March 30, 2004

March Madness is upon us and I'm digging it. It's such great fun watching athletic college men (I don't have cable, so I don't get to see the athletic college women) playing their hearts out and their butts off. It's great basketball, great drama, and the best reality programming on television. And since I grew up in Louisville and went to school at the University of Kentucky, I usually have an emotional stake well into the tournament.

Not this year. First Louisville went down and then (shockingly) Kentucky. So now I find myself rooting for Georgia Tech, mostly because they have the fewest tattoos, but that's OK. It's March Madness and it's all good. And, as usual, it gives me an opportunity to reflect on a singularly important sports event that occurred in my not-so-athletic college days, an event that I was a small yet insignificant part of.

(Insert Rashômon-type disclaimer here.)

In 1966, I was a drummer in the UK Pep Band. We played at all the home basketball games and it was a great time to be a Wildcat fan. As some of you may recall, 1966 was the year of "Rupp's Runts," a classic group of overachievers. The tallest player on the team was a 6'6" guard. The team leaders were two All-Americans, Louie Dampier and Pat Riley (yes, the same Pat Riley). They lost one contest and were ranked either #1 or #2 all season. They were scrappy, they were fun to watch, and they were all White.

You see, the Kentucky coach was Adolph Rupp. Rupp was a great coach, but he was also a racial bigot. Black players never considered playing for him, not even Wes Unseld and Butch Beard, the two best Kentucky high school players of the era. (Both played for the University of Louisville.) Having been a basketball and track manager at an integrated high school, I remember thinking that Rupp was being pretty stupid about the whole race thing. But that did not deter my enthusiasm. These guys were my team and they were damned good.

The other team vying with UK for the top spot in the polls was Texas Western (now UTEP). When UK was #1, they were #2 and vice versa. Texas Western was an integrated team, but their two stars, Bobby Joe Hill and David Lattin, were Black. Everyone figured that these teams would meet in College Park, MD for the NCAA Championship. And so they did. But the game was destined to be a turning point in American sports and race relations.

Rupp set it off by making some bonehead remark to the effect that no team of Black players could defeat a team of White players. Don Haskins, Texas Western's coach (and a non-bonehead White guy), knew a motivational opportunity when he heard it and on March 19, 1966, for the first and only time all season, he put five Black starters on the floor.

It worked. The Miners came out strong and put the Wildcats on their heels early. Hill picked Dampier's pocket, Lattin cleaned up inside and Kentucky ended up shooting 38% from the floor. The Cats were never really in the game and the final score was 72-65. It was a seismic event and arguably the single most important sports story revolving around the issue of race since Jackie Robinson integrated major league baseball.

After the game, the mood on the UK campus was somber, but there really wasn't much to be said. A few idiots made some disparaging racial remarks but nobody paid them much attention. "We sure could've used Wes Unseld" was the summation of one Kentucky player. No shit. But, what the heck, the best team had won the game and that was that. What followed, however, would prove to be as important as the game itself.

The 1966 NCAA Men's Basketball Championship was a significant event in a tumultuous decade and much has been written about both the game and it's aftermath. A lot of that information is available online and it is fascinating reading. I highly recommend it to sports fans and anyone else who is interested in the history, and in particular the racial issues, of that era. Personally, I'm grateful I was there. Terrific basketball played as great social theatre - what more could a fan ask for? Except to win, of course.

Incidentally, Kentucky started five Black players in the NCAA Tournament this year.

March 24, 2004

You would think that predicting strategies for the 2004 Presidential election would be a pretty straightforward proposition. With months to endure before November 2, the campaigns are well and truly engaged and basic themes have emerged. From the Democrats: The Bush junta is a pack of liars and thieves. From the Republicans: Trust us, we only lie to you for your own good. But conventional wisdom and common sense dictate that events yet to come will have a decisive impact at the polls. Remember Reagan's "October Surprise" in 1980? You can bet your ass Karl Rove does.

The real wild card this year, however, is America's greatest enemy (and paradoxically Bush's greatest potential asset) the ever-elusive Osama Bin Laden. Osama is probably thrilled that Bush was appointed President. Sure, there was all that unpleasant bombing in Afghanistan after 9/11, but otherwise events haven't turned out too badly. Terrorist recruiting has shot up while we citizens of "The Great Satan" continue to pay an enormous and increasing cost for the never-ending war on terrorism.

And then there's Iraq.

By invading Iraq, Bush has managed to (inadvertently, one assumes) facilitate a few of Osama's objectives:

1. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden's mortal enemy, has made Iraq a much less difficult environment for Al Qaeda operatives. (Can you say "sectarian war?")

2. The diversion of American focus has made Afghanistan a much less difficult environment for Al Qaeda operatives. (Can you say "Taliban resurgence?")

3. By arrogantly choosing to go it alone in Iraq, Bush has managed to alienate a lot of the people he needs to work with in order to bring the Al Qaeda network down. (Can you say "Coalition of the Really Fed Up?")

And that brings us to Osama's potential strategy for 2004. Clearly it is in his interest to see Bush, an old family friend after all, remain in power. He just needs to come up with an act so outrageous that the American electorate will blindly rush to vote for Bush en masse. Of course, the simplest solution would be for Bin Laden to arrange to have himself captured or killed by American forces. This would guarantee his own martyrdom while insuring a Bush victory. But I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Selfless acts of heroism don't seem to be Osama's style.

And forget about using airliners as guided missiles. It's just not going to happen again given the level of airport security now in place. Nope, it's time to think really big. Try out this scenario. Given the extreme difficulty involved in securing American ports, Osama needs a ship - a very big ship - loaded to the gunwales with lots of conventional explosives, a small nuke or even biological agents. It really doesn't matter as long as the potential impact is catastrophic. But where to strike? San Francisco comes to mind, but that's just not diabolical enough. The best choice? Miami. Stay with me here.

Blowing a hole in Miami would guarantee a Bush victory in Florida without all that annoying voter fraud Republicans had to go through in 2000. Furthermore, by attacking Miami, Al Qaeda would furnish the Bushoids with a pretext for claiming that terrorism against the USA was now being sponsored by... say it with me... CUBA! And that would inexorably lead to an invasion, which would be a supremely nasty affair with implications for regional instability in Latin America.

Brilliant, if I do say so. Bush and Bin Laden get to keep their jobs, the Cuban exiles (left standing) in Miami get rid of Fidel and the rest of us get permanently assigned to Code Third-Degree-Sunburn. Something for everyone. Fiendish? Oh, yes. Efficacious? You bet. Great television movie of the week? And how.

Do you think that's funny? Neither do I.

There's nothing humorous about people, soldiers or civilians, being blown apart. There's nothing humorous about the President of the United States and his fellow appointees lying through their teeth. And there's nothing humorous about the prospect of four more years of bloody, mendacious leadership in the White House. The election is coming and the only person laughing is Osama Bin Laden. Oh yeah, and whoever has the option on his screenplay.

March 14, 2004

On March 9, 1954, CBS broadcast a singularly memorable edition of the successful news program "See It Now," produced by Fred Friendly and Edward R. Murrow. On this particular program, Murrow called out Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy, a Republican from Wisconsin, had made a name for himself by loudly and falsely trumpeting the charge that basically the entire Democratic Party, not to mention the State Department and the U.S. Army, were Communist dupes/sympathizers and hence "traitors." By allowing McCarthy to hang himself on his own rhetorical scaffold, Friendly and Murrow exposed him as an unprincipled and dangerous demagogue.

To commemorate the 50th anniversary of this very important program, National Public Radio asked Walter Cronkite to offer his recollections. Cronkite responded in fine style, contextualizing Murrow's and Friendly's motives and actions while delivering a thoughtful critique on political intolerance and courage in American broadcasting. Listening to this excellent piece of radio journalism set me to thinking about Murrow and other heroes of my youth.

It may seem odd, but as a young boy I loved Ed Murrow and remember watching "See It Now" every week, including the McCarthy broadcast. I also remember quite vividly the subsequent Congressional hearings during which the Senator was at last thoroughly outed as a right-wing lout and bully. But it was Murrow, Friendly and CBS News who started McCarthy on his way to a well-deserved oblivion. America could use a few more heroes like that.

Fat chance.

Today, the vast majority of radio and television stations are owned by soulless media conglomerates that make obscene amounts of money by, among other things, pandering to the politics of resentment. As a result, the good old days have made a comeback. Liberals, loosely defined as anyone to the Left of Senator Zell Miller (R-GA), are regularly branded as "traitors." Artists are once again subject to blacklisting and I've even heard the quaint opprobrium "Communist influence" bandied about recently by a local right-wing-radio jackass.

And whom do we have at the barricades standing courageously against this foul resurgence of reactionary political correctness and Clear Channel hypocrisy? CBS? No way. The FCC? Don't be silly. Congress? Just kidding. Nope, the honor belongs to Howard Stern. That's right, Howard f**king Stern! Can you believe it?

Well... actually... yes, and these days I'll take what I can get. Stern may exist in a perpetual state of arrested adolescence, but at least he has the guts to stand up for himself. He also has about 20 million regular listeners, so I imagine we can look forward to some pretty entertaining Bush-bashing between now and November 2. But it's just not the same. I miss the authority and integrity I grew up expecting from the broadcast media. And I wish Edward R. Murrow was still on the case.

My other childhood heroes? Thank you for asking.

1. The Lone Ranger: best outfit, best horse, best sidekick (Tonto, a real Indian, not some doofus White guy) and best theme music in the history of television. Ever.

2. Mickey Mantle: great player, great baseball name, a Yankee (yeah, I know, but pre-Steinbrenner) and no one, not even on steroids, has ever hit a longer home run.

3. Jim Brown: My Dad and I were HUGE Cleveland Browns fans. Brown was cool, dignified and never stooped to woofing it up on the field. He just quietly ran over your ass, repeatedly and without thigh pads. Plus he quit at the top of his game.

March 7, 2004

I am seriously contemplating taking a pass on Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Since I spent a large chunk of my youth in Kentucky going to small Baptist churches several times a week, I feel like I've had my fair share of abuse over the death of Jesus, thank you very much. So I have no basis for comment on the movie itself. But I do think it fair to note a couple of potentially deleterious side effects that we all may be forced to deal with.

The first is the possible reinforcement of the belief held by many Christians that the Jews, all of them, are responsible for Jesus' death. This aspect of the controversy surrounding the film has been very public and well documented and enough already. The fact is that the Romans regularly crucified Jews, lots of them, in order to keep the populace of Judea in line. If a group of influential Jews did collude with Pontius Pilate to do in a communist troublemaker from Nazareth, that does not absolve the Romans or condemn the entire Jewish people.

One other possible effect of the fallout from "Passion" has not, to my knowledge, received anything like the kind of attention it deserves. I am referring to the possible reinforcement and propagation of the myth of Christian persecution, specifically in America. This is a rather curious phenomenon. Every day we bear witness as spokespersons of the dominant theology complain bitterly about how they are systematically being put upon by the greater society.

To quote Red Forman, "What a load of crap."

Granted, there's a lot about American culture that Christians might find offensive and wish to speak out against. That's their right. But there are plenty of things that offend my sensibilities too, some trivial (like, why do we still have the image of a racist war criminal on our $20 bill?), and some serious (like, how come the Bushoids are still getting a free pass on trashing the environment?). I have, however, resisted the temptation to develop a complex about it. So I find it disingenuous when some Christians complain about being persecuted when the evidence suggests quite the opposite. Permit me.

The President of the United States says he gets directives about whom to wage war upon from God himself. The Attorney General of the United States has the temerity to describe his political career in terms of crucifixions and resurrections. Powerful men in both houses of Congress proclaim their fealty to fundamentalist dogma and the holy troika of American mullahs - Falwell, Graham and Robertson. Proponents of the oxymoronic discipline known as "creation science" regularly hold local school boards hostage. Christian totems and language are ubiquitous, from bloody roadside billboards to our oaths of office. In short, America is lousy with Christianity.

A classic example is the case of Roy Moore. In a righteous display of judicial activism, Moore, former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and a megalomaniacal jerk, installed (in the dead of night) a 5000 pound Ten Commandments display in the Judicial Building in Montgomery. When he justifiably lost his gig as Chief Justice, a clearly secular position, he instantly appropriated the mantle of martyrdom and cried "persecution." Egregious arrogance of course, but a good career move. Now he's all the rage with radical Christian groups like the Promise Keepers and reactionary politicos like Senator Zell Miller (R-GA); (re: Constitution Restoration Act of 2004). Persecution, my ass. But where does this persecution complex come from?

I do not profess to be a Biblical scholar, but I do know that systematic persecution of Christians in the Western world pretty much came to an end in the 4th century A.D. when Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Holy Roman Empire. Of course, in the centuries prior to that it is indisputably true that Christians were subject to the most heinous persecutions and needed all the faith they could muster to sustain themselves and their cause. Christianity was once new and it was revolutionary. Real persecution resulted in real martyrs.

Those days are long gone, but the memory of what Jesus and his early followers endured resonates deeply in the hearts of many Christians today. They sincerely long for that visceral connection to the origins of their faith. I really do understand that. And whether you believe in his divinity or not, Jesus was a great teacher. The principles of peace, love and understanding he espoused are truly worthy and the fact that he was willing to die a terrible death for the sake of all humanity makes him the ultimate stand-up guy. But he was a threat to the status quo and so the Romans dealt with him according to the law.

Today, the Christian Right and its political/media lackeys represent, in no small measure, our status quo. Furthermore, what many fundamentalists proclaim as persecution is actually the reflection of efforts by the rest of us to resist the imposition of a narrow theocracy on our lives.

If American Christians choose to use Jesus' suffering and death as a pretext to further their own theocratic agenda, while rallying under the fallacious dogma of their own so-called "persecution," they are doing more than helping establish America as the new Roman Empire. They are subverting the very ideals that Jesus was committed to and passionate enough to die for.

March 1, 2004

The underlying central tenet of all White Supremacy movements is that the lowliest White man, simply by virtue of his race. is a better human being than the most exalted Black man. Imagine, a gutless slimeworm like Eric Rudolph is more revered in the eyes of God than a truly heroic figure like Nelson Mandela. This is pure nonsense of course, and is recognized as such by anyone who is not a racist freakazoid nutcase.

But let us apply that same logic elsewhere.

The underlying central tenet of all legislation to restrict gay marriage is that the worst marriage between a man and a woman is more sacred than the most serious and committed relationship between people of the same sex. Imagine, the drive-by nuptials of noted jailbait-turned-airhead popstar Britney Spears (sorry kid, but it's a classic) means more in the eyes of God than, say the 25-year relationship of two of my gay friends. Pure nonsense, no?

Don't count on it. Christian fundamentalists, who are preternaturally incapable of minding their own goddamed business, are attempting to preserve the sanctity of the institution of marriage at the expense of an entire and very large group of people. Legislation and constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage have descended upon this great land like a plague of boils. All this, ironically, while the divorce rate hovers at 50% and the television airwaves are awash in popular "reality shows" that serve to turn marriage into a lame joke... not to mention bad TV. Sanctity, my ass.

What's going on here? Permit me to offer one straight guy's theory. I think many, possibly most Americans are not truly concerned about what consenting adults, including gay people, do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Live and let live. And I think many, possibly most Americans are not opposed to gay couples having the sorts of rights that civil unions confer. Fair is fair. But marriage is a different matter altogether.

Because marriage is supposed to be about family and that means procreation and that means sex. And the thought of homosexual sex, actual sex involving actual people, makes a lot of straight people very uncomfortable. Very. Add to that the decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the San Francisco gay love-in, and the generally held belief that Jehovah is down on the whole gay thing, and the potential for theocratic mischief is enormous. Especially in an election year.

Enter Bush the Panderer, who has thrown his considerable if unelected influence behind an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would systematically discriminate against an entire class of citizens, based solely on their sexual orientation. It's a craven and politically expedient position surely, but hey, you really can't blame him for taking the easy way out. He has to kowtow to his conservative base and besides, it's easier than exercising any real leadership and addressing, like real problems.

Those problems, however, are not going away and it is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy to believe that depriving people of their right to live legally and in consonance with the way they were created will somehow result in a better society. Bush and the Christian Right are not going to improve the marriage of any person - not one- by creating a gay ghetto in the temple of American democracy.

But that's not really the point, is it. This movement against gay people is less about the sanctity of marriage, much less the Constitution, than the struggle to impose a fundamentalist Christian theology on an obstinately secular state. As Kris Kristofferson wrote, "Everybody needs somebody that they can look down on." And in this case punish, in the name of God and country.