February 4, 2010 | 3:20 pm

Political Theatre with Bad Actors

Posted by David A. Lehrer

Today is one of those days when the stars aligned and light illuminated realities that are otherwise too often hidden or ignored.

The Daily Beast’s Tina Brown penned a scathing portrait of Sen. John Edwards—-former vice presidential candidate and a few votes in Iowa away from being the winning candidate for the Democratic nomination for president in the last cycle.

The catalyst for her piece is the just published book The Politician, by Edwards’ former “body man, beard and shit-eating courtier” (her words) Andrew Young.  Reading her account of the immoral narcissist that is John Edwards is chilling. Not because it is “shocking” to learn that a politician has an out-of-control libido and ego, but that his disgusting duplicity was known by many in the media but was left unmentioned in miles and hours of analyses and political punditry.

As Brown writes, “there was virtually no aspect of the Edwards campaign persona that was true.”  Yet, it was the National Enquirer, of all sources, that was left to dig into the muck which finally revealed the person behind the slick-haired persona that sought to become the most powerful man in the world.

I have no illusions about the saintliness of those who seek to be president, from Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton, monogamy and honesty in inter-personal relations are not derigueur for political leaders. But somewhere between accepting moral shortcomings and being a compass-less, empty suit playing a role, there is a point at which the public has to be treated like adults who need to know whom they might be voting for.

When Edwards was bleating about the “two Americas” that only he cared about, we should have known that he was simultaneously deriding the “fat rednecks” (his words) he had to meet who reminded him of his own humble beginnings. His campaign workers were so cynical that during the Democratic candidates’ debates, they would “knock back a drink every time he uttered the words ‘son of a mill worker’” to describe himself—-“soon they were howling with laughter.”

As Young writes about Edwards, “Virtually every word that came of his mouth was a lie, but it was convincing.”

But where were the media—-the guardians of the First Amendment’s freedom of the press and the public’s right to know? Apparently, they were too busy with other issues (e.g. was Hillary genuine when she teared up before the New Hampshire primary) and the unending nonsense that fills the 24/7 news cycle.

The mainstream media couldn’t or didn’t want to let us know what a dangerous, disingenuous phony Edwards was.

Lest this blog be perceived as being a partisan posting, today brought another example of political theatre that the media didn’t appropriately report on. A phony politician who had presidential aspirations and who might have slipped through, but for the unpredictable vagaries of history and an unchecked libido—-Gov. Mark Sanford.

In excerpts from his wife’s just published book, Staying True, Jenny Sanford offers a portrait of a politician seduced by the trappings of political success into becoming a thoughtless, narcissistic, self-deluding putz. As The New York Times reviewer summarized, “she watched her husband morph into a restless, distant character. He stopped bothering to be strict with their children. He worried about his bald spot. And he spent more and more time away from home, telling what turned out to be flagrant lies about his reasons for travel.”

The Sanford story isn’t just about adultery and the lies that inevitably accompany it, these days that may be a relatively minor blot on a politician’s resume.  Rather it is about the warped view of the world of which the adultery seems to have been a symptom.

What kind of judgment does someone have who seeks his wife’s permission to continue his affair, who calls her after his disastrous “mea culpa” news conference to ask, “How’d I do?” and who thought nothing of lying to his aides and his state about his whereabouts overseas while still serving as governor (he was in Argentina, not on the Appalachian Trail).

Where were the reporters who covered him as the governor of South Carolina in all the months leading up to his very public fall? Where were they in letting the public know that this man had no right to think about being president of the United States, let alone governor of South Carolina? His flawed judgment must have been manifest in so many ways, especially to reporters who practically live with their subjects in smaller state houses. They must have known about Sanford’s wackiness, but they didn’t let the public know and the jabber about him being “presidential timber” continued.

These two incidents converging on one day’s news are reminders that our electoral system is only as good as the information we have about the candidates and issues we vote on. When reporters don’t inform the public about relevant personal traits and the shortcomings of our leaders that speak to judgment, honesty and integrity—-the system is compromised.

Garbage in—-garbage out!

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 2, 2010 | 4:22 pm

Rahm Gets the Lash

Posted by Joe R. Hicks

According to Webster’s dictionary, the definition of “retarded” is slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress.”  But now Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel has gotten himself into hot water after referring to liberal activist groups as “f—-ing retarded.” Gotcha!

As could be guessed, advocacy groups and political opponents of the president jumped on the remarks – some seeking advantage for organizational agendas or to cause the president embarrassment.  It seems of no consequence that the President’s staff head dropped the “F” bomb in the midst of a White House staff meeting – who cared.  But the word “retarded,” once made public, allowed disability groups to use the comment as a weapon in the bully-pulpit of advocacy politics.

Last year, the president appeared on Jay Leno’s NBC show and joked about his inability to bowl, saying “It’s like – it was like Special Olympics, or something.”  Gotcha!

Of course, Emanuel has prostrated himself before the Gods of political correctness, calling Tim Shriver, CEO of the Special Olympics, among others to apologize for the comment.

But let’s put Emanuel’s comment into perspective, shall we?  Emanuel is known as a less than sensitive fellow, one who routinely uses “colorful” and crude expressions to help get his often abrasive points across.  He was reacting to the announcement that some liberal activists groups planned to air some attack ads aimed at conservative Democrats who dared be less than supportive of the president’s healthcare bill – legislation which lies prostrate and on life-support. 

In true form, Emanuel called this idea “… retarded.”  I mean, why would you want to alienate members of Congress – folks whose votes will be needed in upcoming House and Senate battles?  Yeah, it is kind of, well, retarded – in the classic Webster’s sense of the word.

But isn’t this just more of the same political correctness game that has afflicted almost all aspects of our lives?  Beyond their wildest dreams, advocacy groups have succeeded in affecting the ways that government tries to control the kinds of food people eat, the types of cars we drive, or the manner in which children’s games and sports events have managed to make winning a new sort of sin.  Excellence is no longer the coin of the realm, what matters in this world of the “touchy-feely” is that you played the game – even if you sucked.

The penchant toward political correctness is what drove some reactions to the recent use of the word “Negro” by Senate Leader Harry Reid in comments he made in support of Barack Obama’s run for the White House.  Of course, there was nothing derogatory about Reid’s comments.

Nor was there anything to take offense at in the recent comments of MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. To the horror of the racially-conscious, he admitted that he “nearly” forgot that President Obama is black while watching the State of the Union address.  The race police leaped to the attack. Gotcha!

But what Matthews said – albeit awkwardly - is actually indicative of the nation’s contemporary racial landscape.  There was some initial amusement over the first black president “thing” – however, Matthews stumbled onto something real.  Most Americans tend to concentrate - in these hard times - on the content of what he says about important issues they care about, and not on the President’s skin color.

The claim that “disadvantaged” minorities, and Americans with disabilities, are perpetual victims is a disempowering message.  The majority of Americans with disabilities are strong, contributing people who have overcome adversity and aren’t about to wilt simply at overhearing a word that strident advocates now claim is the equivalent of the “N-word.”   

But go tell that to Sarah Palin.  Responding to Emanuel’s comment, the former vice presidential candidate and now a media commentator said: “Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the ‘N-word’ or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities – and the people who love them – is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking.”

Come on! It should be clear to all, except those with political agendas to serve, that Emanuel’s comments were directed at left/liberal political activists, and not at any individual – certainly not those with physical, cognitive or emotional disabilities.  Unless you’re a black rapper, who perversely claims another meaning, “Nigger” has only one use – to offend. The word “retard,” however, can be utilized in many ways - most often not offensive.  So, “retarded” is now the new “N-word?”

Enough already!  There are all too many critical issues facing the nation, and using politically correct “gotcha” politics to bludgeon others into submission or to win political points somehow seems beyond pointless.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 26, 2010 | 11:44 am

Skating on Thin Constitutional Ice

Posted by aa No Author

by David Lehrer and Joe Hicks

We recently received a press release that caught our eye, it was an unusual announcement from a government agency.

The Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission, author of the document, is an over 50 year old agency that has as its mission, “fostering harmonious and equitable inter-group relations; empowering communities and institutions; and promoting an informed and inclusive multicultural society.” Most of the Commission’s programs revolve around hate crimes—-tallying them, seeking to counter them, reporting about them, etc.

Interestingly, their press release announces a new wrinkle in the Commission’s anti-hate crime efforts—-pre-empting speech that the Commission suggests “triggers” hate crimes.

As individuals who have spent our professional careers dealing with haters, extremists and the organizations they create, we were surprised to find that the Human Relations Commission is staging a program on a very sensitive topic that governmental entities should only approach with extreme caution—-the role of government in impacting free speech and the rights of broadcasters.

The Commission promotes this Thursday’s program with the provocative title “When does FREE SPEECH in the Media turn into HATE SPEECH….triggering HATE CRIMES?” (sic). It implies that it has discovered a link that no academics, advocates of anti-bias laws or anyone else has yet been able to document—-“many see a clear link between the coverage a particular community receives in the media and potential spikes in hate crimes.”

It doesn’t make sense.

The panel consists of minority activists (Latino, African American, Muslim, South Asian, Gay/Lesbian and “Multi-Ethnics”) and the Commission’s director, Robin Toma. The moderator is an occasional radio host whose primary job is as an instructor of journalism at Cal State LA. There is no ACLU or First Amendment advocate to argue that however objectionable many of these talk show hosts may be, the way to deal with their bloviating is in the free marketplace of ideas, not by government censorship.

The thrust of the discussion is all too predictable and will more than likely follow the reasoning of the Commission’s announcement——the irritating voices on talk radio are purveyors of hate and that hate results in hate crimes. The conclusion will undoubtedly be that “something needs to be done!” Conveniently, there is a petition before the Federal Communications Commission requesting an investigation into the link between media broadcasters, hate speech and hate crimes.

We are not defenders of the crude and vulgar talk show hosts on radio and tv who mask inflammatory posturing as political commentary. But those who pander to the lowest common denominator of America’s listening audience ought to be challenged and taken on because of the bankruptcy of their ideas, not because a governmental agency thinks that their outrageous talk leads to criminal activity.

In fact, we are aware of no academic research that documents a connection between media jabber, however pernicious, and the commission of hate crimes. The single academic who is on the panel (Dr. Chon Noriega) has authored a study on point about “hate speech on commercial radio” which specifically warns that “the study does not attempt to determine a causal relationship between hate speech in the media and the commission of hate crimes.”

What makes this program so troubling is that a governmental entity, the Human Relations Commission, is involving itself in a tilted discussion that implicates the First Amendment and the rights of broadcasters.

If the various participants on the panel and their organizations were to chose to have this debate under private, non-governmental auspices, it might be skewed and lightweight, but it would be their affair and their conclusions would be their own.

When a governmental agency sponsors this kind of event, we are all implicated and their conclusions become our conclusions.

We hope that the Human Relations Commission will rethink their role in a presenting an unbalanced program that looks like it will offer remedies on a very sensitive issue that touches on the First Amendment and the rights of our nation’s broadcasters. 

2 Comments — Leave your comment

January 21, 2010 | 4:49 pm

A Lesson From History

Posted by David A. Lehrer

Between IPods, rovers on Mars and gene specific cures for various ailments it’s easy to think that we are at the pinnacle of human history. We can easily be convinced that all that preceded us was mere prelude to our incomparable achievements….and then you have an epiphany where you realize we aren’t all that innovative or exceptional.

Read yesterday’s New York Times’ article about a map on display at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. It was created by a Jesuit priest, Matteo Ricci, who lived in China in 1602—-a mere 110 years after Columbus. 

The map he created for the Chinese Emperor is of the world, but you need only see the cartography of North America. It’s uncanny. Baja California, Florida, the Great Lakes, the Yucatan, Cuba are all in the right place in very much the right relative proportions.

Father Ricci didn’t have satellites, radar, or photos—-just the recollections and information provided by explorers of the New World—- and some genius. He did an amazing job. It’s quite extraordinary and humbling...could we come close to understanding the world around us stripped of virtually all of our fancy gadgets and tools?

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 21, 2010 | 4:02 pm

Nuanced Views of the World

Posted by David A. Lehrer

This past weekend I participated in the Annual Leadership Educational Forum (“ALEF”). Sponsored by the American Friends of the Hebrew University in Los Angeles, it’s a once a year gathering of Hebrew University leaders from around the country to discuss the state of the university and to tap into the intellectual riches of HU.

Sunday’s panels at the Beverly Hills Hotel covered a fascinating array of topics—-neuroscience, anti-Semitism, and Islam’s relations with the United States and Israel. The presenters were an impressive group of experts (from Israel and LA) in their fields who offered sane, sober and thoughtful analyses.

What struck me most about the presentations was the moderation and avoidance of hyperbole that too often infects talks to Jewish groups on topics such as Israel and anti-Semitism.

The panel on Islam included Ambassador Efraim Halevy, former head of the Mossad and former national security advisor to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (not to Shimon Peres, but to Sharon, i.e. not a bleeding heart).

Halevy’s message, amplified by his colleague Prof. Moshe Maoz, an expert on Arab and Middle East affairs, and Dr. Omar Kader, an American and former head of the national Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee, was that there is much that is positive that is going on in the diverse and complex Muslim world and that we should not succumb to a simplistic and myopic view of that difficult and challenging problem.

It was, to say the least, a refreshing and uplifting message; urging thoughtful analysis while also admitting the complexity of the topic was instructive. That it came from, among others, one of the historic figures of the Mossad made it even more compelling.

The panel I moderated similarly reaffirmed a nuanced and thoughtful approach to a tough problem. This time the issue was anti-Semitism. Instead of the all too common “gevalt, the sky is falling” message, Prof. Robert Wistrich, author of the just published tome, A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad, offered a historical analysis of anti-Semitism and, along with Prof. Michael Berenbaum, former director of the United States Holocaust Research Institute at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and me, agreed that the United States is unique in its acceptance of Jews. We concurred on the absence of serious anti-Semitism here and explored the reasons why that is so.

This message—- of a tempered and reasoned approach to volatile issues—- and the admonition to not succumb to simplistic fear-mongering (from no less than one of the Mossad’s heroic former heads) was a valuable one that seemed to be heard by the several hundred folks present; it ought to have resonance far beyond those gathered at ALEF.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 15, 2010 | 1:44 pm

Reid, Republicans and PC

Posted by Joe R. Hicks

As someone who views politics from a well-defined conservative perspective, I found it unsettling to hear Republicans engage in the same old game of political correctness, something they’ve accused Democrats of for decades.  A new book “Game Change,” written by John Heilman and Mark Halperin about the 2008 presidential race, reveals that Senate Leader Harry Reid made comments about President Obama that have been interpreted by some as controversial.

As most now know, in private comments about Barack Obama’s chances of winning the White House, Reid commented that he thought Obama could win because “the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a ‘light-skinned’ African-American with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”  Republicans wasted little time in jumping on the comments, with some prominent figures arguing that Reid should step down as the Democrat’s Senate Leader. 

Of course, this had the same chance of happening as a snowball not melting in hell.  No matter how the president actually felt about Reid’s comments, Obama desperately needs his healthcare plan to succeed, and for this he needs Reid to help usher his healthcare bill through the painful process.

Reid immediately prostrated himself before all who would listen, calling the president, as well as almost every black leader he could find, to apologize.  For what, I’m not exactly clear.  When did the word “Negro” become offensive, and to whom?  Reid’s casual reference to Obama’s “light skin” may reveal an odd and lame foray into the world of color and caste consciousness circa the 1940s, but falls significantly short of being offensive.

Leading the charge to label Reid a racist was Michael Steele, the chair of the Republican National Committee.  Steele correctly pointed out there is a prevailing double-standard in place; virtually any Republican who made comments similar to those of Reid would have been vilified as a knuckle-dragging racist by the very same groups and political figures that have rallied to Reid’s defense. 

Steele should have simply stopped at pointing out this political double standard.  Instead, he appeared on seemingly endless Sunday morning news/talk shows to accuse Reid of racism.  Other prominent conservatives, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and commentator, Liz Chaney, joined in the charges of racism against Reid. 

When did Republicans jump on the bandwagon of political correctness and racial sensitivity that essentially validates the left’s long-standing pernicious smear that virtually any comment about race or skin color can be spun into an act of racism.  The rules of the game are that anyone who violates the “conventional wisdom” of what’s appropriate is expected to prostrate themselves before the arbiters of “race legitimacy” or face punishment in the form of banishment from the public square.

This “PC” game playing is short-sighted on the part of Republicans.  If it was intended to damage Reid in his Senate re-election bid, the potential damage to an already shaky Republican Party image was hardly worth it. 

So, what was the point?  Reid was already badly trailing his Republican opponents in Nevada polling. This is “gotcha” politics at its worst.  Reid deserved to be excoriated for his angry, outrageous – and, yes, bigoted comments – when he compared Republicans who dared to oppose the Democrats healthcare bill as being like lawmakers who clung to slavery more than a century and a half ago.  Reid is clearly not a scholar of American history, or the history of his own party, regarding slavery and civil rights.

However, by engaging in this sort of gotcha, Republicans take the nasty, offensive and cynical game of identity politics and political correctness to new lows and make it truly bipartisan silliness.

All of this angst by Democrats and Republicans over the use of words makes clear that America has lurched into a post-racial world.  The kind of racism that America’s black population was forced to endure for centuries has been almost entirely eliminated. 

How can we tell?  The accusations of racism these days mostly arise from the use of certain phrases, the stating of uncomfortable truths, or legitimate policy disagreements.  This means the charges of racism have become mostly a handy political tool to be used against an opponent. 

Exhibit “A”:  Harry Reid.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 8, 2010 | 2:59 pm

The “New” Face of Terror is Old

Posted by Joe R. Hicks

When the son of a wealthy Nigerian banking official tried to blow up a Detroit-bound aircraft, there was much that was new or unique about him – other than the explosive underwear he wore.  This was an updated version of the shoe-bomb method employed by Richard Reid in 2001.  Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab seems to have been driven by the same religious and political demons that have propelled virtually every terrorist from Ramzi Yousef to Osama bin Laden.

Abdumutallab’s socially advantaged status was not unique – the vast majority of international terrorists have not been poor, ignorant or disadvantaged.  All of the nineteen 9/11 terrorist were educated and came from the ranks of the middle-class and the well-to-do. A review of the education levels and income status of many terrorists quickly destroys the long-held belief that poverty and political neglect, like weeds, grow terrorists. 

His skin color wasn’t noteworthy either. Africans from various nations have played major roles in international terrorism.  If there is any doubt, a brief scan of the images from the prison at Guantanamo Bay will confirm this fact.

But try telling that to Yvonne Davis whose recent posting at the Huffington Post makes an “interesting” observation.  The title of her article is “America’s New Face of Terrorism.”  That “new” face of terrorism, she claims, is “the young black man.”  Abdulmutallab, she argues, “looks no differently than your son” - if you happen to be black that is.  “Black men,” she laments, “are now officially lumped in with Arabs and Muslim men around the world as potential terrorists and dangers to the west.”

Where has this woman been?

African nationals have long been involved in terrorist plots, as have black home grown-terrorists.  Terrorists from several African nations were involved in the Al Qaeda bombing of America’s embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salam, Tanzania, in 1998.  Five young Muslim men from suburban Virginia are currently being held in Pakistan on suspicion of trying to join Al Qaeda to engage in jihad.  All are the children of immigrant families from Pakistan, Egypt and East Africa.

This past November, the United States Attorney’s office in Minnesota and the FBI reported that young Islamic men from Minneapolis were being recruited and sent to Somali to fight for Al Shabaab, a terrorist organization with close ties to Al Qaeda.  All of the young African-American men are the children of immigrant families from Somalia – and, yes, many feature appearances closely approximating a black American kid from Baltimore.

And yes, there have also been home-grown “African-American” terrorists.  This past October, Luqman Ameen Abdullah was killed in a shoot-out with Detroit police.  Formerly known as Christopher Thomas, Abdullah stated that his mission was to establish an Islamic state in the U.S.  This gentleman appears to be a disciple of Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, formerly known as H. Rap Brown, now serving a life sentence for shooting two police officers in Georgia in 2000.

Other examples abound.  The so-called “D.C. sniper,” John Muhammed was black, as is Clement Rodney Hampton-el, a New Jersey hospital technician.  He returned from the war in Afghanistan against the Russians to help set off the February 1993 explosion at the World Trade Center in New York.

Certainly not all, but many, conversions to Islam among blacks have come via a stay in state or federal prison which offers a particularly angry, virulent and violent form of Islam to vulnerable black inmates who are susceptible to the message that they’ve been victims of white America - as well as Christianity.  It was while in prison that Malcolm X was introduced to the Nation of Islam’s unique form of Islam, a conversion that ultimately cost him his life.

Nonetheless, Davis, the Huff Post writer, seems to believe that black Americans will collectively shoulder some collective guilt due to the skin color of Abdulmutallab and other “black” terrorists.  She asserts that the “African American community” is cringing “every time a new terrorist plot is foiled and shows a black male face.”  That may be her reaction, but I think otherwise.  I believe that when arrests occur, all Americans, no matter their skin color or ethnicity, collectively breathe a sigh of relief that once again the nation dodged the bullet of violent Islamic extremism.

Even Davis inadvertently admits the accuracy of this position by way of quoting Peter Siggins, Associate Justice of the California Court of Appeals. In a 2002 speech he cited a surey which revealed that 66 percent of whites supported the ethnic profiling of people of Middle-Eastern descent.  More interesting perhaps is that 77 percent of blacks also suppored this sort of profiling.  It doesn’t sound as if blacks are “cringing” in the face of terrorist threats.  Like other Americans, blacks want to employ every measure possible to help insure our safety.

No matter the loss of privacy or potential for misuse, most Americans understand that we live in difficult times and that we are at war with forces that would willfully slit every Americans throat given half a chance.  “Profiling” is but one weapon at our disposal in this war with ideologically-driven killers like Khalid Sheik Muhammad, last seen on video demonically decapitating an innocent journalist whose crime was being American and Jewish – Daniel Pearl.

There is no “new” face of terrorism. It’s the same old face that assumes many forms – all wanting to destroy this country and its people. 

0 Comments — Leave your comment