I was looking forward to tonight’s debate between Clinton and Obama. For those of you who watched it, as I did, I’m sorry. I’m sorry because you probably feel like you wasted two hours, but I’m also sorry to see that this bullshit passes for debate. The ABC News website has a blog with thousands of comments, most of which express great anger at this travesty. I’ll defer to one such commenter:
Our country is engaged in unlawful war, our military is breaking, our economy faces severe recession, our moral standing in the world has collapsed, our currency has lost nearly half its value, our infrastructure is disintegrating, our citizens cannot afford to stay in their homes though Wall Street moguls make billions of dollars annually, our current adminsitration condones and encourages torture - and lies to us about their actions, our borders cannot be adequatley policed for unlawful entry, our school sytems are so underfunded as to be barely above ‘third-world’ standards, our major auto manufacturers refuse to create vehicles that achieve even half the mpg of European manufactures, our minimum wage is slightly above poverty levels, our health care system operates to benefit the pharmaceutical industry, our veterans are ignored; their physical and emotional suffering trivialized, our energy conglomerates purposely stand in the way of advancing alternative energy, our citizens believe elections have been manipulated and stolen - and that our government has manufactured terror to maintain the facade of protecting us, our constitutional rights and responsibilities have been abridged and decimated, our access to meaningful ‘news’ is stymied by corporate media interests, our government spies on us by unlawful means under the guise of protecting our freedoms, our military commanders present disparate assessments of our ’success’ in the middle east, our citizenry argues about gay marriage and flag burning while congress postures about life-saving possibilities of stem cell research, our airwaves are filled with hate speech spewing from commentators more interested in shocking us than being truthful….. and you waste our time at this most crucial period in US history asking a man as intelligent and insightful as Senator Obama why he doesn’t wear a flag pin on his lapel? This? This is the best we can do to elect a president?####.Bitter in Seattle
Indeed. Given the multitude of issues that are dogging threatening the very soul of this country, it is shameful that an hour is spent discussing flag pins, tenuous connections to some ex-radical from the 1960’s and other crap. When they “cut to video” to show a concerned midwesterner (who’s hair and home, by the way, looked straight out of the early eighties) ask about flag pins and patriotism, I felt like kicking her head in. I wonder how life is for her… does she have health insurance, a good job, college savings for her children? When she was given the opportunity to address the nation, all she could ask about is a meaningless symbol. I bet she has a magnetic ribbon made in China expressing support for our troops on her Ford Taurus.
But there will always be people like her. The real travesty is the fact that ABC sanctioned this garbage. It should come as no surprise to the older generations, after this debate, that very few people my age (25) watch network news. It has reached the point where the whole packaging of the news is so biased as to render it meaningless. There’s a lot of talk over at Kos about boycotts, etc. and I’m all for that. We need to cut ourself out of this destructive cycle:
We need big picture talk in these big picture times. Bush will soon leave office, but the damage done to our national institutions, including the media, will take a lot of work to repair. To hear it straight, check out NovaM Radio, home to Mike Malloy, and now, Randi Rhodes. Voices speaking truth to power are out there, but we must actively seek them out. Candidates must do the same and insist upon issues-based debates. If our national networks can not handle this, then let bloggers team up with PBS. No more.
The death of Jerry Falwell and the ongoing carnage in Iraq has had me meditating on two heavy topics. First, regarding Jerry Falwell. He was a despicable man who used the bully pulpit of radicalized religion to spread a message of intolerance and hate. He happily contributed to the phony culture wars, and as a result has helped polarize the United States. He may or may not have been an evil man, but it is no doubt that his ideology was. Therefore I am glad he has died. Although his power had declined of late, he served as a figurehead for a nasty and un-American movement. We are told never to speak ill of the dead, however I see no reason for this in the case of Jerry Falwell. His blustering against everything outside of his narrow view of reality coupled with the sheer sin of manipulating lonely and desperate people leaves him with no remorse from me; I’m glad to see him go.
Another topic that is weighing heavily on me is the “support the troops” meme. All of the Democratic candidates are espousing how much they support the troops; indeed Edwards, my favorite, is offering a T-shirt which reads “Support the Troops” on the front and “End the War” on the back. While I understand the political expediency of such expressions, I wonder if it is just cover. I wonder if it is okay to not support the troops, and the more I think about it, this is how I feel. Now I realize that joining the Army these days is predicated on many factors, not in the least socioeconomic. But that does not negate the fact that the mission is immoral. I strongly reject the neocon doctrine of foreign affairs, and this war is the showcase of just that. Our troops are in Iraq as an occupying force, and the Iraqis are resisting them as such. This does not mean that I support the killing and maiming of American (or “coalition”) forces, but I do understand why the Iraqis are planting bombs by the roadside.
Although we Americans come from a society that is both free and liberal, we must realize that much of the world does not operate on these terms. Strongmen, however reprehensible, often through their brute force put a lid on nasty, self-destructive tendencies present in any society. Although America is a multi-ethnic society relatively free of violence, we must remember that the American model IS exceptional. Therein lies the dilemma. Most people on the right these days take our special standing as a mandate to bring these values, by any means, to other parts of the world. On the left, however, most are unwilling to acknowledge the privileged situation of the United States and foolishly call for equal justice/rights around the world. Both views are naive, and more so, self-destructive. We must discard both mistaken sets of belief. Not that I’m asking anyone to be a moderate… as many of you know, I am not. But if one is to be radical and campaign for change, then one must have an agenda that has a chance of success. Of the real demons that face the US, radical Islamic terrorism is not even in the top 5; fighting poverty and outsourcing, protecting the environment and our civil liberties all take precedence over the irrational fear of terrorism.
So no, I don’t support the troops because they are engaged in a mission which is damaging our country by the day. Because I do not support them, I want them out of there. How about that?
As many of you may know, I am currently knee-deep in the law school application progress. At this point, I’ve received some acceptances, some wait-lists (the most maddening of all,) and of course some rejections. Although a rejection is disappointing, I did aim high, so when Harvard wrote back replying that it would not be reserving a seat for me, I was not terribly shocked. This is not to knock the schools which have accepted me, (indeed I should have a definitive announcement soon,) but just a reflection of fact. There are simply more highly trained applicatants than there is space for them. To get into one of the top three law schools (Harvard, Yale, Stanford - or HYS in the jargon,) you not only need a perfect LSAT score and undergraduate GPA, but also have interned at the UN, started your own business and successfully managed the subsequent IPO. So, while I’m not Harvard material (sorry Mom,) I am confident in my abilities to do well wherever I attend and create a distinguished career.
One of my interests is environmental law, and I sometimes think about working for the EPA or other governmental agencies. This said, I realize that the competition for such important jobs will be fierce and that I will have to contend with the likes of those who graduated from HYS. Or at least I did before reading this article in the Boston Globe. The article discusses Monica Goodling (the former top aid to Alberto Gonzales who has resigned and pled the 5th) and the law school from which she graduated, Regent University School of Law.
This little known law school was founded by Pat Robertson, the Christian Dominionist who wishes to turn the United States into a theocracy. In the law school’s about us page, it claims: “The mission of Regent Law School is to bring to bear the will of our Creator, Almighty God, upon legal education and the legal profession.” Digging further, the student handbook (PDF) turns up some interesting details:
1. The Equal Opportunity Policy professes not to discriminate in regards to: disability, veteran status, age, geneder, race, color, national or ethnic origin. From this list, we can assume against whom they do reserve the right to discriminate.
2. In addition to the usual exhortations against drugs, alcohol and tobacco is prohibited. The motivation for this is stated as thus: “The Apostle Paul exhorts the body of Christ that, if they truly loved their fellow man, they would set aside their personal freedom by refraining from behavior that might be a stumbling block to their weaker brother.”
3. Sexual Misconduct. Disorderly conduct or lewd, indedent or obscene conduct or expression, involvement with pornography, premarital sex, adultry, homosexual conduct or any other conduct, which violates Biblical standards, is prohibited.
Not to belabor the obvious, but I also found out that John Ashcroft often teaches courses at the law school, although he is listed as a faculty member for Regent University’s Robertson School of Government. He taught a class titled “Human Rights, Civil Liberties, and National Security.” Regent is a Tier 4 school with a median LSAT score of 153.
The Boston Globe article outlines the history of the school and why over 150 Regent University alumni have been hired to Federal Government positions since the beginning of the Bush administration. One of the most blatant reasons for this alarmingly high number is the fact that Bush nominated the Dean of Regent’s School of Government as director of the Office of Personnel Management; the OPM is responsible for hiring civilians for Federal jobs. Regent Law boasts that 1 out of 6 of its alumni work for for the Government. Since those with law degrees tend to end up in the Department of Justice, it should come as no surprise the Goodling ended up in a senior position there. The article further describes that Ashcroft, while AG, changed the hiring rules for the DOJ: “Conservative credentials rose, while prior experience in civil rights law and the average ranking of the law school attended by the applicant dropped.” As Paul Krugman notes, this is but one example of the, “infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda.”
The United States has never been perfect, but an important ideal it embodies is meritocracy, rule based on demonstrated ability. As a 162 LSAT recipient, I realize that Harvard isn’t interested in me. But in my rejection, I rest assured that those who were accepted did better than me on the test, and thus, supposedly, are more prepared for certain endeavors. I accept this without bitterness and understand that there is a class of people smarter than I am; I hope that these people put their skills to good use in the form of public service.
If an unexperienced graduate of a 4th tier law school established only to further a narrow-minded and undemocratic agenda is promoted to great heights in the DOJ, I can only wonder how many more such individuals are crafting policy within our Federal Government. Although it seems that the Bush house of cards is starting to tumble (see banner, top right) the damage that has been done will take years if not decades to reverse. When qualified candidates are passed over for at best partisan hacks, or at worst fascists bearing flag draped crosses, the peril to our democracy can not be over-stated. This, and Iraq, and Katrina, and Walter Reed, this is the face of compassionate conservatism, this is the revolution started by Regan and re-awakened by Bush post-9/11. This is what our country has become under Bush and these are the “values” to which roughly 1/4 of our own citizens apparently adhere. If we do not all do our part to stop this, the world will have lost a beacon for enlightened government.
1: New Videos! Some videos from Uzbekistan have been posted in the photo gallery! They are in the section, “Videos,” in the category, “Peace Corps Uzbekistan.” Enjoy and please contact me if you have any difficulty viewing them.
2: I have just returned from the movie “Flightplan,” staring Jodie Foster. Although most of the movies that come through town here are the standard Hollywood crap, this one was in fact quite brilliant. However, my friend with whom I saw the movie thought that the bit with the Arab passengers was un-necessary. Basically, Foster’s character accused, without any evidence, two Arab passengers on the plane of having kidnapped her daughter. Why, she asked, do films have to constantly touch upon this subject. Surely, she thought, such representations would only inflame existing tensions. But with this I disagreed entirely. The fact that this happened in the film made it all the more believable. Like it or not, these prejudices exist (and are not totally without basis,) and to deny their existence would be disingenuous. Now this is not an accusation of my friend here, but I honestly think her reaction signifies something larger.
The fact is that the whole world is facing this tremendous problem and we, Americans, the people who have historically been problem solvers, are at a loss. Whether we have no plan or the wrong plan is of little consequence if in the end, we remain no closer to our goal than when we started. I have been reading up on Uzbekistan now that I have internet in my apartment, and it is truly terrifying the extent to which global politics and the battle over terrorism reach. So we can not just put our heads in the sand, and we can’t be complacent with the lame belief that the journalists are re-growing their spine; once it’s gone it won’t come back - (oh but maybe it could but Jesus says no you foolish whitecoats!) The fact that in the movie “Flightplan,” an American citizen reacted with undue negativity to an Arab on an airplane is completely believable. Now in the case of the film, all ended well, and apologies, perhaps in not so many words, were exchanged. And although this was but a small element of a truly interesting plot, it acknowledged the tension with which we currently live.
Here in Romania, people are blatantly racist, and engage in about any “-ism” you can imagine. As “the American,” I am supposed to act as a counterexample to such behavior. It is something I try to do, but one which I find more and more difficult by the day. There is no doubt in my mind that as a Nation, we have been committing some unbearable atrocities in these past weeks, months and years. And no, although when I hear JFK’s words I sometimes want to cry, I’m not so naive to believe that our past has been all cupcakes and apple pie. This world is not a kind place and sometimes one must be tough. I believe that good leaders make decisions in times of need and must have the courage to be bold amidst the opposition of those to scared to make any decision at all. However, such decisions must be for concrete, achievable and noble ends. If I were to proclaim that I would kill every Romanian who talks to me and I don’t understand, I would certainly be without a single friend here, likely without any support in my crusade, and probably dead myself. If my policy is so brash that it will lead to my own annihilation before I can even hope to see my desired result, then surely it is just suicide along with taking others down with me - or – err - terrorism.
So how can I say, with any credibility, that America is good, and terrorism and terrorists are evil? Must terrorism involve bombs and airplanes, or does it manifest itself in more sinister, easily forgiven ways? How can I say that Americans are justly global leaders when the news is of ordinary people beaning each other at Wal*Marts over toys imported from China? We have, sadly, become a nation of fools, led by a man who is no less criminal than those who ought, indeed, to be brought to justice. Unfortunately, unlike in “Flightplan,” its not always the case that the plane lands safely, the good guys escape, and the bad guys are blown to pieces. The way we have it now, everybody dies. It is a odd zero sum game whereby everyone looses - a synnecrosis of the most tragic sort.
How tragic, then, my American History class will soon become! The voices for right, laden with an unmistakable urgency, must be heard. But sometimes I wonder, deeply, how it is that the majority of us, well at least 50.7% supposedly, chose not to hear them. We must now, or soon, perhaps, we won’t even have the choice.
Here is my paradox. Tonight I dined with my father and some of his friends at the Legal Sea Foods in the Prudential Center. For those who don’t live around Boston, the Prudential Center is an upscale mall at the base of one of Boston’s 2 skyscrapers. It houses stores like Lacoste, Sacks Fifth and a Krisy Kreme outlet. As far as malls go, it’s rather upscale. But eating at Legal within the mall was a great dissapointment. The restaurant was too small, our table was too out in the open, the service was lousy and the food merely average. As I looked around, I realized that this Legal in particular was a postcard version of itself. That is, Legal can go either way in terms of fanciness. The one in Park Plaza is beautiful. The one out on Route 9 in a strip mall is less so. But this Legal, in the fancy mall, was probably the worst I’ve been to in the entire chain. Then I got to thinking about why this was the case, and that lead me back to my musings on malled life. This legal sea foods was in a giant mall, that is connected to another mall and various hotels by above and underground walkways. Here, one could come to Boston and sample some of what Boston had to offer all without leaving the mall. I admit, I brought Johannes here (but I also dragged him to Bunker Hill and took him to the top of the Customs House.)
What solidified my thinking about the problem with this restaurant was the store which occupied the space accross the aisle in the mall. It was a luggage store. Hardly extraordinary. But, the interior of the store was designed to look like an airport terminal. The way the celeing was designed and the particular style of lighting used all screamed, “You’re at the Airport!” And what better a place to think about getting that perfect piece of luggage than in the airport itself. But this was not the airport, rather is was a storefront that could be constructed and destructed within a matter of days. It was the image of the original, but far from it.
So when one buys a Ralph Lauren polo shirt, does that mean that they will be yachting off of the coast of Nantucket, or riding through the Hamptons? Hardly. Every schmuck seems to have a Ralph Lauren polo shirt these days. Yet, despite the fact that there are identical alternatives available (come on folks, a polo shirt is a polo shirt,) it is curious that Ralph gets away with selling his for 5 - 10 times the price. Polo is a good example of people paying a price premium for the image, rather than the original. Having the Polo logo signifies something - what exactaly that is differes from person to person. Now walk into the Ralph Lauren section of your local Macys and you will see that instead of the white walls which host other brands, Polo’s walls are of wood, and there are plaids thrown in for good measure. Now, Polo has been up to this for a while, but now the idea of selling the lifestyle (i.e. schmuck at mall as jet setter) has pervaded into almost every facet of American life.
So how does this relate to Legal Sea Foods? Well, you go to Legal Sea Foods so that you can say you’ve been to Legal Sea Foods. It has cachet with those who have visited Boston. So, the restaurant need not be so much about the best food ever (i.e. a fine Etruscian silk polo shirt vs. a cotton one from Uzbekistan,) as the fact that it is indeed Legal Sea Foods. Therefore quality goes down, but the cachet remains, and an ordinary meal can be explained in conversation down the road as, “yes, I’ve been to Legal in Boston.” This statement, though rather banal, is a form of the Ralph Lauren polo shirt. It attempts to say, “yes, I have taste, and I know what’s the classy thing to do.” It attempts to ask, “have you been as well?” Much as the small but conspicuous polo pony asks where yours is. Thus the pretention value is disproportionately higher than the actual value of the experience. Now, I own a few Ralph Lauren polo shirts, and I fully realize the irony of the fact that they are status item available at the local mall. I could say the same about legal, but though I may buy another Polo shirt, I don’t forsee me chosing to go to Legal again.
So what’s the difference between the two? Well, frankly, maybe it’s just that I’m a Bostonian and therefore Legal is less important to me (I mean, we’ve all been there at least once.) But maybe its something else. Though I’m willing to accept the irony of buying the $80 shirt with horse versus the $14.99 shirt with no horse (both made in the same country a la day) I fail to be amused by the faux ambiance of the Mall Legal Sea Foods. Whereas the Polo shirt indulges my small pretention and does a darn good job keeping me warm, the Legal Sea Foods in the Mall caters to no whim and does not satisfy as a product.
Thus I think we have to ask ourselves:
1. What are the things for which we will give into for pretention’s sake?
followed by
2. Do such indulgences contradict our desire to extract the most comfortable or enjoyable experience from such things?”
If we answer nothing to the first question, we are liars. If we answer yes to the second question, then perhaps the pretention is not justified. If we answer no to the second question, and can answer no to the third question:
3. Does this indulgance harm others?
then, perhaps the indulgance is harmless and not worthy of criticism. So for me the shirt is a legitamate indulgance, just as would be an expensive dinner at one of the best restaurants in town - and best not just in the fact that the name is used to justify outrageous prices for mediocre fare - rather best as in great service and an equally impressive product. Wearing a Polo shirt to such a place? Now that may be venturing towards selfish hedonism, but I’ll leave such decisions to the Republicans.
