Wednesday, February 27, 2019

February 27, 2019--Nuked

I don't know how I feel about the list of targets in the U.S. that the Russians just announced could be nuked if we deploy new intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe.

Expecting that these targets for their "hypersonic" missiles would include Washington and New York, I was surprised (pleasantly?) that the targets include the Pentagon, various military bases, and Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland's Catoctin Mountains.

I am oriented to think this way as a former Cold War kid who grew up in Brooklyn, which at the time was threatened with nuking if, as it was feared, the Cold War turned hot. 

In fact, the Brooklyn Navy Yard (only a few miles from where I lived) was ground zero. Or was it Times Square? Either way, in spite of take-cover drills in which I participated at PS 244 and then Brooklyn Tech High School (walking distance to the Navy Yard), I would still be vaporized if one landed in Brooklyn or incinerated in a firestorm or rendered radioactive if a missile struck Times Square. 

None of these fates were very attractive.

So, Camp David, featured on the new list, felt relatively benign. Though it would be better, I perversely thought, if the Russians want to get under Trump's skin to leave Camp David off the target list (Trump doesn't much like it there--too primitive and no golf course) and switch the target to Mar-a-Lago.

Of course, I'm just being silly. About Mar-a-Lago, not the Trump-Putin threat. They are scary.



Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, April 02, 2018

April 2, 2018--Sabre Rattling

One good thing about the resumption of the Cold War is that we'll finally get to see what if any goods Putin and the Russians have on Donald Trump.

During the entire 2016 campaign and the first year of his administration Trump had nothing but positive and admiring things to say about the Russian leader. For someone who was attempting to project a tough-guy, commander-in-chief image, in regard to Putin, Trump came off as quite a wimp. 

Some said that Trump the crypto-totalitarian had genuine admiration for how the Russian strongman governed. He was a role model for the draft-dodging Trump. 

Others claimed that Trump was blackmailed into overlooking Putin's dictatorial methods because the Russians knew about Trump's history of money laundering, including direct Russian involvement, and sexual peccadilloes. There is that titillating BuzzFeed dossier hanging over Trump's head that allegedly alludes to Trump's bad-boy behavior during the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013.

In response to Trump's obsequious behavior, Putin for the past two years has made a version of nice. Unlike with Obama, who he wouldn't even pretend to look in the eye, Putin has had many flattering things to say about candidate and then president Trump, calling him, for example, a "genius"; while Trump cooed back, "He has done a really great job of outsmarting our country." 

A seeming bromance. And perhaps, as unlikely as it might seem, some speculated that with Trump and Putin maybe actually getting along, there would be the opportunity for a genuine reset in Russian-American relations.

But then the Russians poisoned Russian ex-spy, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter in London in early May. Seizing on this to revive her collapsing political fortunes, British prime minister Theresa May somehow manged to get NATO allies to condemn and sanction Russia. Diplomats were expelled from England, France, Germany, and a host of other western European countries. Leading the world in expressing outrage, May even got Trump to agree to send home 60 Russian diplomat/spies and shut down the Russian consulate in Seattle.

Wounded by this, the Russians retaliated, expelling equivalent numbers of our diplomats and spies and shutting down our consulate in St. Petersburg. It was Cold War deja-vu all over again.

And to make his actions emphatic, Putin had the Russian military fire off one of their newest Satan 2 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that has the capacity, they claim, to carry up to 10 miniaturized hydrogen bombs.


So now we not only have North Korea launching missiles that can reach America, we have the Russians doing the same, claiming that their missiles are "invulnerable" to American defenses.

If you're having trouble sleeping nights, this may be the reason. If you have kids in school, expect them soon to be diving under their desks during "take-cover" drills.

And if Trump gives in to his aides (read, John Bolton) who, the New York Times reported, are calling for "tougher Russia policies"--presumably increasing economic sanctions against Putin and his billionaire cronies--expect Putin to reply tit-for-tat. 

Then, if we get deeper into things, such as killing more Russian "volunteers" fighting in Syria, if he has salacious stuff about Trump, expect Putin to begin to leak it out.

That will manage to push Stormy Daniels off the front pages.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, August 14, 2017

August 14, 2107--Fallout Shelters

I was reading about how people who live on Guam received information about what to do if North Korea launches missiles their way.

They were warned not to look directly at the arriving missiles as they will be glowing from the heat of reentry and possibly exploding and thus it will not be safe to ones' eyes to look directly at them. People were also told not to shampoo their hair as radioactive fallout can cling to it. And residents and visitors were urged to seek shelter, to look for below-ground spaces to huddle in.

Then, in Friday's New York Times there was an article about Cold-War-era fallout shelters. I remember them quite vividly. Pretty much every apartment house in the city was deemed a shelter and some even stocked supplies of water and canned food.

The Times article included a picture of a building in downtown Manhattan where the sign designating it as a fallout shelter was still quite visible.

Scrutinizing it, Rona said, "This looks familiar. See what you think."

I stared at it and said, "I recognize it as well."

"Well, you should, she said, "It's our building in the city! The Randall House."

Randall House Service Entrance

"I think some people up here in Maine are stocking up on bottled water and canned goods."

"True," I said, "Saturday, in Hannifords, there was no water left on the shelves."

"But then again," Rona said, "it's Old Bristol Days here and the busiest weekend of the season."

"I wonder if in Manhattan there's any water and canned tuna fish stashed in our basement."

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, January 02, 2017

January 2, 2017--24 Hours At the New York Times

It took David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times, all of 24 hours to switch the story line.

On Friday his front page article was about how Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin, without overly joining forces, had "boxed in" Donald Trump by Obama's expelling 35 Russian diplomats, otherwise known as spies, and how it was expected that tempestuous Putin, as during the Cold War, would "retaliate" by doing much the same thing to American spies stationed in Russia.

Slipping into Soviet-era rhetoric, the Times party line proclaimed the boxing-in to be extra clever on Obama's part since what was Trump going to do--on his first day in office say to the Russians, who he appears eager to make a "deal" with, "Never mind. Your spies are welcome to return. I don't want this to inhibit my budding bromance with Putin."

If that came to pass we'd all be relieved to know that John McCain doesn't have his hands on the nuclear codes.

This first political reaction by the Times to the Obama moves, was that it effectively exposed Trump's naivety when it comes to Russia in the person of Putin, and would trigger an immediate retaliatory response by the hotblooded Russian president that would so sour any possibility for a real resetting of our relationship with Russia that Trump's efforts to cozy up to Putin would fail even before he was inaugurated and that would expose that Trump is as inept in dealing with the Russians as have been Obama and his succession of diplomats and secretaries of state.

Trump and the Republicans might manage to repeal Obamacare, chipping away at Obama's legacy, but this stealthy move by Obama would guarantee that Trump's presidency would start off with a whopper of a foreign policy failure. Not quite of Bay of Pigs or 9/11 or Syria magnitude, but still a big and embarrassing blunder.

Then a funny thing happened on the way to the boxing-in.

Putin did not retaliate. No U.S. spies were to be expelled. He said that wasn't a good or necessary idea because he didn't want to"create problems for American diplomats." The U.S. went low and he went high.

And then, undoubtedly not able to stifle a chuckle, added, "Furthermore, I invite all children of US diplomats accredited to Russia to the Christmas and New Year tree in the Kremlin." And then he signed the press release, in English, "Vladimir Putin."

Seizing the same moment, Trump tweeted--
Great move on the delay (by V. Putin). I always knew he was very smart.
Within minutes the Russian Embassy in Washington retweeted it.

And then within moments after that David Sanger and the New York Times had a different front page story--this time headlined: "From Russia, an Opening." "Risky," they warned, but an opening nonetheless. No longer so much a boxing-in.

Is it any wonder that a disproportionate number of chess grand masters are Russian?

                                

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, August 12, 2016

August 12, 2016--Russia Is Winning the New Cold War

It is now generally acknowledged that Russia's intervention in Syria has, from a Russian perspective, been effective.

Putin's Russia, unlike Obama's United States, is now seen to be the leading and most influential great power operating in the region. Russia's military and political support for Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, has effectively ended the rebellion against his government, and so now, since they made this possible, he is "owned" equally by both Russia and Iran, Assad's major patrons.

The United States is now relegated to the insignificant sidelines, unable to figure out which rebel faction(s) to support and is also seen to be impotent in regard to efforts to impose "red lines," topple Assad, or defeat ISIS.

Even in Second Cold War terms, Russia's modernized military is more than a match for ours even though we have outspent them on the development of smart weapons designed for asymmetrical warfare. This represents another miscall by the CIA and our military intelligence operatives--as during the First Cold War when they failed to notice that the Soviet Union's economy was collapsing under the pressure of attempting to compete with us weapon-system-by-weapon-system, this time around they failed to alert us to the power and sophistication of the new Russian military.

Most revealing, as Russia flexes new muscle to protect its borders as well as reduce the power of the United Staes and especially Western Europe, is the new cynical feel-good relationship developing between Russia and Turkey.

Just nine months ago a Turkish jet downed a Russian military aircraft and though it looked as if a hot war might break out between the two nations, in spite of this, earlier this week Turkish president Recep Tayyip-Erdogan was in Moscow to talk with President Putin about putting aside the past and establishing a closer relationship.

They both have skin in the regional game (and both leaders within their own countries need propping up) so going to war with each other would not be in either one's best interest.

Thus, out of mutual need, Turkey is raising questions about its role in NATO--something Putin enthusiastically welcomes--and Russia is helping to cut off the military aid the U.S. is supplying to the Kurds who are eager to carve Kurdistan out of land they live in in Syria, Iraq, and most geopolitically important, Turkey.

Erdogan is blaming America for the recent coup that failed to topple him and is suspicious about our agenda regarding the Kurds, while Putin seeks to destabilize NATO and push its forces, very much including those of the United States, back from its western borders.

Thus the appearance of these unlikely bedfellows. And their mutual interest in the candidacy of Donald Trump who is confounding our freight policy establishment as well as that of our NATO allies when he questions the on-going role of NATO, particularly why the U.S. should underwrite a disproportionate portion of its budget.

A more credible Republican candidate would have a field day with these failed polices of President Obama and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.


Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, April 25, 2016

April 25, 2016--Dateline: The Rest of the World

While waiting for election returns from Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Maryland, and Prince's autopsy findings, a new Cold War is breaking out. This time not only with Russia but also China. And, who knows, maybe with Saudi Arabia.

Vladimir Putin's Russia is beginning to sound and look like the old Soviet Union with economic dislocation fueling an aggressive foreign policy to both reannimate dreams of a restored Imperial Russia and as a chauvinistic distraction for the Russian people who will soon likely be needing to line up for hours to buy a loaf of bread or a liter of vodka. But while in line they will have their nationalistic dreams to sustain them.

Circuses but no bread.

Rather than acting like a European partner, which we saw signs of for a decade or so, Putin is leading Russia's military buildup and deploying forces on numerous fronts in an attempt to secure what it sees as its sphere of influence and to provide opportunities to flex military muscle in order to poke the US and Western Europeans in the eye, partly as a response to the economic sanctions we and our European allies have imposed on Russia in retaliation for its expansionist moves in Ukraine.

And, while they're at it, they've taken to buzzing U.S. warships in open waters

Under Putin's leadership they have of course reannexed Crimea, threatened various parties in the Balkans, and have become actively involved in Syria, deploying an entirely new mix of smart weapons whose existence has caught Western observes by surprise.

What happened to all those clunky Soviet tanks and misfiring missiles? Clearly once again avoiding CIA detection, right under the noses of our various surveillance agencies, the Russians seemingly overnight on the ground and in the skies in Syria are putting on display a whole range of new, sophisticated 21st century weapons systems.

So much for recent efforts under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to "reset" relations with Putin and Russia. He and Obama can't even talk to each other. Even Stalin and Roosevelt got along better!

Meanwhile, in Asia, also with thoughts about a restored Dynasty, President Xi Jinping of China, also in part to distract the Chinese people from a cooling economy and to deflect thoughts from rampant governmental and corporate corruption (which directly involves his own family), Xi has been investing heavily in modernizing and rapidly expanding China's military capacities and reach.

New fighter jets, aircraft carriers, and a modern submarine fleet are among recent acquisitions. In addition, as an extension of its imperial moves in the South China Sea, encroaching on what we impotently claim to be international waters, and pushing toward South Korean and Japanese waters, under Xi, China is creating a series of new islands which already include air strips and naval facilities. We talk and talk and threaten and threaten while China dredges and dredges and builds and builds.

Perhaps most ominous is Russia's and China's moves to modernize their nuclear weapons. Making warheads smaller and smaller so that they can be mounted on advanced intercontinental missiles with vastly increased capacities to avoid detection. In retaliation, the Obama administration, has quietly begun to do the same for our aging nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

Ironically, Barak Obama who came to office proclaiming that nuclear disarmament was his highest priority, and thus quickly received the Noble Peace Prize, is leaving office engaged in a restored full-tilt nuclear arms race with Russia and China.

And also while we have been obsessing about our presidential election and other entertainments, in response to the bold nuclear deal we struck with Iran, Saudi Arabia is talking quietly, in response to that, of developing its own nuclear weapons.

Sic transit . . .

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, November 30, 2015

November 30, 2105--The Legacy Business

I know, all recent presidents do it toward the end of their second terms--play the legacy game.

Nancy Reagan put Ronnie under pressure to focus on arms control during his last years in office to counteract the perception that he was a rigid, unrepentant Cold Warrior. He was so good at being flexible with the leadership of the Soviet Union that he was able to strike a series of arms control agreements with Mikhail Gorbachev that contributed a few years later to the collapse of the USSR and the end (at least until now) of the Cold War.

George W. Bush, stung by increasing criticism of of his Middle East policy, jettisoned one of the leading public faces of that failed war policy--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld--and committed himself to pulling all combat troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. He saw that to be an essential ingredient of his legacy, also pushed along to do so by his wife.

Which brings us to Barack Obama--the inheritor of various failed Bush policies, from a collapsed economy, out-of-control deficits, and Bush's unfulfilled pledge to withdraw our combat troops from the region, something Obama more or less carried out as part of his own legacy-building agenda.

Obama, in fact, has been thinking about his legacy from almost day one.

He did not want to go down in history as just "the first African-American president." He cared at least as much about substance. Thus Obamacare was a major accomplishment unto itself but also prime-cut legacy material--he uniquely was able to bring about a dramatic expansion of healthcare coverage, an unachieved goal of all presidents from at least Harry Truman days. As Joe Biden said at the time, "This is a f ***king big deal."

So that legislative achievement may make the first paragraph of his Wikipedia entry.

The same legacy claim was made when he appointed Sonia Sotomayer to the Supreme Court, the first Hispanic to serve.

Then, more recently, with his presidential clock counting down, Obama and his people began to think even more overtly about his legacy.

The nuclear deal with Iran is claimed to be his capstone foreign policy achievement and a big legacy item. Ditto for the recent Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. And even yesterday's headline on page one of the New York Times about the current climate summit was titled, "Obama's Legacy at Stake in Paris Talks on Climate Accord."

Not, the "World's Future at Stake in Paris Climate Talks."

That would be the more appropriate headline considering the nature of the problem--not Obama's legacy but the fate of Earth.

So, enough with the legacy business. We have serious issues to face. Including the defeat of ISIS/ISIL/IS/ or Daesh

In legacy terms this is not going well for Obama who just a day before the Paris massacre declared "ISIL contained."

Again, in legacy terms, it is sadly understandable that he was reluctant to appear too upset by the situation in the Middle East and now Europe. He doesn't want to rise of ISIL to creep onto the first page of his Wiki entry much less future histories of his presidency.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

June 16, 2015--The New Cold War

This report from the New York Times isn't from 1955 but appeared yesterday--
In a significant move to deter possible Russian aggression in Europe, the Pentagon is drawing up plans to store battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and other heavy weapons for as many as 5,000 American troops in several Baltic and Eastern European countries, official say.
What happened to détente? What happened with the Obama administration's claim that it had successfully pressed the "reset button" in our relations with Russia?

This sounds to me like all too familiar sabre-rattling.

But there's more.

A few days earlier the Pentagon announced that a Russian jet fighter buzzed a U.S. reconnaissance plane flying well outside Soviet borders over the Black Sea. It came within 10 feet of the American plane and maintained its provocative position for 10-15 minutes before breaking off. Overnight, the Russians announced they would match the U.S. buildup in Eastern Europe.

This to me sounds like back to the future and is very scary.


We know that Obama and Vladimir Putin despise each other and can't stand to be in the same room.

Nixon managed to meet and talk with Nikita Khrushchev, Roosevelt and Truman sucked it up and met and negotiated with Stalin, so why can't the current U.S. and Russian presidents do the same thing?

They would probably claim it's because they disagree about Crimea, which Russia annexed a year and a half ago. Obama sees Putin threatening more incursions in other culturally Russian parts of Ukraine; Putin sees it as an inevitable part of Russia's national destiny. We in America above all should understand his version of Manifest Destiny.

But none of this requires Cold-War-style confrontations. If Putin and Obama had a civil working relationships it all could be resolved with a few phone calls.
"Vlad, what's going on with you guys? I mean in Crimea." 
"Well, Barack, it's a traditional part of Russia, the people there are of Russian descent, speak Russian, and want to be a part of Russia. So why not let things take their course?" 
"I see your point. But what we need to do, Vlad, is sell the idea to our own people and make the case that you let the Crimeans vote about affiliating with Russia. Which they did and overwhelmingly wanted to. I'll work on Poroshenko to convince him it's no big deal. He owes me one. Everyone knows Crimea has been largely autonomous for decades so we should be able to put a fig leaf on the situation. How does that sound?" 
"I think I can make that happen. In the meantime, send my best to Michele." 
"And mine to . . . Sorry, I forgot her name. The gymnast?" 
"Alina, Alina Kabaeva. Will do. Talk to you soon. Call any time. You know I don't sleep."

So now that their relationship is ruptured, there will be no conversations of this kind and as a result we have economic and diplomatic sanctions flying in both direction, Russia has been kicked out of the G-8 (which is now again the G-7), and there are not-so-veiled threats of more to come, including additional close encounters in the sky and at sea. All we need is for one jet fighter pilot to make a mistake and launch a missile and who knows what would happen next.

This is the way adolescents behave, not the leaders of the world's two most powerful nations, both still with hundreds of intercontinental missiles at the ready and thousands of nuclear warheads.

Where are the adults?

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 08, 2014

October 8, 2014--E=MC2

The speed of light is very fast, in fact there is nothing faster in the universe. It is a very big number--light travels at 186,000 miles per second, or 299,792,458 miles an hour, which means that the light emanating from the sun, which is about 93 million miles from Earth, takes only 8 minutes and 20 seconds to reach us.

But on a cosmic scale, this is small potatoes.

The galaxy in which our solar system is located is so huge that that hugeness is expressed not in miles but in light years--how many miles light travels in a year. At 186,000 per second, that's very, very far. To give you a sense of that, our galaxy, the disk of the Milky Way, is about 100,000 light years in diameter.

Then, the ultimate measurement, our universe, everything that there is, is 93 billion light years in size, an almost infinitely large number to comprehend.

I have been thinking about the speed of light because a friend, Leslie Woodhead, is writing a book about the Atomic Era, not so much about the science as about the cultural and political consequence of a world full of atomic weapons. He wants to interview me because I am obsessed with The Bomb and how it has affected life on our planet. To satisfy my obsession, I have read and thought much about these issues. In addition, since he's British he wants to gather reflections from Americans who lived as youngsters through the early days of the Atomic Era and Cold War. I qualify in that regard as well.

In thinking what to say to him, I have dipped a bit into the science of the A-Bomb, especially the theory Einstein developed that defined and quantified the convertibility of mass to energy. As evidence and to demonstrate what that would mean in practical terms, converting a relatively smallish mass of Uranium-235 or Plutonium into a massive amount of energy (an atomic explosion), he propounded perhaps the most famous of all mathematical equations--E=MC2, with E representing Energy, M Mass, and C-squared the speed of light times itself.

With the speed of light by far the latest number in the equation, and then squaring it (multiplying it by itself), and then multiplying it additionally by the mass in question, reveals how such a powerful explosion could result in converting such a relatively small mass of radioactive material into energy--the cataclysmic force of an atomic explosion.

For example, a bomb weighing less than 10 tons with a Uranium-235 core weighing only141 pounds of which just one kilogram (2.2 pounds) underwent nuclear fission, an atomic bomb called Little Boy, was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, exploded with the force of 63,000 tons of TNT. Tons. And killed 135,000 Japanese.

I will want to talk with Leslie about take-cover drills in school where we were taught to dive under our desks if we saw a "blinding flash of light" from an A-Bomb exploding over Times Square, ground zero; and how, after the end of World War II, under Cold War pressure all presidents from Truman to Eisenhower to Kennedy to Johnson to Nixon were under pressure from their military advisers to use nuclear weapons preemptively, in turn, against the Soviets, the North Koreans, Cubans, and Vietnamese; and how this led to the establishment of a "national security state" with inordinate power accruing to the President with Congress assigned a subsidiary role, effectively resulting in  the end of  the Founders' concept of the "separation of powers."

But it will be hard to not be thinking about E=MC2, the speed of light, that kilogram of U-235, and those 135,000 killed that August.


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

September 16, 2014--Flying Saucers Have Landed!

Only two books remain from my adolescent 12-book "library"--Guadalcanal Diary, that 1943 best-seller which was given to me by my Uncle Ben, which is noted for its portrayal of gritty Marine-corps camaraderie; and George Adamski's, Flying Saucers Have Landed, which appeared 10 years later at the then height of the flying-saucer craze.

Adamski is one of the original contactees, claiming to have closely encountered space aliens who whisked him to the moon and other planets in their UFOs. His book is about that and, spectacularly, also includes an insert of glossy photos of spaceships that look like, well, saucers with tea cups placed on top or fluorescent cigar-shaped extra-terrestrial craft.

I understand my interest in the Marine-Corps manly camaraderie part--I was a too-skinny kid who had few friends, none of them very manly. But I am not sure why flying saucers were such an obsession. As they were for much of the nation living in Cold War fear of an impending nuclear cataclysm.

Maybe that's the point--the impending doomsday scenario. If we couldn't scare off the Russians with our own ICBMs, and they decided to nuke us, maybe some friendly space aliens would scoop us up and carry us off to the safety of the far side of Venus.

Today, belief in UFOs also works well with conspiratorial thinking.

If things are a seemingly out-of-control mess, there must be reasons for this that absolve us of responsibility. We can't have anything to do with causing Islamic jihadists to rampage across the Middle East. It couldn't possibly be even partly our fault that we are rapidly seeing the decline of two-parent families and same-sex marriage. If we weren't under alien control our schools would work better, people of color would calm down, women would stop wanting abortions, no one would be messing with our guns, or, above all, enable someone like a Barack Obama to become president.

This must all be part of an intergalactic conspiracy. Since real Americans left to our own devices and under our own control would never allow any of this to happen, there must be forces that have taken over our bodies, minds, and souls. Alien invaders and others who are disguised to look like humans are living among us in sleeper cells ready to strike and take control and dominate us when signaled by their masters to do so.

And to many who believe in this scenario, this explanation, that moment of total subjugation is near.

If you doubt this, for insomniacs, seven nights a week between 1:00am-5:00am Eastern Time, on AM radio, tune in to Coast to Coast hosted by George Norry. You will hear all about UFOs, parapsychology, strange occurrences, life after death, and other unexplained phenomena. Begun in 1984 by Art Bell, Coast to Coast is heard on nearly 600 station in the U.S. and has more than 3.0 million listeners, many of whom call in to report their own UFO sightings and abductions. Others tell about their ESP experiences or what they experienced when surviving clinical death (a hint--seeing angels and ghosts of long-departed relatives is part of the answer).

Last week Coast to Coast dealt with subjects ranging from how the Sandy Hook school massacre was a hoax, suspicious suicides throughout history (Cleopatra, Adolf Hitler, Kurt Cobain, and of course Marilyn Monroe), shamanism, biblical cycles, and how 9/11 was not caused by airplanes or explosions but by "directed energy technology."

And that was just last week!

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, August 15, 2014

August 15, 2104--Best of Behind: The Dead Rosenbergs


This is from a fictional memoir that I have been working on for a number of years. I posted this chapter on Behind on September 28, 2012. 
Yes, on June 20, 1953, Heshy Perlmutter and I made our way to the I. J. Morris Funeral Parlor in Brooklyn to see the bodies of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg who had been executed the day before in the electric chair at Sing Sing. I had never seen a dead person and the prospect of seeing two, and such notorious Soviet spies, was irresistible--
When we heard that the Rosenbergs had been electrocuted up in Sing Sing and that their bodies would be laid out and available for viewing at the I. J. Morris Funeral Parlor just six blocks from where we lived, Heshy and I raced over so we could for the first time see some real dead people. In my neighborhood we had seen lots of dead cats and dogs, but no dead bodies and thus had developed an inordinate interest in death.

But a lot of others had the same idea that hot June night, and thus we wound up near the end of a line that stretched around the corner. Since it took hours for the line to crawl toward the entrance, we learned from what we overheard that no one else shared our morbid obsession: We were there to see some corpses. Everyone else was lined up to pay their respects to these martyrs of “progressivism” and to protest not just their executions but the injustice of the entire American and Capitalist System. We barely understood any of this—the raging about Judge Kaufman, the abuse heaped on President Eisenhower who refused to stay their “murder,” and especially the fury reserved for someone named Roy Cohn, who, as a Jew, was venomously vilified for his role in their prosecution.

“He should rot in Hell,” we heard these atheists mutter.

Heshy and I understood what they were feeling. His father, Mr. Perly, was the local glazier and window blind maker but was better known for wandering the streets at night talking to himself, debating some inner furies, waving like a saber a rolled-up copy of the Daily Worker. Heshy knew that what his father was so agitated about also had something to do with Capitalism and “surplus value,” whatever that was, and lynchings and anti-Semitism and McCarthy and also that betrayer Roy Cohn.

More important, having Heshy with me meant that we would actually be allowed to enter I. J. Morris. You see, as we got closer to the door, word filtered back to us that to be admitted you had to be at least sixteen. He and I were a few years younger than that and were worried that they wouldn't let us in and that we would have to wait for subsequent executions before being able to see some dead people. But when we got to the entrance, the man guarding the velvet rope took one look at me, already almost six feet tall, and especially at Heshy’s premature beard, and waved us in. Heshy’s nickname, you should also know, was Big Dick.

Once inside, things settled to a hush. No more sputterings about the Running Dogs of Capitalism, just the muted sound of shuffling feet as we inched our way toward the chapel. As we crept forward, Heshy and I were whispering to each other about what to expect. We thought Julius and Ethel would probably just look like the dead cats—with stiff arms and legs and bulging, staring eyes (would they be attracting flies too?); but we grew increasingly nervous about how dead people who had been electrocuted would look.  We had never seen an electrocuted cat or dog.

What we knew from The Street was that when someone from Murder Incorporated went to The Chair, the next morning, screaming in six inch type from the front pages of the Daily News and Mirror would be the headline, “Bugsy Berkowitz Fries!” And since we knew how my mother’s fried liver looked—the closest thing to shoe leather not worn on a foot—we were trepidiously expecting the dead Rosenbergs to look like huge slabs of fried liver in side-by-side coffins. We were thus rethinking the whole situation: Maybe we should wait until we were really sixteen when perhaps someone would just die of a heart attack or something. That would be a better way to get started with dead bodies.

But before we could reconsider and get out of there, we were pushed through the chapel door by some grizzled shoemaker.  If we had thought about it, we might actually have been glad to have a shoemaker nearby as we approached the leathery Rosenbergs. He again began to spit about that “Jew bastard Roy Cohen.”

And then, there we were face to face with the dead Rosenbergs whose side-by-side coffins were tipped forward for better viewing. Dead they were, but under spot lights with orange faces and black hair that looked as if it had been touched up with shoe polish.  Julius’ mustache was so blackened that he appeared more like a Semitic Hitler than a Jew from the Bronx. It was not hard to believe, from their squirrelly looks, that they had been spies and had indeed given away to Russia the secret to the Atomic Bomb, which as a result caused us to have to practice taking cover under our desks in school in case the Reds decided to drop one on the Brooklyn Navy Yard.

The undertakers moved us along quickly so we had time for just a quick but sufficient glimpse and, in truth, a sniff because all the dead cats and dogs we knew stank something awful. We were curious about that too. But the Rosenbergs smelled more like the science lab in school, which was fitting since this whole experience was more like an experiment to us than a pilgrimage, except perhaps to Heshy who would be interrogated and lectured, we were certain, by Mr. Perly, about more than their hair, painted faces, and smell.

I had entered this cult of death as the result of being most responsible for taking care of the family plot in Mount Lebanon Cemetery. We couldn’t afford Perpetual Care for the graves so unless we were willing to let them become a jungle, someone had to go there regularly, spring through fall, to cut the grass and pull the weeds that were indigenous to that part of Queens. As the most dexterous family member this truly awesome responsibility fell to me. So clip and pull I did with barely disguised eagerness.

As I would work my way among the headstones that multiplied through the years, as I drifted further from the bench where my mother and aunts sat huddled, talking silently to their deceased mother and father, I began to think about more than what was growing above ground. What, I wondered, was happening below the ground? That was not a question I could openly ask about poor Uncle Hyman who, I had been told, died of a heart attack before he was fifty. The weeds, by the way, were thickest at his grave.

In the spirit of experiment, when one day Chirps my parakeet died, rather than leave it to my mother do whatever she did to dispose of our dead pet birds and guppies. I suspected the guppies got flushed away, I absconded with him, found an empty Hellmann’s Mayonnaise jar, washed and dried it thoroughly, put Chirps inside, screwed the top back on securely, and buried him in a shallow hole of a grave in the vacant lot next door. Thinking I would dig him up periodically to see what was happening to him in that jar, interred as I imagined he was, not so unlike Grandma and Grandpa and Uncle Hyman at Mount Lebanon. That would finally answer my existential question.

A week later, when I exhumed Chirps, he looked a little dried out, sort of what an apricot left too long in the sun begins to look like, with his flesh now sucked tight against his tiny bones. The second week it appeared that his eyes had disappeared. Where they went I couldn’t figure out—though I turned and shook the jar they didn’t seem to be in there anymore. This was getting profoundly interesting, and mysterious.

But when I went to unearth him for the third time, about a month after he died, I couldn’t find him or the jar. I had marked his place with a distinctive stone but couldn’t find it; and without that, I couldn’t remember precisely enough where he was buried. And so over the course of the next week, I dug up virtually the entire lot, which must have been 30 feet wide and 75 feet deep.

My mother wanted to know what I was doing out there at all hours. I reminded her that in the past I had planted a successful, even legendary vegetable garden and was thinking about doing that again.

She said, “But it’s November.”

And thus I gave up on Chirps, but not on my quest.

Next came my obsession with Egyptian mummies. Even before I was aware of King Tut and all the stories surrounding his discovery and his treasures, from Richard Haliburton’s Complete Book of Marvels, a huge and enthralling book given to me one birthday by my well-traveled Aunt Helen, I learned about the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, which included the Pyramids at Giza. And how they were in reality giant tombs for the most famous pharaohs. And that the dead pharaohs, turned into mummies, were sealed in those pyramids.

So when our public school class went on a trip to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, I managed to sneak away from the group and got “lost” for an hour in the labyrinth of the Egyptian Hall where, secured in glass cabinets in open coffins, what the Ancient Egyptians called sarcophagi, I could see actual mummies, dead pharaohs’ bodies that were more than 4,000 years old.

I was getting closer to the real thing. But there was still a problem—I couldn’t actually see the pharaohs’ bodies since they were so tightly wrapped in cloth shrouds. But the fact that I could sense more or less full bodies obscured within those wrappings suggested to me that both Chirps and Grandpa and Grandma might still be recognizable if somehow I could only get to them. After all, if the mummies were in such good shape after 4,000 years, Grandpa and Grandma and Chirps might still be quite like I remembered them.

Little did I know that before very long I would have a close encounter with a dead body, right in my own family, when one of Aunt Madeline’s husbands killed himself by taking an overdose of sleeping pills.

I barely knew him because they had been married less than six months. He seemed nice enough to me. Minimally he was the first of her husbands who wasn’t bald and, even more important to her, was taller than she and thus a better dance partner. Stories circulating in the family suggested that after living with Madeline for a few short months, he took the “easy way out” by killing himself. Though he may have had enough of her, from her carrying on after his death, she appeared to have lost the love of her life. In fact, things were so bad with her, and his ten year old son from a previous marriage, that it took her brothers’ and their wives’ total attention to console her.

Perhaps because of my experience weeding the family plot, I was assigned to help make arrangements for his funeral.

My primary responsibility was to give the mortician a suit in which to bury him. As you might imagine, at twelve, though tall for my age, I was not fully prepared for this. So I just grabbed the first suit I saw from his closet and spent the rest of my time hoping that at the service they would have an open coffin so I could at last . . .

To my considerable disappointment they didn’t.  But at the chapel, the funeral director to whom I had given Morty’s suit, pulled me aside and directed me to a very private corner where he whispered so as not to disturb anyone, “Was that his suit you gave me?”

“Certainly,” I said, “It was in his closet.”

“Are you sure?”

“I think so,” I stuttered, my certainty now eroding, “Why are you asking?”

“Because it looked as if it was a suit for a ten year old.”

I looked over to where Morty’s ten year old son was sitting and saw that he was in casual clothes. He was not wearing a suit.

The undertaker rasped in my ear, “I can’t tell you what we had to do to get it on the body.” I was cringing, “But we did,” he added with a twisted smile.

And so, on that day when I got to see the Rosenbergs, I was reminded of the guilt I felt about what I had inadvertently done to poor Morty.  But more, I couldn’t stop thinking about what the I. J. Morris needed to do to get that suit to fit.

My education and interests took some new directions as I began to grow into my body. And though a total failure at Hebrew School, where I was presumably to receive a religious education, in spite of my lack of facility for things of this kind, I begin to think about what one might call “spiritual things.”  Adolescent meaning-of-life questions—Where did we come from (not Facts of Life kinds of matters)? And where were we going (and I didn’t mean Mount Lebanon)?   Heshy, under the influence of Mr. Perly and his surging hormones, was ever the materialist and said, non-biblically, that we’re just a bunch of atoms and molecules and thus to a version of dust we shall revert, if we're lucky, after a life of feeling up the Siegel Twins in the school coat closet.

By then I was also into atoms (remember the A Bomb), but the dust-to-dust thing didn’t work for me. I had begun to think there were higher issues and meanings to being human. I saw a very different place in the world for us as compared to Chirps, the neighborhood cats,  and my guppies.

                                                                *    *    *

Many years later my father, well into his eighties, began to fail. He had always been such a force of nature. I know to children fathers often seem to be that powerful and arbitrary, but my father was truly tectonic. When he raged, all trembled; when he commanded, all obeyed; what he expected, we did; and when he acknowledged and in his own coded-way loved, we were smitten. So when his big body was being reduced by time and he could no longer move forward but was afflicted by what the medical people called “retrograde movement,” which meant he fell backwards when he attempted to move ahead, I saw this to be a metaphor for his decline—he was heading backwards, even while attempting still to cut his way through life.

To see him like this raised many more questions about the meaning of life, at least the meaning of a life. The answers I came up with were not comforting. Everything seemed to reduce itself to biology—eating and pissing and shitting was the final summing up. Not so different from what Heshy had been saying some years earlier.

Dad lived in Florida and we in New York; and so when my mother called to say, “Come down,” we got on a plane to Fort Lauderdale. We immediately lost our way from the airport to the hospital, grinding in frustration that we would miss the end. From my mother’s voice and her deserved fame as the family “witch,” invariably perceiving the future, we knew there was very little time and every missed turn made it less likely that we would find him still alive.

But with a sense of the miraculous, the hospital appeared just as we were about to make another futile U turn. We skidded the car into the parking lot and raced up the steps afraid that even to wait for the elevator would make us fatally late. We found his room and him in bed, unconscious, breathing with obvious final distress.

I sat beside him and held his withered hand, saying what I knew would be a few last words. There was no way to know if he heard me as I attempted to sum up what I had by then come to conclude about us (contested), his life (contradictory), and life itself (still imponderable). I longed to feel even a reflexive squeeze from him and perhaps there was one or at the very least a last spasm to let me know he understood, and that was what he too had come to understand.

And then all was utter, utter stillness.

I closed his quickly cooling eyelids and put my hand to his chest as he had done so many times to me when he would say to me as child and adult, “Such a good boy. Such a lucky boy.”

And then he was no longer there. Even during his last unconscious moments it was apparent that whatever he was was present but then that was gone. Just gone.

I looked at his body to see if I could perceive his spirit depart or whatever it was that was him.

But all there was was just a body.




Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, June 16, 2014

June 16, 2014--The Middle East? Hands Off

As President Obama feels the pressure to provide military assistance to the collapsing regime in Iraq, he and we should step back and review the last 2,500 years of history. Just a few pertinent highlights!

The major lesson is that no outside power, from Alexander the Great of Macedonia to the French and British imperialists, from the Soviet Union and now the United States, no one has been able to impose their will on the region.

All interventions, all attempts to subjugate proud and defiant peoples have failed. And worse--have reverberated back disastrously on the invaders, colonizers, and occupiers.

After 330 BC Alexander never recovered; the British and French colonial powers after the First World War never recovered; the Soviet Union collapsed and never recovered; and the United States lost treasure, power, and influence in the region and I suspect will also not recover.

So what to do now?

The right answer is nothing.

We should get out of the way and allow the people living there figure out their own futures, very much including their own borders.

If we could impose a sane and just plan of our own that would endure, I would consider supporting it. But the long reach of history teaches that any attempt to do so is doomed to fail and, worse, will only make things worse.

Look at the current situation in Iraq. The Sunni jihadists have already overrun a third of the country, a country that was arbitrarily constructed at the end of WW I. From the videos showing ISIS's triumphant advance, while the so-called Iraqi army discards its uniforms and attempts to blend in with the benighted civilian population, we see the invaders already in possession of American military equipment that also was abandoned by the Iraqi army.

This was evocative of the experience in Afghanistan where the U.S., still entangled in the Cold War, armed the Mujahideen who were fighting the invading Soviets and, after defeating them (which contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union), morphed into the Taliban which proceeded to overthrow the Afghan government and then turned its weapons, the ones we supplied, on us when we invaded at the end of 2001. And does anyone doubt that as soon as we finish leaving Afghanistan the Taliban will once again take over?

Sounds like current-day Iraq to me.

Seven years ago, presidential candidate Joe Biden was ridiculed when he said that Iraq should be allowed to devolve into three countries--Shiite in the south, Sunni in the middle, and Turkistan in the north.

He was right.

In fact, he could have advocated similar things for the rest of the region, from at least Tunisia in the west to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the east.

Few of the countries in that geographic span have cultural borders--Iran (formerly Persia) and Egypt are perhaps the exceptions--but rather ones drawn for them by various conquerers and occupiers.

For centuries, for their own strategic and economic purposes, dominant Western powers have attempted to contain and control the essentially tribal people who live in this vast region. Since the end of the Second World War, country-by-country this has been unraveling. And at an accelerated pace for the past four or five years. Recall the Arab Spring of 2010.

The emergence of jihadist and terrorist groups--ISIS is just the most recent example--feels especially threatening to our national interest. But it may be more dangerous to attempt to continue to contain these aspirations and energies than let to them play out.

The genie of various forms of liberation cannot be stuffed back in the bottle. It is much too late for that.

It may be less risky to step back and allow these contesting forces to work things out. We may not like this idea or the potential outcomes; but, in reality, do we realistically have the ability and resources to impose an alternative scenario?

Do we see ourselves intervening on the side of the Shia-dominated government in Iraq allied with Iran's Revolutionary Guard? As unlikely, even as preposterous as this may sound, it is being seriously discussed.

Frightening as that prospect is--very much including the blow to our national ego--it represents another reason to back off. If there is to be fighting, and of course there is and will be, at least it will be focused within the region, internecine, and less directed toward us. That could be truly in our national interest.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, April 25, 2014

April 25, 2014--Two Weak Men

Does anyone think the situation in Ukraine is headed in a good direction when two weak men's manhood is challenged?

One parades around topless, flexing in leather outfits while the other puts on a veneer of cool in search of his inner macho.

This may be one of the best recent examples of how the personal trumps the rational. It's all about mine-is-bigger-than-yours.

In an Enlightenment, post-Cold-War world reasonable self-interest is supposed to prevail. As the Godfather taught, "It's not personal. It's business."

Well . . .

A little history might be helpful--

In the 17th century, war between the Tsardom of Russia and the Polish-Lituanian Commonwealth resulted in Russian imperial control of most of what is now--at least for the moment--eastern Ukraine. And it wasn't until after the First World War that what we now think of as Ukraine was assigned its current borders and became semi-independent.

This is a mere sketch of Ukraine's shifting geography. If inclined, one can look back as far as the 7th century or as recently as the 1950s to see more ebb and flow.

So, in a rational or objective world, for the United States to be lecturing Russia, actually Putin, about Ukraine's immutable borders makes about as much historical sense as Putin chiding the United States, actually Obama, about our Southwestern borders, much of which belonged to Mexico until the mid-19th century. If we applied the same principles to ourselves that we are pressing on Russia, it would mean relinquishing Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and California.

So, what we are seeing is neither about history nor the aspirations of peoples from polyglot backgrounds (look at a current ethnic map of Ukraine if you want a glimpse of these deeper, nationalist problems) assigned to a fiction of a country, but rather the flexing of the out-of-control egos and vulnerabilities of two men who are locked in a dance likely spinning toward disaster.

It doesn't take a seer to predict that before too long Putin will make direct moves to re-annex at least the eastern half of Ukraine and who knows what else after that. And, in response, when Obama's layer of seemingly admirable cool cracks, who knows what fires within might be smoldering and what he might feel propelled to do.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

December 10, 2013--Cold War Redux?

Is the toppling of the statue of Lenin in Kiev a sign that the Cold War is finally fully ending or will there be a Russian response that will suggest it is being revived?

Is Beijing's move to begin the process of expelling Western journalists a sign that the Cold War with "Red" China is reheating?

Is North Korea's expansion of its no-fly zones and the beefing up of its military forces close to the border with South Korea another example of going back to the future?

Some are claiming that the presidency of Barack Obama is foundering, America's influence is waning, and this represents an opportunity for leaders who wish to extend their reach and power to take advantage of the situation.

Vladimir Putin has clearly made moves recently to expand Russia's influence, especially in the Middle East where he rescued Obama from his carelessly drawn red line about Syria's use of chemical weapons against his own people.

And in Ukraine, where there is an incipient revolt underway among those who want to see their country tilt toward Western Europe and not affiliate with the Russian led Customs Union, the government there, with clear Russian support, is as I write moving to suppress the uprising. Will we soon see Russian tanks on the streets of Kiev as we did in 1956 on the streets of Budapest to put down the Hungarian Revolution?

I would not be surprised.

China, in addition to playing with the idea to expel journalists who have been writing probing stories about corruption at the highest levels, has recently reengaged with Japan about control of a couple of rocky, uninhabited islands they both claim is in their historic and national interest. To underline the point, China established a "air defense identification zone," airspace that overlaps a region that Japan and South Korea claim is theirs to manage or is over international waters. To emphasize the point, the United States, without informing China, sent two B-52s into the disputed airspace as a way to demonstrate that we do not recognize China's claim of sovereignty and will stand by our two East Asian allies.

Will an unintentional incident ignite this now heating up situation? I would not be surprised.

And in North Korea, Kim Jong-un has purged his uncle and others in a move to consolidate his one-man rule--to secure his position as what they call the "unitary center." To underscore this he simultaneously made a series of moves to threaten South Korea and its principal ally--the United States. Like the Chinese, perhaps inspired by them, he is attempting to expand the area that he claims is essential to North Korea defending itself and has apparently resumed processing nuclear material to replenish North Korea's stockpile of atomic weapons.

This is sounding spookily familiar to me.

Though it is unlikely that China, Russia, and North Korea are seeking to precipitate an actual clash, there are so many moving pieces, so much bad history and national ego involved--including among the new Japanese and South Korean leadership (with the U.S. right in the middle)--that events could easily spin out of control. All at a time when our president has been seriously weakened and might be tempted to restore his credibility by allowing the tail to wag the dog.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, December 04, 2013

December 4, 2013--Requiring Math

There was a report in yesterday's New York Times about how American school children in mathematics continue to slip behind students in other countries.

At one time our kids scored at the highest levels on international tests. Last year they slipped behind students in Ireland and Poland and in previous years saw themselves coming in well behind those in China, Japan, South Korea, and Finland.

The United States came in 36th while Latvia was 28th, Slovenia 21st, and Liechtenstein 8th.

While worrying about this, I recalled a board meeting I went to some years ago of one of America's leading education reform organizations. It was a bluechip board and included, among others, two former Secretaries of Education.

The discussion turned to ways to improve math instruction, especially for low-income students. There was a promising approach being developed in Houston called Move It Math. An educator from there made a presentation about what made this approach promising and how there was gathering evidence that students befitted from its methods.

I didn't have much to say, not knowing all that much about math instruction. But after a time, I requested the floor and asked why we require all children to take math in elementary, middle, and high schools and often in college. "Why must everyone take algebra?" I wondered, acknowledging this was a heretical thought since years and years of math had been a universal requirement for decades.

"Why geometry and trigonometry? What's the case for that?" I asked. "Particularly when this seems to be so difficult for so many students and that struggle--frequently unsuccessful--turns them off to other parts of the curriculum."

There was more than a moment of silence. I thought because the others in the room were wondering how to metaphorically pat me on the head without offending me so they could get back to a serious discussion about ways in which to improve math instruction.

Finally, surprising me since I had not until that moment had such a thought, the dean of a noted school of education said, perhaps surprising herself as well, "This is worth considering." All heads around the table swung in her direction.

"How much of this makes education sense as opposed to giving in to the math industry."

"Math industry?" a nationally-known professor of educational history asked with considerable sarcasm.

"You should know all about that," the dean replied. "How years ago organized groups of math instructors and advocates from organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, founded, I think, in about 1920, how they fought hard to get as much math as possible included in the core curriculum. And how, among other things, by having such a central place in what was required of students more power and jobs accrued to those in what I just called the math industry. And I'll stand my that."

Around the table a few heads began to nod.

"And let's not forget that this focus on math--and science--swelled, in reality became  a nation obsession after 1957 when Russia launched Sputnik. As part of our effort to win the Cold War."

"If we didn't require so much math, how much should be required?" a midwestern university president asked. "I'm assuming that no one here is saying that no arithmetic or mathematics should be required. If we want to talk about this seriously we need to address that. Also, we need to discuss national needs. How important is math to the viability of the American economy because, let's be frank, to justify public support for education (and not just for mathematics) we need to be able to make the case that what we are now seditiously considering," he smiled at that, "among other things, must be in the best economic interest of America in a globalizing world."

"I can see," I jumped back in, "requiring basic arithmetic and computational skills--those proven to be necessary to functioning as a citizen: how to keep track of one's finances, be an informed citizen and voter, things of that sort. And I can see introducing everyone to mathematical reasoning and elementary algebra so, among other things, those with math talent will be challenged and interested and also to let educators know the math capacities and gifts of their students so that those with mathematical inclinations can be discovered and encouraged to pursue more math more seriously."

I continued, "This are very preliminary thoughts. Admittedly I do not really know what I am talking about when it comes to the details of mathematics education and methodologies," there was considerable playful nodding when I acknowledged that, "but rather step-back questions to see if what we are requiring makes sense and is not just being driven by tradition and, in some cases," I looked toward the dean, "organizational self-interest."

"We need to come back to that," the board chair was eager to move on, and we did.

Some years later, contemplating the full meaning of the Program for International Student Assessment scores, I wonder if it might be time to get back to that discussion.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, November 22, 2013

November 22, 2013--Still Numb

Everyone old enough is thinking back to 50 years ago.

"Where were you when you heard?"

No one needs to ask, "Heard what?"

I was typing notes for a class I would be teaching later in the day at Queens College. That and everything else except the grief was suspended. It was not necessary to call the college to see if classes were being cancelled. I just knew. We just knew all we needed to know. The assassination. That was it.

There was fear. We were still waging the Cold War and, who knew, maybe the Russians were responsible and there would be more. It was only a year and a month since the Cuban Missile Crisis when we stood at the brink of a full-scale nuclear war. That was not propaganda or political posturing. It was one minute to midnight.

If you had someone to cling to, to weep with, you did.

And watch on black-and-white TV through that longest day and into and through the night and next day. And the day after that. And then one more day.

Numb.

Still numb today.

It will never be different. Or the same.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

October 30, 2013--Garrison State


I've been reading about President Eisenhower--a more interesting and complex man than popularly remembered. He was not just an overachiever--supreme commander of allied forces during the Second World War or the bumbling political amateur who in 1952, mainly through his open smile, was elected to the first of two terms as president.
He may have seemed more interested in playing bridge than governing and may have appeared to be more focused on his putting than foreign affairs, but that is a self-deprecating image he carefully cultivated. He famously said to an aide just before a critical press conference, "Don't worry, I'll confuse them." And he did!
By pretending to be less than he in fact was, he enhanced his power to steer the country through perilous times. Recall, he served during the height of the Cold War when there was the real possibility that America and the Soviets would become involved in a civilization-ending nuclear war.
He is best known and most highly regarded by liberals for his farewell address in which he warned about the spreading power of the "military-industrial complex." But there is more in that speech, largely overlooked, that offers additional lessons for our own time--Eisenhower's concern that in our fear of an atomic attack by the Soviets we would become what he called a "garrison state"; and in so becoming, run the danger of losing basic civil liberties and irrevocably altering the democratic character of our country.
At the time, policymakers and the public had little reliable information about the nature of the Soviet threat and this uncertainty added to the fear citizens felt. This fear, among some, turned into paranoia, Red-baiting witch-hunts, and calls for unbridled military spending to meet the unknown and therefore menacing nature of Soviet military power.
Eisenhower was concerned that fear-driven loose talk about the nature of Soviet intentions could in itself be dangerous to U.S. security. He felt that Soviet capacity for war was being overstated by self-interested military leaders and demagogues such as Senator Joseph McCarthy. 

Additionally, he contended, there was a high price to pay for exaggerating Soviet motivations. That paying too much attention to the alleged military potential of the Soviet Union would turn the United States into a state armed beyond our needs; deeply in debt because of all the military spending; with the economy, as a result, dominated by the arms race. And, because of the fear of external, and more significant, purported internal enemies, we were in danger of seeing our civil liberties eroded.

As, during the Red scare, they were.

From his farewell address, in Eisenhower's words—
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. 
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
We would do well today to heed these words. 

We are becoming a national security state in which most of our resources are being diverted to defense spending. Fearing terrorism--as Americans in the 50s feared communism and Soviet threats--the public is passive as we spend most of our national treasure on weapon systems we do not in fact need; run up massive debts to pay for them; and, most distressing, overwhelmed by fear, seem complacent when an every-expanding government tramples on constitutional rights to privacy and free expression. 

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,