Archive for the ‘news’ category

King’s Birthday – Private Epiphany

January 17, 2011

Attempted Portrait

One of the great things of not watching much TV is that you get to have your own private epiphanies–sudden realizations that would probably be hammered into your brain if you were habitually tuned into to some 24-hour news channel, but which you get to somehow happen upon in non-television meanderings.

I happened onto one of these realizations today–I was lucky enough to receive an email from Leonie Haimson who runs Class Size Matters, an organization that focuses on trying to improve the New York City school system, in part through reduction of class size.  In today’s email, Ms. Haimson embedded a video of an interview of Martin Luther King Jr. with Martin Agronsky in 1957.

The interview, conducted at Dr. King’s church in Montgomery, Alabama (made only a couple of years after Rosa Parks’ arrest) is incredibly impressive.  King is articulate, thoughtful, carefully analytical, profound and generous.  And so so young.

My “revelation” (undoubtedly more of a remembrance than a true epiphany) was about King’s youth–the youngest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize at 35, assassinated at just 39, in his twenties in this particular interview.

I always think of him as having that kind of slightly rounded face that doesn’t show age, but the fact is that he didn’t attain a very old age.  Just 39 at death.  So impressive, so young.

The interview (embedded in Ms. Haimson’s blog) can be found here.

PS – Sorry to self-promote, but please please please check out “Going on Somewhere” on Amazon, and if it’s not a strain, get a copy!  (If it’s a strain, drop me a line and I’ll send you one at a heavy heavy reduction.)

Public Bravery/Kings/Gun Craziness

January 16, 2011

In the wake of the Tucson shootings and Obama’s inspirational memorial speech, and now on the eve of Martin Luther King’s birthday, it is hard not to think of the bravery required to put one’s self in the public eye, much less to take a stand.

Just after writing that sentence, I read about Colin Firth winning a Golden Globe for The King’s Speech, which brings up another kind of public bravery.  I don’t mean overcoming the stutter so much, as George VI’s role in World War II, particularly his remaining in London during the Blitz, where he and the Queen Elizabeth–the Queen Mother–narrowly missed death by a bomb on Buckingham Palace.  “I am glad we were bombed,” Queen Elizabeth reportedly declared, “we can now look the East End [previously heavily bombed] in the face.”

I’m not here comparing the bravery of the different Kings, only noting that the requirement of bravery in public life is not a new phenomenon.

I will note, however, that it took the air force of an entire nation (Nazi Germany) to attack King George VI, while in the U.S., a lone gunman seems to suffice.

It’s a truism to say that Americans love their guns.

Just before writing all those sentences above, I read about the Massachusetts’ acquittal of a gun fair organizer on a charge of involuntary manslaughter in the death of an 8 year old from accidentally shooting himself in the head with an Uzi machine gun.  The defendant Police Chief Edward Fleury’s firearms training company had co-sponsored the annual Machine Gun Shoot and FireArms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman’s Club, near Springfield, Massachusetts.   The 8 year old boy was shooting only under the supervision of another boy — an unlicensed fifteen year old.  (Apparently, his father who had taken him to the fair and was videoing the incident was also there.)  The Uzi machine gun kicked back when the 8 year old fired it, shooting him in the head.   The event’s ad read “It’s all legal & fun–No permits or licenses required!!”

The ad also said:  “You will be accompanied to the firing line with a Certified Instructor to guide you.”

Neither of these statements turned out to be true.  (It is thankfully not actually legal to arrange for an 8 year old to fire a machine gun in Massachusetts.)

These facts did not seem to overly influence the jury, however.  Accidents happen.

More on Obama’s Speech in Tucson – A Gift a la John Keats

January 13, 2011

John Keats' Tracing of Grecian Urn

The man has a gift.

He can wade through painful murk and leave a balm of clarity in his wake.  (No, he can’t change water into wine, but he sure can change whine into water.) 

Like many types of gifts, this one may not always be at Obama’s disposal.  He’s human, he gets bogged down and worn down.  But when he’s inspired, he’s inspirational.

It’s so interesting to compare Obama’s speech in Tucson with Palin’s delivered via Facebook earlier in the day.  I don’t mean here to express any particular animus towards Palin—she was speaking in a totally different context—an actual memorial service tends to bring out eloquence in a way that a home video does not.   Still, the differences are striking.  Even her calls to unity feel a bit like bludgeons—there is a defensive “or else” tone to her voice, and she seems to jump from catch phrase to catch phrase as if they were foothold rocks in a rushing steam.  (Unfortunately, some of these catch phrases, a/k/a ‘blood libel’ proved, like foothold rocks, to be a bit treacherous.)

Obama also uses age-old phrases at times—“a more perfect union”, references to Giffords’“updated version of government by the people, for the people, of the people.”   Even, I suppose, the remarks about rain puddles in heaven and the juxtaposition of the “hands over our hearts” has a certain very traditional rhetorical cleverness – but he manages to use these phrases in a way that is resonant and not catchy; he captures a kind of poetry.  This poetry not only has emotive force, but a certain rightness, the human mind (as noted by John Keats in his Ode to a Grecian Urn) seeking always to equate truth and beauty, beauty and truth.

It’s an amazing gift that Obama has, and that he gives us.

Obama’s Speech in Tucson

January 12, 2011

Just read the text of Obama’s speech in Tucson, and I take back everything snarky that I wrote in my prior post re references to prayer by politicians.  Yes, I was thinking, when I wrote that earlier post, about Sarah Palin’s references to prayer, more than Obama’s, but I still take it all back.   In the interests of not criticizing anybody (in the aftermath of Obama’s speech), I probably should just remove the post.

The text of Obama’s speech is incredibly moving; his references to scripture and prayer and life and death are poetic and beautiful and comforting and wise.    Here’s hoping people hear him.

 

PS – Here’s the link to the video of the truly wonderful speech.

Pray, Let it Be Silent.

January 12, 2011

Prayer Lapel Pin?

I, for one, am tired of being told to pray for people.

Wait.  Before you misunderstand me–I’m not against prayer.  I really would like all beings to be free from suffering.

(Okay, sorry, that sounds Buddhist;  let me broaden it.)

I really am not against–let me rephrase again–I am actively in favor of prayer:  religious prayer, private prayer, meditative prayer,  even group prayer (in a religious or quasi-religious setting, or as part of a shared ritual or genuine uprising of community emotion).

But I am getting really tired of political-speak prayer, tired of politicians asking or telling me about prayer.

One more backtrack--I don’t mean prayer in the midst of crisis especially the brief but heartfelt, “our thoughts and prayers.”)  And I don’t mean prayer or other spiritual references by a political figure at a memorial service or a religious or quasi-religious event, such as President Obama at the memorial service for the Arizona victims.

Such references to scripture and prayer in such a setting and moment can offer true and appropriate solace, comfort, poetry.

(I don’t even have a problem with prayer breakfasts, if seeking wisdom and accompanied by, you know, marmalade.)

What I’m balking at are prayers, and calls for prayer, used as major portions of political speeches and commentary.  (Okay, in order to be clear, I guess I’m talking about Palin here, and Beck, and others who seem to use prayer frequently to make political points.)

I am disturbed, in part, by the feeling that the God invoked is swayed by numbers–as if He or She makes decisions by petition, popularity contest, votes.  This is a notion that I find insulting both of God and of those whose prayers are not somehow answered (i.e. lots of people, lots of times.)

Please, I really am not saying people or a politician shouldn’t pray for a loved one or stranger, for the country or the planet. But the ubiquitous political use of prayer in a non-spiritual and politicized setting diminishes its gravity; references to prayer begin to feel like a litmus test, a new form of flag pin, one more codeword.

I pray not.  (Amen.)

Not A Great Time For Polemics

January 10, 2011

Anything You Say May Be Used Against You

Cards on the table.   I am in favor of gun control, against political vitriol;  neither guns nor catchy political hyperbole seem to promote a more peaceful society.   That said, Jared Loughner appears to be very disturbed.  It is hard to know what societal factors may set someone like that off.

That said, it is not a useful time for polemics;  the political infighting seems unmindful of the pain and loss of the victims, and, given the immediate leap to the backlash, not useful for the promotion of any particular cause.

Sadness Out of Arizona

January 9, 2011

Freedom of Expression? (Fired up, untethered, armed.)

Sad Evening for Arizona and U.S. – Caught in the Cross Hairs

January 9, 2011

 

Attempted Portrait of Gabrielle Giffords

 

I haven’t followed the lives and careers of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords or Federal Judge John Roll, much less that of the unnamed nine year old girl, all downed in the terrible shooting today in Tucson, Arizona.  I am sorry not to have paid more attention.

I haven’t yet been able to read much about Roll, but I find something extremely likeable in Giffords’ countenance; a friendliness, a lack of vanity, a straightforward intelligence.  (I think I may feel particularly drawn to her because she looks like she has the thin, overly-flat, hair that has dogged me my whole life.)

One can’t help but feel that the shooting was politically motivated;  the shooter (and possible accomplices) certainly may have lacked general emotional or mental stability, but the particular objects (liberal politicians) and means (guns) seem to be inspired by specific elements of political vitriol.   Giffords, in particular, had been metaphorically targeted by conservative groups for some time.  (She was, for example, one of those politicians depicted in the cross-hairs on conservative maps of districts to be won, propounded by those like Sarah Palin.)    Of course, none of those groups meant for this to happen;  I am genuinely sure that they are truly saddened.    Still terrible.

 

In Support of Mark Twain

January 7, 2011

The above drawing does not purport to be from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which is complex, human, and powerfully reflects its time and geography. How can the present be understood without clear views of the past?

The only New Start some want is the one that begins in January.

December 20, 2010

Certain leading Republicans, such as Lindsay Graham, have now announced a suddenly unbending hostility to the New Start treaty between the U.S. and Russia.  The treaty would resume on-site inspections of nuclear missile sites (lapsed last year) and pare down nuclear missile heads and launchers; the provisions are aimed at  keeping track of these weapons, attempting to avoid their loss or transfer to third parties (i.e. terrorists.)

Some complain of certain verification provisions. (This could be a legitimate issue for longterm treaty naysayers.)   But the newer complaints focus on non-binding language in the treaty’s preamble.

The weapons the Republicans seem truly worried about are their own political salvos:  Hey, I thought we torpedoed this President.

And btw since when didn’t you realize a nation with gay soldiers practically deserves to face nuclear weapons?)

And p.s. how dare Obama take credit for tax cuts?

Filibustering majority positions is a-okay, but making congressmen work into December?  Through their full terms of service?!

Nuclear proliferation be damned!

(One wants to remind them that Russia can almost be seen from Alaska.  Better think again.)