Looking back at 2010, we can review the work of the administration over the past year. Aided by a bickering Congress, Obama has managed to pass several landmark bills which have changed the US landscape.
• Providing universal Health Care
• Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
• Overhauling the student loan program
• Instituting financial reform
As always, these bills came with concessions. The extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for two more years places the country in greater debt, and many pieces of legislation are on the cutting room floor for now including Clean Energy and institution of the Dream Act providing amnesty to children of undocumented immigrants.
We can debate the merits of the new laws, and question whether the compromises were worthwhile. To find an answer, let’s see what the arts have to say about this.
The King’s Speech portrays the ascension of George VI to the English throne despite being the younger of two brothers and having a troublesome stutter. Colin Firth plays the young Prince with a mix of nobility and vulgarity – a troubled soul fighting the demons of being a bullied child and ignored son. In a parallel story, Firth’s performance should ascend him to the Oscar throne after being overlooked last year for A Single Man.
In order to achieve the goal of speaking in public forums, the Duke of York conceded to the unorthodox manners of his language tutor. In the movie, he must give in to being treated as a pedestrian rather than royalty. The teacher calls him “Bertie” and requires him to take the classes outside the palace grounds. At first the Prince’s attention to better elocution seems selfishly motivated – doesn’t he have more important things to do? Yet, his conciliations lead to the greater good. By reclaiming his voice, the King comforts a nation on the brink of war and establishes his position in the monarchic line.
Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark has not yet opened, and it is the hottest ticket on Broadway. Julie Taymor’s uncompromising vision has garnered substantial press given the repeated delays to opening night and extensive injuries on the set. Watching the show in previews, it is difficult not to be overcome by the theatrics. This is an experiment that if successful could transform Broadway yet again as the Lion King did.
Part circus, part Greek myth, and part high-tech acrobatics, there are innumerable kinks that need to be worked out including a tightened story line, increased empathy for the characters, and improved singing. Nonetheless one can perceive where Taymor is taking us, and the heights are breathtaking. Weaving this arachnid story has had several negative repercussions – financially on the producers, physically on the actors – and in the end the public will decide with their wallets if it was worth it. This one early viewer believes.
Past the mid-point of a first term in office, we have seen Obama transform from a popular politician to a man that is governing. Politics like theater is the “art of the possible” – two steps forward and one step back. In retrospect, the sacrifices George VI made were unequivocally worthwhile. With Spider-Man, the results are still to be seen. We need to judge if the unrealized vision is worth the give and take.
In the end, we will evaluate Obama’s legislative accomplishments and the attendant compromises by determining if we live in a better society. To me the vision is still sound, and I am more proud to be a citizen. I continue to believe.
December 26, 2010
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Some thoughts on… Accumulating Loss
With the midterm elections of Obama’s first term, the voice of the electorate is clear. The country has moved strongly to the right. Republicans have gained control of the House supported by Tea Party enthusiasm. Democrats barely hold on to the Senate and the Administration concedes the need for a course correction. A pendulum swing in voter preference is not a new phenomenon, and likely indicates discontent with the economy. But the finger pointing can be done in all directions, and it is clear we are all frustrated with a federal government unable to work together for the nation’s good.
As liberal-minded individuals, shouldn’t we be sad about the Democratic loss? Let’s see what the arts have to say about this.
David Fincher’s recent film, The Social Network, is a re-telling of the rise of Mark Zuckerberg from Harvard college student to owner and CEO of Facebook. Based on court documents and interviews with key individuals, Aaron Sorkin’s instant message-like dialogue connects the perspectives of the ideators, visionaries and builders of the site as they watch a nascent concept transform into a behemoth. Fincher moves us through the story at internet speeds helping us see how intelligent and motivated individuals can create a $27 billion company from a $1,000 initial investment and making Zuckerberg the youngest billionaire (under 30) in the world.
The tagline for the movie hints at the morality play underlying this hyper growth – “You don’t get to 500 friends without making some enemies”. Along this ascent, we watch individuals compromise ethics, morals and relationships in pursuit of their dream. The trade-offs portrayed in the movie are not surprising. We have seen on the screen before how willing people are to throw-off ballast from racing ship. What is unexpected is the regret of the protagonists. On the way to the summit, they know they are making egregious missteps which they mourn for a nano-second, but they are unable to stop from climbing.
The movie, Brief Encounter, based on a script by Noel Coward has been re-interpreted for Broadway. The story follows chaste lovers who meet incidentally then surreptitiously at a train station discovering their attraction and then their guilt over the reunions in a month’s time. The production splashes the audience with waves of affection as the couple is overtaken with love. Combining aspects of silent film and minstrel show, Emma Rice’s adaptation is the roller-coaster of an abbreviated romance –confusion of a first encounter, thrill of interim reconnaissance, melancholy of an inevitable departure.
As a closeted gay man in the 1930’s, Coward must have been writing of his own inability to create a meaningful relationship. A feeling of deprivation and longing are only strengthened by the tantalizing notion that cutting existing bonds and societal norms could lead to ultimate happiness. Despite their loveless marriages and suffocating every day lives, the couple comply with their responsibilities in the end. Releasing each other from short-term happiness, and hopefully becoming stronger people in the long-term.
At my brother Wameek’s graduation from Vassar seven years ago, Susan Sontag the keynote speaker said that “life is an accumulation of loss”. This is a fact. The question is how we deal with it. In a world of internet geniuses, Russian oligarchs and Chinese manufacturing tycoons, becoming a billionaire by the age of 40 has never been more real or as fast. But the result of gathering material, political or academic achievement quickly is that the inevitable loss makes one powerless, negative and frustrated. On the other hand, being able to appreciate the equally inevitable gains is a celebration of the small wins of life.
The Facebook founders’ accelerated accumulation early in life made their successive losses seem devastating. By the end of the movie, Zuckerberg despite unquestionable financial success is still looking for a meaningful relationship. In contrast, the star-crossed lovers from Brief Encounter built steady lives with incremental wins – a house, family, kids. For them the loss of a singular love is heart-breaking but also something to be remembered and to grow from.
The loss of Democratic control is disappointing, but perhaps we gained too much too quickly. Taking a step back, we may now need to appreciate what we did achieve – passing ground-breaking legislation on Health Care, stabilizing the world economy, and reviving failed businesses like GM. Like the lover’s encounter, we can celebrate the heady days and go back to our responsibility of piecing together a divided country and ascending from the experience.
November 7, 2010
As liberal-minded individuals, shouldn’t we be sad about the Democratic loss? Let’s see what the arts have to say about this.
David Fincher’s recent film, The Social Network, is a re-telling of the rise of Mark Zuckerberg from Harvard college student to owner and CEO of Facebook. Based on court documents and interviews with key individuals, Aaron Sorkin’s instant message-like dialogue connects the perspectives of the ideators, visionaries and builders of the site as they watch a nascent concept transform into a behemoth. Fincher moves us through the story at internet speeds helping us see how intelligent and motivated individuals can create a $27 billion company from a $1,000 initial investment and making Zuckerberg the youngest billionaire (under 30) in the world.
The tagline for the movie hints at the morality play underlying this hyper growth – “You don’t get to 500 friends without making some enemies”. Along this ascent, we watch individuals compromise ethics, morals and relationships in pursuit of their dream. The trade-offs portrayed in the movie are not surprising. We have seen on the screen before how willing people are to throw-off ballast from racing ship. What is unexpected is the regret of the protagonists. On the way to the summit, they know they are making egregious missteps which they mourn for a nano-second, but they are unable to stop from climbing.
The movie, Brief Encounter, based on a script by Noel Coward has been re-interpreted for Broadway. The story follows chaste lovers who meet incidentally then surreptitiously at a train station discovering their attraction and then their guilt over the reunions in a month’s time. The production splashes the audience with waves of affection as the couple is overtaken with love. Combining aspects of silent film and minstrel show, Emma Rice’s adaptation is the roller-coaster of an abbreviated romance –confusion of a first encounter, thrill of interim reconnaissance, melancholy of an inevitable departure.
As a closeted gay man in the 1930’s, Coward must have been writing of his own inability to create a meaningful relationship. A feeling of deprivation and longing are only strengthened by the tantalizing notion that cutting existing bonds and societal norms could lead to ultimate happiness. Despite their loveless marriages and suffocating every day lives, the couple comply with their responsibilities in the end. Releasing each other from short-term happiness, and hopefully becoming stronger people in the long-term.
At my brother Wameek’s graduation from Vassar seven years ago, Susan Sontag the keynote speaker said that “life is an accumulation of loss”. This is a fact. The question is how we deal with it. In a world of internet geniuses, Russian oligarchs and Chinese manufacturing tycoons, becoming a billionaire by the age of 40 has never been more real or as fast. But the result of gathering material, political or academic achievement quickly is that the inevitable loss makes one powerless, negative and frustrated. On the other hand, being able to appreciate the equally inevitable gains is a celebration of the small wins of life.
The Facebook founders’ accelerated accumulation early in life made their successive losses seem devastating. By the end of the movie, Zuckerberg despite unquestionable financial success is still looking for a meaningful relationship. In contrast, the star-crossed lovers from Brief Encounter built steady lives with incremental wins – a house, family, kids. For them the loss of a singular love is heart-breaking but also something to be remembered and to grow from.
The loss of Democratic control is disappointing, but perhaps we gained too much too quickly. Taking a step back, we may now need to appreciate what we did achieve – passing ground-breaking legislation on Health Care, stabilizing the world economy, and reviving failed businesses like GM. Like the lover’s encounter, we can celebrate the heady days and go back to our responsibility of piecing together a divided country and ascending from the experience.
November 7, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Some thoughts on… Jumping In
Two weeks in Kenya and Tanzania with seven days and six nights of safari provides fascinating insight into animal behavior. The vacation, with our friends Jerry, Wai, Rishi and his mother, was through Nairobi, Mombasa, Ngorongoro Crater, Northern Serengeti and Zanzibar.
After days of viewing surreal landscape, taking in breathtaking vistas, and engaging with wildlife, it’s natural to reflect on how similar human interaction is to animals - lionesses protecting their cubs; ostriches strutting to attract a mate; hippos lying on top of each other in the water. The most striking interaction for us though was watching the migration of wildebeest. Due to annual rain patterns, wildebeest migrate over the vast plains of the Serengeti from central Tanzania up to southern Kenya and then back down. On their journey they follow greener grasses to the north crossing several rivers to get to their Elysian fields of the Masai Mara.
Not particularly picturesque beings, the creatures remarkable talent is survival by maintaining strength of their herd. Their movements can be orchestrated – forming a single line to wander down a hillside – or haphazard – fleeing from an approaching airplane - but they always move together. The Mara River is where we saw the crossing of our herd of wildebeest that we had been tracking for the past three days.
Any crossing is fraught with danger from hungry crocodiles, uncooperative hippos, or the inability to dive and swim safely without breaking a leg. It takes a considerable amount of time for the wildebeests to determine if they should cross. They delay or change their mind with the slightest adjustment of the wind or the smallest ripples in the water (thus 3 days of waiting). As our guide Ishmael put it, “They are very skittish, but you would be too if your life were on the line.”
But when they do make a decision to traverse, they go with all their heart. The entire herd, 1000 – 2000 individuals at a time, will run to the crossing point that was chosen and just jump in. They know that there is less danger for any one individual if they all go in at once – there is strength in numbers and though one or two may get hurt – those are reasonable odds to preserve the larger community.
In the US, we are faced with two major issues that need crossing.
New York City and the country are debating the building of a Muslim community center and mosque near the site of the twin towers. The edifice is meant to symbolize tolerance, yet it has embroiled the nation into a debate suffused with fear of Islam and memories of 9/11. Some see the building of Cordoba House, the name of the center, so close to Ground Zero as a slap in the face to the families who lost members. The conservative right has used the issue as a way to stir anti-terrorist fervor. The local community board has approved the construction, and national religious groups have endorsed the idea.
Recently, Obama joined the debate proclaiming “I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.” [New York Times, August 14, 2010]
Mayor Bloomberg (a Republican) who historically has given his strong backing to the cause declared that “This proposed mosque and community center in Lower Manhattan is as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime, and I applaud President Obama’s clarion defense of the freedom of religion tonight.” [New York Times, August 14, 2010]
The mosque is moving forward, despite the protestations of conservative politicians from around the country who may never have set foot in Lower Manhattan. This is a good path and is a testament to the constitutional separation of church and state. American Muslims should be proud of a country that supports minority rights despite the stream of hatred against the site.
The second issue has bubbled up across the country in California. In a striking ruling, Vaughn R. Walker, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, overturned Proposition 8, the California referendum banning same-sex marriage. In a 136-page well-reasoned decision, the Judge found that the basis for the Proposition was unconstitutional because “Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women… is not a proper basis on which to legislate.” A law based on the hatred of one portion of the population for another is not the foundation on which our country is based.
The impressive part of the ruling is that the beginning 109 pages are devoted to the “Finding of Facts” which is typically uncontested findings from the broad review conducted by the court. Written in a clear and logical tone, the order is surprisingly easy to read and can be found at the New York Times website. Similar to Cordoba House, the case brings up the question of separation of church and state and protection of minority rights. A primary argument from religious groups is that granting marriage rights to same-sex unions diminishes heterosexual marriages and lead to non-productive unions which can’t produce children. As Walker points out:
“Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.”
Religion can sanctify a marriage but the church has no ability to prevent the state from authorizing marriage. The fact that the same-sex union does not produce off-spring is irrelevant since as Walker relates:
“Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse… [I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.”
The ruling is impressive but the arguments still need to make it through Circuit Court and the Supreme Court before becoming the law of the land.
One group thrown at the center of these two debates is the American Muslim Community. Backing the construction of Cordoba House fundamentally uses the same arguments – “separation of church and state” and “equal protection” – as the issue of gay marriage. By making a case for one, it implies belief in the principles and support for the other.
The debates are interesting because the discussion has evolved beyond liberal versus conservative distinctions. Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich (conservative Republicans) are against the ruling and the construction, while Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Michael Bloomberg (moderate Republicans) are supportive of both.
The Islamic community can not choose to be on one side of the Cordoba argument and argue against the other. Either we need to embrace the greener grasses of minority rights protection or we choose to stay on the drought side of the river. To maintain the strength of the community, it’s time for moderate Muslims to jump in and start swimming across these waters.
August 14, 2010
After days of viewing surreal landscape, taking in breathtaking vistas, and engaging with wildlife, it’s natural to reflect on how similar human interaction is to animals - lionesses protecting their cubs; ostriches strutting to attract a mate; hippos lying on top of each other in the water. The most striking interaction for us though was watching the migration of wildebeest. Due to annual rain patterns, wildebeest migrate over the vast plains of the Serengeti from central Tanzania up to southern Kenya and then back down. On their journey they follow greener grasses to the north crossing several rivers to get to their Elysian fields of the Masai Mara.
Not particularly picturesque beings, the creatures remarkable talent is survival by maintaining strength of their herd. Their movements can be orchestrated – forming a single line to wander down a hillside – or haphazard – fleeing from an approaching airplane - but they always move together. The Mara River is where we saw the crossing of our herd of wildebeest that we had been tracking for the past three days.
Any crossing is fraught with danger from hungry crocodiles, uncooperative hippos, or the inability to dive and swim safely without breaking a leg. It takes a considerable amount of time for the wildebeests to determine if they should cross. They delay or change their mind with the slightest adjustment of the wind or the smallest ripples in the water (thus 3 days of waiting). As our guide Ishmael put it, “They are very skittish, but you would be too if your life were on the line.”
But when they do make a decision to traverse, they go with all their heart. The entire herd, 1000 – 2000 individuals at a time, will run to the crossing point that was chosen and just jump in. They know that there is less danger for any one individual if they all go in at once – there is strength in numbers and though one or two may get hurt – those are reasonable odds to preserve the larger community.
In the US, we are faced with two major issues that need crossing.
New York City and the country are debating the building of a Muslim community center and mosque near the site of the twin towers. The edifice is meant to symbolize tolerance, yet it has embroiled the nation into a debate suffused with fear of Islam and memories of 9/11. Some see the building of Cordoba House, the name of the center, so close to Ground Zero as a slap in the face to the families who lost members. The conservative right has used the issue as a way to stir anti-terrorist fervor. The local community board has approved the construction, and national religious groups have endorsed the idea.
Recently, Obama joined the debate proclaiming “I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.” [New York Times, August 14, 2010]
Mayor Bloomberg (a Republican) who historically has given his strong backing to the cause declared that “This proposed mosque and community center in Lower Manhattan is as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime, and I applaud President Obama’s clarion defense of the freedom of religion tonight.” [New York Times, August 14, 2010]
The mosque is moving forward, despite the protestations of conservative politicians from around the country who may never have set foot in Lower Manhattan. This is a good path and is a testament to the constitutional separation of church and state. American Muslims should be proud of a country that supports minority rights despite the stream of hatred against the site.
The second issue has bubbled up across the country in California. In a striking ruling, Vaughn R. Walker, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, overturned Proposition 8, the California referendum banning same-sex marriage. In a 136-page well-reasoned decision, the Judge found that the basis for the Proposition was unconstitutional because “Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women… is not a proper basis on which to legislate.” A law based on the hatred of one portion of the population for another is not the foundation on which our country is based.
The impressive part of the ruling is that the beginning 109 pages are devoted to the “Finding of Facts” which is typically uncontested findings from the broad review conducted by the court. Written in a clear and logical tone, the order is surprisingly easy to read and can be found at the New York Times website. Similar to Cordoba House, the case brings up the question of separation of church and state and protection of minority rights. A primary argument from religious groups is that granting marriage rights to same-sex unions diminishes heterosexual marriages and lead to non-productive unions which can’t produce children. As Walker points out:
“Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.”
Religion can sanctify a marriage but the church has no ability to prevent the state from authorizing marriage. The fact that the same-sex union does not produce off-spring is irrelevant since as Walker relates:
“Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse… [I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.”
The ruling is impressive but the arguments still need to make it through Circuit Court and the Supreme Court before becoming the law of the land.
One group thrown at the center of these two debates is the American Muslim Community. Backing the construction of Cordoba House fundamentally uses the same arguments – “separation of church and state” and “equal protection” – as the issue of gay marriage. By making a case for one, it implies belief in the principles and support for the other.
The debates are interesting because the discussion has evolved beyond liberal versus conservative distinctions. Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich (conservative Republicans) are against the ruling and the construction, while Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mayor Michael Bloomberg (moderate Republicans) are supportive of both.
The Islamic community can not choose to be on one side of the Cordoba argument and argue against the other. Either we need to embrace the greener grasses of minority rights protection or we choose to stay on the drought side of the river. To maintain the strength of the community, it’s time for moderate Muslims to jump in and start swimming across these waters.
August 14, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)