The President and the Patriot Act
Posted by admin | Filed under John's Columns
I had to blink and read it twice. But there it was, in clear, bold print: “Obama Seeks To Extend The Patriot Act.”
Our president, a Democrat, extending the Patriot Act? I immediately thought of all the people I knew that had spent all those years spewing nothing but venom against President Bush and his “Patriot Act,” and I wondered what they were now thinking. These people—many of them close friends of mine—had been good and pissed off for a long time at Bush’s policies and ideas. But now, all of a sudden, one of their own fellow lefties is supporting a major tenet of our former president’s administration. What a difference a few years make.
During the Bush years, it seemed that everywhere I looked there were people railing against the Patriot Act. There were writers on the blogosphere, there were professors on someone’s op-ed page, there were pundits on late night television, and there were people at the bars, dinners, and parties that I attended, all in a political chorus that harmonized just how paranoid and evil such things like the Patriot Act were.
But forget all the conservative and liberal stuff for a minute, and let’s look at the cold reality of 2009. Maybe our president—a former teacher of constitutional law–is just flat-out concerned about our nation’s safety and well-being.
Maybe he’s just abreast of things like what just happened in Queens last week, when three men were arrested for lying to federal authorities after attempting to rent a large Uhaul truck. One of the men has already admitted to receiving al-Qaida training.
Maybe he’s just worried about the four men that were caught and arrested for planning to blow up synagogues in the Bronx back in May of this year.
Maybe he’s just worried about the six men that were caught in 2007 plotting to bomb the army base at Fort Dix, New Jersey. All of this information is on the Internet.
Americans just seem to have the shortest memory when it comes to these things, but they happen all the time. Everything is well and good until some clown strapped with explosives walks into a crowded area and kills a lot of people, and President Obama is taking measures to help prevent something just like this from happening. Period.
I sure hope the president’s practical thinking influences some of the emotionally-bent people I know that have consistently labeled the Patriot Act as unfair, as racist, and so on. These people fail to see that if any other country—Canada, Switzerland, Taiwan, whoever— experienced the same repeated attempts by people to aimlessly blow up buildings and hurt people in their own respective countries, they would take the same measures this country has, and probably a lot more.
I sure hope that his practical wisdom helps us realize that there’s no use in constantly and incessantly putting our rights and liberties first if we are not going to even be around to enjoy our rights and liberties. Responsibility, I think, is what Mr. Obama is espousing.
Our president has just vowed to support the Patriot Act, and I’m just curious: do you still support him?
Put away the Flag?
Posted by admin | Filed under John's Columns
Independence Day is approaching and I wonder if one of our historians will again be asking us not to wave our flag. Do historians in other countries do this?
My guess is that they probably don’t. But in the United States anything goes. In 2006 historian Howard Zinn wrote an editorial titled “Put away the flags,” which ran in a number of newspapers around the country. The historian advocated in the column that we shelve our sin-soaked flag and instead “assert our allegiance to humanity.” The column was reprinted in various newspapers for July 4th of both 2007 and 2008.
I don’t know how many Americans take Mr. Zinn up on his offer. But is absolutely amazing that on one of the only days of the year that we Americans can celebrate what really brings us together we still have to hear such grumbling and discontent.
Zinn is known for his general disgust with this thing called the American experiment. His “People’s History of the United States” is a page-by-page account of literally all of America’s shortcomings, everything from the sins of Columbus to the failures of Bill Clinton. From beginning to end, he simply plows through three to four centuries and picks away. Zinn basically does the same thing in “Put away the flags,” in which the United States can do no right.
It is foolish to think that this country and its government have always made the wisest decisions. But can we flip this coin and look at the other side of reason? Is it not equally foolish to think that we never get it right? As for myself, I spend part of Independence Day usually thinking about the brave and brilliant Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was one of the few Founding Fathers to vigorously oppose slavery. He also fought in the Revolutionary War and played an extraordinary role in founding this country.
I also think about our 1993 humanitarian intervention into Somalia, and instead of focusing on the nineteen American servicemen that died, I think about the noble intentions of our armed forces. My thoughts then might go to something as random as the six hundred million dollars we gave to the victims of the horrific typhoon in Indonesia in 2006.
There are no perfect human beings and there are no perfect governments. Turkey has its long-suppressed Armenian massacre, Mexico has the bloody 1968 Summer Olympics, and China has something called Tiananmen Square. The list could go on and on. I would implore all Americans to look at other countries and ask themselves: are the historians of those countries asking their citizens not to wave their flags?
Civilizations do not fall all at once, somebody once said. And if we allow people to pick through three or four hundred years at only bad human nature gone astray, then we are in trouble. And when this kind of thinking climaxes to the actual consideration of not displaying our national flag, then we are certainly in trouble.
No, those historians in those other countries are not asking their citizens to do what Zinn is asking us. Those historians are probably proud of their nation and its heritage.
Can we learn from them? Can we try and put away our emotional criticism and see some of the good in this country? For this July 4th, as we display our flags with pride, it might be good to remember this.
Wave your flag nice and high, Americans, and, for at least one day, turn a deaf ear to the likes of Mr. Zinn. Wave your flag without shame. The integrity of Independence Day for many years to come depends on it.
Obama and the Boo
Posted by admin | Filed under John's Columns
Had it been any other kind of booing, it may have been understandable. Today’s public boos whenever it wants, and respect and consideration for a public speaker of any ideology are long gone. Booing someone you disagree with is now as common as booing the players at Yankee Stadium because of lousy play.
But this was more than just booing. The “assumed consensus” that is so dominant around our big cities in the United States was on display last week, and it made the act of simply booing look mature. The “assumed consensus,” at least the way I see it, happens when people just assume that everyone around them - and usually in an intellectual, artsy, or somewhat hip setting - has the same political opinions.
It happened at Columbia University during a political discussion in which John McCain was asked if he approved of the return of ROTC to Columbia’s campus. The ROTC has not been allowed on the campus for forty years, and is a hot-button issue with campus leftists. According to the New York Sun and the Washington Post, when Mr. McCain replied yes, many people in the crowd predictably and disrespectfully booed.
But the herd mentality of the crowd was stymied when Mr. Obama gave the same answer. When Mr. Obama also replied yes, the crowd did not boo and basically was dumbfounded and silent.
Does anyone else find this entertaining yet scary?
This is Columbia, an Ivy League university, one of the nation’s top schools, and we have students there that are publicly displaying a double standard of such fifth grade maturity? I, for one, am constantly around people that become aghast at those around them with differing viewpoints. I cannot tell you how common this is. I have gradually learned to accept it.
But when I read about the way the crowd reacted to McCain’s and Obama’s answers, I was disgusted. And I was frightened. Didn’t these students ever consider that Mr. Obama might not agree with them on everything? Scary that some of those students will be in law school or medical school in a few years.
The radical left amongst our youth has become so angry and so volatile on so many issues that it is hard to conceive how they can even function. One such issue is our national security and our armed forces in general. They could never have imagined that a certain Democratic candidate could support even something remotely “military” as the ROTC. But he does.
The students that booed Mr. McCain but did not boo Mr. Obama need to wake up and wake up quick. If Mr. Obama is victorious in November, do they realize he will probably do things at some point they do not like? Are they going to cry impeachment then? Will they whine or boo?
If Mr. Obama indeed wins the White House, I look forward to the day if he sends more troops to Afghanistan or decides to take a shot at the number three or four guy in Al-Qaeda’ s line of power. For my money, the man is much more of a hawk than people realize. He is indeed wary of the dangers of radical Islamic terrorism, and he has said so.
I look forward to those stymied looks on those confused faces. Will they be able to conceive a military maneuver of any kind by this young, hip, always-to-be agreed-with Democrat?
Hopefully, the assumed consensus - something that I experience all of the time here in New York – is something we will one day look back on and laugh at. It is ludicrous and childish to assume that people around you will always have the same opinions, even if you are in such a place as Los Angeles, Portland, or New York. The world is a complex place, and as Lincoln once said— if this can be applied to our young, radical youth — “wise men do not always agree.”
Indeed, wise men do not always agree, and what a lesson. The only alternative is to boo and pout when someone has a different perspective on life. Both Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Obama would be revolted.
The ghosts of 1968
Posted by admin | Filed under John's Columns
Old habits die hard, some say, and perhaps this cliché applies to the spirit of the late sixties. Forty years ago, social unrest resounded throughout much of the world. There was anger over the ongoing Vietnam War, there was a continued push for civil rights and for the peace movement, and generally speaking, much of the youth of the world was dissatisfied.
But in 2008, though we are not living in perfect times, things are still a bit different. Which is why, to me, the slogan “Recreate 68” is so puzzling. “Recreate 68” is a group based out of Denver that apparently is trying to revive those old ghosts of protest. The mission of RC 68, taken from their website, simply states that the group “disseminates information for resistance so the powers of the people can be expressed as loudly as possible.” Fair enough.
There are, of course, a lot of people that are angry over their lives, and the sentiment of 1968, understandably, is still with them. But some people are just endlessly and helplessly angry. This is the group that can’t handle disagreement. This is the group that shouts down people that have a different perspective. Lastly, this is the group that just wants it to be 1968 all over again.
This may or may not completely describe all of the activists who make up “Recreate 68,” but it does describe a lot of people that just act like we have the same problems as 1968. Spend a little time, though, with any good book of contemporary world history, and you will see just how momentous 1968 was. There were student protests – massive protests – in Germany, England, Mexico, Poland, Brazil, Italy, and right here in the United States. The Vietnam War raged on, with combat deaths reaching 14,000 for 1968 alone. Dr. King and Robert Kennedy were both struck down by the bullets of senseless idiots, and Woodstock was only a short time away.
And in 2008, by comparison, we have it pretty good. Race relations have come a long way, unless you focus on the few radical examples that blow up on CNN every now and again. There have been several high-profile black Americans working for the Bush administration, and one of the two current presidential candidates is black. Teenagers and twenty-somethings – most of whom were the loudest protesters in 1968 – have been coddled and told they could take on the world and have been given untold opportunities to do so. Many are doing so. There is something called the Internet that has made life so much easier, offering everything from volunteering opportunities to filing for unemployment to finding jobs in foreign lands. Life is easier, and there are opportunities for everybody.
So I continue to wonder: where are the parallels between 1968 and 2008? And moreover, if today’s youth – normally the go-to crowd when it comes to protesting – really felt the pangs of 68, then where are they? Protesting does seem to be hip, because we see it everywhere, from those concerned with circus animal abuse to those concerned with police brutality. But the numbers of people that are protesting? It’s nothing more than a few hundred here, fifty there, perhaps a few thousand there. The protests of today are more a kind of patchwork of miniscule protests than anything else. The numbers simply are not there. Ask yourself: when was the last time in this country we saw a protesting crowd of really, really outstanding proportions?
In 1968 students basically shut down Columbia University, taking over three buildings and kidnapping three professors.
In 2008 Columbia’s finest are cruising down to the subway with their IPOD’s and their bottles of vitamin water, maybe exchanging the latest tirade over President Bush, and then on to the next social gathering.
In 1968 there were hunger strikes and sit-in protests at different diners all across the country. There were also students that were beaten with clubs by police just for protesting. Do we see anything like this today?
In 2008 our youth are more concerned with Facebook, Kanye, indie rock, and Obama, and probably in that order. In 2008, colleges are offering abundant quotas to students of all stripes, and moreover, students can drop out of high school, get their GED, and be accepted by a number of colleges. Craigslist.com offers a daily smorgasbord of jobs. The opportunities for people of any gender, race, or sex are everywhere, and you would have to be simply blind not to see this.
God bless the sustained magic and lore of those rowdy days of 1968. I wish I had been alive to witness it all. But we live in a different time. There will be a time for the resurrection of the ideas of other anniversaries as life goes on, and this is not one of them.
So I encourage either the actual subscribers to “Recreate 68” or just those that live by the general protest identity, to let those phantoms of 1968 slip away. Let them tiptoe back from whence they came. In 2008 we have an interesting and extraordinary election to focus on. Better to channel our energy on the showdown between two fine presidential candidates than to exacerbate misguided anger and desperation over “recreating 68.”
Besides, those phantoms will rest better without us. We just may need them for another cause one day.
Avril, Snoop and others
Posted by admin | Filed under John's Columns
I thought of all this recently when I read that pop star Avril Lavigne would not be allowed to perform in Malaysia. The country’s Pan-Malaysian Islamic party leader actually said that the singer “was considered too sexy for us,” and that “we want clean artists, artists that are role models.” Did any major columnist or news organization lament at how close-minded or too chaste Malaysia is?
I can only imagine what the backlash would be in this country if we told a certain performer that he she “were too sexy” to perform in public. Nonetheless, the party leader’s comments show that our country may have more in common with as country as different as Malaysia than we think.
But then it just happened again. Apparently , rapper Snoop Dogg was just denied permission to perform in Australia, after the country’s immigration department did a “character assessment” – seriously - of the rapper. Mr. Snoop has a history with the law and Australia is taking no chances.
And does anybody remember when Jamaica issued a warrant for the arrest of rapper Ja Rule back in 2002? The warrant was for the use of profanity while on stage, which apparently is a big deal in Jamaica.
These things happen all the time, and it shows the consistency of standards that many countries and cultures are trying to maintain. To me, it is obvious that there are expectations of human decency that are simply consistent throughout humanity, no matter what their foundations are. This is far more universal than worrying about being uptight or prude. “Uptight” and “prude” are knee-jerk words that people use to prove just how open and liberated they are. The simple reality is that most healthy cultures are just concerned about what their families and especially their children are exposed to. This is as simple and well-intended and as healthy as it gets.
Is the United States uptight? Well, if you are comparing us with France, then probably so. But if you are comparing us with much of the rest of the world, then probably not. Families and cultures the world over generally want to be exposed to clean and respectful surroundings, and if it means saying no to a performer that is, for that particular country, morally questionable, then so be it.
So the next time Mexico, or, say Taiwan, does not permit some random entertainer to perform in their country, think about the many other times that different countries have taken a similar stand against similar entertainers. The consistency of the expectations for just plain ole decency is surprisingly but assuredly alive, and all around the globe.
As for the United States, if people are so concerned about our culture being too “chaste” or “uptight,” then maybe they should move to a place that lives by looser standards. Or they could move to a place like Nigeria, where a woman was sentenced to death for adultery in 2003, or maybe Turkey , where in 2004 the national parliament considered making adultery a crime. Think we’re uptight? Think again.
Wherever they decide upon moving, they should just realize that the United States is not the only place in the world that tends to abide by certain standards of decency and respect. The world is still a beautiful place to live, it turns out, and still worth fighting for.
One less coward
Posted by johnglass | Filed under John's Columns
I usually do not think it is wise or moral to find any solace or consolation in the death of anybody. But in the case of Dr. Bruce Ivins, it might be okay to make an exception. With the absence of him, we have one less coward walking around that enjoyed killing at random.
On July 29, Mr. Ivins committed suicide, and was very likely only a few days away from being arrested by the FBI for the deaths of five Americans back in 2001. An army biologist, Ivins was an excerpt in the field of anthrax, and had been investigated by the FBI for the last six years.
Did people forget about the anthrax scare? It sure seems so because ever since Mr. Ivins passed away I, for one, have heard very little satisfaction or discussion about those scary few weeks that we all went through. Bivins couldn’t have timed his mission of death any better as he began his plan just a few weeks after the horrors of September 11.
Bivins sent letters contaminated with anthrax to the offices of U.S.Senators Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle, as well as to the offices of ABC, NBC, CBS news, and several other new organizations. Five people died as a result, and seventeen more became sick. To me, it is very telling that he sent these contaminated letters to government officials and to major sources of news media. The disturbed little man had an eye for some of the larger, more prominent points of American life, and he obviously wanted attention.
Bivins clearly had an agenda and we can only imagine what he might have tried if he had not been under investigation all this time. Anyone that doubts this should skim through a biology textbook and read up on the power of anthrax.
It is a shame that it took the FBI nearly seven years to obtain enough evidence to finally issue an indictment for Mr. Ivins. This is no surprise, though, given the endless number of legal protections and loopholes afforded to even those who we damn well know have committed such disgusting atrocities but still walk around in complete freedom.
Even so, the man is gone, and we can find some small comfort that we know who was responsible for the anthrax scare. Mr. Bivins was a coward, and was no better than those that perform mass shootings in public and then turn the gun on themselves, or those that strap bombs to their chests and walk out in crowded markets to kill as many as possible.
And with Bivins gone, we have one less such coward to deal with. Albeit small, it is still one small victory in our collective battle against those that hurt humanity.
One step forward, one step back
Posted by johnglass | Filed under John's Columns
It is amazing – but somewhat satisfying – that our legal system has just finished dealing with an Algerian terrorist in a case that involved the planned detonation of LAX airport in Los Angeles. A few weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the conviction of extremist Ahmed Ressam for conspiring to detonate explosives at the airport.
This was amazing—though still satisfying–because the planned attack was in 1999, and here we are in 2008, still dealing with the ridiculous appeals to his conviction.
But it is equally amazing—and this time disturbing– that our legal system has just finished dealing with other extremists, namely, those that were involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. An appellate court in New York recently ruled—fifteen years later– that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was responsible for 68% of the 1993 tragedy. The remaining 32%, of course, is assigned to the actual attackers. You will have to read the fine print of the ruling to understand such wisdom.
Thus we have one step forward followed by one step back, something that always seems to happen in the merry-go-round game of terrorism against the United States. Personally, I would like to look at the positives in life, and be content that Mr. Ressam, along with the architects still alive who planned 9/11, remains behind bars. But we have so many other ongoing appeals and inaction amongst the many legal cases involving other planned attacks on our country that it is both disgusting and frustrating. We are constantly taking one step forward, then right away one step back.
Every lawyer and judge in the country knows that Ahmed Ressam had guilty scribbled over all his face. A person does not enter the US with nitroglycerin, timing devices, and a false passport in his rental car without something devious in mind. But remember: he has his rights too.
All of this legal delay is just part and parcel of the bigger picture of the many, many attempted or planned attacks over the years by outsiders that hate us. But Americans simply do not follow or remember such things. Terrorism did not begin and has not ended with September 11. If the Brooklyn Bridge had been blown up back in 2002, would we be just a little more wary of the times we live in? This was a deadly serious endeavor that was discussed in detail and planned by a man named Iyman Faris. Thankfully it was never realized.
People have already forgotten about the planned attack on the soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and the planned detonation of fuel tanks at JFK airport, both of which were to happen in 2007. If these perpetrators had not been arrested and their attacks had been carried out, would we be as lax and as clueless as we now seem to be?
Americans live chock-filled lives and are incessantly bombarded with information. People do not read about or remember the suicide bombing of the USS Cole aircraft carrier back in 2000. Seventeen American soldiers died, but if it had been seventeen-hundred, would there be more of a public memory? If the seven Islamic militants that were arrested in Miami in 2006 had hatched their plan to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago, would we then see that there are a lot of people that hate us and want to kill us?
So I really can’t be upset that more Americans are not happy that one more person who wishes to harm innocent people has remained behind bars. Ahmed Ressam never carried out his plan, and thankfully he has been put away.
But I can be upset that more Americans are not upset at the fact that the Port Authority, and not the actual subhumans that orchestrated the attack, are largely held responsible for the first WTC bombing. This kind of fairy-tale jurisprudence should outrage any American concerned with just basically wanting to stay alive. It would be too easy to just place the bulk of the blame on those that just did the crime. Americans do not read the fine print – but if they did, there might be outrage.
The really scary thing is that it will take one of the many-planned attacks to finally happen for people to wake up. And for some, it might be too late.
The complications of profiling
Posted by johnglass | Filed under John's Columns
It first happened in New York during the fall of 2006 when I was driving through Brooklyn in my red pickup truck with its Alabama tag. My drum set was in the back of the truck, along with several speakers, amplifiers, and other equipment.
I was pulled over by a policeman, who, after checking my license and registration, told me he had pulled me over because he “could not make out my tag because the plate light was too dim.” Interesting.
It happened again about a year ago when I was driving home from a job site in Queens. I am in construction work, so I had lots of expensive tools in the back of my truck. I also had a few small drums from my drum set as I had played a music gig the night before. Again, a policeman pulled me over, and after checking my credentials, told me that they “had received a call from someone in the neighborhood regarding some suspicious activity.”
With my hat on backwards, my long sideburns, my red pickup from the deep South with a big gash in its side, and all of the drums and tools in the back, I kind of understood why some policemen might look at me with suspicion. But I was still angry. After some time, I did not give it more thought.
That is, until I recently read about all of the latest lawsuits across the country over “profiling.” Apparently, people are still being stopped or pulled over by local police for random reasons.
And then I realized: I too had been profiled. And if I count the times that I was pulled over (mostly, too, for silly reasons) while I was living in Dallas, I could see some kind of pattern.
And I gradually began to realize that profiling may happen much more frequently due to the human condition than people realize. It is almost always more wrong than right, but in any case, it simply happens more than we think, and it happens to people of all stripes and all backgrounds and all situations. If everybody took legal action every time that they had been “profiled,” then our already-slammed courts would overflow into pandemonium.
This should never minimize the claims of minorities and others that do experience true profiling, for this certainly does happen. But wisdom cries out for us to use discretion when we think we are unfairly targeted or suspected, for there may be a small element of profiling involved when making professional or personal decisions on a daily basis no matter who you are: a homeschooler, a doctor, a sanitation worker, a postman, a stay-at-home mom or a policeman.
Should I have called the local news to report what I had experienced? Perhaps, because, again, I experienced this type of police activity long before I moved to New York. But sometimes it’s not worth the hassle. I was never jailed because my record was clean, and I was not given—ahem,ahem– any unfair traffic tickets. To me, the police already have their hands full with much bigger problems.
The high point in all of this is to use wisdom and discretion when we feel “we are being profiled.” I know that as a white male, this might be easy for me to say. But I have had more than my fair share of “unfair treatment” from local police. And believe me, as I have sat there waiting while the policeman checked my record on his car computer, I wondered if I in some way fit somebody’s profile of a criminal or a thief. Profiling can be a complicated sociological phenomenon, and it is not always clear that it is completely off the mark.
If indeed the people of various profile lawsuits were wronged, then let justice have its way. But in a country that has more lawsuits than any other on the planet, it might be nice to exercise a little prudence and understanding before hauling everybody to court that unfairly “profiles.” So before making a mad dash to the nearest attorney, remember this: the bottom line is that everybody is profiled at some point in this complex thing called life.
The ultimate wisdom is to discern whether or not it truly justifies a legitimate legal response.
Mr. Kennedy and the anger of NOW
Posted by admin | Filed under John's Columns
Did the NY state chapter of NOW feel some vindication now that Mrs. Clinton has won the state of New York?
Well, hopefully, because it seemed like they needed it. The state chapter expressed a ludicrous amount of anger at Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy a few weeks ago when he endorsed Barack Obama. NY NOW stated that Kennedy’s endorsement “was the ultimate betrayal,” and that “we have been repaid with his abandonment.” Interesting. Disturbing but interesting.
The indignation of NY NOW perfectly exemplifies the predictable anger of so much of the left when it comes to disagreement. One gets the feeling about so many interest groups like NOW that you must be on the same page with them in every respect or there will be trouble. The minute that the powers to be at NY NOW heard of Kennedy’s endorsement, it was open season. NY NOW attacked him as if he had attacked them first. But it was simply a matter of opinion for Mr. Kennedy.
What happened to good ole’ fashioned disagreement amongst friends? A candidate cannot conceivably win the support of every one of the zillion-plus interest groups even if they are on the same general side of the political fence.
Would NOW have had the guts to call out fellow female Oprah Winfey, who likewise endorsed Mr. Obama? What about well-known Bush- basher Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks, who also is backing Obama? What about former congressional representative Maxine Waters, and current congressional representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, both of whom are female, and both of whom have endorsed Mr. Obama? Why did NOW stop with Ted Kennedy, who has worked in public service about as long as anybody?
There is a very simple and subtle component within the emotional framework of the radical left that expects consistent agreement, and if that is not met, then there is a problem. It’s bad enough for politics in general that that the left and the right disagree on so much. But one sector of the left disagreeing with another? Something does not . . . . well, something does not feel right. I see this all the time when my liberal friends, of whom I have many, vehemently argue over politics or about anything else. NY NOW is already angry enough that we have had a president for eight years who agrees with them on virtually nothing. But then to have a stellar liberal figure like Kennedy not endorse their choice for the nomination? Forget about it . . .
Maybe NY NOW received some extra satisfaction because in addition to winning New York, Mrs. Clinton also won Massachussets. Did Teddy’s endorsement cause a backlash?
Cheer up, NY NOW. If Mr. Obama wins the White House, don’t worry. I don’t think he will put women’s rights on the back burner. But if women’s rights are not always the center of his focus, just remember that you guys are generally on the same side. And when one discovers they have allies, they have already won half the battle.
Just think of that during the next few state primaries in case some other well-known Democrat comes out and endorses Obama. God forbid that you line up the Democrats that support Obama and mow them down.
The legacy of Ike Turner
Posted by admin | Filed under John's Columns
If it were not for a movie that came out in 1993, one of rock and roll’s pioneers might have eventually enjoyed more attention and due credit.
Ike Turner died a few months ago, and to most people he was known for his abusive relationship with Tina Turner more than anything else. The movie “What’s love got to do with it?“ helped to cement this reputation. But as time eases on, we have the responsibility to continue to assess his role as a serious musician. Mr. Turner’s contribution to rock music was more than just “one more guy that played the guitar,” and he should never be regarded as just one more “old school musician” that passed away.
Ike is now a part of a fading cast of characters who helped actually found this drama called rock and roll. Most people are familiar with the legacy of James Brown, and his contributions to rock and roll. Mr. Brown went on to glory almost exactly one year ago. Most people know about Bill Haley, and his undisputed role in the creation of rock and roll. He too, is gone. But Ike was right there with these men, and this should not go unacknowledged.
Ike played, interestingly, piano on a song called “Rocket 88” in 1951, and many music scholars are convinced the song carried the first recorded sound of guitar distortion that came to infect and almost define the very nature of rock music. The recording was done in Memphis, and Ike, being from Clarksdale, Mississippi, had to drive to Memphis with his band for the recording. This was long before he met the young singer Anna Mae Bullock, who eventually became Tina Turner. Ike was already busy playing shows and recording with his band in the late 1940’s, and thus had already been active and on the scene.
My mother had the opportunity to see Ike and Tina perform at her high school sorority ball in Mobile, Alabama in the early 1960’s. According to Mom, it was a show like no other. They simply came on stage, did not bother wasting time by talking to the crowd, and commenced to cook up and jam harmony after harmony. Mom told me that the crowd was just dazzled.
But a lot of rock stars dazzle, and in this era of myspace and craigslist, rock and roll musicians are a dime a dozen. People do not realize that virtually everything popular we hear today is built on the platform of an older generation. People like Little Richard. People like James Brown and Billl Haley. People like Jerry Lee Lewis. And yes, people like Ike.
There aren’t many Ikes left. Soon we will mourn just the musicians that are dying, but it will stop at that. The founders of rock and roll will be gone long before the many, many other established musicians of rock and roll fame, and will be upon us before we even realize.
So may God grant us many more years with Jerry Lee Lewis, that piano pounding rascal, who, at 78, is still active. May God bless us with the continued craze and melodies of Little Richard, 75, and Chuck Berry, 81, who are both also active. These guys aren’t supposed to ever die.
And may our Maker bless the legacy of Ike Turner. Rock and roll may not have turned out the way it did without him, and we should recognize that. It would make Mr. Turner proud.