Thoughts, comments, musings on life, politics, current events and the media.



Blogroll Me!


Comments by YACCS

 

The "very epitome" of idiocy

A letter to the editor from Ted Sorensen (fourth one down):

To the Editor:

President Bush has not yet openly reprimanded his press secretary, Ari Fleischer, for suggesting that "a bullet" is the cheapest way of accomplishing his goal of regime change in Iraq. Is it possible that the United States now endorses for other countries a policy of presidential assassination, the very epitome of terrorism, after our own tragic experience with that despicable act?

Multiple choice quiz: Ted Sorensen thinks:

(A) Saddam Hussein is the democratically elected leader of a free country
(B) JFK was a genocidal military dictator
(C) Overthrowing a tyrant is similar to hijacking a plane and crashing it into an office building
(D) Trick question. He doesn't think.

posted by David Nieporent at 10/05/2002 06:56:00 AM |

 

Mostly beating a dead horse

Law professors Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar break down some of the Torricelli legal issues. Not much new here, but they do note a contradiction in the court's thinking:

Here's another way to put our point. New ballots will cost around 800 thousand dollars. The court ordered the Democratic Party to pay this expense. But suppose a party didn't have the money–would it then not be entitled to new ballots in a similar circumstance?

Ordinarily, government pays for ballots, not private parties. (This was one of the major reforms introduced into America in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.) In a plane crash, or other death situation, would the court impose the costs on one political party? If there is genuinely a public interest in new ballots, why shouldn't the public pay?

Conversely, if this request for a new ballot is really the "fault" of the Democrats–enough so that they and only they should in fairness pay for the new ballots–then isn't this payment order itself an implicit admission that this is, to some extent at least, a partisan request for partisan advantage?

As if that were in doubt.
posted by David Nieporent at 10/04/2002 05:28:00 PM |

 

"Probably the most respected flag officer [general] in the Army"

It's fashionable among the left to talk about the racism of the U.S., how our approach to Iraq is fueled by our hate for Arabs. So it's interesting to read this profile of John P. Abizaid.

At a time when all eyes in the U.S. military are focused on Iraq, Lt. Gen. John P. Abizaid is the right man in the right place at the right time.

As director of the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the veteran infantryman coordinates the daily activities of the top level of the U.S. military, making sure that the regional commanders (or "CinCs"), the military services, senior Defense Department civilians and the Joint Staff are all working toward the same goals.

He also is probably the highest-ranking officer in the U.S. military who is an expert in Arab affairs. Of Lebanese descent himself, Abizaid speaks Arabic, has a master's degree in Middle Eastern studies from Harvard and lived in the region while studying at the University of Jordan. He traveled in Iraq back then and was there again in 1991, when he commanded an infantry battalion in Operation Provide Comfort, the post-Gulf War relief operation in northern Iraq.

Already, other generals talk about Abizaid as a likely future head of the U.S. Central Command, or as an Army chief, or perhaps as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the top slot in the U.S. military. "If the defense secretary doesn't make him a CinC and then chief of staff of the Army or chairman of the Joint Chiefs, then we will have missed the boat," said retired Army Gen. John Shalikashvili, himself a former chairman.

Hmm. A Lebanese-American in the upper echelons of the military? Does Chomsky know about this?
posted by David Nieporent at 10/04/2002 03:07:00 PM |

 

"I belong to no organized political party; I'm a Democrat."

Here's breaking news: the Democrats have no coherent stance on Iraq. Aren't you glad the New York Times cleared that up for you? They cover the travails of poor Tom Daschle, who can't quite seem to figure out how to come up with a policy, let alone what that policy should be.

Didn't Mark Steyn explain this the other day?

War is hell for left-of-centre parties. The British Labor Party is bitterly divided between those in favour of war with Iraq and those opposed to it. In the U.S. Democratic Party, meanwhile, it's even more complicated:

Faction A (the David Bonior option) is openly anti-war despite the party's best efforts to turn off their microphones. (Congressman Bonior appeared on TV live from Baghdad yesterday.)

Faction B (the Paul Wellstone option) is also anti-war but trying hard not to have to say so between now and election day in November.

Faction C (the Al Gore option) was pro-war when it was Bill Clinton in charge but anti-war now there's a Republican rallying the troops.

Faction D (the Hillary Rodham option) can go either way but remains huffily insistent that to ask them to express an opinion would be to "politicize" the war.

Faction E (the John Kerry option) can't quite figure which position alienates least of their supporters and so articulates a whole all-you-can-eat salad bar of conflicting positions and then, in a weird post-modern touch, ostentatiously agonizes over the "inherent risks" in each of them.

Faction F (the Jay Rockefeller option) thinks the priority right now should be to sit around holding inquiries into why the government ignored what it knew about al-Qaeda until they killed thousands of Americans. To Senator Rockefeller, it's vital that we now ignore what we know about Saddam so that we can get on with the important work of investigating the stuff we ignored last time round.

I may have missed a couple of dozen other factions.

Of course, Mark Steyn, not being the New York Times, doesn't feel the need to quote strategists and put this into the context of Democratic foreign policy positions of the past.
posted by David Nieporent at 10/04/2002 05:06:00 AM |

 

Locking the barn door after the horse is stolen

Chutzpah is often illustrated by the anecdote of the defendant who kills his parents and then argues for mercy on the grounds that he is an orphan. Another possibility would be to display a picture of our past president. One of the points that the Bush administration (and everyone else) has been making is that the current U.N. inspections resolutions are far too weak. These resolutions, written in 1998, were an attempt by Kofi Annan and Bill Clinton to restart the inspections process. But by making so many concessions to Saddam Hussein, they vitiated the entire process. This was a serious failing of the Clinton Administration. Guess who suddenly realizes this?

Addressing the British Labor Party annual conference, which gave him a rapturous welcome, Mr. Clinton said: "We need a strong resolution calling for unrestricted inspections. The restrictions imposed in 1998 are unacceptable and won't do the job." Any new one, he said, should have a strict deadline and "no lack of clarity about what Iraq must do."

Well, yeah, Bill. You just figured this out? What's next, Bob Torricelli arguing that government corruption needs to be punished more severely?
posted by David Nieporent at 10/03/2002 04:43:00 PM |

 

Birds of a feather

Bob Torricelli needs a new job. Maybe he should call fellow corrupt Democrat Carl McCall, who tried his use his influence as New York comptroller to get jobs for friends and relatives. McCall wrote letters on official state stationary to various corporate executives, passing along resumes to them.

And like Torricelli, he arrogantly refuses to admit he did anything wrong, while at the same time "apologizing" for it.

Speaking at a news conference at his headquarters on Park Avenue South, Mr. McCall defended his conduct as normal for politicians and hinted that he considered the whole affair overblown. "There was never any pressure or influence, nor is there anyone who says there was," he said.

"While I never sought to leverage my public position nor mix my government role with my personal and professional relationships, in these or any letter, my use of government stationery has unfortunately given this impression, and I sincerely apologize for this," he continued.

Mr. McCall has repeatedly said that there was nothing wrong with having written the letters and that he would do so again.

But yesterday, he said that if he became governor he would not write such letters on official stationery.

McCall is not a junior clerk who was just hired. He damn well knows that official stationery is not supposed to be for private use. Had he done it once, it could have been an oversight. But 61 times? And then to pretend that "everyone else is doing it" is a defense? Unlike Torricelli, though, McCall was losing the election already, so this is unlikely to have a big impact on his campaign.

The punchline:

To some, the incident did nothing more than point to a lack of political savvy. One Democratic strategist put it this way: "He's either got to be a lot more ethical or a lot smarter."

Hmm. Maybe the Democratic party ought to adopt that as their new motto.
posted by David Nieporent at 10/03/2002 03:24:00 PM |

 

Democracy means voting for Democrats

It's difficult to find someone who isn't an extreme Democratic partisan who believes that Wednesday's New Jersey Supreme Court ruling was correct. So it's hardly a shock to read that the New York Times editors think that the decision was fine and dandy. In fact, they title their editorial, arrogantly, "New Jersey Gets a Senate Race" -- as if a race isn't a race without a Democratic candidate. Or, rather, a likeable Democratic candidate, since the ballots in question had a Democratic candidate on them.

Meanwhile, the Republicans seem ready to continue their legal efforts to provide their own candidate, Douglas Forrester, with what would amount to a free pass. But it's hard to see how they can build the basis for a successful federal court challenge to the state court's decision. Their obstructionism could also alienate voters.

Obstructionism? It was the Democrats suing to abort the election process so that they could change their candidate. It's true that a federal case would be difficult to make; there's no Constitutional issue here. On the other hand, the New Jersey Supreme Court ignored the law, so why couldn't a federal court?

The court gave these arguments a respectful hearing. But in the end it ruled, rightly, that the greater need was to ensure "full and fair ballot choice for the voters of New Jersey." The decision came not a moment too soon. There are only 33 days left until Election Day. But this is time enough to make the necessary arrangements — printing new ballots, for example — and for the two major party candidates to engage in a vigorous debate on the issues.

The "respectful hearing" was a couple of hours; the court didn't even pretend to deliberate before issuing its decision.

But the best part of this is the Times' juxtaposition of the claim that voters deserve "full and fair ballot choice" with the assertion that only "the two major party candidates" need debate the issues.
posted by David Nieporent at 10/03/2002 05:29:00 AM |

 

Patience is a virtue

Andrew Fastow, erstwhile Enron CFO, was charged with fraud for his financial shenanigans at Enron, designed to conceal the company's huge losses.

The spectacular cascade of corporate collapses over the last year began with Enron, and Mr. Fastow became the most senior former Enron official to join executives of Tyco International, Adelphia Communications, WorldCom and ImClone Systems in facing criminal charges.

I wonder when we'll hear an apology from the critics who complained that corporate crooks weren't being pursued by the Bush administration. (Not to mention any names, Pat.)
posted by David Nieporent at 10/03/2002 04:48:00 AM |

 

Florida Redux

As I suspected, the New Jersey Supreme Court has just taken upon itself to rewrite the law. In a 7-0 decision, the court held that the Democrats could replace Bob Torricelli with Frank Lautenberg on November's ballot.

And the Court having concluded that the central question before it is whether the dual interests of full voter choice and the orderly administration of an election can be effectuated if the relief requested by plaintiffs were to be granted;

And the Court being of the view that

[it] is in the public interest and the general intent of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate a ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties as well as of all other qualifying parties and groups.

Kilmurray v. Gilfert, 10 N.J. 435, 441 (1952);

And the Court remaining of the view that the election statutes should be liberally construed

to allow the greatest scope for public participation in the electoral process, to allow candidates to get on the ballot, to allow parties to put their candidates on the ballot, and most importantly, to allow the voters a choice on Election Day.

Catania v. Haberle, 123 N.J. 438, 448;

And the Court having determined that N.J.S.A. 19:13-20 does not preclude the possibility of a vacancy occurring within fifty-one days of the general election;

And the Court having concluded that the equitable relief sought herein is not inconsistent with the precedent of this Court and the terms of the statute and that the Court should invoke its equitable powers in favor of a full and fair ballot choice for the voters of New Jersey;

In other words, laws don't matter. What's even more astonishing is that the court admits that their ruling is designed to "preserve the two-party system," as if that were within the scope of their powers. They're supposed to be neutral, not to favor any particular outcome of the political process.
posted by David Nieporent at 10/02/2002 06:35:00 PM |

 

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em

Chuck Todd suggests a new strategy for New Jersey Republicans: instead of fighting the Democrats' attempt to rewrite election law and appoint a new Senate candidate just because they feel like it, the Republicans should go to plan B:

Which brings us to the Republicans' next option -- if Democrats can dump their nominee for a more electable candidate, then why can't the GOP?

The ambassadorship to New Zealand has a recent history of accidental senators (Carol Moseley-Braun) holding the post. Why couldn't the White House ask Forrester to follow in those footsteps? Granted, current ambassador Charles J. Swindells might not be ready to leave just yet, but there are lots of countries out there.

So if Forrester can politely be bought off or convinced to take one for the team, the best thing would be for him to vacate his nomination in favor of one of the two Republicans who could win in this Democratic-leaning state: former Govs. Christie Whitman or Tom Kean.

This all may sound ludicrous, but if the Democrats can call "do over" with their election chances in the state, why can't the GOP?

The GOP could argue that the circumstances of the race have changed -- that had the seat been open, other more prominent and electable Republicans would have signed up.

Todd's proposal is amusing, but of course it shows why the Democratic request is so problematic. If the Democrats can do it now, why can't the Republicans next week? Why can't the Democrats do it a week later, if it turns out Lautenberg isn't as popular as they thought? Once you throw out the actual law, there's no principle that says you can't keep doing so.

"That's silly," you say. "There has to be a stopping point." Well, there is: the 51-day deadline established in the law. The legislature decided -- as is their prerogative -- that 51 days provided the optimum balance between voter choice and electoral efficiency. Ballots need to be printed. Ballots need to be mailed. That takes time, and that means that there needs to be some finality to the candidate nomination process.

And these, despite the Democratic claims, are not unusual circumstances. This is simply a candidate trailing in the polls. Torricelli didn't die. He didn't become medically incapacitated. He just realized nobody liked him. (For Torricelli, that's not an unusual circumstance at all.) A survey of nationwide elections right now would show hundreds of candidates in that situation.
posted by David Nieporent at 10/02/2002 01:57:00 PM |

 

In case it comes up.

Note to self: don't go into business with Rosie O'Donnell.
posted by David Nieporent at 10/02/2002 05:52:00 AM |

 

The truth is unhelpful

The New York Times reports that some Jewish groups are going to run pro-Israel television advertising campaigns to improve Israel's public image in the United States.

The two commercials they created, which differ only slightly, include images of everyday life in Israel, while a voiceover says that Israel gives all its citizens American-style freedoms, including freedom of religion and expression, and the right to vote. One spot begins by saying, "Israel is America's only real ally in the Middle East."

Sounds reasonable to me. How could anybody object to that? Well, guess who does:

One critic, James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute in Washington, said the spots did not address the real problems facing Israel and the Middle East.

"The issue people have is not on that level," Mr. Zogby said. "Even though Americans never identified with Palestinians, they are not happy with Israeli policy."

Moreover, he said, the ads set back peace efforts by emphasizing the differences between Israel and its neighbors. By arguing that Israel and the United States share a love of freedom and respect for individuals, the commercials imply that those values are exclusive to the United States and Israel, he said. "That is a set of assumptions that play into a kind of ethnocentrism and a not so subtle form of racism."

There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth: by telling the truth about Arab countries, the ads "set back peace efforts." I think that says it all about those "peace efforts."
posted by David Nieporent at 10/01/2002 10:04:00 PM |

 

Election strategery

A couple of people have asked me about New Jersey's election law, so I thought I'd look at it more specifically. First, the current situation. 19:13-20 of New Jersey's election law -- entitled "Vacancy Procedure" -- says this, in relevant part, with some emphasis added:

19:13-20. In the event of a vacancy, howsoever caused, among candidates nominated at primaries, which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election, or in the event of inability to select a candidate because of a tie vote at such primary, a candidate shall be selected in the following manner:

a. (1) In the case of an office to be filled by the voters of the entire State, the candidate shall be selected by the State committee of the political
party wherein such vacancy has occurred.

The Democratic argument will be this: the statute specifies what happens if a vacancy occurs more than 51 days before the election. The statute is silent, however, about what happens if the vacancy occurs within the 51 day time limit. Therefore, they should be allowed to do what's in the interests of the electorate (as defined by the Democratic party, of course).

The problem is that this is a creative, but tortured reading of the statute. A standard rule of interpretation is Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. That is, the inclusion of one implies the exclusion of others. If the statute says that you can fill a vacancy with more than 51 days, that implies that you can't do it in other circumstances. Indeed, the Democratic approach would render the deadline explicitly mentioned in the statute to be meaningless. That's generally a no-no. 

Moreover, a related statute, 19:13-20.1, contemplates the possibility that a party will not have a nominee in the general election:

If there is no candidate on the primary election ballot of a political party for nomination for election to a public office in the general election and no write-in candidate for nomination for that office receives the minimum number of write-in votes necessary for nomination at a primary election pursuant to section 1 of P.L.1981, c.264 (C.19:14-2.1) and R.S.19:23-8, a vacancy shall not be deemed to exist and the provisions of R.S.19:13-20 shall not be applicable.

In short, if after a primary election, the party does not have a candidate,the party is not allowed to add someone to the ballot. This does not directly apply to this situation, but it does suggest that "the voters deserve a choice under all circumstances" was not a compelling argument to the legislature. It would be strange to argue that their failure to nominate a candidate is fatal, but their decision to nominate a lousy candidate can be reversed at any time. Still, I don't discount the possibility that the New Jersey courts will simply ignore the text of the statute in the supposed interest of democracy. This is, after all, what we saw in Florida, where the court decided that having ballots counted was more important than obeying the time limits specified in the law.

There is, however, another possibility being raised, which would involve Torricelli's resignation from the Senate. 19:3-26 provides:

If a vacancy shall happen in the representation of this state in the United  States senate, it shall be filled at the general election next succeeding the  happening thereof, unless such vacancy shall happen within thirty days next  preceding such election, in which case it shall be filled by election at the  second succeeding general election, unless the governor of this state shall  deem it advisable to call a special election therefor, which he is authorized  hereby to do.

    The governor of this state may make a temporary appointment of a senator of  the United States from this state whenever a vacancy shall occur by reason of  any cause other than the expiration of the term;  and such appointee shall serve as such senator until a special election or general election shall have been held pursuant to law and the board of state canvassers can deliver to his successor a certificate of election.

In other words, if Torricelli resigns, that creates a vacancy. If the vacancy occurs more than 30 days before the general election -- which it is, currently -- then the governor can appoint a replacement, but the seat will be contested in the general election. If Torricelli waits until the 30 day window, however, then the statute provides that the governor can appoint someone, and the vacancy not be filled until the next general election, which isn't until 2004, unless the governor chooses to call a special election before then.

There are two problems with this approach. First, it's sleazy, even by the standards of New Jersey politics. Second, it goes against the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. It would allow the governor to effectively extend a senator's term by two years. Moreover, the statute specifically excludes vacancies caused by the "expiration of the term." As Torricelli's term expires this year, it's not clear that this gubernatorial power even exists. This provision of the statute is intended for off-year vacancies, not for Senators quitting just before their terms are up.

The final Democratic option would be the Missouri model: let Torricelli remain on the ballot as a placeholder, with the understanding of all concerned that if he wins, he'll resign his seat and be replaced by a gubernatorial appointment who would be specified in advance. This appointed senator would serve until 2004, when there would be a special election. This would certainly be legal, but it seems rather untoward. Elections are supposed to involve the candidates on the ballot, not other people who didn't bother to get nominated. Moreover, nothing could compel Torricelli to resign in such a situation; he would be a legally elected Senator. This wrinkle didn't apply in Missouri, since Mel Carnahan had the personal disadvantage of being dead. (Speaking of which, this hints at another approach the Democratic party could take. Torricelli could find himself as Jimmy Hoffa's roommate. Which would be a real shame.)
posted by David Nieporent at 10/01/2002 05:26:00 PM |

 

Deja vu all over again

In 2000, there was a battle over election rules. Boiling down the positions of the two parties to their essences, Republicans argued that voters should have to follow instructions in order to have their votes counted, while Democrats argued that the rules were less important than making sure all voices were heard.

Now what do we have in New Jersey? Republicans arguing that the law should be followed, and Democrats arguing that the law doesn't really matter if another principle -- electing Democrats -- is involved. Of course, the New York Times comes down on the side of law-breaking:

In his emotional announcement, Mr. Torricelli said he would file a court petition to remove his name from the ballot and clear the way for another candidate, to be named in coming days from a short list being considered by Governor McGreevey. The Republicans are likely to argue that under New Jersey election law, it is too late to put another name on the ballot. But legal wrangling over ballot access cannot be allowed to obscure the central issue, which is one of democracy. The guiding principle should be the voters' basic right to a genuine election. With a month to go before Election Day, there is still time for a spirited campaign.

I wonder what Liz Macron would think of the claim that Torricelli's departure from the race means that it's not a "genuine election." Obviously nobody expects the New York Times to support a policy which might help a Republican get elected, but doesn't this go a little far? To claim that an election is not truly democratic if a Democrat isn't on the ballot?

But get past that partisanship, and think about the practical issues here. The New York Times wants a judge to rewrite the laws, after the fact, so that a Democrat can get elected. Sure; I don't see any potential controversy there. Certainly there won't be an appeal. And then another appeal, perhaps to federal court. Definitely we won't end up with federal judges deciding on which party controls the Senate. And it won't all be happening when we're under time pressure to determine the election winner. Didn't we do this before?

Contrast the New York Times' view with that of the Washington Post, which pointed out that voters did have a choice:

Still, it's reassuring that in one sense, at least, the process worked well. The ethics committee acted unequivocally and in time for its findings to be absorbed by New Jersey voters, and they -- to the evident and cynical surprise of Mr. Torricelli and the Democratic Party -- in turn registered their displeasure without even having to cast their votes.

Darn right. Just because we made our choice about the Democratic candidate before the election doesn't mean we were denied our right to an election.
posted by David Nieporent at 10/01/2002 05:37:00 AM |

 

Will wonders never cease?

Look! It's a Paul Krugman column that doesn't mention Enron!

Oh, wait. I mean, until the ninth paragraph.

(Then Krugman makes up for the oversight by accusing President Bush of promoting war just to distract the public from the economy. Does he even write these pieces, or does he just cut-and-paste from last week's column?)
posted by David Nieporent at 10/01/2002 05:25:00 AM |

 

Not going to have Richard Nixon to kick around anymore

Bob Torricelli is out of the New Jersey Senate race, though he declined to resign his office before the election. In one of the whiniest press conferences in history, Torricelli pretended he was the wronged party in this whole debacle, acting upset at the idea that whether he took bribes should matter more than where Republican candidate Doug Forrester stood on crucial New Jersey issues like abortions for women in Afghanistan.

The big mess now is over the November ballot; it's too late for Torricelli to be replaced by someone else, which means there will be a court fight over the attempt to do so.
posted by David Nieporent at 9/30/2002 06:12:00 PM |

 

Someone didn't get the memo

When considering what to do about Iraq, there are a few important facts to keep in mind. The first is that nobody in the Middle East supports the United States. Not only would the United States be totally alone if it acted against Iraq, but the "Arab street" would rise up in anger against America. Well, except maybe for these people:

Kuwait is bracing for the possibility it will be attacked by Iraq if the United States strikes Saddam Hussein — and some here said they'd be willing to pay that price to see Saddam gone forever.

...

Others, though, believe war is coming and that Kuwait could be targeted. Bader al-Otaibi, a civil servant, said he was willing to make the sacrifice to see Saddam toppled.

"It is the dream of every person in this country to be rid of Saddam," al-Otaibi said. "We have to get rid of him no matter what the losses are, even if he sends chemical weapons our way."

The 36-year-old was taken prisoner to Baghdad when Iraqi tanks rolled into Kuwait on August 2, 1990. He was held there until the end of the U.S.-led Gulf War seven months later.

"We are prepared to sacrifice so that the situation in Iraq changes, the borders open and the two peoples come closer," said Abdullah al-Mutairi, a 28-year-old secretary at the Ministry of Social Affairs who was spending the evening at a Starbucks' cafe. "We trust in God and in the American power to deter any chemical attack."

The other important thing to remember is that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. We know this because none of Iraq's neighbors are worried about Saddam Hussein using them. So who are we to claim that he has them and might be willing to use them?

Some Kuwaitis weren't so confident. Arif Masood, regional sales manager of Boodai Trading Co., said that in the last two weeks, his company sold 25 Finnish-made tents designed to protect 10 people against chemical or biological weapons — at a cost of about $13,200 each.

"We can't cope with the demand, we are ordering more," Masood said.

Dumb Kuwaitis. Don't they believe everything Scott Ritter is paid by Saddam Hussein to tell them?
posted by David Nieporent at 9/30/2002 02:41:00 AM |

 

Can't say I'm surprised

If you thought that Amiri Baraka was a moron after reading about his anti-semitic poetry, then you don't subscribe to The New Republic, which discussed his idiocies last April:

In 1990, Amiri Baraka was denied tenure by the English department of Rutgers University. An aging polemicist unable to find a publisher for his recent work, Baraka was hardly a promising academic with a bright future ahead of him. But instead of taking the rejection in stride, he characteristically decided to fight the decision, and spewed vitriol at the tenure committee. "The power of these Ivy League Goebbels can flaunt, dismiss, intimidate and defraud the popular will," Baraka charged. "We must unmask these powerful Klansmen. These enemies of academic freedom, people's democracy and Pan American culture must not be allowed to prevail. Their intellectual presence makes a stink across the campus like the corpses of rotting Nazis." This occasion was not Baraka's first--or most intense--foray into the world of inflammatory rhetoric. Indeed, this hyperbolic attack was a sign of progress for Baraka, as he cast Nazis, rather than Jews, as the villains.

...

More than for any single work or movement, though, Baraka is remembered for his inexhaustible and unmatched passion for berating Whitey. When Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman were killed along with James Chaney in Mississippi, Jones remarked that "those white boys were only seeking to assuage their own leaking consciences." By contrast, Malcolm X--not exactly a racial moderate--observed about the murders that "I've come to the conclusion that anyone who will fight not for us but with us is my brother." When a white college student tracked Malcolm down in Harlem and asked what she could do to help blacks, he answered, "Nothing"; but this harsh (and wildly untrue) comment pales in contrast to Baraka's suggestion: "A woman asked me in all earnestness, couldn't any whites help? I said, 'You can help by dying. You are a cancer. You can help the world's people with your death.'"

Never one to allow logic to get in the way of demagoguery, Baraka declared in 1967 that blacks who listen to European classical music are traitors to the cause. Some self-styled black nationalists, Baraka said, were "schizophrenic" and too "connected up with white culture. They will be digging Mozart more than James Brown. If all of that shit--Mozart, Beethoven, all of it--if it has to be burned now for the liberation of our people, it should be burned up the next minute." And he did not limit his outbursts to public appearances. Hysteria tricked out as analysis has long been a central element of his written work.

...

Watts dates the beginning of Baraka's decline around 1970, with It's Nation Time and In Our Terribleness. Those books, to be sure, are dreadful. Yet Baraka's story is not one of artistic decline. He began low. His literary career is one of constantly accelerating race-baiting. While he demonstrated a penchant for attracting media attention, Baraka was never the virtuoso that Watts portrays. In the roiling racial dynamics of the late 1960s and the early 1970s, critics mistook Baraka's anger for eloquence; but the main reason to read Baraka is not to see how much the artist has changed, but to see how much the times have changed.

This raises just one question: who in hell thought it was a good idea to appoint Baraka as New Jersey's Poet Laureate? Well, we have the answer to that, from the New York Times:

Mr. Baraka was selected by a committee convened by the New Jersey Council for the Humanities and the State Council on the Arts. His name was forwarded to the governor, who signed a proclamation on Aug. 28 giving him a two-year, $10,000 appointment "to promote and encourage poetry."

Gerald Stern, the state's first laureate and a member of the selection committee, said he pushed for Mr. Baraka partly because "I thought it was important for the black community to get recognition."

I would agree with that last statement, if only I had some clue what it meant. Apparently Amiri Baraka is "the black community." The whole black community.

Okay, I lied. It raises another question: if a white poet laureate had used racial slurs in the course of his duties, how long would it take the state to figure out a way to replace him? A few hours, max?
posted by David Nieporent at 9/29/2002 05:51:00 AM |