber when it comes to following politics. They see most of the mainstream media as prevaricating liberal tools, so they put their faith in the Fox News brand of truth and parrot its talking points.
No one should be surprised when bad candidates lose.
Like it or not, running a national campaign is the test for president. It may not be the best way to audition candidates for the job and campaign finance reform is sorely needed, but as of 2012, it’s what our system provides.
Well, Obama’s advisers just ran a masterful campaign. They targeted the key battleground states and won them. Colorado! Iowa! Nevada! New Hampshire! Ohio! Virginia! Wisconsin! Lots of young voters look at those results without seeing ideology.
No, they see competency.
At long last, Republicans have to accept that when they use thinly-veiled appeals to racists, as they did repeatedly during the 2012 campaign, they are constricting their party’s growth. Such tone-deaf reaching out to the most hateful elements of the electorate has to stop.
The same goes with opposing same-sex marriage and trying to outlaw abortion. The justification for those two backward positions is tied to old time religion, and they are both killer millstones.
While I could easily go on lecturing my stubborn happy hour pals and their ilk, instead I’ll sum it up this way:
Unless Republicans can learn from their mistakes and start to articulate a smart, up-to-date approach to conservatism, one that appeals to tomorrow’s multicultural voters that might want to see more imagination, efficiency and prudence in the way government does business … then, tha, tha, that’s all folks!
Now the moratorium is over.
Accordingly, on Thursday, the Republicans who got their collective ass kicked royally on Tuesday ought to take a good look at some bad moves they’ve made since they celebrated their midterm victories in 2010. They need to cast off their dry-rotted blinders, pronto.
If they do they might see that the explanation for several of the losses the Republican Party absorbed on Tuesday was tied to how much the USA has changed in recent years. The percentage of the total vote that is white male has been steadily shrinking and it's going to continue to do so.
Which means it’s time for some conservative old goats to face the music.
Speaking of goats, if the Republican Party continues to allow the likes of Karl Rove, Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh to shape its agenda, while those three guys will do just fine, the GOP itself will continue its meltdown.
The Tea Party-driven strategy the congressional Republicans have used for the last two years blatantly turned its back on solving problems. Their only goal was to deny any success whatsoever to the president, in order to defeat him on Nov. 6. No doubt, if they continue to try to sell their obstructionism as patriotism, they do so at their own peril.
Given Tuesday’s results, it seems that nefarious strategy backfired. Now, facilitated by their own noisy denials of post-election reality, the meltdown process is intensifying.
Conservatives who despise the union movement have been bashing teachers as if they are the problem with government spending. Forget about borrowing money to prosecute wars, it’s the teachers! In doing so, Republicans come off as anti-public education and that will never set well with middle class parents and young voters.
Last night, professional wiseass Andy Borowitz wrote on his Facebook page: “To survive as a party, the Republicans need to welcome people who believe in different things than they do, like science and math.”
Feeling it had the momentum to elect almost anybody, the arrogant GOP fielded some Looney Tunes villains as candidates in 2012.
At the top of that list was Missouri’s senatorial candidate, Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin. As Akin is a plain fool, the Republican powers that be in the Show Me State had to know that. But it looks like they mistakenly thought anybody could beat Claire McCaskill.
In Virginia, George “Macaca” Allen was another obviously bad candidate. He was damaged goods and Virginia Republicans knew that. But they must have figured it was in the bag, anyway.
Hey, couldn’t almost anybody could beat that liberal Obama ally, Chairman Tim Kaine?
Apparently there was a good amount of ticket splitting in the Old Dominion, where Romney voters couldn’t vote the straight ticket, if it meant supporting Allen, a man widely viewed as an obnoxious bully.
A big part of how Republicans in Missouri and Virginia could believe those two Democratic candidates would be easy to beat was that so many conservatives live in a virtual echo chamber when it comes to following politics. They see most of the mainstream media as prevaricating liberal tools, so they put their faith in the Fox News brand of truth and parrot its talking points.
No one should be surprised when bad candidates lose.
Like it or not, running a national campaign is the test for president. It may not be the best way to audition candidates for the job and campaign finance reform is sorely needed, but as of 2012, it’s what our system provides.
Well, Obama’s advisers just ran a masterful campaign. They targeted the key battleground states and won them. Colorado! Iowa! Nevada! New Hampshire! Ohio! Virginia! Wisconsin! Lots of young voters look at those results without seeing ideology.
No, they see competency.
At long last, Republicans have to accept that when they use thinly-veiled appeals to racists, as they did repeatedly during the 2012 campaign, they are constricting their party’s growth. Such tone-deaf reaching out to the most hateful elements of the electorate has to stop.
The same goes with opposing same-sex marriage and trying to outlaw abortion. The justification for those two backward positions is tied to old time religion, and they are both killer millstones.
While I could easily go on lecturing my stubborn happy hour pals and their ilk, instead I’ll sum it up this way:
Unless Republicans can learn from their mistakes and start to articulate a smart, up-to-date approach to conservatism, one that appeals to tomorrow’s multicultural voters that might want to see more imagination, efficiency and prudence in the way government does business … then, tha, tha, that’s all folks!
-- 30 --
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Remembering 'The Sound'
Today, my delight at the wins for Barack Obama and Tim Kaine is pure and overflowing. So much so, I'll save the I-told-you-so stuff for tomorrow; same goes for the sarcasm. For me, as a Virginian, today is for smiling. Can't say for sure, but percentage-wise, I don't think I've ever voted for so many winners before.
And, to bring it home, I’m offering my congratulations to all the winners in Richmond. Among them, I’m particularly happy to see that Jon Baliles (1st District) and Parker Agelasto (5th District) won and will be new members of City Council.
Likewise, I’m glad to see Kim Grey (2nd District) returning to her position at the school board’s table.
As far as yesterday’s losers go, I have some understanding of the sudden fall from being a candidate in the middle of all the energy that surrounds a campaign on Election Day, going from one precinct to another to see and feel the turnout, joking around with the reporters, etc., to being an also-ran at your own victory party -- a loser.
Here’s a story (first published in STYLE Weekly in 2000) about my lone foray into the opportunity to have such a severely bipolar day. It was in 1984 that I fooled myself into running for political office. My victory party, such as it was, unfolded at Grace Place, one of my all-time favorite restaurants.
And, to bring it home, I’m offering my congratulations to all the winners in Richmond. Among them, I’m particularly happy to see that Jon Baliles (1st District) and Parker Agelasto (5th District) won and will be new members of City Council.
Likewise, I’m glad to see Kim Grey (2nd District) returning to her position at the school board’s table.
As far as yesterday’s losers go, I have some understanding of the sudden fall from being a candidate in the middle of all the energy that surrounds a campaign on Election Day, going from one precinct to another to see and feel the turnout, joking around with the reporters, etc., to being an also-ran at your own victory party -- a loser.
Here’s a story (first published in STYLE Weekly in 2000) about my lone foray into the opportunity to have such a severely bipolar day. It was in 1984 that I fooled myself into running for political office. My victory party, such as it was, unfolded at Grace Place, one of my all-time favorite restaurants.
The Sound by F.T. Rea
The handbill in this story
In the spring of 1984, I ran for public office. In case the Rea for City Council campaign doesn’t ring a bell, it was a spontaneous and totally independent undertaking. No doubt, it showed. Predictably, I lost, but I’ve never regretted the snap decision to run, because the education was well worth the price.
In truth, I had been mired in a blue funk for some time prior to my letting a couple of friends, Bill Kitchen and Rocko Yates, talk me into running, as we played a foozball game in Rockitz, Kitchen's nightclub. Although I knew winning such an election was out of my reach, I relished the opportunity to have some fun mocking the system. Besides, at the time, I needed an adventure.
So it began. Walking door to door through Richmond’s 5th District, collecting signatures to qualify to be on the ballot, I talked with hundreds of people. During that process my attitude about the endeavor began to expand. People were patting me on the back and saying they admired my pluck. Of course, what I was not considering was how many people will encourage a fool to do almost anything that breaks the monotony.
By the time I announced my candidacy at a press conference on the steps of the city library, I was thoroughly enjoying my new role. My confidence and enthusiasm were compounding daily.On a warm April afternoon I was in Gilpin Court stapling handbills, featuring my smiling face, onto utility poles. Prior to the campaign, I had never been in Gilpin Court. I had known it only as “the projects.”
Several small children took to tagging along. Perhaps it was their first view of a semi-manic white guy — working their turf alone — wearing a loosened tie, rolled-up shirtsleeves, and khaki pants.
After their giggling was done, a few of them offered to help out. So, I gave them fliers and they ran off to dish out my propaganda with a spirit only children have.
Later I stopped to watch some older boys playing basketball at the playground. As I was then an unapologetic hoops junkie, it wasn’t long before I felt the urge to join them. I played for about 10 minutes, and amazingly, I held my own.
After hitting four or five jumpers, I banked in a left-handed runner. It was bliss, I was in the zone. But I knew enough to quit fast, before the odds evened out.
Picking up my staple gun and campaign literature, I felt like a Kennedyesque messiah, out in the mean streets with the poor kids. Running for office was a gas; hit a string of jump shots and the world’s bloody grudges and bad luck will simply melt into the hot asphalt.
A half-hour later the glamour of politics had worn thin for my troop of volunteers. Finally, it was down to one boy of about 12 who told me he carried the newspaper on that street. As he passed the fliers out, I continued attaching them to poles.
The two of us went on like that for a good while. As we worked from block to block he had very little to say. It wasn’t that he was sullen; he was purposeful and stoic. As we finished the last section to cover, I asked him a question that had gone over well with children in other parts of town.
“What’s the best thing and the worst thing about your neighborhood?” I said with faux curiosity.He stopped. He stared right through me. Although I felt uncomfortable about it, I repeated the question.
When he replied, his tone revealed absolutely no emotion. “Ain’t no best thing … the worst thing is the sound.”
“What do you mean?” I asked, already feeling a chill starting between my shoulder blades.
“The sound at night, outside my window. The fights, the gunshots, the screams. I hate it. I try not to listen,” he said, putting his hands over his ears to show me what he meant.
Stunned, I looked away to gather my ricocheting thoughts. Hoping for a clue that would steady me, I asked, “Why are you helping me today?”
He pointed up at one of my handbills on a pole and replied in his monotone. “I never met anybody important before. Maybe if you win, you could change it.”
Words failed me. Yet I was desperate to say anything that might validate his hope. Instead, we both stared silently into the afternoon’s long shadows. Finally, I thanked him for his help. He took extra handbills and rode off on his bike.
As I drove across the bridge over the highway that sequesters his stark neighborhood from through traffic, my eyes burned and my chin quivered like my grandfather’s used to when he watched a sad movie.
Remembering being 12 years old and trying to hide my fear behind a hard-rock expression, I wanted to go back and tell the kid, “Hey, don’t believe in guys passing out handbills. Don’t fall for anybody’s slogans. Watch your back and get out of the ghetto as fast as you can.”
But then I wanted to say, “You’re right! Work hard, be tough, you can change your neighborhood. You can change the world. Never give up!” During the ride home to the Fan District, I swore to myself to do my absolute best to win the election.
A few weeks later, at what was billed as my victory party, I, too, tried to be stoic as the telling election results tumbled in. The incumbent carried six of the district’s seven precincts. I carried one. The total vote wasn’t even close. Although I felt like I’d been in a car wreck, I did my best to act nonchalant.
This shot in Grace Place was snapped just after I saw the first news report on the election results. At that moment I knew I couldn't win.
In the course of my travels these days, I sometimes hear Happy Hour wags laughing off Richmond’s routine murder statistics. They scoff when I suggest that maybe there are just too many guns about; I’m told that as long as “we” stay out of “their” neighborhood, there is little to fear.
But remembering that brave Gilpin Court newspaper boy, I know that to him the sound of a drug dealer dying in the street was just as terrifying as the sound of any other human being giving up the ghost.
If he's still alive, that same boy would be older than I was when I met him. The ordeal he endured in his childhood was not unlike what children growing up in any number of the world’s bloody war zones are going through today. Plenty of them must cover their ears at night, too.For the reader who can’t figure out how this story could eventually come to bear on their own life, then just wait … keep listening.
-- 30 --
Monday, November 05, 2012
Think about the most telling difference
Without dwelling on history and clichés, in 2012, what is the most important difference between the USA's two major political parties?
In this case, when I say “parties,” I mean the elected and appointed politicians, plus their staffs and the volunteer organizations that orbit around those people in the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.
Of course, Libertarians, Greens, some Independents and a few thoughtful Apoliticals might say both parties suck up to Wall Street and cater to lobbyists, so there isn’t enough damn difference between Team Elephant and Team Donkey to matter. But someone else can write a piece to support that contention.
The typical Republican Party member now seems to believe it’s fine to suppress the vote, if that‘s what it takes to win. Laws and procedures have been changed by Republican controlled state houses and legislatures that have done just that, coast-to-coast.
Hey, a yellow dog Democrat might not give a staunch Republican a ride to the polling place, they might call the Republican a damn fool, but they would not favor using the power of government to discourage the Republican from voting. I say that because there's no evidence suggesting that both parties have been doing this.
To most Democrats it would simply be Un-American.
For just a minute, forget about all the arguing about other issues between liberals and conservatives. Just think about how dead wrong it is to lie about your motives, which the GOP has done this year, and then deliberately suppress the vote in a way designed to hurt the other party’s turnout.
The Republican Party’s leaders believe it’s so important for them to win this time that cheating in this way is OK in 2012. They obviously think of the Democrats as enemies that must be defeated by any means necessary. They seem to be imagining they are in a Holy War, with Heaven's permission to cheat their evil liberal adversaries.
Young or old, rich or poor, as you stand in line to vote, think about how dangerous such twisted, self-serving thinking could be to the future of our democracy.
It's not about ideology. It's about trust.
In this case, when I say “parties,” I mean the elected and appointed politicians, plus their staffs and the volunteer organizations that orbit around those people in the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.
Of course, Libertarians, Greens, some Independents and a few thoughtful Apoliticals might say both parties suck up to Wall Street and cater to lobbyists, so there isn’t enough damn difference between Team Elephant and Team Donkey to matter. But someone else can write a piece to support that contention.
The typical Republican Party member now seems to believe it’s fine to suppress the vote, if that‘s what it takes to win. Laws and procedures have been changed by Republican controlled state houses and legislatures that have done just that, coast-to-coast.
Hey, a yellow dog Democrat might not give a staunch Republican a ride to the polling place, they might call the Republican a damn fool, but they would not favor using the power of government to discourage the Republican from voting. I say that because there's no evidence suggesting that both parties have been doing this.
To most Democrats it would simply be Un-American.
For just a minute, forget about all the arguing about other issues between liberals and conservatives. Just think about how dead wrong it is to lie about your motives, which the GOP has done this year, and then deliberately suppress the vote in a way designed to hurt the other party’s turnout.
The Republican Party’s leaders believe it’s so important for them to win this time that cheating in this way is OK in 2012. They obviously think of the Democrats as enemies that must be defeated by any means necessary. They seem to be imagining they are in a Holy War, with Heaven's permission to cheat their evil liberal adversaries.
Young or old, rich or poor, as you stand in line to vote, think about how dangerous such twisted, self-serving thinking could be to the future of our democracy.
It's not about ideology. It's about trust.
Saturday, November 03, 2012
Extra Maudlin Sauce on that BBQ, please
The laughable Obama killed Bill’s BBQ ad (above) put out by the Romney camp, blaming the president’s policies for the failure of that out-of-date restaurant chain, is a perfect symbol of what Romney has served up to voters this year: Denial of reality heaped upon denial, slathered with a maudlin longing for another time’s lost amenities. A simpler time in which time-clock punchers blithely swallowed whatever guff they were told to eat.
Click here to read more about this Mitt Romney campaign ad at the Richmond Times-Dispatch, with lots of funny comments under the article.
Put simply, that political commercial reeks of the same galling phoniness Romney's campaign has been selling this entire year. It smells like Romney's reasons for not releasing his tax return information. It's reminiscent of the GOP's phony slogan for its convention -- We Built It!
Come to think of it, though, since Hurricane Sandy passed through, I haven't heard any Republicans bashing Obama with that We Built It! slogan.
Some would probably say it's too bad Romney’s staff didn't do a little research, before it crafted that absurd ad. With a few phone calls anyone in his camp could have discovered that most Richmonders of any political stripe gave up on Bill’s many years before Obama took office. Before closing up for good, Bill’s had been making lame barbecue sandwiches for a long time.
Then again, maybe the cynical political ad-makers knew all that, but they just didn't care. After all, they had a weepy lady who wanted to blame Obama. That was enough.
My guess is, this particular commercial will be remembered by some who chronicle the history of political campaign propaganda as a humorous and noteworthy low point for 2012.
Anybody need more sauce?
Thursday, November 01, 2012
Obama killed Bill's?
Background for a Romney ad that claims Obama killed the Bill's BBQ chain is here. The rest of the stuff is satire (I made it up to poke fun at Mitt).
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Behind the Conservative Mask
Many of today’s most outspoken conservatives are merely anti-liberals, people who wouldn‘t know a traditional conservative ideal if they stepped in it.
Why?
Over the last 20 years the political education of the blowhard wing of the Republican Party has come primarily by way of living within a talk radio echo chamber. They've learned to consider liberals as book-learned pansies who favor socialism … whatever that particular ism might be.
Millions of so-called conservatives are supporting former-Gov. Mitt Romney this year. Many of them aren't so keen on Romney. But since they see President Barack Obama as a flaming liberal, they can eagerly embrace Romney, the anti-liberal candidate.
Legions of today’s conservatives have been taught by self-styled pundits to hate a government that wants to take their money and give it to foreigners and lazy people who deserve nothing. These Dittohead conservatives view those who favor such a forced redistribution of wealth -- tax-and-spend liberals! -- as their sworn enemies.
Yet, when it came to financing collective endeavors, such as roads and schools, old fashioned conservatives, like Virginia's Sen. Harry F. Byrd, believed it was more prudent to tax than borrow. In the past, conservatives in Virginia supported the principle that government-backed banks should be extra careful with other people’s money.
At one time, American conservatives generally opposed risky military adventures overseas. Too many of today's trash-talking conservatives seem to believe the White House can and should decide who occupies the seats of power in lots of other countries.
Destroying nature in pursuit of profits does not conserve, it doesn‘t cherish and protect what was left to us. To a hedonist, squandering an inheritance might sound like fun. Still, it’s anything but conservative.
Saying the world was created in six days and that it is only 10,000 years old isn't as conservative as it is stubbornly ignorant. While it might be fun to pretend the Flintstones cartoons are documentaries, with dinosaurs and people living together, it's too bad some children are still being taught to ignore science.
Conservatives on abortion?
Hey, it’s more totalitarian than it is conservative to insist women surrender their bodies over to the will of the government, with regard to pregnancies. When right-to-lifers seek to impose their religious beliefs about personhood on others that may seem conservative, because it harkens back to a God-fearing past. Others might call such throwback thinking simply Un-American.
Likewise, fanning the dying embers of racism, in order to thwart a president’s reelection, is more backward than it is conservative. It's hardly about the future. Conservatism can't be anti-future.
A conservative used to have ideas. Conservative icon William F. Buckley didn't need to torture the truth to back up his ideas. There is no Buckley of today's Tea Party-driven conservative movement. Instead, we get smug spin doctors.
Behind their masks of conservatism, anti-liberals have more passion than ideas. This year their man is Romney. It doesn't matter so much what sort of temporary conservative he might be, this time around Romney is the candidate who is not a liberal ... and, of course, he's white.
Why?
Over the last 20 years the political education of the blowhard wing of the Republican Party has come primarily by way of living within a talk radio echo chamber. They've learned to consider liberals as book-learned pansies who favor socialism … whatever that particular ism might be.
Millions of so-called conservatives are supporting former-Gov. Mitt Romney this year. Many of them aren't so keen on Romney. But since they see President Barack Obama as a flaming liberal, they can eagerly embrace Romney, the anti-liberal candidate.
Legions of today’s conservatives have been taught by self-styled pundits to hate a government that wants to take their money and give it to foreigners and lazy people who deserve nothing. These Dittohead conservatives view those who favor such a forced redistribution of wealth -- tax-and-spend liberals! -- as their sworn enemies.
Yet, when it came to financing collective endeavors, such as roads and schools, old fashioned conservatives, like Virginia's Sen. Harry F. Byrd, believed it was more prudent to tax than borrow. In the past, conservatives in Virginia supported the principle that government-backed banks should be extra careful with other people’s money.
At one time, American conservatives generally opposed risky military adventures overseas. Too many of today's trash-talking conservatives seem to believe the White House can and should decide who occupies the seats of power in lots of other countries.
Destroying nature in pursuit of profits does not conserve, it doesn‘t cherish and protect what was left to us. To a hedonist, squandering an inheritance might sound like fun. Still, it’s anything but conservative.
Saying the world was created in six days and that it is only 10,000 years old isn't as conservative as it is stubbornly ignorant. While it might be fun to pretend the Flintstones cartoons are documentaries, with dinosaurs and people living together, it's too bad some children are still being taught to ignore science.
Conservatives on abortion?
Hey, it’s more totalitarian than it is conservative to insist women surrender their bodies over to the will of the government, with regard to pregnancies. When right-to-lifers seek to impose their religious beliefs about personhood on others that may seem conservative, because it harkens back to a God-fearing past. Others might call such throwback thinking simply Un-American.
Likewise, fanning the dying embers of racism, in order to thwart a president’s reelection, is more backward than it is conservative. It's hardly about the future. Conservatism can't be anti-future.
A conservative used to have ideas. Conservative icon William F. Buckley didn't need to torture the truth to back up his ideas. There is no Buckley of today's Tea Party-driven conservative movement. Instead, we get smug spin doctors.
Behind their masks of conservatism, anti-liberals have more passion than ideas. This year their man is Romney. It doesn't matter so much what sort of temporary conservative he might be, this time around Romney is the candidate who is not a liberal ... and, of course, he's white.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Through an Endorsement Darkly
The Richmond Times-Dispatch has found its way to endorsing the
Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, for president. That news probably
comes as no surprise to most of those familiar with the consistent tone
and purpose of the Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial page over the last
several decades.
The editorial which was published on Sun., Oct. 28, begins this way:
So, it’s hard to be persuaded by an essay that shyly parrots the sloganeering of hacks who laugh at the poor suckers who buy their brand of shinola.
Later the same editorial says:
OK, Romney, who oozes artificiality, does come off as somewhat more sincere than Herman Cain or Sarah Palin, but Romney is nowhere near as funny as either of them. And, almost anyone might be seen as more sincere than Newt Gingrich.
However, when someone tells me I should put a lot of trust in a person, because they are “generally straightforward,” I usually check to make sure I still have my wallet.
So, at this point I have to ask the author(s) of the piece, if they are so keen on Romney, why did they load it up with weasel words? So much so, the endorsement itself reeks of insincerity.
Seeing Romney as “accomplished,” is less of a stretch, in a generic sense. Yes, he has some noteworthy accomplishments. Whether one should take from his record in business and as governor that he would make a good president is debatable.
The notion that a high-powered businessman is what this country needs to turn around the economy can be supported by history. The last presidential candidate to run primarily on his wild success in business was Republican Herbert Hoover in 1928. The economy certainly did change directions during his one term in office. Cleaning up the mess that was the Great Depression took a few years for the Democrat who followed Hoover.
With how Romney has shifted his positions, when he tries to obscure and explain away bothersome aspects about his business and political past -- no tax returns! Romneycare! abortion! -- there’s just no way the shape-shifting son of a governor inspires trust in a prudent person’s mind.
This endorsement is what anti-liberals and Obama-haters need to throw a cloak over the truth: They don’t like Romney, either, but they pray they can live with him ... easier than they did with Bush II.
This sort of conservative philosophy is only about having the power. And, it’s backward. Which, in some ways, makes the choice for president on Election Day a matter of direction.
The editorial which was published on Sun., Oct. 28, begins this way:
The tone of the 2012 campaign might best be captured by the need to begin with an emphasis on what the Republican candidate will not do. Mitt Romney will not raise taxes on the middle class. He will not destroy Medicare. And he will not lie to the American people every time he opens his mouth.The obvious implication being that Barack Obama has done/is doing these things. Of course, those thinly-veiled accusations have been borrowed from the most partisan of rightwing poppycock -- the sort of Obama-bashing rhetoric easily available on talk radio.
So, it’s hard to be persuaded by an essay that shyly parrots the sloganeering of hacks who laugh at the poor suckers who buy their brand of shinola.
Later the same editorial says:
In the service of accuracy, let's look at the generally straightforward proposals and philosophy espoused by Romney, who strikes us as both more earnest and more accomplished than your average presidential candidate.Well, the newspaper isn’t exactly setting the bar all that high, when it comes to earnestness. Have you ever heard anyone say, "Yes, that's an earnest group of presidential hopefuls"?
OK, Romney, who oozes artificiality, does come off as somewhat more sincere than Herman Cain or Sarah Palin, but Romney is nowhere near as funny as either of them. And, almost anyone might be seen as more sincere than Newt Gingrich.
However, when someone tells me I should put a lot of trust in a person, because they are “generally straightforward,” I usually check to make sure I still have my wallet.
So, at this point I have to ask the author(s) of the piece, if they are so keen on Romney, why did they load it up with weasel words? So much so, the endorsement itself reeks of insincerity.
Seeing Romney as “accomplished,” is less of a stretch, in a generic sense. Yes, he has some noteworthy accomplishments. Whether one should take from his record in business and as governor that he would make a good president is debatable.
The notion that a high-powered businessman is what this country needs to turn around the economy can be supported by history. The last presidential candidate to run primarily on his wild success in business was Republican Herbert Hoover in 1928. The economy certainly did change directions during his one term in office. Cleaning up the mess that was the Great Depression took a few years for the Democrat who followed Hoover.
With how Romney has shifted his positions, when he tries to obscure and explain away bothersome aspects about his business and political past -- no tax returns! Romneycare! abortion! -- there’s just no way the shape-shifting son of a governor inspires trust in a prudent person’s mind.
This endorsement is what anti-liberals and Obama-haters need to throw a cloak over the truth: They don’t like Romney, either, but they pray they can live with him ... easier than they did with Bush II.
This sort of conservative philosophy is only about having the power. And, it’s backward. Which, in some ways, makes the choice for president on Election Day a matter of direction.
-- 30 --
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Picasso and Powell
In February of 1981 I saw Pablo Picasso’s “Guernica” with my
then-11-year-old daughter. When the Museum of Modern Art’s elevator
doors opened the sight of the 25-foot wide masterpiece was so stunning
the doors began to close before the spell was broken.
Picasso's “Guernica”
A few months later, upon the 100-year anniversary of Picasso’s birth, history’s most celebrated piece of anti-war art was packed up and sent to the Reina Sofia Museum in Madrid, Spain. However, a large copy of “Guernica” hangs on the second floor of the United Nations building -- a tapestry donated to the U.N. by Nelson Rockefeller’s estate in 1985.
On the occasion of then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell’s February 5, 2003 presentation -- underlining his president’s impatience with U.N. members seeking to avoid, or delay, war in Iraq -- the tapestry was completely covered that day by a blue drape. Powell apparently realized that even a replica of that particular piece had to be avoided as a backdrop of any photographs of him on that fateful day.
Nine years after the invasion of Iraq, I wonder how much of what Powell said that day he knew then had been ginned up by propagandists in the Bush administration. And, I wonder how much of what he said he believed was true.
In some ways little has changed at the heart of arguments concerning war and occupation since France’s army -- as driven by the empire-building vision of Napoleon Bonaparte -- was an occupying force in Spain.
Overwhelmed by the brutality of France’s campaign of terror to crush the Spanish will to resist, Francisco Goya (1746-1828) -- a well-connected artist who had much to lose -- took it upon himself to remove the romantic veil of glory which had always been draped over paintings of war in European art. Documenting what he saw of war, firsthand, the images Goya hurled at viewers of his paintings and prints radically departed from tradition.
Instead of heroic glorification Goya offered horrific gore. The art world hasn’t been the same since.
Following in Goya’s footsteps artists such as Honore Daumier (1808-1879), Georges Rouault (1871-1959), Frans Masereel (1889-1971), Otto Dix (1892-1969), among many others, created still more haunting images illustrating the grittier aspects of modern war. In the midst of the Spanish Civil War, with the storm clouds of World War II gathering, Spaniard Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) created “Guernica.”
On April 27, 1937, to field test state-of the-art equipment, Adolf Hitler loaned a portion of Germany’s air force, the Condor Legion, to a fellow fascist dictator -- Spain’s Francisco Franco. The mission: to bomb a small town a few miles inland from the Gulf of Biscay; a Basque village that had no strategic value whatsoever.
The result: utter terror.
Bombs rained on Guernica for over three hours; cold-blooded machine gunners mowed down the poor souls who fled into the surrounding fields.
Four days later with grim photographs of mutilated corpses on the front pages of French newspapers a million outraged Parisians took to their streets to protest the bombing of Guernica.
That same day Picasso, who was in Paris, dropped everything else and began sketching studies for what became “Guernica.” As Spain’s government-in-exile had already commissioned him to create a mural for its pavilion in the upcoming Paris World’s Fair, the inspired artist already had the perfect place to exhibit his statement -- a shades-of-gray, cartoonish composition made up of a terrified huddle of people and animals.
When the fair closed “Guernica” needed a home. Not only was the Spain of Generalissimo Franco out of the question, Picasso decided it wouldn’t be safe anywhere in Europe. He was probably right. Thus, the huge canvas was shipped to the USA and eventually wound up calling MOMA its home until 1981.
Colin Powell, a former four-star general, who, unlike some of Bush’s hawkish neoconservative experts, knew war firsthand, from the inside out. It seems the Secretary knew something about art history, as well. Six weeks before the invasion of Iraq, he apparently retained a firm grasp on the potential of “Guernica” to cast a bitterly ironic light upon his history-making utterances.
That, while he may have lost his grip on what had been his honor. Instead of resigning because he disagreed with the Bush policy, Powell said, “We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities...”
Now Powell lives with the memory of the strategic blue drape that was thrown over “Guernica,” and the symbolic blue drape that he helped to throw over the truth.
Picasso's “Guernica”A few months later, upon the 100-year anniversary of Picasso’s birth, history’s most celebrated piece of anti-war art was packed up and sent to the Reina Sofia Museum in Madrid, Spain. However, a large copy of “Guernica” hangs on the second floor of the United Nations building -- a tapestry donated to the U.N. by Nelson Rockefeller’s estate in 1985.
On the occasion of then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell’s February 5, 2003 presentation -- underlining his president’s impatience with U.N. members seeking to avoid, or delay, war in Iraq -- the tapestry was completely covered that day by a blue drape. Powell apparently realized that even a replica of that particular piece had to be avoided as a backdrop of any photographs of him on that fateful day.
Nine years after the invasion of Iraq, I wonder how much of what Powell said that day he knew then had been ginned up by propagandists in the Bush administration. And, I wonder how much of what he said he believed was true.
*
In some ways little has changed at the heart of arguments concerning war and occupation since France’s army -- as driven by the empire-building vision of Napoleon Bonaparte -- was an occupying force in Spain.
Overwhelmed by the brutality of France’s campaign of terror to crush the Spanish will to resist, Francisco Goya (1746-1828) -- a well-connected artist who had much to lose -- took it upon himself to remove the romantic veil of glory which had always been draped over paintings of war in European art. Documenting what he saw of war, firsthand, the images Goya hurled at viewers of his paintings and prints radically departed from tradition.
Instead of heroic glorification Goya offered horrific gore. The art world hasn’t been the same since.
Following in Goya’s footsteps artists such as Honore Daumier (1808-1879), Georges Rouault (1871-1959), Frans Masereel (1889-1971), Otto Dix (1892-1969), among many others, created still more haunting images illustrating the grittier aspects of modern war. In the midst of the Spanish Civil War, with the storm clouds of World War II gathering, Spaniard Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) created “Guernica.”
On April 27, 1937, to field test state-of the-art equipment, Adolf Hitler loaned a portion of Germany’s air force, the Condor Legion, to a fellow fascist dictator -- Spain’s Francisco Franco. The mission: to bomb a small town a few miles inland from the Gulf of Biscay; a Basque village that had no strategic value whatsoever.
The result: utter terror.
Bombs rained on Guernica for over three hours; cold-blooded machine gunners mowed down the poor souls who fled into the surrounding fields.
Four days later with grim photographs of mutilated corpses on the front pages of French newspapers a million outraged Parisians took to their streets to protest the bombing of Guernica.
That same day Picasso, who was in Paris, dropped everything else and began sketching studies for what became “Guernica.” As Spain’s government-in-exile had already commissioned him to create a mural for its pavilion in the upcoming Paris World’s Fair, the inspired artist already had the perfect place to exhibit his statement -- a shades-of-gray, cartoonish composition made up of a terrified huddle of people and animals.
When the fair closed “Guernica” needed a home. Not only was the Spain of Generalissimo Franco out of the question, Picasso decided it wouldn’t be safe anywhere in Europe. He was probably right. Thus, the huge canvas was shipped to the USA and eventually wound up calling MOMA its home until 1981.
*
Colin Powell, a former four-star general, who, unlike some of Bush’s hawkish neoconservative experts, knew war firsthand, from the inside out. It seems the Secretary knew something about art history, as well. Six weeks before the invasion of Iraq, he apparently retained a firm grasp on the potential of “Guernica” to cast a bitterly ironic light upon his history-making utterances.
That, while he may have lost his grip on what had been his honor. Instead of resigning because he disagreed with the Bush policy, Powell said, “We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities...”
Now Powell lives with the memory of the strategic blue drape that was thrown over “Guernica,” and the symbolic blue drape that he helped to throw over the truth.
-- 30 --
Councilmanic Candidates on the Redskins/Bon Secours deal?
As a Second District voter in Richmond, I'd like to know what that district's two councilmanic candidates think of the Redskins/Bon Secours deal. After all, the proposed practice facility will be in the district they hope to represent for the next four years.
So, I want incumbent Charles Samuels and challenger Charlie Diradour to say why they support it? Or why they do not support it.
This will be an important matter for City Council to consider. Voters in all of Richmond districts (with contested races) should press their candidates to comment on this complicated deal. As it is structured, is it in the best interests of Richmond's citizens?
So, I want incumbent Charles Samuels and challenger Charlie Diradour to say why they support it? Or why they do not support it.
This will be an important matter for City Council to consider. Voters in all of Richmond districts (with contested races) should press their candidates to comment on this complicated deal. As it is structured, is it in the best interests of Richmond's citizens?
Thursday, October 25, 2012
We Were Warned
Sen. Robert Byrd (1917-2010) will be remembered for many things. Among them, he was the longest serving senator (1959-2010). Nine-and-a-half years ago, on the eve of a war, Byrd's words of warning were blown off by the hawks in the Bush administration.
Byrd was cast by war mongers as an old goat, who was just out of touch with the times. His brief, passionate speech delivered on the floor of the U.S. Senate on March 19, 2003 makes for a particularly interesting read now, in light of all we've learned since that time.
Mitt Romney now seems eager to use the power of the presidency to bully nations in the Middle East again. The Republican candidate talks like he thinks the USA ought to be able to dictate the sort of government nations in that region have. Romney's bellicose rhetoric has made a war with Iran seem much more likely if he is elected.
Here are Sen. Byrd's words of advice that Congress and President Bush ignored:
I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.
But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of a strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.
Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.
We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split.
After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.
The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.
There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.
The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.
But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.
The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home?
A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.
What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?
Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?
War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us.
For the sake of peace and rebuilding our own country, the infrastructure-challenged USA, Obama's reelection is vital. Trusting Romney as the Commander-in-Chief is asking for the worst sort of bloody trouble.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
What the Debates Revealed
The debates are over and the sprint toward Election Day is underway. Why do we Americans love televised debates? And, why do we hate them?
The two easy answers are:
1. Debates are much anticipated and seem to be high stakes live television, with everything on the line; they are the ultimate reality game show.
2. Debates are usually a tedious rehashing of oft-stated positions and they have little to do with revealing a candidate’s talent for running the country’s gargantuan executive branch of the government for four years.
Although each debate was a separate event, with its own post-debate sound bites and spin, once they’re over they seem to quickly dissolve into what they were in context -- battles within a larger war of words. And, it’s easy for us to lump them together and see them as “the debates,” with an overall winner and loser.
As a 12-year-old political junkie in the making, I watched the groundbreaking 1960 debates between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Can’t say how many debates I might have missed since then, but it hasn’t been many.
This year three debates pitted the presidential candidates against one another. One debate featured the two vice presidential candidates. To refresh your memory and provide a handy reference, here are my reviews of the four 90-minute debates of October 2012.
Whatever use that may be to voters, it’s clear we Americans love to hate the debates that occur near the end of presidential campaigns. Most of the time, it seems viewers are looking for the candidate they already prefer to say more things they like to hear. It's hard for me to imagine how anyone could be undecided at this late date, yet that's the audience the candidates' strategies are supposedly aimed at.
Like, if you don't know whether you want Mitt Romney or Barack Obama appointing the next Supreme Court justice, or deciding whether to go to war, then I don't know what anyone could say to settle your mind.
It could be the undecideds who intend to vote enjoy waiting to see which candidate will look the most uncomfortable under the bright lights of the debates ... then they decide accordingly.
Bottom line: Maybe the best thing about the debates is they are a familiar signal that the long campaign is almost over.
The two easy answers are:
1. Debates are much anticipated and seem to be high stakes live television, with everything on the line; they are the ultimate reality game show.
2. Debates are usually a tedious rehashing of oft-stated positions and they have little to do with revealing a candidate’s talent for running the country’s gargantuan executive branch of the government for four years.
Although each debate was a separate event, with its own post-debate sound bites and spin, once they’re over they seem to quickly dissolve into what they were in context -- battles within a larger war of words. And, it’s easy for us to lump them together and see them as “the debates,” with an overall winner and loser.
As a 12-year-old political junkie in the making, I watched the groundbreaking 1960 debates between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Can’t say how many debates I might have missed since then, but it hasn’t been many.
This year three debates pitted the presidential candidates against one another. One debate featured the two vice presidential candidates. To refresh your memory and provide a handy reference, here are my reviews of the four 90-minute debates of October 2012.
- Click here to read, “All Shook Up.”
- Click here to read, “Biden, 8 to 3, with 4 even.”
- Click here to read, “Obama 9, Romney 3, with 3 rounds even.”
- Click here to read, “Horses, Bayonets and Maybe a Bad Clam.”
Whatever use that may be to voters, it’s clear we Americans love to hate the debates that occur near the end of presidential campaigns. Most of the time, it seems viewers are looking for the candidate they already prefer to say more things they like to hear. It's hard for me to imagine how anyone could be undecided at this late date, yet that's the audience the candidates' strategies are supposedly aimed at.
Like, if you don't know whether you want Mitt Romney or Barack Obama appointing the next Supreme Court justice, or deciding whether to go to war, then I don't know what anyone could say to settle your mind.
It could be the undecideds who intend to vote enjoy waiting to see which candidate will look the most uncomfortable under the bright lights of the debates ... then they decide accordingly.
Bottom line: Maybe the best thing about the debates is they are a familiar signal that the long campaign is almost over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)