Archive
Donald L. Baird, Five Years Later – posted 5/2/2014
Hard for me to believe but it has been five years since my dad passed away. My dad, Donald Baird, died on May 4, 2009.
Memories of my dad remain vivid. He was a large presence and a big personality. He could be overwhelming. He did not countenance opposition easily and I gave him plenty of things to be upset about. Still we worked through much of the contention and reached a good place.
I do have memories from early childhood of hearing my parents arguing in their bedroom behind closed doors. My mom cried sometimes. My sister Lisa and I would nosily listen to their fights, straining to hear what we could. We moved to a listening post as close to their bedroom door as we thought we could safely stay.
It was hard to win arguments with my dad. He had an unfortunate tendency to equate loyalty with acquiescence. I think that was particularly hard for my mom.
I remain struck by the force of his personality, his drive and his optimism. He never stopped working. He lived to be 88 and he never retired. This was partly based on economic necessity but it was impossible to think of my dad living a retired life at home.
He probably would have driven my mom crazy. He was not the type to putter around his apartment, fixing things. Work gave him a profound sense of purpose. I think it was a source of passion and pride.
My dad built a very successful international textile trading business. He and my mom travelled all over the world many times, especially to Japan, Hong Kong, and Italy. I think he was something of a good will ambassador for America. He and my mom went off beaten tracks and they travelled to places Americans did not tend to go in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Dad went to Pakistan, Syria, India and especially the Far East. My parents made some very good international friends that way.
There is much I could say about my dad’s business career. He had his highs and lows. He made a lot of money but he also ended up going bankrupt twice. In the latter part of his career he was caught in a downward spiral and anxiety about money was a big part of his life. He got into the unenviable position of relying on credit cards, a disastrous course. He was typically using one credit card to pay off another credit card.
Dad tended to trust employees who were not trustworthy and he repeatedly was ripped off. For a guy with some degree of street smarts, he was seriously taken advantage of. He made mistakes in his judgment of people, erring on the side of undeserved trust.
I really wanted to write about his optimism. It was unrelenting and it carried him far. He had an amazing ability to persist even in dire and humiliating circumstances. Back in February, I read an article in the New Yorker about Diana Nyad, the 60 year plus swimmer who tried five times to swim from Cuba to the United States. She failed over and over but she never gave up. She finally succeeded. It is a great story.
The New Yorker story quoted Nyad saying, “A champion is someone who never gives up.” That is the way I look at my dad.
In the last 30 years of his life, I often wondered about the realism in his business efforts. He was barely keeping his head above water but he never quit. He had remarkable persistence and resilience. He was always optimistic, seeing the glass half full. He was also unfailingly generous, especially to family but not just family.
In retrospect, it is easy to look back and say he never realistically had a chance to turn things in his business around. The only thing is I believed maybe, just maybe, he could turn it around. My belief was based on his history and his will. He made me a believer because he didn’t quit.
Now it seems a little crazy to think Dad could have gotten his business back to a good place in his 80’s. It is just that he had massive experience, business connections, good will and he kept on. I guess my own belief in him is an indication of how far persistence can take you. I do believe it was William Blake who said, “If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise.”
When my dad died we got emails from business people around the world who knew Dad. Here is one I saved from a Pakistani friend:
To the Family of Donald Baird:
Greatly shocked to know Donald L. Baird passed away. I have lost a great friend. He was a role model and helped me to establish in business since 1955. I pray to almighty Lord his soul may rest in peace in paradise. I will try to attend memorial event in his honor on Sunday June 7th 2009 if my doctors allow me to travel as I am on medication for the last few years. Deena Baird take care you have good children to look after you.
Warm Personal Regards;
Riaz
My dad’s memory remains a great source of strength and personal pride. Life routinely dishes out unfairness and tragedy. I was blessed to have a dad with the qualities of Don Baird. I will forever be grateful to him for setting such a positive and loving example. He modeled a good way to live and love life.
Tonight Debra made me a vodka martini, shaken not stirred. Drinking that is a good way to honor my dad.
Movie Review: “Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the Unites States” – posted 4/26/2014
Before I viewed this 10 hour documentary, I wondered what it would be like. Having seen many of Stone’s movies (Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, JFK, Nixon and W. come immediately to mind) I did not know if he would veer off into weird conspiratorialism.
I still remember the hazy, surreal scenes from JFK when it appeared like he was implicating LBJ in JFK’s assassination. While Americans seem fascinated by conspiracy theories, that was too strange and irrational. LBJ has enough bad karma without piling on JFK’s assassination.
I have to report that Stone plays it straight in this film. It is pretty conventional stylistically although the film has a progressive take on recent American history. To his credit, Stone does cover much history you never see in the mainstream media. The movie starts with World War II and in 10 hourly episodes it takes us up to Obama.
I liked the film and Stone’s perspective. In his retelling, he particularly exposes the history of U.S. imperialism and our many interventions around the world. His focus is much more on foreign than domestic policy. He also tells the story by focusing on big name leaders, especially Presidents.
It is a massive undertaking to explore American history for such an extended period and such a series necessitates choices. Although I have seen Stone’s movie compared to Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States, what Stone attempts is quite different. He covers history from the top down. This series is not focused on people’s movements.
He does make clever use of Hollywood films to illustrate points. I loved his scenes from Dr. Strangelove, still probably the greatest comedy ever. Peter Sellers and George C. Scott were phenomenal in that movie.
Stone highlights some critical moments where history turned. I will mention a couple such moments where I learned things from the movie I never heard about before. The first of these moments occurred in 1944.
Henry Wallace, clearly a hero to Stone, was a candidate for Vice-President. He was the sitting Vice-President, elected in 1940 along with FDR. Stone tells what happened at the Democratic Convention held in Chicago in 1944. (When it comes to Democratic Conventions in Chicago, I always think of 1968). I knew nothing about the 1944 convention.
In what was a watershed moment, Wallace came extremely close to being the vice-presidential nominee. Congressman Claude Pepper was going to nominate Wallace on the convention floor. The hall was packed with Wallace supporters and the prevailing wisdom was that Wallace would be the nominee and the vote would be that night. He had strong support from labor and the progressive wing of the Democrats although he was widely disliked in the south and also by more conservative elements in the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party bosses who did not want Wallace played dirty. They abruptly adjourned the convention that night when the floor was packed with Wallace supporters. They did it in spite of a voice vote that did not support adjournment. Stone says they wanted time to unite behind an anti-Wallace candidate. Congressman Pepper was a few feet from the microphone and his desired goal to put Wallace’s name into nomination. He never made it to the mic.
The extra time allowed by the adjournment gave the party bosses time to mobilize behind the candidacy of Harry Truman. The momentum for Wallace faded. After several ballots, support shifted to Truman who ended up getting the nomination, largely behind the party bosses organizing. Probably not helping things for Wallace was FDR’s equivocal support for his candidacy.
FDR died in 1945 and Truman ascended to the presidency. If Wallace had been the nominee rather than Truman, Wallace would have become president when FDR died.
Stone gets us to ponder this “what if” moment in history. Could the Cold War have been avoided? How about the nuclear arms race? And what about Sen. Joe McCarthy and his Red Scare?
Wallace espoused very different views than Truman. He did not have Truman’s hostility toward the Russians. He favored peaceful co-existence of the two social systems. Wallace had frequently been accused of being a communist. It is impossible to know but maybe things would have played out differently. Wallace was not as intent as Truman on using the nuclear monopoly to gain political advantage. Stone clearly thinks we might have avoided a very dark period if we had a leadership that was less bellicose.
In 1946, Truman fired Wallace from his position as Secretary of Commerce. FDR had appointed Wallace to that post after Wallace lost the vice-presidential nomination. Wallace had been speaking out questioning Truman’s foreign policy. He presciently said that the Truman Doctrine would mark the beginning of a century of fear.
Later Wallace ran for President in 1948 on the Progressive Party ticket. Wallace ran on a platform advocating friendlier relations with the Soviet Union, an end to colonialism, an end to segregation, full voting rights for African Americans and universal health insurance. During the campaign he was redbaited. Wallace had dabbled in the occult and a series of letters he had written became public. Wallace’s eccentric religious beliefs and the letters became a big distraction. Both major party candidates, Truman and Dewey, decimated Wallace in the 1948 election. Wallace got zero electoral votes and 2.4% of the popular vote.
A second critical moment that Stone highlights was an incident during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. I had never heard the story he told. It was an extremely scary time. I remember going to school and wondering if I would be coming home that night. I do not think there was any time when the world was so close to a nuclear war.
During the crisis, an American submarine, the USS Beale, dropped depth charges on the B-59, a nuclear-armed Soviet submarine. The Soviet sub had been trying to hide. Other U.S. destroyers also participated in dropping depth charges. The destroyers meant the depth charges as warning shots but the B-59 thought it was under attack. The destroyers wanted the Soviet sub to surface for identification.
The B-59 sub had not had any contact with Moscow for a number of days.The sub had been too deep to monitor radio traffic since it had been in hiding mode.Those on board did not know if war had broken out. Conditions on the B-59 had been terrible. It had been sweltering hot on the sub over 104 degrees F. Men were fainting from the heat.
The captain of the Soviet sub, Valentin Savitsky wanted to launch a 10 kiloton nuclear torpedo because he believed war might already have broken out. The target was the USS Randolf, a giant aircraft carrier leading the American taskforce. There were three officers on board the B-59. Along with Savitsky were the political officer Ivan Maslennikov and the second in command Vasili Arkhipov. The three were authorized to launch the torpedo if they had lost touch with the Soviet chain of command and they unanimously agreed to the launch. Savitsky initiated the nuclear weapons firing protocol. Maslennikov said “yes” to fire the torpedo. Arkhipov said “no”. Since they lacked unanimity, they did not fire. Under tremendous pressure, Arkhipov held out. Rather than launching the nuclear torpedo, the B-59 surfaced. They were not sure if surfacing meant their death.
As Stone makes clear, Vasili Arkhipov, a total unknown to this day, saved the world from the consequences of a nuclear launch. Arkhipov did not come home to a hero’s welcome. The Russian military saw his action as a surrender. When you step back from the story, it is remarkable that we are all not more aware of what happened. An unknown and unheralded nobody saved the entire world from what would no doubt have been utterly catastrophic harm.
The DVD has some bonus material including a wide-ranging taped conversation between Tariq Ali and Stone that is enjoyable. Stone likes to be a bad boy. He takes up any number of topics that have evaded wide discussion like the role of U.S. business interests including Ford Motor Co., IBM and banks who did business with the Nazis before and during the war. He notes the role of the CIA in handing over the names of suspected Indonesian Communist Party members to the Indonesian military in 1965 when the military crackdown turned into a mass murder. Stone says 1,000,000 Indonesian communists died in that atrocity.
It can be dense and it is long but students of history will get something out of it. It is nice to see a documentary on U.S. history that steps outside conventional wisdom.
Desean Jackson, the Eagles and Racism – posted 4/13/2014
As a Philadelphia Eagles fan, it was painful to watch the Eagles cut Desean Jackson. Not much to feel good about there. Your team loses an extremely talented wide receiver and they get nada. Plus they take a $6,000,000 salary cap hit.
Jackson is a special player. It is not just the fact that he had 82 catches last season. Eagles’ fans will always remember that punt return against the Giants at the end of the game in 2010. I was watching at a sports bar in Anchorage Alaska that was full of Giants fans. I remember all the Giants fans filing silently out of the bar after that punt return. Earlier in the game they had been raucous. It was an exhilarating moment to be an Eagles fan.
Jackson’s speed, his swagger, his big play ability and his sheer talent put him in a unique category. The Eagles have not had players like that. I am certainly not surprised the Redskins signed him. I expect there are some Eagles players who wonder about this move as well. Witness Lesean McCoy in the Philly paper today.
After the Eagles cut him, I was surprised by much of the media speculation. Just to recap: there was the nj.com story about his gang ties. Then there was the Richard Sherman piece in Sports Illustrated that contrasted the fact the Eagles re-signed Riley Cooper, infamous for his racist video, with their handling of Jackson. Some speculated that the Eagles timed the cut to coincide with the nj.com gang story. The implication was the Eagles slimed Jackson on the way out to make this contentious move easier for the fan base to swallow. Eagles’ management knew it would be unpopular.
Dave Zirin, a sports columnist I generally admire, chimed in with his own defense of Richard Sherman and Jackson.
There were also other stories about how Desean has been lost since his father Bill died of pancreatic cancer in May 2009. That loss was, by all accounts, devastating to Desean. Bill Jackson had been a sports coach as well as a critical positive influence. Michael Vick and Jason Avant had been two players on the Eagles who had mentored Jackson and they are now gone.
The National Football League Players Association (NFLPA) has announced they are going to investigate how the Eagles released Jackson in light of the strange coincidence of the nj.com story coming out right before his release.The investigation will look at whether the Eagles smeared Jackson.
In his piece, Richard Sherman spent time talking about how he and Desean grew up together in Los Angeles, played sports, and hung with people from their neighborhood, some of whom went to jail or were accused of crimes. He thought it was unfair Desean was being judged by the company he kept.
I like Richard Sherman and I admire his bravado and I like to hear what he has to say. He might be the best corner on the planet. Still, i think his piece on Jackson and most of the media speculation are way off. I think, in this instance, accusations of racism against Chip Kelly or the Eagles are rubbish.
When the Eagles cut Jackson, they said nothing except that they were parting ways. As a new coach, developing a new system, Kelly has a right to decide who he wants on the team and who he thinks gives him the best chance to win.
Kelly did not want Jackson. Kelly is a smart guy and he knew what he had in Jackson. Still he did not want him. My best guess is that Jackson was a royal pain and Kelly was tired of it. Joseph Santoliquito of CBS Sports wrote that Jackson was “blatantly insubordinate” to Kelly and cursed him out several times in front of the team. Jackson had a history of missing team meetings.
Jason Whitlock of ESPN wrote that Jackson was “a massive headache for a coaching staff”. Many wide receivers are divas and Jackson was the latest Philadelphia incarnation. He is following in the T.O. tradition.
The nj.com story said, in part:
“…sources close to Jackson and within the Eagles organization say, it originally was Jackson’s off-field behavior that concerned the front office. A bad attitude, an inconsistent work ethic, missed meetings and a lack of chemistry with head coach Chip Kelly were the original reasons for his fall from grace.”
Whitlock argues that the Eagles had legitimate reasons for cutting Jackson. His selfishness, his unreliability and his difficulty committing to a team concept were likely factors. Whitlock wrote that Jackson was uninterested in practicing hard. He also mentioned Jackson coasting through an entire season because he did not want to risk injury in a contract year.
For those who were watching, there was that sideline incident with the Eagles wide receiver coach. The Eagles have a very young team and coaches may have worried about Jackson influencing other players especially at a time the coach has made dramatic changes and is trying to get all players to buy into his system.
Based on the evidence, I agree with Whitlock that it is irresponsible to paint the Eagles as racist in their dealings with Jackson. It did not work out and the Eagles decided to move on.
Raising the spectre of racism on this set of facts trivializes the issue. Racism remains an urgent problem in the United States. We still have our ghettos in every major city. In spite of making huge strides, African-Americans are discriminated against in employment, housing, education and health care. Racism is institutionalized and we have far to go as a society in addressing it.
When I was in Alaska, I read Michelle Alexander’s book “The New Jim Crow”. That book focused on the mass incarceration of young black men. I think the book is the best introduction to how racism is currently functioning in the United States. It deserves far more attention than it has received.
Desean Jackson is a multi-millionaire. His deal with the Redskins gives him $16 million guaranteed. I am not feeling sorry for him. If we are going to talk about racism, how about focus on the millions of minority people who are living in poverty in no limelight. Where are the advocates for them? Our system continues to fail poor people whether they are black, Latino, other minority or white. That is a class issue as well as a race issue.
I did want to say one other thing about Riley Cooper since he was injected into the Jackson story. What Riley Cooper said was moronic and racist. Hopefully he has learned from that hugely embarrassing experience. We need to allow room for people who say racist stuff to learn from the error of their ways.
I honestly do not know what Cooper has learned but maybe he did learn that racism is evil. Maybe he will grow from that awful experience and become a better person. I do not like the holier than thou, self-righteousness of people who act like they have never said stupid things.
After taking an Eagles team that was 4-12 and turning it around in one year, I give credit to Chip Kelly and I remain optimistic that he has a vision and knows exactly what he is doing. Time will tell.
Movie Review: “Standing in the Shadows of Motown” – posted 4/6/2014
I suppose it is not exactly news to review a movie that came out 12 years ago. Still, I wanted to write about “Standing in the Shadows of Motown” and the Funk Brothers who are featured. My friend Jim told me about the movie and passed it along.
I have always loved soul music so it was not too hard to get me to watch.
There is a scene early in the movie that pretty much says it all. The interviewer (this is a documentary) asks a number of young customers in a record store if they know about Motown music. To a person, everyone said “yes”. When asked about Motown artists, the names that came up were Marvin Gaye, Smokey Robinson, the Four Tops and the Supremes.
The interviewer then asked the same customers if they knew who played the music for the Motown vocalists. Nobody knew. When asked if they had heard of the Funk Brothers, no one knew who they were.
I have to say I was another one of the ignorant. I had never heard of the Funk Brothers even though they figured in a long string of monster Motown hits. They played the music for almost all the major Motown acts. Martha Reeves said that without the Funk Brothers there would have been no Motown.
Berry Gordy, the founder of the Motown label, started assembling musicians in late 1958. They played in the basement Hitsville U.S.A studio known as the Snakepit. The musicians played around Detroit and mostly had background in jazz. Jack Ashford, one of the Funk Brothers, said they wanted to be like Miles Davis. They used to hang and jam at the Chit Chat club as well as other local venues. I will name some of the names. The movie does a good job of telling us interesting information about many of the musicians.
James Jamerson, the bass player, was prominently featured in the movie. He was a highly skilled artist and could play with one finger which was famously called the Hook. He was mostly uncredited (Motown did not list session musician credits on their releases until 1971) yet he is now recognized as one of the most influential bass players ever.
His story was tragic. When Motown moved its headquarters to Los Angeles in 1972, Jamerson and the other Funk Brothers were mostly left behind. They had been rooted in Detroit and its music scene. While some of the artists tried to relocate west, that apparently did not work out.
Jamerson struggled with alcoholism. His daughter poignantly described how he took pride in caring for those around him and providing for his family. His daughter said he felt like less than a man because he was not able to be a provider like he had been in the earlier part of his career.
At a live 1983 show commemorating the 25th anniversary of Motown, Jamerson had to scalp a ticket to sit in the balcony. It was never explained why Motown treated Jamerson so shabbily. It sounded like the music business as usual with the artist getting screwed while the label took all the cash. Jamerson died in August 1983, 2 months after that show where he was ignominiously relegated to a balcony seat. In 2000, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inducted Jamerson.
Then there was Benny Benjamin, the drummer for the Funk Brothers. Berry Gordy insisted Benjamin and Jamerson both be included in recording sessions. Benjamin died very young in 1969 at age 43. He had drug issues and he disappeared and turned up dead.
On keyboards, there was Earl Van Dyke. His style was described as guerilla piano. Stevie Wonder described him as the musical foundation of the Funk Brothers. Stevie used to hang out and play with the band.
I feel like I should mention the other musicians like Joe Hunter, Jack Ashford, Eddie Willis, Uriel Jones, Joe Messina, Bob Babbitt and Eddie “Bongo” Brown, among others, because none got the recognition, reward, and fame they deserved.
Toward the end of the movie, the list of songs in which the Funk Brothers played is presented. It is nothing short of staggering and it did make me think more about how these guys could have done so much without any recognition. The movie politely sidestepped this question. I assume because it did not want to detract attention from the artists.
On the history of rock website, it says that for 14 years the Funk Brothers were on call 7 days a week, day and night. Usually sessions ran for 3 hours but things often went longer. The band had to do tunes in one take. Under union rules, they were not supposed to cut more than 4 songs but as the house band, the union was not around. The history of rock website says they would be paid $10 a song but not until everything was all right. When you think about the popularity of Motown hits, $10 a song is ridiculous. It did make me wonder how much money Motown records made and where the money went. That was not clarified.
Since the movie, things were a little bit rectified at least on the recognition front. In 2004, The Funk Brothers received a Grammy award for lifetime achievement and in 2013 they got a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Unfortunately, after the movie, conflicts developed among the remaining band members. They split into two camps and performed separately.
One of the most enjoyable features of the movie are the live performances by artists playing with the Funk Brothers, circa 2002. Joan Osborne does a killer version of the old Jimmy Ruffin tune “What Becomes of the Broken Hearted”. I also liked her version of “Heat Wave”.
Ben Harper sings great versions of “Ain’t Too Proud to Beg” as well as “I Heard It Through the Grapevine”.
I liked Bootsy Collins singing “Cool Jerk” too.
If you are a Motown fan, pick up the DVD or check it on netflix. I am sure it must be there. The music alone makes it worth it. If you want to know where the term “groovemaster” came from, it is probably these guys.
Medicaid Expansion in New Hampshire: Acknowledging an Important Victory – posted 3/30/2014 and published in the Concord Monitor 4/6/2014
This piece appeared in the Concord Monitor on April 6, 2014 under the title “Impressive Political Maturity from Medicaid Expansion Activists”. Jon
The passage of the bill which expands Medicaid coverage to low-income citizens in New Hampshire is a historic accomplishment. Governor Maggie Hassan signed the bill on March 27 and the program becomes available for most people on July 1.
The Medicaid expansion will cover 50,000 poor New Hampshire residents who previously had no insurance coverage. Up til now, Medicaid had gaps in coverage for adults because eligibility was restricted to specific categories. If you were a single parent with dependent children, an adult with disabilities or a poor elderly person, you possibly could qualify. Now all adults earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty limit should be able to qualify. That translates into coverage for a single adult who is earning up to $15,856. The income limit rises based on family size.
There are many costs to being uninsured. Without insurance, people needing care often avoid it. Because people wait on getting medical care, chronic medical problems become acute, Medical bills become a disincentive to going to the doctor. In the worst cases, medical debt leads to bankruptcy, major depression and suicidal ideation. Medical providers have needed to raise rates on insured people to deal with the large numbers of uninsured so there is a big economic ripple effect. The Medicaid expansion will help to break this vicious cycle since those previously uninsured will now be paying through Medicaid.
Advocates deserve much credit for building a winning coalition around the Medicaid expansion. The political maturity of this effort was impressive. The coalition included, among others, business leaders, health care providers, seniors’ organizations and a wide array of advocates reflecting different interest groups.
Instead of posturing and making impossibly purist demands, advocates used creativity in adjusting a plan specific to New Hampshire. Under the bi-partisan bill, low-wage workers will be able to use federal Medicaid dollars to buy private health insurance. This is a bit unorthodox and requires a waiver from the federal government but it allowed moderate Republicans to jump on board.
Since the New Hampshire Senate is controlled by Republicans, getting the majority in the Senate to support the Medicaid expansion was no easy task. This is particularly true because many on the right have built their 2014 political platform on opposition to Obamacare. The Medicaid expansion is an essential element of Obamacare.
I do think there is much to learn from the success of advocates in this effort. As a long-time progressive and a reader particularly of the progressive and left-wing blogosphere, I am used to seeing the glass half empty perspective. Obamacare is not single payer national health insurance. So many gnash their teeth and bemoan that.
From my past experience, many of the bemoaners are removed from the legislative process. It is easy to rail from the sidelines when you are not in the game. In my earlier life when I previously worked as a legal aid lobbyist, I was always impressed by the persistence and determination of my typically more conservative opponents. Many of the business lobbyists practically seemed to live at the legislature 24/7. That was in stark contrast to progressives who were often MIA. I used to think my side could learn from the conservative forces who did not give up and go cry in their beer. You could always count on the conservatives to be there even when they were losing.
I think you can see the Medicaid expansion from the glass half full perspective. True, everyone is not covered but this is the biggest advance I have seen in many a moon. I think the reform sets the stage for further advances toward universal coverage.
I am hopeful that the New Hampshire example can influence other states to follow our lead. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2012 and affirmed the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the Court gave states an option of expanding Medicaid. With New Hampshire as the newest addition, 26 states have now signed on with the expansion.
However, that leaves 24 other states who have not opted for the Medicaid expansion. Six of the states, including Maine, are currently considering it. The New Hampshire example may offer a way forward for those states on the fence or currently balking.
An irony of the Medicaid expansion is that the states who are refusing expansion would benefit the most from it. The states include all the southern states as well as some heartland and Rocky Mountain states. We are talking five million poor uninsured adults who will lack coverage because their state did not opt for Medicaid expansion.
There is a gap in coverage between current Medicaid eligibility and the lower limit of those Obamacare recipients who would get subsidized insurance through the federal marketplace. Just to be more specific, of the five million people who live in states that have not opted to expand Medicaid, about 20% of that group reside in Texas, 16% in Florida, 8% in Georgia, and 7% in North Carolina.
A recent Gallup poll shows that the Southern states are where residents are struggling the most to afford health care. I guess the other side of Southern hospitality toward strangers is meanness toward your own citizens. You can be sure that the governors and legislators in the south who are blocking this advance have fine medical insurance coverage for themselves.
The Medicaid expansion will inject hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds into New Hampshire’s economy. The federal Medicaid money will allow low wage workers to spend money on other critical needs like housing, food and utilities. This should be a direct benefit for local businesses.
As more states like New Hampshire enact the Medicaid expansion, I think it will put more pressure on the states who had initially opted out to reverse course. Their citizens will see the benefit and will want it for themselves. The course of change is usually not a straight shot . It is more circuitous and Medicaid expansion is no exception.
Remembering Tony Benn by Norman Birnbaum – posted 3/23/2014
Tony Benn in 2008 (Regent’s University London/Flickr)
Ever since I learned that Tony Benn had passed away on March 14, I was looking for a good remembrance that would introduce the man and his life. The piece I am reprinting which was written by Norman Birnbaum was the best piece I found. It was on the website of the Nation Magazine. Benn who was described at the end of his life as a national treasure was one of England’s best known leftists.
My favorite Tony Benn story which is alluded to in the piece is about how Benn renounced his lordship. He had been a member of the House of Commons. When his father died in 1960, he became Viscount Stansgate. Benn then led a political struggle to change the British law so nobles could renounce their titles. He wanted to go back to serve in the House of Commons which he did. I liked his comment about the House of Lords: “The House of Lords is the British Outer Mongolia for retired politicians.”
Gary Younge, who also wrote a fine piece about Benn, said that the two things that stood out about him were his optimism and his persistence. He was a long-time activist. Benn was also famous for his quotes. I will share one additional one I like:
“What is the final corruption in politics? Earlier, it was to get into cabinet, before that, to be popular, but, later on, the final corruption is this kindly, harmless old gentleman. I’m very aware of that. I take the praise as sceptically as I took the abuse. I asked myself some time ago: what do you do when you’re old? You don’t whinge, you don’t talk all the time about the past, you don’t try and manage anything, you try and encourage people.”
The piece by Norman Birnbaum is below:
Tony Benn’s wealthy family performed public service for generations. His father was a minister in the postwar reform Labour government of Clement Attlee. The father, Lord Stansgate, was a typical radical member of the educated gentry, of the same moral stuff as Bertrand Russell. The father made a familiar British journey from liberalism, with its concerns for the dignity and rights of ordinary citizens, its distrust of elite pretensions to superior knowledge and privilege, to Labour in company with many others. That gave Labour its very complex moral culture—a juxtaposition of near revolutionary vision, a perpetually outraged sense of justice and a resolve to construct piece by piece what the Labour hymn terms “a new Jerusalem in England’s green and pleasant land.”
Tony Benn (Anthony Wedgwood Benn) died at age 88 last week—and was immediately and fulsomely praised by many well able to restrain their enthusiasm for him in his lifetime. He was a great parliamentary orator, an inspiring speaker at countless gatherings and meetings outside it, a tireless writer, and above all, a prophet who earned honor in his own country. Much in his background foretold a rather more conventional career, and he did indeed initially if ambivalently pursue one. He held senior cabinet posts in the Wilson and Callaghan governments of the sixties and seventies. He remained in Parliament, an increasingly acerbic and influential critic of both Thatcher and her successor John Major and of his own party’s supposed savior, Tony Blair, until 2001, when he retired “to devote more time to politics.”
British politics had changed immensely since Benn first entered Parliament in 1950. The class bound and locally rooted antagonists, Labour and Conservative, had to learn national media strategies in the television age. Imperial power was claimed, triumphantly, by the Americans, and the realistic British acknowledged, sorrowfully, that their nation was subordinate to its erstwhile cousins. The West Europeans (including old enemies Germany and Italy) had achieved more prosperity and successful welfare states administered by socialists and social Christians in alternation or alliance. Black and brown immigrants began to flow in from the Commonwealth. Harold Macmillan, a Tory Keynesian, won the 1959 general election with the slogan, “We are all workers now.” Labour argued endlessly about what a modern socialist project would entail.
Benn’s early career was chiefly conspicuous for his struggle to avoid having to move to the House of Lords after his father’s death in 1960. It took three years, but new legislation enabled him to renounce the Peerage. There were some signs of rebelliousness in a generally dutiful early political biography. He was one of the first parliamentarians to criticize South African apartheid, and—in opposition to the party leadership—voiced skepticism about Britain’s nuclear weaponry. Benn, unlike many of his Labour contemporaries, took seriously the more critical cultural and political currents in the larger society. These included, variously, the New Left, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and a systematic disrespect for inherited patterns of deference and sobriety. When the New Left thought of profoundly altering Great Britain, we took the revolutionary step of opening The Partisan Café in Soho, central London. My memory is of Benn coming from time to time with his American wife, Caroline, a remarkably intelligent person utterly unsympathetic to the belief of many Britons (some in Labour) that nothing should ever be done for the first time.
It was not a belief congenial to Benn. His familial political inheritance was a doctrine of the necessity of continuous reform. Great social movements in modern Britain had solid textual inspiration—the prophetic books of the King James Bible. Speaking to The Spectator journalist Mary Whitfield not long before he died, Benn said:
My mother and father were both Congregationalists and Congregationalism is interesting because everyone has a hot line to the Almighty, you don’t need a Bishop to help you. So no hierarchies, just trust the people. We used to read the Bible every night and my mother told me that the Bible is the story of the conflict between the Kings who had power and the Prophets who preached righteousness. She taught me to support the Prophets against the Kings.
Benn’s path to the prophetic status he occupied for years took him through cabinet posts, profound political conflict, and internal exile in his own party. As minister and contender for party leadership posts he insisted on using the state to modernize Britain’s industry. Wilson and his rather more robust successor Callaghan were unwilling to undertake a total confrontation with the masters and ideologies of British financial capitalism, the City and Blair proudly declared that New Labour was the best ally of new (and old) money. Labour actually split in the early phases of the argument, a group led by Roy Jenkins and David Owen forming a new party. Thatcher in 1979 exploited these divisions to win an election and proceeded to total war on the trade unions and local and regional self government. Benn’s open intention of reconstructing Labour doctrine and practice in its entirety discountenanced and frightened many of his contemporaries in Labour, and he was relegated to the back benches.
Actually, his failure to remain in the party leadership (he sought the Deputy Leadership but was defeated in 1981) was liberating. Sufficient numbers of parliamentary colleagues agreed with him, or sympathized with him, to preclude his being completely excluded. He spoke for himself, or rather, for groups and ideas disregarded as Labour’s leaders flailed desperately in the effort to construct a coherent response to Thatcherism.
In December of 1980 he came to Washington as guest of the United Auto Workers and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (with the Democratic Socialists of America) to participate in a conference on Eurosocialism. The other guests included Willy Brandt, Felipe Gonzales, François Mitterrand and Olaf Palme. I spent some time with Tony on the occasion, and we talked of the imminence of Reaganism, our fears of the intensification of the Cold War, and the precarious position of the parties of reform. Tony had seen some of the Protestant fundamentalist television spectacles, with their calls for war on Communism and secularism, pluralism and the welfare state. To think, he said, that the origins of much of American democracy were the same as our own in Britain—the thoroughgoing democracy preached in Cromwell’s seventeenth-century revolution. I could offer very little consolation: the spiritual energy that had infused the New Deal and the Great Society, the civil rights movement, the Vietnam protests, had drained away. In both English-speaking nations, we were about to experience the woeful compromises, the retreats depicted as realistic advances, of the Third Way—to be incorporated later in the policies of Clinton and Blair.
I visited Tony occasionally, thereafter, on trips to London. I was struck by the quality of the younger people working in his parliamentary office. One of them was later to become a Nation intern, Ed Miliband. Upon Tony’s death, he issued a fine tribute to him, speaking as Labour’s leader, as an embodiment of conviction. Looking at Tony’s persistence in the past decades, the astonishing thing about it was indeed his unfailing moral generosity, his belief that the creative and communal potential of human nature could become actual, his sense that in total opposition he was custodian of treasures of national memory which ought not be allowed to dissipate.
No doubt, there was a good deal of his religious inheritance in it. There was also something enduringly solid in British culture, hard common sense. (Recall the Parliamentary debate after which the House of Commons rejected Cameron’s plans to intervene in Syria.) I recollect a talk by Tony in the London suburbs. A few hundred people came, plenty of seniors with a fair presence of younger persons. Tony looked around, began by estimating the average age of his auditors, and raised a question. “There are about twenty thousand years of life experience in this hall. Do you think our nation has taken full advantage of what you have to give?” Of course, Tony campaigned against the Iraq war, against the monetarization of British existence brought about by the sovereignty of the City, against the arrogance of elites. He will be remembered for something deeper, his respect for his fellow citizens as an expression of his belief in a national mission.
My Perspective on the 50th Anniversary of the War on Poverty – posted 3/15/2014 and published in the Concord Monitor on 3/20/2014
This article appeared in the Concord Monitor on March 20, 2014 under the title “Pointed in the Right Direction”.
2014 marks the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty. Since January, there have been many commemorations and retrospective pieces written about this anniversary. 50 years offers a good time to step back and take stock of both progress and shortcomings.
When President Johnson launched the War on Poverty in 1964, it was a multi-pronged attack that featured a broad array of new government programs. These included such lasting accomplishments as Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, Job Corps, Community Action Program, Community Health Centers and Legal Services. President Johnson also greatly strengthened Social Security, extending benefits for retirees, widows and the disabled.
Johnson tried to reduce poverty by creating new services. Many of the services sought to promote opportunity and success in the job market. This approach ran contrary to most influential analyzes of poverty which emphasized the role of unemployment and the solution of job creation. While the new programs did not end poverty, I think it is hard to deny their great value. Collectively, they did contribute to a lessening of the economic divide between rich and poor.
Over the last 50 years, poverty and poverty-related conditions have declined. This is in large part due to the safety net. While there are many ways to look at this, I would cite the rise in average income among the poorest fifth of Americans, the drop in infant mortality, and the disappearance of severe child malnutrition as significant gains. Whatever its other virtues, private enterprise was unable to accomplish these outcomes. The War on Poverty government programs did.
America in the sleepy Eisenhower fifties hid poverty off the beaten track. While it sometimes may not seem that way, we have come a long way from a time when poverty was invisible and not talked about.
However, I would admit that the War on Poverty has been only a partial success.
The War on Poverty did mean an acknowledgement of harsh realities and it prevented things from getting worse. It did not banish poverty. I would never deny the distance we have to go as a society to eliminate poverty but I think it is an error to fail to acknowledge the positives.
It is not surprising that the 50th anniversary would evoke a wide range of responses across the political spectrum. On the political Right, I saw these words used to characterize the War on Poverty: “ineffective”, “failure”, and “catastrophic”.
On March 3rd, the Majority Staff of the Congressional House Budget Committee, presenting the view of Budget Committee chair Paul Ryan, released a very long document entitled “The War on Poverty: 50 Years Later”. The document attempted to review a large number of federal programs.
Among other programs reviewed, the piece included a section on federally funded Legal Services. Because during my legal career, I had worked in Legal Services for 25 years, I looked forward to seeing the critical evaluation.
I would have to describe the Budget Committee piece as an ideological document. It appears to be agenda-driven with the goal to debunk the War on Poverty. Rather than any evaluation of the substantive work of Legal Services, the relevant section focused on two examples of fraud where administrators stole money from their Legal Services’ programs. It then went on to criticize the Legal Services Corporation for poor grant oversight.
Fair is not the first word that comes to mind to describe this evaluation. Over the 40 plus years of Legal Services, Legal Aid programs have represented hundreds of thousands if not millions of poor people on their individual problems whether it was eviction defense, a public benefit denial, a consumer scam or protection from domestic violence abuse. Legal Aid advocates have won innumerable victories that directly resulted in tangible client benefit. Where was any mention of that?
How can it be that a document purporting to evaluate 50 years of the War on Poverty included no mention of the actual work of Legal Services? Evaluations like the Budget Committee report reflect the distance of the report’s writers from poor people and their actual experience. It would be generous to characterize reports of this nature as “academic”.
Poverty is tough to talk about because just the word itself has become a political football. There are no generally shared definitions of what poverty is. There is cynicism and defeatism about ever eliminating poverty. To his credit, President Johnson sought to evoke an empathetic understanding of the poor.
While the War on Poverty has been represented as a Democratic Party endeavor, that is not entirely true. President Richard Nixon also invested heavily in the War on Poverty. Nixon played a leading role in establishing the Food Stamp program, the Women”s, Infant and Children (WIC) food program, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). He also proposed a guaranteed national income that failed in the Senate after passing the House. I suppose this is forgotten history but it does show that the War on Poverty had more bi-partisan origins than people now would expect.
The War on Poverty pointed us as a society in the right direction. Without the goal of reducing and eliminating poverty , we will never get there. I submit it is unlikely we will make progress on eliminating poverty if that is not seen as an explicit societal goal.
The initial thrust of the War on Poverty did not last long because of the political reaction it engendered. Still, the programs I mentioned at the outset have become part of the accepted fabric of our society. Facile dismissals that ignore these programs lack balance. Since the Reagan era we have witnessed a sales job by the Hard Right on how government programs don’t work. While no program is beyond criticism, the sales job actually flies in the face of the programs I mentioned which are, in fact, very successful.
We currently lack politicians with the will, ability, drive and vision to move a new War on Poverty agenda forward. President Obama’s emphasis on economic inequality is timely but it appears he lacks the political strength to push this boulder uphill. We need poverty abolitionists who can make that happen.
Shady – posted 3/2/2014
It has been quite a few years since I have had a puppy. I recently made the plunge again.
48 hours later and I have to admit it is a struggle, albeit an enjoyable struggle, keeping up with puppy energy. My puppy Shady is a golden retriever, now 9 weeks old. He does not stop – he plays very hard and then crashes equally hard (you learn to appreciate the crash moments).
Damage control is a full-time mode. Puppy proofing is a necessity or it is bye-bye to any possessions in puppy proximity. For some reason Shady was attracted to two throw pillows on our living room sofa. He barked at the pillows, not sure why. They must be an attractive nuisance. How long the pillows will escape remains to be seen.
I think I had forgotten how oral puppies are. When I am at home, much of my time is consumed with making sure Shady is chewing on the right things. The dog likes to get into everything. Last night he tried to get inside my DVD player.
While I have not written about dogs before on this blog, I am a dog person. I grew up with dogs. Among others, I had a weimaraner named Duchess, a mutt named Honky, and a miniature schnauzer named Roman Gabriel. Also, when I first got together with my wife Debra, she had a beagle named Freckles.
Freckles was a real character. It would be easy to write a column about him alone. One day when we were at work, he ate the landlord’s couch. Debra told me a story about how he had been stolen once. (This happened before I knew her). She was living in Worcester Ma at the time and she put up missing signs all around her neighborhood. Two weeks went by with no sign of Freckles. Then Debra received a phone call. The guy on the other end (who had, in fact, stolen Freckles) said “You can come get your dog now”. When Debra went to pick up Freckles, it turned out that that very cute beagle had eaten the guy’s apartment.
Over the last 29 years or so, I have owned golden retrievers. There was the regal Rainbow (the first), placid and incredibly good-natured Tasha (an unbelievable swimmer), Toby ( golden mix we adopted), Rainbow (the second and not always the best behaved), Molly who lives to eat, and now Shady. Molly is 14. She is my longest lived golden and has totally outlived my expectations. The dog is in the heavyweight category. She keeps trucking although I would have to describe her response to the puppy as not unalloyed joy.
I had planned to write a more serious piece this weekend but Shady shot that plan to hell. Puppies require so much attention. On the other hand, I don’t think there is anything I would rather be doing. Shady is a great guy and a most entertaining and lovable companion. I am surprised how easy it has been for him to transition to our house.
My brother Rob said that puppies are harder than babies. Before Shady it has been a while since I have had either experience but I would have to agree. I did create a comfortable and secure fenced-in area to try and minimize destruction. Still, when Shady is up and about, you need NSA surveillance capability.
I am taking advantage of a lull in the action right now to write this. Not sure how long the lull will last. I do feel a bit ADHD-like in the puppy aftermath. My concentration is scattered tending to the puppy. I had told my wife that this is my dog so I did want to step up and be his primary caretaker.
For now, I will end with a quote I like from Milan Kundera:
“Dogs are our link to paradise. They don’t know evil or jealousy or discontent. To sit with a dog on a hillside on a glorious afternoon is to be back in Eden where doing nothing was not boring – it was peace”.
Sent from my iPad
Book Review: “Nazis After Hitler: How Perpetrators of The Holocaust Cheated Justice and Truth” by Donald McKale – posted 2/25/2014
I had not planned to review this book but I must say it surprised me. The book addressed important questions that, in my opinion, still evade adequate attention. Questions like: what happened to the perpetrators of the Holocaust? How much justice was done? Why did so many war criminals get away with their crimes? The great value of this book is that it goes right at those lingering questions and it provides clear, well-reasoned answers.
Without knowing that much about the period immediately after World War 2, I had held a relatively positive conception of the Allied effort to seek justice against Nazi war criminals. I suppose this was because of Nuremberg.
Professor Donald McKale’s book “Nazis After Hitler” paints a far darker picture. Contrary to my uninformed and probably widely shared assumptions, McKale shows how the postwar world felt little obligation to ferret out and bring perpetrators to justice. The sad truth is that there was no day of reckoning for most of the criminals who carried out the Holocaust.
I found the story perversely fascinating. It combines the worst acts committed by a motley collection of desk murderers, ideological fanatics and sadists and a world incapable of any commensurate response to the awful crimes committed. How the pitifully weak response happened cannot be easily reduced but I will try and synthesize some of the major threads that run through the book.
The extent of the Nazi crimes were not initially well understood by the outside world. Millions had been murdered by the Nazis but the Nazis went to considerable effort to try and cover up their crimes. The Holocaust as we know it now was not as clearly delineated then. The world did not yet have the benefit of memoirs by people like Primo Levi and Victor Klemperer, histories by Raul Hilberg, the movies Shoah and Schindler’s List, and the TV docudrama Holocaust.
There were disagreements among the Allies about how to address the Nazi war crimes. The British and Prime Minister Winston Churchill favored summary execution of Nazi leaders. President Roosevelt opposed summary executions and favored postwar trials. Surprisingly, Stalin agreed with FDR on this point. In June 1945, the Allies agreed to hold the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg to prosecute “major” war criminals.
A significant dilemma was the scope of the German war crimes. What do you do when massive numbers of citizens are engaged in a grossly criminal enterprise? How do you separate out those who deserve punishment from those who do not? What is appropriate punishment, particularly when so many are implicated? The Allies decided to concentrate on those they initially considered the worst of the worst. There were other trials but McKale shows how the Cold War lessened the focus on the Nazis.
The jurisdiction of the IMT was also a problem. The IMT tried crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and participation in a common plan or conspiracy to commit those crimes. There was no clear statement specifically addressing the Holocaust against the Jewish people. In retrospect, it is clear that the IMT’s jurisdiction reflected lack of awareness of the crime against the Jews.
The system of gas chambers and concentration camps engaged the efforts of many thousands of people. The Wehrmacht, the German armed forces, included 20,000,000 soldiers. The German Nazi party also included many millions. In assessing responsibility, where do you draw the line? Who is guilty and how far down the line do you go? In the best of all possible legal worlds, you would have had an individualized assessment of perpetrators wherever they were in the hierarchy if they had dirty hands. Nothing even remotely like that happened. Nothing ever happened to the overwhelming majority of perpetrators.
Immediately after the war, McKale wrote that, among the German people, the Third Reich was instantly forgotten. No one knew nothing. The typical stance was denial. Germans were not exactly stepping forward, acknowledging guilt. McKale tells an interesting story about a young German woman, Katharina von Kellenback, who sought to find out about her uncle’s role in the Holocaust. The 1979 TV broadcast of Holocaust prompted her curiosity.
von Kellenback ran into “a near perfect wall of silence”. Family members brushed off her questions and acted like they had been victims. von Kellenback described “a monumental vanishing act” that erased the consciousness of the perpetrators. She correctly characterized this evasion as a conspiracy of silence.
Through her own research and efforts, she found out her uncle, Alfred Ebner, had been an early and fanatical follower of Hitler. He had been deputy commissioner of the Pinsk region’s Nazi civilian administration, a role that included responsibility for the local Jewish inhabitants. It turned out he had been directly responsible for implementation of Nazi extermination policies. He had organized the ghettoization of Pinsk-area Jews, mostly women and children. He supervised the confiscation of Jewish property , the exploitation of Jewish labor and the starvation of the Jewish population. Under Himmler’s directive, between October 29-November 2, 1942, a Nazi battalion under his authority marched Pinsk’s remaining Jews from the ghetto and shot them in large trenches. A few managed to get away.
After the war Ebner disappeared back into the general population, started a business, and lived with his family in Stuttgart. In 1962, he was arrested but he was not indicted until March 1968. He and other members of the Nazi police battalion were charged for several hundred cases of malicious and cruel murder.
To obtain a murder conviction, the prosecution had to prove Ebner acted because of racial hatred. Ebner denied any personal hatred of Jews. He presented himself as a loyal civil servant who followed orders, following the Eichmann example. As witnesses could not verify that he personally did any shootings, some charges went away. Testimony did establish that in the summer of 1942 he ordered 40 sick and mentally retarded Jews be shot. He led those Jews to the trucks that transported them out of the ghetto to be shot.
However, the judges in his case dismissed the charges for lack of evidence. McKale reported that Ebner’s case never went to trial. The Court later suspended proceedings against him in 1971 for reasons of his alleged poor health. Later in 1978, the court dropped all charges. Ebner died peacefully in 1987 without acknowledging anything.
Unfortunately this type scenario was common. Years went by and victims died. Personal identification was difficult as peoples’ appearance changed; perpetrators changed their names; and they moved. So many victims had been murdered in the most anonymous fashion imagineable and they were not around to point any finger at a perpetrator. Politics changed and the Cold War struggle dominated all attention.
As I had said previously only a tiny minority of the estimated several hundred thousand Holocaust perpetrators were ever prosecuted. Ebner at least had been prosecuted even if he evaded punishment. According to McKale.from 1945 to 1992, the West Germans investigated 103,823 persons suspected of committing Nazi crimes. Courts convicted 6,487 (of which 5,513 were for non-lethal offenses). 13 people received the death sentence; 163 got life in prison; 6197 got temporary imprisonment and 114 got fines.
McKale says that nearly all of the convicted got light prison sentences.
As part of the denazification effort in West Germany, the Americans, the British and the French classified perpetrators into one of five categories: major offender (criminals), offender (active supporter of the Nazi Party), lesser offender (persons who collaborated in less serious ways), followers (persons who joined Nazi organizations but had not participated in their actions) and the exonerated. A typical category 1 criminal was looking at imprisonment in a labor camp from 2 to 10 years along with confiscation of property. McKale says classification was enormously difficult. He gives many examples and shows how hard it was even to prosecute big-time Nazis who committed major offenses.
I think it is fair to say that the West Germans lacked the political will to do justice. So many people were implicated and silence offered mutual protection.
I had previously mentioned the Cold War. The onset of the Cold War against the Soviets figured into the weak prosecution of Nazis. The Americans and the British quickly became far more interested in integrating West Germany into its anti-Soviet effort than in pursuing an agenda from the last war. The Americans moved to recruit Nazis – not prosecute them.
The East German response to the Holocaust was equally compromised for a different set of reasons. The East Germans could not acknowledge the Jewish specificity of the Holocaust. The party line, following the Soviets, would not recognize that any single group had been specially victimized by the Holocaust. All victims could only be seen as anti-fascists. The Soviets had their own anti-semitism and the inability to see the world, rather than ideology, was part of that. GDR statistics from 1945-1964 show that Soviet-dominated German courts convicted 12,807 persons of “Nazi and war crimes”. 118 received death sentences, 231 got life in prison, and 12,458 got varying terms of imprisonment.
McKale shows that the East Germans actually placed Bernhard Bechler, a former professional military officer in the Nazi army and a committed National Socialist, in charge of denazification in Soviet-occupied East Germany. Bechler was uninterested in uncovering and purging Nazis who had engaged the Holocaust. The East Germans decided against a blanket dismissal of former Nazis from government administration. They were fearful about public reaction so they did not take strong steps. Generally speaking, witnesses who testified before East German denazification boards claimed they had never supported mistreating Jews or any group. That, of course, leaves the question how the Holocaust ever could have happened.
Professor McKale explains how the arguments made by Nazis after the war reappeared later out of the mouths of Holocaust deniers. I found myself less interested in that later part of the book. I think Holocaust deniers are nutty and don’t deserve that much time because they lack all credibility even if some crazy people still make the arguments. I found myself dwelling more on the power of anti-semitism. Behind all the excuses about following orders lurks the anti-semitism. I think Professor McKale deserves credit for taking an unflinching look at the Holocaust perpetrators. His book is a necessary corrective to widely shared misconceptions.
Movie Review: “Phil Ochs: There But For Fortune” – posted 2/15/2014
I knew this documentary came out a couple years ago but I never had a chance to see it until recently. Made lovingly by Phil’s brother Michael Ochs and by Kenneth Bowker, “Phil Ochs” There But for Fortune” brought back many memories. As a Phil Ochs fan, I really enjoyed hearing the old music I have not heard for a long time.
Phil was a gifted songwriter. I will name some of my favorites: “Is There Anybody Here”, “I’m Gonna Say it Now”, “I Ain’t Marching Anymore”, “Ringing of Revolution”, “Small Circle of Friends”, “There But for Fortune”, and “When I’m Gone”. I struggled with this list because I am leaving out some other songs I love too.
It is hard to define what Phil meant to my generation. He certainly never had the widespread popularity of a Dylan or Neil Young. Still, he spoke to many of us and his songs connected. He was an authentic 60’s voice. On old tape, Abbie Hoffman reminisces about how you could always count on Phil to perform for any benefit or demonstration. That was true.
In the movie, it was mentioned that “I Ain’t Marching Anymore” was the anthem of the anti-Vietnam war movement. I think that was also true. I remember I owned the album (see album cover above) with that song on the cover. Phil wrote the best anti-war songs of anybody. They were lively, had great lyrics and the message could not have been clearer. They still sound good.
There is nobody around like Phil now and we are far worse for that. Phil was a conscience and his songs were strong. He had an ability to write topically about headline news. Maybe I am not as tuned in to music now (okay I am not as tuned in now) but I do not see any young singer/songwriter out there like him with an equivalent Movement-type connection. Maybe there is a rapper somewhere. I just don’t know the artist. Music now seems so insular.
Getting back to the movie, it is chronological in tracing Phil’s life. He grew up in an incredibly screwed up family. His father, a physician, suffered from manic depression. It sounded like he was in mental hospitals a lot and he was not there for Phil, his brother Michael or his sister Sonny. Phil’s mother also sounded miserably unhappy and mean to her children. She had expected Phil’s father to be financially successful which he was not. The family moved around frequently as Phil’s dad could not establish a successful medical practice. Phil did have a loving brother and sister though.
Phil’s family was apolitical. His friend, Jim Glover, was a big early influence. Phil met Jim when they were students together at Ohio State. Glover’s father was left wing. Glover and his father introduced Phil to folk music including Pete Seeger and the Weavers. That music had a big impact.
After 3 years, Phil dropped out of Ohio State and moved to Greenwich Village. It was the early 60’s. His goal was to become a songwriter and not just any songwriter. He wanted to be the best. The movie shows how Phil was part of a group of artists who all descended on the Village at the same time. These artists included Judy Henske, Eric Anderson, David Blue, Dave Von Ronk, Tom Paxton and Bob Dylan. They used to hang out together at each other’s apartments and listen to each other perform.
Quite a few of Phil’s old friends talk about him in the movie. According to Ed Sanders, Phil was a very friendly guy and he attracted a wide circle of friends. Lucien Truscott IV described Phil as “liberal but not didactic”. He said he never was cool and he was not afraid to expose his feelings.
Phil had a difficult relationship with Bob Dylan. He always sought Dylan’s approval but Dylan apparently never gave it. It sounded competitive between them. According to the movie, Dylan criticized Phil’s political songs as not being about his deepest emotions. It is hard to evaluate the whole thing now. Phil’s desire for Dylan’s approval sounded almost pathological. (I wonder what he would think of Dylan selling Chryslers.) They had times when they were friends though.
Phil embodied the contradictions of the era. He could write “Love, love me, love me, I’m a liberal” but he admired JFK and he had a very hard time coping after JFK’s assassination. I always liked his song “That was the President”. Phil had a hard time with the wishywashiness of liberals.
As the Vietnam war dragged on and the Movement frayed, things headed in darker directions. The Village artists moved on and out. There was immense rage and bitterness about the failure of the political system to address both Vietnam and civil rights. Profound alienation welled up especially in the wake of all the assassinations and the never ending war. Ed Sanders said that the bullet that shot RFK went through a whole generation and I know what he meant.
From the movie, it looked like Phil was confused. By nature, he was not a compromiser. He really wanted to be famous. He made an album “Pleasures of the Harbor” which went in some new directions. The album was badly reviewed although the movie said it did sell some. Phil started drinking more heavily. He tried to do a makeover, dressing in gold lame, following Elvis who was one of his heroes. He joked he was trying to get Elvis to become Che Guevara. I think it is fair to say that this whole makeover was not well received by Phil’s fans who liked the folky Phil fine.
The decline of the Movement coincided with Phil’s decline. He had his own issues with manic depression and with alcoholism. The drinking especially became extreme.
Phil wanted to see the world and he did do some travelling in the early 70’s. He went to Chile during the Allende period and was very inspired by what he saw. He met the famous Chilean folksinger Victor Jara who knew about him and they became fast friends. Phil was later distraught after the military coup which among other things resulted in the brutal assault and murder of Victor Jara at the National Stadium. Phil organized a benefit for Chilean refugees after the coup and he got Dylan to come and perform. Even though he personally was in very bad shape, the event was a big success.
One thing I never knew before seeing the movie, Phil travelled to Africa. While in Dar Es Salaam, he was attacked and strangled. He was left for dead on a beach. He suffered permanent vocal cord damage. He complained he could not sing well after that. He also complained he was losing his creativity.
Phil spiralled down in 1975 before he took his own life by hanging himself. He felt defeated and he said stuff like Phil Ochs is useless and should be killed. The movie shows him acting psychotic. It was like he was a different person at the end. The movie does a good job in honestly conveying all of Phil, including his extremely depressing last days.
While it sounded like Phil had many regrets about his marriage as well as regrets for not being a good father, his daughter Meegan and his wife Alice both said sweet things about him. Phil bought Meegan a cat they named Rimbaud. He also bought her an encyclopedia. Meegan felt Phil wanted to introduce her to poetry. He did genuinely adore her although it sounded like he was an absent father.
Besides the tragedy of his out of control alcoholism and his mental illness, Phil’s life does show the difficulty for committed activists living through periods when social change is not on the agenda. Phil could not make that transition and he could not figure out a way to live that was personally fulfilling. I do think that Phil’s struggles were reflective of a much wider generational problem: how to live ethically and in a principled manner when the society is deeply morally compromised and its values are deeply problematic.
I always liked the words from Phil’s song “When I’m Gone” so I will end with that:
There’s no place in this world where I’ll belong when I’m gone And I won’t know the right from the wrong when I’m gone
And you won’t find me singin’ on this song when I’m gone
So I guess I’ll have to do it while I’m here
And I won’t feel the flowing of the time when I’m gone
All the pleasures of love will not be mine when I’m gone
My pen won’t pour out a lyric line when I’m gone
So I guess I’ll have to do it while I’m here
And I won’t breathe the bracing air when I’m gone
And I can’t even worry ’bout my cares when I’m gone
Won’t be asked to do my share when I’m gone
So I guess I’ll have to do it while I’m here
And I won’t be running from the rain when I’m gone
And I can’t even suffer from the pain when I’m gone
Can’t say who’s to praise and who’s to blame when I’m gone
So I guess I’ll have to do it while I’m here
Won’t see the golden of the sun when I’m gone
And the evenings and the mornings will be one when I’m gone
Can’t be singing louder than the guns when I’m gone
So I guess I will have to do it while I’m here
All my days won’t be dances of delight when I’m gone
And the sands will be shifting from my sight when I’m gone
Can’t add my name into the fight while I’m gone
So I guess I’ll have to do it while I’m here
And I won’t be laughing at the lies when I’m gone
And I can’t question how or when or why when I’m gone
Can’t live proud enough to die when I’m gone
So I guess I’ll have to do it while I’m here


