The Islamic Republic of Iran elected a new president in a democratic election that would’ve made even George Washington, the father of American democracy, proud. But this did not please one of his presidential heirs and namesake, George W. Bush, in the least. After all, this curious George only likes democratic elections when the rulers elected share his political views and religious values. And, Iran’s president-elect, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, clearly does not fit the bill.

(“New Iranian President: We Shall Have Nukes…,” The iPINIONS Journal, July 14, 2005)

Even though vexing, paradoxical, and inscrutable, Iranian politics is, above all else, doctrinaire. It has been thus ever since its Islamic Revolution in 1979.

For example, Iranians voted in a presidential election over the weekend and replaced a putatively secular professor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – who acted more like a religious cleric, with a putatively religious cleric, Hasan Rowhani – who acts more like a secular reformer. Yet nobody doubts that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will be the guiding force behind all of Rowhani’s policies (especially in foreign affairs) just as he was behind all of Ahmadinejad’s.

I don’t mind admitting that Ahmadinejad filled me with as much hope for positive change in Iran, when he was first elected in 2005, as Barack Obama did, with respect to the United States, when he was first elected in 2008. My hope was based on Ahmadinejad’s notoriously modest lifestyle and commensurate rhetoric about afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted.

Never mind that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez had already dashed similar hopes by focusing far more on afflicting U.S. presidents with asinine, bellicose rhetoric than on comforting poor Venezuelans with sustainable, poverty-alleviation programs after he was first elected in 1999.

Indeed, it speaks volumes that Ahmadinejad spent most of his two terms as president emulating Chávez – most notably topping the Venezuelan’s trite rhetoric about Yankee imperialism with far more menacing rhetoric about wiping Israel off the map.

Therefore, having been so profoundly disappointed by Ahmadinejad, I trust I’ll be forgiven for having no hope that Rowhani’s election augurs well for positive change – with respect to political reforms and social justice in Iran or its diplomatic relationships with Western countries. This, notwithstanding campaign rhetoric about the importance of political moderation and economic growth that made him seem, well, like a Western politician.

Indeed, apropos of the vexing, paradoxical and inscrutable nature of Iranian politics, Rowhani was the only cleric among the six candidates the Guardian Council, consisting of six judges and six clerics (all serving at Ayatollah Khamenei’s behest), approved to run in this presidential election. Yet, despite his pedigree and professional bona fides as a regime loyalist, he was the only one who could be considered a moderate; the other five all being unquestioning and unabashed adherents of Iran’s doctrinaire politics.

Interestingly enough, Ayatollah Khamenei displayed dubious, if not troubling, religious and political temperament when he responded to plainly hypocritical, premature, and wholly unwarranted U.S. criticisms of this election as follows:

Recently I have heard that a U.S. security official has said they do not accept this election. OK, the hell with you.

(Associated Press, June 14, 2013)

Granted, perhaps nobody is more qualified to damn people to hell than a supreme religious leader. But this petulant response coming from a political provocateur (like Ahmadinejad) is to be expected; coming from a religious leader is, well, discouraging to say the least. Let’s hope the official White House statement congratulating the Iranian people on an exemplary presidential election will have a calming effect on Ayatollah Khamenei’s wrath.

For the record, Rowhani won 50.7 percent of the vote; the best of his five conservative-hardline opponents won only 16.5 percent.

It is particularly noteworthy that surviving reformers from the opposition Green Movement and perennially disaffected young people are celebrating as if Rowhani’s victory is the triumph that should have been theirs after the last presidential election four years ago. They are clearly vesting a great deal of hope in his ability to implement democratic freedoms and social-justice reforms.

For now though their rapture is such that you’d think Rowhani were the second coming of … the Prophet Muhammad. Whereas, in fact, he’s just the third coming of a reform-minded cleric, following – as he is – two others who preceded Ahmadinejad as president, namely Rowhani’s own political mentor Akbar Heshmi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami. And, more to the point, I doubt any of the people hailing Rowhani today could explain why they believe he will succeed where these other reform-minded clerics failed.

That said, their hope would be somewhat vindicated if Rowhani could begin his presidency by prevailing upon Ayatollah Khamenei and his Revolutionary Guards to:

• release political prisoners like Mir Hossein Mousave, leader of the Green Movement; and
• prosecute political assassins like those who killed Neda, the young woman who came to symbolize their Chinese-style squashing of Iran’s Persian Spring in 2009….

But here’s the real challenge Rowhani faces, which crystallizes why he too is fated to fail:

Iran’s economy has been withering under increasingly onerous sanctions ever since the United States imposed them to protest the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Far more problematic though has been Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran insists that it’s only for economic and other peaceful purposes. But the United States and Israel have convinced virtually every G20 country (with the world’s 20 biggest economies) that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, which of course would pose an untenable existential threat to Israel. No doubt Iran’s steadfast refusal to allow international inspectors to verify the nature of its program has only fueled suspicions in this respect.

Ironically, but for Ahmadinejad’s Hitlerian rhetoric about exterminating the Jews, most Western countries would probably have bought Iran’s claims about the economic and peaceful nature of its nuclear program….

This is why the United States has been able to amass a coalition of the willing, which includes the EU and even the UN, to impose sanctions that have had a crippling effect on its economy. And, far from easing them, the United States and its coalition partners are threatening to expand their sanctions regime to affect every facet of life in Iran. This would make the unbearable life most Iranians have been living in recent years even more so.

Therefore, despite his hopeful and encouraging rhetoric, there’s simply nothing Rowhani can do to improve the lives of his people, unless he can get the United States and other Western countries to lift those sanctions. And the only way he can get them to lift those sanctions is to prevail upon Ayatollah Khamenei to reverse course and open Iran’s nuclear program for international inspections. Alas, this seems highly unlikely; not least because Rowhani distinguished himself as a proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing as the Ayatollah Khamenei’s first nuclear envoy in negotiations with the West.

So even if Rowhani opens one hand to Western countries – by promising to meet conditions to have sanctions lifted, the suspicion will be that he’s hiding the other one behind his back with fingers crossed. And that suspicion would be well-founded because Ayatollah Khamenei has made it patently clear that Iran’s nuclear program is non-negotiable. And this includes the nuclear enrichment that belies long-standing Iranian claims that its nuclear program is strictly for economic and other peaceful purposes.

Mind you, I suspect Ayatollah Khamenei believes, quite reasonably, that possessing nuclear weapons will inoculate Iran against military attack from Israel or the United Stats, or both. Of course, transparent and verifiable proof that Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons would provide even greater inoculation. Except that I suspect he also believes, rather messianically, that possessing nuclear weapons will imbue him with the power to create a “Shi’ite Belt” – comprised of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon – that would exert more doctrinal influence throughout the Muslim world than the Prophet or the Quran. (Saudi Arabia … on guard!)

And, unlike North Korea’s absolute leader, Iran’s supreme leader is clearly too proud and self-righteous to even countenance bartering his nuclear prerogatives for economic concessions … even to feed starving Iranian children. Hell, he’s now inviting even more onerous sanctions by actively supporting Syrian President Bashir al-Assad in defiance of Western calls for him to go or be ousted. This, after all, is the same Assad who the U.S. charged just days ago of using chemical weapons on his own people to hold onto power, crossing Obama’s declared “red line.”

Which means that, just as Assad is daring Obama to take more aggressive steps to stop him from using chemical weapons, Ayatollah Khamenei is daring him to take military action to stop him from acquiring nuclear weapons…

It is also instructive to know that Ahmadinejad has been so politically neutered for merely acting as if his presidential powers were not subordinate to Ayatollah Khamenei’s authority that the candidate he publicly endorsed for this election was not even allowed to run. So the last thing we should expect Rowhani to do is anything that even smacks of insubordination in this respect.

Nonetheless, here’s to an Iranian presidential election – complete with a turnout of 72.7 percent – that put to shame any that has ever been held in the history of the United States. Except that any Iranian who voted for Rowhani, hoping he would bring an end to economic sanctions, was sold an even bigger bill of goods than any American who voted for Obama, hoping he would end Bush’s Big Brother war-on-terror policies.

Related commentaries:
New Iranian president…

Immediately below is a commentary I wrote last Saturday (June 8) on the public’s reaction to leaks about the U.S. government’s National Security Agency (NSA) spying on its citizens. In light of the international media frenzy NSA leaker Edward Snowden caused this week, I have decided to reprise it here, followed by a new commentary on the cause celebre he has become.

Complaints about NSA spying are schizophrenic…and misguided

 

Frankly, Americans complaining about the government spying on them is rather like Kim Kardashian complaining about the paparazzi taking pictures of her.

You’d better pray you are never prosecuted or sued for anything. Because not only Big Brother but even your civil adversary could compel Google to turn over all of the searches you made when you thought nobody was watching.  And just think how embarrassing or compromising it would be to have some of those search terms come under public scrutiny – no matter how innocent your explanation.

So if you’re planning to cheat on your spouse, or to do something even worse, don’t search Google for guidance because you might as well be talking to your local gossipmonger, or to the police. And if you think you can un-Google your most compromising searches, think again…

By the way, it’s not just Google.  Because you’d be shocked at the spying and eavesdropping your employer, your Internet Service Provider, your local supermarket, or even your favorite (naughty) website engages in to keep track of your emails, purchases, preferences and … peccadilloes.  And all of them blithely use that information for their own commercial purposes, but would rat you out just as blithely at the mere hint of prosecution or civil litigation.

(“Beware: Google Declares ‘Nothing’s Private,’ The iPINIONS Journal, December 8, 2009)

In this age of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and WikiLeaks people have developed the schizophrenic need not only to share everything about everything, but also to keep private everything they routinely share in every venue from social networks to shopping malls. (TMI might as well stand for, tell me … immediately!)

Alas, just as there’s no reconciling their schizophrenia, there’s no rationalizing their outrage over the government’s National Security Agency (NSA) monitoring their promiscuous and indiscriminate footprints (online and via telephone). For, evidently, these nincompoops think it’s okay for Google, Amazon, Yahoo and others to spy on them to sell them stuff, but not okay for the NSA to do so to protect them from terrorists.

But if the government failed to prevent another 9/11 because their outrage precluded it from monitoring the footprints of terrorists (i.e., to connect the dots), is there any doubt that these same people would be venting even greater outrage over its failure to do so?

This is why I applaud President Obama for effectively telling these nincompoops to get over their outrage … and themselves with their inherently contradictory concerns about privacy:

Nobody is listening to your telephone calls… [The government is merely] digesting phone numbers and the durations of calls, seeking links that might identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism.

It’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience.

(Associated Press, June 8, 2013)

Enough said?

Except that I gather some people are concerned about the government using the metadata the NSA collects to prosecute them. But clearly no concern is warranted in this respect unless they are engaged in illegal activities….

And if they are merely worried about electronic data being used in civil litigation or to embarrass them, then they should be far more concerned about the spying Google and other private companies do than about that which the government does.

 

Leaker Snowden: more useful idiot than national traitor

 

Foremost I should say that Edward Snowden strikes me as little more than a narcissistic, egotistical, publicity-seeking idiot who is to national intelligence what Kim Kardashian is to media celebrity.

What’s more, he seems every bit the media whore she is, and is probably hoping that his NSA leaks will make him even more famous than her sex tape made her. I suspect the more we learn about him, the more this analogy will play out.

But think about this folks: If the United States is spying on China as much as Snowden claims (and it is), and China is spying on the United States as much as Obama claims (and it is), then clearly neither country needs anyone to tell it anything about the extent of spying going on between them, right?

So Snowden telling China that the United States is spying on it is rather like a disgruntled Obama staffer telling Romney that Obama is looking for dirt to hurl at him during last year’s presidential campaign. Duh.

Not to mention the idiocy inherent in Snowden seeking political asylum in China to protest a lack of government transparency in the United States.  At least the spies who betrayed their country during the Cold War had a reasonable expectation that a political and ideological Shangri-La awaited them in the Soviet Union.

You’d think Snowden would’ve been guided by the disillusionment those spies suffered after jumping out of the frying pan into the fire, and then realizing that they were nothing more than useful idiots for anti-Western propaganda.

All of which is why this NSA story is really all about the leaker, not his leaks. And with their hysterical and overblown coverage, the media are willingly, willfully, and wantonly making him into an international cause celebre who, in his deluded mind, has the two most powerful nations in the world fighting over him. Indeed, Snowden probably finds being in this hot seat positively ecstatic, if not priapic….

That said, for anyone who think he has anything credible to say, consider this:

Snowden claims, with nary a hint of the delusions of grandeur that clearly motivate him, that he “had the authority to wiretap anyone … even the president.” Except that:

Gen. Keith Alexander, the director of the National Security Agency, told a Senate committee on Wednesday that former NSA contractor Edward Snowden was wrong when he claimed he had the ability [just sitting at his desk with his computer] to tap into the private emails or phone calls of any American citizen — even President Barack Obama.

‘False,’ Alexander said, when answering a question from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) about Snowden’s claim. ‘I know of no way to do that.’

(Business Insider, June 12, 2013)

Mind you, this is not to say that I don’t believe the U.S. government would ever spy on innocent Americans. After all, I know all too well that the FBI did just that for years on no less an American than Martin Luther King Jr. My only point is that, for all of his talk about NSA spying, this joker has yet to cite the name of a single American who he (or anyone else at this agency) was ordered to spy on.

In any event, despite the media frenzy, Snowden’s “leaks” will have no real impact on U.S. intelligence activities.  Not least because, just as Obama not only adopted but expanded all of the spying tactics he criticized his predecessor, George W. Bush, for deploying, almost every politician now venting constitutional outrage over NSA spying will vote for it to continue when the time comes to put up or shut up.

Why? Because no (mainstream) politician wants it on his record or conscience that he voted against a program that could have prevented a terrorist attack….

Meanwhile, nothing indicates how fleeting, inconsequential, and costly Snowden’s notoriety will be, and rightly so, quite like the fates that have befallen Bradley Manning and Julian Assange for their “wikileaks” of U.S. diplomatic secrets:

• Their leaks have had practically no impact on U.S. foreign policy.
• Manning is being tried in virtual obscurity, and faces even greater obscurity if/when he’s sentenced to life in prison.
• And Assange is already in a de facto prison, hiding out, as he is, in Ecuador’s embassy in London since last August as a fugitive from justice. But I assure you, British intelligence is doing everything possible to spy on his activities to ensure he does not slip out undetected. Therefore, he’s dares not even set foot outside for fear of being arrested and extradited pursuant to a judge’s order: first to Sweden to face trial and punishment on sexual assault charges, then to the United States to follow the path Manning is now blazing into obscurity.

To be clear, just as it was with Manning, the United States must protest damage to national security in this case. It must do so not only to establish probable cause for arresting and prosecuting Snowden, but also to provide whatever deterrence it can for all of the other misguided nerds out there who might be thinking of emulating his method of revenge … for their 15 minutes of infamy.

Related commentaries:
Complaints about NSA
Ecuador grants Assange asylum…

A gay cabal in the Vatican continues to indulge and cover up the sexual exploits of gay priests, including the abuse of pedophiles.

(“The Pope Comes to America,” The iPINIONS Journal, April 16, 2008)

It’s an indication of my naiveté (or perspicacity, depending on your perspective) that I saw nothing provocative or, God forbid, uninformed about this statement.

In fact, I’m on record lamenting that, for centuries, gay cabals have been making a mockery of every religious edict the Holy See has issued. Only this explains why the church has systematically done more to protect pedophile priests than to help the children they preyed upon. After all, gay priests outing pedophile priests is rather like pimps snitching on prostitutes.

Imagine my consternation, therefore, when people reacted to my statement as if I were the devil incarnate trying, once again, to undermine the divine provenance of their Christian faith. Which is why, personal vindication aside, I fear having no less a person than the pope affirm my statement will utterly shatter their faith.

Pope Francis is reported to have acknowledged the existence of a ‘gay lobby’ inside the Vatican.

He also said there was a ‘stream of corruption,’ according to reports in Catholic media.

The Vatican would have to ‘see what we can do’ about the ‘gay lobby’ operating in the bureaucracy, he said. ‘It is true, it is there,’ the report quotes him as saying.

(BBC, June 12, 2013)

My only quibble with this extraordinary confession is that the pope himself is naïve if he thinks he’ll be able to do anything about this so-called gay lobby. Incidentally, I call it a cabal because it operates more like the mafia – with all of the dangers inherent in challenging its insidious and ruthless power.

Apropos of which, it would take an internecine struggle - which makes the one now raging between Muslim moderates and extremists seem quaint – for Francis to properly excise the cancer that (closeted) homosexuality represents in the Catholic Church.  Not least because, if he attempted to reform this practice of sexual hypocrisy, he would be deemed even more of a heretic, to be summarily excommunicated (i.e., executed), than Martin Luther was deemed for attempting to reform the practice of papal indulgences.

Then again, maybe it’s time for another seminal split in the Catholic Church: high-brow traditionalists led by Francis vs. down-low progressives led by, well, one who dares not speak his name … for the soul of the church? But I digress.

The problem is that the pope would have to excommunicate not one but hundreds of gay priests in the Roman Curia, the church’s central administration, whose Adamic nature (i.e., sexual orientation) would compel them to resist his reform/purge. A November 24, 2005 article in the New York Times estimated that the percentage of priests who are gay is as high as 60 percent.

Indeed, I fear there’ll be a conclave to elect another pope before Francis makes any headway in this respect. Which is why, instead of purging homosexuals, the wiser, and more Christian, thing would be for him to reform church teachings to allow not just priests to marry, but also homosexuals and women to serve.

Not to mention that this would then free gay priests to out the pedophiles in their midst without fear of implicating themselves in some medieval web of punishable moral turpitude. For, as was made abundantly clear in a 2010 Panorama exposé, “Good Nights Out for Gay Priests:”

The gay priest problem is about celibacy, church law, and hypocrisy. The pedophile problem is about child abuse, criminal behavior, and abuses of power.

Amen.

Related commentaries:

Pope comes to America,
Pope accused of harboring pedophile priests,
Abdication of Pope Benedict,
Vatican report on gay cabal…

Russian President Vladimir Putin (60) has become an international laughing stock for staging photo ops to make himself look more like an action hero than a political leader. Particularly because so many of his stunts, like pretending to escort migrating cranes in a glider, make him look more like Johnny English than James Bond.

I coined the term ‘putinization of Russia’ to describe Putin’s neo-Stalinist tactics, which were (and are) clearly aimed at neutralizing all political dissent, quashing all civil liberties, and making himself into a latter-day czar.

(“Hail Putin,” The iPINIONS Journal, December 3, 2007)

Yet such is his shamelessness that he thought nothing of trying to convince the public a few years ago that his persona as an action man is matched only by his role as a family man. He did this by staging an Edward R. Murrow-style Person-to-Person interview at home with his wife (and dog).

The only problem is that even I knew Putin the family man – who ostensibly relished nothing more than emulating the traditional domestic bliss popularized by Ozzie and Harriet – was every bit as fake as Putin the action hero – who once staged his discovery of ancient Greek vases on a dive in the Black Sea … reportedly to foster national pride.

The reported reason for this rare look into his family life was Putin’s wish to encourage all Russians to participate in the country’s forthcoming census.  Unfortunately, the only message most people got from this photo op pertained to the long-rumored breakup of his marriage.

Speculation has been rife in recent years about Putin leaving, perhaps even divorcing, his 52-year-old wife, Lyudmila, to set up home with a 27-year-old former Olympic champion gymnast named Alina Kabayeva.  There are even reports that Putin has fathered a child with this other woman.

(“Putin’s Photo Op Flop,” The iPINIONS Journal, October 20, 2010)

Hell, Putin has gone to such ridiculous lengths to display his fidelity to family life that he even exhorted Russians to make their country a superpower again by marrying young and making babies.  This is why his latest stunt came as such a surprise.

Putin and his wife – who have been married for almost 30 years and have two daughters – made a rare public appearance on Thursday to attend a performance of Esmeralda at the Grand Kremlin Palace. But then, in a typically awkward yet brazen bit of stagecraft, they left the performance and headed straight to a theatrically placed reporter, with camera crew in tow, to announce their divorce.

After allowing Putin and Lyudmila to lavish praise on the ballet, despite leaving after the first act, the reporter asked if their rare public appearances in recent years mean that they no longer live together. They responded to this obviously scripted (i.e., Putin-approved) question as follows:

‘This is so,’ he said… ‘Yes, this is a civilized divorce,’ Lyudmila said.

(Associated Press, June 6, 2013)

Alas, the big pink elephant upstaging their performance was the unspoken reason for their divorce. And Lyudmila only made it more conspicuous, unwittingly, by citing her public shyness and fear of flying; not least because both are belied by the fact that she’s a former Aeroflot flight attendant.

That proverbial elephant, of course, is Putin’s rumored mistress, Alina. What’s more, anyone who knows the story of Esmeralda will appreciate how much it dramatizes the conflicted and compromised relationships Putin, Lyudmila, and Alina have been living out in real life. Which begs the question: Did Putin intend to convey more than he was prepared to say by choosing this ballet as the backdrop for announcing the dissolution of his marriage…?

Whatever the case, there seems little doubt that the only reason for imploding his carefully crafted image in this way is to bring the hot Alina in from the cold: to be his publicly recognized lover, even if not his lawfully wedded wife.  And, in true czarist form, Putin will use his state media to eventually turn the carnal vice she personifies into a political virtue in the court of public opinion.

That said, the only reason I’m commenting is to revel in how he exposed himself in this photo op as not just a political phony but a hypocritical one to boot:

If these politicians were not lead vocals in a chorus of moral crusaders, I would not give their sexual escapades a moment’s thought. For the unadulterated pleasure of afflicting these hypocrites, however, I don’t even mind being bedfellows with a publicity-seeking hustler like Larry Flynt [who once vowed to out them all].

(“Why ‘Hypocritical Politician’ Is Becoming Redundant,” The iPINIONS Journal, June 18, 2009)

Related commentaries:
Why “hypocritical politician” is becoming redundant
Putin photo op…
Putin gives pussy riot the clamp

With all due respect to my comrades in South Africa, “Breaking News” about Nelson Mandela being rushed to hospital is taking on the spectacle of breaking news about Lindsay Lohan being arrested.

Let me hasten to declare that I have as much respect, admiration, and affection for Mandela as any non-South African can possibly have. In fact, my abiding regard for him has compelled me to repeatedly lament the way everyone from family members to politicians have been treating him more like a national mascot than an elder statesman in recent years:

No doubt you are aware of politicians and celebrities making pilgrimages to Mandela’s home for a photo op with him, which invariably looks like a snapshot from a South African version of Weekend at Bernie’s.

(‘Is Nothing Sacred? ‘Being Mandela’ – the Reality-TV Show.” The iPINIONS Journal, March 18, 2013)

Mandela has been taken on four death-defying rushes to hospital since December, including most recently on Saturday. And worldwide concern, bordering on hysteria, has attended each occasion – complete with vague, funereal reports aimed at assuring all that he’s still alive. The 94-year-old Mandela is reportedly suffering recurring, suffocating bouts of pneumonia.

But all of this public attention on his every dying breath strikes me as just another betrayal of the dignity and discretion that once defined his life. What’s more, nothing demonstrates the hysteria attending this latest rush to hospital quite like multitudes running to the nearest church to pray for him.

Mind you, I have no doubt that they are praying for him – to hold death at bay, yet again – only out of unconditional devotion to their beloved Madiba. Indeed, it’s a testament to his inspired leadership that, 14 years after he retired from politics, even a dying Mandela offers South Africans greater hope for their future than any of their current leaders.

On the other hand, I am among those hoping – not necessarily for him to die, but for him to be spared any more indignities. After all, it’s painfully clear that the most loving and respectful thing anyone could have done for Mandela months ago was to have him committed to hospice care.

In hospice, health professionals could help him live out the rest of his days in peace, quiet, and dignity. This, in effect, is what recently retired Pope Benedict XVI, who is reportedly withering away at an even faster pace, is doing; while Mandela’s family members are propping him up for photo ops and reality-TV shows, in which he invariably looks like he’s, well, already off in another world.

Now, lest you think I’m being too dispassionate, or even macabre, consider that no less a person than his longtime friend, Andrew Mlangeni, was just quoted saying the following in an interview published under the instructive headline, “It’s time to let him go:”

You [Madiba] have been coming to the hospital too many times… The family must release him so that God may have his own way… Once the family releases him, the people of South Africa will follow.

(South Africa Sunday Times, June 9, 2013)

So here’s to letting Mandela go: no more to hospital, but to hospice. And you can be sure that, when he dies, the ANC will put on a state funeral that will make the one the Vatican puts on for the pope seem modest and irreverent.

Related commentaries:
Is nothing sacred…

Frankly, Americans complaining about the government spying on them is rather like Kim Kardashian complaining about the paparazzi taking pictures of her.

You’d better pray you are never prosecuted or sued for anything. Because not only Big Brother but even your civil adversary could compel Google to turn over all of the searches you made when you thought nobody was watching.  And just think how embarrassing or compromising it would be to have some of those search terms come under public scrutiny – no matter how innocent your explanation.

So if you’re planning to cheat on your spouse, or to do something even worse, don’t search Google for guidance because you might as well be talking to your local gossipmonger, or to the police. And if you think you can un-Google your most compromising searches, think again…

By the way, it’s not just Google.  Because you’d be shocked at the spying and eavesdropping your employer, your Internet Service Provider, your local supermarket, or even your favorite (naughty) website engages in to keep track of your emails, purchases, preferences and … peccadilloes.  And all of them blithely use that information for their own commercial purposes, but would rat you out just as blithely at the mere hint of prosecution or civil litigation.

(“Beware: Google Declares ‘Nothing’s Private,’ The iPINIONS Journal, December 8, 2009)

In this age of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and WikiLeaks people have developed the schizophrenic need not only to share everything about everything, but also to keep private everything they routinely share in every venue from social networks to shopping malls. (TMI might as well stand for, tell me … immediately!)

Alas, just as there’s no reconciling their schizophrenia, there’s no rationalizing their outrage over the government’s National Security Agency (NSA) monitoring their promiscuous and indiscriminate footprints (online and via telephone). For, evidently, these nincompoops think it’s okay for Google, Amazon, Yahoo and others to spy on them to sell them stuff, but not okay for the NSA to do so to protect them from terrorists.

But if the government failed to prevent another 9/11 because their outrage precluded it from monitoring the footprints of terrorists (i.e., to connect the dots), is there any doubt that these same people would be venting even greater outrage over its failure to do so?

This is why I applaud President Obama for effectively telling these nincompoops to get over their outrage … and themselves with their inherently contradictory concerns about privacy:

Nobody is listening to your telephone calls… [The government is merely] digesting phone numbers and the durations of calls, seeking links that might identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism.

It’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience.

(Associated Press, June 8, 2013)

Enough said?

Except that I gather some people are concerned about the government using the metadata the NSA collects to prosecute them. But clearly no concern is warranted in this respect unless they are engaged in illegal activities….

And if they are merely worried about electronic data being used in civil litigation or to embarrass them, then they should be far more concerned about the spying Google and other private companies do than about that which the government does.

Related commentaries:

Google…

The British government argued in court last year that too much time had passed for victims to claim legal compensation for the human rights abuses British officials meted out during Kenya’s Mau Mau rebellion 60 years ago.

But here, in part, is what I wrote to disabuse the government of this unconscionable and unsustainable defense:

If the British government has any regard for what little redeeming value its legacy of colonialism retains, it would consider it a moral imperative to move post-haste to negotiate a victims’ fund with the Kenyan government, from which all victims can seek relatively fair compensation … in Kenya.

Incidentally, this would (and should) not absolve the government of the categorical imperative to pursue and prosecute every British official implicated in these human rights abuses…

Accordingly, I fully expect Britain, at long last, to do the right thing: apologize and pay, pursue and prosecute!

(“Reparations for British Colonialism,” The iPINIONS Journal, July 18, 2012)

This is why I was heartened when the High Court ruled in short order that the government’s defense was wholly without merit. But I was even more heartened yesterday when the government finally settled this class-action suit – just as I expected it would do.

For here, in part, is the extraordinary apology Foreign Secretary William Hague delivered in Parliament for the torture thousands of Kenyans suffered under the boot of British colonial officers:

The British government sincerely regrets that these abuses took place and that they marred Kenya’s progress to independence. Torture and ill-treatment are abhorrent violations of human dignity which we unreservedly condemn.

(London Guardian, June 6, 2013)

And since I called on the British to not only apologize but also pay, I duly note their concomitant announcement of a victims’ fund.  It’s just too bad this fund’s sum of $30 million makes a mockery of the government’s fulsome apology. After all, when divided among the 5000-plus victims, this amounts to an insulting $3000 each; notwithstanding that no amount of money could possibly compensate for their pain and suffering.

All the same, now that this precedent has been set, I urge other victims of British colonial abuse to file their claims too … post-haste:

If the High Court were to establish the precedent that victims of colonial-era abuses could seek damages in British courts, I have no doubt that thousands of claimants would show up in London to seek redress from every place on earth that was subjected to British dominion.

In which case the British government would be well-advised to initiate government-to-government settlements of all such cases instead of allowing any of them to proceed to trial – especially with all of the opening of old wounds (on both sides) that would entail.

(“Reparations for British Colonialism,” The iPINIONS Journal, July 18, 2012)

In any event, now that it has apologized and paid, it’s time for the British government to pursue and prosecute. For, just as victims of the Holocaust have had no statute of limitations placed on pursuing and prosecuting their Nazi oppressors, victims of colonial atrocities should have none placed on pursuing and prosecuting their British oppressors.

Related commentaries:
Reparations…

Without wanting to get too specific, this particular cancer is caused by HPV, which actually comes about from cunnilingus. I did worry if the stress caused by my son’s incarceration didn’t help trigger it. But yeah, it’s a sexually transmitted disease that causes cancer.

(London Guardian, June 2, 2013)

This is the rather controversial way actor Michael Douglas explained, or warned about, the cause of the cancer that nearly ended his career. He did so, ironically enough, during a promotional interview for the HBO biopic, Behind the Candelabra, in which he plays the flamboyantly gay pianist, Liberace.

Well, with all due respect to Mr. Douglas, he could have been more graphic; but he really could not have been more specific.

More to the point, though, I have read enough medical opinions on the media furor his comments ignited to know that there is a positive correlation between oral sex (cunnilingus as well as fellatio) and throat cancer.

But frankly, I don’t see why it is any more taboo (or TMI) for Douglas to reveal that he got human papillomavirus (HPV) from performing oral sex than it was for Magic Johnson to reveal that he got HIV from having unprotected sex (which, incidentally, could have been oral in his case too).

Of course I fully get that Douglas’s revelation might have inflicted undue emotional distress on his actress wife, Catherine Zeta-Jones – especially given her well-publicized history of mental problems. Indeed, columnist Andrea Peyser is evidently so sympathetic that she exhorted Zeta-Jones to:

Dump the bigmouth, lickety-split.

(New York Post, June 4, 2013)

But I couldn’t care any less about what impact his unwitting PSA might have on their marriage.

Except that, if this is reason enough for her to divorce him, then their marriage was probably already irretrievably broken down.

Instead, my sympathy goes out to the tens of millions of women for whom having vaginal orgasms is like winning the lottery.

Because I fear the real import of Douglas’s PSA will be to give far too many men a credible excuse to avoid performing cunnilingus like the plague, making “going down” even more of a one-way street.

If Taylor of Liberia can be hauled to The Hague and tried for aiding and abetting atrocities that were committed in Sierra Leone, why shouldn’t Putin of Russia face the same fate for aiding and abetting similar atrocities now being committed in Syria?

(“Liberian president Charles Taylor Convicted in The Hague,” The iPINIONS Journal, April 27, 2012)

My commentaries are replete with condemnation of the kleptomaniacal and genocidal thugs who have lorded for far too long, over far too many countries in post-colonial Africa. But there’s no denying that thugs of a different sort have lorded for far too long, over far too many countries on every other continent as well.

This is why, as my opening quote indicates, my commentaries are equally replete with condemnation of the International Court Criminal (ICC) for targeting those in Africa for prosecution in this respect.

It is noteworthy that the ICC elected Bensouda, an African woman from The Gambia, as chief prosecutor by consensus in December 2011. For there is no gainsaying that it did so primarily to counter the growing perception that it is a court of White men sitting in biased judgment against Black men.

(“No Equitable Justice in ICC Prosecuting Kenya’s Kenyatta,” The iPINIONS Journal, March 25, 2013)

But I’m afraid appointing a token Black prosecutor is far too little, far too late. Indeed, I am heartened that Africa now has a new crop of reputable and respected leaders who are echoing my condemnation of both African despots and ICC prosecutors:

Hailemariam Desalegn, AU chairman and Prime Minister of Ethiopia, said at the close of a two-day summit of the 54-member bloc on Monday that African leaders had come to a consensus that the ICC process conducted in Africa was flawed…

‘The process has degenerated to some kind of race hunting,’ he said, as the continental bloc ended its summit, held during its golden jubilee year.

A resolution urged the ICC to stop upcoming trials of President Uhuru Kenyatta and Vice President William Ruto, who have been charged with crimes against humanity for their alleged roles in orchestrating deadly violence after 2007 elections that left more than 1,000 people dead.

(Al Jazeera, May 28, 2013)

And if you think their resolution is even more flawed than the ICC process, I urge you to bear in mind that nobody called for the racist fiends who ruled the United States from slavery to Jim Crow to be hauled before any international criminal court for the systematic crimes against humanity they committed (or orchestrated).

Therefore, I submit that, just as America has done since its founding, African countries should be left alone to figure out how to prosecute and imprison (if called for) any leader who commits an impeachable offense. And remember, it took a bloody civil war the likes of which the world had never seen for American leaders to just begin abiding by their constitutional principles of democracy and freedom.

Related commentaries:
No equitable justice…

The media have been hyping this weekend’s summit between President Barack Obama and President Xi Jinping as if it were a heavyweight-boxing match. Specifically, they are reporting on Obama’s declared intent to give Xi the riot act over Chinese hacking American military and corporate secrets as if he intends to lead off their summit by punching Xi in the nose.

Hackers have accessed designs for more than two dozen major U.S. weapons systems … senior military and industry officials with knowledge of the breaches say they come primarily from China…

‘This is billions of dollars of combat advantage for China. They’ve just saved themselves 25 years of research and development. It’s nuts.’

(Business Insider, May 28, 2013)

The reality, of course, is that the interaction between these two men will be so cordial and genteel it will make English High Tea seem barbaric. It will be thus because they both know full well that a high-tech country complaining about hacking is tantamount to a combat soldier complaining about killing.

So if you’re looking for fisticuffs you’re going to be even more disappointed than the entomomaniacs now waiting for cicadas … like Vladimir and Estragon Waiting for Godot. In fact, nothing militates against Obama lecturing Xi about Chinese hacking quite like widespread reports about Americans hacking Iranian nuclear secrets.

Frankly, instead of Xi, the person Obama should punch in the nose is the White House staffer who leaked this notorious U.S. hacking caper to the media:

No doubt you’ve seen Republicans and their right-wing hit men (most notably pundit Charles Krauthammer) all over the media accusing the White House of compromising nationality security just to make President Obama look good.

Their accusations pertain to disclosures (aka leaks) that enabled the New York Times and other publications to report on how the United States (and Israel) launched cyber-attacks to undermine Iran’s nuclear and military capability.

(“Holy Stuxnet: The White House is Leaking,” The iPINIONS Journal, June 12, 2012)

More to the point, I assure you that, if Chinese government officials were as vainglorious, loose-lipped, and stupid as their American counterparts, there would be twice as many reports about Americans hacking Chinese military and corporate secrets than vice versa.

In the meantime, it’s plainly feckless for the United States to threaten China with economic reprisals – as hawks in the U.S. Congress are goading Obama to do - if China does not curtail its cyberspying. Not least because this would be like a junkie threatening his dealer with legal reprisals if the dealer does not lower his prices.

In other words, the United States is so financially/economically dependent on China that threatening China would be tantamount to cutting off its nose to spite its face; and, again, vice versa:

The U.S. market is even more indispensable to China’s economic growth than China’s credit is to the U.S.’s.

(“Countries Queuing Up to Become as Indebted to China as U.S. Is,” The iPINIONS Journal, September 15, 2011)

Obama would be far wiser to appeal to Xi to do all he can to crackdown on the Chinese pirates who make almost as much cash off American intellectual property (covering everything from software to movies) as the owners of that property. And no company has been more victimized (or vandalized) in this respect than Apple. Except that companies like Apple have become so notorious for their avoidance of corporate taxes that this piracy might be a form of poetic justice.

At least 18 companies, including Nike, Microsoft and Apple, are stashing profits in offshore tax havens likely in a bid to avoid paying taxes, according to a new report from the Citizens for Tax Justice…

If the companies brought that money home, they would pay combined more than $92 billion in U.S. taxes, the report found.

(Huffington Post, June 3, 2013)

I fear, however, that, even if he wanted to, Xi would have no success in deterring such piracy until Chinese entrepreneurs become so innovative in their own right that local pirates begin cannibalizing the intellectual property of their own….

Incidentally, I’m sure Obama welcomes the media focusing on Xi’s cyberspying on American companies instead continuing their colonic investigation into his cyberspying on American journalists. (For more on this, I refer you below to “Nixonian Obama Right to Spy on Associated Press,” The iPINIONS Journal, May 14, 2013.)

More important, though, while the United States is accusing China of gaining superpower-economic status by cyberspying, China is gaining superpower-political/military status by brazenly buying up alliances all over the world.

Indeed, it is no accident that Xi is holding a summit in Trinidad with leaders from the Caribbean and Central America before meeting in California with Obama.  Never mind that you’d think these leaders would be loath to enter into mercantile relationships with China — given the exploits and inequities their countries suffered under the mercantile demands of British colonialism. But no…. (I have written many commentaries on this superpower dynamic – most recently in “China Invading U.S. Sphere of Influence in the Caribbean,” The iPINIONS Journal, April 11, 2012)

What’s more, while the war-weary United States is “pivoting” from the Middle East to Asia, China is not only doing everything to defend its sphere of influence in Asia, but also brazenly filling the void the United States is leaving behind in the Middle East with lucrative oil and other nation-building contracts.

But it’s an indication of how overhyped this summit is that the media are hyping Michelle Obama’s decision to snub Xi and his wife, Peng Liyuan, almost as much. Reports are that she won’t be traveling with her husband to California to meet them because she wants to be home for their daughters’ final days of this school year.

Really? She’s picking this seminal state occasion to skirt her duties as first lady so she can play stay-at-home mom? And by the way, didn’t she have her mother move into the White House precisely to help her with mom duties on occasions like this?

No, I think the increasingly unruly diva in Michelle just does not want to be upstaged by Peng – who, , in my humble opinion, is not only more beautiful, but has a far more interesting background as a soldier in China’s Red Army, a folk singer, and a performing artist. So, shame on you, Michelle….

Related commentaries:

Holy Stuxnet…
Nixonian Obama…
Countries queuing up…

The overthrow of Arab regimes [has] not worked in the interest of freedom, democracy or ending social injustice as much as it helped create chaos.

(BBC, September 21, 2012)

Given that unrelenting chaos has followed the overthrow of Arab regimes everywhere from Afghanistan to Libya, there’s simply no gainsaying this observation. And that none other than Syrian President Bashir al-Assad made it should give pause to the Western leaders who have been calling for the overthrow of his regime.

Granted, Assad has been in a death-defying struggle (like the one Muammar Gaddafi fought and lost) to defeat the opposition/rebel forces that have been trying to overthrow him for the past two years. Therefore, his observation is clearly self-serving.

But no less a person than U.S. President Obama has given credence to it by refusing to support opposition/rebel forces in Syria the way he supported them in Libya and Egypt. No doubt you recall that Obama led the chorus of Western leaders calling on Assad to step aside:

The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. His calls for dialogue and reform have rung hollow while he is imprisoning, torturing, and slaughtering his own people…

For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.

(Whitehouse.gov, August 18, 2011)

That was almost two years ago. Which begs the question: Why does Obama persist in calling for Assad to step aside, while refusing to do anything to help opposition/rebel forces get rid of him?

Well, with all due respect to Assad’s observation, I submit that it has much to do with the opposition/rebel forces’ remorse I warned about in the early days of the Arab Spring:

The issue is not whether Mubarak will go, for he will. (The man is 82 and already looks half dead for Christ’s sake!) Rather, the issue is who will replace him. And it appears they have not given any thought whatsoever to this very critical question.

The devil the Egyptians know might prove far preferable to the devil they don’t. Just ask the Iranians who got rid of the Mubarak-like Shah in 1979 only to end up with the Ayatollah – whose Islamic revolution they’ve regretted (and have longed to overturn) ever since….

(“Army Pledges No Force against Protesters,” The iPINIONS Journal, February 1, 2011)

In other words, Obama called for Mubarak to step aside. He did; and chaos followed. Obama called for Gaddafi to step aside. When he refused, Obama helped opposition/rebel forces get rid of him; and chaos followed. So fool him once (or even twice), shame on opposition/rebel forces; fool him three times, shame on Obama.

Which brings me to Turkey. And, trust me, what is most interesting about the belated Arab Spring unfolding there today is that opposition/rebel forces are attempting to overthrow this Arab regime for the same reasons opposition/rebel forces overthrew the Arab regime in Egypt – complete with Turkish protesters occupying a national square, namely Taksim Square, emulating the way Egyptian protesters occupied Tahrir Square.

What started as an outcry against a plan to build on Gezi Park, the last spot of greenery in Taksim, has become a nationwide outpouring of anger against Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, who is accused of being ‘conservative,’ ‘arrogant’ and ‘authoritarian’

(London Telegraph, June 2, 2013)

Except that Erdogan has as much moral and constitutional right to ignore calls by opposition/rebel forces for him to resign as Obama has to ignore calls by Tea-Party Republicans for him to resign. Not least because, unlike Mubarak, Gadaffi, and Assad, Erdogan was truly democratically elected:

I am not going to seek the permission of [the opposition] or a handful of plunderers. If they call someone who has served the people a ‘dictator’, I have nothing to say… I am the servant of the people.

(Erdogan, The Guardian, June 2, 2013)

Not to mention that, at this point, Obama would sooner call on the president of France to step aside than call on the prime minister of Turkey to do so.

In fact, nothing will prevent Obama from parroting the call of opposition/rebel forces for Erdogan to step aside quite like the accusations of betrayal long-standing allies in the Arab world hurled at him for throwing Mubarak under the bus. The last thing Obama can afford, geo-strategically, is to be accused of doing the same to another major Arab ally.

Then, of course, there’s the inconvenient timing of having Erdogan at the White House just weeks ago, where they jointly called on Assad to resign:

Let me tell you that ending this bloody process in Syria and meeting the legitimate demands of the people by establishing a new government are two areas where we are in full agreement with the United States…

(Erdogan, Whitehouse.gov, May 16, 2013)

Ironically, Erdogan was so certain of his political standing back home that he rebuked Obama for dithering on helping opposition/rebel forces overthrow Assad.

We are of course concerned more than anyone else, being a neighbor of Syria – but the way to deal with that problem is not withholding your support. Not doing anything is not a solution.

(Erdogan, Whitehouse.gov, May 16, 2013)

Mind you, this from a man who sounded eerily, perhaps forebodingly, like Mubarak, Gaddafi, and Assad over the weekend when he dismissed the cries of his own people for more democratic freedoms as the mischief-making of extremists and idle-minded youths.

Even more ironic, though, is that opposition/rebel forces in Turkey will soon be calling on Obama to do for them what he did for opposition/rebel forces in Libya. What’s more, they will be aided and abetted in this by war-mongering U.S. officials (like Republican Senator John McCain) who are probably just lying in wait to rebuke Obama for dithering on Erdogan, just as Erdogan and these U.S. officials have rebuked him for dithering on Assad. Got that?

But just as I admonished Obama to leave Afghans, Iraqis, Egyptians, Libyans, and Syrians to reconcile their political/sectarian differences without U.S. (military) involvement, I admonish him to leave the Turks to their own devices.

And this admonition holds even if resolving their differences takes a bloody military-style crackdown the likes of which not seen since China squashed the Tiananmen-Square democracy movement in 1989; or takes a bloody civil war the likes of which not seen since hundreds of thousands of Hutus and Tutsis slaughtered each other in Rwanda during the summer of 1994. (I remind you, it took a bloody civil war the likes of which the world had never seen for Americans to resolve their political/sectarian differences….)

Still, if you’re one of those people who think the United States has a moral obligation to intervene to stop ethnic/sectarian violence wherever possible, just ask yourself why it has not lifted a finger to intervene in the DR Congo:

[F]our million or more people have died as a result of the conflict [in the DR Congo] since 1998, almost half of them children under the age of 5, according to the International Rescue Committee.

(New York Times, December 2, 2012)

That’s 4,000,000 people folks! (I duly decried this genocide – for the umpteenth time – in “DR Congo’s Heart of Darkness Gets Even Darker,” The iPINIONS Journal, December 4, 2012.) Yet McCain and others have the (racist?) gall to accuse Obama of a failure of leadership for refusing to send troops to rescue 100,000 Syrians?! And bear in mind that this genocide in the DR Congo began unfolding in the very year (1998) when then President Bill Clinton traveled to Rwanda to apologize for the failure of U.S./Western countries to stop that genocide….

My heart goes out to the Turks – just as it does to people suffering under totalitarian and oppressive regimes … everywhere. Never mind that what oppressed minorities in Turkey are suffering today pales in comparison to what oppressed Blacks in the United States suffered for more than 150 years; which in itself should give any U.S. president pause in this context.

But if the United States wants to act on any moral imperative to stop ethnic and/or religious groups in foreign countries from killing each other, it should begin by honoring its promise to stop the killing in Africa (beginning with the DR Congo and Darfur: remember Darfur?).

NOTE: I hope it’s clear that what is happening to Erdogan is the best thing that could have happened to Assad.  And I hope it’s equally clear that, just like the democracy protesters in Egypt, those in Turkey have not given a moment’s thought to the very likelihood that the devil they know in Erdogan would prove far better than any devil who might replace him.

Related commentaries:
Army pledges no force…
DR Congo’s Heart of Darkness…

I was among those who not only panned the puerility of turning the daring-dos of a comic-book hero into a Broadway show, but also ridiculed the technical difficulties producers had trying to replicate them on stage.

Last night’s opening preview of Broadway’s most expensive production ever, Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark, was an epic flop as the $65 million show’s high-tech gadgetry went completely awry amid a dull score and baffling script, theatergoers griped. Stunned audience members were left scratching their heads over the confusing plot – when they weren’t ducking for cover from falling equipment and dangling actors.

(New York Post, November 29, 2010)

But I was acutely aware not only of how fickle theater critics could be, but also of what little it takes to entertain an American public hooked on reality-TV:

I don’t know who came up with the harebrained idea of turning ‘Spider-Man’ into a Broadway musical…

But I’m not prepared to call it an epic flop … just yet. For I’m all too mindful that a flawless performance on opening night in January could inspire reviews that are as glowing as these ones are damning.  And that alone would guarantee Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark a long and very profitable run on Broadway.

(“Spider-Man … On Broadway?!” The iPINIONS Journal, December 1, 2010)

This is why, despite the show’s absurd premise and production woes, I was not at all surprised to wake up yesterday to this boastful headline:

The Sweetest Thing! Bono and The Edge celebrate 1000th performance of their controversial musical Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark.

(Daily Mail, May 30, 2013)

So much for the critics, eh?  In fact, according to FOX News, Spider-Man: Turn Off  The Dark is:

• the most popular show on Broadway;
• holds the record for the highest single-week attendance in Broadway history; and
• rakes in an average of over $1 million each week.

This final, bottom-line stat is very important because it means that this show has already recouped its unprecedented $65 million production costs. And no two people can be more pleased (and feel more vindicated) than Bono and The Edge of U2 – principal investors as well as infamous writers of the “dull score” the Post’s theater critic complained about.

Therefore, all I can do is reiterate the lamentation that truly animated my criticism:

Original plays on Broadway are already an endangered species.  So just imagine what the success of this show will breed: a great white way populated with nothing but musical productions about comic-book heroes.  That’s entertainment?!

(“Spider-Man … On Broadway?! The iPINIONS Journal, December 1, 2010)

So stay tuned for Iron-Man: De-nuking Iran…?

In the meantime, if you’re visiting New York City and would like to see a Broadway show, I urge you to consider a play like The Assembled Parties or, if you’re celebrity-obsessed, Vanya and Sonia and Marsha and Spike featuring Sigourney Weaver and David Hyde Pierce or Lucky Guy featuring Tom Hanks and Courtney B. Vance. And if you have kids tagging along who are nagging you to see Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark, tell them to go read the friggin’ comic books.

Related commentaries:
Spider-Man…

One can be forgiven for thinking that a comparison between Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant as Basketball players has merit if it’s being offered by the most successful coach in NBA history, Phil Jackson.

But such comparisons are good for nothing more than stirring up argument among friends, preferably at a neighborhood sports bar.  For, as Kobe shrewdly tweeted on May 17, 2013 in response to Jackson’s comments:

The comparisons are #apple2oranges.

For example, Muhammad Ali is the self-professed “greatest fighter of all time.” But many Boxing analysts would argue (in fact, have argued) that no fighter in the history of the sport would’ve stood a chance against Mike Tyson in his prime.

And here is why argument invariably ensues:

I disagree; because I remember well how Ali literally toyed with George Foreman, the Tyson of his day, before knocking him out in the eighth round of their historic “Rumble in the Jungle.” But I digress.

For what it’s worth, Jackson claims that Michael was tougher than Kobe, physically and mentally; that he was better at controlling a game, offensively and defensively; and that, unlike Kobe, who tends to panic and force things when his shot is off, Michael had the self-confidence to dominate the game in other ways until his shot came back to him, which it invariably did.

Fine. I just wish he wasn’t telling us things we have seen for ourselves a thousand times….

Which begs the question: why would Jackson betray his reputation for inscrutable, Zen-like wisdom by peddling such pedestrian observations? Oh, right, he’s stirring up sales for his new memoir, Eleven Rings: The Soul of Success.

Given that title, I suppose he could’ve added that Michael was better still because he helped Jackson win six of those eleven rings as coach of the Chicago Bulls (1989-98); whereas Kobe only helped him win five as coach of the Los Angeles Lakers (1998-2011).

Incidentally, I have no doubt that Kobe will return next season from what should have been a career-ending tear of his Achilles tendon last month. But I fear he will fail in his quest to tie or surpass Michael’s tally of six rings.

Indeed, the only way Kobe can emulate Michael at this point would be to end his career in even greater ignominy than Michael did, which was as a wobbly, hobbling shadow of himself, playing more as team mascot than team leader for the Washington Wizards.

But, given that Jackson is clearly using championship rings as a measure of success, Bill Russell must figure prominently in any argument about the best player in NBA history. After all, he won 11 rings in 13 seasons as the star of the Boston Celtics and, by serving as coach as well for two of those championship seasons, he established a level of accomplishment no player can ever emulate.

Yet nothing betrays these silly apple2oranges comparisons quite like Wilt Chamberlain, arguably the most dominant player in NBA history, managing to win only two rings. This should remind folks like Jackson and barroom debaters that the success of superstars like Michael and Kobe always depends on teammates like Scottie Pippen and Shaquille O’Neal, respectively.

Not to mention that Dr. J (Julius Erving) was easily the most exciting player to watch, bar none - a fact borne out by The Doctor, a documentary showcasing his high-flying, gravity-defying feats that premiers on NBA TV next week.

Meanwhile, LeBron James, the league’s current MVP, is leading his team, the Miami Heat, in a do-or-die series against the Indiana Pacers for the sacrificial honor of facing the indomitable San Antonio Spurs in this year’s NBA Finals.

But even if he were to lead them pass Indiana and San Antonio, LeBron would be rewarded with only his second ring.  Which means that he would have to win at least three more (perhaps even in three-peat fashion) to be a serious contender in these apples2organges comparisons.

Related commentaries:
Best fighter of all time…

My cynicism about the cult of celebrity in our society is such that it would not surprise me to learn that kids trust their favorite movie or rock star more than they trust their parents or pastor/priest/rabbi.

It would be one thing if I could dismiss this plainly misplaced trust as a teenage rite of passage. But the sad truth is that adults are no less gullible.

In fact, even politicians elected to govern for the general welfare are so star-struck they would happily spend hours listening to the lyrical pronouncements of a rock star on poverty alleviation. Whereas they would not give a Nobel Prize-winning economist one minute to educate them on the macroeconomic policies required to do so.

It is a sad commentary on the state of world affairs that the political initiatives of a movie or rock star are taken more seriously than those of a seasoned statesman. But that is the perverse reality when it comes to the global fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS and unconscionable poverty throughout the developing world.

How else can one explain the President of Sierra Leone drooling over Angelina Jolie last week as he promised HER immediate action on redressing human rights abuses in his country – after rejecting repeated appeals by President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa to do just that…

Alas, worshiping celebrities is not merely the avocation of giddy teenage girls; world leaders seem equally enthralled by these latter-day-performing saints.

(“Celebrity-Obsessed World Has Made Actors and Rock Stars Statesmen of Our Time,” The iPINIONS Journal, May 23, 2005)

Therefore, it came as no surprise to me that, according to a highly reliable poll in the June 2013 issue of Reader’s Digest, the three most trusted people in America are Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, and Denzel Washington.

To understand how our trust instinct shapes our culture, we compiled a list of over 200 American opinion shapers and headline makers from 15 highly influential professions. Then we polled a nationally representative sample of over 1,000 American adults, asking them to rank each person based on trustworthiness.

Mind you, people were asked to base their ranking on “integrity, character, exceptional talent, drive to personal excellence, internal moral compass, message, honesty and leadership.” All of which, ironically, are qualities one would expect to find more in a person one who takes an oath to honor the public’s trust than in one who gets paid to make the public believe things that are not real.

Yet, of the top 10 most trusted people, six are movie stars and one is a movie director. By contrast, only one active politician was trustworthy enough to even make the list of 100, and that is no less a person than the president of the United States, Barack Obama, who ranked a lowly 65th.

Apropos of my diss above of religious leaders, perhaps Obama can derive some consolation from knowing that he is more trustworthy than Billy Graham, the reputed pastor to presidents, who ranked 67th. But the only consolation I derived from reviewing this list is that the American people were at least smart enough not to include a single Republican….

That said, honorable mention goes to First Lady Michelle Obama who ranked 19th; to former President Jimmy Carter who ranked 24th (although he is far more known today for his charitable and humanitarian work than for his politics); and to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who ranked 51st (which I suppose holds her in enviable stead to launch her campaign to replace the 65th-ranked Obama in 2016).

Related commentaries:
Celebrity-obsessed world…
Reader’s Digest

I first became aware of the relevance and influence of the Cannes Film Festival in 1976 when Taxi Driver won its most prestigious award, the Palme d’Or. Cannes seemed to be the place where films were recognized more for their artistic merit than for their potential box-office receipt. By way of foodie analogy, back then the Oscar was to fast food what the Palme d’Or was to haute cuisine.

More to the point, chances are very good that, but for winning the Palme d’Or, some of my favorite films would never have gotten funding for worldwide release. For example, imagine films like All That Jazz, The Mission, The Piano, and Pulp Fiction all being relegated to art house theaters.

But, just as the proliferation of cable-TV stations has diminished the relevance, influence, and quality of network-TV stations, the proliferation of film festivals has done the same to Cannes. In fact, it’s arguable that film festivals like Sundance and Tribeca are providing as formidable a challenge to Cannes in this respect as HBO and AMC are providing to ABC, CBS and NBC. And trust me, all festivals these days are more like bazaars - where producers selling films, as opposed to directors screening them, is the order of the day.

It’s hardly surprising therefore that Cannes 2013 will be remembered more for the art of titillation than for the art of film making. For never before in the history of film festivals has more been written about major stars, such as Eva Longoria and Rosario Dawson, flashing their side boobs and Brazilian wax on the red carpet than about the quality of the acting onscreen.

But, appropriately enough, nothing provided more titillation than the graphic lesbian sex – with its hint of pedophilia – depicted in, Blue Is the Warmest Color, the film that won this year’s Palme d’Or. Not to mention the transitional significance of no less a Hollywood mogul than Steven Spielberg (think the head of McDonalds’s from my foodie analogy above) heading the jury that made this decision.

Of course, sexual chauvinism dictates that we see two chicks going at it onscreen – no matter how graphic – as artistic.  But this film’s artistic merit is somewhat betrayed by having renowned reviewers, such as the Daily Mail’s Baz Bamigboye, exclaiming that it “leaves nothing to the imagination” (i.e., the way hard-core porn does).

Then, apropos of chauvinism, there was the way Roman Polanski not only upstaged the winner of the Palme d’Or, but made his own film, Venus in Fur, seem irrelevant.  He did so by declaiming as follows on gender equality:

I think to level the genders — it’s purely idiotic. I think it’s a result … of progress in medicine. I think that the Pill has changed greatly the woman of our times, ‘masculinising’ her. I think that it chases away the romance from our lives and that’s a great pity.

(Associated Press, May 25, 2013)

Mind you, it’s arguable that Polanski is merely pining for the kind of romance that would allow a grown man to molest underage girls:

Imagine the shock and scandal back then when he was arrested for plying a 13-year-old girl, Samantha Gailey (now Geimer), with drugs and booze, and then raping her.

Imagine further that, after being arrested, pleading guilty, and copping a plea, he flew the coop on the eve of sentencing to avoid having to do (any) time for this unconscionable crime; and that, far from living the life of a fugitive, he has lived and worked openly and notoriously in France, even receiving an Oscar in absentia in 2002 for ‘The Pianist.’

(“Cold Justice for Confessed (pedophile) Rapist Roman Polanski,” The iPINIONS Journal, September 28, 2009)

Is there any wonder, then, that this male chauvinist and unrepentant child rapist would resent women being liberated to expect sexual intercourse to be about more than just making babies and catering to the sexual peccadilloes of men?

Not to be outdone, Jerry Lewis launched a formidable challenge to Polanski by providing this chauvinistic reply when asked who his favorite female comics are and what he thinks about women like those in Bridesmaids doing his kind of comedy:

I don’t have any. I can’t see women doing that; it bothers me

I cannot sit and watch a lady diminish her qualities to the lowest common denominator.

(Huffington Post, May 23, 2013)

For starters, though, if you think about it, this is the funniest thing Lewis has said since his performance in The Nutty Professor in 1963.  Indeed, one gets the impression that, like Polanski, Lewis has been sleeping, ironically enough, like the hen-pecked Rip Van Winkle for the past 40 years. All the while, women were not only demanding gender equality in every facet of life, but actually demonstrating to all sensible men how much better off we are too for the progress they’ve made in this respect.

Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention how billionaire hedge funder Paul Tudor Jones was pilloried in the American media last week for saying that breastfeeding is a killer to a woman’s ambitions and causes her to lose the ability to make rational decisions on the trading floor….

Except that, I found his chauvinism a little more sympathetic after taking the time to review his remarks in context. He made them during a panel discussion last month on the undeniable predominance of White men in top positions on Wall Street. But there’s no gainsaying the phenomenon of women leaving Wall Street firms in their prime to marry and become stay-at-home moms:

In the past 10 years, 141,000 women, 2.6% of female workers in finance, disappeared from the industry, while the ranks of men in the industry grew by 389,000, or 9.6%, according to a review of data provided by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

What’s more, most of the finance refugees are young women, many of whom have left finance to have children, economists say.

(The Wall Street Journal, September 20, 2010)

Jones’s mistake was trying to explain why so many women are “opting out” instead of “leaning in.” Not least because it’s almost always the case that this ironic reversal of The Feminine Mystique has more to do with women having rich husbands who can support them (in latterday Leave-It-To-Beaver fashion) than with breastfeeding making them lazy and ineffective.

After all, women like Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo! (who famously returned to work two weeks after giving birth) clearly belie his notion about motherhood sapping women of their professional ambitions and abilities. Moreover, by granting far more generous perks to new parents (i.e., mothers and fathers), Mayer is in the vanguard of CEOs who are recognizing that attracting and retaining women in traditionally male-dominated professions is good for the bottom line.

Data show unequivocally that when women are in leadership roles in companies, those companies have better policies.

(‘Lean In,’ Sheryl Sandberg, COO Facebook)

Enough said.

Related commentaries:
Roman Polanski…

Don’t forget to curse the politicians who made dead heroes of so many of them for vainglorious causes like Vietnam and Iraq….

 

Support Draft to prevent stupid wars

My commentaries on terrorism are replete with remonstrations about the way Western media and political leaders hasten to call any murder perpetrated by a Muslim an act of terrorism. But I am convinced that the reflexive way they conflate murder with terrorism in this context only ensures more of both.

For example, there were 16 mass shootings in United States last year alone – all perpetrated by non-Muslim White men. Most notably:

• A neo-Nazi killed six people at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin last August. Surely he terrorized Sikhs in Wisconsin every bit as much as those marathon bombers terrorized everyone in Boston last month.
• A “lone wolf” killed 26 at the Newtown Elementary School in Connecticut last December. Surely he terrorized surviving students and their parents in Connecticut every bit as much….
• Another lone wolf killed 12 (and wounded 58) at a cinema in Colorado last July. Surely he terrorized moviegoers not just in Colorado, but all over the country every bit as much….

Yet neither the media nor President Obama called a single one of these killings an act of terrorism – with all of the hysteria and overreaction, respectively, that would’ve triggered. But there can be no denying that, if a Muslim had perpetrated any one of them, they would have called it terrorism.

Perhaps only Muslims are capable of perpetrating acts of terror…?

Which brings me to the United Kingdom, where on Wednesday two thugs literally slaughtered a British soldier (with machetes and butcher knives) on a street in Woolwich, South East London, in broad daylight. But all indications are that what is most important about this “act” is not its daring and barbaric nature, but the fact that the perpetrators are Muslim.

Not surprisingly there are fewer mass shootings in the UK (by far) than in the U.S. Most notably:

• A lone wolf killed 12 (and wounded 11) during a shooting spree in Cumbria, North West England, in 2010.

Yet again, despite all of the outpouring of national grief and sorrow, neither the media nor Prime Minister David Cameron called this terrorism. But, again, there can be no denying that, if a Muslim has perpetrated this act, they would have called it terrorism.

At the risk of belaboring the point, there can be no denying that, even if two neo-Nazis, instead of two Muslims, had slaughtered this British soldier in the same fashion, the media and Cameron still would not have called it terrorism. Got that?

To be fair, though, it’s arguable that the mass shootings cited above did not meet the general definition of terrorism because the perpetrators gave no indication that their violence was politically motivated. Whereas, just as the bombers in Boston did, these thugs in London made clear their political motivation.

They did so by unleashing excited utterances – to the smartphone cameras of horrified onlookers – about slaughtering this soldier in the name of Allah to avenge the killing of innocent people by British (and American) soldiers in Muslim countries (i.e., reciting chapter and verse from the Islamist global terrorism handbook).

And what must be particularly worrisome to British authorities is that, according to the London Daily Mail, the chief perpetrator was born in Britain to devoutly Christian parents who immigrated from Nigeria – perhaps fleeing persecution at the hands of Muslim fanatics who have been terrorizing the “Middle Belt,” which separates the predominantly Muslim north from the predominantly Christian south, for decades. His accomplice was born in Nigeria.

In any event, based solely on their lunatic ranting right there at the scene of their crime, Cameron felt compelled to interrupt a foreign trip to rush home and address the nation – as if all of London were under attack. Indeed, because this murder was reflexively deemed a terrorist attack, he had to compete for airtime on all media outlets with looping replays of what smartphones captured of the perpetrators making their plainly delusional declaration of war.

Frankly, the only reason for the grossly disproportionate reaction in this case seems to be that bogeyman term: terrorism.

Therefore, God help us if al-Qaeda ever decides to emulate this feat by coordinating 10 similar [attacks], simultaneously.

(“Manhunt for Marathon Bombers Turning Boston into Theater of the Absurd,” The iPINIONS Journal, April 19, 2013)

Nonetheless, there was Cameron – staged with Number 10 as his backdrop to give the occasion the gravitas he thought it warranted – pathetically, shamelessly, channeling Britain’s greatest wartime prime minister, Winston Churchill:

We will never give in to terror or terrorism in any of its forms.

(BBC, May 23, 2013)

Of course, all of his allies, led by President Obama, then felt obliged to pledge unconditional and unwavering support:

The United States stands resolute with the United Kingdom, our ally and friend, against violent extremism and terror.

(Whitehouse.gov, May 23, 2013)

Blah, blah, blah.

Frankly, the only wonder to me is that it took the police so long to show up at the scene. Hell, reports are that the perpetrators ended up mugging for the cameras only after approaching onlookers to ask if anybody had bothered to call the police. Many had; so the only thing left to do while everybody waited was for them to plead their case, and for onlookers to listen in horror … and videotape.

Clearly this tardy response makes a mockery of Britain’s vaunted reputation for having “Bobbies” patrolling every street and CCTV cameras surveilling every nook and cranny.

Even more puzzling, though, is that when they finally arrived, instead of taking these machete and knife-wielding idiots out, the police merely wounded them, despite opening fire in a way that would make John Dellinger proud. Remarkably, they are now resting comfortably in hospital in stable condition … with “non-life-threatening injuries.”

So either the London police need to spend more time at the gun range honing their shooting skills; or they did not shoot to kill on purpose, hoping to extract intelligence from them about their Iman/handler, motivations, methods, accomplices, network, etc. If it’s the latter, all I can say is, yeah, good luck with that.

Whatever the case, in keeping with my long-standing policy of doing what little I can to deny mass murderers and wannabe terrorists the publicity they seek, I have not published their ugly mugs and shall refrain from even mentioning their names.

Unfortunately, thanks to the British media and PM Cameron, these cowardly murderers have far more cause to claim “mission accomplished” than former President George W. Bush ever did. I don’t know why Western media and political leaders alike fail to appreciate that publicizing and politicizing these crimes only reward the perpetrators and inspire others to copy their misdeeds: media attention is to wannabe jihadists what blood is to vampires.

I’m constrained to wonder why the media always reward these psychotic people by giving them the fame they covet; that is, by plastering their pathetic mugs all over television and on the front page of every major newspaper … worldwide, and reporting pop psychology about why and how they did their dastardly deeds? Isn’t it clear to see, especially in this age of instant celebrity, why some loser kid would find this route to infamy [and 72 obliging virgins] irresistible?

You’d think … we would have figured out by now that the best way to discourage them is by focusing our attention on the victims and limiting what we say about the [perpetrators] to: May God have mercy on your soul as you burn in hell!

(“Massacre in Omaha,” The iPINIONS Journal, December 7, 2007)

Not to mention that it emboldens other Islamist lone wolves, as much as it terrorizes people, to have so-called terrorism experts all over TV now pronouncing abject nonsense about these two idiots representing a new phase in al-Qaeda’s grand scheme to bring down Western civilization.

And am I the only one who finds it laughable that politicians, like London Mayor Boris Johnson, invariably react by declaring – with a straight face – that these incidents will not force us to change our way of life? Especially given that Western cities are looking more like bustling army bases every day….

Meanwhile, reports are that these two murderers were radicalized by Muslim clerics who blithely abused the freedom of speech and religion they enjoy in Britain to spew the very diabolical language of vengeance these two used to justify their slaughter. But I submit that a cleric inciting worshipers to violence (e.g., by preaching about the right to behead anyone who insults Islam or to “take an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” – whatever that means in practice) is even more anathema to free speech than a person shouting fire in a crowded theater. This too should be illegal.

Alas, nothing could be more pleasing to these radical clerics than to see White “yobs” reacting to this slaughter by vowing to mete out their own form of religious vengeance. For this would give them cause to channel no less a warrior king than Henry V before the famous Battle of Agincourt. And their words of perverse courage, honor, manhood, and martyrdom are bound to inspire many more hopeless and impressionable Muslims to emulate what their semi-martyred brothers did on Wednesday.

But I warned it would be thus:

It must be understood, however, that no matter their collective resolve, there’s absolutely nothing our governments can do to prevent such attacks. Meanwhile, that Americans reacted yesterday as if those explosions went off in Washington or New York should compel Westerners to focus on calming our collective nerves instead of fretting about (or worse, trying to figure out) the motivation for and timing of terrorist attacks by Islamic fanatics.

(“7/7 Terror Attacks in London,” The iPINIONS Journal, July 8, 2005)

NOTE: Apropos of the general definition of terrorism, I wonder why acts of violence the KKK and affiliated White-supremacist groups perpetrate(d) are/were never called terrorism…? Surely they terrorize(d) people every bit as much as al-Qaeda and affiliated Islamist groups do, no? But, if one didn’t know better, one would think Muslims were the first to use terrorism to achieve political objectives.

Related commentaries:
Boston bombing…
7/7 terror attacks…
Media compounding tragedy…

This commentary was originally published yesterday, Friday,  at 4:47 pm

In 2005, as displaced, disaffected and disillusioned immigrants were on their twelfth-consecutive night of rioting, which began in Paris then spread all over France, I felt moved to write a commentary titled “World Beware: French Riots Affects Us All,” The iPINIONS Journal, November 8, 2005.

In it I warned that the same social, political, economic and racial grievances that underpinned those riots were simmering in practically every other major city in Western Europe; even though the trigger that ignites them might differ from city to city:

[T]he riots in France should serve notice on other developed nations that have relegated the poor to ghettos where crime and every order of vice pervade… These riots demonstrate what little spark it takes for the simmering resentment that defines ghetto life to set cities ablaze and terrorize an entire country… There but for the grace of God….

Then, sure enough, Athens and then London was burning:

‘What happened here’ – in the multi-ethnic London neighborhood of Tottenham – is that the police shot and killed a suspected black ‘gangster’ named Mark Duggan. This ignited a frenzy of rioting and looting the likes of which, alas, have become all too familiar…

[This is only the latest manifestation] of the prescient warning I gave in my first commentary on the riots that had Paris burning in 2005, which I reiterated in ‘Alienated Youth Masquerading as Grieving Students Still Rioting in Greece,’ The iPINIONS Journal, December 13, 2008, on the riots that had Athens burning in 2008.

(“Now London Is Burning,” The iPINIONS Journal, August 9, 2011)

Well, now Stockholm is burning:

Rioters have lit fires and stoned emergency services in the suburbs of Stockholm for the third night in a row after a man was shot dead by police…

Rami al-Khamisi, a law student and founder of the youth organisation Megafonen, told the Swedish edition of the online newspaper The Local that he had been insulted racially by the police. Teenagers, he said, had been called ‘monkeys.’

He said the crowd was reacting to a ‘growing marginalisation and segregation in Sweden over the past 10, 20 years’ from both a class and a race perspective.

(BBC, May 22, 2013)

Which only leaves me to reiterate the prescription I offered, in “Now London Is Burning” (cited above), for preventing these riots:

Notwithstanding the alleged police brutality that triggers them, the reason riots continue to erupt in London is that political leaders fail to heed the categorical imperative to address the chronic unemployment, racial/religious discrimination, and social alienation that are the long-simmering sparks that give rise to these periodic combustions.

It should come as no surprise to learn that Tottenham is a very impoverished neighborhood with the highest unemployment rate in London. Unfortunately, that Prime Minister David Cameron has rushed back from vacation and recalled Parliament – not to address these root causes, but to spearhead efforts to put out the fires – suggest that it’s only a matter of time before the next eruption…

Until the next one then; because, instead of taking my prescription, the countries of Western Europe are merely segregating and marginalizing North-African immigrants today, the way the United States segregated and marginalized Blacks in the first half of the last century, leading inexorably to the riots that erupted all over the country during the 1960s. Never mind their hypocrisy – given the self-righteous way these countries continually condemned the United States for the root causes of its racial strife back then.

White folks, they’ll never learn. I suppose this is why a second-rate (White) professional golfer like Sergio Garcia of Spain thought it was okay just days ago to taunt Tiger Woods, the world’s number-one golfer (who just happens to be Black), with a racist joke about feeding him fried chicken at a forthcoming pro-golfers’ banquet….

Related commentaries:
Now London…