It was very interesting to see Bruno Schulz make the front page of the New York Times this week. And fascinating to see how delicately the Times dealt with his story.
title>Needs Headline
As you probably know, Schulz was a Polish Jewish art teacher, artist and author (The Street of Crocodiles, The Sanatorium Under the Sign of the Hourglass). When the Nazis occupied his town of Drogobych, he became a kind of art-slave to a Gestapo officer named Landau, who bragged of keeping his own personal Jew alive on bread and soup. One night in 1942, Schulz was shot dead on the street by another Gestapo officer who had some sort of rivalry going with Landau.
Schulz is suddenly in the news because in May some fairytale-inspired murals he'd painted on the walls of Landau's son's nursery were removed from the Gestapo officer's former house in Drogobych (called "Villa Landau" since the war) and sent to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum in Israel. Poles are complaining that Schulz is a Polish national treasure, and that removing the murals amounts to an act of vandalism. Israel, of course, claims Schulz as a Jew and Holocaust victim. Further complicating matters, Drogobych wound up in Ukraine when borders were redrawn at the end of the war. Ukrainian officials deny giving Yad Vashem permission to take the murals. Drogobych's tiny community of Jews are also complaining that they would've preferred that the murals remain with them.
Ironically, the only constituency not heard from in this controversy?and totally unmentioned in the long Times piece?might have been the one Schulz himself would've felt closest to: connoisseurs of s&m erotica. Schulz was a sexual submissive and masochist, and his erotic s&m artworks?portraying himself as a lady's dog, a lady's footstool, etc.?are highly prized by fans of such things worldwide (as indeed they were by Landau). It's a side of Schulz downplayed by the caretakers of his official legacy, who understandably prefer to have him remembered as a great author and tragic Holocaust figure rather than a groveling perv. Still, it's a large and not exactly hidden aspect of the artist's work, and you'd think that in such a long article the Times might have at least mentioned it in passing.
(6/22)
[Writing on today's Salon,] she tells us:
"Five years ago, I suffered from a nasty case of postpartum depression after the birth of my second child. This is different from postpartum psychosis, which Yates most likely has, but only by degrees. I didn't hear voices or speak in tongues or plan to kill my baby. I didn't have a psychotic break, where a demon possessed my mind and made me do the unthinkable."
So why is Resnick playing the authority on Yates? Yates most probably does have postpartum psychosis; Resnick didn't. And Yates no doubt suffered a psychic break; Resnick didn't. It would be unsurprising if Yates hadn't heard "demon" voices?it would take that much to urge one to methodically exterminate one's five children, don't you think??whereas Resnick had a fleeting thought of putting her child in a hot oven, which she quickly quelled.
Resnick had the wherewithal to restrain herself because she was "blessed," because what was causing her erratic behavior was "completely curable": she took some medicine and got better. "Andrea Yates wasn't blessed," Resnick notes. "...She killed her beloved babies. Her brain betrayed her in the most horrific way possible."
No doubt Resnick went through a very difficult ordeal after the birth of her child, something that those who've never experienced postpartum depression can't imagine. But to take Yates' condition?one that is so much more serious than what Resnick suffered that it's got a different name; that affects, as Resnick notes herself, just "1 percent of new mothers"?as a point of comparison, as an opportunity to present herself as someone who can "relate," is just unseemly.
(6/22)
A buddy of mine, in an e-mail this morning, wasn't nearly so cavalier. He wrote: "The choice of Collins is a not particularly funny joke. On the one hand, it does make it impossible for the Times to criticize Bush administration appointments, since her ascension is such an incredible embarrassment that it can never be lived down. On the other hand, it makes Howell Raines the de facto editor of the paper and the editorial pages. Which is really bad news."
But the war was already over.
Consider three of the Times' editorials today, all of which could have been written by Barney Frank or Mark Green. ["A New Tax-Cut Rampage"] is notable for its remarkably juvenile tone. It begins: "After passing an unfair and unaffordable tax cut last month, Congress ought to have gotten tax cuts out of its system for a while. But now, with White House encouragement, Republican leaders are talking about enacting yet another round of tax bills that would use up what little is left of the federal surplus over the next 10 years, squandering any chance at all of doing more for health, education and the environment."
Granted, the very word "environment" is now holy, since Democrats believe that it's their ticket to a complete takeover of Congress in 2002. We'll see. But it's laughable that the Times would characterize the tax cut as "unfair," like a little kid who's ticked off because he got picked last for dodgeball. (Oops, sorry Nation-subscribers.) "Ill-advised" or "questionable" is a more appropriate description of legislation that the paper opposes. Also, since Democrats completely gutted Bush's education bill, loading it up with more spending while quashing much-needed vouchers, you'd think the Times would accept that Pretty Boy Floyd heist with grace. And let's praise senators like Phil Gramm who are pushing for capital-gains tax reductions, an immediate economic stimulus that would lead to more jobs.
In ["Undermining the Tobacco Case,"] the Times blasts the Bush administration, which is trying to settle the suit against tobacco companies, for "putting the interests of industrial campaign backers before its duty to protect public health." First, Bill Clinton initiated this jackpot for trial lawyers back in '99; Bush's Justice Dept. never would've sought the litigation. Same goes for the unconscionable persecution of Microsoft, another suit one hopes will vanish shortly.
Finally, in [endorsing Bob Franks over Bret Schundler in next Tuesday's GOP gubernatorial primary in New Jersey,] the Times sides with the corrupt politics of that state, which has attempted to derail the principled (and conservative) Schundler at every turn. (For a complete rundown of the race, go to John Fund's op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal.) It's thought that Franks, a mushy centrist in the Lincoln Chafee mold, will stand a better chance of defeating Democratic nominee James McGreevey this November. The Times' endorsement of McGreevey is already in the bag, so why the editors even bothered to recommend Franks is a little fishy.
My suspicion is that Schundler's recent surge in the polls scares the daylights out of Raines and Sulzberger, who may now be thinking that an ideological candidate (not unlike Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum) could beat the odds and best McGreevey. And you know what that means: If Jersey's Democratic Sen. Robert Torricelli is forced to resign, a Republican will be named in his stead, tipping control of the Senate back to the GOP. (One puzzle is that it's the Times that has rammed Torricelli the hardest; without its investigation, the rest of the media wouldn't have followed suit. I still think it's because Sulzberger and Raines don't like Italians who wear flashy clothes and date celebrities like Bianca Jagger.)
Back to Collins. Her [ "Public Interests"] column today, lampooning the tax rebate, was typical in its whipped-cream content. She writes: "Only about a month left until we get our $300 rebate checks from the federal government. Everybody's a winner! I just want to say right here and now that I don't intend to quit my job, although I do hope to buy my parents a new house and perhaps travel."
Who said Art Buchwald was passe?
My main question is who will inherit Collins' op-ed slot. Ten years ago, you could have a reasonable discussion about the possibilities, figuring the Times might want to improve its pages by tapping an independent-thinking pundit like Mickey Kaus or Nat Hentoff. But those days are over: Come September, look for Sean Wilentz, Todd Gitlin or Joe Conason.
(6/22)
Now, for reasons I can only guess have something to do with the salacious thrill of seeing a celebrity get taken down a notch?we're talking Princess Diana territory here?the German press is suing to get a look at the files. To do this, they're calling Witt a Communist beneficiary, pointing to the cars the state gave her and her mother (even though she only saw $750,000 of the $4 million she made in 1988) and?this is the part that really irks me?accusing her of being a Stasi informant. "She already revealed some of the juiciest stuff in the files in her [1994] autobiography and, unlike here, people in Germany don't care who you slept with and when," John Koehler told the Post. "My feeling is, if you have a clean vest, go ahead and show it."
Koehler, Reagan director of communications and author of Stasi: The Untold Story of the East German Secret Police, believes in full disclosure. A former East German citizen, Koehler obtained stolen Stasi files on Reagan and presented them to him for his 81st birthday. Now he wants Witt to show the world photographs of herself on the toilet.
If we buy the idea that every situation should be dealt with in the same way?in this case, allowing unrestricted access to information?that there is a right way to deal with every situation regardless of the particulars of the case?a chillingly Kantian conception of morality?then we find ourselves acting immorally to service abstract concepts of morality. Belief in the freedom of information is one thing, but why should Witt disclose everything in order to prove, well, what? That she's not Stasi?
And what if she was? Koehler makes the point in his book that the Stasi was an insidious organization that forced spouses, family and friends to spy on one another in the truly incredible ratio of one operative for every 6.5 people. So why is it necessary to humiliate Witt in order for her to prove her innocence, and why should Koehler need to use Witt as yet another example of the fact that Stasi had most of East Germany in its pocket?
If it does come out that Witt indeed gave some information to the police, just imagine how quickly the media would turn on her?"WITT WAS A SPY" headlines everywhere?without understanding the particular climate of East Germany in the 80s. She'd never recover from it, not to mention that every mundane activity of most of her life would be exposed to public scrutiny. Of all people, Koehler?who fled his hometown of Dresden in 1944 to escape the Nazis?should be more empathetic. But he's so wrapped up in his crusade against the Stasi, so vigilant in his belief that The Truth Is Out There, that he's willing to ruin someone's life. That is far worse than a little well-intentioned obfuscation.
(6/22)
Sort of.
The new exhibit on display at the Trop's Grand Exhibition Center is called [Torture Through the Ages.] As the press release describes it:
From the Spanish Inquisition, when thousands were tortured and killed under the most barbaric of interrogation practices, to the atrocities of the Holocaust, and the more recent persecution of prisoners, the exhibit reveals a disturbing side of human behavior.
Woo-hoo!
The release goes on to claim, "The apparent disregard for the pain and suffering of another human being is perhaps the most bewildering aspect of the exhibit."
You know, I think I might beg to differ with that. I think the most bewildering aspect of the exhibit would be something along the lines of, "Say, why in the hell is this at a casino in Atlantic City?"
Then again, as my girlfriend surmised, perhaps the last display in the exhibit is just a big window overlooking the casino floor.
Funny thing is, though, visitors to the Tropicana this month have the choice of visiting the torture exhibit?or of going to see Dame Edna perform. And when you think about it that way, what's the difference?
(6/22)
The phrase's superficial loftiness obscures the fact that it's meaningless. (Which makes it perfect for both politicians and the media.) What is a "national conversation"? How does it work? Does it mean that I'm supposed to go door to door in my Brooklyn apartment building, engaging my fellow Americans in deep and respectful political debate? Is the citizenry supposed to pour forth into the streets during a "national conversation," each man pacing philosophically back and forth with his hand on his chin, pondering questions of statecraft, and occasionally pausing to run a thought past the nearest listener?
"Pardon me, citizen."
"Yes, citizen, what is it?"
"Well, hear me out on this one. I think I have this universal healthcare thing licked."
Presumably at this point a crowd forms, as around Socrates in the agora, and the citizen in question presents his idea to his fellow democrats, who then engage him in spirited debate about the details of his proposal.
Or maybe it means that Easterners line up all along the eastern bank of the Mississippi, and Westerners on the western bank, and converse loudly back and forth?en masse as that great democrat Whitman wrote?and, eventually, arrive at some solemn resolutions concerning the commonweal. (Maybe afterward they play a quick game of national dodgeball.) Obviously, a national conversation is really just a media monologue, with the anchors and the editorial pages announcing?and this is inevitably what emerges from a national conversation?a "consensus."
There's a smarmy sentimentality to the idea of a "national conversation." The phrase implies the existence of a robust, interactive species of local democracy?the democracy of politically engaged, pamphleteering urban artisans that characterized the Revolutionary era. But the same mass media and corporate government that announce "national conversations" have wiped out this sort of democracy in America. Read about "national conversations" in the Times and they usually involve Times reporters visiting Midwestern and Southern diners and ice cream shops, and photographing Middle Americans as they recite cliches. Maybe we shouldn't call them "national conversations" anymore. Maybe we should call them "American retirees sitting around in coffee shops reciting trite, media-generated political sentiments while hankering for pork rinds."
(6/22)
On June 20, Stoll identified [a significant mistake in Maureen Dowd's column] on Rep. Gary Condit and missing intern Chandra Levy. Ironically, it was one of the few coherent pieces Dowd has written this past year, even with the requisite film analogy included (this time it was Rear Window). For example, Dowd wrote: "[Condit's] Colgate smile and styled hair have earned him the nickname 'Mr. Blow-Dry' around the House. The wall behind the chair in the Modesto office, according to the L.A. Times, is a shrine to himself, with 8-by-12-inch portraits of himself posing by himself. He posed for the 'Hunks on the Hill' calendar and for Easyriders, a fleshy motorcycle magazine."
Dowd, in comparing Condit to Bill Clinton, erred when she said that the California Democrat voted in favor of impeachment proceedings against the former president. As Stoll noted?and the Times has yet to correct?Condit actually cast a "nay" vote on every article of impeachment back in 1998.
(6/21)
I read about it the other day in [The Washington Post.]
Yes: the other day. June 19. The Washington Post, evidently on complete Eastern Shore summertime autopilot, ran a stunningly behind-the-curve feature-length story on the Internet boom and bust, by Libby Copeland. The headline was "After the Gold Rush"?same one New York Press used for our feature on the same topic?last February. There was literally not one iota of new information in this piece. Not one speck of news you hadn't already read in countless other venues months and months ago. Adding insult to injury, besides being completely devoid of news the piece is a stylistic nightmare. You know you're in the hands of a true professional when she opens her article with "Once upon a time..." How can any story following that cliche be anything but a total waste of ink?
(6/21)
It's unfortunate that the candidate's upcoming blitz of television ads will most likely knock off Herman Badillo (another Democratic defector) in the Republican primary this September; Badillo is the class of the field and is the only man who might realistically defeat the expected Democratic nominee, the demagogue Mark Green. Obviously, Green would be the prohibitive favorite at the start of the November race, but he's choked repeatedly in his lifelong quest for meaningful office; in addition, the allure of Badillo becoming the city's first Hispanic mayor would have tremendous appeal to minority voters. (Freddie Ferrer is not nearly as qualified as Badillo, and is something of a clumsy operator, as evidenced by his being snookered by Sharpton into thinking he'd get an endorsement from the hunger-striker. Besides, Ferrer has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination.)
That said, even Bloomberg's naive campaign doesn't deserve the [distortions passed off as facts by Village Voice "Press Clips" columnist Cynthia Cotts.] In this week's issue she writes: "Consider one of Bloomberg's key selling points: He says he will govern in the tradition of Republican icon Rudy Giuliani. Everyone knows that Giuliani's great success was making the city a safer place, but he did so by depriving blacks and Latinos of their civil liberties?and the next mayor will be under pressure to restore the city to a gorgeous mosaic... Like Giuliani, [Bloomberg] promises to be 'tough on crime,' but we all know those are code words for protecting rich people at the expense of the poor."
A study of Cotts' work for the Voice reveals that facts are not her long suit, but this outright lie is irresponsible even by her low standards. The claim that Giuliani deprived blacks and Latinos of their civil liberties is absurd. Yes, the current mayor bungled the public relations end of several high-profile NYPD controversies?the death of Amadou Diallo being the most glaring example?but to state that Giuliani has unilaterally suspended the basic rights of blacks and Latinos is a fiction that probably wouldn't even pass muster with Rep. Charlie Rangel. As for the notion that only the "rich" have benefited from the dramatic drop in crime under Giuliani's tenure, perhaps Cotts hasn't lived in New York since 1993. Ask the vast majority of residents of various neighborhoods in Brooklyn, the Lower East Side, Harlem and Astoria, just for starters, if they're rich and they'd laugh in your face. Yet the quality of life has improved citywide.
Cotts wants a return to failed Mayor David Dinkins' "gorgeous mosaic," a disastrous four-year period where, for once, out-of-towners' warped vision of New York as a wasteland of drugs, violence and thuggish panhandlers was actually close to the truth. Even Democratic hacks like Green will refuse to join Cotts on a time-machine back to the early 90s.
(6/21)
When I first saw the headline ["Collins Named U.S. Poet Laureate,"] hell, I thought they meant either Jackie or Phil at first. Realizing that they weren't exactly American, I knew I shouldn't get my hopes up. Then I figured maybe it was Bootsy. Now that would give us some reason to care about what the poet laureate was up to.
But no, it was Billy. Billy Collins, American. He's even a local?teaching English up at Lehman College. And, according to the AP story, he's also incredibly popular. Well, you know?for a poet. For some reason, whenever I hear of a "popular poet," I immediately think of Candy's McPhisto.
Now, I have nothing against poetry. Or even some poets. But let's think about this. I've always been under the impression (though I'm sure the people at the Library of Congress would take issue with me) that the job was created in the first place in a vain attempt to prove to the rest of the world (especially those damned snooty Europeans!) that there was, in fact, much as the foreigners may scoff, such a thing as capital-C American Culture.
For a while there, I think we were doing okay, too. I think we were able to pull it off. ["U.S. Poet Laureate"] was a position first held in 1937 by Joseph Auslander. In later years it's been held by such luminaries as Robert Frost, Robert Penn Warren, Robert Lowell, Karl Shapiro, Howard Nemerov, Conrad Aiken and William Carlos Williams?all very respectable poets. Their work's profound but not too highfalutin, so regular folks could read some of it on one of those "Poetry in Motion" subway posters and not be all "Huh?"
In recent years, however, I think the job has lost some of its sheen. (Quick?recite a few lines by Mona Van Duyn or Robert Hass.) It's become less a matter of honoring the one poet who most richly captured the prevailing American spirit in verse than just another side project for some already-tenured English professor who happened to know somebody.
Here are a few lines from a poem Collins wrote about trying to drown out a barking dog by playing Beethoven really loud.
(6/21)
They write: "What most people fail to realize is that it isn't just smokers' rights that are being threatened. The targets include everything from what you can say, to what you can do, to what you can eat. (Think of animal-rights extremists if you want a glimpse of the future.) If any behavior or subject can be deemed offensive by even a small minority, they raise a clamor and often get their wish to have it abolished or prohibited. We live in the Land of the Free. But zealots are destroying those freedoms. What we've said before bears repeating: defend your rights now, or one day you'll discover that you don't have any left to defend."
(6/21)
"What could be more appropriate for this guy than ÔRudy'? He's sly, snaps at people who get too close and plays by his own rules..." wrote Jeff Strong, one of scores who responded to The Post's name-the-gator poll.
Tom Wyble of Wharton, N.J., said the gator would be a fitting namesake for the Rev. Al Sharpton, who's in prison, refusing to eat solid foods, to protest the Navy's bombing in Vieques.
"Alli Sharpteeth sounds good to me," Wyble said. "Just hope the gator stays on a hunger strike."
A bunch of really bored guys in Jersey, it seems, were responsible for most of the submissions--from "Meerly Looking" to "Termigator" to a whole slew of bad Ally McBeal puns.
Oh! How it went on!
In the meantime, the most fundamental of facts--facts that we citizens need to know--remain unreported! How big is this gator going to grow? Will it gobble up children and pets? Is it an albino alligator? Is it radioactive? Was it forced above-ground by the exploding C.H.U.D. population under the streets?
I'm not saying that there's no room for levity in the news--after all, that's why Channel 7 keeps Bill Beutel around--I'm just saying that if this thing is going to destroy us all, somehow, we, as New Yorkers, deserve more than the old "funny name" diversion.
(6/20)