Maybe Coakley should have arrested a rich black guy

I’ve posted before on National Review and their stance on white cops arresting black men in their own homes for no reason whatsoever (they’re for it). I thought I’d return to the subject after reading this.

I yield the floor to Mr. Alvin S. Felzenberg.

History may remember tonight’s Massachusetts returns as the vindication of the Cambridge cop. Last summer, readers will recall, the White House demanded yet another hour of prime time from the networks. It promised that at last the president would spell out the kind of health-care plan he would support. At the end of a boring hour, Obama came to life when Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times asked him to comment on the case of the Harvard professor and the Cambridge cop. Interestingly, in the absence of facts, the president — who, citing “pending investigations,” chooses not to comment on what the government did or did not know about what led to the attacks at Fort Hood and the attempted Christmas Day plane bombing — declared that the Cambridge police, in responding to a call about a possible burglary, “acted stupidly” in arresting an African-American professor in his own home.

All parties, including the professor, maintained at the time that the professor had been anything but “cooperative” with the officer who had answered a neighbor’s call. For weeks, the nation engaged in yet another of its periodic “conversations” about race. It was a scene worthy of The Bonfire of the Vanities: A white Cambridge police officer, having been praised for his work to promote diversity and tolerance, residing in a modest home, becomes a nationally known figure, courtesy of the president of the United States. Meanwhile, the African-American professor, reported to own more than one European-made luxury car, as well as a summer home in Martha’s Vineyard, talks of pending book deals and PBS documentaries about the case. The endless “dialogue” ended in a celebrated “beer summit,” with the officer carefully “muzzled” by his union handlers.

And all parties, including the cop, agreed that Gates had made himself known as the owner of the house well prior to his arrest inside of it. I haven’t a clue what business the cop had in the house after that point. Maybe he felt he better check the registration on those fancy European cars, you know, just in case.

What this post reveals is the truly shallow nature of NR’s supposed devotion to liberty. In short, they don’t give a damn about rogue cops arresting clearly innocent men for the offense of being insufficiently deferential cooperative. I suspect they would have ignored the issue altogether if Obama hadn’t made those remarks. But the remarks were made, and from that point on Crowley could have arrested Nancy Reagan for jaywalking for all NR cared. They had a cudgel, and they proceeded to beat the living hell out of Obama with it for weeks.

When the Tea Party movement begins to fracture, as it inevitably will, it will be split between its genuine libertarians and the pretenders. All the latter (and larger) group really wants is a return to power. Once reelected, and they made progress tonight, the former will be tossed aside, along with any notions of cutting spending, limiting government, and increasing freedoms. Indeed, common opinion in this movement is that the surveillance state created under the last Republican administration did not go far enough. Just guess which side National Review will be on.

Liberty or death: National Review would prefer the latter

I simply cannot believe that a group of intellectuals supposedly devoted to liberty can see nothing wrong with this.

“A passing police officer sees you and, asking himself how many 1932 Hupmobiles can there be around here, pulls you over. At that moment I can assure you the officer is not all that concerned with trying not to offend you. He is instead concerned with protecting his mortal hide from having holes placed in it where God did not intend. And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own.

When the officer has satisfied himself that it was not you and your Hupmobile that were involved in the Piggly Wiggly heist, he owes you an explanation for the stop and an apology for the inconvenience, but if you’re running your mouth about your rights and your history of oppression and what have you, you’re likely to get neither.”

As a description of reality, Dunphy is quite unfortunately correct. However, there is nothing in the tone of his post that suggests he finds this state of affairs even remotely regrettable. As an officer with the LAPD he only confirms everything one would expect regarding cop mentality, especially in the United States. As Vox Day will tell you, the police are not your friends.

The real shame here though is that nobody else at National Review Online thinks to say anything. Dunphy posted at noon on Sunday and The Corner can be something of a ghost town on weekends, but at this point it must have grazed some eyeballs among their 20-plus contributors. Even allowing for that, I have no problem predicting that there will be nary a dissenting voice. Perhaps there would have been a week ago, but now that the Gates arrest, which Dunphy was analogizing, is now tied to President Obama after his ill-considered words at the health care press conference last Wednesday, Republicans and their boosters at NR have no choice but to put their full and unmitigated support behind the police. Even at the expense of liberty.

National Review is far from a strictly libertarian publication, but you don’t have to be Ron Paul to assert the right to speak belligerently to the police, especially while inside your own home.

Vox calls them Stasi, Obama called them stupid. They’re both.

A Life Worth Living, and Risking

Even now
I know that I have savoured the hot taste of life
Lifting green cups and gold at the great feast.
Just for a small and a forgotten time
I have had full in my eyes from off my girl
The whitest pouring of eternal light.
The heavy knife. As to a gala day.

-Chauraspanchasika

The Satellite: A Look Back, A Look Ahead

Watch it

Love it

Set it free

By Michael Renusz, Jeremy Visser, and Mark Wierzbicki

A ‘Blood’y Review

You and I well know that The Oscars are happening soon. There’s no denying it. It’s a FACT people! With that in mind I’ve decided to post a review I wrote for the great film There Will Be Blood. It appeared a couple weeks ago in Mohawk’s newspaper, The Satellite. I thought my readers (Hi Mom) might appreciate that. And if they don’t, maybe they’ll appreciate this bit of comedy greatness. David Spade’s best work since Joe Dirt if you ask me.

So here it is. Read it.

—————————————————————————————————————————

There Will Be Blood a Powerful, Disturbing Film

Mark Wierzbicki

“There is no genius free from some tincture of madness.” – Seneca

There Will Be Blood is the story of such a genius. He is a turn-of-the-century titan of the oil industry who, like most men of great ambition, carries the taint of madness. His name is Daniel Plainview, and at first that madness innocently manifests itself as a bull-headed, self-destructive drive to wrest silver from the earth. Soon he discovers oil, develops a profitable business plan, and his inner demons begin a hostile takeover of his soul.

The first and last thing to be said about There Will Be Blood is that Daniel Day-Lewis, as Plainview, delivers a performance for the ages. His character’s voice, his most distinctive characteristic, is at once both reassuring and unsettling. Its tone and cadence, deep, gristly and patiently measured, fit the character, the time period, and the mood of the film thoroughly and appropriately.

Blood, as mentioned, is a late 19th-early 20th century epic about oil prospecting. Except it isn’t really about oil prospecting at all. Yes, Plainview travels around the southwest convincing town halls full of the desperately poor to let him lease their land to drill into. Yes, the central arc of the film focuses on Plainview’s attempts to make one of his rigs profitable. But before it threatens to become some sort of procedural capitalist drama, we meet the enigmatic Eli Sunday, the son of a local man, and the community’s resident preacher and faith healer. The people of the town are in reverent thrall of Eli’s apparent divine powers, but Plainview sees him as nothing more than a fraud—a prospector of souls, if you will.

One day, Eli asks Plainview to let him bless the new rig before it starts pumping. He agrees, but on that day the promise is broken, and a bitter power struggle begins. The first rig is joined by several more, and his empire grows, but in his blossoming wealth he finds only hatred, mistrust, and yes, madness.

Clearly Plainview is anything but the kind of man his name would suggest. He is dishonest in every facet of life. He has an adopted son he seems to love very much, but who also seems unusually young to be a “business partner.” He joins a church and is baptized only to gain the lease to land he needs to build a pipeline through. When pressed about his family background (which we know nothing about) he lies and changes the subject. However, lying is merely the telltale symptom of a businessman, not of a madman. We begin to question his mental state in earnest only after a man appears claiming to be his brother. Plainview confides in this figure his disturbing thoughts on life and humanity. A sinister monster begins to emerge.

Madness is too often treated in cinema as a sombre and tragic state of being, but for some of the afflicted it must be terrible fun. Plainview seems to be one of the lucky few. As an obscenely rich old man, he uses the halls of his mansion as shooting galleries, and sleeps and eats on his private bowling alley. To be fair, he never really goes properly mad. Plainview retains his business acumen, which never dulls but only becomes ever more cold and calculating. He disowns family members when they become the competition. But it’s not only the performances that make Blood such an arresting film. The discordant score (courtesy of Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood) matches perfectly with the harsh, unforgiving landscapes. The directing, screenplay, cinematography, and art direction all may very well win Oscars.

Much has been said about the ending. It is probably safe to say that many people come away feeling unsatisfied. To anyone who feels that way, I suggest a challenge that several film reviewers have thrown down. If you think the film should have concluded differently, please, suggest any possible way that would fit the preceding material appropriately. Upon retrospect, you might discover that, ironically, madness is the most logical choice.

Remember This Guy? – Updated

It’s alright if you don’t. With all the breathless coverage over the presidential campaigns and various caucuses and primaries, W is lucky to get his face in the paper at all these days.

He’s well into what is usually considered a president’s “lame duck” phase. This is the time in his career when he no longer feels constrained by the usual political compulsions (i.e. re-election) and as such can broaden the scope of his initiatives. Unfortunately, since the president is usually considered impotent and unimportant by this stage, he can do little with his newfound freedom.

With George the problem may be even more acute than usual. Presidents are almost by definition unpopular, but he takes that convention to the extreme. Notice how he has not been pictured with any of the Republican candidates outside of regular state functions. They won’t even dare mention his name in a debate. While the glory of the Reagan years is their lodestone, the odious stigma of the Bush presidency is something to be avoided at all costs.

So why turn our attention back to him when he seems so irrelevant? Well, because a president is always relevant, right up until the next inauguration day. Monday night marked the delivery of Bush’s last State of the Union Address. For the most part it was really, really boring.

However, after 6 years of Iraq stealing the show, this year’s address focused on the economy. This is notable, perhaps not so much for concerns over the markets (which are probably overblown [ see below]) but that the war in Iraq has actually seemed to recede in significance. I’m not sure if this is because people have actually started to care less, or if the media simply has run out of story ideas. Either way, the change is probably traceable to General Petraeus’ appearance in front of congress in September, when he essentially said that the surge was working. It’s taken as an article of faith now that it is working, but the truth is unclear. Anyways, that’s not really what I set out to write about.

Am I the only one who is going to miss this guy? He may have been an embarrassment to his nation, he might have started a couple illegal wars, and he may have trampled on a few civil liberties here and there, but dammit, he’s entertaining. This time next year, when either Obama or McCain is in the White House, the U.S. will certainly have more inspiring and powerful leadership, but they can’t match my man when it comes to comedy.

It’s probably too early to start getting all sentimental about the good old Bush days, but I feel it’s valid in a world where presidential campaigns last nearly two years.

And for those of you who can’t bring yourselves to laugh at Bush himself, there’s always the great Frank Caliendo.

UPDATE:

Notice how up there I said that concerns about the markets were probably overblown? Yeah, I’m an idiot.

Clemens’ Legacy Still Up In The Air

Over the course of the past few weeks, Roger Clemens’ image has gone from ageless living legend, to disgraced, juiced-up cheater to, well, somewhere in between. For years, there have been whispers that Clemens may have been abusing certain substances banned by Major League Baseball. They remained only whispers however, mainly for lack of proof, as well as the respect held for Clemens by sportswriters and fellow players. That respect springs from his reputation as one of the greatest pitchers of all time. He routinely tops lists of the best living and active pitchers, and has won seven Cy Young awards, including two with the Toronto Blue Jays. Even without those achievements, Clemens would be considered as having a legendary career purely by dint of his longevity. He debuted in 1984 for the Boston Red Sox, and through 2007 he was still an imposing presence on the mound.
Now, all those stats and awards, even his physical immutability, are suspect. The Mitchell Report, the product of a twenty-month investigation into the use of steroids and human growth hormone (HGH) in baseball, released December 13th, named 88 MLB players who are alleged to have used either steroids or other banned drugs. Clemens however, was the name that stood out from the rest. It was Brian McNamee, Clemens former personal strength coach, who revealed in an interview with George Mitchell, author of the report, that he had injected Clemens with Winstrol (an anabolic steroid) during the 1998, 2000, and 2001 seasons.
Despite the long-held suspicions, McNamee’s revelation shocked the baseball world. True to his competitive nature, Clemens decided to fight to reclaim his good name. All allegations have been denied by the Clemens camp and in an interview with Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes aired on January 6th, Roger strongly defended himself and gave his side of the story.
“I’m angry that what I’ve done for the game of baseball and as a person… that I don’t get the benefit of the doubt,” He said. “The stuff that is being said is ridiculous. It’s hogwash for people to even assume this.” Clemens went on to say that all McNamee had injected him with was vitamin B-12 and the painkiller lidocaine.
These sound exactly like the same lame excuses we hear every time a cheater is outed. Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGwire, Bonds, the list goes on and on. These things follow an established script, which reads as follows: Sports world is rocked by allegations against a respected player. Player expresses complete shock and disbelief that anyone would even dare to make such accusations against them. Player very quietly retires at end of season in disgrace, never to be heard from again (until they’re summoned to testify in front of Congress).
It was thought that Clemens would follow this same prescribed path, until the day after the 60 Minutes interview. He called a press conference, at which he said doesn’t care if the controversy keeps him out of the Hall of Fame, as long as he is vindicated.
“Do you think I played my career because of the damn Hall of Fame? You keep your vote. I don’t need the Hall of Fame to justify that I put my butt on the line and I worked my tail off, and I defy anybody to say I did it by cheating, OK?” He was feisty, but the really interesting part came when he played a phone call between him and McNamee, recorded the previous Friday. During the call, the trainer was emotional and seemed sympathetic to Clemens, saying, “I’m in your corner, I don’t want this to happen. But I’d also not like to go to jail.”
During the conversation, McNamee said, “What do you want me to do?” over twenty times. “What do you want me to do? I’ll go to jail for you, I’ll do whatever you want,” he implored. It was enough to give the reporters in the room pause, and it may have salvaged some scrap of his reputation.
So where does this leave Clemens? Not vindicated, not yet at least. But at least not quite vilified like the Bonds of the world, and that’s progress. These new revelations might lead to complete exoneration, or they might lead to nothing. Nevertheless, even if Clemens never pitches another game, he’ll still be a shoe-in as a first ballot Hall of Famer. And not caring about Cooperstown is the one thing we can be sure Roger was lying about.

The State of Democracy

2008 is an American election year. One can gripe about the restrictive two-party system, criticize its protracted campaigns, (some candidates are already a year into it while the actual presidential election is still more than nine months coming) or voice frustration with the horse-race vernacular and endless litmus tests staged by the media, but the United States remains the world’s flagship democracy. The day that this issue of The Satellite hits Mohawk newsstands coincides with the New Hampshire primaries, the first truly democratic event in each party’s candidate selection process.

Last weeks Iowa caucuses gave an early indication of what voters are looking for. Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee both pulled off upsets over their respective frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney. The Obama campaign has been all about “change”, a meme that he has transmitted with just the right mix of intensity, sincerity, and ambiguity. Eventually he will be asked what exactly he means to change, and how, but it is a powerful message nonetheless, and one that will most surely land him on the Democratic ticket.

Conversely, Huckabee has, in true conservative fashion, sold himself as familiarity incarnate. He has, in fairness, proposed ideas of substance (replace the income tax with a 23% sales tax!) but what captured Iowans was his intractable populism. The heart of the Huckabee message was, “I’m just folks, folks.” The former Baptist minister rode the same wave of evangelical support that gave George W. Bush a second term, reminding everyone, especially his opponents, that Christians may be the single most powerful voting bloc in the country.

With that said, the Iowa caucuses, with their public voting and active politicking by campaign workers, were essentially glorified straw polls. The democratic heavy lifting is the domain of the state primaries, which begin tonight and will continue until each party holds their convention and officially announces their candidate. Then, the real fun begins. It’s a long, long, very long process, but the U.S. does it better than just about anyone, and at the end of it all, the man (or woman) in the White House is usually the one that the majority of the people voted for which, in the end, is the point.

Elsewhere in the world, most of which does not benefit from a 250 year secular tradition of checks, balances and self-determination, 2007 was marked by disturbing failures in the democratic process, and by horrifying, bold-faced human rights violations. In Myanmar (it will always be Burma to me) the ruling military junta crushed a non-violent uprising led by Buddhist monks, many of whom were arrested and remain curiously missing. The embattled governments of Hamid Karzai and Nouri al-Maliki, respectively the leaders of Afghanistan and Iraq, continued to fight what seem to be unwinnable wars, even with foreign armies doing most of the fighting. Meanwhile they barely kept up the veneer of their farcical democracies. Pakistan, a nuclear power, remains on the brink of chaos and dictatorial rule after Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. President Musharraf used about every trick in the despot book to wrest control for himself in order to avoid elections, and there are worries that he will once again impose emergency rule.

In Russia, Vladimir Putin found a clever way of holding on to power. According to the Russian constitution, a president cannot serve more than two consecutive terms. The end of his second term arrives this spring, at which time he will become Prime Minister Putin. Critics are saying that he will essentially wield presidential powers from his seat in parliament until the next election, when he can once again run for president. It’s a legal move, but elections in Russia are suspect, and many nations, including the U.S., have officially voiced their concerns. In Zimbabwe, the wildly unpopular Robert Mugabe dug in his heels and refused to step down as president, even as inflation rose to 11,000 per cent and the citizenry, 80 per cent of whom are unemployed, continued to agitate against him.

These are only the highlights, or lowlights rather, of a truly discouraging and unsettling year. However, with the New Year comes a clean slate and renewed vigour in the pursuit of world democracy. 2008 will be at least an interesting year in that regard. We’ll see the Olympics staged in Communist China, and the continued showdown between the Bush administration and renegade Iran. There will also be several sideshows, like Turkey’s attempts at modernization (necessary for its admittance into the EU), Hugo Chavez’s attempts at creating a socialist Venezuela, and here in Canada, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives will attempt to either maintain their minority government, or achieve a majority and humiliate Stephane Dion and the Liberals.

All the while, in the land to our south democracy will be in action, and whether or not one approves of the results, it should be agreed that it is an example to be emulated the world over.