Film Review: Joyeux Noel

This past semester, I had the good fortune to teach a U.S. “History on Film class. In planning the course, I had every intention of devoting several periods to antiwar films. While I am aware of some quality antiwar movies—I had to confront a curious problem. I have found that a number of these films—especially those about the Vietnam War—are interpreted by today’s students as very much pro-war in nature. Yes, the messages from Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, and Apocalypse Now are often missed and/or ignored by many of my students. Instead, they see exciting battles, shiny weapons, and heroic soldiers and come away thinking that war is glamorous—or at least valiant and courageous.

So in teaching this class for the first time, I decided to skip the antiwar section, not wishing to make these young conservatives any more enamored with blood and guts than they already are. I still feel somewhat guilty about that, but I will continue to advance my subversive, leftist agenda in other ways.

After the class ended, however, I did discover an excellent antiwar movie. The 2005 French film Joyeux Noel (Merry Christmas) is an engrossing look at a 1914 holiday cease fire. I enjoyed it so much that I would have seriously considered showing this foreign film in my American history course.

The film chronicles a short but spontaneous Christmas Eve truce declared by French, German, and Scottish troops during WW I. There is a battle scene at the start of Joyeux Noel, but after that, this film concerns what might happen if soldiers could act like individuals instead of being forced to follow the orders of hypocritical and out-of-touch politicians.

The outbreak of temporary peace in the trenches starts when Christmas trees are shipped to German troops. The troops then begin decorating and displaying the trees—singing commences, and the soldiers lay down their weapons and come out of the trenches to celebrate the holidays. What takes place then is magical—troops begin showing each other pictures of their wives and children, they share food and drink, converse, and even play soccer. These young men act like you would expect them to—they aren’t angry with the enemy, they simply wish to live. They leave the obnoxious nationalism and patriotic fervor to others. And director Christian Carion also minimizes nationalistic stereotypes—the film does not depict these individuals as German, French, or Scottish; they are simply men who are afraid and want to return home. This war (like all wars) is not about heroism. It’s terribly violent and people are killed for absolutely no reason.

There are several plot lines and situations that some critics have called unrealistic. Stephen Holden of the New York Times says the film feels “as squishy and vague as a handsome greeting card declaring peace on earth.” There are critics who have questioned the historical accuracy of this particular event. While I will not vouch for or comment on the historical details, there was a book published in 2001 on this topic. Stanley Weintraub’s, Silent Night informs readers of the history and background of the Christmas Truce. After viewing the film, many of you will probably wish to read this extremely informative book.

I do believe the director takes some liberties with the exact details of the event—even though we know that this moment of sanity did take place. But what actually disturbs me is that it is too often deemed “unrealistic” to discuss or show peace. Why is it so hard to believe that soldiers might actually choose to drop their weapons and greet their so-called enemies with open arms? In too many films (especially in the United States) it has become natural to glamorize war and violence, but once a director attempts to illustrate pacifist behaviors—then it becomes time to scoff and use criticisms like naive and idealistic. I never hear these “unrealistic” arguments used in war films—both critics and the bloodthirsty public too often simply accept that type of history without question.

I urge you to rent and watch Joyeux Noel. It is a quality film, as well as one of best antiwar movies ever made (it was nominated for Best Foreign Language film at the British and American Academy Awards as well as the Golden Globe Awards). The stellar cast includes Diane Kruger, Guillaume Canet, Daniel Bruhl, and Benno Furmann. You’ll get misty-eyed thinking about what is possible. And more importantly, this film will force you to reflect upon the futility of war itself and why we fight.

U.S. Violence Is Nothing New

Whenever the lazy and historically oblivious mainstream media reports that an event is the best, worst, smallest, tallest, or biggest in American history, I become skeptical. For the most part, it probably doesn’t make a difference—but that's the point. If it doesn’t make a difference, why do the media always use those excessive superlatives? Ratings I guess.

I wondered about this after the Virginia Tech shootings. Was it really the worse massacre in U.S. history? It was one of those questions that float around in my mind and give me something to ponder when I am riding the city bus.

But even before I read anything to the contrary, I was concerned that this was just one of the media’s fabricated statistics. See the problem is this, even when the media prints something that might technically be accurate—they offer the reading public no historical context. They fail to mention or discuss other massacres in American history—and more importantly, they never take the time to even define what their terms mean.

Let me explain what I mean by historical context and definition—because it makes a great difference here. At VTU, one student shot and killed over 30 individuals. If you believe the mainstream media, a massacre of this proportion has never taken place before. But wait…..let’s think about that for just a minute. My thoughts immediately turned to several critical historical issues: race and Indian removal. Even without doing any research, I had a gut-feeling that there has been larger numbers of African Americans or Indians killed at some time in America's past. Wouldn't you agree?

But without any historical context, and without an explanation of what a massacre even means—the media is able to make up its own definition. In this case, what we really have is the worst massacre in U.S. history by a single gun-toting individual against other middle-class, mostly white individuals.

Lo and behold, I soon found out I wasn’t the only person concerned about these ambiguous distinctions. CommonDreams posted an article by Carla Blank entitled, “Worst U.S. Massacre?” Unlike yours truly, Ms Blank actually did some research and wrote a wonderful piece about this very subject.

I urge you to read her short expose and seriously think about America’s extremely violent past. In addition, it seemed hypocritical to me that the media harped about this recent violence while we continued to kill Iraqi citizens each and very day—but I guess that doesn’t really count now does it?

Let me just quote two of Blank’s examples, and then add one of my own.

-In 1913, during another nationally publicized action known as the Ludlow Massacre, more than 66 people were killed, including 11 children, and two women who were burned alive. Sparked by a strike against the Rockefeller family-owned Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation by the mostly foreign born Serb, Greek and Italian coal miners after one of their union organizers was murdered, it eventually involved the Colorado National Guard, imported strikebreakers and sympathetic walkouts by union miners throughout the state. The union never was recognized by the company, and a U.S. congressional committee investigation failed to result in indictments of any militiaman or mine guard.

-In 1860, Bret Harte, a well-known California writer, had just begun his writing career, working as a newspaper reporter in Arcata (known then as Union). Harte was expelled from Humboldt County because he recorded the Gunther Island Massacre of Wiyot Indians, committed on Feb. 26, 1860, when a small group of white men murdered between 60 and 200 Wiyot men, women and children. The massacre was encouraged by a local newspaper. Extermination was once the official policy of the California government toward Native Americans, as Gov. Peter H. Burnett stated in 1851: “That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct, must be expected…”

One more example—and I know there are many others. Here in my own home state of Minnesota, 38 Dakota Indians were killed in a mass hanging/execution in 1862. Many still see that as a massacre as these 38 were singled out (with little specific evidence) and blamed for violence that erupted in central Minnesota earlier that summer.

There are those who will say I am quibbling—that it doesn’t matter, Virginia Tech was a tragedy. It was. But why is the U.S. media so god-damned stupid when it comes America’s violent past? Could it be because most of that violence has been carried out against Africa Americans, Indians, immigrant laborers and other groups that have often been written out of the history books?

All American citizens should know about these other massacres and atrocities—starting with Columbus’ genocide, extending through slavery and Jim Crowism. We need students to know about this bloodshed and carnage—it’s an uncomfortable but critical part of this "great nation's" legacy.

On Student Debt

I attended a small soiree last week at my University (I suppose the proper word is a picnic—but that sounds so Midwestern). At one point, there were 5-6 of us (faculty and students) talking, and the delicate subject of student debt was introduced. A very charming women, wife of a faculty member, mentioned several local organizations that teach and advise college kids how to live within their means. One student added that he visits several websites daily that offer advice on spending habits. The conversation soon turned to how students get into debt as well as the use and abuse of credit cards.

After listening to this interesting conversation, I immediately inhaled 4-5 hot dogs and pondered the discussion (no actual connection between the conversation and my gluttony though).

Anyway, here is my problem with the entire student debt issue. While it isn’t a bad idea to help young people with money management, maybe we need to inch a little closer to the real problem—the source. Maybe we should teach about capitalism first—about the absolute desire and need of the capitalist classes to exploit these kids, and why the American system works that way. Maybe if my naive students knew more about the system they are about to become part of, they would have a better understanding of why college costs are so high, why salaries are so low, why the job market looks so bleak, and why they are getting unsolicited credit cards in the mail every day!

But what we tend to do in this country is blame the "undisciplined spender" even though the entire structure is organized to get money from these students and saddle them with lifelong debts. Let's not fool ourselves, it's planned that way! Many of my students are spending $20-25,000 a year for their college degree. And that price rises each and every year. What kind of job should they expect? You all know the answer to that—the pay will not be very good. In fact, most of my students are going to be burdened with heavy debts for years and years.

And while they are building up these debts, they still get credit cards in the mail—what a great country this is! These kids are also bombarded with capitalist cues to buy…buy…and buy even more. They all have cars and all the electrical gadgets one can imagine. But I guess that is the point of capitalism, they keep making products we don’t need, and we keep buying those products—while slipping further and further into debt.

Yet our Puritanical society too often views debt as a personal flaw. And then when I say negative things about capitalism (which happens often), my students generally take offense. They have been taught by their conservative parents that the system is just fine—individuals screw up. But of course they can get help—they can learn how to control their spending at some seminar. We continually hide our heads in the sand and support this corrupt economic system that only benefits the rich.

Maybe we should start telling our young people about capitalism and how flawed it really is. Let’s go to source of the debt problem instead of expecting them to feel shame. American capitalism is putting these kids in a real bind—and they still refuse to acknowledge the culprit. They still blindly accept the system and spout ridiculous crap about our freedoms and what a great country we live in.

Teaching them about the evils of capitalism will do two important things—it will help them understand exploitation and how they are a necessary part of it. And second, maybe they will be able to understand the primary systemic problem—that capitalism needs to keep forcing people into debt, and it needs a blind obedience from a generation of young spenders to stay alive.

Maybe we can kill it someday—but we must get these young spenders to understand how they are aiding and abetting the monster.

Climate Change

Mission Accomplished Day!

Hey folks, it's "Mission Accomplished Day" in America. Yes, George W. Bush has given us a new holiday to celebrate, a day of commemoration.

As you probably all know, it was on 1 May 2003 that our fearless leader went on that aircraft carrier and declared victory in Iraq--or mission accomplished.

Since that wonderful declaration of victory, thousands of American and Iraqis have been killed, and the war itself has become a unmitigated disaster for the United States. Our "great" nation is hated abroad, the public has finally turned against the war, the Republican political majority has vanished, and Bush has proven himself to be a fucking idiot--something we all knew from the beginning.

But the Mission Accomplished faux pax needs to be "celebrated" each and every year. When that cocky bastard stood on that aircraft carrier he thought he had actually pulled it off. All the lies and falsehoods in order to take us into that illegal war--Bush thought a quick victory would stifle any dissent. The troops would be home before anyone had a chance to look into the lies.

Well, he was clearly mistaken and we need to make him pay this year......and every year thereafter. Mission Accomplished Day has two purposes. First, to remind us what an incompetent leader and prick that Bush really is. The picture with the thumb in the air says it all doesn't it?

But there can be a more practical and fun celebration for this day. It's the one day of the year when, thanks to our president, we can tell grandiose, bald-face lies and smile about the whole situation. That's right, on May 1, we now have the right.....no, the duty to simply make things up. We need to all find a bad situation in our life and declare that everything is okay!

How might this work--let's look at some examples.

-You have been working on that new deck for over a year, but it remains unfinished. There is lumber strewn all over the yard and the kids cannot even use the back door because the "new deck" project has been a disaster. You should never have promised your wife that you would build it; you are in over your head. But wait.....it's May 1st. That means the deck is actually finished. On Mission Accomplished Day you take the family out on the deck and declare the project completed! That's all it takes.....mission fucking accomplished.

-You are a professor and that stack of ungraded papers is now at least 5' high. There is no way you can finish--students are clamoring for their grades, they want their papers returned. What are you going to do? Its May 1st--those papers are done, they are all graded. Go to class and tell them mission accomplished you little shits!

-You've been working on a written project for the boss now for months, and your have made no progress. You know this report will never be finished but you don't know how to tell the boss. No need to--it's Mission Accomplished Day.....the god-damned report is done.

You get the point, what a great holiday! Now the negative side of all this is that the joy will not last long; sooner or later your family, your students, and your boss are all going to find out what a fuck-up you really are. But on this one day, on Mission Accomplished Day--you can hold your head up high and be proud of what you have done (although it's all a fucking lie).

Even when they find out and you are proven to be a worthless piece of crap, you can look back with pride on that one day when everyone chose to believe you were actually competent. They all know different now, but you will always have Mission Accomplished Day. The liberal media and the dirty hippies can never take that one away from you.

Nice Hair

The long-haired, disheveled gentleman to the left is Nick Swisher, first-baseman/outfielder for the Oakland Athletics. Swisher is a very good baseball player who is too-often criticized by obnoxious fans because of his hair. Here are a few random comments from an AOL sports website (the quotes and grammer are exact):

"This guy like all the other so called hero's should all cut their hair so as to like a male."

"While watching the recent series oakland played against the Yankees, I couldn't help but notice the difference in how each team looked. Oakland looked like a bunch of bums."

"Still a dirty hippie."

I have always wondered why anyone gives a shit how a baseball player looks anyway. What business is it of the fans if a guy has long hair?

Anyway, here is the kicker to this story. It seems as though Swisher (whose hair currently looks even wilder than in the picture) is growing his hair out in order to donate it to help make wigs for women suffering from hair loss caused by cancer treatment.

That's right.....Swisher's cause, and tribute to his grandmother (who raised him and died of cancer in 2005) is to work with the Entertainment Industry Foundation and the Women's Cancer Research Fund. He is encouraging others to donate real hair to be made into wigs.


P.S. Just so you all know I do have a sense of humor, and am not serious about everything, I will add several pictures of other great baseball "hair-moments" of the past. If Books and Bait readers have other hair pictures to contribute, please send.

Oscar Gamble, circa 1976 (below)

(right) Mike Piazza goes bleached blond, summer of 2001.....Mets remain in last place.

David Halberstam, 1934-2007

Journalist and prolific author David Halberstam died in a car accident on Monday. Halberstam may have been the greatest journalist of the last half-century. And that is not simply my opinion. Anthony Lewis made that determination--and Lewis has been a damned good journalist himself.

Halberstam had such an impact on many facets of American politics and intellectual life. Not only was he a superb journalist--but he was a gifted writer. You can pick up any of his books at random and quickly appreciate his knowledge, wit, and excellent storytelling skills.

You can read the obituaries that have been published during the past few days--but I would like to briefly mention three things about David Halberstam that I will always think about.

1. He set the standard in honest war reporting during Vietnam. Halberstam wasn't "embedded" with some military unit, he reported on what was actually happening in that country. And as you might expect, the politicians despised him--President Kennedy wanted the New York Times to remove him from Saigon. Along with other great, young reporters like Neil Sheehan and Malcolm Browne, Halberstam didn't accept the lies and coverups coming from official sources in Washington. As Dexter Filkins writes in the New York Times (26 April 2007), Halberstam was one of the first skeptics--one of the first reporters who questioned the government version of international events. We need more Halberstam's today. Since the Bush administration has clearly lied its way through the Iraq War, those skeptics are needed now more than ever.

2. David Halberstam wrote many excellent books--but his Vietnam masterpiece, The Best and the Brightest, is something everyone should read. While it is about America's tragic descent into the Vietnam quagmire, it's really about much more than that--our flawed system, American hubris, the lack of understand about the world and its people. You can learn about Vietnam, but you also learn about Iraq and other blunders. The book is as relevant today as it was when it was published in 1972. Please read it, you will not regret it.

3. Finally, a societal comment (and I might sound like an old coot here). We are inundated in this culture with news and information about politicians, sports and rock/rap star, media personalities (Imus, Stern, Springer, etc.). Have you ever stopped and reflected on how truly interesting those people are? The answer is easy--they are not very interesting at all! Generally, they are not very bright, or imaginative, or remarkable in any way. Yet we continue to worship Anna Nicole Smith, Paris Hilton, and the latest winner in the American Idol competition. It's low-culture at its worst.

David Halberstam was an tremendously interesting and fascinating individual.....as was Kurt Vonnegut who passed away last week.....as was historian Arthur Schlesinger who died in February....not to mention journalist Molly Ivins who died earlier this year. Yet the media continues to worship celebrities--and most Americans simply accept it.

Several weeks ago, someone did an clever experiment by placing a classical violinist near a subway entrance in Washington D.C. to see if anyone noticed, or even cared. Over 1000 people walked past Joshua Bell, and only seven paid any attention--or gave him any loose change. Granted, people were in a hurry and had to get to work; but I bet if Paris Hilton was standing there, people would have stopped. David Halberstam will be sorely missed.

Another Travel Destination Off My List

I didn’t figure to discuss religion much on this blog. Religion doesn’t interest me—I don’t really understand what the fuss is all about, and I don’t care to learn. I wouldn’t pay attention to religion at all if it weren’t for the right-wing fundamentalists who are currently attempting to hijack the American political system. That does piss me off. So what interest I do have in religion concerns these machinations of the political-Jesus crowd.

Now I haven’t always been disinterested in religion…..well, actually yes I have. I recall my very first youthful thoughts about religion, it seemed to be a crock of shit. Lots of old white guys making threats—and even as a little kid of 8-9, I never did have lots of respect for authority. My mom always thought I was going to hell, and she told me that continually….. which actually makes me feel pretty good now because she was never right about a fucking thing in her life.

While I don’t buy into the whole heaven/hell dichotomy, I was a Catholic altar boy for a few years. I always wondered if that secured me any chits in case there actually is a heaven. I doubt it, because even when I was up at the altar ringing the bell and serving wine to the priest, I wasn’t paying any attention to the service. I’m still not a detail guy, but during mass then I was thinking about other important life questions: what was I going to do that particular day, lunch, and various baseball quandries. I went through the motions during the service—always wondering if God could actually tell what I was thinking about. But since I never received any signs that this so-called Creator cared about my thought-process, I figured I would continue to ponder the Mets pitching rotation (Jackson or Fischer tonight?) instead of reflecting upon the gospels. It worked fine for me.

Why I am babbling about my altar boy days? Because the Catholics just got rid of Limbo. I really never knew exactly what Limbo was, or where it was. I do know that my Mom and Grandma mentioned that I would be going to some of these places if I didn’t shape up. Obviously, Hell was the leading destination for me and other smart-asses like me. But there were other Catholic eternal travel destinations that were supposed to scare youngsters. Purgatory was somewhere above Hell on the pecking order. I never got a clear explanation for Purgatory either—even though I kept asking. And that really pissed my Grandma off because she didn’t believe you were supposed to ask about these religious matters. It seems Purgatory was a sort of dull way-station where you went if you weren’t quite evil enough for Hell, but really didn’t deserve Heaven on the first-ballot. I always figured I could live with that.

Limbo was something else—it had something to do with babies who weren’t baptized or confirmed or some kind of nonsense. And even though I was baptized, I still got threatened with Limbo on occasion. I was told that it was kind of like Purgatory—except you might have to hang around Limbo even longer. I never knew if the Limboites were actually going to Heaven; whereas the Purgatorians seemed assured of getting admitted at some point. Is it any wonder why I never took this shit seriously?

Anyway, that new German Pope and some other Catholic bureaucrats have now dropped Limbo—it doesn’t exist anymore I guess. Can they do that? Does this mean all the other Popes were mistaken? What happens to the people who were waiting in Limbo—where do they go? I have a few other questions about Limbo:

-If you have Limbo T-Shirt, is it now worth more money?
-Is Limbo near Oz?
-Is there rent control in Limbo?
-Does this mean Purgatory will now be overcrowded?

I will spend some time in the next few days thinking about these questions!


Oh, and speaking of Catholics—these five really deserve our attention. Yes, they are all Catholic, wealthy, and male--and all of them seem to think women are too fucking stupid to make their own medical and reproductive decisions.

Beware of a Phony Gun Debate

There wasn't much that could have been done to stop the VTU shootings on Monday. So I don't think the massacre will open a new debate on gun control. What I do think will happen, however, is that conservatives will soon begin to accuse liberals of using the murders to initiate a gun control debate--even though that isn't the case. Let me demonstrate how this is done.

At this point, even with the Virginia tragedy, I don't believe liberals are ready to reopen the gun control fight. There are several reasons. First, liberals have a number of other domestic issues of higher priority, like health care, the wage gap, and other poverty-related, economic concerns that must be addressed. Second, liberals clearly need to deal with the wasted and worthless deaths and other disgusting events taking place in Iraq. Third, with possibility of gaining states in the West, liberals and Democrats must think about some tradeoffs to make that a reality. As Machiavellian as it might seem, if 3-4 Western states could be brought into the Democratic electoral vote column, we should think about what would be necessary to bring that about. And it seems as though gun control would not be helpful in that electoral quest. Overall, it doesn't appear to be the right time to push this issue.

Personally, I would like to see this debate reopened. I think every one of those rabid, NRA-types ought to have a handgun shoved up their ass (it doesn't have to be loaded, just shoved). But I still possess a slither of political realism, and I am willing to wait on this issue.

But here is what the conservatives are already doing--and they have the mainstream media helping them. They are going to use the VTU murders to fire up their base.....by warning their mindless minions that liberals are now out to take away their firearms. Liberals are not pressing this issue--but the right-wingers have made the charge anyway. And once the wingnuts have made the charge, the media picks it up (they need something to report) and begins reporting on this new gun control debate.

The conservatives then throw up their hands, act surprised, and then blame liberals for exploiting the situation. They have been doing this for years--liberals understand it, it's their own conservative voters who are too damned stupid to have figured it out yet.

In graduate school we used to call this a "straw-man" argument: when someone falsely manufactures a case just so they can shoot it down. There must be a better word for it. If anyone has a better term for what Rove and his right-wingers do on a consistent basis--please leave it in the comments section.

Let's not fall for this. Spread the word, write, blog--do whatever you have to do to let the public know that while liberals are concerned about gun violence, we aren't reopening this gun debate just now. It's simply conservatives trying to use fear (as usual) to scare their own terrified constituents and wrangle some additional money out of them.

To Those Defending Poor Don Imus

Yesterday (Sunday) I received a email post from my friend and frequent Books and Bait contributor Chet Brinkley (see that full post below). Mr. Brinkley wrote that as a civil libertarian and strong advocate of the first amendment, he finds himself "torn" over what to think about the Imus firing. After mulling over Chet Brinkley's sentiments, I opened the Sunday New York Times to see that Frank Rich was at least partially defending Imus in his Sunday column. And then today in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, columnist Syl Jones added some incisive anti-Imus commentary--some of which I will quote in this post.

Since this issue hasn't dissipated yet, I thought I would offer my own perspectives here today. I can find absolutely no sympathy for Imus on any grounds whatsoever. Chet Brinkley was impressed that even after CBS fired Imus, "he and his wife still wanted to apologize to the Rutgers team." Here are my answers to some of the extremely lame Imus defending that has gone on during the past few days.

#1: on the general topic of free speech--Imus did not lose his free speech privileges! This is very important to remember. Don Imus is sitting in his fancy New York apartment right now, or walking the streets of Manhattan (and he's probably wearing that dumbass cowboy hat too). He is not in jail, he is in no legal trouble, and his employment opportunities are, frankly, pretty good. Don Imus is not Eugene Debs, or Emma Goldman, or Margaret Sanger (all paid the price for their speech and actions). He got fired from his job because he's a fucking racist idiot. After cleaning out his desk, and picking up his inflated paycheck, Imus can still say anything he wants. He can go on TV, write an editorial, give a speech, publish a blog.....he remains totally free to be the bigoted and chauvinistic bastard that he was on the radio. He hasn't lost his free-speech rights at all.

#2: it's about the government--The critical part of the free speech issue is when it is imposed by the government. It's the government that can take away free speech rights--not CBS news. What we need to be concerned about is government censorship--the right to speak out against the Bush war-machine, the right to protest, online freedoms, and absolute music, art, and literature freedoms.

#3: Jackson and Sharpton--Bringing up these guys is nothing but a red-herring. Mr. Brinkley quotes Kansas City Star sportswriter Jason Whitlock who manages to get in a short quip against Jackson and Sharpton. The fact that the national media marches out Jackson and Sharpton every time there is race issues really tells us more about the national media than anything else. These two gentlemen don't speak for all African Americans. And if I was one of those conspiracy buffs (like my good friend Ratso Rizzo), I would say that the national media only uses Jackson and Sharpton to turn public opinion against African American issues. But I won't say that. In fact, it doesn't matter what Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton say--if you dislike these gentleman, it has nothing to do with the issues at hand.

#4: the weak-ass rap argument--Mr. Brinkley writes in his post, "As a white guy, I'm out of touch with the black experience. But I don't think it serves anyone well to condemn whites for using hateful and bigoted language while "rewarding" artists in the black community for using it with impunity." I think this is simply silly! There are many black organizations and individuals trying to deal with these rap/hip-hop race and gender issues. In the meantime, what should white America do? Are we allowed to all perform our best Strom Thurmond impersonations just because black rap artists use racial slurs in their music. The connection makes no sense. As Syl Jones writes in his editorial, " If you can't understand what's wrong with a white man piggybacking on the problems of an African American subculture of disrespect and blithely importing it into a nationally syndicated radio and television broadcast, what do you understand?"

#5: the even weaker-ass "chilling effect" argument--Frank Rich wrote in the Sunday Times that firing Imus will have a "chilling effect on comics who push the line" as well as on political talking-heads like Bill Maher and Ann Colter. Again, this is simply silly. Chilling is such a severe word when Imus didn't lose his free speech rights. Furthermore, Frank Rich is demonstrating his insider status here. Maybe there will be a slight effect on some of the inside-the-beltway types, but who else will be influenced......my guess is no one.

#6: this is also about women and gender--Some have forgotten during the past week that Imus not only made a racial slur, but he also showed his true chauvinistic colors. At the same time he made his now infamous statement on the Rutgers women's team, he said something about the Tennessee players being "cute." I think his clear disrespect for women should have earned him the ax.

#7: and don't use the term PC around here-- What does "politically correct" really mean? Let me tell you using a wonderful quote from Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon, "PC is a term that is used to declare insults aimed at the less powerful groups protected, while doubling up the social punishments for even legitimate (if humorous) criticisms of the powerful." PC is an excuse for the white, male frat-boy types to criticize anyone they please and laugh about it--it also "allows" them to label themselves the victims of an oversensitive society. What assholes!

#8: Imus only apologized because he finally went too far/he got caught--Did I even have to mention this one? Isn't it obvious?

#9: finally....and most importantly--free speech is here so "we the people" can criticize the government--I agree with Brinkley, Rich, and others that absolute free speech is important. But we need to reflect upon what it is for--free speech was not originally intended to allow the majority (white males) to say anything they want against minorities. They can do that already--and they have always had the political power to do that. Imus is just piling it on. Let's not forget that black female college athletes aren't the enemy; and rap singers aren't the enemy. No hip-hop artist is going to take away my habeas corpus rights.....but I know someone else who will. The enemies, the people we need to fear, are in the government (specifically the Bush administration). They can take away our rights.

I understand that even though Imus is a small-fish, we still don't want to go down that first amendment slippery slope. But Imus didn't lose any rights and he's not worth defending.

On That Imus Moron, Part II

post submitted by Chet Brinkley

In the wake of CBS’ firing of that moron Don Imus, I find myself torn. I’m an advocate of the first amendment as well as affirmative action and other efforts to uphold the civil rights of all people. I’ve never listened to Imus or Howard Stern or any other of the so-called “shock jocks,” though I have a pretty good idea of the kind of verbal swill they spew.

Imus’ comments about the Rutgers team were disgusting, to be sure. And in targeting young women who came one game away from the national championship rather than some politician or celebrity whose job description in the 21^st century (unfortunately) includes being maligned or “satirized,” Imus clearly crossed a line that should not have been crossed. But then again, he and his ilk make a living stomping all over that line on a regular basis. So why now? Why this? Part of it is that African Americans enjoy far more economic clout than sixty years ago when Jackie Robinson broke through the color barrier in Major League Baseball. Their collective outrage hits advertisers where they live, so networks have to respond differently. In addition, tens of millions of parents with daughters took his comment very personally.

Kansas City Star sportswriter Jason Whitlock offered another perspective:

Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem…While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant…shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.

It’s embarrassing. Dave Chappelle was offered $50 million to make racially insensitive jokes about black and white people on TV. He was hailed as a genius. Black comedians routinely crack jokes about white and black people, and we all laugh out loud.

I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had…

We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.

I’m in no position to make the kind of statement Mr. Whitlock did, but the civil libertarian in me has a problem with Imus being fired for saying some stupid and offensive thing, no matter how stupid and offensive. When University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill compared World Trade Center victims to Nazis, colleagues came to his defense—not because they agreed with him, but because they didn’t want to make any concessions to the right of free speech. Churchill resigned as chair of the university’s ethnic studies department, but remained a professor.

While Imus is not an academic and his audience doesn’t exactly break the brain bank, this country has created a market for (and the Supreme Court has defended as free speech) this kind of scurrilous, scatological, crap (and I’m talking about hip-hop as well as shock jocks). And the outrage that follows in the wake of a particularly offensive salvo can indeed come off as opportunistic. Are we truly so weak and so fragile that we cannot defend ourselves or simply ridicule weak-ass comments such as those drooled by Don Imus?

As a white guy, clearly I’m out of touch with the black experience. But I don’t think it serves anyone well to condemn whites for using hateful and bigoted language while rewarding “artists” in the black community for using it with impunity. I’m not saying that black athletes today should suffer in silence the way Jackie Robinson was forced to 60 years ago. But I think all of us could seek to emulate some of the dignity and class he displayed. We at least got a glimpse of that when, after CBS fired Imus, he and his wife still wanted to apologize to the Rutgers team, and they still wanted to meet him, and chose to forgive him. That forgiveness doesn’t give Imus his job back, but just might give him a chance to earn some self-respect—or at least some self-restraint.

Who Would Have Guessed?

The Bush war-criminals quietly released a 164-page report today evaluating the administration's abstinence-only education initiative of the past few years. These morons have spent over $87 million per year and about $1.5 billion overall for this abstinence wet-dream of theirs.

What do you think this report concluded? How about a few choice quotes? And if you are a visual-learner, go here for some charts.

Findings: indicate that youth in the program group were no more likely than control group youth to have abstained from sex and, among those who reported having had sex they had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same mean age.

Sexual Abstinence: Program and control group youth were equally likely to have remained abstinent.

Unprotected Sex: Program and control group youth did not differ in their rates unprotected sex, either at first intercourse or over the last 12 months. Over the last 12 months, 23 percent of both groups reported having had sex and always using a condom; 17 percent of both groups reported having had sex and only sometimes using a condom; and 4 percent of both groups reported having had sex and never using a condom.

Age at First Intercourse: For both the program and control group youth, the reported mean age at first intercourse was identical, 14.9 years.

Sexual Partners: Program and control group youth also did not differ in the number of partners with whom they had sex. Comparing the program and control groups overall, the distributions on the number of reported sex partners are nearly identical. About one-quarter of all youth in both groups had sex with three or more partners, and about one in six had sex with four or more partners.

Wow, what a fucking surprise! No differences at all between the program participants and the control group. That would be $87 million dollars a year, and over $1.5 billion to prove what we already knew.

Here is what we really know--the Bush war-criminals simply wanted to give millions and millions of dollars to their religious fanatic friends. And even though this report proves their idiocy, they kept that money away from American who really needed it. They could have actually used it to help curb teen pregnancy. What a novel idea.

On That Imus Moron

Please take a look at this link concerning the Imus controversy. I have read some excellent writing on what a fucked-up bigot he is. But I think this post is particularily worth viewing.....and thinking about.

Throw Out the Tofu Ma....It's Making Us Queer

Sometimes these right-wingnuts publish articles that are so bizarre and outrageous that I start to think maybe they are all just comedians. Yes, maybe instead of being obnoxious religious zealots, they are trying to be funny......and we just don't get it. Their humor is so sophisticated that the bandwidth in our liberal brains hasn't been able to process it all. Right!

So I just had to make this "humor" available to all of you. I first saw it on Pandagon and then Pam's House Blend did fine work describing it as "today's batshittery article of the day."

This is from some guy named Jim Rutz at the World Net Daily. And as you will read for yourself, his article(s) are entitled, "Soy Is Making Kids Gay." Yes, that's right, soy--as in tofu and all that other stuff they sell at Whole Foods and Mississippi Market--it's making our kids gay (as in homosexual).

Here is a quote from Jim Rutz that I'm sure will make you want to read all of his "scientific" information about soy products.

"Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion, and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say they can't remember a time when excess estrogen (in the soy products) wasn't influencing them."

Wow! I didn't know all this--especially those facts about penis size and sexual confusion. I don't want to start carrying a purse like this guy! I'm going back to being a serious meat-eater. My heart and arteries might not like it, but my penis will undoubtedly "stand up" and say thanks!

Another Tragic Wisconsin Hunting Incident

An important and sad story submitted by our friend Chet Brinkley.

On Saturday 6 January 2007, Green Bay, Wisconsin resident Cha Vang (left), a 40-year-old man who had been living in the United States for less than two years, was hunting, separated from the rest of his friends, when he encountered Peshtigo, Wisconsin resident James Nichols, 28. According to Nichols, arrested after showing up at a local hospital with a single, non-life-threatening gunshot wound, the two began arguing after Nichols complained Vang was interfering with his hunting. Vang shot him, he claimed, without provocation, so Nichols defended himself. In the process of questioning, he told several contradictory versions of this tale.

The facts bring the story together in stark, disturbing detail. Convicted felon Nichols, rather than reporting the incident to the police, tried to camouflage Vang’s body under leaves and debris. During questioning Nichols said Hmong people were mean and "kill everything, and that they go for anything that moves…[the] Hmong group are bad." Finally, the attorney general reported that Vang was shot from a much closer distance than Nichols claimed—and while walking AWAY from his killer. Vang was also stabbed six times, including a wound that severed his jugular vein, and was found with a 3-4 inch wooden stick protruding from his clenched teeth. Nichols claimed Vang screamed, “I'm going to kill you! I’m going to kill you!’ but Vang knew no English. Dacia James, Nichols’ fiancée who helped him hide the murder weapon, said she had never heard Nichols say anything negative about Hmong people. “He has never been racist or derogatory against someone who didn't deserve it."

Reports in January set Nichols’ first court date for 14 February but no public reports regarding this case have been seen since then. As the Washington Post reported, prejudice is not hard to find in this region (this article is no longer available online):

Bob Kovar, a retired cranberry grower, left his job to head his own initiative to talk with middle and high school students in the Minocqua (Wisconsin) area about their racial views. "At first, I didn't think my community was racist -- then I saw when I had kids in the schools that this community is pretty open about its prejudiced views and has had generations of violence over that," Kovar said. His program focuses on introducing tribal and white students to each other's cultures -- many characteristics of which they find are similar -- and educating them on diversity. On Tuesday, Kovar plans to hold a town hall meeting with students and families from the area schools to discuss racial tensions. But he has heard from many white parents that they will not attend because the meeting will be held on the reservation that feeds Indian students to Lakeland Union, the one high school in the region.

Where the hell do any of us get off acting like we own a bigger share or have a greater right to this country just because our ancestors showed up here before somebody else’s—or because those ancestors may have killed or robbed or bullied or enslaved those who were here before them? Cha Vang, his wife of 13 years Pang Vue, and their five children, and all Hmong people are in the United States because our government selected, trained, equipped, and mobilized their people to fight against Lao and Vietnamese communists. They lost 10% of their population in that conflict. It is because of America's pull-out from Southeast Asia that the communists overran Vietnam and Laos, and that the Hmong people who sided with us were compelled to flee the country.

In coming to the United States, the Hmong people's biggest obstacle is not the language, the strange, sometimes intimidating culture and technology, the pain of watching their children abandoning ages-old customs and traditions so they can be more acceptable to their classmates, or anything else as much as it is people like James Nichols—or any ignoramus who looks at one man like Chai Soua Vang and confers his misdeeds on all Hmong people—or is so stupid as to think that Chai Soua Vang (another tragic Wisconsin Hmong-white hunting incident) and Cha Vang must be related. (There are only 18 last names in Hmong culture.) Chai Soua Vang’s actions cannot be defended, but it’s quite clear that the story told by the survivors of that horrible incident omitted a few details that might have cast the dead in a less complimentary light. They weren’t as interested in telling the truth as they were putting him away. An all-white jury sentenced him without batting an eye. Chai Soua Vang got the right sentence, but it’s hard to argue that he got justice. What will a likely all-white jury decide in the case of Cha Vang’s murderer? And how closely will the non-Hmong community be watching? (Nichols has recently pleaded not guilty).

He Wasn't Very Good Either

The unpleasant side-effects of the abysmal and failed Bush presidency are many—too many to be analyzed here. But one that specifically intrigues me is the effort being made by conservatives to shift the historical focus from their current incompetent leader to their past inept leader…..Ronald Reagan.

Granted, conservatives do have an argument—compared to Bush, any past chief executives looks stellar. Hell, William Howard Taft seems like a veritable statesman compared to Bush. This is an opportune time to drag any pariah out of the historical ashes for rehabilitation.

But Ronald Reagan is the one that conservatives place on their political pedestal. While the right has always looked up to Reagan, Bush is now making him look much, much better to conservatives and even to moderate Republicans (if they actually exist).

Two things strike me as paradoxical here. First, if Reagan was a great president (and he wasn’t), conservatives wouldn’t need George W. Bush to draw that distinction. Reagan’s presidency should be able to stand on its own—which it can’t. And second, when Bush was riding high in the polls, the wing-nuts were calling him Reagan’s heir. What happened? It seems Bush is actually the one who has attempted to carry out the radical conservative agenda—why now separate him from their conservative hero when Bush has been doing what the wingers wanted all along?

Well, I won’t try to get into the mind of one of those right-wingers, that would be entirely too difficult and might give me some sort of brain damage. But what is going on is this—Bush’s dismal failures are forcing conservatives to find another champion by which to rally their supporters. I suppose it is a logical move for them—they need their idols and frankly, they don’t have many. Which brings up an interesting question—except for that fellow Jesus, who do the right-wingers look to for inspiration? DeLay……Cheney.....Scalia…..Newt……Mel Gibson????? It is sad isn’t it?

I digress. The point is this—Reagan was not a very good president in spite of the spin that you are going to hear from the GOP for the next few years. He was average at best, and probably a better fit in the below average category.

First, he spent the taxpayer's money like a drunken sailor and incurred huge debts that did not dissolve until Bill Clinton and those big-spending liberals took over. I know the AM talk-show crowd blames Congress for all this—but that just isn't accurate. Reagan showed no inclination to actually cut spending. All he did was talk about it.

Second, please don’t accept the simplistic crap about how Reagan single-handedly ended the Cold War. That is the kind of anti-intellectual drivel that conservatives like to propagate because their constituents need one-dimensional answers. The Cold War must be examined in its entirety, it was never simple. There were numerous factors that contributed to its demise. Americans should know that already—but unfortunately, in the “intelligent design” environment of today, they don’t.

Third—and conservatives should know this but they chose to overlook it—Reagan actually never tried to institute the radical right-wing agenda. He cared about taxes and big government, but seemed uncomfortable with some of the other hot button issues. Yes, he talked about abortion and prayer in school, but never attempted to legislate those issues. They were used basically to fire up the conservative base.

Fourth, and I think this is one of the most important issues…..Reagan made it accepted for conservatives--especially angry white males--to blame the poor and the disadvantaged for the nation's problems. He gave terribly unsophisticated speeches about a welfare queen (always a woman) driving a Cadillac and making $50,000.00 from illegal welfare checks. No one every located that “welfare mom” and it’s clear she was fabricated. But Reagan’s words and encouragement made it fashionable in the 1980s to blame the poor for everything.

Reagan also set race relation back for years. Remember that he launched his 1980 campaign with a states rights speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi—the place where three civil rights workers were murdered in the 1960s. He and his staff knew what they were doing—they didn’t just accidentally stop in that little town. They were sending a message to the racists on the right. Again, making it okay for conservatives to use race to divide the nation.

And his reaction to AIDS was criminal. Why worry about homosexuals—it’s their own fault anyway isn’t it? God is punishing them for their lifestyle. Besides, his constituents didn’t care. This issue alone should have shamed the administration. But once again, those blue-collar, working class “Reagan Democrats" didn’t much care for urban gays anyway—so why do anything? Disgusting.

Scandals (Iran-Contra, that's the criminal Oliver North at below right), massive budget deficits, racism, tax cuts for the rich, blame-the-poor rhetoric, homophobic public policies…..this is what the Reagan administration was all about–and don’t forget it. Just because George Bush is worse doesn’t mean Reagan should climb in the eyes of history. He was who he was—and he was a mediocre president who did great damage to many people on the margins of society. And he didn’t seem to care.

But for the pathetic Republican party, he is about the only national figure they have had in the past 60 years that holds any historical legitimacy (Ike was really the last one!). Isn't it sad being a Republican--at times, I almost feel sorry for them.

What the Hell is This?

Have you folks seen this picture? The village idiot Bush is saying something inane about Iraq--but what the hell is Cheney doing lurking around in the weeds? This guy is scary isn't he? You think Bush knows he's there? I don't see his hands, maybe he's taking a piss.

In Praise of Dogs

submitted by our friend Chet Brinkley--and we all sincerely hope Danny gets well very soon!

Meaning no disrespect to Buddy, Queen Lexie, and their generous hosts, but in the interest of pet bipartisanship I think it’s about time we gave a little glory to our canine friends.

I grew up in a household with no pets other than occasional goldfish. My parents—good-hearted, practical people—had no intention of taking over the feeding and care of a pet after their children’s two days of excitement and dedication wore off. My lovely partner, however, grew up with a menagerie of cats, dogs, and horses, and so it was clear that if we were ever to wed, I was going to have to pass the “sniff test” with her pets—which fortunately I did.

When we changed domiciles eleven years ago, our cat freaked out and began turning our entire basement into a litterbox, so alas, we had to bid her a sad farewell, and haven’t had one since. So dogs rule the roost in our home.

Some of our biggest laughs and most serene moments have been brought to us by our dogs. And the amount of comfort a dog can provide in times of sorrow in many ways outstrips any human feat of word or deed—mostly because dogs know how to shut up and just be there for you.

Unfortunately, getting pets (unless you make the dubious choice of buying a bird that will live a hundred years) is a devil’s bargain. You know they’ll worm their way into your heart, you know they’ll become a part of the family, and you know the chances are extremely good that they’ll depart this mortal coil well before you do, leaving you in a crumpled, weeping mass with vet bills resembling a payment on a Mercedes Benz.

Our pal Danny (pictured above) is 12 years old. The vet says he has the constitution of a seven-year-old, but out of the blue he started having seizures. We haven’t given up just yet. We’re not going to take out a second mortgage, and we certainly don’t want our friend to suffer unnecessarily, but we hope we get some more quality time with him before that wordless communication and those soulful eyes finally make it clear to us that the devil must be given his due. And after tears are shed and precious memories are tucked away for safekeeping, we’ll enter into that bargain again, and see some of the grief assuaged by a new introduction and courtship that turns into another enchanting though all-too brief love affair with another best friend.

And I Thought We Were Winning!

Okay folks, it’s now official…..the Iraq War is lost….it’s over. How do we know, because Henry Kissinger said so. But before I talk about Kissinger and Iraq, get a load of this opening paragraph from the AP article in the International Herald Tribune:

“Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who helped engineer the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, said Sunday the problems in Iraq are more complex than that conflict, and military victory is no longer possible.”

Does anyone else see some irony in this sentence? Henry Kissinger “who helped engineer the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam” Withdrawal? Withdrawal? What the hell are they talking about? It took Kissinger and Nixon five fucking years to withdraw from that quagmire. And we know that not one god-damned thing was gained from 1969 to the war's official end in 1975. Just more and more deaths—lives wasted to be exact. Nixon and Kissinger could have ended that war in 1969, but I guess they were too busy “engineering a withdrawal.”

Anyway, Kissinger is now telling us what we already know. The former Secretary of State said that:

"A 'military victory' in the sense of total control over the whole territory, imposed on the entire population, is not possible,” adding that the, “faceless, ubiquitous nature of Iraq's insurgency, as well as the religious divide between Shiite and Sunni rivals, makes negotiating peace more complex."

"It is a more complicated problem," Kissinger said. "The Vietnam War involved states, and you could negotiate with leaders who controlled a defined area."

But Dr. Kissinger couldn’t be content with a simple analysis of the dire situation in Iraq. You see, Kissinger very much likes to cavort with people in power. He fears no further calls from the White House. What if policymakers stopped seeking him out for his opinions on global affairs? What if they stopped inviting him to parties? What if Charlie Rose quit having on his talk show?

So even though Kissinger flatly stated that the war in Iraq was lost—he had to mitigate those negative sentiments with something nice for the incompetent Bush administration. Kissinger claimed that he sympathized with the troubles that Bush is facing and “warned that a sudden pullout of U.S. troops or loss of influence could unleash chaos.”

Tell me, how much more chaos can we have in Iraq? If we leave, there will be chaos????? What the fuck is happening now?

And then, in words that his hero Metternich would have enjoyed, Kissinger suggested an international conference to get the United States off the hook. Yes, that will surely work!

“Kissinger said the best way forward is to reconcile the differences between Iraq's warring sects with help from other countries. He applauded efforts to host an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq's neighbors — including Iran, Washington's longtime rival in the region.”

Then, in one final shot at those dirty fucking hippies that have been dogging him for nearly 40 years—Kissinger called for an end to the partisan bickering.

"The role of America in the world cannot be defined by our internal partisan quarrels," he said. "All the leaders, both Republican and Democratic, have to remember that it will go on for several more years and find some basis for common action."

No way asshole. The partisan bickering will continue as long as the partisan pricks in the Bush administration stay in Iraq.....As long as Bush and his war criminal pals keep wasting American lives.....And as long as the administration continues spending money in Iraq instead of spending it on health care, education, poverty, or New Orleans

Thanks for telling us what we already knew Henry--we are losing in Iraq and have no chance. We appreciate your honesty. But I for one will remain a partisan bickerer, just like I was in 1972 when you were managing your own immoral war.

I Shall Not Seek, and I Will Not Accept......

This past weekend (March 31 to be exact) marked the anniversary of an extremely important political event. Thirty-nine years ago, on a normal Sunday evening, millions of American sat in front of their grainy black-and-white TV screens to hear what President Lyndon B. Johnson would say about Vietnam War. The president did talk about Vietnam, but he dropped a bombshell at the end of the speech:

"I have concluded that I shall not permit the Presidency to become involved in the partisan divisions that are developing in this political year."

"I do not believe I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office--the Presidency of your country."

"Therefore, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President."

This ambitious and powerful man, who had won a tremendous landslide just four years earlier, had become so troubled by an unpopular war—that he was ostensibly ending his long and brilliant political career.

So many things happened in 1968 that it’s difficult to select any one as critical. Many younger political junkies might not see Johnson’s decision as all that important. But if you go back and look at the political situation, this was tremendously significant event that has ramification not only in 1968—but actually sent shock-waves throughout the system for years. Let me explain.

By January 1968, Lyndon Johnson was embattled, but he remained a dominant figure. Had he sought the nomination, it would have been his. He still could have made policy adjustments in Vietnam. And while major changes were not forthcoming, short cease-fires and more peace talks were still possible.

Granted, things had been getting worse in Vietnam. In January came the Tet offensive--North Vietnamese troops attacked numerous provincial capitals and major cities in the south, including an attack on the U.S. embassy in Saigon and the presidential palace. Tet showed that the U.S. was not winning the war. And remember, this war was not censored by the government. Americans saw the body bags every evening on TV.

But even with these extreme difficulties, the Democratic Party and its leaders would have lined up behind LBJ. In 1968, the party structure was not as decentralized as it is today. The Democratic hierarchy was ruled by the president and it would have been nearly impossible to defeat him. Yes, an insurgent candidate could embarrass LBJ, or damage him for the November run…..but the way the convention votes were gathered and tallied, Johnson would have had few problems taking the nomination.

But what we were starting to see by 1968 was the deterioration of that old system. At the time, many still did not see its imminent downfall. Maybe Johnson saw it crumbling…..maybe Eugene McCarthy did too. But things were taking place that would have ramification for the future of American politics—Johnson served to exacerbate those changes when he gave that March 31 speech.

By the start of the year, most assumed the Johnson-Humphrey ticket would stand for reelection. But some of the antiwar left went looking for a challenger. At the time, this seemed more symbolic that substantive. Most saw New York senator Robert Kennedy as the clear first-choice—but he was not willing to challenge Johnson or the war….yet. Minnesota senator Eugene McCarthy finally agreed to face the president. No one gave him a chance.

Then in the March 12 New Hampshire primary, Johnson beat McCarthy 49% to 42%. This shook the political world. How could this soft-spoken, antiwar senator get such support? People started to wonder a little more about the war, maybe it was time to question the politicians on this.

But the old political “machines” were also starting to collapse. If McCarthy could do it......maybe these primaries would allow the “people” to select the candidates. At the time, the primaries weren’t worth much at the convention (pols like mayor Daley still ruled), but if the grass-roots spoke, the leaders would have to listen wouldn’t they?

McCarthy had opened some eyes and people were just wondering what all of this meant. Then two days later, Robert Kennedy entered the race. RFK was the star of the party and the realistic hope of the left. He is still be criticized for waiting too long—for not being as courageous as McCarthy—but when he entered, the dynamics of the campaign changed even more.

So by the end of March, President Johnson was being challenged by two Democrats, and he still seemed flustered by the war—which was going badly. And while he controlled the party and could have garnered the nomination, he called it quits.

What were the implications here? By abandoning the race, I think that Johnson set in motion tremendous political changes. Yes, these changes would have taken place sooner or later, but without the 1968 political turmoil—probably later. By dropping out of the race, the antiwar left and the student movement saw that they could possibly change the system. If they could do this, maybe they could end the war…..maybe they could change the corrupt system itself.

LBJ had opened the door and the activist took advantage. While the 1968 election didn’t turn out the way the left wanted (Nixon v. Humphrey; Kennedy dead; the party in ruins), there was hope that manifested itself during the next 4 years.

I still believe Johnson hoped the party might still draft him at the summer convention. He was an ambitious man—and he still might have won the election. But there are times when I also think maybe Johnson knew something—maybe he had begun to understand that he was on the wrong side of history. Maybe he saw that the nation and its institutions were changing rather quickly.

Lyndon Johnson shocked the nation that Sunday evening and set in motion some important electoral changes in this nation. It now seems like it couldn't have been any other way--for 1968 turned out to be a great social, cultural, and political divide. Johnson was on the other side of that divide, he was a man of the past.