
Jazz trumpeter Freddie Hubbard, one of the most brilliant players of the post-bop era, died in a Sherman Oaks, California hospital from complications stemming from a heart attack suffered on November 26th.
The legend of Jack Johnson, who became the first black heavyweight champion 100 years ago Friday, keeps growing. His story was already inspiration for a stage play and a feature film. Now he has inspired an online comic-book biography, “The Original Johnson.”
The comic, which is being serialized in weekly installments at www.comicmix.com, is written and illustrated by Trevor Von Eeden, and is unflinching in its depiction of racism in America, the brutality of the boxing ring and the tragedies and triumphs of Johnson’s life, including his sexual conquests. New chapters are scheduled to be posted every Wednesday.
“It’s a Wonderful Life” is a terrifying, asphyxiating story about growing up and relinquishing your dreams, of seeing your father driven to the grave before his time, of living among bitter, small-minded people. It is a story of being trapped, of compromising, of watching others move ahead and away, of becoming so filled with rage that you verbally abuse your children, their teacher and your oppressively perfect wife. It is also a nightmare account of an endless home renovation.
When Barack Obama enters the Oval Office as commander in chief for the first time in January, it's not hard to imagine him walking to the globe beside the window, giving it a good spin and running in his mind through the list of global burdens he has inherited from his predecessor. What he will see is unlike anything any American statesman has ever had to confront. Two simultaneous land wars; a rapidly arming Iran; an atomic, post-Musharraf Pakistan; a resurgent, energy-rich Russia; a China that holds 10% of U.S. currency; a $10-trillion public debt; the worst recession since World War II; and a weak dollar.
I think choosing Hillary as secretary of state would be a mistake. Not because of Bill. The new administration can choose to use him or not, regardless. The "two for the price of one" stuff is ridiculous: they are not exactly chained together. Equally, if Hillary were the best candidate for secretary of state, it would be absurd to deny her the offer because of Bill's post-presidential connections. Scrutiny in future is really all that is required there.
The problem is that she is not well qualified. She is not by any stretch of the imagination a foreign policy expert. I would not call her a born diplomat. Her first priority would be to advance her own presidential ambitions, not to help make the Obama presidency such a success that those hopes die. The "team of rivals" idea is wonderful so long as the rivals are fully invested in the success of the enterprise. In this case, it seems doubtful. Could Hillary defer to Obama, and carry out his instructions to the best of her ability? I doubt it. And it would not help that everyone would be watching for the first sign of friction or insubordination. The soap-opera dimension would be highly counter-productive.
What is Obama thinking, I wonder? That the party would be delighted? Yes it would, but so what: the election is already won. Or is it something to do with keeping your friends close and your enemies closer?
The economy is in tatters and, for millions of people, the future is uncertain. But for some employees at the Hormel Foods Corporation plant here, times have never been better. They are working at a furious pace and piling up all the overtime they want.
The workers make Spam, perhaps the emblematic hard-times food in the American pantry.
Through war and recession, Americans have turned to the glistening canned product from Hormel as a way to save money while still putting something that resembles meat on the table. Now, in a sign of the times, it is happening again, and Hormel is cranking out as much Spam as its workers can produce.
In a factory that abuts Interstate 90, two shifts of workers have been making Spam seven days a week since July, and they have been told that the relentless work schedule will continue indefinitely.
Spam, a gelatinous 12-ounce rectangle of spiced ham and pork, may be among the world’s most maligned foods, dismissed as inedible by food elites and skewered by comedians who have offered smart-alecky theories on its name (one G-rated example: Something Posing As Meat).
But these days, consumers are rediscovering relatively cheap foods, Spam among them. A 12-ounce can of Spam, marketed as “Crazy Tasty,” costs about $2.40. “People are realizing it’s not that bad a product,” said Dan Johnson, 55, who operates a 70-foot-high Spam oven.
History will record this as the night the souls of black folk, living and dead, wept – and laughed, screamed and danced – releasing 400 years of pent up emotion.
They were the souls of those whose bodies littered the bottom of the Atlantic, whose families were torn asunder, whose names were erased.
They were those who knew the terror of being set upon by men with clubs, of being trapped in a torched house, of dangling at the end of a rough rope.
They were the souls of those who knew the humiliation of another person’s spit trailing down their faces, of being treated like children well into their twilight years, of being derided and despised for the beauty God gave them.
They were also the tears of those for whom “Yes We Can, ” Obama’s campaign slogan, took on a broader, more profound meaning.
“Yes We Can” escape the prison of lowered expectations and the cycles of poor choices. “Yes We Can” rise above history and beyond hatred. “Yes We Can” ascend to Martin Luther King’s mountain top and see the promised land where dreams are fulfilled, where the best man wins and where justice prevails.
During this election African-Americans, their hearts weary from disappointment, dared to hope and dream again. Tonight their dream has been realized.
Whether or not you agree with Barack Obama’s politics, there is no denying that his election represents a seminal moment in the African-American narrative and a giant leap forward on the road to America’s racial reconciliation.
In fact everyone, regardless of race, should feel free to shed a tear and be proud of how far our country has come.
Melanie Scarborugh's musings on the state of the Republic are an unflagging source of amusement and a surefire way to get the work week started with a good laugh. As the presidential election draws to a close and the prospect of Barack Obama as the 44th president of these United States almost a foregone conclusion, Scarborough's rants have become increasingly febrile and apoplectic. Her latest attack on Obama finds the splenetic Scarborough at the top of her game, as she ticks off her objections to the exotic junior senator from Illinois: out or touch with the American heartland; an unrelenting critic of capitalism and the U.S. Constitution, particularly the First Amendment; and possessing no small-town America experience. Scarborough would be well-advised to seek professional therapy for her malady that, if the polls are to be believed, will spread and intensify after November 4th.
Mr Obama fought a much better campaign. Campaigning is not the same as governing, and the presidency should not be a prize for giving the best speeches, devising the best television advertisements, shaking the most hands and kissing the most babies.
Nonetheless, a campaign is a test of leadership. Mr Obama ran his superbly; Mr McCain's has often looked a shambles. After eight years of George W. Bush, the steady competence of the Obama operation commands respect.
Nor should one disdain Mr Obama's way with a crowd. Good presidents engage the country's attention; great ones inspire. Mr McCain, on form, is an adequate speaker but no more. Mr Obama, on form, is as fine a political orator as the country has heard in decades. Put to the right purposes, this is no mere decoration but a priceless asset.
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. If there is a new man, how can the new clothes be made to fit? If you have any enterprise before you, try it in your old clothes. All men want, not something to do with, but something to do, or rather something to be. Perhaps we should never procure a new suit, however ragged or dirty the old, until we have so conducted, so enterprised or sailed in some way, that we feel like new men in the old, and that to retain it would be like keeping a new wine in old bottles. Our moulting season, like that of the fowls, must be a crisis in our lives.
We cannot spend the next four years as we have spent the last eight waiting for our luck to change. The hour is late; our troubles are getting worse; our enemies watch. We have to act immediately. We have to change direction now.
What is most striking about her is that she seems perfectly untroubled by either curiosity or the usual processes of thought. When answering questions, both Obama and Joe Biden have an unfortunate tendency to think on their feet and thereby tie themselves in knots: Palin never thinks. Instead, she relies on a limited stock of facts, bright generalities and pokerwork maxims, all as familiar and well-worn as old pennies. Given any question, she reaches into her bag for the readymade sentence that sounds most nearly proximate to an answer, and, rather than speaking it, recites it, in the upsy-downsy voice of a middle-schooler pronouncing the letters of a word in a spelling bee. She then fixes her lips in a terminal smile. In the televised game shows that pass for political debates in the US, it’s a winning technique: told that she has 15 seconds in which to answer, Palin invariably beats the clock, and her concision and fluency more than compensate for her unrelenting triteness.
COURIC: What newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this -- to stay informed and to understand the world?
PALIN: I've read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media --
COURIC: But what ones specifically? I'm curious.
PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.
COURIC: Can you name any of them?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.
Can we now admit the obvious? Sarah Palin is utterly unqualified to be vice president. She is a feisty, charismatic politician who has done some good things in Alaska. But she has never spent a day thinking about any important national or international issue, and this is a hell of a time to start. The next administration is going to face a set of challenges unlike any in recent memory. There is an ongoing military operation in Iraq that still costs $10 billion a month, a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is not going well and is not easily fixed. Iran, Russia and Venezuela present tough strategic challenges.
Domestically, the bailout and reform of the financial industry will take years and hundreds of billions of dollars. Health-care costs, unless curtailed, will bankrupt the federal government. Social Security, immigration, collapsing infrastructure and education are all going to get much worse if they are not handled soon.
Experienced leaders can certainly blunder if their minds have rigidified (see: Rumsfeld, Donald), but the records of leaders without long experience and prudence is not good. As George Will pointed out, the founders used the word “experience” 91 times in the Federalist Papers. Democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average people with the wisdom to select the best prepared.
Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.
The idea that “the people” will take on and destroy “the establishment” is a utopian fantasy that corrupted the left before it corrupted the right. Surely the response to the current crisis of authority is not to throw away standards of experience and prudence, but to select leaders who have those qualities but not the smug condescension that has so marked the reaction to the Palin nomination in the first place.
Except for Peg Leg Bates and Sandman Sims, the great tap dancer with the most illustrative name was Jimmy Slyde. Printed on a program or spoken by an announcer, the name told audiences what to expect: a man named Jimmy, not James or Jim, was going to slide around the stage, and as the unorthodox spelling hinted, he was going to do it without losing his cool. He was born James Titus Godbolt in 1927, but it was as Jimmy Slyde that he began a professional career that lasted from the mid-Forties up until his death this past May, and it is as Jimmy Slyde that he will be remembered.
If there was one pre-eminent characteristic of the Republican convention this week, it was the quality of deception. Words completely lost their meaning. Reality was turned upside down.
From the faux populist gibberish mouthed by speaker after speaker, you would never have known that the Republicans have been in power over the past several years and used that titanic power to lead the country to its present sorry state.
In his acceptance speech on Thursday night, Senator John McCain did his best Sam Cooke imitation (“A Change is Gonna Come”) and vowed to put the country “back on the road to prosperity and peace.”
Mr. McCain spoke at the end of a day in which stock market indexes plunged. The next morning the Labor Department gave us the grim news that another 84,000 jobs had been lost in August, and that the official unemployment rate had climbed to 6.1 percent — the highest in five years.
Can voters this year be sure they learned something about the real Sarah Palin from her GOP vice presidential nomination acceptance speech last night, considering news that it was originally written by speechwriter Matthew Scully over a week ago for an unknown male nominee? The commissioned draft was subsequently customized by Palin and a team of McCain staffers in the 48 hours leading up to its presentation.
Americans have an unhealthy desire to see average people promoted to positions of great authority. No one wants an average neurosurgeon or even an average carpenter, but when it comes time to vest a man or woman with more power and responsibility than any person has held in human history, Americans say they want a regular guy, someone just like themselves. President Bush kept his edge on the "Who would you like to have a beer with?" poll question in 2004, and won reelection.
This is one of the many points at which narcissism becomes indistinguishable from masochism. Let me put it plainly: If you want someone just like you to be president of the United States, or even vice president, you deserve whatever dysfunctional society you get. You deserve to be poor, to see the environment despoiled, to watch your children receive a fourth-rate education and to suffer as this country wages -- and loses -- both necessary and unnecessary wars.
McCain has so little respect for the presidency of the United States that he is willing to put the girl next door (soon, too, to be a grandma) into office beside him. He has so little respect for the average American voter that he thinks this reckless and cynical ploy will work.
Some told him that his early and consistent call for more troops would put his presidential campaign at risk. He told them he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war. That is the kind of courage and vision we need in our next commander-in-chief.
When the debates have ended, and all the ads have run, and it is time to vote, Americans will look closely at the judgment, the experience, and the policies of the candidates — and they will cast their ballots for the McCain-Palin ticket.
I find no evidence that Mingus had Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 121–180) in mind when he composed "Meditations," which shares its title with the classic text by that Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher. In my own mind, though, there is a connection. Marcus was one who believed that there is an order to the universe, established by a good higher power, which he referred to variously as "Nature," "the gods," or even "Zeus." His philosophy, however, seems grounded at least as much in an assumption of hardship as in a belief in the goodness of Nature. (Marcus, who wrote his great work while at war with the barbarians, knew a thing or two about hardship.) For him, Nature and hardship were not conflicting things, or even different things. Just as a medical consultant "has prescribed horseback exercises, or cold baths, or going barefoot...so in the same way does the World-Nature prescribe disease, mutilation, loss, or some other disability," he wrote. How should one deal with hardship, whose forces have one outgunned? Largely through attitude: "Here is a rule to remember in future, when anything tempts you to feel bitter: not, 'This is a misfortune,' but 'To bear this worthily is a good fortune.'" For, in Marcus's view, what is important is not pleasure but how we conduct ourselves, how successful we are at bringing forth the best that is in us, in times of happiness or its opposite—especially its opposite. "Either the world is a mere hotch-potch of random cohesions and dispersions, or else it is a unity of order and providence," he wrote. "If the former, why wish to survive in such a purposeless and chaotic confusion; why care about anything, save the manner of the ultimate return to dust; why trouble my head at all; since, do what I will, dispersion must overtake me sooner or later? But if the contrary be true, then I do reverence, I stand firmly, and I put my trust in the directing Power." Here, some of us would disagree with Marcus, feeling that our conduct should not depend on an order to the universe or its lack. We just might, though, see wisdom in what he writes in another passage: "Be master of yourself, and view life as a man, as a human being, as a citizen, and as a mortal. Among the truths you will do well to contemplate most frequently are these two: first, that things can never touch the soul, but stand inert outside it, so that disquiet can arise only from fancies within; and secondly, that all visible objects change in a moment, and will be no more. Think of the countless changes in which you yourself have had a part. The whole universe is change, and life itself is but what you deem it."
Marcus also wrote that "oneness of feeling exists between all parts of nature, in spite of their divergence and dispersion"—not a bad description of Mingus's compositions. In the beginning of Mingus's "Meditations," the horns and bowed bass intersperse an ethereal melody with a repeated three-note phrase, the near-formlessness of the one bringing to mind primordial mist, the hardness, relentlessness, and unfeelingness of the other suggesting prehistory's great cataclysms—the forming and breaking of continents and other nonhuman events. Later, in wonderful, delicate passages, Dolphy—on flute—and Byard explore the ethereal mode further. Not until nine-plus minutes into "Meditations" do traditional-style solos, with piano/bass/drum backing, begin. In other words, the solos—individuals and their achievements and statements— are not the point here, at least not the whole point. That is true even during the solos: here, the rhythm section does not so much accompany or support each soloist as spar with him—Dolphy first (on bass clarinet), then Byard, Coles, Mingus, and Jordan; of them, only Mingus plays without such adversity. (Do we hear this as rare human triumph, or, since Mingus is otherwise part of the rhythm section, as total domination by external events?) Coles faces a particularly fierce piano/ bass/drum onslaught, and Jordan's solo is subjected to the return of the harsh, insistent phrase from the beginning of the piece. How do the trumpeter and saxophonist hold up? It is difficult to say if they triumph, or even what that would mean; but they are beautiful in the attempt. Not a bad thing to have said of us, when all is finished. Marcus Aurelius, of course, would scoff at our striving for even that modest tribute. "This mortal life is a little thing, lived in a little corner of the earth," he wrote in his own Meditations; "and little, too, is the longest fame to come—dependent as it is on a succession of fast-perishing little men who have no knowledge even of their own selves, much less of one long dead and gone."
Ms. Obama's chore, when she gave her speech the other night, was not to reveal herself but to reassure voters about their own values. She was there to reassert what the public needs to believe, or thinks it should believe. TV commentators who analyze speeches such as hers judge public figures according to a formula that has already been tested and found acceptable. And they judge themselves in a similar way. Not one of them dares to show more than a flicker of originality. They want to sound shrewd, they want to avoid repeating what someone else has just said, they may hope to insert a slightly fresh thought into the debate. But they never stray far from what everyone else thinks. They are there to say the right thing, which usually means a version of the national consensus. They will not be welcome on television if they are overly original, if they sound odd or weird.
Now, now, let me -- let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and our respect.
And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need.
But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time.
Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but, really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than 90 percent of the time?
I say to you: Barack Obama is ready to lead America and restore American leadership in the world. Barack Obama is ready to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Barack Obama is ready to be president of the United States.
“With eyes firmly fixed on the future in the spirit of unity, with the goal of victory, with faith in our party and country, let’s declare together in one voice, right here and right now, that Barack Obama is our candidate and he will be our president.
“I move that Senator Barack Obama of Illinois be selected by this convention by acclamation as the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.”
His brutal hiatus in the Hanoi Hilton is one of the most stirring narratives ever told on the presidential trail — a trail full of heroic war stories. It created an enormous credit line of good will with the American people. It also allowed McCain, the errant son of the admiral who was the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific during Vietnam — his jailers dubbed McCain the “Crown Prince” — to give himself some credit.
“He has been preoccupied with escaping the shadow of his father and establishing his own image and identity in the eyes of others,” read a psychiatric evaluation in his medical files. “He feels his experiences and performance as a P.O.W. have finally permitted this to happen.”
The ordeal also gave a more sympathetic cast to his carousing. As Robert Timberg wrote in “John McCain: An American Odyssey,” “What is true is that a number of P.O.W.’s, in those first few years after their release, often acted erratically, their lives pockmarked by drastic mood swings and uncharacteristic behavior before achieving a more mellow equilibrium.” Timberg said Hemingway’s line that people were stronger in the broken places was not always right.
So it’s hard to believe that John McCain is now in danger of exceeding his credit limit on the equivalent of an American Express black card. His campaign is cheapening his greatest strength — and making a mockery of his already dubious claim that he’s reticent to talk about his P.O.W. experience — by flashing the P.O.W. card to rebut any criticism, no matter how unrelated. The captivity is already amply displayed in posters and TV advertisements.
Barack Obama was always a long shot to win the White House. It’s no secret that some portion of the electorate will never vote for him because of his color. But he has made the odds even longer by running a campaign that, since the primaries, has seemed directionless, uninspired and addicted to the empty calories of generalities.
And the candidate himself has seemed flat. No fire. No passion.
Lately, you’ve demonstrated an unsettling penchant for overly nuanced statements that meander into the cerebral. Earth to Barack: to Main Street America, nuance equals confusion. You don’t have to dumb it down, but you do have to sum it up.
Both Obama and McCain gave "good" answers, but that's not the point. They shouldn't have been asked. Is the American electorate now better prepared to cast votes knowing that Obama believes that "Jesus Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him," or that McCain feels that he is "saved and forgiven"?
What does that mean, anyway? What does it prove? Nothing except that these men are willing to say whatever they must -- and what most Americans personally feel is no one's business -- to win the highest office.
Warren tried to defuse criticism about staging the interviews in his church by saying that though "we" believe in the separation of church and state, "we" don't believe in the separation of faith and politics. Faith, he said, "is just a worldview, and everybody has some kind of worldview. It's important to know what they are."
Presumably "we" refers to Warren's church of fellow evangelicals. And while, yes, everybody has some kind of worldview, it shouldn't be necessary in a pluralistic nation of secular laws to publicly define that view in Christian code.
There's another reason why the image of raised, black-gloved fists has retained its power. Smith and Carlos sacrificed fame and fortune for a larger cause -- civil rights. As Carlos told me in 2003: "A lot of the [black] athletes thought that winning [Olympic] medals would supersede or protect them from racism. But even if you won a medal, it ain't going to save your momma [from the effects of racism]. It ain't going to save your sister..."
Carlos' view resonates because we still live in a world where racism exists. If Hurricane Katrina taught us nothing else, it's that for every Barack Obama and Condoleezza Rice, there are many communities, including in L.A., where the combination of poverty and racism weigh down black Americans.
It also resonates because Smith and Carlos used the ubiquitous platform of sports to make their stand. Today, sports is a global trillion-dollar business that, thanks to cable television, the Internet and corporate sponsorship, is vastly more influential than four decades ago. Yet the idea that today's athletes would use their hyper-exalted-brought-to-you-by-Nike platform to speak out against injustice seems almost unthinkable. Athletes Etan Thomas of the NBA and Scott Fujita of the NFL have spoken out on war, poverty and racism in the U.S. Some platinum-plated stars on the U.S. Olympic basketball team -- notably Kobe Bryant and LeBron James -- have raised concerns about China's connection to the genocide in Darfur.
The question is whether any Olympic athlete will match the audacity of Smith and Carlos in the 2008 Games. On Friday, the possible appearance of Tibet's flag would again remind us that the world of sports isn't immune to the politics of protest.
What has caused the rapid ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? The more I think about this phenomenon, the stronger my conviction becomes that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one. The Mayflower passengers, much like the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying with them a messianic vision, whether religious or utopian. (The early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on them.) The founders of American society were pilgrims, the Zionist immigrants called themselves olim – short for olim beregel, or ‘pilgrims’. Both sailed to a ‘promised land’, believing themselves to be God’s chosen people. Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as ‘pioneers’ who would make the wilderness bloom, a ‘people without land in a land without people’. Both completely ignored the rights of indigenous people, considering them savages. Both saw the resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, and felt that this justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plough and the other on the Bible. True, Israel hasn’t committed anything approaching the genocide performed against the Native Americans, nor anything like slavery. But in the unconscious mind of both nations feelings of suppressed guilt make themselves evident in the denial of past misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power.