WhirledView

A Psychedelic Symphony Evening

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Or more accurately, a psychedelic evening at the symphony? Or was it a psychedelic Alice at the Kennedy Center? Or could it have been a not so subtle musical statement about the inanities of the past seven years of the Bush administration with the Queen shrieking “Off with her Head!” Dick Cheney/Donald Rumsfeld style near the end? After all, Alice in Wonderland has multiple interpretations.

But the political satire and parody on the inanities of mid-nineteenth century British politics should not be lost – despite the fact the two reviews (Anne Midgette of the WaPo and Michael Lodico of IonArts) and the one preview (Stephen Brookes in a special to the WaPo on May 8) I read ignored the obvious political dimensions of Alice in Wonderland entirely. (Note to readers: I'd include links to Midgette and Brookes articles, but the WaPo site is crashing my computer.)

Michael Lodico of the music critics blog IonArts, at least focused on the true musical highlight of the evening, violinist Hilary Hahn’s performance of Paganini’s Violin Concerto No 1 in D Major, Opus 6, a lovely performance that was not psychedelic at all.

A peculiar sort of program

In reality, this was one of the stranger combinations of symphonic works on a single program in my experience as a member of audience of numerous classical music concerts over the years and someone who still attempts to play the oboe thanks to an indulgent oboe teacher.

Normally, twentieth century music is played pre-, not post-intermission so the audience doesn’t escape en masse before the work or soloist most came to hear – in this case the 28 year old virtuoso violinist Hahn. This, however, was not the case at the most recent program of Washington’s National Symphony Orchestra. Hahn was sandwiched between a mediocre rendition of Verdi’s “Overture to I vespri siciliani” which Midgette’s critique got mostly right. It was sloppily performed. What she missed, however, was that the orchestra also had intonation problems. This was particularly evident in the Verdi.

I too went to hear Hilary Hahn who performed beautifully. But the last half of the program was devoted to the 64 minute or so uncut version of contemporary composer David Del Tredici’s “Final Alice,” the first time it has been staged uncut in over a decade or longer. With good reason.

Hahn was worth the price of admission.

Whether or not one likes this particular Violin Concerto – or considers it fluff as did Midgette, Hahn performed it spectacularly. Perhaps the two men seated in front of me knew something I didn’t know, but they escaped at half time, I mean intermission, after Hahn’s performance and before the hour plus of “Final Alice” began.

Stephen Brookes , however, had led me to believe in his special to the WaPo concert preview that Del Tredici’s “Final Alice” was a throw-back to pre-Schoenberg tonality. As it turned out, only partially.

Yes, Del Tredici broke with the atonal tradition who-cares-about-the-audience attitude at the time he wrote it 32 years ago – but he seems not to have made up his mind whether the work should have been tonal or not – and the transitions between the two were, so to speak, jagged en extremis.

Not my cup of tea

Let's just say that “Final Alice” was not my cup of tea – or maybe it was the NSO’s performance of the work that was not. Or maybe it’s that this rather peculiar work would have been better presented as an opera, not a symphonic production. Del Tredici seems to have spent much of his adult composing life writing, revising and regrouping various versions – longer and shorter – of Alice. And from his perspective, almost parroted by Brookes in his pre-concert review probably taken from the Program Notes or an NSO pre-concert press release, with emphasis on Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson’s aka Lewis Carroll’s apparent unhealthy fetish for young attractive girls.

Friday Is It a Weed Blogging

by CKR

This is a game I play every time I work in the garden. As regular readers know, I have a somewhat unconventional view of weeds and wildflowers, so that makes it even more complex.

I have been impressed lately with all the lacy sorts of leaves that are in my yard. And many of them look the same, or almost the same. If the distinction is too difficult, I just let the plant grow for a while. It will reveal its true character at some point.

Meanwhile, that first plant is what I promised last week in coming attractions: a blue penstemon. Like many perennials, they seem to prefer blooming every other year, and this is the other year. The plant in the photo is in a particularly favorable place, and it is one of the first in the yard to bloom, but many others are coming.

So here is today's quiz: weed, wildflower, or cultivated plant (i.e., I paid money for it)? Click on the photos to enlarge them, in case you think that will help. Answers after the jump.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Only Two Weeks? I Count Ten

by CKR

David Broder is concerned about the state of discourse in the campaign.

Indiana and North Carolina were doubly irrelevant this year, because the "issues" that Clinton and Obama discussed in the two weeks before those states' primaries were some of the phoniest of this entire election cycle.

Obama was all but obliterated for that time by the huge media-fanned controversy over his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright's inflammatory comments were obnoxious, but they bore no resemblance to the rhetoric and the record of the Illinois senator. I'd like to know what kind of people Obama would bring into his White House and where he would turn for a Cabinet, because there is so much uncertainty about his actual policies at home and abroad.

Wright would clearly not be anywhere in that administration, so why waste a full fortnight on him?

And of course Broder has been absolutely, completely responsible and has asked the kind of questions he'd like to hear and never fanned the Wright controversy. Right?

Broder mentions Wright in every column all the way back to March 23.

May 1: A Pastor's Influence

April 24: The Democrats' Worst Nightmare

April 20: Democrats' Damaging Brawl

April 17: What Pennsylvania Voters Are Saying

March 23: The Real Value Of Obama's Speech

Admittedly, in some of these columns, Wright is mentioned only incidentally. And I suppose Broder would say that Wright was part of the news, he had to mention him.

But I count ten weeks plus, not just the two before Indiana and North Carolina.

Let Them Eat Golf Balls

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

I can’t believe it. The U.S. is backing plans to build a luxury golf course adjacent to or in the Green Zone. Who uses a golf course? Mostly males. Monied males. Is this what’s needed in the center of a city that has suffered so badly?

Think of New York. What’s in the center of New York? Central Park.
What’s in the center of London? Hyde Park.
What’s in the center of Rome? The Villa Borghese.
What’s in the center of Paris? Lots of parks.

What’s in the center of Calcutta? The Maidan. Yes, the maidan was laid out by the British during the colonial period, but today it’s where kiddies ride ponies and boys play football/soccer and families picnic and lovers smooch behind the shrubbery. It’s one of the good things the British did during their long tenure. This would be a fine model for what the U.S. leaves behind in Baghdad—assuming the U.S. ever leaves, which is seldom contemplated under the Bush administration, although, in the long run, it will happen. Gracefully. Or otherwise.

Parks are a mark of civilization. They bring people together in the open air. They serve as lungs for a crowded city. They remind people caught up in the stressful necessities of urbanized life that there’s something called nature, which forms the bedrock of our existence. They give people as deep sense of freedom and ease.

Parks bring people together and, something very important, they don't come with entrance fees (as in Disneyish amusement “parks”) or greens fees. People stroll. They sit. They play with children or watch their children play. They chat. They debate. They laugh. They flirt. The enjoy the play of the seasons. When they leave the park, they feel relaxed and happy.

But instead of gifting the people of Bagdad with a spacious central park for the enjoyment of all Baghdadis, what is the Bush administration pushing? A golf course, where a handful of (mostly) middle-aged, VIPish males can hit a ball around velvety lawns while making deals with the same (and sometimes a few women, if they’re really really important or don’t mind inconvenient tee times).

Yes, the American cast of thousands and the other bigwigs who work in the Green Zone will be able to play nine holes or maybe even 18 right in the center of the city and then, no doubt, have drinks (alcoholic) in a luxurious clubhouse thereafter.

There’s a possible upside to this scheme. Maybe, if there’s a golf course next to the monster embassy in the Green Zone, the U.S. State department won’t have so much trouble filling all its Baghdad slots. I guess a golf course is a good way to bribe people into putting up with life in a sealed off, privileged enclave in the middle of a war zone.

And the jehadis can practice making holes in one with their occasional rockets.

I’m not making this up. The American military promoters admit that they are thinking very much of themselves and not the long-suffering people they’ll be posted among.

The $5 billion plan has the backing of the Pentagon and apparently the interest of some with deep pockets in the world of international hotels and development, according to the lead military liaison for the project.

For Washington, the driving motivation is to create a "zone of influence" around the new $700 million U.S. Embassy, whose total cost will reach about $1 billion after all the workers and offices are relocated over the next year.

"When you have $1 billion hanging out there and 1,000 employees lying around, you kind of want to know who your neighbors are," said Captain Thomas Karnowski, the U.S. Navy officer who led the team that created the development plan. "You want to influence what happens in your neighborhood over time."

The U.S. has done so many inept things in Iraq. The golf course project will be one more indication that the U.S. is totally out of touch with the needs of real people.

How about putting the golf course money into building parks along the river banks? Parks for everybody. Oh? A river park wouldn’t be safe for Americans? Stupid me!

On the other hand, Iraqis too have raised their eyebrows.

Some Iraqi leaders even have drawn parallels to the U.S.-backed development plan and what Saddam Hussein did in the area. During his reign, the neighborhood was dominated by family and tribal allies, political loyalists and members of his elite Republican Guard.

Furthermore, and I can't emphasize this too much, all this smacks of the dirty O-word. That’s occupation.

That aside, the project is being whitewashed as having the blessing of the mayor of Baghdad. And how was that blessing obtained? How much did it cost under the table and how was the money channeled? I’d like the opinion of a courageous inspector general here, an inspector general of proven integrity and independence. Perhaps I am being a tad too cynical here. But the process of rebuilding Iraq has been, to a very large extent, a tale of corruption and irresponsibility. The benefits to ordinary Iraqis have not been commensurate with the sums laid out by the U.S.

What’s more, it’s hard for me to see that any mayor who favors investment in golf courses run for profit over parks provided freely to the people of the city can be cited as a man who has the best interests of his electorate at heart.

And I wonder if anyone still serving in what's left of the public diplomacy sphere at the State Department was consulted on this move? Probably not. Diplomacy has mostly been handed over to the Pentagon, which is of course the sponsor of the golf course project.

What the hell! Let them eat golf balls.

Smith-Mundt is a Moot Case - Except It's Not

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Why is it that the U.S. government still operates its overseas information activities as if the Internet had never been invented? Or actually, it operates them with increasing impunity as if Smith-Mundt, the law that came into being in 1948 and was strengthened during the Vietnam War that separates information aimed at foreigners from information designed for American consumption, had been repealed years ago. Except it wasn’t. This artificial and meaningless firewall – supposedly to keep the executive branch of the U.S. government from “propagandizing” the American people – should have been repealed once the Internet took hold.

By 1996 when I worked in the US Information Agency’s Information Bureau and we published quarterly electronic journals on national security issues, developed our own subject-specific web pages as well as a regular news service called the Washington File, it was clear the Smith-Mundt designated separation between information and information had become meaningless.

Fast forward to today: Just look at a few reader statistics for America.gov.

America.gov is the latest product of the State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) which ten years ago was USIA’s Information Bureau. IIP products supposedly come under the restrictions of Smith-Mundt in contrast to the State Department's Bureau of Public Affairs webpage (state.gov) which is supposedly for Americans. I find State.gov to be one of the most complicated and confusing webpages on the Internet not to mention sporting more pictures of Condi, left and right, than even the satirical anti-Condi Princess Sparkle Pony blog.

Now I can’t access State or IIP internal data, but I can access America.gov and when I last looked at America.gov’s traffic details on Alexa, an internet ranking service connected to Amazon.com, I noted that 31.2 percent of the hits come from within the United States. India follows with 12.2 percent, then the UK with 4.5 percent, Germany with 3 percent and Canada with 2.7 percent. So much, in my view, for Smith-Mundt. It is outdated and unenforceable. The Internet is the 13 foot ladder used to scale Smith-Mundt’s 12 foot fence as our Governor Bill Richardson once said in reference to the immigration issue. Besides, I think Americans should know what their government tells others and how it presents itself abroad. It’s our taxes that pay for this stuff after all.

In comparison, 48.7 percent of State.gov's traffic comes from the U.S., the website ranks higher in Iran than the US and 58 percent of State.gov viewers are looking for travel information(47 percent) or/and electronic visa forms (11 percent).

Why Aren’t Clinton and Obama Raising Constitutional Issues?

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

John Yoo, the Benedict Arnold of our constitutional system, is in the news again. His memos, those secret messages he so treacherously delivered to the Bush administration, are gradually coming to light. One of the latest to surface (so far as I know) held that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to “domestic military operations” against terrorists. Pressed to the wall, the slippery new Attorney General conceded, very reluctantly, that the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans against unreasonable search and seizure, is indeed still in effect “across the board.”

Democratic Senators are Trying

We have Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California to thank for forcing that out of the Bush administration’s latest minion at the Justice Department. Thinking that a retired judge would have some sense of loyalty to the Constitution, the Democrats in the Senate, including Feinstein, gave Murkasy an easy time during his confirmation hearings. That, clearly, was a mistake. He is as unprincipled and devious as his predecessor. And we can be sure that, even as he spoke those words, he was holding to some mental reservation that will serve as his version of a presidential signing statement nullifying the public sense of his utterance.

Meanwhile, other Democratic Senators, Sheldon Whitehouse, of Rhode Island and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, are still insisting on their right to obtain documents that have to do with domestic surveillance and terrorist interrogation practices. They also contend that modifications in executive orders on sensitive issues should be, at the very least, reported to the appropriate Congressional committees.

“It is a basic tenet of democracy that the people have a right to know the law,” insists Senator Feingold. How radical!

Reading stories like this, including one which informs us that lawyers can no longer speak on the phone with clients accused of terrorism for fear of government eavesdropping, I thought it might be a good idea to look into the prospect for a less imperious presidency under a Democratic successor. Oddly enough, neither Clinton nor Obama has initiated much of a conversation on Constitutional issues, and the media hasn’t forced them to make up for their oversight or reluctance during the twenty-some “debates” in which they have faced one another. Does that mean that each of them would continue on the Bush track? That was a very frightening thought. So I checked out the web sites for the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

The Ominous Silence

Both Clinton and Obama are lawyers. They fully understand the implications of the Yoo memos and the other advice produced by the Justice Department during the Bush administration. And yet, what I found when I scanned the "Issues" sections of each web site is that neither Obama nor Clinton have any position they wish to publicize on the following urgent Constitutional issues or deplorable human rights abuses:

Habeas corpus. Warrentless surveillance of all kinds. Military tribunals. The Geneva Conventions. Secret rendition. Torture. Legislation-nullifying signing statements. The balance of powers. Constitutional checks and balances. Guilt by association. Preventive detention. The right to competent legal representation. The right of the accused to know charges and confront witnesses. The constraints on the commander-in-chief. Executive privilege. Over-classification and secret government.

There are at least three possible reasons why we cannot learn what the candidates think about these critical matters. (1) They have contempt for the American public, imagining that we cannot understand these issues or do not care or will be too easily manipulated by the Republicans ready to impale them on flag pins. (2) The omission was an oversight, which is not likely considering the long list of issues which are dealt with on each web site. (3) They intend to follow the Bush lead.

The Veto-Proof Solution

I am relieved that Democrats in Congress and in the Senate are trying to rectify the damage that the Bush administration has done to democracy in the United States. But I am now forced to wonder if our representatives will have the support for Constitutional restoration that we so desperately need from a Democratic president.

All the more reason to have a veto proof Democratic majority in Congress by next January!

Let’s Make a Deal, Diplomatically Speaking

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Leslie Gelb’s op-ed “In the End, Every President Talks to the Bad Guys,” in the April 27 Washington Post has been one of the very few recent articles in that newspaper worth reading. Not that the title is accurate – W hasn’t thought that this – or any other – “rule” of diplomacy applies to him – at least as far as I can tell. Nevertheless, most previous rational and successful US chief executives learned that to achieve America’s international goals and objectives they needed to talk to the “bad guys.” Most figured this out by the beginning of their second terms. “Standing resolute” in ever increasing isolation just didn’t and still doesn’t cut it.

Roosevelt and Churchill talked to Stalin during World War II, for instance, not because they wanted to – but because Soviet support against the Nazis was imperative for their own countries’ survival. That was an alliance of necessity, not of convenience or choice. Think about it, even staunch anti-Communist Ronald Reagan talked to Mikhail Gorbachev thus helping end the Cold War.

Gelb is a power realist. He understands that to move American interests ahead US administrations sometimes need to deal with not nice regimes. I agree with much of what he has written in his op-ed.

My following ten rules of diplomatic “engagement” therefore, are based, at least partially on his recommendations.

Rule #1: It’s usually a bad idea to threaten or attempt to oust leaders from their perches of power. People – like chickens – do not like to be removed from their roosts. They squawk loudly, or worse, when it happens to them. John and Bobby Kennedy might not have been met with assassins bullets if, for instance, they had not been so aggressively anti-Castro.

Rule #2: In reality, it means achieving an understanding to “live and let live.” This requires putting the brakes on even the threat to unleash the B52s and the Stealth Bombers.

Rule #3: It means not promising a political opposition more support than the US can, in fact, deliver. Think of the tragic consequences in Hungary in 1956.

Rule #4: From Gelb’s perspective setting preconditions before being willing to come to the negotiating table is primarily a recipe for no negotiations. Right on.

Rule #5: As far as I’m concerned although Gelb would disagree, name calling normally doesn’t work well either. It’s all too reminiscent of school yard taunts – threatening with empty words can be hazardous to the health. What is far more effective is the Reagan negotiations mantra “trust but verify.” I believe this has become “monitoring and verification” in current State Department lingo. The Bush administration should be doing it in spades in the Middle East as well as what it is already doing with the North Koreans.

Rule #6: Exaggerating threats is a really bad idea. This administration - perhaps because of its own predilection to use the hammer rather than engage at the chess board - is all too willing to take the worst case scenario at face value as an excuse to expand and continue the war in the Middle East. If I remember correctly, the military, in particular, always puts forth the worst case scenario so that it doesn’t get caught short. This is not to say that I agree with Rumsfeld’s failed charge-of-the-light-brigade warfare doctrine, but I think it is a huge mistake to trump up unsubstantiated threats from an adversary that foremost plump up the military's already humongous budget to be spent on ineffectual and questionable ends.

Rule #7: Listen to and use your experts who understand the culture, speak the language, know how to negotiate, have worked in the country or at least region, and intimately understand the disputed subject matter. Above all, don’t rely on third party intelligence, ideologues or questionable defectors for your information. They have their own agendas which have led and will lead the US down a cactus-filled garden path, or worse.

Rule #8: Show respect for your adversary but ensure that the leaders understand that you require equal respect. While this means putting the military toys in the closet, it also does not, by the way, mean “kow-towing” Chinese fashion.

Rule #9: Bilateral and multilateral negotiations take on different characteristics. The latter are far more complex and the rules subtle and archane. Both take time to learn but both can result in surprising and unexpected positive byproducts.

Rule #10: Make sure your own house is clean before accusing or sanctioning others for their domestic misdeeds, bad governance or poor behavior. After W, whoever wins the presidency will need to embark upon full scale renovations at home – not just engage in the usual spring cleaning at the top. This means fundamental changes in policies, institutions, attitudes and people.

Motivation for a Syrian Reactor and Israel's Strike?

by CKR

Let us, for the moment, assume that the Syrians were building a reactor at al Kibar. They seem to have been doing it for a long time, since the late nineties.

Somewhere, in my intensive reading on the subject over the weekend, someone suggested that the Syrians might have been building a reactor as a bargaining chip with Israel. I can't recall who made the suggestion, so I apologize for not linking.

Let me expand on that suggestion and its implications.

Syria lost the Golan Heights to Israel in the 1967 war and would like to get them back. Since 1967, it has become clear that Israel has built about 100-200 nuclear weapons and has delivery vehicles for them, particularly for its neighborhood. Negotiations by Israel with its neighbors for peace have been up and down, mainly down, since 1967. So it would be reasonable for a neighbor who wanted something back to consider developing a bargaining chip.

A reactor could be used as a bargaining chip in at least two ways: toward the return of the Golan Heights, or toward a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. In fact, in 2003, it was Syria that called for the formation of such a zone. Arab states have been issuing such calls for some long time, no doubt partly to show up Israel's hypocrisy and even scores. The calls are routinely rejected by Israel and the United States.

Failing such bargaining, Syria would have the option of producing plutonium in their bargaining chip. So it would look like a win-win with the small problem of building the bargaining chip being against Syria's obligations to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Last week's CIA briefing claimed that the United States has known about the project since the late nineties, so we may assume that Israel did, too.

We now learn that Israel and Syria have been preparing, with Turkey's help, for talks on the return of the Golan Heights for about a year now. We might look to what was happening in those talks for the timing of Israel's strike on al Kibar. Destroying one of your opponent's bargaining chips is one way to prepare for such talks.

Missing E-Mails: Partly Solved

by CKR

A month ago, I asked for help in tracking down e-mails gone missing in Northern New Mexico. I have found part of the problem.

Last summer, I gave my old laptop to a young relative, four years old to be exact. My intention was for him to have a game box of his own so that his mother could use her computer for other things. The old laptop became the living-room computer for the family.

I had deleted my word-processor files and other potentially incriminating evidence, but I neglected to delete my e-mail account. So when the new owner's parents tried to use e-mail on what was now the living-room computer, they would receive my e-mails.

I sent them instructions on how to delete my account, and I haven't missed an e-mail that I'm aware of for a week or so now.

But that doesn't account for the e-mails I sent that were lost or the e-mails between two other parties. I think it's most of my problem, though.

Many thanks to those who sent me suggestions.

An Historical Note on Reacting to Catastrophe: Jeremiah Wright and Jonathan Edwards

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

Since the response to the now infamous “the chickens have come home to roost” sermon has been hysterical and irrational in the extreme, I thought it might be useful to share a snippet I’ve just come across in a book I’m reading. The book is a recent biography of the great American theologian and philosopher Jonathan Edwards by George M. Marsden. Edwards, as students of American literature may recall, was the preacher who delivered the famous sermon entitled “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” whose gist was: if you don’t get your act together, you are going to spend a pretty nasty eternity burning in hell. The dominant image was that of a spider being held over a flame by a furious patriarch.

Edwards was a Puritan and a Calvinist and he believed in heavy duty soul-searching of the sort in which deep-rooted guilt and inescapable personal responsibility play major roles. He’d hate my putting it this way, but Edwards believed in karma big time. Actions have reactions. Events have repercussions. Chickens, etc., etc.

The congregational network in which Jonathan Edwards played his powerful polemical role is also the very church that is ancestral to the United Church of Christ. On 9/11 Jeremiah Wright was pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and he preached a thundering sermon afterwards. He wanted his congregation to do some serious soul-searching. Whether or not Barak Obama was in a Trinity pew when that sermon was preached, he was a member of that congregation, and that sermon may, unjustly, be the undoing of his presidential aspirations.

In fact, Wright’s reaction to 9/11 would have made perfect sense to Calvinistic eighteenth century America. Had he said anything less, he would have been shirking his duty, which brings me to my snippet.

When General Edward Braddock was defeated on his way to Fort Duquesne (now Pittsburgh) in 1755 during the French and Indian War, the catastrophe was seen as apocalyptic by the English colonists. An entire column of Red Coats had been slaughtered. The future of the English enterprise in North America was doubtful.

One of Jonathan Edwards’s daughters was married to Aaron Burr, who was President of the College of New Jersey, a religiously conservative theological seminary that would evolve into the Princeton University we know today. When the news of the French victory reached her, Esther Edwards Burr wrote in great consternation to a friend in Boston:

O the dreadful, awful news! General Braddock is killed and his army is defeated....Oh my dear, what will, what must become of us! O our sins, our sins—they are grown up to the very heavens, and call aloud for vengeance, the vengeance that the Lord has sent—‘Tis just, ‘tis right.

Esther’s lamentations are perfectly consistent with her father’s preaching. In short, what Wright preached that day in Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago is as American as apple pie—or Jonathan Edwards.

As for Jonathan Edwards: A Life, I highly recommend it, if you're into philosophy, theology history—and tales of bang up small town squabbling.