A Stimulus Bill For The Arts

As the economy continues to wobble, and Americans face the bleakness of a looming depression, Washington is cobbling together a stimulus package designed to restore the economy and create jobs. The overwhelming majority of the $850 billion proposal is allocated to infrastructure spending and the rescue and reform of financial institutions and the manufacturing base.

Setting aside the merits of the bill as a whole, which reasonable people can debate, the political response to it is shaping up as just another partisan dogfight. Republicans are flailing away at anything they think they can disparage as wasteful, whether or not it actually is.

One example of this, that is close to my heart, is a $50 million grant to the National Endowment for the Arts. That amounts to about 0.006 of one percent of the total bill. That hasn’t stopped Republicans like Mike Pence from trying to use it to torpedo the whole package. But this minuscule appropriation actually has a valid purpose and can produce value that far exceeds its cost. While it’s easy for Dark Agists in Washington to target the arts for political gain, the truth is that art in our communities and schools is essential to both our economic and mental health.

In our efforts to get America working again, it should be remembered that artists are being hurt by the present economic slump along with everyone else. Perhaps more so, in that they are often the first to be cast off by belt-tightening employers and consumers. As such, they are no less deserving of a place in the recovery.

In the last depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt created the Works Progress Administration which, amongst other things, created work for 40,000 American artists. Those jobs resulted in projects that lifted the economic prospects of their communities by making them more livable and promoting trade and tourism. And they also contributed to a cultural Renaissance by documenting society’s pain, struggles, and victories. In addition there was an emphasis on arts education, which produced a generation of more well-rounded and literate citizens with an appreciation for the arts and the solace and inspiration they invoke.

Support for the arts is a critical part of our nation’s recovery and its character. It is what defines and preserves our history and our spirit. It propels us forward in good times and consoles us when hardships weigh us down. It is our essence, our connection to one another, to our ancestors, and to our heirs.

John Cavanagh of the Institute for Policy Studies is spearheading a campaign to advance government support for the arts. He is calling for more funding as well as a cabinet-level Secretary of Arts and Culture. The online petition for this movement already has over 4,600 signatures. You can add yours here: One Percent for the Arts

Martin Luther King: A Creative Rebel

The significance of this Martin Martin Luther King Jr. day takes on a new meaning with the awareness that tomorrow an historic milestone in American history will occur. The first African-American president is as potent a validation of King’s dream as anything I can imagine.

But there are still battles ahead. Contrary to the declarations by some (at Fox News) that the election of Barack Obama is evidence that the struggles for equality are over, last year’s campaign actually brought out some of the darkest expressions of prejudice ever made publicly. We must not forget that many of the opponents of Obama’s candidacy were overtly racist. Obama’s electoral victory was not unanimous, and although it obviously cannot be said that every John McCain voter was voting against Obama because of his race, there were certainly some of those millions who did just that.

Still, Obama’s election goes a long way toward a realization of King’s dream. It is an epic event that is both a frightful burden and an unparalleled opportunity. It’s too bad King couldn’t be here to celebrate along with us, but our reflections on him help to keep the dream alive. Following are excerpts from the article I wrote last year that still convey a personal expression of the impact King had on me, as a young artist.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

Today as we celebrate the memory and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., millions of Americans will reflect on the impact his life had. That impact, for many, is very personal. There is much for which to be grateful in the gifts of hope and justice that he left behind. For me there was a speech that was particularly transforming. It was his public entry into the anti-war movement, Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence. As a twelve year old peace activist and an aspiring artist, one sentence stood out and helped to shape the next 40 years of my life:

“We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative means of protest possible.”

That’s one of the first recollections I have of perceiving art as an act of conscience and rebellion. Prior to that I drew a lot of superheroes and hot rods (I was twelve, after all). I had become radicalized, and I knew that at least part of my work had to be devoted to making a better world.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

The value of art in movement building stems from the uniquely personal relationship that binds us to works of insight and honesty. Speeches and op/eds will never evoke the intimacy of artistic expression. That’s why, despite protestations of the Cultural Imperialists, artists remain relevant and influential. At its best, art inspires, motivates and unites. It’s even better when it incites and provokes.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

[W]e must persist in producing thoughtful, provocative work that leads us to a world with more liberty, more peace, more justice, and fuller hearts and bellies. We must confront the censors and the bullies who fear our voices and would silence them. And we must seek new and aggressive forms of distribution that spreads our messages from the Internet to the Interstate and beyond. As the activist/artist Vladimir Mayakovsky said:

“Art must not be concentrated in dead shrines called museums. It must be spread everywhere…on the streets, in the trams, factories, workshops, and in the workers homes.”

And as Dr. King declared, we, as artists, must be prepared to match actions with words and use our talents to manifest a world that reflects our dreams.

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

The extraordinary juxtaposition of the King holiday and the Obama inauguration present a profound opportunity to look both backward and forward at the same time. Backward to the contributions and sacrifices of King and an entire generation of freedom seekers. And forward to a new era of hope for justice and harmony.

Celebrate today. Get back to work tomorrow.

Smithsonian Corrects Text Accompanying Bush Portrait

Yesterday I reported that a description associated with the newly unveiled portrait of George W. Bush at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery was grossly misleading. It said that the Bush administration was…

“…marked by a series of catastrophic events” including “the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote a letter correctly pointing out that 9/11 DID NOT lead to the war in Iraq. The war was an unrelated initiative of the Bush White House, despite the fact that they attempted to tie the two issues together through a web of lies and innuendo.

Today the Gallery director, Martin Sullivan responded to Sen. Sanders’ letter, agreeing to amend the language:

“Our label was not intended to imply that there was a causal connection between the attacks that occurred on 9/11 and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Iraq…I appreciate your concern, however, about the words ‘led to’. We will revise the label and delete the words ‘led to.'”

Mr. Sullivan is to be congratulated for his prompt response, his open mind, and his integrity. Well, that is, pending the outcome of the revision. But his acknowledgment that the two events had no “causal connection” is evidence that he is striking the proper tone.

Chalk this one up as a victory for honest representations of history and for the diligence of public servants like Sen. Sanders.

Bernie Sanders Sets The Smithsonian Straight

It’s pretty sad when a respected national institution like the Smithsonian fails to uphold the minimum scholarly standards that its reputation implies.

The Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery recently unveiled the portrait of George W. Bush that will hang in the museum. Accompanying the portrait will be a description of Bush’s tenure that says it was…

“…marked by a series of catastrophic events” including “the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Of course the catastrophic events of 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Well, unless you consider the fact that the Bush administration conspired to exploit the tragedy in order to justify their previously determined agenda of aggression against Iraq and other Middle East oil producers. By now everyone knows that the claims about WMDs and connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda were lies. For the Smithsonian to be so careless in their exposition of these events is an irresponsible mangling of history.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has sent a letter to the portrait gallery director, Martin Sullivan, objecting to the language. The letter says in part…

“The 9/11 attacks did not lead to the war in Iraq. What President Bush was telling us (before the war) was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was somehow in collusion with Al Qaeda. Those were misstatements of fact, as even President Bush has since acknowledged. […] You can agree or disagree with the war. I simply think it’s important that history not be rewritten. Politicians spin all the time, but a wonderful national institution like the National Portrait Gallery should stick to the facts.”

The Smithsonian has not yet responded to Sen. Sanders’ letter. In the meantime, it might be useful to weigh in on the matter by letting the gallery know that people are paying attention and that accuracy in the depiction of American history is important. Particularly as it relates to matters of war and the trustworthiness of our government representatives at the highest levels.

Email the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery Exhibitions group and demand that they tell the truth: NPGExhibitions@si.edu. And please be respectful in your communications. Gallery director Sullivan has a distinguished record that includes this honorable act after the Bush administration permitted Iraq’s historical treasures to be stolen and destroyed:

“It didn’t have to happen,” Sullivan told Reuters. “In a pre-emptive war that’s the kind of thing you should have planned for.

Sullivan said that just prior to resigning in protest from his post at that time as chairman of the U.S. President’s Advisory Committee on Cultural Property. He had been appointed to that office by President Clinton. Also, as Gallery director Sullivan acquired the iconic “HOPE” poster of Barack Obama by Shepard Fairey. That’s the very same poster made internationally famous by my John McCain “NOPE” parody of it.

Victory Update: Gallery director Martin Sullivan has responded to Sen. Sanders’ letter conceding the inaccurate language and promising to revise it:

“Our label was not intended to imply that there was a causal connection between the attacks that occurred on 9/11 and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Iraq…I appreciate your concern, however, about the words ‘led to’. We will revise the label and delete the words ‘led to.'”

Much thanks go out to Mr. Sullivan and, of course, Sen. Sanders.

Bill O’Reilly’s God Gets Clobbered At The Box Office

Last week Bill O’Reilly observed that two ideologically contrasting movies were about to be released. One was the liberal bashing An American Carol in which O’Reilly has a small part ( Note to BO: There are no small parts, only small actors minds). The other was Bill Maher’s docu-comedy Religulous.” O’Reilly, whose analysis of media is notoriously shoddy, couldn’t help but speculate as to the reception these films would receive:

“It will be very interesting to see which movie wins at the box office. Will the pagans score big? Or will the first conservative satire ever clobber the atheists?”

Apparently the Pagans and Atheists have prevailed. At least they didn’t get clobbered. After a week in general release the two films are virtually tied at about $4.5 million. However, Carol opened in 1,639 theaters while Religulous opened in only 568. So Religulous outperformed Carol on a per-screen basis by over 300%.

These results must surely be unwelcome news for O’Reilly (and God). As for Maher, O’Reilly advises him to “pray for a long life.” O’Reilly even takes a swipe at Oliver Stone’s precarious salvation status. Stone’s biopic of George Bush, “W.” will arrive at theaters next week.

“I’ll make a bold prediction: Many critics will love it! Can you imagine anyone sticking up for Mr. Bush at this point in time?”

I’ll make a bold prediction too: Many critics will hate it! I know, I’m really going out on a limb. The fact that O’Reilly thinks that a negative review equates to “sticking up for Mr. Bush” shows just how deeply degraded his cognitive skills have become. He can’t seem to comprehend that critics may base their reviews on their impressions of the film’s qualities. And O’Reilly has previously expressed his paranoid perspective of the film critics community as being hopelessly liberal. He arrived at this conclusion because a majority of critics whom he asked about their ideological leanings declined to answer. Therefore, in O’Reilly’s dementia, they must be clandestine socialists bent on ripping America apart.

It must be getting harder and harder to be Bill O’Reilly – an egotistical demagogue who can’t seem to win even with God on his side.

Update: After four weeks in release, An American Carol has earned $6.9 million. Religulous has earned $10.7 million. So Religulous has earned 55% more despite playing in one third the number of theaters and costing one tenth the amount to produce.

Free Sarah Palin From Rupert Murdoch!

While John McCain is consumed with personally resolving the nation’s financial crisis, Sarah Palin is cavorting with the glamor set (elitist?) and the uber-conservative media barons who are propping up the Republican ticket:

“Sarah Palin schmoozed with controversial media tycoon Rupert Murdoch at a swanky charity gala here Wednesday night.”

And just because I may have to much spare time on my hands:

Free Sarah Palin

Silence of the Palins

As for John McCain’s promise to suspend his campaign so that he can concentrate on saving America by bailing out Wall Street … like much of what McCain says, it isn’t true:

McCain ads are still running.
McCain’s surrogates are still making the rounds on TV.
McCain is still scheduled to attend a Beverly Hills fundraiser Wednesday.

So much for saving America. Perhaps these campaign commitments are why he doesn’t have the time to debate Barack Obama tomorrow.

Jill Greenberg’s Extra-Real Photos Of John McCain

On assignment for Atlantic Monthly Magazine, photographer Jill Greenberg took a series of pictures of John McCain. In the course of the photo shoot she asked McCain to pose for a set that she had deliberately designed to light him in manner that produced a more sinister, some might say more realistic, appearance. She later delivered the commissioned pictures to the Atlantic and took the others back to her studio for some Photoshop fun. Here are few of the results (and here are the rest):

imagebam.comimagebam.comimagebam.comimagebam.com

Needless to say, this caused an uproar in conservative circles amongst a bunch of hypersensitive hypocrites who oppose freedom of expression.

First of all, Greenberg is a superlative artist with a unique and evocative voice. She has a long record of quality work and a portfolio brimming with inspired imagery. She is also an avowed liberal and has produced work in the past that has attacked Republicans, particularly George W. Bush. That’s not a crime. That’s a civic duty. I myself have quite a collection of political graphics that are sure to offend somebody. The photographs presented in this series are akin to the political cartoons and editorial graphics that have long been a part of our political culture.

However, she is now coming under assault by elements of the right wing media who fault her for “deceiving” the hapless Republican nominee for president of the United States. The fact that he can be so easily duped is perhaps another argument that he is unfit to serve in the White House. Fortunately, he does have the media machine of Rupert Murdoch to run interference for him.

Murdoch’s New York Post (which endorsed McCain) published an article on the photos with a headline that declared Greenberg a “Mac Hater” and criticized her for not airbrushing McCain’s weathered skin and reddened eyes enough. Since when is it a photographer’s responsibility to sweeten a subject’s image, particularly when used as photo-journalism? Ironically, the Post is complaining that Greenberg failed to manipulate the photo in a column where they are chastising her for manipulating photos.

The Atlantic’s editor, James Bennet, appeared on Murdoch’s Fox News to disassociate himself from Greenberg, to threaten that he may sue her, and to announce that he has drafted a letter of apology to McCain. The FoxNews.com article on Bennet’s TV segment took a similar approach to the Post’s, but with an even more tortured spin on what constitutes photo manipulation:

“Greenberg said that the cover shot for The Atlantic article was manipulated to leave McCain’s eyes red and skin looking bad.”

It seems to me that “…manipulated to leave…” alone is another way of saying “not manipulated.” It’s a little like saying, “The appendectomy was performed to leave the appendix where it was.” In other words, there was no appendectomy.

This rhetorical device is a staple of conservative thinking. The notion that something can be altered in order to keep it the same can be observed by anyone following the 2008 presidential election. You hear it every time McCain says “Vote for me if you want change.” Translation: Vote for me if you want another four years of Bush – if you want more of the same.

The hypocrisy of the Murdochites is glaringly present in their selective outrage. Just two months ago Fox News was itself embroiled in a Photoshop controversy. During a segment of Fox & Friends, co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade mocked Jacques Steinberg and Steven Reddicliffe of the New York Times, and featured photos of them that had been digitally altered to create humiliating caricatures. What makes this far worse than the Atlantic incident is that Fox News broadcast their mockery on national television, while Greenberg reserved her pieces for her personal website. None of the Murdoch items, in print or on air, mentioned their own history of photo manipulation.

The big, unmanipulated picture here is that Greenberg is a courageously outspoken artist who is yet another victim of the Dark Agists who seek to stifle free speech. For her trouble she has been dropped by her agency (she says she quit), and is facing litigation. In my view she should be admired for her talent and applauded for her efforts on behalf of creative freedom for all artists and those who love art and, of course, freedom. Remember freedom?

Update: Jill Greenberg has some new photos of Glenn Beck.

Hollywood Celebrities vs. Washington Lobbyists

Last night I attended the Barack Obama fundraiser at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills. No, I did not pay $2,500 to see Barbra Streisand serenade the candidate and 800 of his closest Hollywood friends. But I did mingle with these elitists outside of the lobby as the overflow crowd waited to enter the ballroom. I spent much of the two hours handing out my McCain – NOPE stickers to amused guests who didn’t seem too perturbed by the long delay.

From my perspective as an outsider, it was like a big party. The enthusiasm and the turnout surprised even the hosts, who had to deal with a crowd that was 50% bigger than anyone anticipated. And at these prices, that kind of demand is startling. Everyone was excited and festive and more than gracious to this lowly artist who obviously was not in their social strata. It was gratifying to personally put my artwork into the hands of folks like Magic Johnson, Sarah Silverman, and Obama’s campaign manager, David Axelrod.

The distinction between this crowd and the one for John McCain that I encountered a few weeks ago at the Beverly Hilton Hotel (yep, McCain came to Beverly Hills too), was pronounced. McCain’s event, which reportedly earned about $3 million (1/3 of Obama’s take), was subdued and sparsely populated by dour looking people in dark suits. Although Hollywood was represented by actor-elitists Robert Duvall and Jon Voight.

News reports of the Obama/Streisand event have predictably focused on the glamor and the locale. There is a built in presumption on the part of the press that this sort of program is somehow disrespectful to those Americans who are undergoing hardships brought on by the economy or natural disaster. However, Obama’s remarks touched on these matters and he reminded his well-to-do audience that “This is not a reality show.”

“This should be a celebratory evening. We’ve got 48 days to go in a campaign, a campaign that started 19 months ago, at a time when a lot of folks thought we might not get here [but] I’m not in a celebratory mood,”

~~~

[This campaign] is about those who will never see the inside of a building like this and don’t resent the success that’s represented in this room, but just want the simple chance to be able to find a job that pays a living wage.”

Clearly Obama has the American people on his mind. Nevertheless, the media is still portraying the event as a gathering of elitists and allowing McCain to mock the affair and paint Obama as out of touch for having a party while he (McCain) was visiting workers in Ohio. What the press is leaving out is that McCain held his own fundraiser on Monday at the exclusive InterContinental Hotel in Miami. This was the same day that the stock market crashed 500 points. Tickets for his event were $50,000 a piece (twice what Obama’s campaign was charging), and it was attended by a small group of Washington and Florida insiders and lobbyists. Why is there no outrage at this demonstration of McCain’s insensitivity to regular, hard-working Americans? Is it the “liberal” media?

The hypocrisy is veritably dripping from McCain’s wrinkled brow. He criticizes Obama for having Hollywood friends while ignoring his own Tinseltown pals (see Friends of Abe). He blasts Obama for holding a gala just one day after his own ritzy and twice as costly affair in Miami. He promotes his visit with workers despite having voted against their interests (i.e. unions, minimum wage, healthcare, etc.) for 26 years.

When it comes to assessing politicians based on their associations, voters need to ask themselves who has better comprehension of their lives, their aspirations, their ordeals, their hopes. Is it…

Lobbyists, who have devoted their privileged existences to enriching themselves and their multinational corporate clients?
Or is it artists, many of whom started with nothing and achieved success through their creative ability to produce work that regular people can relate to and find inspiration in?

Lobbyists, who are successful when their selfishness and greed produce a transfer of billions of dollars of America’s wealth into the private accounts of profiteers?
Or artists, who are successful when their talent and insight produce empathy, understanding, and, at the very least, entertainment?

Lobbyists, who serve a narrow and powerful clique of clandestine country clubbers?
Or artists, who serve millions of average Americans who feel a personal affinity for them and their work?

For the record, this is not the first time McCain has taken swipes at Streisand. On October 19, 2002, McCain appeared on Saturday Night Live to do a spoof wherein he tortured a selection of Streisand numbers. It was actually pretty funny, but the message was repugnant. At the climax he says…

“Do I know how to sing? About as well as she [Streisand] knows how to govern America!”

If the last 26 years is an example of how well he governs, frankly, I’d rather listen to him sing. The obvious extension of his joke is that anyone who does any job other than serving in Congress is unqualified to have an opinion about what our government does in our name. So McCain has exempted this singer and businesswoman from participation in our democracy. Would he also exempt farmers and teachers, and welders? This is the real elitist bullshit. If we’re qualified to vote them into office, then we’re qualified to comment on the job they are doing. Even if we’re merely artists. (See my essay on Creativism And The Rise Of The Art Insurgency).

Hollywood Celebrities vs. Washington Lobbyists? It’s not even close!

In Defense Of The Pre-9/11 Mindset: Reprise

[On September 11, 2006, I wrote an essay about how the American perception of its place in the world supposedly shifted after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. I reprint it here today because, sadly, it’s still true.]

In September of 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney, in a sinister demonization of Democrats, warned that…

“if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and it will fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact, these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we’re not really at war.”

The Pre-9/11 Mindset is much maligned as mindsets go. Disdain is heaped upon it as if it were a discarded hypothesis. There is now a stigma associated with a worldview that was perfectly acceptable 24 hours prior. And a cadre of power hungry fear merchants is restlessly hawking the notion that everything we thought we knew has withered into irrelevance. The Post-9/11ers propose that an imaginary line has been drawn that illuminates the moral and intellectual differences between those who stand on one side or the other. So what exactly does it mean to be 9/10ish?

I remember clearly what was on my mind. I was still upset that a pretend cowboy, whose intellectual marbles rattled around vacantly in his 2 gallon hat, had gotten away with stealing an election. I was recalling, with renewed appreciation, an era of domestic surplus and international cooperation. Or as The Onion headline put it when Bush was first elected, “Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over.”

9/11 was undoubtedly an unwelcome milestone in American history. But the idea that everything changed on that day is shallow and puerile. The history of human civilization reveals that we simply do not change that much from one century to the next. And the events that actually do precipitate change are rarely the ones we presume them to be. There was terrorism before 9/11. There were birthdays and funerals and parking tickets and snow cones and life’s everyday extraordinary spectrum of pleasure no matter how painful.

What changed was that a nation that was once perceived to be inviolable and courageous was now seen as vulnerable and afraid. Like a child lost in a crowd, America was searching for a guardian, but what we got was no angel. As President Bush took to the mound of rubble for his megaphone moment, he was not alone. He was accompanied by a media that sought to construct a hero where none stood. I must admit that it was an ambitious undertaking considering the weakness of the raw material. They took an inarticulate, persistently mediocre, dynastic runt, who on September tenth was considered by many to be Crawford’s lost idiot, and transformed him into a statesman overnight. The enormity of this achievement underscores the power of the media.

My Pre-9/11 Mindset was thrust into fear on that transitory day because I knew that the imbecile we were stuck with in the White House was incapable of reacting appropriately to the threat. I remember vainly trying to persuade previously reasonable people that if they thought Bush was a moron the day before, there was nothing in his breakfast that infused him with wisdom on that sad morning.

What transpired since has, regrettably, proven me right. We toppled the Taliban but let the 9/11 commander escape. Now the remnants of the Taliban are rising again and creating havoc in an unprepared and unstable Afghanistan. We were misled into an unrelated conflagration in Iraq via fear and deception. Now tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been liberated – liberated from the confines of their physical bodies. It’s too bad that these liberated corpses will be unable to march in the parades celebrating their liberation. A world that had nothing but sympathy for us after 9/11, is now repulsed by our arrogance. At home we are paying for our adventures by burdening the next few generations with a record debt. And we pay a much greater price in the cost of lost liberties, courtesy of a despotic cabal in Washington that has more trust in fear than it does in our Constitution.

The historical revisionists that cast the Pre-9/11 Mindset as a pejorative are blind to its inherent virtue. The Pre-9/11 Mindset honors civil liberties and human rights. It recognizes real threats and inspires the courage to face them. It demands responsibility and accountability from those who manage our public affairs. It condemns preemptive warfare and torture. The Pre-9/11 Mindset is not consumed with fear, division, and domination. It is rooted in reality with its branches facing the sunrise.

The Pre-9/11 Mindset is superior in every aspect to the Post-9/11 apocalyptic nightmare that has been thrust upon us. Its adoption is, in fact, our best hope for crawling out from under the shroud that drapes our national psyche. Vice President Cheney also said that…

“Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength. They are invited by the perception of weakness.”

If that’s true, then the terrorists must have perceived the weakness of the Bush administration and considered it an invitation to launch their attack. How do you suppose they perceive us now? They’ve seen the passage of the Patriot Act that limits long-held freedoms. They’ve seen our government listening in on our phone calls and monitoring our financial transactions. They see us lining up at airport terminals shoeless and forced to surrender our shampoo and Evian water. They see us mourning the loss of our sons and daughters who are not even engaged in battle with the 9/11 perpetrators. They see us as fearful and submissive. Is this not emboldening the terrorists for whom this perception of weakness will be seen as yet another invitation to attack?

Yes, I have a Pre-9/11 Mindset and it is not a yearning for a simpler bygone era of harmony. You could hardly call the maiden year of this century simple or harmonious. I have a Pre-9/11 Mindset because I’ve had it all along; all through the Post-9/11 defeatism and scare-mongering; through the war posturing and false bravado; through the sordid attempts to divide Americans and vilify dissenters; through the bigotry and arrogance of those who believe that their way is the right way and the world will concur as soon as we’re done beating it into them. I have a Pre-9/11 Mindset because I have not let the Post-9/11 Mindset infect my spirit with its yearning for a bygone era that more closely resembles the Dark Ages than the Renaissance.

Pre-9/11 Mindset Post-9/11 Mindset
Enduring Peace Perpetual War
Prosperity Poverty and Debt
Civil Rights The Patriot Act
Human rights Torture
Accountability Corruption
Reality Fear

I have a Pre-9/11 Mindset because I have a mind, and I use it.

McCain And Palin: Stars In Their Eyes

For months now, John McCain has been belittling Barack Obama as inexperienced and unprepared to be president. Much of the criticism has targeted his speech making prowess and charisma, which McCain characterizes as the hollow trappings of celebrity. There was even an ad that attacked Obama as the “biggest celebrity in the world,” and juxtaposed his image with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. McCain himself said that:

“The bottom line is that Sen. Obama’s words, for all their eloquence and passion, don’t mean all that much.”

But now, the day after Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the “pit bull in lipstick,” debuted at the Republican National Convention, the campaign, the Party, and the media have all adopted a new view of celebrity. While it was a pejorative when directed Obama, for Palin it elicits the sort of applause and acclaim that is ordinarily reserved for … well, celebrities. Consider this sampling of the press:

Chris Wallace – Fox News: “I don’t think it’s overstating it to say being right here on the floor that a star was born tonight. A new star in the political galaxy.”
Michael Barone – U.S. News & World Report: “Sarah Palin’s speech to the Republican National Convention last night was a home run. A star was born.”
Margaret Carlson – Bloomberg: “On Wednesday night, a political star was born.”
William Kristol – New York Times: “A star is born.”
Karen Breslau – Newsweek: “A populist star is born.”
Art Moore – WorldNetDaily: “A star is born. The country ‘fell in love with Sarah Palin tonight.'”
Rich Lowry – National Review: “After that, you feel like asking not: How did she rise so fast? but Where has she been so long?”

And that’s not all. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper, MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough, and Fox News’ Brit Hume and Dick Morris, all used some variation of the “Star is Born” theme to describe Palin’s debut. And all it took was one speech for the GOP establishment, and the media at large, to succumb to the charms of a heretofore unknown political neophyte who, two years ago, was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 6,000. One speech to transform the perception of this newcomer into someone qualified to be a 72 year old heartbeat from the presidency. Just one extensively rehearsed, meticulously stage-crafted speech.

So now Republicans, who demeaned Obama for attracting positive attention and adoring fans, is boasting that they have their own idol at whom to stare glassy-eyed. Now the media is abuzz with glowing notices for Palin’s opening night. And yet the McCain/Palin camp is still bashing the press as biased, despite the unfiltered adulation that is being blasted at them from all sides. The press is being castigated for doing what any professional journalist would acknowledge is their job. Politico’s Roger Simon is one of the very few who see the irony in this. He penned a must-read column that sarcastically explains Why the media should apologize.”

“We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? […] Bad questions. Bad media. Bad.”

In her address last night, Palin spoke of “dramatic speeches before devoted followers” and wondered what happens “when the cloud of rhetoric has passed… when the roar of the crowd fades away.” But no one in the press observed that she might as well have been talking about herself, even more than Obama. After all, Obama has been on the campaign trail for 19 months developing the devotion of his supporters, but Palin has achieved the task after a grand total of four days and one speech. Four days during which she has been sequestered from the public by the campaign which has not offered her up for a single press conference. Despite the many controversies swirling around her appointment, she has so far only sat for an interview with the hard-hitting People Magazine. There is talk that she will appear on a Sunday morning news program this weekend. Guess which one. Fox News Sunday!

The result of all of this is that the two arguments McCain has used most aggressively against Obama – his experience and his celebrity – have both been rendered inert. Palin has less experience and, contrary to Obama’s multitude of stirring public addresses, Palin still has – and, I repeat – just one speech. The fanatical fawning of faithful Republicans is bad enough, but not unexpected. From the media, however, it is just plain creepy. Is anyone paying attention?