“If you can’t stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.”—Harry S. Truman
Sarah Palin’s supreme political moment came when she gave her acceptance speech for the Vice-Presidential nomination at last year’s Republican Convention. Since then she has descended slowly but inexorably towards a political precipice which has already claimed several promising new stars in the G.O.P.
Palin’s resignation as Governor of Alaska (although shocking to many) is really not surprising when considering her performance as a politician since August last year. When I first wrote about her I considered her presence a charming new start for the G.O.P. which badly needed some changes but now, after nearly a year in the spotlight, Sarah Palin no longer appears to be Presidential timber but more like Presidential kindling—mere fuel for the prairie fire which is always Presidential campaign politics.
At best political pundits can call her questionable move unorthodox but in reality her departure reeks of opportunism; a reluctance to risk her shaky political reputation in the risky and tedious business of governing the largest state in the Union; and, perhaps, a personal inability to rise above the attendant intense media scrutiny all potential Presidential candidates must endure if they are to achieve the Presidency.
Ever since Sarah Palin got the taste of the Presidency in her mouth it seems obvious in retrospect that she considers being the governor of Alaska as an obstacle to her quest for higher office. Now that she has become a national figure, the Governor’s seat has turned into a confining box (a political coffin maybe?) that she needs to jettison, to escape from. What Sarah Palin fails to realize though is that if American history teaches us anything it is that many governors have used their office as laboratories to develop and experiment with new policies which could then be translated onto the national stage. Franklin Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all followed that path towards the Oval Office. Sarah Palin’s refusal to do the same must be seen as a failure of political nerve. Alaska, like all other 49 states in the Union, is in an economic crisis. If Sarah Palin really wanted to demonstrate that she was worthy of the Oval Office then remaining at her post and working like hell to get Alaska out of its doldrums would be the best course for her. Of course there is always the chance that she might have failed in the attempt which, in turn, would have cost her dearly in 2012 but those are the risks every politician must take if they are to achieve the Presidency. Every President from Washington to Obama took some awesome risks to become President: that’s the nature of the job.
As it stands right now, Palin did not do enough as governor to show that she is Presidential material. What probably hurt her chances of winning the White House the most was when Republican Senator Ted Stevens failed to win reelection last year after being convicted of corruption charges (his conviction was later overturned due to prosecutorial bungling). Had Stevens won reelection he probably would have been forced to resign his seat. Had this had happened Sarah Palin would have been obligated to select a replacement for Stevens and I have no doubt she would have chosen herself to fill that role. Had this had happened Palin could have improved her political stock immeasurably. As a Senator she would have been better placed to address national issues than as governor. She would have been the 41st Republican Senator and could have used her seat as a powerful tool to block or filibuster the Obama Administration’s costly programs. She could have rapidly emerged as a catalytic presence in the Senate and could have provided some badly needed energy into the G.O.P. minority ranks. By 2012 she would have come a long way towards achieving the badly needed political experience and maturity necessary to become President.
But it didn’t happen that way.
Sara Palin may feel that garnering headlines is equivalent to being Presidential but if that were true then Jesse Jackson would have been elected President in 1988. Fortunately for America that did not happen. Indeed the way she does make headlines is disturbing in some respects. She complained in her resignation speech about the intense media scrutiny on her and her family. All well and true but does she expect the media scrutiny ever to lessen if and when she does close in on the Presidency? Even more disturbing is her Nixonian tactic of labeling every gaffe or miscue she makes media lies and distortions. That inability to learn from her mistakes and rise above them is more about her wanting to have her cake and eat it too. Her complaints about how the media has pried into her family’s affairs are disingenuous as well. She has not hesitated to use her children as stage props for her political campaign. Their willingness to be used in that manner makes them fair game for the media. Interestingly the Obamas have done a much better job at guarding the privacy of their young children than Sarah Palin has with hers.
Sarah Palin will run for President in 2012 but whether she will win the office is another matter for another time and place. A good viable female conservative Republican candidate would go a long way towards restoring the G.O.P.’s political and ideological spirit.
Sarah Palin, right here, right now, is not that woman.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Michael Jackson: The Price of Fame and Youth
“To have fame and youth at once is too much for a mortal”—Schopenhauer, German philosopher
So, too, it was for Michael Jackson. Was he the King of Pop? No, that title rightfully belonged to Frank Sinatra. Michael Jackson for the last twenty-seven years of his life and career was the King of Plop or should I say the King of Hype? As his creativity gradually declined in the wake of his magnum opus Thriller his hype and notoriety grew exponentially, like a cancer upon the world’s hedonistic consciousness. At the end the only thing sustaining his name was his hype. He squandered and exhausted his creativity decades ago.
When John Lennon died I was devastated and I wept for his passing. When Kurt Cobain died I sympathized and understood. When Frank Sinatra died, I paid homage and showed respect. When Ray Charles and James Brown died (two authentic musical geniuses) I truly mourned.
To be cruelly blunt, I felt nothing when I received the news about Michael Jackson’s death; and with it the allegations of prescription drug abuse, not even surprised. John Lennon, shortly before his assassination, commenting on the death of Elvis, said that “the courtiers always kill the king.” So too it was for Michael Jackson as it was for Elvis; the same enabling support systems; the same refusal by his family and friends to properly confront his destructive addictions and habits head on because they were beholden financially to him. Just Elvis needed his Memphis Mafia, his gun collection, his karate lessons, his girlfriends in white lingerie, and his trusted physician Dr. Nick to administer his “medications” (and even when Dr. Nick wasn’t available, Elvis had plenty of other physicians who could be counted on to administer the prescription drugs he desperately craved and was addicted to) so, too, it was for Michael Jackson. He, too, needed the enablers, the omnipresent Doctor Feelgoods, his personal amusement park, his bizarre toys, and, lastly, his young child playmates for the sleepovers at his mansion.
When I started blogging in May 2005, one of my first blog entries was about the civil suit against Michael Jackson for allegedly molesting various young children during the course of his career. I remember a phrase I used when commenting on the trial. It went like this: rule of the fast lane: there are no victims only volunteers. The phrase remains apt. Even though he was never formally convicted of child molestation charges it remains disturbing (and compelling) that he deliberately placed himself in a position where such accusations could be made. Even allowing him the presumption of legal innocence his personal judgment must be seen as appalling if not criminal. And why did he settle out of court with the children’s families in question? Why, afterwards, did he consider seeking citizenship in Bahrain (in the Middle East) where there is no extradition treaty with the U.S. for sex crimes?
When contemplating the flotsam and jetsam of his life, I am reminded of something former Jimi Hendrix Experience drummer Mitch Mitchell said in a documentary about Jimi Hendrix. Mitchell was asked about how the various leaches and hangers-on in Hendrixes life contributed to his death. Mitchell acknowledged their role but made some interesting remarks which need to be considered. I don’t what Mitchell said precisely but the gist is as follows: Mitchell said that, yes, Hendrix did have a lot of leaches and spongers living off of him but that Hendrix knew what he was taking on otherwise Jimi would not have gotten involved in it. Mitchell added that Hendrix took on what he wanted to take on. In other words, Hendrix lived the way he did with his eyes wide open.
So, too, it was for Michael Jackson. He took on what he wanted to take on and in the end it took him. In the end what’s left is the debris of his personal life and, sadly, his three children who, already, are being used as pawns. (I have a nasty prediction to make: don’t be surprised if their grandfather, Michael Jackson’s father, tries to forcibly forge the three kids into a musical act in the forlorn hope of regaining the Jackson’s family musical glory. Considering that Jackson’s father is a psycho-hose beast stage father, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit).
In the end, with regards to Michael Jackson, all I have to say is good, bloody, riddance.
So, too, it was for Michael Jackson. Was he the King of Pop? No, that title rightfully belonged to Frank Sinatra. Michael Jackson for the last twenty-seven years of his life and career was the King of Plop or should I say the King of Hype? As his creativity gradually declined in the wake of his magnum opus Thriller his hype and notoriety grew exponentially, like a cancer upon the world’s hedonistic consciousness. At the end the only thing sustaining his name was his hype. He squandered and exhausted his creativity decades ago.
When John Lennon died I was devastated and I wept for his passing. When Kurt Cobain died I sympathized and understood. When Frank Sinatra died, I paid homage and showed respect. When Ray Charles and James Brown died (two authentic musical geniuses) I truly mourned.
To be cruelly blunt, I felt nothing when I received the news about Michael Jackson’s death; and with it the allegations of prescription drug abuse, not even surprised. John Lennon, shortly before his assassination, commenting on the death of Elvis, said that “the courtiers always kill the king.” So too it was for Michael Jackson as it was for Elvis; the same enabling support systems; the same refusal by his family and friends to properly confront his destructive addictions and habits head on because they were beholden financially to him. Just Elvis needed his Memphis Mafia, his gun collection, his karate lessons, his girlfriends in white lingerie, and his trusted physician Dr. Nick to administer his “medications” (and even when Dr. Nick wasn’t available, Elvis had plenty of other physicians who could be counted on to administer the prescription drugs he desperately craved and was addicted to) so, too, it was for Michael Jackson. He, too, needed the enablers, the omnipresent Doctor Feelgoods, his personal amusement park, his bizarre toys, and, lastly, his young child playmates for the sleepovers at his mansion.
When I started blogging in May 2005, one of my first blog entries was about the civil suit against Michael Jackson for allegedly molesting various young children during the course of his career. I remember a phrase I used when commenting on the trial. It went like this: rule of the fast lane: there are no victims only volunteers. The phrase remains apt. Even though he was never formally convicted of child molestation charges it remains disturbing (and compelling) that he deliberately placed himself in a position where such accusations could be made. Even allowing him the presumption of legal innocence his personal judgment must be seen as appalling if not criminal. And why did he settle out of court with the children’s families in question? Why, afterwards, did he consider seeking citizenship in Bahrain (in the Middle East) where there is no extradition treaty with the U.S. for sex crimes?
When contemplating the flotsam and jetsam of his life, I am reminded of something former Jimi Hendrix Experience drummer Mitch Mitchell said in a documentary about Jimi Hendrix. Mitchell was asked about how the various leaches and hangers-on in Hendrixes life contributed to his death. Mitchell acknowledged their role but made some interesting remarks which need to be considered. I don’t what Mitchell said precisely but the gist is as follows: Mitchell said that, yes, Hendrix did have a lot of leaches and spongers living off of him but that Hendrix knew what he was taking on otherwise Jimi would not have gotten involved in it. Mitchell added that Hendrix took on what he wanted to take on. In other words, Hendrix lived the way he did with his eyes wide open.
So, too, it was for Michael Jackson. He took on what he wanted to take on and in the end it took him. In the end what’s left is the debris of his personal life and, sadly, his three children who, already, are being used as pawns. (I have a nasty prediction to make: don’t be surprised if their grandfather, Michael Jackson’s father, tries to forcibly forge the three kids into a musical act in the forlorn hope of regaining the Jackson’s family musical glory. Considering that Jackson’s father is a psycho-hose beast stage father, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit).
In the end, with regards to Michael Jackson, all I have to say is good, bloody, riddance.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Iran: An Aroused Electorate
A strange fire is being kindled in Iran; a fire that has the enormous potential of erupting out of its chamber and consuming all who stand before it. The growing protests in Iran led by supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi over the results of the Presidential election are reaching critical mass. Despite Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s affirmation of the election results and his threats of a brutal crackdown the simmering fury of an aroused electorate continue to grow. Khamenei’s reaction was not surprising. After all the repudiation of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s electoral “victory” is also a repudiation of Khamenei (and his ilk) as well.
The protest movement in Iran raises more questions than it answers. Does Mousavi know that to overthrow Ahmadinejad he must also overthrow Khamenei, the mullahs, the Revolutionary Guard, and the militias that do the filthy work of the present regime? If Mousavi succeeds in overthrowing the present regime and its associates what will he create in its place? A more socially liberal regime or will this is be a repeat of 1979 when the Shah of Iran (a brutal dictator who ruled in the Western-style) was overthrown by another brutal dictator who ruled in accordance with the tenets of Islamic fundamentalism? Is Mousavi truly motivated to achieve true reform in Iranian society or this is another mad quest for power by a self-seeking adventurer (which one could say the late Ayatollah Khomeini was when he ruled Iran). Another question is this: is it truly possible to reconcile democratic socio-political values with the Shiite Islamic faith? Indeed this leads to further questions: if Mousavi’s revolt (and that is the proper word for what is going on right now in Iran) succeeds what will happen to Khamenei and his fundamentalist mullahs who have held great power in Iranian society since 1979? Does Mousavi send them all into exile (which allows the surviving mullahs to foment potential counter-revolution like Khomeini did when the Shah exiled him?) Or does Mousavi have them all killed which would lead to the mullahs being declared martyrs by their adherents and which would then spark even great counter-revolution? Given a cursory look at their records there is no way that Khamenei and the mullahs would ever peacefully accept being reduced to socio-political impotence. Even if Mousavi’s revolt succeeds there is a distinct possibility that Iran can and will disintegrate into a costly and prolonged civil war; perhaps even fragmenting the country geographically as well as politically. If such a civil war does take place how will that impact the Middle East and the world? If a civil war erupts and it disrupts Iran’s considerable presence in the oil-producing market than one much expect an even greater spike in gasoline prices than what we’ve seen during the past year.
And what can America to do while all this goes on? As it stands right now we can do nothing. This is an Iranian matter and must remain so. For all our loathing of the present Iranian regime, we must remain silent. It’s no accident that Ayatollah Khamenei tries to portray Mousavi as an American stooge (please remember one of the prime motivating factors in the overthrow of the Shah of Iran was that the Shah was very much a client king of the U.S. during his reign from 1941 to 1979). Indeed there is no guarantee that Mousavi will be more friendlier to the U.S. than Ahmadinejad is right now.
No, all we can do is sit and watch this revolutionary tennis match which will have seismic socio-political ramifications for the world at large.
The protest movement in Iran raises more questions than it answers. Does Mousavi know that to overthrow Ahmadinejad he must also overthrow Khamenei, the mullahs, the Revolutionary Guard, and the militias that do the filthy work of the present regime? If Mousavi succeeds in overthrowing the present regime and its associates what will he create in its place? A more socially liberal regime or will this is be a repeat of 1979 when the Shah of Iran (a brutal dictator who ruled in the Western-style) was overthrown by another brutal dictator who ruled in accordance with the tenets of Islamic fundamentalism? Is Mousavi truly motivated to achieve true reform in Iranian society or this is another mad quest for power by a self-seeking adventurer (which one could say the late Ayatollah Khomeini was when he ruled Iran). Another question is this: is it truly possible to reconcile democratic socio-political values with the Shiite Islamic faith? Indeed this leads to further questions: if Mousavi’s revolt (and that is the proper word for what is going on right now in Iran) succeeds what will happen to Khamenei and his fundamentalist mullahs who have held great power in Iranian society since 1979? Does Mousavi send them all into exile (which allows the surviving mullahs to foment potential counter-revolution like Khomeini did when the Shah exiled him?) Or does Mousavi have them all killed which would lead to the mullahs being declared martyrs by their adherents and which would then spark even great counter-revolution? Given a cursory look at their records there is no way that Khamenei and the mullahs would ever peacefully accept being reduced to socio-political impotence. Even if Mousavi’s revolt succeeds there is a distinct possibility that Iran can and will disintegrate into a costly and prolonged civil war; perhaps even fragmenting the country geographically as well as politically. If such a civil war does take place how will that impact the Middle East and the world? If a civil war erupts and it disrupts Iran’s considerable presence in the oil-producing market than one much expect an even greater spike in gasoline prices than what we’ve seen during the past year.
And what can America to do while all this goes on? As it stands right now we can do nothing. This is an Iranian matter and must remain so. For all our loathing of the present Iranian regime, we must remain silent. It’s no accident that Ayatollah Khamenei tries to portray Mousavi as an American stooge (please remember one of the prime motivating factors in the overthrow of the Shah of Iran was that the Shah was very much a client king of the U.S. during his reign from 1941 to 1979). Indeed there is no guarantee that Mousavi will be more friendlier to the U.S. than Ahmadinejad is right now.
No, all we can do is sit and watch this revolutionary tennis match which will have seismic socio-political ramifications for the world at large.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Song: Hammer or Anvil...and the story behind the song
"In life, one must either be hammer or anvil"
--Goethe, German writer and philosopher
I wrote this song in the late winter of last year. It was written and influenced completely by the Elliot Spitzer scandal when (then) Democratic Governor of New York Elliot Spitzer was forced to resign as Governor when it turned out he had been a frequent client of a Washington, DC escort service. The irony of Spitzer's downfall had been that he had been a very vocal advocate of "family" values and condemning pornography and other assorted immoral aspects of American society.
Thus the exposure of Spitzer's hypocrisy made for delicious debate among American political pundits as well as ending a once promising political career.
The title of the song is drawn from the above-mentioned quote from Goethe. It is also drawn from one of my favorite episodes from the 1967 British mini-series The Prisoner which starred Patrick McGoohan (who also used the above-mentioned quotation) when facing his nemesis, Number Two.
The lyric is relatively self-explanatory about the Spitzer scandal.
The "no rights we can abuse" line is me making a social comment about the Bush Administration.
The "wife displayed" line is me commenting on Spitzer's execrable decision (like all other politicians who get caught in scandals) of having his wife stand by his side (and thus forcing her to share in his humiliation) while he tries to explain the unexplainable; justify the unjustifiable; and ask for pity when he was being pitiless to the woman he loved.
When it comes to the melody, imagine acoustic guitars scraping, elementary percussion instruments being shaken, while a hammer clangs against an anvil in the background.
Enjoy
"Hammer or Anvil"
What you’ll be is precisely what you’re not
What you’ll get is what you haven’t got
The lie you live is not the lie you are
The path you lead is not the path you carved
Dishonesty’s disarray
Communities we betray
The answers left unsaid
The debtors left unpaid
Excess is no excuse
No rights we can abuse
The hammer becomes the anvil now
The anvil chorus destroys the sacred cow
What you missed is what you haven’t shot
What you pissed is what’s outside the pot
The life you take is not the life you sought
The wife displayed is not the wife you bought
Hypocrisy’s panoply
Idolatry’s feet of clay
The heroes left unsaved
The villains left depraved
Excess is no excuse
No rights we can abuse
The hammer becomes the anvil now
The anvil chorus destroys the sacred cow
© 03/14/2008 by Matthew DiBiase
--Goethe, German writer and philosopher
I wrote this song in the late winter of last year. It was written and influenced completely by the Elliot Spitzer scandal when (then) Democratic Governor of New York Elliot Spitzer was forced to resign as Governor when it turned out he had been a frequent client of a Washington, DC escort service. The irony of Spitzer's downfall had been that he had been a very vocal advocate of "family" values and condemning pornography and other assorted immoral aspects of American society.
Thus the exposure of Spitzer's hypocrisy made for delicious debate among American political pundits as well as ending a once promising political career.
The title of the song is drawn from the above-mentioned quote from Goethe. It is also drawn from one of my favorite episodes from the 1967 British mini-series The Prisoner which starred Patrick McGoohan (who also used the above-mentioned quotation) when facing his nemesis, Number Two.
The lyric is relatively self-explanatory about the Spitzer scandal.
The "no rights we can abuse" line is me making a social comment about the Bush Administration.
The "wife displayed" line is me commenting on Spitzer's execrable decision (like all other politicians who get caught in scandals) of having his wife stand by his side (and thus forcing her to share in his humiliation) while he tries to explain the unexplainable; justify the unjustifiable; and ask for pity when he was being pitiless to the woman he loved.
When it comes to the melody, imagine acoustic guitars scraping, elementary percussion instruments being shaken, while a hammer clangs against an anvil in the background.
Enjoy
"Hammer or Anvil"
What you’ll be is precisely what you’re not
What you’ll get is what you haven’t got
The lie you live is not the lie you are
The path you lead is not the path you carved
Dishonesty’s disarray
Communities we betray
The answers left unsaid
The debtors left unpaid
Excess is no excuse
No rights we can abuse
The hammer becomes the anvil now
The anvil chorus destroys the sacred cow
What you missed is what you haven’t shot
What you pissed is what’s outside the pot
The life you take is not the life you sought
The wife displayed is not the wife you bought
Hypocrisy’s panoply
Idolatry’s feet of clay
The heroes left unsaved
The villains left depraved
Excess is no excuse
No rights we can abuse
The hammer becomes the anvil now
The anvil chorus destroys the sacred cow
© 03/14/2008 by Matthew DiBiase
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor: The folly of dispassion
The real reason behind the G.O.P.'s opposition to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is not because of her qualifications or her comments made in 2001 about being influenced by her life experiences it's because the Republicans are angry that President Obama once again showed excellent political shrewdness in selecting Sotomayor.
Obama's first Supreme Court nomination was fraught with a lot of potential political danger. His selection of Sotomayor which expands the doors of opportunity for women and Hispanics in the Supreme Court and the strength of Sotomayor's qualifications (she is far more qualified for the post than Clarence Thomas or Bush crony Harriet Miers) are the real motivating factors for the G.O.P. carping.
Personally I find the Republican's insistence that any future Supreme Court nominee must be dispassionate amusing. Ideally we like our judges to be dispassionate and balanced and fair. That is the ideal but in reality all legal officers, judges, lawyers, and police officers alike are ruled by their life experiences. Their judgments are colored by who and what they are and what they feel and how the law is interpreted is based on those feelings and life experiences: for better or for worse. Only machines are dispassionate.
When the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1890s ruled in Plessy vs. Ferguson that racial segregation was legal how many of the justices were dispassionate or unaffected by emotions or prejudices? How many justices based their legal reasoning in mandating racial segregation in deference to the enormous and virulent prejudices of that era?
If anyone thinks the U.S. Supreme Court is dispassionate in its inner dealings and workings then I strongly urge all readers to read Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong's book The Brethren an insider account of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1969 to 1976. Although it is dated a cursory reading of the book will disabuse anyone of the notion that Supreme Court justices are dispassionate. Actually it's the opposite. That goes for both liberals and conservatives.
Sonia Sotomayor will make a fine justice and should be confirmed with all deliberate speed.
Obama's first Supreme Court nomination was fraught with a lot of potential political danger. His selection of Sotomayor which expands the doors of opportunity for women and Hispanics in the Supreme Court and the strength of Sotomayor's qualifications (she is far more qualified for the post than Clarence Thomas or Bush crony Harriet Miers) are the real motivating factors for the G.O.P. carping.
Personally I find the Republican's insistence that any future Supreme Court nominee must be dispassionate amusing. Ideally we like our judges to be dispassionate and balanced and fair. That is the ideal but in reality all legal officers, judges, lawyers, and police officers alike are ruled by their life experiences. Their judgments are colored by who and what they are and what they feel and how the law is interpreted is based on those feelings and life experiences: for better or for worse. Only machines are dispassionate.
When the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1890s ruled in Plessy vs. Ferguson that racial segregation was legal how many of the justices were dispassionate or unaffected by emotions or prejudices? How many justices based their legal reasoning in mandating racial segregation in deference to the enormous and virulent prejudices of that era?
If anyone thinks the U.S. Supreme Court is dispassionate in its inner dealings and workings then I strongly urge all readers to read Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong's book The Brethren an insider account of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1969 to 1976. Although it is dated a cursory reading of the book will disabuse anyone of the notion that Supreme Court justices are dispassionate. Actually it's the opposite. That goes for both liberals and conservatives.
Sonia Sotomayor will make a fine justice and should be confirmed with all deliberate speed.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Travels with Matt: The Way West
I am struck by the differences that exist in the Western U.S. as opposed to the Eastern part of our country. Being a Easterner (or should I say a Northeasterner) I am required to live amidst concrete, steel and glass, and small pockets of nature surrounded by human civilization. In the West humanity lives in small pockets of concrete, steel and glass totally surrounded by the forces of nature.
In the East one is always confronted by the noise of city and suburban life. In the West (unless you live in a major city) one is struck by the absence of noise. The other day I was hiking alone on a lonely ridge that was the site of the Fetterman Massacre (which took place in December 1866). I could see the lanes of U.S. Route 90 snaking through the Wyoming grasslands yet the freeway seemed so distant as if it didn't even exist. In a sense I felt as if I were in a bubble cut off from modern civilization; as I were communing with the spirit of 1866.
Out West one can sense the antiquity of the land. In some places the terrain hasn't changed since the dawn of time. It is that permanence which lends a magic aura to the natural treasures which makes our country beautiful. Whereas in the East, massive changes in the land make what was a memory we can only imagine.
You have to go to the West to appreciate the true vastness of America. I can travel through five states in six hours if I drive through the Northeast but out West one can remain in the same state for days.
I remember when I vacationed in West Texas in November 2005. I was averaging 100 miles a day in my car while never leaving the state of Texas. Right now as I am vacationing in Montana and Wyoming I am awestruck at the endless rolling grasslands of the Great Plains. What I am experiencing isn't even remotely close to capturing the enormity of the landscape of this part of the American West.
As I experience the terrain, elements, history, and wildlife of the American West I call to mind what the historian Dee Brown told documentarian Ric Burns in Burns' magnificent documentary The Way West. Brown (who wrote Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee) told Burns. "The Western Experience forms a major part of the American mythology. We see it as America."
Standing here in a small town in Wyoming, I see the truth in what Dee Brown said and I find comfort and hope in that truth. Travelling through this land makes you fall in love with your country.
In the East one is always confronted by the noise of city and suburban life. In the West (unless you live in a major city) one is struck by the absence of noise. The other day I was hiking alone on a lonely ridge that was the site of the Fetterman Massacre (which took place in December 1866). I could see the lanes of U.S. Route 90 snaking through the Wyoming grasslands yet the freeway seemed so distant as if it didn't even exist. In a sense I felt as if I were in a bubble cut off from modern civilization; as I were communing with the spirit of 1866.
Out West one can sense the antiquity of the land. In some places the terrain hasn't changed since the dawn of time. It is that permanence which lends a magic aura to the natural treasures which makes our country beautiful. Whereas in the East, massive changes in the land make what was a memory we can only imagine.
You have to go to the West to appreciate the true vastness of America. I can travel through five states in six hours if I drive through the Northeast but out West one can remain in the same state for days.
I remember when I vacationed in West Texas in November 2005. I was averaging 100 miles a day in my car while never leaving the state of Texas. Right now as I am vacationing in Montana and Wyoming I am awestruck at the endless rolling grasslands of the Great Plains. What I am experiencing isn't even remotely close to capturing the enormity of the landscape of this part of the American West.
As I experience the terrain, elements, history, and wildlife of the American West I call to mind what the historian Dee Brown told documentarian Ric Burns in Burns' magnificent documentary The Way West. Brown (who wrote Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee) told Burns. "The Western Experience forms a major part of the American mythology. We see it as America."
Standing here in a small town in Wyoming, I see the truth in what Dee Brown said and I find comfort and hope in that truth. Travelling through this land makes you fall in love with your country.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Jack Kemp: A Gridiron Perspective
It’s interesting (and a tad unfortunate) that the press, when covering the death of Jack Kemp, focused more on his political career as a congressman, Presidential candidate and Vice-Presidential candidate, conservative advocate, and cabinet member of the George H.W. Bush Administration than on his professional football career. Indeed the media treated his career as a minor footnote in Kemp’s distinguished life.
That is unfair to Kemp’s memory. Jack Kemp’s professional football career was an amazing story of perseverance, courage, leadership, and triumph. It was during his pro football career that Kemp developed the characteristics and qualities that launched his political career and led him into a life of distinguished public service which stretched from the 1970’s to the 1990’s.
Kemp was a quarterback drafted by the Detroit Lions in 1957 from Occidental College in California. He was behind NFL Hall-of-Famer Bobby Layne and veteran all-pro Tobin Rote on the depth chart. His stay with the Lions was not particularly pleasant. One time Bobby Layne convened a quarterbacks meeting at the Tiger Stadium bar. (Layne’s magnificent skills as a quarterback were matched by his drinking prowess). Layne and Tobin Rote (who, ironically, would later replace Kemp as starting quarterback of the San Diego Chargers in 1963) were drinking beer while Kemp, a raw rookie was drinking soda pop. Layne and Rote were going over that week’s game plan while Kemp, awed by the two veterans, was content to listen, not saying a word. Layne finished the meeting and ordered another round of drinks for Rote and himself. He stared at Kemp sipping his soda and grumbled, “Kid, if you want to make it in this league, you’re gonna have to learn to drink.” Kemp was eventually cut by the Lions and bounced around for two more years as a taxi squad quarterback for the New York Giants and a brief spell in the Canadian Football League.
It was the creation of the American Football League in 1960 that gave Jack Kemp the opportunity to demonstrate his skills as a starting quarterback. He was signed by the Los Angeles (later San Diego) Chargers. He was the field general leading the offense for Chargers head coach Sid Gillman. Gillman is seen by many football historians as the man who developed the tactical antecedents of what is now known as the West Coast Offense. Kemp had a powerful throwing arm and great receivers and running backs to throw to. Kemp was ranked the best quarterback in the AFL in 1960 and led the Chargers to two AFL Championship game appearances in 1960 and 1961 (losing both times to the Houston Oilers who are now the Tennessee Titans).
Kemp’s world changed in 1962 when he broke his hand and was waived (either accidentally or deliberately) by the Chargers and claimed by the Buffalo Bills for a mere $100. Kemp would remain with the Bills for the remainder of his football career. The Buffalo Bills were an anomaly in the AFL: a team that lived and breathed on its defense. Kemp virtually led a no-name offense. The only Hall-of-Fame player on the offense was offensive guard Billy Shaw. The Bills had no dominant running back and an average receiving corps. Kemp had his work cut out for him.
Amazingly, Kemp overcame the Bills offensive limitations and led the Bills to three consecutive AFL Championship Game appearances in 1964, 1965, and 1966 (winning the title in 1964 and 1965). What’s amazing was that Kemp’s personal stats were hardly championship caliber. During those dynasty years Kemp’s passing percentages were always below 50%. He was never the top-ranked quarterback in the AFL (indeed he wasn’t even among the top five) during those dynasty years. He threw more interceptions than completions. Indeed the Bills offense gained most of its first downs by rushing instead on passing.
And yet Kemp led the Buffalo Bills to the only championship titles in their existence. What Kemp lacked in gaudy stats he made up for in leadership. Kemp provided constancy and stability to the Bills offensive unit. He called and made the plays that needed to be made when leading the Bills downfield. His prior championship game appearances with the Chargers provided him with the experience needed to handle the pressure-cooker atmosphere of the post-season. He was popular with his teammates (many of whom would stand by his side when he later ran for the political office). He was a moving force for the establishment of the AFL players union (which would later merge with the NFL players union). His union organizing experience would hone his advocacy skills that he would later use as a congressman and Presidential candidate. Kemp’s leadership skills illustrate a seldom seen lesson in the annals of pro football: that you don’t need overwhelming stats to become a championship quarterback. There are many examples of quarterbacks who had unspectacular stats leading their teams to titles: Charley Conerly, Kenny Stabler, and Trent Dilfer come to mind. None of them were in the same league as Dan Marino, Joe Montana, or Johnny Unitas yet they led their teams to championship titles. Look at the other great quarterback in Buffalo Bills history: Jim Kelly. Kelly’s passing records dwarf Jack Kemp’s by a wide margin and he led the Bills to four consecutive Super Bowl appearances but, unlike Kemp, Kelly could not lead the Bills to victory. Some cynics may suggest that you cannot compare the pre-Super Bowl era title games to the present-day Super Bowl experiences but a title game is a title game is a title game is a title game. You still have win when it counts. Jack Kemp did it. Jim Kelly didn’t.
After 1966 Kemp’s playing career went into decline. Age and injuries sapped Kemp’s and the rest of the Bills’ effectiveness. When he retired in 1969 he led all AFL quarterbacks in pass attempts, completions, and passing yards. Football historian Sean Lahman ranks Kemp at number 52 among all pro-quarterbacks (interestingly he ranks Jim Kelly at number 21). Whatever one thought about Jack Kemp’s political convictions there is one thing which cannot be denied. Jack Kemp was a championship quarterback, a winner.
May he rest in peace.
That is unfair to Kemp’s memory. Jack Kemp’s professional football career was an amazing story of perseverance, courage, leadership, and triumph. It was during his pro football career that Kemp developed the characteristics and qualities that launched his political career and led him into a life of distinguished public service which stretched from the 1970’s to the 1990’s.
Kemp was a quarterback drafted by the Detroit Lions in 1957 from Occidental College in California. He was behind NFL Hall-of-Famer Bobby Layne and veteran all-pro Tobin Rote on the depth chart. His stay with the Lions was not particularly pleasant. One time Bobby Layne convened a quarterbacks meeting at the Tiger Stadium bar. (Layne’s magnificent skills as a quarterback were matched by his drinking prowess). Layne and Tobin Rote (who, ironically, would later replace Kemp as starting quarterback of the San Diego Chargers in 1963) were drinking beer while Kemp, a raw rookie was drinking soda pop. Layne and Rote were going over that week’s game plan while Kemp, awed by the two veterans, was content to listen, not saying a word. Layne finished the meeting and ordered another round of drinks for Rote and himself. He stared at Kemp sipping his soda and grumbled, “Kid, if you want to make it in this league, you’re gonna have to learn to drink.” Kemp was eventually cut by the Lions and bounced around for two more years as a taxi squad quarterback for the New York Giants and a brief spell in the Canadian Football League.
It was the creation of the American Football League in 1960 that gave Jack Kemp the opportunity to demonstrate his skills as a starting quarterback. He was signed by the Los Angeles (later San Diego) Chargers. He was the field general leading the offense for Chargers head coach Sid Gillman. Gillman is seen by many football historians as the man who developed the tactical antecedents of what is now known as the West Coast Offense. Kemp had a powerful throwing arm and great receivers and running backs to throw to. Kemp was ranked the best quarterback in the AFL in 1960 and led the Chargers to two AFL Championship game appearances in 1960 and 1961 (losing both times to the Houston Oilers who are now the Tennessee Titans).
Kemp’s world changed in 1962 when he broke his hand and was waived (either accidentally or deliberately) by the Chargers and claimed by the Buffalo Bills for a mere $100. Kemp would remain with the Bills for the remainder of his football career. The Buffalo Bills were an anomaly in the AFL: a team that lived and breathed on its defense. Kemp virtually led a no-name offense. The only Hall-of-Fame player on the offense was offensive guard Billy Shaw. The Bills had no dominant running back and an average receiving corps. Kemp had his work cut out for him.
Amazingly, Kemp overcame the Bills offensive limitations and led the Bills to three consecutive AFL Championship Game appearances in 1964, 1965, and 1966 (winning the title in 1964 and 1965). What’s amazing was that Kemp’s personal stats were hardly championship caliber. During those dynasty years Kemp’s passing percentages were always below 50%. He was never the top-ranked quarterback in the AFL (indeed he wasn’t even among the top five) during those dynasty years. He threw more interceptions than completions. Indeed the Bills offense gained most of its first downs by rushing instead on passing.
And yet Kemp led the Buffalo Bills to the only championship titles in their existence. What Kemp lacked in gaudy stats he made up for in leadership. Kemp provided constancy and stability to the Bills offensive unit. He called and made the plays that needed to be made when leading the Bills downfield. His prior championship game appearances with the Chargers provided him with the experience needed to handle the pressure-cooker atmosphere of the post-season. He was popular with his teammates (many of whom would stand by his side when he later ran for the political office). He was a moving force for the establishment of the AFL players union (which would later merge with the NFL players union). His union organizing experience would hone his advocacy skills that he would later use as a congressman and Presidential candidate. Kemp’s leadership skills illustrate a seldom seen lesson in the annals of pro football: that you don’t need overwhelming stats to become a championship quarterback. There are many examples of quarterbacks who had unspectacular stats leading their teams to titles: Charley Conerly, Kenny Stabler, and Trent Dilfer come to mind. None of them were in the same league as Dan Marino, Joe Montana, or Johnny Unitas yet they led their teams to championship titles. Look at the other great quarterback in Buffalo Bills history: Jim Kelly. Kelly’s passing records dwarf Jack Kemp’s by a wide margin and he led the Bills to four consecutive Super Bowl appearances but, unlike Kemp, Kelly could not lead the Bills to victory. Some cynics may suggest that you cannot compare the pre-Super Bowl era title games to the present-day Super Bowl experiences but a title game is a title game is a title game is a title game. You still have win when it counts. Jack Kemp did it. Jim Kelly didn’t.
After 1966 Kemp’s playing career went into decline. Age and injuries sapped Kemp’s and the rest of the Bills’ effectiveness. When he retired in 1969 he led all AFL quarterbacks in pass attempts, completions, and passing yards. Football historian Sean Lahman ranks Kemp at number 52 among all pro-quarterbacks (interestingly he ranks Jim Kelly at number 21). Whatever one thought about Jack Kemp’s political convictions there is one thing which cannot be denied. Jack Kemp was a championship quarterback, a winner.
May he rest in peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
