Monday, December 7, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The real "death panels" have nothing to do with health care...
Execution Chamber - Texas
Since 1982, Texas has executed 439 people - or 37.4% of all those executed in this country. The Lone Star State is an over-achiever in this regard, considering that Texans make up only 8% of the total U.S. population.
Of those sentenced to death in Texas, one man's case has recently garnered national scrutiny. Independent investigations undertaken by the Chicago Tribune and a newly created Texas Forensic Science Commission - as well as an expose in the most recent New Yorker - have provided near irrefutable evidence that Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent. No crime was committed when his house accidentally burned down, tragically killing his children who were sleeping inside. This evidence has come to light too late for Mr. Willingham, who was executed by the state of Texas on February 17, 2004.
Recent right-wing fixation on the false notion that health care reform bills would institute government run "death panels" begs an obvious question: where do these same people stand on the question of the government run death panels that already exist today?
Everyone is familiar with jury trials. Trial by jury is one of the central features of our system of justice, enshrined in the Magna Carta, inherited from the British, and established in the Constitution. During the Cold War, our system of jury trials was one of the many ways that the United States could differentiate itself as a free society in contrast to the Soviet Union, particularly after the highly publicized show trials conducted during Stalin's purges in the 1930's.
But few people understand the mechanics of how our fellow citizens are called upon to serve on twelve-person panels to decide whether a convicted murderer lives or dies.
Whenever a local prosecutor or a United States Attorney decides to seek a death sentence, jurors are selected in a process that includes "death qualification." In a capital case, the same jury decides both whether to convict the accused and then - if the defendant is found guilty - whether to impose a death sentence. Before the trial begins, the prosecutor and judge ask questions to determine whether potential jurors are willing to impose a death sentence. Thus, all juries in death penalty cases are skewed. Only those people who have no moral qualms with the death penalty can serve.
Research has demonstrated that these "death qualified" jurors are more likely to accept the prosecution's case, believe the police, and convict the accused. People who are opposed to the death penalty because they are concerned about possibily executing an innocent person are likely to be more skeptical of the state's case. But anyone with this firmly held belief will not serve on a capital jury. Moreover, the very process of asking jurors questions about punishment before they have heard the evidence distorts the trial. Jurors who are asked questions relating to punishment before the trial has begun could easily conclude that guilt is a foregone conclusion. Why else would both the prosecution and defense lawyers spend so much time talking with them about the death penalty?
Defense lawyers can also ask potential jurors if they are willing to impose a life sentence. Those who say that they would invariably vote for death upon a conviction of first-degree murder also should not serve on the jury. But an inexperienced defense lawyer can easily get trapped with jurors who say that they can consider both punishments - even when those jurors would almost invariably vote for death. This phenomenon is not surprising. The prosecutor has just explained that the law requires all jurors to consider life and death. People are reluctant to admit, in front of a judge, that they are unwilling to follow the law. Regardless, the defense is always stuck with jurors who say that they are willing to vote to execute their client.
The macabre death qualification process presents lawyers with a strategic dilemma - particularly when their client's culpability is uncertain. The strategy with the best odds of avoiding a death sentence may very well increase the chances of their client being convicted. The opposite is certainly true. Even when the evidence against the accused is weak, simply pursuing a reasonable doubt defense in front of the same jury that will then be asked to determine the defendant's sentence creates credibility problems. The most effective sentencing strategies include a showing of remorse and an explanation for how or why the defendant committed the murder. It is difficult to persuade jurors on these points if the lawyers have previously argued that their client didn't do the crime.
And such was the situation before the jury that decided Cameron Willingham's fate.
After he was convicted, the same jury that rejected his reasonable doubt defense was presented with evidence at a sentencing hearing before being asked to determine whether he should be sent to death row. The prosecution goes first, presenting evidence of aggravating factors -- those facts relating to the crime or the defendant that make a particular case "deserving" of death. Unfortunately, a jury's decision whether to impose death is not restricted to a consideration of these statutory aggravating factors.
Countless other random or pernicious factors play an important role in determining who gets sentenced to death. When a white victim is killed, odds of a death sentence being pursued or obtained go up significantly. Likewise, geography can be determinative. Many counties that have experienced gruesome homicides have sent nobody to death row while others end up with dozens of death sentences. In terms of aggressive use of the death penalty, as Texas is to the rest of the nation, Harris County is to the rest of Texas. About one quarter of all people executed in Texas were tried in Harris County (Houston) alone.
Jurors must also consider mitigating circumstances - or factors that help to put the defendant in a more sympathetic light. For the development and exposition of those factors to the jury, the accused must rely on appointed counsel. This chance factor can also play the determining role in whether any particular defendant receives a death sentence from the jury. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg remarked that she had "yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution applications in which the defendant was well-represented at trial.”
But, at the end of the day, it us up to the death panel, the twelve people selected in large part based on their express willingness to send someone to the execution chamber. These are the death panels that people of good will ought to be concerned about, considering the countless improper and arbitrary factors that can play a decisive role in the outcome of their life and death decisions.
It is also worth remembering that in every instance in which a person has been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death, a jury found the evidence of guilt conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt.
Texas not only leads the nation in executions. There have been more DNA exonerations there than in any other state. Sadly, biological evidence subjec to DNA testing is available in only a small handful of cases. Unless they are independently wealthy, people like Cameron Willingham must rely on the lawyers appointed to represent them. Will those lawyers thoroughly investigate the case, scrutinize the state's evidence, have resources made available to counter the state's experts, and, in light of what they learn, pursue a sensible strategy at trial? Too often, the answer has been no.
The New Yorker article refernced above ends with an excerpt of Cameron's last words, as the poisons that would shut down his lungs and stop his heart were about to be pushed through his veins. The Texas Department of Corrections includes condemned prisoners' last statements as part of the public record of executions on its website. Though abridged due to "profanity," this is at least part of what what Cameron had to say before he died:
Yeah. The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man - convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do. From God's dust I came and to dust I will return - so the earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, road dog. I love you Gabby. [Remaining portion of statement omitted due to profanity.]
Of those sentenced to death in Texas, one man's case has recently garnered national scrutiny. Independent investigations undertaken by the Chicago Tribune and a newly created Texas Forensic Science Commission - as well as an expose in the most recent New Yorker - have provided near irrefutable evidence that Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent. No crime was committed when his house accidentally burned down, tragically killing his children who were sleeping inside. This evidence has come to light too late for Mr. Willingham, who was executed by the state of Texas on February 17, 2004.
Recent right-wing fixation on the false notion that health care reform bills would institute government run "death panels" begs an obvious question: where do these same people stand on the question of the government run death panels that already exist today?
Everyone is familiar with jury trials. Trial by jury is one of the central features of our system of justice, enshrined in the Magna Carta, inherited from the British, and established in the Constitution. During the Cold War, our system of jury trials was one of the many ways that the United States could differentiate itself as a free society in contrast to the Soviet Union, particularly after the highly publicized show trials conducted during Stalin's purges in the 1930's.But few people understand the mechanics of how our fellow citizens are called upon to serve on twelve-person panels to decide whether a convicted murderer lives or dies.
Whenever a local prosecutor or a United States Attorney decides to seek a death sentence, jurors are selected in a process that includes "death qualification." In a capital case, the same jury decides both whether to convict the accused and then - if the defendant is found guilty - whether to impose a death sentence. Before the trial begins, the prosecutor and judge ask questions to determine whether potential jurors are willing to impose a death sentence. Thus, all juries in death penalty cases are skewed. Only those people who have no moral qualms with the death penalty can serve.
Research has demonstrated that these "death qualified" jurors are more likely to accept the prosecution's case, believe the police, and convict the accused. People who are opposed to the death penalty because they are concerned about possibily executing an innocent person are likely to be more skeptical of the state's case. But anyone with this firmly held belief will not serve on a capital jury. Moreover, the very process of asking jurors questions about punishment before they have heard the evidence distorts the trial. Jurors who are asked questions relating to punishment before the trial has begun could easily conclude that guilt is a foregone conclusion. Why else would both the prosecution and defense lawyers spend so much time talking with them about the death penalty?
Defense lawyers can also ask potential jurors if they are willing to impose a life sentence. Those who say that they would invariably vote for death upon a conviction of first-degree murder also should not serve on the jury. But an inexperienced defense lawyer can easily get trapped with jurors who say that they can consider both punishments - even when those jurors would almost invariably vote for death. This phenomenon is not surprising. The prosecutor has just explained that the law requires all jurors to consider life and death. People are reluctant to admit, in front of a judge, that they are unwilling to follow the law. Regardless, the defense is always stuck with jurors who say that they are willing to vote to execute their client.
The macabre death qualification process presents lawyers with a strategic dilemma - particularly when their client's culpability is uncertain. The strategy with the best odds of avoiding a death sentence may very well increase the chances of their client being convicted. The opposite is certainly true. Even when the evidence against the accused is weak, simply pursuing a reasonable doubt defense in front of the same jury that will then be asked to determine the defendant's sentence creates credibility problems. The most effective sentencing strategies include a showing of remorse and an explanation for how or why the defendant committed the murder. It is difficult to persuade jurors on these points if the lawyers have previously argued that their client didn't do the crime.
And such was the situation before the jury that decided Cameron Willingham's fate.
After he was convicted, the same jury that rejected his reasonable doubt defense was presented with evidence at a sentencing hearing before being asked to determine whether he should be sent to death row. The prosecution goes first, presenting evidence of aggravating factors -- those facts relating to the crime or the defendant that make a particular case "deserving" of death. Unfortunately, a jury's decision whether to impose death is not restricted to a consideration of these statutory aggravating factors.
Countless other random or pernicious factors play an important role in determining who gets sentenced to death. When a white victim is killed, odds of a death sentence being pursued or obtained go up significantly. Likewise, geography can be determinative. Many counties that have experienced gruesome homicides have sent nobody to death row while others end up with dozens of death sentences. In terms of aggressive use of the death penalty, as Texas is to the rest of the nation, Harris County is to the rest of Texas. About one quarter of all people executed in Texas were tried in Harris County (Houston) alone.
Jurors must also consider mitigating circumstances - or factors that help to put the defendant in a more sympathetic light. For the development and exposition of those factors to the jury, the accused must rely on appointed counsel. This chance factor can also play the determining role in whether any particular defendant receives a death sentence from the jury. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg remarked that she had "yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme Court on eve-of-execution applications in which the defendant was well-represented at trial.”
But, at the end of the day, it us up to the death panel, the twelve people selected in large part based on their express willingness to send someone to the execution chamber. These are the death panels that people of good will ought to be concerned about, considering the countless improper and arbitrary factors that can play a decisive role in the outcome of their life and death decisions.
It is also worth remembering that in every instance in which a person has been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death, a jury found the evidence of guilt conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt.
Texas not only leads the nation in executions. There have been more DNA exonerations there than in any other state. Sadly, biological evidence subjec to DNA testing is available in only a small handful of cases. Unless they are independently wealthy, people like Cameron Willingham must rely on the lawyers appointed to represent them. Will those lawyers thoroughly investigate the case, scrutinize the state's evidence, have resources made available to counter the state's experts, and, in light of what they learn, pursue a sensible strategy at trial? Too often, the answer has been no.
The New Yorker article refernced above ends with an excerpt of Cameron's last words, as the poisons that would shut down his lungs and stop his heart were about to be pushed through his veins. The Texas Department of Corrections includes condemned prisoners' last statements as part of the public record of executions on its website. Though abridged due to "profanity," this is at least part of what what Cameron had to say before he died:
Yeah. The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man - convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do. From God's dust I came and to dust I will return - so the earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, road dog. I love you Gabby. [Remaining portion of statement omitted due to profanity.]
Friday, August 28, 2009
Part III of the Soviet rock underground: AlisA & Kino
Kino - Gruppa Krovi, 1988Kino - Blood Type
Part III continues with two of the biggest bands who got their start at the Leningrad Rock Club, Kino and AlisA:
Play List for Part III:
Кино (Cinema) - "Ночь" ("Night")
Кино - "Мама анархия" ("Mom is Anarachy")
Кино - "Место для шага вперёд" ("Place for a Step Forward")
У меня есть дом, только нет ключей,
У меня есть солнце, но оно среди туч,
Есть голова, только нет плечей,
Но я вижу, как тучи режет солнечный луч.
У меня есть слово, но в нем нет букв,
У меня есть лес, но нет топоров,
У меня есть время, но нет сил ждать,
И есть еще ночь, но в ней нет снов.
И есть еще белые, белые дни,
Белые горы и белый лед.
Но все, что мне нужно
Это несколько слов
И место для шага вперед.
I have a home, only I've got no keys,
I have the sun, but it's between the storm clouds,
I've got a head, but I've got no shoulders,
But I see how the rays of sun slice through the clouds.
I've got words, but they've got no letters,
I've got a forest, but have no axes,
I've got time, but not will to wait,
And I've also got the night, but no dreams
I've also got white, white days
White mountains and white ice,
But all I need
Are a few words
And a place for steps forward
АлисА - "Экспериментатор" ("Experimenter") [Video directed by Joanna Stingray - who has a cameo appearance at the beginning and end. I would also wager that she supplied the "Cats" t-shirt worn by Kinchev]
Since putting together the radio show, I found the first AlisA record officially released on Melodiya - the only Soviet record label - in 1988. Titled Энергия (Energy - cover featured above) - the record features some of AlisA's early hits, including "Мы вместе" - the video of which is included below:A search for contact, searching of hands
I've begun to sing in my own language
I'm certain that didn't happen suddenly
I write verses for those who
Don't wait for answers to today's questions
I sing for those who follow their own way
I'm glad if soneone understands me
We're together! We're together!
[On a personal note, this has become my two year old son's favorite song. His dance moves are eerily similar to those of the band in the video (though Cyrus adds more twirling in circles). He loves yelling "My vmeste!" ("We're together!") along to Kostya Kinchev and has had trouble accepting that any other song could be considered rock and roll.]
Kostya Kinchev continues to perform. Though from Moscow, he did not break onto to the scene until he hooked up with the Leningrad Rock Club band AlisA (as in Alice from "Alice in Wonderland"). Artemy Troitsky, a pioneering rock critic in the Soviet Union, describes him as follows: "Kostya has fluid and expressive gestures, a large mouth and bulging eyes....He spooked and sanke-charmed the audience, stetched his black-gloved hands to the crowd, moaned, whispered and parodied in rap style. But above all, he was sexy." And yet Kinchev's songs were not sexy, instead rife with social commentary.
And speaking of sexy, check out the man himself in the short shorts, boots and no shirt, telling the police to back off his fans:
There is much to write about Kino. Troitsky writes that "the dominant mood of [Tsoy's songs] was solitude and an incessant thirst for contact and love....Tsoy was still a teenager only yesterday and at heart remained one still." According to Troitsky, Grebinshikov became Tsoy's main benefactor in the Leningrad Rock Club, noting that "no one's songs had so much tenderness and purity." The first song in this week's segment of the radio show exemplifies that spirit. Tsoy sings of his love affair with the night, his love for the kitchen, "because it guards secrets," and wonders "how he can make it through the next day" before night falls again. Tsoy, even in death, remains the greatest legend of the Soviet rock scene.By the time of this cameo appearance in the last scene of the movie Assa, Tsoy's band Kino had already recorded five full-length records:
Tsoy disputed that this song "Хочу перемен" ("I Want Change") had any political overtones, but the refrain, "Our hearts demand change, our eyes demand change/ In our laughter and our tears, pulsing through our veins/ Change! We are waiting for change" is a perfect compliment to the USSR in 1986, then on the cusp of what would turn out to be irreversible change.
August 15 marked the 19th year since Tsoy's death in a traffic accident. And yet, "Tsoy Lives!"
Viktor Tsoy's last resting placeMonday, August 10, 2009
Ahistorical analogies taken too far...
Says who?The fear-mongering over health care reform gets stranger and stranger. As I wrote in May, the crazy conservatives and the business interests who are actively working to incite them are delving into the cold war archives. Who needs debate when you can shout down your local Congressmen with cries of "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!" It has become clear that neither Republican leaders in Washington nor the rabble they are deploying in a desperate bid to derail reform pay any attention to facts. Republicans have determined that their best hope is to scare their base with lies.
As the picture above illustrates, many of the tea-baggers who have joined the fray are ignorant of the history they would cite to make their case. Stalin was no charismatic speech-maker. I doubt if he would make anyone's list of the 100 greatest orators of the twentieth century. If you have any doubts, listen yourself as he commemorates the end of the Great Patriotic War (World War II). But who knows, maybe he could give a stirring speech his native Georgian.
More to the point, the accusations flying from the Republican right continue to baffle. Is Obama now supposed to be a communist or a fascist? Or some crazy new commie-fascist hybrid? Or a closet Islamic fundamentalist secretly born in Kenya? There is no doubt that there were those on the left who paraded reckless comparisons of Bush to Hitler. What's different is that the Republican leadership and AM radio circuit gleefully celebrate their crazies and warn of a socialist takeover of government.Leaders of the Republican party have teetered into dangerous territory with their hyperbole. The more they say that the President wants to establish "death panels" to kill off "unproductive members of society," (see Gov. Palin's Facebook posts) the more likely that some ignorant, crazy person will believe that it is permissible to stop the President by any means necessary. The more that they call his reform agenda "evil," the more likely that some unhinged Glenn Beck viewer will pick up his gun and take matters into his own hands. There are already reports that right wing opponents of reform are advocating bringing firearms to townhalls and using violence against SEIU or ACORN volunteers. ProgressNow reports that the car of one of its staff members - with visible pro-health care reform paraphernalia - was vandalized after a right-wing protest against the reform effort.
Back in April of this year, a group of students at UNC Chapel Hill were arrested for attempting to interfere with a speech by former Congressman Tancredo on immigration. Conservatives, such as Fox regular Michelle Malkin, were appalled at the students' lack of regard for First Amendment principles on campus. But where is Malkin now that right wingers are shouting down members of Congress at public forums? She is proud to say that she is part of the mob. And she is not alone. Red State was equally aghast at the student protests of Tancredo and is now furiously whipping up the "I am the mob" mentality.
Maybe the best hope for passage of the President's health care plan is for truly independent, middle of the road voters to react against those who are shutting down town hall meetings by shouting down elected officials. Organizing and protest are essential ingredients of a democracy - nobody is saying otherwise - but hostile intimidation and jeering at your opponents are not.
It is one thing to lie to the people about what is in the bill. It was predictable that those with something to lose in this debate would not attack the bills on their merits, but would instead make up slogans untethered to reality. In place of a debate on the merits, we get warnings of "government takeover," "rationing," "forced euthanasia," and the most quaint, "Keep The Guvmint Out Of My Medicare!"
These lies are dishonorable, but the Republicans have shown no hesitance to lie in order to advance their agenda (see Iraq). Working overtime, however, to convince people on the fringe that the President wants to kill American citizens is a new low. Let's keep working to reach reasonable people out there who will not believe the hype.
And let's hope that fair reporting of this rotten campaign will keep reminding voters that the Republican party is not run by reasonable people.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Rocking the Russian Underground, Part II
Akvarium - the Blue AlbumBelow is a link to the second installment of my radio show on the history of rock in the Soviet Union:
Part II continues with the grandfathers of Russian rock - the Moscow band Mashina Vremeni - introduces Akvarium (Boris Grebenshikov's band, discussed more in this previous post) and the album Red Wave: 4 Underground Bands from the USSR.
Playlist for Part II:
Машина Времени (Time Machine) - "Я Сюда Вернусь" ("I will return")
Аквариум (Aquarium) - "Великий Дворник" ("The Great Street Sweeper")
Великий дворник, великий дворник
В полях бесконечной росы,
Великий дворник, великий...
Они догонят нас,
если мы будем бежать,
Они найдут нас,
если мы спрячемся в тень.
Они не властны
над тем, что по праву твое,
Они не тронут тебя, они не тронут тебя...
The great street sweeper, the great street sweeper
In the field of endless dew,
The great street sweeper, the great....
They will catch up to us,
if we will run,
They will find us,
if we hide in the shadows,
They have no power,
over those, that as of right are yours,
They will not touch you, they will not touch you...
Аквариум - "Поездь в Огне" ("The Train is on Fire")
Аквариум - "Рок н Рол Мёртв" ("Rock and Roll is Dead")
Какие нервные лица - быть беде
Я помню, было небо, я не помню где
Мы встретимся снова, мы скажем "Привет", -
В этом есть что-то не то
Рок-н-ролл мертв, а я еще нет,
Рок-н-ролл мертв, а я
Те, что нас любят, смотрят нам вслед.
Рок-н-ролл мертв, а я еще нет.
What nervous faces, trouble's on the way
I remember, there was a sky, I don't remember where
We'll meet again, we'll say "hello"
In all this something's not right
Rock 'n roll's dead, but I'm alive
Rock 'n roll's dead, but I
Those who love us, follow us with their eyes
Rock 'n roll's dead, but I'm alive
Странные Игры (Strange Games) - "Метаморфозы"("Metamorphosis")
There is always more to write about BG. But for now, I will simply share an article from the New York Times archives about the emergence of rock in the Soviet Union. In April of 1987, Bill Keller of the Times wrote about Akvarium and the explosion of underground and officially sanctioned rock and roll under Glasnost. Anxiety about becoming a sell out must be a universal experience for rockers the world 'round.
The band Strange Games, featured on the compilation Red Wave, perform ska to translations of modern European poetry. Of the four bands featured on Red Wave, they are the least well known today, having disbanded in the mid-1980's after the death of one of the group's leaders, Aleksandr Davydov, in 1984. In contrast, the other groups featured on Red Wave -- AlisA, Akvarium, and Kino -- are all well established legends in the pantheon of Soviet rock.Joanna Stingray, a 23 year old new wave rocker from Los Angeles, went to the Soviet Union in 1984 and was quickly introduced to BG. Stingray was moved by the music and developed close relationships with many of the artists then performing at the Leningrad Rock Club. She decided to share the music with an audience back in the U.S., and thus began the process of recording songs in Leningrad and smuggling the tapes back home to produce the record. The resulting 2 LP compilation caused an international stir and was one of the reasons the Soviets moved to accept (and attempt to coopt) Rock.
For more on Joanna Stingray's incredible journey to the Soviet Union, her marriage to a member of the band Kino, and her production of the album Red Wave, check out this article in the St. Petersburg Times and the following two part documentary:
Finally, here is a lovely clip of Stingray and BG performing an English duet of "Rok n Roll Myortv" on a roof in Leningrad:
Friday, June 26, 2009
Through it all, Akvarium continues to rock...
АКВАРИУМ - Дом Музыки, Москва, 22 декабря 2004
Akvarium at Dom Muziky in Moscow - December 22, 2004
Akvarium at Dom Muziky in Moscow - December 22, 2004
Before I upload part II of my brief survey of the history and major bands of the Soviet rock scene, I will offer some personal context. What follows are some observations from my first visit to early post-Soviet Russia and introduction to Akvarium. I have been fortunate enough to see Boris Grebenshikov - a.k.a. "БГ" ("BG" - Grebenshikov is also known by his initials) - and his band Аквариум perform live on two separate occasions: once in Krasnodar in the fall of 1993 and again in Moscow in the winter of 2004 (when I recorded the short clip from the song "Плоскость" that is located above).
In 1993, I was studying Russian at Kuban State University (КубГУ) with a group of fellow American college students. We went on several different "cultural" outings as a group - to see Cossack dance and folk songs, classical music, a trip to Kislovodsk and Pyatigorsk focused on Russian literature and history -- but we did not trot out together to see Akvarium (Aquarium). I do not remember how I learned about the show or got a ticket, but the concert itself was unforgettable. I remember a somewhat inebriated Russian teen turning to me during the show and saying: "эй, братянин - это охуйтельно!" ("Hey, dude, this is f*ckin' awesome!"). I remember the psychadelic, muliti-colored lights projected behind the band. I remember thinking how out of place Grebenshikov and the other band members looked -- at least one in a long froc - like hippies from another era. The music - like Boris Grebenshikov himself - was transcedent and lyrical. It seemed to come from another world.
The Akvarium concert - along with a solo show later that fall by Kostya Kinchev, the front man for АлисА - stand out from an otherwise gloomy time in post-Soviet Russia.
Russia in the fall of 1993 was desperate and uncertain. My professors at Kuban State were earning the equivalent of about $20 a month. They, like so many others who still had government jobs, were whipsawed by a combination of hyper-inflation - which ran about a 1000% for the year - and Chernomyrdin's austerity program. The first privatization of state industries was a disaster. Those who invested their privatization vouchers in the pyramid
scheme known as "MMM" would lose everything while the class that would come to be known as the oligarchs clawed its way to obscene riches. Highly educated professionals were reduced to selling their possessions on the sidewalk in order to get by. Refugees from the fighting in the Caucus Mountains and in the Nagorno-Karabakh created instability and stoked ethnic tensions. For all the Soviet Union's faults, it had done a decent job of providing education, health care, paid leave, and general social security. All of that was rapidly falling away and there was no way to know what would replace it.
One snowy winter day, a friend and I were walking near the center of Krasnodar when we came upon a man lying face first in a snow bank. Nobody stopped to help or see if he was all right. The two of us managed to get him on his feat and back home, while he incoherently told us that he had been beaten up and left out in the snow. But he could have just as easily been on the bad end of a drinking binge.
In late November, a staff member of the Kuban Courier was killed when a bomb was detonated in the newspaper's offices. Someone was apparently not pleased with the paper's coverage. As early as 1993, the still new idea of press freedom was being undermined by violence.
Meanwhile, in Moscow, Boris Yeltsin faced a resistant parliament and vice president, stalling further economic reforms. That fall, the opposition baricaded itself in the white house (the home of the then still constituted Supreme Soviet). At the height of the constitutional crisis, vice president Rutskoy declared himself president of the Russian Federation -- only later be smoked out after Yeltsin ordered tanks to fire on the white house. It was quite a contrast from only two years before, when Yeltsin himself stood on a tank in front of the white house in defiance of the hard-line communist leaders of the failed putch that brought down Gorbachev.
Watching on CNN from an old Intourist hotel in Pyatigorsk, we were more than a bit spooked when the screen went blank after the first few shells were fired. Those tank shells could have been the first shots in a civil war. We had no idea what would happen next. One of the idealistic Americans in our group began discussing Hemingway and the Spanish civil war, and of taking up sides in another country's internal struggle.
The following day, a hastily organized pro-Yeltsin rally was held in the main government square in Pyatigorsk. A local official implored the people to back Yeltsin and his reforms - and paraphrasing Dostoevsky - said that those who give up freedom for bread end up with neither freedom nor bread. I often wonder how many in Russia today believe in such a philosophy. I do not think it is pessismistic to conclude that if a crisis of this magnitude were to befall America, that many of my fellow citizens would choose bread.
Through it all, Akvarium - in its various forms - kept performing and БГ kept writing new songs. For that one afternoon in Krasnodar, those in the hall could exult in the moment. БГ exudes an other worldly sense of peace and his tranquility drifted down to the audience. БГ is not a very demonstrative performer - but he has a slow, steady, electrifying presence on stage.
Akvarium represents the best of Russia - its poetry, creativity, curiosity, love of and respect for nature, intelligence, freedom, humor, and soulfulness. The band found a way to exist within the constraints of the Soviet Union and survive the transition to modern Russia without a loss of dignity. БГ was writing songs from the early 1970's -- long before there could have been any hope of being able to make a career from singing the non-state sanctioned material he was creating. It is not that БГ's songs were overtly anti-communist or anti-Soviet (at least not before "This Train is on Fire" - which includes the line "the people who shot our fathers are building plans on top of our children"). But his songs are multilayered and are open to interpretation -- open to meanings that did not fit official Soviet dogma. Their early avante garde, punk-influenced performance at the Tblisi music festival in 1980 got БГ fired from his day job, kicked out of the Komsomol, and the band lost its rehearsal space. But like other Soviet rock musicians, he found a way forward, performing in apartments and recording music on the sly, growing ever more popular by word of mouth and magnitizdat. By the mid 1980's -- by the time Akvarium was featured on Joanna Stingray's revolutionary compilation, "Red Wave: 4 Underground Bands from the USSR," after their music was featured in the film Асса, and after political reform began to take hold, all of this changed. [For more about the history and music of Akvarium check out this two part documentary with extended interviews of БГ (in Russian) produced in 1993 - Part I and Part II - as well as the Wikipedia entry on the band.]
A couple of years ago, I read in the magazine Ogonyok about a group of elementary school kids in rural Russia who were asked to write birthday cards to then President Putin. The interviews with the children were chilling. When asked by reporters about Putin, they spoke of him as some sort of mythical hero who had come to save mother Russia, as one who could do no wrong. One child's explanation read something like: "he must be great - they never say anything bad about him on TV like they do about others." Many of these children will simply become cynical about politics -- the overwhelming attitude Russians now have towards politicians and government -- some will continue to believe government propaganda, and others will devote themselves to making Russia a better place. For them, Akvarium and the other great Russian rock bands that got their start in the Soviet Union may not be inspirational. Regardless, these musicians have played an outsize role in keeping the idea of freedom alive.
And on one crisp autumn day 1993, БГ and Akvarium rocked the tired city of Krasnodar.
In 1993, I was studying Russian at Kuban State University (КубГУ) with a group of fellow American college students. We went on several different "cultural" outings as a group - to see Cossack dance and folk songs, classical music, a trip to Kislovodsk and Pyatigorsk focused on Russian literature and history -- but we did not trot out together to see Akvarium (Aquarium). I do not remember how I learned about the show or got a ticket, but the concert itself was unforgettable. I remember a somewhat inebriated Russian teen turning to me during the show and saying: "эй, братянин - это охуйтельно!" ("Hey, dude, this is f*ckin' awesome!"). I remember the psychadelic, muliti-colored lights projected behind the band. I remember thinking how out of place Grebenshikov and the other band members looked -- at least one in a long froc - like hippies from another era. The music - like Boris Grebenshikov himself - was transcedent and lyrical. It seemed to come from another world.The Akvarium concert - along with a solo show later that fall by Kostya Kinchev, the front man for АлисА - stand out from an otherwise gloomy time in post-Soviet Russia.
Russia in the fall of 1993 was desperate and uncertain. My professors at Kuban State were earning the equivalent of about $20 a month. They, like so many others who still had government jobs, were whipsawed by a combination of hyper-inflation - which ran about a 1000% for the year - and Chernomyrdin's austerity program. The first privatization of state industries was a disaster. Those who invested their privatization vouchers in the pyramid
scheme known as "MMM" would lose everything while the class that would come to be known as the oligarchs clawed its way to obscene riches. Highly educated professionals were reduced to selling their possessions on the sidewalk in order to get by. Refugees from the fighting in the Caucus Mountains and in the Nagorno-Karabakh created instability and stoked ethnic tensions. For all the Soviet Union's faults, it had done a decent job of providing education, health care, paid leave, and general social security. All of that was rapidly falling away and there was no way to know what would replace it.One snowy winter day, a friend and I were walking near the center of Krasnodar when we came upon a man lying face first in a snow bank. Nobody stopped to help or see if he was all right. The two of us managed to get him on his feat and back home, while he incoherently told us that he had been beaten up and left out in the snow. But he could have just as easily been on the bad end of a drinking binge.
In late November, a staff member of the Kuban Courier was killed when a bomb was detonated in the newspaper's offices. Someone was apparently not pleased with the paper's coverage. As early as 1993, the still new idea of press freedom was being undermined by violence.
Meanwhile, in Moscow, Boris Yeltsin faced a resistant parliament and vice president, stalling further economic reforms. That fall, the opposition baricaded itself in the white house (the home of the then still constituted Supreme Soviet). At the height of the constitutional crisis, vice president Rutskoy declared himself president of the Russian Federation -- only later be smoked out after Yeltsin ordered tanks to fire on the white house. It was quite a contrast from only two years before, when Yeltsin himself stood on a tank in front of the white house in defiance of the hard-line communist leaders of the failed putch that brought down Gorbachev.
Watching on CNN from an old Intourist hotel in Pyatigorsk, we were more than a bit spooked when the screen went blank after the first few shells were fired. Those tank shells could have been the first shots in a civil war. We had no idea what would happen next. One of the idealistic Americans in our group began discussing Hemingway and the Spanish civil war, and of taking up sides in another country's internal struggle.
The following day, a hastily organized pro-Yeltsin rally was held in the main government square in Pyatigorsk. A local official implored the people to back Yeltsin and his reforms - and paraphrasing Dostoevsky - said that those who give up freedom for bread end up with neither freedom nor bread. I often wonder how many in Russia today believe in such a philosophy. I do not think it is pessismistic to conclude that if a crisis of this magnitude were to befall America, that many of my fellow citizens would choose bread.
Even as the U.S. endures its worse economy in seventy years, few here have any idea what it is like to live in a society in absolute economic free-fall; it is estimated that the GDP in Russia fell by as much as 50% from 1990 to 1995. Even with a return ticket to the United States in my pocket, it was impossible not to be deeply unsettled by these chaotic conditions. The rapidly deteriorating social and economic situation caused an uncertainty and bitterness in many of those I got to know that was painful to behold. Back home, Americans viewed the end of the cold war triumphantly, as affirming America's - or capitalism's - inherent superiority. Bearing witness to the cold reality that followed in the wake of that supposed triumph was depressing.
Through it all, Akvarium - in its various forms - kept performing and БГ kept writing new songs. For that one afternoon in Krasnodar, those in the hall could exult in the moment. БГ exudes an other worldly sense of peace and his tranquility drifted down to the audience. БГ is not a very demonstrative performer - but he has a slow, steady, electrifying presence on stage.Akvarium represents the best of Russia - its poetry, creativity, curiosity, love of and respect for nature, intelligence, freedom, humor, and soulfulness. The band found a way to exist within the constraints of the Soviet Union and survive the transition to modern Russia without a loss of dignity. БГ was writing songs from the early 1970's -- long before there could have been any hope of being able to make a career from singing the non-state sanctioned material he was creating. It is not that БГ's songs were overtly anti-communist or anti-Soviet (at least not before "This Train is on Fire" - which includes the line "the people who shot our fathers are building plans on top of our children"). But his songs are multilayered and are open to interpretation -- open to meanings that did not fit official Soviet dogma. Their early avante garde, punk-influenced performance at the Tblisi music festival in 1980 got БГ fired from his day job, kicked out of the Komsomol, and the band lost its rehearsal space. But like other Soviet rock musicians, he found a way forward, performing in apartments and recording music on the sly, growing ever more popular by word of mouth and magnitizdat. By the mid 1980's -- by the time Akvarium was featured on Joanna Stingray's revolutionary compilation, "Red Wave: 4 Underground Bands from the USSR," after their music was featured in the film Асса, and after political reform began to take hold, all of this changed. [For more about the history and music of Akvarium check out this two part documentary with extended interviews of БГ (in Russian) produced in 1993 - Part I and Part II - as well as the Wikipedia entry on the band.]
"Rock and Roll's Dead but I'm Alive"
(including scenes from the infamous 1980 Tblisi Music Festival)
Seeing БГ perform back in 1993 - during the depths of Russia's post-Soviet depression - and again in 2004 - during the height of the oil-fueled boom years - provided a kind of continuity between these radically different times. His is one of many voices that rise above the din of conformity in present day Russia. Within the Soviet Union, poetry and song became a kind of non-political form of resistance to the stale ideology and dogma of the Communist Party. As Russia suffers through a new authoritarian phase - though less onerous and rigid than the one that preceded it - artists like Grebenshikov, Shevchuk, and Kinchev can still draw crowds and speak their mind throughout Russia. They, and those that follow, express a kind of freedom and truth; even when their songs are apolitical, these musicians constitute a small counterbalancing force to the effects of state censored/intimidated media and shallow pop music.(including scenes from the infamous 1980 Tblisi Music Festival)
A couple of years ago, I read in the magazine Ogonyok about a group of elementary school kids in rural Russia who were asked to write birthday cards to then President Putin. The interviews with the children were chilling. When asked by reporters about Putin, they spoke of him as some sort of mythical hero who had come to save mother Russia, as one who could do no wrong. One child's explanation read something like: "he must be great - they never say anything bad about him on TV like they do about others." Many of these children will simply become cynical about politics -- the overwhelming attitude Russians now have towards politicians and government -- some will continue to believe government propaganda, and others will devote themselves to making Russia a better place. For them, Akvarium and the other great Russian rock bands that got their start in the Soviet Union may not be inspirational. Regardless, these musicians have played an outsize role in keeping the idea of freedom alive.And on one crisp autumn day 1993, БГ and Akvarium rocked the tired city of Krasnodar.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
История этого мира....The origins of Russian Rock
Viktor Tsoi Lives!The first part of the show introduces some of the western influences on Russian rock (for example, the Beatles, Queen, Bob Dylan, reggae, blues and rockabilly).
Playlist for Part I (complete playlist for the show is here):
Сектор Газа (The Gaza Strip) - "Вступление"("Introduction")
Чайф (Chaif) - "Рок 'н Рол Этой Ночи" ("Rock'n Roll That Night")
Машина Времени (Time Machine) - "Наш Дом" ("Our House")
Зоопарк (Zoo) - "БугиВуги Каждый День" ("Boogie-Woogie Every Day")
Аквариум (Aquarium) - "Странный Вопрос" ("Strange Question")
Кино (Cinema) - "Бошетунмай" ("Boshetunmai")
Оловянные Солдатики (Tin Soldiers) - "У попа была собака" [песня от мультфильмa "Ну, Погоди!"] ("The Priest had a Dog" [song from cartoon “Nu, Pogodi!”])
Машина Времени - "Поворот" ("Turn")
There will be more to add in future posts - but for now - here is Episode 9 of the classic Soviet cartoon, "Nu, Pogodi!" - from 1976. Tin Soldiers (Оловянные Солдатики) wrote the rock song "У попа была собака" beginning at about 3:30 in the video (and their version of "Desert Caravan" is near the end of the clip -- though the story of jazz in the Soviet Union is another matter all together):
Оловянные Солдатики (pictured left) are credited with making the first full length original Russian rock record in the Soviet Union - "Рассуждения" ("Reasoning"), which was released in 1972 (and is available for download on the band's website). The group got its start in 1967 under the name Бегемот (Hippopotamus) - an apparent sly reference to "hippies" - under the direction of Sergei Kharitonov, then a student at the Moscow Power Engineering Institute (МЭИ). In 1968, Andrei Gorin - a drummer for a jazz big band ensemble at the Moscow Aviation Institute - joined the band. They changed their name to Tin Soldiers soon thereafter. Their first big hit, "Баллада о водосточной трубе" ("Ballad of a Rainwater Pipe") followed in 1969. Tin Soldiers gained status as an officially recognized Vocal-Instrumental Ensemble (вокально-инструментальный ансамбль or ВИА), allowing them to earn a living as musicians in the Soviet Union.The following video of Tin Soldiers is from a 1993 performance -- the year the band reunited after more than ten years apart. Though more than twenty years after they recorded Рассуждения - and performing some new material - you can still hear a 1960's psychedelic rock sound in some of their songs. Andrei Gorin performs lead vocals (and near the end - at about 33 minutes into the clip -- he performs an extended tribute to the Beatles, the biggest influence on early Soviet rock) -
The radio show starts with Sektor Gaza's appropriation of Queen's "We Will Rock You" - but here is an example of the band's more original work - the song "Ява" or "Java" -- a reference to the Ява motorcycle (pictured below). The song is featured on the band's 1991 release «Ночь перед Рождеством» ("The Night Before Christmas"). Sektor Gaza's songs chronicle the darker side of the worker's paradise, featuring slang and swear words from the late Soviet era. The band's name is not a direct reference to the Gaza Strip (the literal meaning of Sektor Gaza), but is instead a reference to a contaminated industrial area in the band's home town of Voronezh. The band no longer exists due to the untimely death of Klinskikh - who performed under the nickname Хой (Khoi) - in 2000. This video was assembled by an enterprising fan of Sektor Gaza, who synced Khoi's vocals with footage from three different concerts:
Ява 250Friday, May 29, 2009
Health Care Reform Cannot be Hostage to "Socialized Medicine" Fear Mongering
How can Tea Bag Protesters be Brought to the Health Care Reform Movement?Whether a Republican talking head, a far-right AM radio talk show host, or just a Archie Bunker style armchair pundit, conservatives in this country relish any opportunity to bash government. They take it as gospel that government is inherently inefficient, ineffective, and just too darn big. This faith in the intrinsic shortcomings of the state leads inexorably to the conclusion that there should be fewer regulations and lower taxes. For conservatives who preach the no new tax gospel according to Grover Norquist - who famously said that his goal was not to abolish government, but to "reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub" - government is always the problem.
This near religious belief in the shortcomings of government is one reason why the Soviet Union was such a useful punching bag during the Cold War years. In the USSR, the state - under the complete control of the Communist Party - ran everything. From collective farms to television programming, from vacuum cleaner production to the music business, every last bit of economic activity was centrally planned from Moscow.
A GOSPLAN poster from the 1920's Proclaiming that the USSR's centrally planned economy would "catch up to and overtake" the capitalist worldAnd not surprisingly, the Soviet state did a poor job of meeting consumer demand, was rife with inefficiencies, and created opportunities for corruption on a grand scale. But to conclude that the Soviet experience is proof that the state - as a general matter - cannot be trusted to do anything is a non sequitur. AIG nearly collapsed - but it does not follow from that example that all insurance companies are doomed to gamble away their assets on risky derivative contracts. And more importantly, the Soviet Union did a very decent job of providing health care to the entire population - at a fraction of what we spend.
It is not hard to prove that publicly run health care systems in other developed countries deliver better outcomes for more people at lower costs than the quasi-market system here in the United States. But for Limbaugh conservatives, this kind of evidence-based, common sense approach does not compute.
Now, armed with poll-tested talking points from Frank Luntz (the Cro-Magnon man who gave us such Orwellian gems as the "death tax" and the pro-pollution "Clear Skies Act") - conservatives in Congress and in the health-industrial-complex are out to once again torpedo health care reform. We have seen this movie before.
Ronald Reagan was a spokesperson in the 1961 fight against universal health care - this LP trashing universal health care was distributed by the American Medical Association(you can listen here).
Can a popular president - with a rag-tag collection of progressive allies - counter the right wing talking machine this go round? Surely the Republican sponsored alternative - which is explicitly based on the premise that the market is always best - is vulnerable in this era of unprecedented free market failures? As a presidential candidate, Senator McCain went so far as to promote the idea that health care reform should be modeled on Congress's deregulation of the banking and financial sectors.
We entrust to our government the responsibility of managing a nuclear arsenal, engaging in armed combat, enforcing criminal laws, administering capital punishment, and handling countless other matters of life and death. Otherwise jingoistic conservatives do not, as a general matter, accept the notion that the government could be entrusted to regulate health care in such a way as to make affordable and accessible to everyone. Is there a way to tap into this patriotic streak of the conservative movement with an "Americans kick ass so we can sure as hell tackle the problems of health care" attitude?
Whether conservatives can be brought along or not - the time is now for health care reform. Reform was derailed under Truman in the 1940's, under LBJ in the 1960's, under Nixon in the early 1970's, and recently under Clinton in the early 1990's. Let's not look back on 2009 as yet another lost opportunity. If Congress does not hear calls from their constituents clamoring for universal health care, however, President Obama will not be able to deliver. We cannot let the right-wing kill health care with cold-war scare tactics, misleading talking points, and misinformation.
Monday, January 26, 2009
With us or against us....
Ozymandias of U.S. Foreign Policy?
Monument to Ferdinand Marcos, commissioned by Marcos to honor his own legacy, dynamited by Communists in 2002
The Bush administration - with its cast of cold-warrior characters at the upper echelons of its military and foreign policy apparatus - carried on the worst parts of U.S. foreign policy from the previous half-century. There were countless reasons to be thankful on January 20 - the exit of these dangerous players from the world stage was high on the list.Monument to Ferdinand Marcos, commissioned by Marcos to honor his own legacy, dynamited by Communists in 2002
[I remain hopeful that the one hold-over -- Defense Secretary Gates -- is capable of learning from past mistakes and will faithfully carry out the priorities of the new President.]
When G.W. Bush drawled his now famous "you're either with us or against us" in the midst of articulating the U.S. response to the September 11 terrorist acts, he was expressing a wholly unoriginal idea. During the Cold War, the United States made a bad habit out of supporting those regimes that were anti-communist, and thus "with us," even if those governments otherwise trampled on civil rights and human dignity. Sese Seko, Pinochet, Batista, Marcos, and Suharto are just a few of the leaders supported by United States despite their anti-democratic tendencies. Committing torture, holding political prisoners, making opponents disappear, theft from government coffers on a massive scale, and other sins could be overlooked. They were all bona fide anti-communists, and that was apparently close enough to supporting American values during the cold war.
Reagan and Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire
Nixon & Suharto of Indonesia
Kissinger & Pinochet of ChileThese authoritarian leaders - and others like them - did little to deserve our support, other than agree to stay out of the orbit of the USSR. The United States - particularly after its long-overdue reformation following the civil rights movement of the 1950's and '60's - could fairly be seen as a beacon of hope and freedom for those trapped on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain. But many of the leaders and political systems the U.S. supported in those years treated internal dissenters with a hand heavier than that wielded by Soviet leaders - at least those heads of the Politburo who followed after Stalin. Many of those U.S. allies came to power following military coups and/or assassinations that deposed democratically elected governments.
Fast forward to the post-September 11 world. President Bush embraces General Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan - presumably because of his anti-terrorist and pro-American rhetoric. Nevermind that Musharraf came to power in a military coup, twice suspended the constitution, shut down private television channels, illegally jailed and fired the justices of the Supreme Court, and arrested human rights activists -- Bush continued billions of dollars to Musharraf's government. Nevermind that Pakistan would never be held to account for its role in spreading nuclear technology or for spawning the Taliban. As Stephen Colbert oft reminds us, "we're at war, pick a side!"
When Bush & Co. were beginning to run out of explanations for the Iraq fiasco in 2003 - no WMD found, no terror-links established, etc., we began to hear the refrain that the war was justified because Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who deserved to be overthrown.
"We ended the rule of one of history's worst tyrants, and in so doing, we not only freed the American people, we made our own people more secure."Of course, only the true believers in the winnowing ranks of the far right wing of the Republican party still cling to this sentiment. In more sober moments, one presumes that even they would not want U.S. troops marching off to liberate the people of the world who live under despotic regimes. Particularly not when our soldiers would - out of necessity - also be fighting those who were supplied arms and support by our own government.
—George W. Bush, Crawford, Texas, May 3, 2003
President Obama has promised multilateral engagement with friend and foe alike. Unlike his opponent in the presidential election, Obama knew that going to war in Iraq was a colossal mistake. During the campaign, he was also careful to articulate why continued support for Musharraf was at odds with our values, alienated the middle class in Pakistan, and undermined the long term interests of the United States.
Pakistani Lawyers Protest the Musharraf Regime While these ideas suggest a welcome wind of change, they are not an organizing principle of U.S. foreign policy. I remain hopeful that the world will get something other than blind affection for those that are "with us" and something less catastrophic than warfare for those that are "against us."
Maybe we can start with a more suitable definition of what it means to be "with us" in the first place.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Foreign Policy Mad-Libbs...
Time for a game - fill in the blanks to guess which international crisis is being discussed by officials from the Bush Administration (hint - one of these things is not like the other) -
[answers available by clicking on the news source's link below]
As you might have deduced, two of the three quotes are from stories on the Russia-Georgia conflict last August, while the odd-ball is from a story on the current crisis in Gaza.
Of course, these wars are not word games. Considering the brutality and horror of any armed conflict - as well as the terror of living under threat of rocket or mortar fire from Hamas - I am not making light of the real human suffering that is the subject of the above quotes. But in these blessed last days of the Bush administration, let us not forget that the words used by our leaders matter.
As the press goes through the reflexive motions of discussing Bush's "legacy," remember that his decision to express moral outrage at Russia for its response to Georgia's attack on South Ossetia had hardly any real world consequence. The Administration had little leverage that it could exert on Russia. Whereas now, Bush's silence in the face of the death of over 1,000 Palestinians (and counting) is enabling the escalation of violence.
Never mind that any shelling or aerial bombardment in Gaza - one of the most densely populated regions on the planet - intrinsically risks killing, maiming or terrorizing civilians. Never mind that reportedly one-third of those Palestinians killed in Gaza so far have been children. Never mind that the U.S. has real influence on Israel and could - if it had the will - force a cessation of violence in Gaza.
As we await a transition to Barack Obama's administration and hope for better things to come at home, let us also pray for peace and justice in Palestine. It is not clear how the incoming president would have reacted to the recent Israeli onslought had it begun on its watch. No doubt the justifiable condemnation of Hamas rocket fire would have been the same - but that is the easy part. A more balanced and nuanced approach is desperately needed if there is to be any hope of reigning in the IDF's sledgehammer tactics. What the Bush Administration said about Russia's military moves in Georgia go double now with regard to the Israeli offensive in Gaza. Will we hear anything like this from the new administration?
It's hard for us to understand what the Israeli plan is," said a senior U.S. official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity. "People can argue back and forth over who shot first," but the Israeli response is "far disproportionate to whatever threat" it may have perceived from Hamas.
[answers available by clicking on the news source's link below]
The Bush administration yesterday decried _________'s use of bombers and missiles in ________ as a "dangerous escalation" of the hostilities there....
"It's hard for us to understand what the _______ plan is," said a senior U.S. official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity. "People can argue back and forth over who shot first," but the _______ response is "far disproportionate to whatever threat" it may have perceived in the ______.
Washington Post* * * * * * * *
But asked today if the ________ response was proportionate to the provocation of the _______ attacks, the White House declined to offer a view.
“I'm not going to take a position on proportionality, because I'm not even sure if I could define what that is,” said...the lead White House spokesman on this issue.
CBS News* * * * * * * *
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said it was vital that all sides cease fire, adding that ______ military operations "really do now need to stop because calm needs to be restored".
NATO said...that it deplored the "disproportionate" force used by ________.
BBC News
As you might have deduced, two of the three quotes are from stories on the Russia-Georgia conflict last August, while the odd-ball is from a story on the current crisis in Gaza.
Of course, these wars are not word games. Considering the brutality and horror of any armed conflict - as well as the terror of living under threat of rocket or mortar fire from Hamas - I am not making light of the real human suffering that is the subject of the above quotes. But in these blessed last days of the Bush administration, let us not forget that the words used by our leaders matter.
As the press goes through the reflexive motions of discussing Bush's "legacy," remember that his decision to express moral outrage at Russia for its response to Georgia's attack on South Ossetia had hardly any real world consequence. The Administration had little leverage that it could exert on Russia. Whereas now, Bush's silence in the face of the death of over 1,000 Palestinians (and counting) is enabling the escalation of violence.
Never mind that any shelling or aerial bombardment in Gaza - one of the most densely populated regions on the planet - intrinsically risks killing, maiming or terrorizing civilians. Never mind that reportedly one-third of those Palestinians killed in Gaza so far have been children. Never mind that the U.S. has real influence on Israel and could - if it had the will - force a cessation of violence in Gaza.
As we await a transition to Barack Obama's administration and hope for better things to come at home, let us also pray for peace and justice in Palestine. It is not clear how the incoming president would have reacted to the recent Israeli onslought had it begun on its watch. No doubt the justifiable condemnation of Hamas rocket fire would have been the same - but that is the easy part. A more balanced and nuanced approach is desperately needed if there is to be any hope of reigning in the IDF's sledgehammer tactics. What the Bush Administration said about Russia's military moves in Georgia go double now with regard to the Israeli offensive in Gaza. Will we hear anything like this from the new administration?
It's hard for us to understand what the Israeli plan is," said a senior U.S. official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity. "People can argue back and forth over who shot first," but the Israeli response is "far disproportionate to whatever threat" it may have perceived from Hamas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
