Culture Vulture

As a former alum — well, I guess being a grad student at Columbia counts as being an alum — I have to say I was pleased to see that the old school took a stand for academic freedom and freedom of speech earlier this week when it invited one of the original evildoers to campus to give us his side of the story.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was invited by Columbia to speak and, one assumes, defend some of the positions staked out by his increasingly dictatorial and probably desperate regime.
Some of his ideas are plain nutty — news flash to Mahmoud — the Holocaust really did happen, and two, there is an excellent chance that there are such things as homosexuals in Iran. But we really do have a lot at stake here with his nuclear aspirations and the unclear role Iran is playing in the volitile politics of next-door neighbor Iraq.
Iran coulld play a constructive role there, if the klutsy Bush administration could ever get its act straight, but Iran doesn't show many signs of wanting to do much more than pour gasoline on an already raging fire.

But here's the main point and why Columbia showed us once again what the difference is between Iran and the U.S. — freedom of speech was served. Here's a guy that probably would delight in seeing our destruction, but he got a chance to tell his side of the story. I think it might have been better if Columbia's President, Lee Bollinger, Jr., hadn't taken the combative tone he did in his introductory remarks, but no matter. Ahmadinejad got to reveal himself for the tinpot crazy he is, deflecting and obfuscating away in response to the questions posed to him.
But like him or not, he's the guy we have to deal with for now in Iran. He was democratically elected fair and square, relative to Iran. But we're not perfect either when it comes to that — remember those hanging chads — so his legitimacy is not in question.
Where he is leading that important country is another matter. Recent news reports have indicated considerable discontent over the harsh crackdown on individual liberties, again, relative to Iran — and the soaring cost of gasoline, a supreme irony in a nation that sits atop an ocean of oil. That oil weapon, plus the nuclear weapon, or the potential for it, makes Iran a place we unfortunately have to reckon with.
So three cheers for good old Columbia for having him, and, in a funny way, also to Ahmadinejad for going. He probably enjoyed the publicity and his motives are also going to be suspect, but, hey, he didn't have to go before a hostille audience either. So since this is America, we can give him credit for that. Hopefully he'll leave the U.S. wiser for his exposure to life here, although that's probably too much to expect.
It's been more than 20 years since I last strolled the big green at Columbia between Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue, flanked by the two big libraries. What a great school. I met some great folks there, teachers, fellow students and it was my one brush with the real high end world of academe. It was so worth it. It was good to see the place back in the news in a positive way.

Posted by Andrew McKeever at 2:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ken Burns has deliveved another thought-provoking series on public broadcasting televison, this time on the Second World War. His earlier work on the Civil War and baseball deserved all the kudos they received.Tthe "Civil War" especially, was a groundbreaking piece of work that took a well-mined historical subject that you would have thought was as exhaustively researched as anything could be, and viewed it from a new perspective, using diaries and pictures of individuals caught up in that national tragedy.
Burns, who will be making a stop in Manchester to discuss his new work on Nov. 28, has adopted the same strategy this time, taking four disparate communities in the United States and tracking the adventures, if that is the word, of some of their citizens through the war time period of 1941-45. There's much more to it than that, of course, but here we also get the reflections these veterans had on their experiences from the vantage point of 60 years later.

Burns's production has been criticized for being too American-centric — i.e., it largely igonores the contributions of the Soviets and our allies, according to these critics, but I didn't see that during the first episode. It's the American experience after all, that Burns wants to explore, so that complaint seems a little unjustified. Anyone who takes any amount of time at all can quickly gain an appreciation for what the Soviet Union went through and how that shaped their postwar conduct as we quickly drifted from being wartime allies to Cold War foes. That this experience isn't documented to the same extent as that of a farm boy from Minnesota shouldn't be grounds for knocking the new production.
The problem of course, is that fewer and fewer Americans, young and the not-so-young, seem to be interested in knowing about not only America's role in the Second World War, but that of our allies and our antagonists. And that is why, despite the occasional tedium of Burns' new production, I'm glad he's gone ahead and done it. It's amazing how historically illiterate we are as a nation. Can you blame it on the schools? I don't know. Maybe kids today are just as uninterested in the Second World War as kids who attended schools in the 1930s were about the history of the Civil War and the ensuing decades.
Somehow, though, I don't think that's the case.
So anything that sparks interest about World War II, whose repercussions are still with us and shaping history even now, is a good thing, even if, as with the Civil War, this is a subject that has been written about, filmed about, dissected and analyzed umpteen ways to Sunday.
I thought the strongest segments were the parts about the Bataan Death March and the internment of Japanese citizens here in the U.S. The latter is a story still not well understood in its details. It's a shameful episode in an otherwise largely glorious narrative of how we as a nation responded to the challenge of totalitarianism, one worth bearing in mind as our own government seeks justification in the war against terrorism in extra-legal and heretofore considered unconstitional measures.
The Bataan Death march segment gave a real, unvarnished look at the atrocities visted upon American prisoner of war by their Japanese conquerors, one that surely must make modern day Japanese cringe with regret as well.
"The War" is worth a look, although those who are already familiar with the literature of the war and the events will find it well-trod ground.
And thank God he avoided that dreadful and now far-overused phrase, "The Greatest Generation." There's no question the Americans who came of age in the 1920's- 40s were buffetted by, and grew from, some larger-than-life events, the Depression and "The War" among them. But each generation is great, each makes its own contribution, and each is shaped by the history of its time. I think the Baby Boom Generation deserves to be - and I predict someday will be seen - as the "greatest generation." In turn, so will Generations X, Y and Z. Or was the Revolutionary War generation the greatest generation of Americans? Take your pick.

Posted by Andrew McKeever at 1:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I know, it wasn't supposed to be a debate, but a conversation, this meeting between the top polar opposites of the climate change/global warming dialogue, but it's hard to avoid the term. They weren't behind podiums with a moderator in between, but otherwise all the pieces were in place.
The matchup between Bill McKibben and John McClaughry Tuesday night at Burr and Burton Academy lived up to its billing, for the most part, in my opinion, to shedding some light on an often emotionally driven conversation. Here we had two articulate, intelligent men, who held a civil and at times funny discussion (best line of the night - McKibben's reference to his daughter calling him the Dark Lord for his tendency to turn off the lights in the house, and McClaughry's retort that she wasn't the only one) without drifting too much into scientific jargon, although they threatened to go there on occassion, bringing a lot of intellectual horsepower to an important subject - maybe the most imprtant of our time. It certainly looks likely to be that for our children and grandchildren. And it was refreshing that neither of them bent over backwards to being unfailingly civil and polite to a total fault. Sparks did fly every so often. Thank God.

I thought John McClaughry did pretty well. He must have known going in that his was the minority view. Mankind isn't causing global warming! Omigod!
No one interrupted him for applause.
I've met him a few times before and this guy is the real deal. He brings a powerful intellect to often unpopular subjects in left-leaning Vermont. He is an articulate defender of a libertarian viewpoint of individual freedom that is often under assault here in the name of the common good. I don't always agree with John but I always respect his arguments. If you're going to cross swords with him, bring your full suit of armor. What I like about him the most is his intellectual security - if he doesn't know something, he'll admit it. His opinions are fact based.
I've never met Bill McKibben outside a couple of public forums. He seems, like McClaughry, a passionate defender of his viewpoints, and I respect them. He made a strong case for his views that human activity is indeed the driver of global warming, and I think that's a pretty strong case. I'm going to buy that until someone shows me otherwise. I don't hink solar radiation, or the natural pollution nature contributes through volcanoes, natural disasters and fires explains why every year, I ski less and less.
So it was great these two were brought together, and thanks to Ralph Colin and the Green Mountain Academy for Lifelong Learning for bringing them here. These were the sort of intellectual discussions I remember from college, and they sure are rare nowadays.
I really didn't come away from it changing my mind. On this one I lean more towards the McKibben view. But McClaughry made me stop and think. We are talking about a lot of money to fix global warming. What if it is only
Mother Nature playing games? The conversation will go on. It would be great if these sorts of dialogues could happen more often, and next time, let's see more youngsters there. This is about their world, after all. Hopefully, they're listening in one way or another.

Posted by Andrew McKeever at 8:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Even though it's a cloudy overcast day today, unlike the one six years ago that forever changed the course of U.S. history, it's hard not to think back to where you were Sept. 11, 2001 and think about how much has changed.
It didn't seem like all that innocent a world back in 2001, but when you compare it to all the baggage we've acquired since then in trying to figure out and come to terms with Islamic jihadist inspired terrorism, it sure seems like it. Two skyscrapers, two wars, thousands of people dead or seriously maimed and the ringleader of the plot is still at large. That's a little tough to take.
I've been immersed in the literature of 9/11 recently. There's been a slew of books out about the run up to 9/11, the aftermath, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — you could spend the rest of your lives keeping up. I'll recommend two that I've really enjoyed - "The Looming Tower," by Lawrence Wright and "The One Percent Solution," by Ron Suskind. Both give insights into the roots of Islamic fundamentalism and balanced perspectives on why we went to war and why that has turned out less than satisfactorally.

Another good one is "The End of Iraq," by Peter Galbraith, which argues for partioning Iraq into its three respective segments as at least a starting point for extricating ourselves from that troubled part of the world. Even if you don't agree with it, he makes a compelling case.
I went down to metro New Jersey over the weekend and got a glimpse of the Manhattan skyline. It still seems out of kilter without the twin towers holding up the southern end. And I saw so many vehicles with the flags and 9/11 references painted or decalled on. You don't see that so much in Vermont anymore.
I found a recent article in the New York Times interesting — how long do we make a special fuss about 9/11? When do we move on and remember it as we do other major moments in our history?
It's a good question. When does remembrance become obsession, or what is appropriate?
What do you think?

Posted by Andrew McKeever at 1:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ordinarily, I'm not the type to gloat or rub it in. After five-plus decades of wandering the planet, I've learned one thing - what goes around, comes around. Don't dish it out if you're not prepared to take it.
But it's been a pretty dreary season for Yankee fans, what with injuries, subpar performances from overpaid and overrated athletes, questionable managing by Father Joe Torre, sloppy defense and inconsistent pitching. Make that consistent pitching when it comes to the bullpen - as in consistently mediocre. Thank God for Mariano - and go Joba!
Speaking of which - is that umpire who threw him out of the game without a warning going to get the suspension he deserves? What a bogus call.
So it's hard not to get excited when the hated Red Sox roll into town all puffed up with their eight game lead and a seeming lock on first place. How sweet it was to see them taken down a peg or two or three.
Of course, the apologists of Red Sox Nation need to seize on some rationalization - so let's focus on two pitches a 21-year-old rookie with all of 11 innings of pitching in the big leagues behind. I'm sure those same folks will now show up in two weeks at Fenway wearing helmets.

Here's the scoop, guys. Your team has feet of clay. You have a banjo hitting ball club that can't hit it's way out of a paper bag. You can't bust up on the White Sox, but not against the likes of Pettitte, Clemens and the Wanger.
It's probably too late for the Yankees to overcome their earlier dreadful playing and overtake the Sawx, but the wild card works for me. Just get in. I like our chances in a Yanks - Sox matchup in a short series - something I didn't think plausible last May.

Posted by Andrew McKeever at 8:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)