Chip Benson

CHRIS ROCK DOES WELL BY BEHAVING BADLY

The Providence Journal: February 21, 2005

The Producers of this year's Academy Awards have cynically tried to make up for the buzz lost to the nominating snubs of Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ-the two most-talked-about movies of 2004-by instead choosing an edgy and profane comedian, Chris Rock, as host of the ceremony, on Feb. 27.

Mr. Rock has done his part by creating a stir when he remarked that "only gays watch the Oscars," and that the black actor Jamie Foxx "had better win" the awards for best actor (in Ray) and best supporting actor (in Collateral).

For the past 10 years, Chris Rock has been behaving badly and getting away with it, because he is black. After an initial start on Saturday Night Live, the comedian became a superstar, primarily through his HBO solo-comedy performances Never Scared and Bigger and Blacker, performed before mostly black audiences in black theaters, such as The Apollo, in Harlem. However, all along, perhaps the audience that really mattered (television and its dollars) was white.

In these performances, Mr. Rock is quite profane and bigoted. The talented comedian can say many degrading things about black culture that white comics cannot-he practically speaks a different language when doing so-but like the Spike Lee movie Bamboozled, he may eventually provoke so much outrage that he will set back the development of other African-American TV and movie performers for many years.

This may be the moment. For all of his success, Mr. Rock has come of age on small stages and niche television channels, late at night. He is still not a mainstream performer, and there is considerable trepidation in Hollywood over exactly what he will say at the Academy Awards. Yet he will soon be a virtual U.S. ambassador to the world; the Oscars ceremony is the most watched television program, with a global audience of 1.5 billion.

At the very least, if he makes a fool of himself he will kill two birds with one cynical producers' stone, by creating buzz and then absorbing the criticism. Perhaps this is preferable in Hollywood to the heat that would have come down had Michael Moore or Mel Gibson been the center of attention.Is Mr. Rock, then, merely a patsy-a diversion from the storms of criticism created by Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ? It's been enough already, and quite a tumultuous year or two for politics and Mideastern religion.

Waiting in the wings and perhaps soon to make their first appearance at the Oscars are Snoop Dogg and P. Diddy-- absurd names that obscure long raps sheets and horrible accusations of attempted murder, rape and many other violent and disgusting things. Both convicted felons are attempting the lucrative change into mainstream entertainer. Snoop Dogg is an animated voice in the children's movie Racing Stripes, and P. Diddy is featured in a new ad for Diet Pepsi.

Bring on the minstrel show.

GOT INSURANCE? A FABLE OF THE POST- 9/11 RECONSTRUCTION

The Providence Phoenix: January 6, 2005

What do Santa Claus and the "US terrorism clause" (better known as terrorism risk insurance) have in common? In addition to the same last name, both are fairy tales that obscure something truly meaningful.
Within hours of the attacks on the World Trade Center buildings in 2001, the top executives of big American insurance companies convened via conference call to discuss whether their policies would cover damage from the 9/11 suicide hijackings. The first consideration was deciding if the events of September 11 were an act of war. Every major insurance contract in America has a "war exclusion clause" that exempts an insurer from responsibility for damages in the event of an "act of war." Essentially, the government is held responsible instead.

According to Robert P. Hartwig, chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute, a trade group, "Within hours of the attacks, it was quite clear that the argument that 9/11 was an act of war would never hold up in court." The insurance lawyers based their decision on hundreds of years of case law defining an act of war. Yet it was no small consideration. The decision would cost insurers plenty, as 9/11 damages have totaled more than $30 billion by some estimates.

On September 11, however, President George W. Bush said the exact opposite -- that the attacks constituted an "act of war upon our country." These were not idle words, judging by how Bush launched the United States into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq -- conflicts that many observers believe to be the first in a series of multi-generational battles.

Why didn't the insurers cite the president as their chief witness to make an argument that 9/11 was an act of war? Doing so, after all, might have exempted them from billions in financial responsibility. According to a defense lawyer for one of the major insurers involved, "We viewed his statements as political rhetoric, and inconsistent with the law, and so, we performed an act of social responsibility."

When is an act of war not an act of war? In 2002, Congress created legislation to permit a new type of insurance called "the terrorism clause," in a clumsy attempt to bridge the divide between actual law concerning war and Bush's interpretation of it. Except unlike the "war clause," the "terrorism clause" does not exempt insurers from responsibility for damages. Instead, it is a new way for insurers to make money by underwriting terrorism policies.

If a business does not carry the policy and suffers an attack of terrorism, it alone will be liable for the damage, instead of the government, which by the way, has deemed terrorism the greatest threat to the national security of the nation. The "terrorism clause," however, is a tectonic shift of responsibility -- some might say of culpability -- for issues of terrorism and national security. Hundreds of years of law are now at odds with Bush"s definition of war on 9/11 and his subsequent statements. Simply put, if he says it is war, why won't it hold up in court?

The dubious legislation for the "terrorism clause" expires on Christmas 2005, unless it's renewed by the politicians and insurance lobbyists that believe in it. Is it some sort of payback from the government to the insurance industry, in the amount of the industry's 9/11 losses?

Perhaps some see this as a genuine conservative attempt at reducing the size and scope of government by outsourcing, or at the very least a privatizing, the fiscal responsibility for terrorism. Maybe they also believe in Santa Claus.

UNDECIDED, WE CANNOT BE DIVIDED

The Providence Journal: November 18, 2004

I'm back to being an Undecided voter. Back where I belong, with my people, among the great silent and indecisive majority.

On Election Day, like many others of my creed, I temporarily made a decision, somehow picked the winner, then broke out in a cold sweat and immediately returned to my modest posture of uncertainty and understanding, In the spirit of John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it," well, I made a decision before I became Undecided again.

Kerry's so-called political flip-flopping was nothing to us Undecided voters; it's what we call an involuntary muscle. We prefer to think of it as "seeing both sides of the issue." Many of these issues in our country are very complex, and proposed Republican or Democratic solutions make them even more complicated! To be certain is to be clairvoyant, mystical and otherworldly. We who are Undecided laugh uproariously at the certainty displayed by political pundits on cable news channels and talk radio arguing to death over government policies whose full implications won't truly be known for many decades.

Even President Bush has said about his Iraq policy that the true, full consequences of it won't be known until after we're all dead and gone- which, by the way, is music to an Undecided ear. However, maybe the Bush Doctrine of Terrorism Pre-emption could have been worded differently: "You are either with us or against us, or you're undecided."

Most regular Undecided folk always leave a little room for the possibility that we may not know absolutely everything! Look, you can read The New York Times all you want, but there is still a lot you may not know. Which is why some people in America, let's call them the voting majority, still have faith in religion-its just their way of being humble about what they may not know.

This country is not divided into political factions; it is united in uncertainty. We don't need to "begin the healing" or come together after this election; we already are. More people are Undecided than Republicans or Democrats combined. Myriad polls over the past two decades show that voters, when asked to identify themselves politically, divide about a third Democratic, a third Republican, and a third independent. Show me an independent voter, and I'll show you someone Undecided!

Of the 214 million eligible voters in the United States, 59 million voted for Bush and 55 million voted for Kerry. Most important, 100 million didn't vote-hint, hint: Undecided! So, to recap, of the 214 million eligible American voters, roughly 137 million make up the great Undecided Party. (Watch it, or I'll include the balance of the U.S. population: 72 million children 17 and under and Undecided. Democrats, you know they're just waiting not to vote.)

What are the hallmarks of our country today? Instant gratification, short-term thinking, and impulse buying, whimsy, glibness? Do you identify with theses words? Are you a jack of all trades and master of none? Good. These are the foundation of the Undecided Party.
The Democrats say that the Republicans are getting more conservative and right-wing, and the Republicans say- surprise!- the same thing in reverse about the Democrats! We Undecided voters observe this finger-pointing; we're quiet about it, and that's why the political center is getting larger and more Undecided. Pretty soon we may decide to become an official party. Some would like to call us Progressive or Reform, but that's doubtful. A true flag-waving, red-blooded Undecided voter will never cross that bridge of finality.

The great Undecided voting bloc does not display political bumper stickers like "Bush is not my president" or "It's hunting season for Democrats." That's way to much commitment. The most you would ever see is just "Undecided." However, we in the noncommittal majority feel bad for you all-or-nothing types, who can no longer speak to each other post-election. Our suggestion, and we are not certain of this, is that you remove your bumper stickers, or at the very least cover your old ones with a fresh "Undecided." This way you can talk to your neighbor again.

A nation Undecided cannot be divided!

EMPIRE FALLS: SO MUCH FOR INNOCENTS ABROAD

The Providence Phoenix: June 10, 2004

My wife and I recently spent a weekend in Paris, where on a rainy afternoon, while waiting to get in at the Musee d' Orsay, we had an interesting conversation with two older English couples visiting the city for the weekend. Well, what did they think of the Global War on Terror and all that?
"Welcome to the club," was their response, with a wary look of resignation. "Now you're finally in it like the rest of us." One gentleman said that while America has always been geographically isolated, the war in Iraq now has it politically isolated for the first time. "The whole world is basically against you," he said, adding, "there are very few voices of support anymore for the US in Europe."

The Brits were exasperated that we had screwed up the political magic of our physical isolation, and the inherent innocence of being a sea away from the world's oldest problems. Too bad, they said, but it's happened to the best of us.

All of the countries and people in Europe have to live in the wake of a particular continuum of issues and problems, from wars and conflicts of empire to long-ago emperors. Finally, we too have stepped in it, the mess that is the continuum.

The point of the problem was not the simple wrong or right of ousting Saddam, an obviously bad person, but the implications it would trigger with other people and countries around the world, now and generations from today. As President Bush has acknowledged, the outcome of the war on terror and his attempt at "promoting democracy" in the Middle East won't be known for a long time. However, this is a perilous road familiar to European colonialists.

As the world quickly comes together through international communications and business, or just a weekend visit to Paris, "Old Europe" may have a leg up on an increasingly isolated America. For one thing, it is not isolated. The Europeans travel. The roughly two-dozen countries that make up the continent have been living together, and visiting with each other on weekends, for quite some time. Despite all of the different languages, they share a common currency, and a hard-fought, but healthy respect for differences. Puritanical Americans have long noted the blase of Europeans when it comes to matters of rule and law, but perhaps the ennui is a wisdom born of the endless complications of conflict and war.

On the international stage, George W. Bush more represents the idea that "All Politics is National," while John Kerry sees it like most Europeans, that "All Politics is International." H may be forward-looking, at least for an American electorate that, like our president, rarely leaves the country, and finds comfort in simple (simplistic?) and direct answers to questions. However, whether it's the war or the economy, both issues are increasingly international in dimension. The future success of American businesses, and jobs in the post NAFTA US will be a matter of global, not national, economics.

The international perception of our foreign policy will very much matter for such US businesses as Boeing. Can it compete evenly with the European conglomerate Airbus if the world is against our military actions? Will American companies face a form of blowback-the unexpected consequences of policy-by having to go international or go bust?

In the age of ongoing nuclear proliferation, security will increasingly be a matter of multilateral cooperation. The European Union, with geographically closer ties to Africa and the Middle East, suddenly seems not only larger than the US but more importantly, a bigger influence in the hearts and minds of the world community. As the Europeans strive toward more egalitarianism, they practice what we preached for years: "That in the final analysis, we all breathe the same air, live on the same planet, and hope for a better future for our children."

Can this statement- first uttered by John F. Kennedy, after lessons learned in the standoff with the Soviets- be taught by another JFK, to another generation?

WHEN THE JACKASS CULTURE MEETS THE MIDEAST

 The Providence Journal: May 28, 2004

Mr. President, you've lost Howard Stern." Is it possible that this conversation has taken place in the White House among Karl Rove, George Bush and Republican media pop-culture guru Mark McKinnon? Don't be so sure it hasn't.

In 1968, President Johnson famously lost the support of CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite, which Johnson surmised meant the heartland of America, and, as protest against the Vietnam War mounted, he eventually decided not to run for re-election. Thirty-five years later, it's Stern, and the MTV Jackass generation he represents, that may pull down a president.

For the past several months, Stern has openly challenged the "evangelical" Bush administration and the Federal Communications Commission during his radio program. He is upset over their enforcement of the obscenity laws against him, and resulting heavy fines. As the Republicans gear up for a convention in Stern's home base, New York City, he is stirring the pot to ensure that all does not go well in August and, most important, on Election Day.

He has had success before. In 1994, New York Gov. Mario Cuomo was upset by little-known George Pataki, and to this day many political experts in Gotham swear it was the daily radio support of "Fartman," a.k.a. Howard Stern, that made the difference.

The prison pictures from Abu Ghraib seem inspired from a skit on the MTV program Jackass, or something that one might come across in the morning listening to the impressively vulgar Howard Stern, the self-proclaimed "King of all Media." Stern has been on the air for more than 20 years behaving badly toward women and others, and has one of the largest syndicated radio audiences in America. He is paid $18 million dollars a year.

In fact, Infinity Radio Networks is part of the same company as MTV and CBS News--Viacom. There are an estimated 9 million listeners on Howard's own private heartless heartland, now part of the fabric of our society.

So we shouldn't be so suprised by what 21-year old Pfc. Lynndie England did on prison-guard duty in Iraq. It's reflective of our Jackass culture. Perhaps before her departure to the Third World country of Iraq she saw Kill Bill, Volume II, or rented the movie Pulp Fiction and was inspired by the "visionary" director Quentin Tarantino.

It is okay if Tarantino gets another Palme d' Or award from the French for film making, but we are shocked, shocked!, that this kind of thing could be done by American troops. After all, with an average salary of $17,000 a year (plus clothing and many other expenses), they are supposed to behave better than civilians.

For a more accurate read on current troop character and morale, check out the popular T-shirts that reservists are prominently wearing as they fly home from Iraq for leave. The shirt says "Army Reserve" on the front, and on the back "One Weekend a Month My Ass!"

If the War on Terror is a clash of civilizations, it is Stone Age versus Jackass Age. In one corner Pfc. Dominatrix with a lit cigarette, and in another five men in black masks and a beheading.

PRESIDENT'S MALE PERFORMANCE ANXIETY

The Providence Journal: April 20, 2004

Perhaps the defining statement of the Bush administration was revealed to the nation during the televised 9/11 commission hearings. Did the government "know what it knew?"

To be "fair and balanced" (just like the clumsy journalism of the Fox News Channel), many conservatives would say that the Clinton years were defined by his phrase "That depends what 'is' is."

President Bush's prime-time press conference (definitely not must-see TV) last Tuesday was an exercise in male performance anxiety-over whether or not the president can say that he knows what he knew. Maybe it wasn't a good time of night for Bush; 8:30 is close to bedtime for this president. Did a late-afternoon cup of caffeine cause him to blow a head gasket?

Whatever it was, there hasn't been a more shaky public appearance in Washington since Clarence Thomas spoke of pubic hairs on Coke cans during the Anita Hill hearings. In the wake of Bush's bumbling, grammar-challenged Q&A-meant to reassure a nation at war-Democrats are convinced he's an idiot. Nervous Republicans hope that he is just a poor public speaker. Can he speak? Does he know what he knew? Is he new to knowing things?

The one question that seemed to cause a moment of introspection (and then it was gone!) was whether he thought he'd done a good job communicating. Good thing the setting was the ultra-formal East Room of the White House. No one dared burst out laughing.

If there's one question that was answered at this-only his third prime-time-press conference, it's that the emperor has no clothes when it comes to public speaking.

Don't expect to see the emperor-president in another setting like this until after the election is safely stolen/won. However, do expect to see a lot of the vacant- sounding president in his airy political advertising campaign.

It began in early March, and will cost $60 million by the end of August. Much ado has been made of the cost of the ubiquitous television spots, but by comparison Pfizer spends more in a year on advertising for Viagra ($89 million). Certainly the presidency of the United States is as important as the campaigns "Stay in the game" (Levitra) and "If a relaxing moment turns into the right moment" (Cialis). All of the advertising campaigns for "male- performance" drugs seem conspicuously like the Bush presidential ads, and not just in budget and ubiquity.

Both show vague slow-motion images of a vacant-looking man striding confidently about with soothing music underneath. The man is satisfied, but we don't really know why: "Bob, did you get a new haircut?" Bush, whether at a press conference or in one of his "infomercials", uses vague generalized themes and cliches to express that he is confident and satisfied that he knows what he knew. He just can't say precisely why-wink, wink.

At the end of the Cialis "male performance" commercial, in which a naked man and woman sit in separate bathtubs atop a mountain (okay, okay, I think I know what's going on here!), there is a faint disclaimer, "Not studied for multiple attempts per dose", and a quick mention that "men who experience prapism (persistent painful erections-I looked it up) should seek immediate medical attention" (Perhaps the women should, too!).

Alas, there are no such disclaimers for political advertising-only the dorky tag line "I'm George Bush and  I approved this ad."

Well, at least he knows who he is, even if he can't say whether he knows what he knew.

COULD NADER SEDUCE REPUBLICAN VOTERS?

The Providence Phoenix: March 25, 2004

Ralph Nader makes political people nervous. His acid, expressionless growls on Meet the Press several weeks ago are causing anxiety and performance issues. In the 2000 election, his appeal weakened Democratic support so that the party didn't deliver all that it was supposed to.
Determined Democrats are trying to reset the mood early in the 2004 presidential election, blaming Nader for their past inability to concentrate and stick together behind one candidate. Angry Democrats have been falling in line (sorry, not love) behind John Kerry, and it seems likely there won't be as many Nader defections this time around. The possible candidate of the Reform Party has told the Democrats and independents inasmuch, to "relax and rejoice" (it's a Cialis moment), because, it's the Republican Party that may have performance issues in November.

While certain aspects of the Republican electoral base are fine (evangelicals, military, business), there may be problems upstairs, in the conservative head. Many registered Republicans are not in the mood this time around. It's been four years, and there are so many issues! Massive deficits, nation-building and the largest increase ever in medical entitlements are a turnoff for true lovers of limited-government. According to Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese, "There is no question we will get more Republican votes this time around." Zeese also cites disaffection for Bush (okay, he said disaffected) among McCain Republicans (for slights in South Carolina,) Rockefeller Republicans in New England (over spurned Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords,) and Libertarian Republicans (scoldings on drugs and taxes).

The Republicans and Democrats like to say that Ralph Nader is unelectable, and more than just a little unusual. For instance, he has never been married (how can he feel our pain?). Zeese gleefully points out that "half the country is single," and while Nader did break up his last political marriage with the Green Party, he now flirts with the Reform Party. He hopes it is serious.

The Nader camp points out that one-third of all voters in America are registered as independents (swinger,er, swing votes), and that the Bush administration also turns off many in this group. They don't like his position on civil liberties, corporate welfare-which undermines capitalism-and jobs going overseas. And not for nothing, but there are three million Arab Americans in the United States (some possibly too scared to vote), but if they do, they really don't like secret military trials and pro Israeli policies. Nader is a long shot for sure. For the next eight months, he will try to use his Howard Roarkish charm to convince independents that the Democratic Party is complicit with the Republicans, but he may attract more Republicans this time around.

Does Ralph Nader have the drive and stamina to attract one-third of the vote, forcing a three-way with the Democrats and Republicans this fall? Better call the Supreme Court and get some Levitra.

BOOSTING BUSINESS AFTER A PRIMP PARADE

The Providence Journal: February 2004

I guess it was too much to ask someone to please say something of note Sunday night at the 76^th Academy Awards ceremony. After all, with over a billion people watching it live on television, it may be the largest collective experience of humankind.

If an actor is truly an artist, can he give an acceptance speech and speak poetically or with symbolism? How about an allegory or two?

Unfortunately, our actors are being perverted into business people.

For the last several years, the most exciting moment in television has turned into the most boring. “And the Academy Award goes to…” is followed by a rote cover-your-rear listing of agents, managers and studio chiefs, whom no one has ever heard of. Who!? What!? With advertisers paying $1.5 million per 30-second commercial, it’s not surprising that the winning actors are spending their 30 seconds with all-the-world-a-stage doing business to ensure the next project. “And I couldn’t accept this without thanking the casting agent.”

If Ralph Nader was watching the Academy Awards (and what man of the people wouldn’t be?), he was no doubt certain that the kind of creeping corporate control that he so acidly cited on Meet The Press has taken over Hollywood, as well as Washington. Meryl Streep, a woman of integrity and the finest actress of her generation, was reduced at the recent Golden Globes ceremony to a sheepish criticism of President Bush’s federal policy on marriage—her agent presumably wincing in the wings.

Saying what you believe in is bad for business.

Politicians and celebrities used to be like two ships passing in the night, except that now they are converging into one Master and Commander. The Democrats of Hollywood are suddenly afraid to say anything. Sen. John Kerry embodies this in politics. The Oscars were moved up in schedule to accommodate a longer summer season of loud action movies that have little to say—just as the primary season has been moved up so that the Democratic candidate with nothing new to say has a longer time to, er, say it in the post-primary season.

Politicians now want to be entertainment celebrities, and vice versa, but increasingly no one will take a principled stand on anything. The publicity of a political race is just a precursor for hosting Saturday Night Live (Al Sharpton), and movie and television promotion is simply what’s necessary for political power (see Terminator).

The most interesting part of the Academy Awards is the red-carpet arrivals an hour beforehand, hosted by the ever-toxic Joan Rivers. The primp parade of diamonds and silicone is a straight quid pro quo between the designers and the actors—a hint of what’s to come in the acceptance “speeches.” So far, only Rivers has openly thanked her plastic surgeon. For the others, it’s a straight-faced “Hello, this is Chanel. I’m Nicole Kidman wearing it, and now I own it.”

Does all of this crass deal making at the Academy Awards really need to be so front and center? There’s a reason that the credits of a film used to run at the back of the movie. Maybe the awards have been affected by entertainment’s hottest new force, “The Donald,” a businessman. With his hit TV show, The Apprentice, Donald Trump is finally publicly affirmed as the cat’s meow he knew he always was. Last week there was an unsmiling picture of him on the cover of Newsweek—perhaps firing someone, presumably exercising one of his seven rules of success (which read like the seven deadly sins).

The Apprentice is captivating in part because it raises the curtain on what happens behind the scenes in business. It isn’t pretty. There are certainly no rules, and principles are tossed around like offshore shell corporations. Trump’s fourth principle of success is “I love pitting people against each other. My whole life is based on that.” His seventh principle is “You must work well with others and be loyal to your team.” Is this incongruous? Can you be for the war and against it?

Trump is a Frankenstein creation—businessman, politician and actor. A prototype. Expect to see The Donald and his hairdo on the red carpet at next year’s Oscars, talking up luxury condo sales.

AMERICA'S RISING TIDE OF POLITICAL HATRED

The Providence Journal: September 2004

The Political bumper stickers are getting nasty. Think you’re above it? Ask yourself a question. If you’re a Volvo-driving Democrat, does a pro-Bush bumper sticker make you want to ram your car into the back of the SUV-driving-Republican? (Don’t – there’s probably a trailer hitch.) If you’re a Republican, does your blood start to boil when you’re behind a car that says, “Let’s not elect Bush again in ‘04” or “I voted with the majority”? (Note: Volvos come out of crashes better than SUVs.)

Howard Dean was out for blood (or maybe just a car crash) when he gave his speech after the Iowa caucuses. The crescendo of his tirade was a primal screech to “Go to Washington, D.C., and take back the White House!” His anger wasn’t directed toward fellow Democratic candidates John Kerry or John Edwards. He rolled up his sleeves to symbolically take aim at George Bush—without the title “President”.

In this molten election year, there will be no quaint Bob Dole promise to refer to the president as “President”, as Dole did with Clinton.

The political process to elect the next president is already beyond debate (see the Fox News Channel for the last three years). What is simmering is a hateful confrontation, perhaps at this summer’s political conventions, in New York and Boston.

All of a sudden, the United States doesn’t seem that united anymore. The one remaining global superpower may be on the verge of turning on itself. It’s not enough that the rest of the world is sniping at America over military and trade issues; there’s a social implosion looming over the widening divide between Democrats and Republicans.

There seem to be two fundamentally different types of people in America: those who principally believe in a big, activist government and those who believe in a smaller, limited one. It’s not exactly civil war—yet—but things are getting very uncivil, almost 150 years after the worst conflict this country has ever had.

The movie Cold Mountain in will come into sharp national focus in the next month at the Academy Awards ceremonies. Actors will no doubt make political comment during their acceptance speeches and in interviews. But how much attention will be on the searing hatred depicted in the civil war film between the North and the South? Could anything like this happen again?

The issue then is the issue now: one philosophy of government versus another.

Six generations after the civil war the country is still divided, now between two political parties. Maybe its asking too much for political compromise to continue.

It’s not just the war in Iraq. It’s the last 10 very political years. Perhaps the compromises both parties have made have perverted the ideals of their philosophies. The Republicans have become big spenders and nation builders, and the Democrats have put an end to welfare and are concerned about an expanding government. Elected officials vote party instead of conscience, power instead of principle, and politics instead of people.

Is it the road to riches or ruin? The United States may one day become ungovernable. Already, it holds 40 percent of the world’s debt, which is a real concern now among global financial institutions.

The current president, a Republican, often lives on an isolated Texas ranch, seeming to send the message “Stay off my property or I’ll shoot.” The last president, a Democrat, has his office in New York City’s Harlem—but he’s rarely there; it’s just for show.

The president’s couldn’t be more different, but both seem to bring out the worst in the other side. Together, they represent a rising tide of hatred of the other, with the help of conservative and liberal radio programs and fight-to-the-death cable news channels.

How intolerant are we becoming? Ask yourself: How many friends do I have with a different political viewpoint than mine? How long can I drive behind that bumpersticker without blowing my stack? How many people would willingly divide the country into The East United States (for Democrats) and The West United States (for Republicans)?

Right down the middle.

It might be the one thing both sides can agree on.

IT'S A GLIB, GLIB WORLD

The Providence Journal; November 9, 2002

It's a glib, glib world we live in today. It used to be a mad, mad world, but that was before the era of 500 television channels and TV Nation. Now the world is more glib than mad. In particular, the realms of business, politics, religion and media are in the grip of an era of glibness like no other.

At the apex of the business world, the former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Arthur Levitt, goes on CNBC and offhandedly says that there has been basically no effective regulation of the stock market for the past decade, maybe two decades.

In London, George Bush was recently the first U.S. president to be honored in a state visit (as defined by officials at Buckingham Palace.) Did he do it to coincide with the British move Love, Actually, which features a visit by a U.S. president to Hugh Grant, the British prime minister? Glib, glib, glib!

Seriously, though, the president has made significant changes in the Iraq foreign policy. We're not being glib, here folks; this is weighty stuff! After all that business about staying the course, and that we're in it for the long haul, to establish democracy in the Mideast and root out terrorism it's round'em up-it's pullin'-out time!

It turns out that our president is clinically impromptu, just like the rest of us glibbers. Who can bother with depth and substance in an election year sure to be filled with the images of U.S. troops being dragged through the streets of Baghdad? Condoleezza Rice is suddenly in charge of a quick transition from dictatorship to democracy. Great: First the war went too easy, which meant that the transition period was on us too fast, and now the third glib stage-to be marked by little or no forethought-will be an early withdrawal.

Meanwhile, the citizens of TV Nation click from foreign to domestic affairs, and back and forth again, with multiple picture-in-picture televisions. They're so affordable they're in every room in the house! TV Nation watches Dist. Atty. Thomas Sneddon make jokes in the Michael Jackson case, and then be scolded by the defense lawyer in the Scott Peterson case, Mark Geragos, who is so glib that he's also representing Michael Jackson. MSNBC can't be far away from rolling out Live! The Mark Geragos Show. He'll have an exclusive interview with himself.

As the cultures of the world collide in this, the age of information and mass communication, the glib quotient keeps going up. The gay bishop in New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, has to worry not only about how his local "Live Fee or Die" flock feels, but also about the feelings of his Southern conservative contemporaries, to say nothing of the opinion of the archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola. How can "All politics is local" be true anymore in this overly connected world? From now on it's "All politics is international," and so Bishop Robinson is forced to play a glib hand and join the rest of us by making his case to the world, stopping to make it as generalized and superficial as possible, so as to please all parties from the Third World, Old and New Europe, the Stone Age, etc.

Are we to become a country of compartmentalizers? Parceling one glib bit of information next to and on top of another, and parsing our words to slip around the true meaning of what we're thinking? Well, in the words of our former glib commander in chief, Bill Clinton: "That depends what is is."