Feel free to indulge yourselves in a verse and chorus or two of "Where Have All The Flowers Gone." The moral of every event I'm about to comment on is: those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.
First, the "election" in Iran. I said (repeatedly, loudly, and often) in the weeks leading up to the voting that if Ahmadinejad won by more than 3-4 percent of the vote, people around the world would regard the election results as a fraud. If Ahmadinejad had made the returns look within the realm of probability, he'd have avoided the certain mess his theft of the election has now caused in Iran.
History instructs us, over and over and over again, that unexpectedly wide margins of victory, wherever and whenever they occur, invite accusations of election fraud. But Ahmadinejad let his ego get in the way, as all megalomaniacs throughout history have, and insisted on an overwhelming "margin" of victory. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. He just may have sown the seeds of his own political destruction, which would be a very good outcome for the Iranian people and perhaps the rest of the world, indeed.
Furthermore, the bleating of those like US Senator John McCain is not helping. McCain insists that President Obama is in error for refusing to condemn the election results outright and express support for those opposed to Ahmadinejad. WRONG. McCain's grasp of foreign policy, even after all his years of service--military and political--is, shall we say, shaky. If Obama were to condemn the Iranian election results and express support for Ahmadinejad's opponents, all he would succeed in doing is undermining those opponents' efforts to effect change in their own country. They'd immediately be labelled by Ahmadinejad and his cronies as puppets of the evil American empire. Their credibility and their ability to fight Ahmadinejad would be destroyed. That would do absolutely no good. Obama's more prudent approach is the stuff of an incredibly sophisticated understanding of foreign policy, one McCain and his cohorts would do well to support, not snipe at.
Second, an issue of local, but large, import. One of the blessings of living in the greater metro Omaha area is being able to watch not one, but two states' public television offerings. We are just across the Missouri river from Council Bluffs, Iowa, which has its own Iowa Public TV broadcasting substation, so we get both Nebraska Educational TV (NETV) and Iowa Public TV (IPTV). They do not carry the same programming, not by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, IPTV has a larger population, so it has more money, so it can afford to air programming NETV cannot at present purchase. And even when they do carry the same programming, they do not always carry the shows at the same time, which makes it easier for those of us with varying schedules and no DVR not to miss anything we really want to watch.
However, when "Digital Transition Day" came and went, Cox Communications moved IPTV off the Nebraska Basic and Expanded Basic tiers of service, which came as a rude shock to many, many people. After all, Cox had been advertising for the better part of a year that people with Cox Cable service would not have to do anything to survive the transition to digital TV. Turns out they are either going to have to do without an important channel or spend more to continue to get it.
Cox is hiding behind legalisms and excuses, to wit: (a) IPTV officials signed off on the switch months ago, so blame IPTV, not Cox; and (b) Cox is required by law to carry only one PBS station, and for Nebraskans, it's NETV. I know IPTV made one announcement about a year ago that it was going to all-digital broadcasting, AS OF AUGUST 2008. No one from IPTV said anything about that having an effect on anyone's ability to receive IPTV after the transition to all-digital broadcasting. And Cox may be required by law to carry only one PBS station per market, but the reality is that an awful lot of people on the Nebraska side of the Missouri not only watch IPTV, they contribute to IPTV on a regular basis. They thus have now been denied something they actually already paid for.
Cox's slogan is "your friend in the digital age." Right. If the people at Cox would take that seriously, plus study a little history, they'd realize that people and organizations which routinely hide behind legalisms and technicalities instead of stepping up and doing the right thing wind up despised. To use an apt (though vastly more important, on a cosmic scale) example, compare the reactions of the US public to JFK's speech after the Bay of Pigs with Nixon's days and months and years of denials and obfuscations about Watergate. Kennedy's reputation never took a serious pounding, and indeed, has grown over time--for he stood up, did the mature thing, told the truth, and got on with the nation's business. Nixon was hounded and hounded and hounded and eventually had to resign. And while some fanatics would have you believe otherwise, the general assessment of history is that Nixon's behavior rightly resulted in his being ranked as one of the very worst presidents in America's history.
Third, the illegally-leaked information that Sammy Sosa tested positive for performance-enhancing drug use back in 2003. I don't think anyone is shocked by the news itself. It's been an open but unacknowledged secret for years that Sosa was not immune from the taint of the "steroids era" in baseball. [But only a few names of the 103 total players on the list have become known. Heck, the list was supposed to have been destroyed six years ago.--Ed.] But I, for one, am shocked by the fact of the leak at this time. I cannot help but think it has more to do with some people's need for petty vengeance than with reporting news the public needs to know right now. For the leak came just a day or two after Sosa officially announced his retirement--and his hope, given that he ranks 6th on the all-time home run leaders list, that he'll someday be a Hall of Famer.
But there's a larger issue in all this that troubles me. I read a slew of comments posted to an online USA Today story about the leak, and most of the comments were venomous in their condemnation of Sosa--a black Latino. I don't remember seeing anyone else in the entire "steroids era" mess get ripped to such shreds. Certainly not the white Roger Clemens and Mark McGwire; not even Rafael Palmiero and Alex Rodriguez, who are both Latino, but not black.
Not only is racism NOT dead in this country, it's spitting fire every chance it gets. It's almost as if the racists realize they can't attack our president, so they are spewing their venom even more violently at anyone else who they can shoehorn into their stereotypes.
They are even slamming Sammy [pun intended--Ed.] for being a cheater for using a corked bat in a game. Well, it did happen. I saw that game, and I was suitably embarrassed for Sammy by it. However, what the haters are forgetting is this: that corked bat shattered when Sosa put the ball in play, and after he was thrown out at first base, he didn't run around frantically gathering up the pieces of the bat before anyone else had a chance to examine them. He calmly went back to the dugout. That tells me that Sosa's use of the corked bat during the game was inadvertent. Using that incident to condemn him further is just piling on; it's also intellectually dishonest. All great power hitters in baseball traditionally have used corked bats during batting practice to give an extra thrill to the fans who came early to watch them "do their thing." Thus it's not like his having the corked bat per se justifies the thrashing Sosa has received.
Sosa was naive if he expected his retirement announcement and his expressed desire to be selected for the Hall of Fame to come without negative comment. Even Babe Ruth was not voted in unanimously. I was naive for not expecting an anonymous leak about his inclusion on the list of those who tested positive back in 2003. And anyone who thinks that President Obama's election meant the end of racism in America is beyond naive. No progress comes without backlash, and in this case the potential for hate-filled, violent backlash is a frightening certainty.
That being said, I still wish the president's approach to domestic policy would show a little more backbone and a little less willingness to water down or even renege on campaign promises he made. He's giving the GOP minority much more clout that it deserves to have in terms of its absolute numbers. And the GOP is learning the wrong lesson from that. The GOP perceives that the louder it bleats, the more influence it will have. So every time Obama lets the GOP have any genuine input, the bleating gets louder instead of dying down. Remember, the present GOP "leaders" got the idea that they lost the November 2008 elections because their party was not far enough to the right. Their analytical skills are clearly about 180° out of whack.
Yes, Obama is a masterful politician. And yes, I recognize that he operates under the correct assumption that politics is the art of the possible. And I admit to suffering from a bit of "issue fatigue." But he's doing the minimum possible, not the maximum possible, right now. Besides, at an even deeper level, I am mad as hell that the minority with money is continuing to exert undue influence over the way the rest of us have to live, while it goes on its merry way, controlling the vast majority of the power in this country, making those of us who can afford it the least pay for and otherwise bear all the burdens of the benefits they enjoy entirely out of proportion to their numbers.
As an honest study of US history demonstrates, most of us will eventually acquiesce. We don't have the time or the money or the energy to do much more than cope with our daily lives. And those with enough money and power to stall progress will once again wait us out. They can afford to. The president does know history; he thinks his cautious approach is warranted. I, however, disagree. We don't need a mediator--mediators are for parties with relatively equal bargaining power. We need a champion--someone who can build up our side of the playing field so that it's level at last.
No comments:
Post a Comment