The Song Goes On. Bravo!

A break from the timely to the timeless.  I spent last Sunday afternoon at the 10th Annual Marilyn Horne Foundation Concert at Carnegie Hall.  I've missed only one of these.  I love music and no instrument more than the human voice.  To paraphrase George Orwell, "all voices are unique, but some voices (very, very few) are more unique than others."  Marilyn Horne has one of those voices, the kind that stop you dead.  Regardless of the clutter around it – often very beautiful clutter – it consistently stands out as unmistakably her own.  It is widely accepted that she is one of the great singers of all time, some believe the greatest of her generation.  While she sang only briefly, and then in a duo with Barbara Cook, those tones, ever rich and powerful, broke through and I enjoyed even the glimpse of them.

But Jackie, as she is known to her friends, is so much more than the vessel of an astounding musical instrument.  When she turned 60 a decade ago and looked ahead toward a less active performing career, she decided it was give-back time.  Thus the Foundation devoted to preserving and encouraging vocal music, nurturing upcoming artists and bringing the recital to places around the country where it was heretofore unavailable.  And still at its active center ten years later is Jackie, with her generous spirit teaching and promoting these young talents with the kind of dedication and warmth all those who know her understand are the essence of her natural force.

It's a honor to among her friends, but what strikes me every time I attend one of these concerts and dinners to follow is how many of us there are.  I've known her now for about 30 years, but many of her friendships reach much further back to every part of her life.  There are friends from Pennsylvania, from California, from New Jersey; all can depend on her loyalty and caring.  Perhaps symptomatic of this capacity for friendship was the enduring relationship she maintained with her former husband the gifted conductor Henry Lewis, a man with both razor sharp mind and integrity.  And it wasn't simply because they shared and loved a wonderful daughter Angela, now a mother herself.  In the initial years of these concerts Henry was always there, but that ended with his untimely death midstream.  He is sorely missed by all of us who knew and loved him, no more than by the enduring Jackie herself, which says it all. 

So the song goes on, and it continues to be a very good song.  God knows, we need a good song in these often dark days.  Brava, Jackie.

Tony dodges the bullet. Twice

Twice Tony Blair came close to the potential brink, and twice he escaped.  By only a hair did the Labor leader who boasts an extraordinary majority in Commons win his education legislation; only by a single man's judgment was he exonerated in the now infamous Kelly Affair.  Lord Hutton simply didn't find evidence that Blair's government cooked the books on Iraqi intelligence, though the bounds of his inquiry were limited to the specifics surrounding Kelly's suicide and Andrew Gilligan's alleged exaggerations on the BBC.  Whether or not facts were manipulated, Dr. David Kelly one of Brittan's top arms experts, seems to have had doubts about the continuing threat of WMD's, which precipitated the leak in the first place.  It's poignant that Hutton's report was issued during the same week as our Dr. David (Kay) was telling us WMD's probably weren't present at the start of hostilities and probably won't be found.  That from a man who who was sure they existed, but apparently isn't the kind to find a fact he won't reveal or fess up to.  How refreshing.

This past week's news in our former Mother Country made me consider once again the strange saga of the attractive, articulate, brilliant Tony Blair.  Mirroring, many thought, the career and rise of Bill Clinton, Blair rescued the UK from years of Thatcher Conservatism.  He used Clinton-like tactics, but with substantially more success because, unlike our President, he garnered and kept huge majorities giving him a clear mandate to dominate the public agenda.  Clearly, Bill and Tony were a duo, soul-mates it appeared like no other President and Prime Minister since perhaps FDR and Churchill, albeit in a very different way.  It was in that context that Blair's almost instantaneous move to the side of George W. Bush at the Crawford ranch shortly after the Supremes named him President, was stunning and seemingly incongruous.  They have been joined at the hip ever since.  I still don't quite understand it.

When history is written perhaps it will show that Tony Blair was interested above all in power and influence.  Being close to, and more significantly having the ear of, the US President whoever that may be, translates for him into a larger than life role for himself and the UK which, relative to some other countries around the world, is a small nation.  History may also show something else.  I believe, and it's only a hypothesis, that we could not, would not, have gone to war with Iraq the way we did absent Blair's support.  His acquiescence made it possible for Bush to move ahead without the UN, specifically France and Germany.  The Coalition of the Willing, without the UK, would have been an impossible sham, no offence intended Spain et al.  Ultimately, that may be Tony Blair's legacy, certainly with regard to world politics.  Chaney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice and all those enterprising think tankers may have whispered the words, but Tony Blair gave voice to action.  In a curious way, "he's the man."

I'm one of those avid C-Span listeners to Prime Minister's Questions and always marvel at Tony Blair's style and syntax.  Quite a show.  But I'm not sure I appreciate him as much as was the case in the past.  I'm not alone in that regard.  My guess is the bullets are going to get closer. 

Sadly Moving to Safer Ground. Again.

In the world of sound bytes and simplistic platitudes; when public officials of all stripes have virtually been forced to wear silly flag pins to prove their patriotism, it's hard to step out.  That's exactly what Howard Dean has tried to do and it's precisely why his run for the Presidency seems to be loosing steam.  Electability is the mantra of the day, and a multitude of forces have conspired to declare that he is not the winning kind.  Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be unhappy with Kerry, Edwards or Clark.  I also think that any one of them might win; hope for all of our sakes that they will win.  But it's another short term fix.  Read Robert Reich's thoughtful Op Ed piece in today's New York Times.  Like Dean, he is convinced that Democrats have to return to their core beliefs, have to stand for something, have to become a movement again.

Marketing is all about focus and consistently delivering one's message.  Like it or not, marketing is what greases the mechanism of American thinking these days.  The Republicans, specifically the Conservative coalition that is in control, have been brilliant at it since the days when Deaver and Company promoted the Morning in America Presidency.  It isn't a matter of whether the media have a Right or Left bias, it's that the Conservative view of things has become politically correct, the default position.  While opponents of the War are in fact deeply concerned about putting our young people at needless and unjustified risk, they are painted as not supporting the troops.  Repeat that often enough in the current environment and the accuser gets away with a lie that becomes a perceived truth.

At this moment we are in the midst of an international quagmire where everyone seems to hate us, with 3000 plus American deaths and casualties (not to mention never to be counted Iraqi losses) and exit polls show only tertiary concern with the War (and thus with foreign affairs).  Sure it's natural that bread and butter issues, health and education are given top priority, but it is also a mark of how successful the propaganda has been.  Even David Kay, the dispassionate inspector, feels it necessary to caveat his conclusion that WMD's just weren't there with a defense of the President.  It was all in the faulty intelligence and those guys (read scapegoat) owe him an apology.  What happened to Harry Truman's buck stopping? 

So we are sneaking off again to safe ground.  We weren't ready for the Wisconsin Senator in 1968, the New Jersey Senator in 2000 and, much as it pains me, apparently for the Vermont Governor today.  When will be ready?

Random Thoughts after Iowa

It is hard to predict how the Democratic contest will end after Iowa.  Is Howard Dean out of the game?  Perhaps, but voters can surprise.  The idea of electability certainly has certainly come to the fore, but I'm not certain we really know what it takes to be a winner yet.  Dean's position is that warmed over neo-whatever is not the way to go.  Many of his opponents represent just that, presumably safer bets, more comfortable old shoes.  Perhaps that is the only thing that Americans might buy which, given where it has led us, is pretty depressing.

Meanwhile, George Bush's performance on Tuesday night reminded me how silly and staged our State of the Union speeches have become regardless of who is President.  Clinton was no better also using those human props in the peanut gallery to  signal yet another mindless breakout of applause and leaping to the feet.  Well our public officials do need some exercise. 

Bush's speech also reminded me of why I still hope for a Dean victory and would settle for most of the others, save Joe Lieberman.  What stuck me in particular, and what was most offensive, was the religious coda in which the President appealed to his core constituency with a series of statements that to my mind had prejudicial overtones.  Invoking the sanctity of marriage (code words quickly understood), he made short shrift of the deviant sinning same sex partners and offered a paternalistic hand to the unmarried poor (guess what color they are) who so notoriously avoid tying the knot with God's blessing.  Echoing Nancy Reagan, he seems to think that the ultimate solution to AIDS is to "just say no."  And what if you can't or don't want to?  Finally another passionate plea for funding faith-based organizations, his continuing effort the subvert separation of Church and State.  I don't remember the Supreme Court appointing George W. Bush as my pastor and frankly don't look for spiritual guidance from people like Rick Santorum or any other elected official for that matter.  Don't get me wrong, I respect their individual faith and the conviction that goes with it, but not their imposition of it on others.

This year is going to be a real test for America.  Let's hope we don't face another election in which most people sit at home voting there for none of the above.  I'm not sure we can afford it, nor do I think can the world.

Dr. Judith Steinberg

While I never understood her obsession with Bill Clinton's sex life, I'm really quite a fan of Maureen Dowd.  Funny thing is, I don't know if she has a husband or, if so, who he is.  He plays no role in my reading her regular NY Times column.  A woman who has broken through in the competitive world of journalism and yet today she writes a piece questioning why Dr. Judith Steinberg, the wife and one time medical practice partner, of Howard Dean is not out on the campaign trail.  Why doesn't this lady give up what she's doing to be at her husband's side?  Now anyone who reads my blogs knows that I am a Dean supporter, and that I think effecting regime change in Washington is a high national priority, but that doesn't mean what Dr. Steinberg is doing is without consequence.

She is a country doctor with real patients — a doctor who still makes the occasional house calls like our family doctor and others like him regularly did when I was a kid.  In a time when for most people medicine is in crisis, what could be more important than that?  Ask her patients how they would feel if she hung a "closed for the duration of my husband's campaign" sign on the door.  Obviously he hasn't ask her to do that.  One has to wonder if she were the one running for President whether Maureen Dowd or others would be complaining that Dr. Dean had not abandoned his medical practice to be at her side?  Of course they wouldn't.  Maureen, have you heard of the Women's Movement?  And by the way, where would you be, placed in the same situation?  I still admire your columns, still will read them every Sunday and Thursday, but shame on you today.  And bravo to you Dr. Steinberg, for having the commitment that I so admire in my own doctor, a man who happens to be married to a practicing physician just like you. 

Now What?

My New York Times was at the door this morning. Above the fold was the huge face of someone who had a remarkable resemblance to the Unibomber. A gigantic photo as large as I've seen on that page and tucked in the right hand corner, a dwarf sized image of George W. Bush. Is there a message in that? And it looks like Saddam, unlike those hundreds in Guantanamo, hasn't been taken to such a bad place. An undisclosed location, isn't that where our Vice President lives a lot of the time? I have been a little worried whether Paul Bremer is really in tune with his boss, but when I heard his eloquent words of announcement "we got him," I knew he was right in there.  A message for the moment.

Now don't get me wrong, this is the capture of a really horrible monster who rightly belongs in the pantheon of the most despotic murderers, but his arrest really doesn't change the basic facts one iota. This war, in which thousands have died, and are dying, was still launched on bent truths, and the aftermath continues to be a colossal mess. Yesterday's Times carried a blistering column by Tom Friedman (one of the War's boosters) contending that our government still has no plan all these months after. Perhaps Saddam had symbolic value for those still resisting the occupation, but don't put too much stake in it. The fact is that dictatorships function in the British system, "The King is Dead, Long Live the King." We shouldn't be fooled by our own infatuation with stars and the cult of the personality. Conditions make for unrest not any individual leader.  Conditions remain poor.

The noise will quiet down. You can count on the media to move on as soon as the story gets a little tired and ratings slide. And then we will be back to reality. Nothing has really changed over the weekend. We've made a mess out of the world, we've alienated our friends, and we've taken an ominous turn toward repression of liberties and, as Bill Moyers' Now pointed out, pervasive secrecy at home justified by that unassailable catchall excuse, The War on Terrorism.

So the pundits are now in aircraft carrier mode – mission accomplished. They are telling us unpatriotic naysayers that it's all over. I fully expect to see a life size photo of Howard Dean on the front page of The Weekly Standard – he is the real enemy isn't that right?. Hell, why wait till New Hampshire, why delay until November. This thing is all over and, if not, there always those five crucial votes. Perhaps it is over. I don't think so. For our sakes, I hope it's not. I continue to worry for my children.

At Year's End: The Statistics of Death

How can we bring this year to an end without thinking of how many of our fellow human beings lost their lives through the violence of conflict and, in the closing days, a natural disaster of unimaginable proportions.  We'll probably never know the final count of either since the casualties of powerful bombs and earthquakes are often vaporized into nothingness; off the statistical radar.  And what of those statistics?  Statistics shelter us from any kind of personal feeling or involvement — great neutralizers of information.  The fact is, that we can't begin to fathom thousands of dead. 

When someone we know dies, the impact is felt personally.  We understand an individual who was part of our life is gone, forever.  Funerals of loved ones provide closure, the first step toward healing.  But impersonal death, statistical death, provides neither a sense of individual loss nor, absent some public effort, closure.  Statistical death is someone else's problem.  In our scheme of things, it doesn't have much impact.  That kind of dispassion in a society is dangerous, especially if one is concerned about stopping the unending cycle of violence that marks our contemporary scene.  To bring about change, the community has to individualize the loss and has to grieve.  The Italians understood that when their country stood still to honor their brave young soldiers who died in Iraq.  Japan did the same and so did our principal partner "of the willing", Great Britain.  Not so in this great democracy.

We have had no national grieving.  Any grieving has been limited to the families of the fallen and a few moving tributes of isolated media like The News Hour (PBS) which ends many evening broadcasts with the photos, names and, most poignantly, ages of those recently killed.  We can't grieve publicly because the Administration has forbidden coverage of the bodies being brought back home.  Somehow it thinks "out of site will be out of mind," a crass cover-up of the real price of war in which most of the media is a willing and culpable co-conspirator.  So we ask these young people to go off to war, volunteers and conscripted Reservists, and we don't have the decency to say a public thank you to them and their families when their lives are cut short.  We wear flags on our lapels that brag patriotism and we dishonor the greatest patriots of all by hiding their individuality from the public.  Speak about dehumanizing acts.

So I enter 2004 with a great deal of sadness about our losses, about the lives cut short in a War of questionable origin.  I enter with a feeling of frustration.  It's been a horrendous time for the world and for the country which I love deeply.  Thousands of individuals are gone and each of their families will never be the same without them.  I've known parents who lost children from disease.  None of them ever recovered.  I think of them when the statistics flash across the screen.  Perhaps we can find a way out.  Being an essentially optimistic person, I know we can.  I also know it's ultimately up to us and I ask myself (and you) what are we going to do about it?  Time is running out.