By William Fisher
Most people under forty have no idea what investigative journalism is. Those old enough to remember Watergate and Deep Throat think it started with Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward and “All the President’s Men”.
But investigative journalism has a rich and distinguished history in the United States. It started at least a century ago. But these writers weren’t called investigate journalists back then. They were ‘muckrakers’.
One of the first of this breed of journalists was Upton Sinclair (1878 –1968) Sinclair wrote in many genres, but gained particular fame for a novel, “The Jungle” (1906), which exposed inhumane and unsanitary conditions in the U.S. meat packing industry and caused the public uproar that ultimately led to the passage of the Meat Inspection Act in 1906.
Starting in the late 19th century and continuing through the first generation of the 20th century, a trio of investigative journalists rose to national prominence. The trio consisted of Ray Stannard Baker, Lincoln Steffens, and Ida Tarbell, all writers for McClure’s Magazine.
Baker, (1870 -1946), launched his career as a journalist in 1892 with the Chicago News-Record, where he covered the Pullman Strike and Coxey's Army in 1893.
In 1908, he wrote the book, “Following the Color Line”, becoming the first prominent journalist to examine America's racial divide. He would continue that work with numerous articles in the following decade.
Joseph Lincoln Steffens (1866 – 1936), specialized in investigating government corruption, and two collections of his articles were published as “The Shame of the Cities” (1904) and “The Struggle for Self-Government” (1906). He also wrote “The Traitor State”, which beat up on New Jersey for patronizing incorporation, in a manner similar to what Delaware practices now.
Ida Tarbell (1857 -- 1944) -- whose father was forced out of business by John D. Rockefeller and the predecessor to his Standard Oil empire -- investigated the Standard Oil monopoly for McClure's. Following extensive interviews, her story ran in 19 parts from November 1902 to October 1904, and later became a best-selling book. Her work fueled public attacks on Standard Oil and on trusts in general, and her book is credited with hastening the 1911 breakup of Standard Oil.
I.F. Stone (1907 – 1989) was an iconoclastic investigative journalist best known for his influential political newsletter, I.F. Stone's Weekly, which he started in 1953.
Over the next few years, Stone campaigned against McCarthyism and racial discrimination in the United States. In 1964 he was the only American journalist to challenge President Johnson's account of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which was used as a pretext for the Vietnam War.
George Seldes (1890 – 1995), one of the most influential American investigative journalists and media critics, moved to London in 1916, where he worked for United Press. When the United States joined the First World War in 1917, he was sent to France as a war correspondent. At end of the war he obtained an exclusive interview with Paul von Hindenburg, the supreme commander of the German Army. But the article was suppressed and never appeared in the American press.
In the interview, Hindenburg acknowledged the role that America played in defeating Germany. "The American infantry," said Hindenburg, "won the World War in battle in the Argonne." But American newspaper readers never read those words. Seldes was accused of breaking the Armistice and were court martialed. They were also forbidden to write anything about the interview.
Seldes believed that the suppression of the interview proved to be tragic. Instead of hearing straight from the mouth of Germany's supreme commander that they were beaten fair and square on the battlefield, another story took hold — the Dolchstoss (or "stab-in-the-back"), the myth that Germany did not lose in battle but was betrayed at home by "the socialists, the Communists and the Jews." This was the central lie upon which Nazism was founded.
In 1934 Seldes published a history of the Catholic Church, “The Vatican”. This was followed by an exposé of the global arms industry, “Iron, Blood and Profits” (1934), an account of Benito Mussolini, “Sawdust Caesar” (1935), and two books on the newspaper business, “Freedom of the Press” (1935) and “Lords of the Press” (1938). He also reported on the Spanish Civil War for the New York Post.
On his return to the United States in 1940, Seldes published “Witch Hunt”, an account of the persecution of people with left-wing political views in America, and “The Catholic Crisis”, where he attempted to show the close relationship between the Catholic Church and fascist organizations in Europe.
From 1940 to 1950, Seldes published a political newsletter, “In Fact”, which at the height of its popularity had a circulation of 176,000. One of the first articles published in the newsletter concerned the link between cigarette smoking and cancer.
In the early 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy accused him of being a communist. Seldes was blacklisted, but continued to write books: “Tell the Truth and Run” (1953), “Never Tire of Protesting” (1968), “Even the Gods Can't Change History” (1976) and “Witness to a Century” (1987).
From Ray Baker to Woodstein and beyond, reporters have dug deeply into public and private malfeasance, exposed it, and triggered actions that changed the nation. Today, sadly, this tradition is being strangled by cable and satellite television and their 24/7 news cycles, by shrinking news staffs at local newspapers and TV and radio stations, by the blurred line between news and entertainment, by the people’s low esteem for journalists, and by the consuming bottom-line obsession of big corporate media.
Paradoxically, the world is today better equipped technologically than ever before to find and disseminate thoughtful, probing news – but far less motivated to do so. It may be that Internet bloggers – citizen journalists -- will ultimately provide enough competition to drive a new era of investigative journalism.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
OUR TITULAR ATTORNEY GENERAL
By William Fisher
Well, I’m glad that’s over!
Victoria’s Secret, Janet Jackson, and all the rest of us, can now breathe a huge sigh of relief.
Drapes are out. Breasts are back.
That was the big news from the Department of Justice over the weekend (though Justice seemed to want to keep it as quiet as possible). On Friday, workers removed the blue drapes that have modestly covered two scantily clad statues for the past 3 1/2 years.
Spirit of Justice, with her one breast exposed and her arms raised, and the bare-chested male Majesty of Law, were back to their au natural state in Justice's Great Hall.
Installed in 2002, the drapes ensured that the then-Attorney General John Ashcroft could speak in the Great Hall without fear of a breast showing up behind him in television or newspaper pictures.
Late night comics also had a titillating chuckle at the expense of the evangelical Ashcroft.
Every time I saw Ashcroft’s successor, Alberto Gonzales, with a long face, I knew he must be agonizing over this weighty affair of state: Drape or Breast. I never really believed him when he said (regularly) he had more important things to consider.
Still, I suspect a tad of ambivalence. The Associated Press was refused permission to photograph the statues in their bold new state.
The AP reminded me that when former Attorney General Edwin Meese released a report on pornography in the 1980s, photographers dived to the floor to capture the image of him raising the report in the air, with the partially nude female statue behind him.
Republican Richard Thornburgh, attorney general under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, must have experienced similar indecision. According to our friends at the AP, he had the drapery put up only for a few occasions when he was appearing in the Great Hall, rather than permanently installed as it was under Ashcroft.
But it ain’t over ‘till it’s over, and this is decidedly a story with legs. The rumor is that Congressional Democrats are asking the General Accountability Office, as well as James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, to investigate the propriety of spending $8,000 on a bunch of drapes.
Well, I’m glad that’s over!
Victoria’s Secret, Janet Jackson, and all the rest of us, can now breathe a huge sigh of relief.
Drapes are out. Breasts are back.
That was the big news from the Department of Justice over the weekend (though Justice seemed to want to keep it as quiet as possible). On Friday, workers removed the blue drapes that have modestly covered two scantily clad statues for the past 3 1/2 years.
Spirit of Justice, with her one breast exposed and her arms raised, and the bare-chested male Majesty of Law, were back to their au natural state in Justice's Great Hall.
Installed in 2002, the drapes ensured that the then-Attorney General John Ashcroft could speak in the Great Hall without fear of a breast showing up behind him in television or newspaper pictures.
Late night comics also had a titillating chuckle at the expense of the evangelical Ashcroft.
Every time I saw Ashcroft’s successor, Alberto Gonzales, with a long face, I knew he must be agonizing over this weighty affair of state: Drape or Breast. I never really believed him when he said (regularly) he had more important things to consider.
Still, I suspect a tad of ambivalence. The Associated Press was refused permission to photograph the statues in their bold new state.
The AP reminded me that when former Attorney General Edwin Meese released a report on pornography in the 1980s, photographers dived to the floor to capture the image of him raising the report in the air, with the partially nude female statue behind him.
Republican Richard Thornburgh, attorney general under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, must have experienced similar indecision. According to our friends at the AP, he had the drapery put up only for a few occasions when he was appearing in the Great Hall, rather than permanently installed as it was under Ashcroft.
But it ain’t over ‘till it’s over, and this is decidedly a story with legs. The rumor is that Congressional Democrats are asking the General Accountability Office, as well as James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, to investigate the propriety of spending $8,000 on a bunch of drapes.
Friday, June 24, 2005
CAPITOL KABUKI
By William Fisher
Senator Joe Biden has always been a favorite of mine. The Delaware Democrat is one of our most knowledgeable voices in foreign affairs. And he speaks plain English, not John Kerryish Senate-speak.
Part of Biden’s ‘solution’ to our Iraq problem is his plea to President Bush to ‘level with the American people’. The president, he says, should go on primetime national television and tell us the truth about what’s going on in Iraq, what it means, what’s required of our citizens, and what is the administration’s ‘strategy for success’. He adds that he doesn’t expect any mea culpas from Mr. Bush. And he believes the United States could still win in Iraq, "but only if the White House corrects course, rather than just promising to 'stay the course'."
But this week’s news brings us yet more sad reminders of the virtual impossibility that any such ‘leveling’ is likely to happen anytime soon.
In my view, the choicest reminder was the appearance of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his top generals before the Senate Armed Services Committee. This was Capitol Kabuki at its very best. And if the subject weren’t so dead serious, it would be great fodder for Jon Stewart.
To provide a bit of context for this hearing, it should be noted that it came three days after Vice President Cheney told us the Iraqi insurgency was “in its last throes”, two days after Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durban took the senate floor to apologize for invoking the ‘Nazi, Stalin, Pol Pot’ analogy to describe the Bush Administration, a day after Bush’s ‘architect’, Karl Rove, accused liberals of searching for therapists to help us understand the 9/11 hijackers, and on the same day as a leaked CIA report warned that Iraq is turning into an even more effective training ground for terrorists than
Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.
Enter the dramatis personae, each with his prepared statement at the ready. First, Rumsfeld and the Generals, each poised to reassure us that we are making progress in Iraq despite all the challenges; then the Committee Democrats, wanting desperately to ask tough, probing questions but somewhat constrained by political correctness lest there might be the slightest hint of denigrating ‘our men and women in uniform’; then their Republican colleagues, mostly panting to salute Rummie, the brass, our troops and the Commander-In-Chief for their magnificent leadership.
Was there ever a more predictable piece of Kabuki Theater on Capitol Hill?
In the end, what did we learn from sitting through these painful four hours?
We learned that none of the generals were prepared to take on the Vice President, despite what they gingerly acknowledged was overwhelming evidence from other generals that Mr. Cheney simply got it wrong. The top U.S. regional commander said the insurgency was undiminished, and ever more foreign fighters were entering the country.
We learned that Senator Robert Byrd, the Methuselah of the Senate, was tired of being lectured and sneered at by Mr. Rumsfeld. “I can’t answer a (voter’s) question with a sneer.”
We learned that the Defense Secretary does not believe the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq, and that he rejects demands that the Bush administration set a timetable for the withdrawal of our 140,000 US troops. Troop reductions would "throw a lifeline to terrorists, who in recent months have suffered significant losses and casualties, been denied havens and suffered weakened popular support."
We learned that Pentagon commanders are worried about the growing sophistication of the bombs and other devices used against U.S. troops.
We learned that the Defense Secretary doesn’t think he should resign for what Senator Ted Kennedy charged was a series of "gross errors and mistakes" that had made Iraq an "intractable quagmire”. Can quagmires be intractable?
We learned that the Pentagon crew visibly cringes at the use of the dreaded "Q word", so redolent of Vietnam.
And we learned that the generals are surprised at how many American commanders and soldiers are asking whether the military was losing support at home for their missions overseas. "They worry we don't have the staying power to see the mission through."
Having imparted all this hot-off-the-press information, the Rummie’s Rascals then took their show on the road and gave virtually the same performance before the House Armed Services Committee.
The Commander-in-Chief will reported take to the tube some time next week to explain Iraq to the people. I have no idea what he’ll say, but I suspect we just sat through a pretty good preview.
We’d learn more at the movies!
Senator Joe Biden has always been a favorite of mine. The Delaware Democrat is one of our most knowledgeable voices in foreign affairs. And he speaks plain English, not John Kerryish Senate-speak.
Part of Biden’s ‘solution’ to our Iraq problem is his plea to President Bush to ‘level with the American people’. The president, he says, should go on primetime national television and tell us the truth about what’s going on in Iraq, what it means, what’s required of our citizens, and what is the administration’s ‘strategy for success’. He adds that he doesn’t expect any mea culpas from Mr. Bush. And he believes the United States could still win in Iraq, "but only if the White House corrects course, rather than just promising to 'stay the course'."
But this week’s news brings us yet more sad reminders of the virtual impossibility that any such ‘leveling’ is likely to happen anytime soon.
In my view, the choicest reminder was the appearance of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and his top generals before the Senate Armed Services Committee. This was Capitol Kabuki at its very best. And if the subject weren’t so dead serious, it would be great fodder for Jon Stewart.
To provide a bit of context for this hearing, it should be noted that it came three days after Vice President Cheney told us the Iraqi insurgency was “in its last throes”, two days after Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durban took the senate floor to apologize for invoking the ‘Nazi, Stalin, Pol Pot’ analogy to describe the Bush Administration, a day after Bush’s ‘architect’, Karl Rove, accused liberals of searching for therapists to help us understand the 9/11 hijackers, and on the same day as a leaked CIA report warned that Iraq is turning into an even more effective training ground for terrorists than
Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.
Enter the dramatis personae, each with his prepared statement at the ready. First, Rumsfeld and the Generals, each poised to reassure us that we are making progress in Iraq despite all the challenges; then the Committee Democrats, wanting desperately to ask tough, probing questions but somewhat constrained by political correctness lest there might be the slightest hint of denigrating ‘our men and women in uniform’; then their Republican colleagues, mostly panting to salute Rummie, the brass, our troops and the Commander-In-Chief for their magnificent leadership.
Was there ever a more predictable piece of Kabuki Theater on Capitol Hill?
In the end, what did we learn from sitting through these painful four hours?
We learned that none of the generals were prepared to take on the Vice President, despite what they gingerly acknowledged was overwhelming evidence from other generals that Mr. Cheney simply got it wrong. The top U.S. regional commander said the insurgency was undiminished, and ever more foreign fighters were entering the country.
We learned that Senator Robert Byrd, the Methuselah of the Senate, was tired of being lectured and sneered at by Mr. Rumsfeld. “I can’t answer a (voter’s) question with a sneer.”
We learned that the Defense Secretary does not believe the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq, and that he rejects demands that the Bush administration set a timetable for the withdrawal of our 140,000 US troops. Troop reductions would "throw a lifeline to terrorists, who in recent months have suffered significant losses and casualties, been denied havens and suffered weakened popular support."
We learned that Pentagon commanders are worried about the growing sophistication of the bombs and other devices used against U.S. troops.
We learned that the Defense Secretary doesn’t think he should resign for what Senator Ted Kennedy charged was a series of "gross errors and mistakes" that had made Iraq an "intractable quagmire”. Can quagmires be intractable?
We learned that the Pentagon crew visibly cringes at the use of the dreaded "Q word", so redolent of Vietnam.
And we learned that the generals are surprised at how many American commanders and soldiers are asking whether the military was losing support at home for their missions overseas. "They worry we don't have the staying power to see the mission through."
Having imparted all this hot-off-the-press information, the Rummie’s Rascals then took their show on the road and gave virtually the same performance before the House Armed Services Committee.
The Commander-in-Chief will reported take to the tube some time next week to explain Iraq to the people. I have no idea what he’ll say, but I suspect we just sat through a pretty good preview.
We’d learn more at the movies!
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
The Prince and the Cotton Gin Fan
By Lindell Singleton
Email the author at mise_en_scene2001@yahoo.com
"If you have to get on your knees and bow when a white person goes past, do it willingly."
-Mamie Till
“I hated the white people who did it, but I hated the Negroes even more for not fighting back.
I hated them all.”- Former Resident of Money, Mississippi
"It seems like nothin' good ever happens up on Choctaw Ridge
And now Billie Jo Mcallister's jumped off the Tallahatchie Bridge." -Bobbie Gentry
My second son, Ryan, just signed a college scholarship to play football in Mississippi. We went over to Jackson to sign his National Letter of Intent. It’s ironic that my son is going to live in Mississippi.
My Dad—who pastored a Pentecostal church for 27 years-- said that if Christ returned to Earth and was in Mississippi he just have to ‘take his chances with salvation because he would never again set foot in the Magnolia State.’ Maybe it had something to do with Emmett Louis Till.
A little history lesson: Mr. Till, a fourteen year old Chicagoan, was visiting Money, Mississippi in the summer of 1955.
As the story goes, on a dare from one of his friends, he said “hey baby” or whistled at a girl—a white girl—as he was leaving Bryant’s Grocery Store and Meat Market.
The angered and offended young woman told her family—that tragic decision set actions in motion that ended Mr. Till’s young life. On the night of August 28, 1955, good ol’ boys from the town dragged Mr.Till from his home, beat him until he was unrecognizable, shot him in the head with a .45 caliber weapon, affixed a 75-pound cotton gin fan to his neck, and hurled his body from a bridge into the swift current of the Tallahatchee River. (Yes, Billie Jo McAllister’s bridge!) His body was found three days later.
His funeral on 6 September 1955,drew attention from as far away as France.
Every black man older than 40 knows the name, Emmett Till. I learned of Mr. Till’s plight long before the names Jackie Robinson, Malcolm X, and Fredrick Douglass entered my consciousness.
What kind of people could do this to a young boy? What kind of place would allow this to happen—and then, acquit the killers after just 67 minutes of deliberation--offering righteous indignation that were even be charged. He was just a nigga’, after all.
No wonder my Dad refused to return to Mississippi. He didn’t even want his remains buried there. But Malcolm X’s family house was burned down in Omaha, Nebraska…far North of the Mason-Dixon line.
It leaves me wondering: Was it the place or the people?
Sarajevo, at one time, was a cultural and artistic flashpoint of Europe. It was full of cafes, bookshops, hard-working people and progressive thought. The Olympics, for god’s sake, were in Sarajevo. Then, the pot of race, religion, and ethnicity started to boil…the killing started. What is Sarajevo today? How is it a better place? Did people make the place evil, or did the place make the people do evil things. I just wonder.
Mississippi is beautiful. As my son and I walked the tree-lined campus, and soaked up the beautiful Mississippi evenings, I had a jarring flashback to Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner. What a confluence of evil, in a place that seems so full of old world charm…do the people bring the evil, or is there something in the air, water or soil that causes good people to go bad.
Things were going nicely for Adam and Eve until they ate from the tree.How does this descent into evil occur?
Do you just don’t wake up one morning and say to your friend,“Ok, the next colored teenager that talks to any girl gets a goddamn cotton gin fan wrapped around his black neck and tossed in the Tallahatchee river, got it?”
Long ago, I gave up believing that people were fundamentally good. One can choose to be a good individual, but the drag of our selfish, self-centered, ‘me-first approach to the world’ ultimately prevails. What other explanation exists for beating a young boy until he was barely recognizable, then tying a cotton gin fan around his neck?
There is a park in South L.A. where I used to play basketball. Back then it was called, Manchester Park. I had just finished one of my 500-shot routines, trying to pattern my game after Oscar Robertsons’. As I reached the North end of the park, three guys stopped me.
They were from a gang called the “Park Boys,” a collective that would ultimately fold into the Crips. They beat me until the blood ran from my nose. And then, they stopped. I was on my knees, trying to get up, and and old lady pushing a grocery cart from ABC market stopped and looked at me. She didn’t say anything, but shook her head and kept going. I stumbled to my feet and touched my cheekbone as it was starting to bruise and swell. I thought: “Why are they doing this to me?”
Did Emmitt Till ever ask that question while he was getting beat? I wish there were some way—like in the film Minority Report—that I could watch this crime take place… through some sort of hidden time machine/security camera device. What were Emmitt’s final words?
Did he plead with this crew of murderering savages to spare his life? Why, at some point, didn’t one of the murderers say, “Enough, the boy has learned his lesson.” Surely, talking to a white girl doesn’t mandate being thrown in the river. Was there no decency in any of these men? Were they bereft of all humanity and goodness? But maybe there was just something in the air that day. Or, maybe there is something in the water and soil of Money, Mississippi:
Like Emmitt Till’s blood, for starters.
The great Ossie Davis called Malcolm X a black prince…a shining black prince. When I look into his soft, reflective eyes of Emmitt Till I am reminded that he, too, was a black prince. One whose life ended because of reasons that are, without question, inexplicable...
I am forever saddened at the death of this boy. Think of the unfullfilled dreams that sank to bottom of the river with his broken body.
The world is an evil place. We delude ourselves when we think it isn’t. What goodness have you brought to the world today that will balance this oppressing storm of evil?
Email the author at mise_en_scene2001@yahoo.com
"If you have to get on your knees and bow when a white person goes past, do it willingly."
-Mamie Till
“I hated the white people who did it, but I hated the Negroes even more for not fighting back.
I hated them all.”- Former Resident of Money, Mississippi
"It seems like nothin' good ever happens up on Choctaw Ridge
And now Billie Jo Mcallister's jumped off the Tallahatchie Bridge." -Bobbie Gentry
My second son, Ryan, just signed a college scholarship to play football in Mississippi. We went over to Jackson to sign his National Letter of Intent. It’s ironic that my son is going to live in Mississippi.
My Dad—who pastored a Pentecostal church for 27 years-- said that if Christ returned to Earth and was in Mississippi he just have to ‘take his chances with salvation because he would never again set foot in the Magnolia State.’ Maybe it had something to do with Emmett Louis Till.
A little history lesson: Mr. Till, a fourteen year old Chicagoan, was visiting Money, Mississippi in the summer of 1955.
As the story goes, on a dare from one of his friends, he said “hey baby” or whistled at a girl—a white girl—as he was leaving Bryant’s Grocery Store and Meat Market.
The angered and offended young woman told her family—that tragic decision set actions in motion that ended Mr. Till’s young life. On the night of August 28, 1955, good ol’ boys from the town dragged Mr.Till from his home, beat him until he was unrecognizable, shot him in the head with a .45 caliber weapon, affixed a 75-pound cotton gin fan to his neck, and hurled his body from a bridge into the swift current of the Tallahatchee River. (Yes, Billie Jo McAllister’s bridge!) His body was found three days later.
His funeral on 6 September 1955,drew attention from as far away as France.
Every black man older than 40 knows the name, Emmett Till. I learned of Mr. Till’s plight long before the names Jackie Robinson, Malcolm X, and Fredrick Douglass entered my consciousness.
What kind of people could do this to a young boy? What kind of place would allow this to happen—and then, acquit the killers after just 67 minutes of deliberation--offering righteous indignation that were even be charged. He was just a nigga’, after all.
No wonder my Dad refused to return to Mississippi. He didn’t even want his remains buried there. But Malcolm X’s family house was burned down in Omaha, Nebraska…far North of the Mason-Dixon line.
It leaves me wondering: Was it the place or the people?
Sarajevo, at one time, was a cultural and artistic flashpoint of Europe. It was full of cafes, bookshops, hard-working people and progressive thought. The Olympics, for god’s sake, were in Sarajevo. Then, the pot of race, religion, and ethnicity started to boil…the killing started. What is Sarajevo today? How is it a better place? Did people make the place evil, or did the place make the people do evil things. I just wonder.
Mississippi is beautiful. As my son and I walked the tree-lined campus, and soaked up the beautiful Mississippi evenings, I had a jarring flashback to Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner. What a confluence of evil, in a place that seems so full of old world charm…do the people bring the evil, or is there something in the air, water or soil that causes good people to go bad.
Things were going nicely for Adam and Eve until they ate from the tree.How does this descent into evil occur?
Do you just don’t wake up one morning and say to your friend,“Ok, the next colored teenager that talks to any girl gets a goddamn cotton gin fan wrapped around his black neck and tossed in the Tallahatchee river, got it?”
Long ago, I gave up believing that people were fundamentally good. One can choose to be a good individual, but the drag of our selfish, self-centered, ‘me-first approach to the world’ ultimately prevails. What other explanation exists for beating a young boy until he was barely recognizable, then tying a cotton gin fan around his neck?
There is a park in South L.A. where I used to play basketball. Back then it was called, Manchester Park. I had just finished one of my 500-shot routines, trying to pattern my game after Oscar Robertsons’. As I reached the North end of the park, three guys stopped me.
They were from a gang called the “Park Boys,” a collective that would ultimately fold into the Crips. They beat me until the blood ran from my nose. And then, they stopped. I was on my knees, trying to get up, and and old lady pushing a grocery cart from ABC market stopped and looked at me. She didn’t say anything, but shook her head and kept going. I stumbled to my feet and touched my cheekbone as it was starting to bruise and swell. I thought: “Why are they doing this to me?”
Did Emmitt Till ever ask that question while he was getting beat? I wish there were some way—like in the film Minority Report—that I could watch this crime take place… through some sort of hidden time machine/security camera device. What were Emmitt’s final words?
Did he plead with this crew of murderering savages to spare his life? Why, at some point, didn’t one of the murderers say, “Enough, the boy has learned his lesson.” Surely, talking to a white girl doesn’t mandate being thrown in the river. Was there no decency in any of these men? Were they bereft of all humanity and goodness? But maybe there was just something in the air that day. Or, maybe there is something in the water and soil of Money, Mississippi:
Like Emmitt Till’s blood, for starters.
The great Ossie Davis called Malcolm X a black prince…a shining black prince. When I look into his soft, reflective eyes of Emmitt Till I am reminded that he, too, was a black prince. One whose life ended because of reasons that are, without question, inexplicable...
I am forever saddened at the death of this boy. Think of the unfullfilled dreams that sank to bottom of the river with his broken body.
The world is an evil place. We delude ourselves when we think it isn’t. What goodness have you brought to the world today that will balance this oppressing storm of evil?
MR. JUSTICE DANFORTH?
By William Fisher
When he took office in 2000, President Bush promised us he would be a uniter. Since then, he has managed to create the most divided country in our history.
If the president is content with that legacy, so be it. But that will mean a second term in which virtually nothing of consequence will get done, and a president who becomes a very lame duck sooner than most of his predecessors.
But if a Supreme Court opening should occur in his watch, it will present the president with an extraordinary opportunity to do what he said he would do, and what the country desperately needs: someone who can bring us together.
He could do this by nominating John Danforth to the Court. And his appointment would sail through the Senate at the speed of light.
Why John Danforth?
To begin with, he has all the resume credentials. Law degree from Yale. Former Attorney General of Missouri. Private practice with a prestigious law firm.
He is revered by his former Senate colleagues. John Kerry once said he wished President Bush had picked Danforth instead of John Ashcroft as attorney general. “A beautiful human being," says Sen. John Warner (R-Va.).
His faith is very private. In his twelve years in the Senate, he never went to Senate prayer meetings. Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.). "If you didn't know he was an ordained minister, you wouldn't know. He never went on and on about it."
Untypical of most Senators, he has learned humility. In his book, Danforth wrote that he was "ashamed" at how far he went to discredit Anita Hill, the former assistant to his protégé, Clarence Thomas, who spoke out against him during the hearings.
He has been called on and trusted by Republicans and Democrats, by both the left and the right. President Clinton chose him to investigate the Waco affair. President George W. Bush picked him as special envoy to Sudan. Arthur Andersen hired him during the Enron scandal to review the firm's records.
He is what used to be called a Wendell Wilkie Republican. In the Senate, he worked to reign in entitlements, reduce the deficit, encourage long-term economic growth, improve education, reduce hunger and malnutrition throughout the world, and increase production of affordable housing. As the Senate's only ordained minister, he was a great disappointment to the religious right. He voted against abortion rights but shied away from a leadership role in the movement. He was against school prayer, against the death penalty. The left loved him for shepherding the 1991 Civil Rights Act. After he left the Senate and joined a law firm, he never lobbied at all, on principle.
He is an unbending advocate of church-state separation. Writing in the New York Times in March 2005, he said, “Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.”
He believes that “The work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive.”
“Our current fixation on a religious agenda”, he wrote, “has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots.”
So John Danforth has a great deal going for him. But alas, he has one big thing going in the other direction: He is 68 years old. Many presidents would find this a deal-breaker. They want to put their imprint on the court for a generation. But, given our increasing longevity, Danforth could have a productive ten years.
Maybe just long enough to help us to recover and recolor our Red and Blue America.
When he took office in 2000, President Bush promised us he would be a uniter. Since then, he has managed to create the most divided country in our history.
If the president is content with that legacy, so be it. But that will mean a second term in which virtually nothing of consequence will get done, and a president who becomes a very lame duck sooner than most of his predecessors.
But if a Supreme Court opening should occur in his watch, it will present the president with an extraordinary opportunity to do what he said he would do, and what the country desperately needs: someone who can bring us together.
He could do this by nominating John Danforth to the Court. And his appointment would sail through the Senate at the speed of light.
Why John Danforth?
To begin with, he has all the resume credentials. Law degree from Yale. Former Attorney General of Missouri. Private practice with a prestigious law firm.
He is revered by his former Senate colleagues. John Kerry once said he wished President Bush had picked Danforth instead of John Ashcroft as attorney general. “A beautiful human being," says Sen. John Warner (R-Va.).
His faith is very private. In his twelve years in the Senate, he never went to Senate prayer meetings. Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.). "If you didn't know he was an ordained minister, you wouldn't know. He never went on and on about it."
Untypical of most Senators, he has learned humility. In his book, Danforth wrote that he was "ashamed" at how far he went to discredit Anita Hill, the former assistant to his protégé, Clarence Thomas, who spoke out against him during the hearings.
He has been called on and trusted by Republicans and Democrats, by both the left and the right. President Clinton chose him to investigate the Waco affair. President George W. Bush picked him as special envoy to Sudan. Arthur Andersen hired him during the Enron scandal to review the firm's records.
He is what used to be called a Wendell Wilkie Republican. In the Senate, he worked to reign in entitlements, reduce the deficit, encourage long-term economic growth, improve education, reduce hunger and malnutrition throughout the world, and increase production of affordable housing. As the Senate's only ordained minister, he was a great disappointment to the religious right. He voted against abortion rights but shied away from a leadership role in the movement. He was against school prayer, against the death penalty. The left loved him for shepherding the 1991 Civil Rights Act. After he left the Senate and joined a law firm, he never lobbied at all, on principle.
He is an unbending advocate of church-state separation. Writing in the New York Times in March 2005, he said, “Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians. The elements of this transformation have included advocacy of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, opposition to stem cell research involving both frozen embryos and human cells in petri dishes, and the extraordinary effort to keep Terri Schiavo hooked up to a feeding tube.”
He believes that “The work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive.”
“Our current fixation on a religious agenda”, he wrote, “has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots.”
So John Danforth has a great deal going for him. But alas, he has one big thing going in the other direction: He is 68 years old. Many presidents would find this a deal-breaker. They want to put their imprint on the court for a generation. But, given our increasing longevity, Danforth could have a productive ten years.
Maybe just long enough to help us to recover and recolor our Red and Blue America.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
WORDS WORTH EATING
William Fisher
E. J. Dionne Jr., writing in the Washington Post, provides a transcript of a "Meet the Press" program from March 16, 2003, featuring Vice President Dick Cheney. Here are a few passages:
Host Tim Russert: We would “have to have several hundred thousand troops there" in Iraq "for several years in order to maintain stability."
Cheney: "I disagree…to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement."
Russert: "If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"
Cheney: "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House…The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want [is to] get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."
Russert: "And you are convinced the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites will come together in a democracy?"
Cheney: "They have so far. I think the prospects of being able to achieve this kind of success, if you will, from a political standpoint, are probably better than they would be for virtually any other country and under similar circumstances in that part of the world."
E. J. Dionne Jr., writing in the Washington Post, provides a transcript of a "Meet the Press" program from March 16, 2003, featuring Vice President Dick Cheney. Here are a few passages:
Host Tim Russert: We would “have to have several hundred thousand troops there" in Iraq "for several years in order to maintain stability."
Cheney: "I disagree…to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement."
Russert: "If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"
Cheney: "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House…The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want [is to] get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."
Russert: "And you are convinced the Kurds, the Sunnis, the Shiites will come together in a democracy?"
Cheney: "They have so far. I think the prospects of being able to achieve this kind of success, if you will, from a political standpoint, are probably better than they would be for virtually any other country and under similar circumstances in that part of the world."
Monday, June 20, 2005
Red Herring
By Uri Avnery
JERUSALEM -- The experience was almost surrealistic: I was in a hall in the center of Gaza, facing some 500 people, all of them bearded men, nearly all of them Hamas militants. The Hamas movement officially opposes the very existence of the State of Israel, and here I stand on the podium speaking in Hebrew about peace between Israel and the future State of Palestine.
Did they protest? On the contrary, they applauded, and after the event I was invited to lunch with the respected sheikhs.
That was in 1994, and perhaps the background requires some explanation: a year before, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin decided to expel from the country 415 Islamic activists. The chief-of-staff, Ehud Barak, testified in court that this measure was absolutely essential for the security of the state. The Supreme Court confirmed the expulsion.
The activists were taken by bus to the northern border, but the Beirut government did not allow them to be deported into Lebanon. For a whole year, the expellees vegetated in tents in an open field between the two armies, exposed to the rain and the cold in winter and to the burning sun in summer, until they were finally allowed to return.
I considered the expulsion a grievous violation of human rights, as well as politically foolish. So I proposed, in a "Peace Now" meeting, the setting up of a protest tent in front of the prime minister's office. The leaders of Peace Now did not agree with protesting against an act of the Labor party leader. But some other peace activists combined to set up the tent, together with leaders of the Arab community in Israel, both religious and secular.
We spent 45 days and nights together. Some days, snow was falling and the cold was bitter. Bedouins from the Negev and activists from Arab villages brought us food and coal-burners, women-activists from Jerusalem brought us a large kettle of warm soup every evening. Owing to our profound disappointment with Peace Now we decided there and then to found a new peace movement. That's how Gush Shalom came into being.
I was curious how the Islamic militants would behave towards us upon their return. I was very pleased when they decided to express their gratitude publicly: together with my friends, the tent dwellers, I was invited to that event in Gaza. There I met several of the people who are now leading Hamas, after the assassinations of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who was in prison at the time, and Abdel Aziz Al Rantisi, who was one of the expellees.
I remembered this experience when I heard that at tomorrow's (June 19) meeting with Condoleezza Rice, Ariel Sharon will demand that the Americans refuse all contact with Hamas representatives who are running for office in the coming Palestinian elections. Official spokesmen also expressed their anger at the decision of the EU to allow diplomats "beneath the rank of ambassador" to meet with them.
Sharon now demands the exclusion of Hamas from the elections, as long as they do not officially recognize the State of Israel and abjure terrorism. More than that: he has already declared that there will be no peace negotiations until the Palestinian Authority destroys the "terror infrastructure" (meaning: Hamas) and disarms it.
That, too, reminds one of something. For years, successive Israeli governments had demanded that all the world boycott the PLO, until it abolishes the "Palestinian National Charter". This document, dating from the 1960s, called for the dismantling of the State of Israel. Later, the PLO adopted many new resolutions that negated the charter and recognized Israel. In the 1993 Oslo agreement, Yasser Arafat gave up 78 percent of the country of Palestine that existed until 1948. But nothing helped. For many years, Israeli propaganda was riding on the miserable charter in order to justify an extreme anti-Palestinian policy, until the Palestinians - much to the chagrin of many Israelis - abolished it altogether.
That created a vacuum. Sharon is now using Hamas to fill it.
One of the more colorful idioms of the English language is "red herring". That is a smoked herring (the red color is imparted to it in the process of smoke-curing) that has a strong smell. A person being chased by dogs draws it across his path in order to distract the animals so they lose the trail.
Much as his predecessors used the PLO Charter, Sharon is now using Hamas to distract attention from his promise to immediately dismantle the settlement "outposts", freeze the settlements and start political negotiations with the Palestinians. He draws the herring across the road map.
As for the matter itself: Is the participation of Hamas in the elections a good or a bad thing, as far as Israeli interests are concerned?
I say that it's a good thing.
Some 30 years ago, I called for negotiations with the PLO, which was then considered a terror-gang and a bunch of murderers. At the time we coined the phrase: "Peace is made between enemies". Today that applies to Hamas, too. There is no doubt that Hamas is about to win a significant share of the vote in the parliamentary election, after it achieved excellent results in the recent municipal elections. It does not get these votes because it refuses to recognize Israel. Rather, there are two main reasons for its success: the prestige it has acquired for valiantly fighting against the Israeli occupation and its being untouched by the corruption that marks some of the other personalities and factions.
The Palestinians consider the violence, which is usually referred to in Israel as "terrorism", to be legitimate resistance. They believe that Israel would not have decided to leave the Gaza Strip if not for the armed struggle, since Israel, according to their belief and experience, "understands only the language of force". Until now, no one can point to a single achievement of the Palestinians that was attained by any other means.
It is an irony of fate (or a triumph of folly) that Hamas was created, in fact, with the help of Israel itself. Much as the Americans created the Al Qaeda of Osama Bin-Laden in order to fight against the Soviet army in Afghanistan, Israel supported the Islamic movement in the occupied territories as a counterweight to the PLO. The assumption was that pious Muslims would spend their time praying in the mosques and would not support the secular PLO, which was then considered the arch-enemy.
But when the first intifada broke out at the end of 1987, the Islamists organized as Hamas (the Arabic initials of "Islamic Resistance Movement") and quickly became the most efficient underground fighting organization. However, the Israeli Security Service started to act against them only after a whole year of the intifada had passed.
Now the existence of Hamas is an accomplished fact. It has deep roots in the community, also because of its widespread social services which were initially financed by the Saudis and others.
Historical experience shows that such movements tend to become more moderate as they are integrated in the political system. A movement that has ministers in the cabinet, a faction in parliament and mayors in towns and villages, acquires an interest in stability. True, in the beginning it may cause a radicalization of the style of the Palestinian National Authority, but in the long run it will make the achievement of a settlement much easier.
If one wants a real peace that will be accepted by the whole Palestinian public, one should bless the integration of Hamas in the Palestinian political system. But if one wants to obstruct peace in order to annex most of the West Bank to Israel and preserve the settlements, it is logical that one opposes it - as Sharon does.
Condoleezza Rice certainly knows a smoked herring when she smells one - and not only on her breakfast table.
JERUSALEM -- The experience was almost surrealistic: I was in a hall in the center of Gaza, facing some 500 people, all of them bearded men, nearly all of them Hamas militants. The Hamas movement officially opposes the very existence of the State of Israel, and here I stand on the podium speaking in Hebrew about peace between Israel and the future State of Palestine.
Did they protest? On the contrary, they applauded, and after the event I was invited to lunch with the respected sheikhs.
That was in 1994, and perhaps the background requires some explanation: a year before, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin decided to expel from the country 415 Islamic activists. The chief-of-staff, Ehud Barak, testified in court that this measure was absolutely essential for the security of the state. The Supreme Court confirmed the expulsion.
The activists were taken by bus to the northern border, but the Beirut government did not allow them to be deported into Lebanon. For a whole year, the expellees vegetated in tents in an open field between the two armies, exposed to the rain and the cold in winter and to the burning sun in summer, until they were finally allowed to return.
I considered the expulsion a grievous violation of human rights, as well as politically foolish. So I proposed, in a "Peace Now" meeting, the setting up of a protest tent in front of the prime minister's office. The leaders of Peace Now did not agree with protesting against an act of the Labor party leader. But some other peace activists combined to set up the tent, together with leaders of the Arab community in Israel, both religious and secular.
We spent 45 days and nights together. Some days, snow was falling and the cold was bitter. Bedouins from the Negev and activists from Arab villages brought us food and coal-burners, women-activists from Jerusalem brought us a large kettle of warm soup every evening. Owing to our profound disappointment with Peace Now we decided there and then to found a new peace movement. That's how Gush Shalom came into being.
I was curious how the Islamic militants would behave towards us upon their return. I was very pleased when they decided to express their gratitude publicly: together with my friends, the tent dwellers, I was invited to that event in Gaza. There I met several of the people who are now leading Hamas, after the assassinations of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who was in prison at the time, and Abdel Aziz Al Rantisi, who was one of the expellees.
I remembered this experience when I heard that at tomorrow's (June 19) meeting with Condoleezza Rice, Ariel Sharon will demand that the Americans refuse all contact with Hamas representatives who are running for office in the coming Palestinian elections. Official spokesmen also expressed their anger at the decision of the EU to allow diplomats "beneath the rank of ambassador" to meet with them.
Sharon now demands the exclusion of Hamas from the elections, as long as they do not officially recognize the State of Israel and abjure terrorism. More than that: he has already declared that there will be no peace negotiations until the Palestinian Authority destroys the "terror infrastructure" (meaning: Hamas) and disarms it.
That, too, reminds one of something. For years, successive Israeli governments had demanded that all the world boycott the PLO, until it abolishes the "Palestinian National Charter". This document, dating from the 1960s, called for the dismantling of the State of Israel. Later, the PLO adopted many new resolutions that negated the charter and recognized Israel. In the 1993 Oslo agreement, Yasser Arafat gave up 78 percent of the country of Palestine that existed until 1948. But nothing helped. For many years, Israeli propaganda was riding on the miserable charter in order to justify an extreme anti-Palestinian policy, until the Palestinians - much to the chagrin of many Israelis - abolished it altogether.
That created a vacuum. Sharon is now using Hamas to fill it.
One of the more colorful idioms of the English language is "red herring". That is a smoked herring (the red color is imparted to it in the process of smoke-curing) that has a strong smell. A person being chased by dogs draws it across his path in order to distract the animals so they lose the trail.
Much as his predecessors used the PLO Charter, Sharon is now using Hamas to distract attention from his promise to immediately dismantle the settlement "outposts", freeze the settlements and start political negotiations with the Palestinians. He draws the herring across the road map.
As for the matter itself: Is the participation of Hamas in the elections a good or a bad thing, as far as Israeli interests are concerned?
I say that it's a good thing.
Some 30 years ago, I called for negotiations with the PLO, which was then considered a terror-gang and a bunch of murderers. At the time we coined the phrase: "Peace is made between enemies". Today that applies to Hamas, too. There is no doubt that Hamas is about to win a significant share of the vote in the parliamentary election, after it achieved excellent results in the recent municipal elections. It does not get these votes because it refuses to recognize Israel. Rather, there are two main reasons for its success: the prestige it has acquired for valiantly fighting against the Israeli occupation and its being untouched by the corruption that marks some of the other personalities and factions.
The Palestinians consider the violence, which is usually referred to in Israel as "terrorism", to be legitimate resistance. They believe that Israel would not have decided to leave the Gaza Strip if not for the armed struggle, since Israel, according to their belief and experience, "understands only the language of force". Until now, no one can point to a single achievement of the Palestinians that was attained by any other means.
It is an irony of fate (or a triumph of folly) that Hamas was created, in fact, with the help of Israel itself. Much as the Americans created the Al Qaeda of Osama Bin-Laden in order to fight against the Soviet army in Afghanistan, Israel supported the Islamic movement in the occupied territories as a counterweight to the PLO. The assumption was that pious Muslims would spend their time praying in the mosques and would not support the secular PLO, which was then considered the arch-enemy.
But when the first intifada broke out at the end of 1987, the Islamists organized as Hamas (the Arabic initials of "Islamic Resistance Movement") and quickly became the most efficient underground fighting organization. However, the Israeli Security Service started to act against them only after a whole year of the intifada had passed.
Now the existence of Hamas is an accomplished fact. It has deep roots in the community, also because of its widespread social services which were initially financed by the Saudis and others.
Historical experience shows that such movements tend to become more moderate as they are integrated in the political system. A movement that has ministers in the cabinet, a faction in parliament and mayors in towns and villages, acquires an interest in stability. True, in the beginning it may cause a radicalization of the style of the Palestinian National Authority, but in the long run it will make the achievement of a settlement much easier.
If one wants a real peace that will be accepted by the whole Palestinian public, one should bless the integration of Hamas in the Palestinian political system. But if one wants to obstruct peace in order to annex most of the West Bank to Israel and preserve the settlements, it is logical that one opposes it - as Sharon does.
Condoleezza Rice certainly knows a smoked herring when she smells one - and not only on her breakfast table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
