A Little Summer Reading

A post of things I've been reading of late for those long summer afternoons when you've got nothing to do, but don't want to turn on the TV because there are no sports to watch and you're already caught up on Making the Band 4 and you don't want to go outside because it's too freaking hot (ESPN Radio's Colin Cowherd was in Fresno last weekend for the local ESPY's and in recounting his experiences here on his show today he quipped something to the effect of "Fresno was great, but it was hot. It was so hot on Friday Jerry Tarkanian said it was too hot to illegally contact a recruit").
So, with said, I present you a full smorgasbord of this and that to munch on, most of it excerpted, because this post would've ended up longer and more ungainly that it already is.

Families Outside the Spotlight Also Grieve
by Mary Sanchez, Kansas City Star
"...is a murder that reaches the every-hour-on-the-hour status of CNN truly more of a loss? What if your child’s death is the one noted with a paragraph in the newspaper while another child’s mother is inundated with strangers offering comfort and financial support after reading a front-page story...Reporters and editors are often pressed to explain the varying degrees of coverage when murders occur. And they should continue to answer the questions. Because often the disparity cannot be justified except for convoluted explanations that do nothing to soothe the emotions of families left feeling that their loved ones are less worthy..."

Sometimes Our Suspicions Are Unfounded
Leonard Pitts Jr., Miami Herald
"My wife and I have a running joke. Say the doctor informs me he's going to administer some test that will hurt like heck. When he leaves the room, I whisper to Marilyn, ``You know why he's doing it, don't you? It's because I'm black.''
It is, of course, a joke with a point. Namely, that some black folks can read race into anything. Some of us keep indignation in our hip pockets and conspiracy on speed dial. But we'll get back to Isaiah Washington in a moment.

First, the obvious disclaimer: I am not saying race is never the reason bad things happen. Au contraire. One often gets pulled over because one is black. One often gets substandard healthcare because one is black. One often fails to get the job because one is black. Worse, because those in charge of pulling people over, giving healthcare or making hiring decisions are seldom clear and candid that race is their reason, it's easy to become paranoid, to believe everything is race until proven otherwise. So to be African American is often to walk a tightrope above a snake pit of suspicions, both founded and un."

Which brings us to two truths that may seem contradictory but aren't:
1) There is epidemic racism in this country.
2) You can find racism where it does not exist.

Forgive me, but [Isaiah] Washington seems far more illustrative of the second axiom than the first. For what it's worth, the creator and producer of Grey's is a black woman, Shonda Rhimes. And Washington is, by his own admission, a temperamental actor who used a hurtful word toward a colleague. Yet he thinks he was fired because he is black.

He -- like many of us, black and otherwise -- seems knee jerk where race is concerned. I mean is it so hard to believe people feared him because they thought he was a volatile jerk? Or that a white actor of middling fame who disrupted his workplace would have also been fired? In his rush to make himself a martyr, Washington fails to consider these and other obvious questions. He comes across as one of those brothers the running joke is meant to mock -- the kind for whom race is a get-out-of-jail-free card. Unfortunately, like the boy who cried wolf, such people trivialize what is serious and give others license to do the same.

The Cost of Failure
Cal Thomas, Syndicated Columnist
If you believe the Bush presidency is a failure, what then? Do you delight in whacking him like a piñata for the next 18 months with your only objective a Democratic blowout victory in the 2008 election? If that is your strategy, do you ask yourself what kind of country a Democratic president will inherit and whether he (or she) will have the ability to quickly turn things around after months of pummeling a weakened president?

Politics has always been a contact sport, but in the past - even during difficult times - there were those who transcended partisanship, putting the country first. In her book "Team of Rivals," Doris Kearns Goodwin writes of how Abraham Lincoln brought his severest critics into his administration to work with him, not against him, for the promotion of the general welfare. This is a foreign notion in our day of 24/7 cable news, talk radio, fundraisers and polarizers. These exist and profit from stirring the pot, never achieving harmony or consensus. Each has a vested financial, political and career interest in division, not unity. A fundraiser once told me he can't raise money by sending out letters stressing positive achievements, only negative threats. And thus, the cynicism deepens.

Leadership is something that is conveyed by the people, not imposed by the leader. If people trust you, they are willing to be led. If they don't, they rebel at your sense of direction, or they conclude you have lost your way. That is the conclusion an overwhelming majority of Americans - including many Bush voters and former supporters - have reached concerning this president and his presidency.

The president should name a panel of prominent Democrats and Republicans to help him during the next 18 months. That assistance would not be for the purpose of making him look better, but for tackling difficult problems that partisanship has not solved. He might call it "Americans United," or some other high-minded name that would elevate dialogue beyond the reach of partisan dividers. Didn't he say once that he is "a uniter, not a divider"? This could help him prove it.

Sadr-Maliki rift grows
BBC News
Iraqi Shia leaders linked to the radical cleric, Moqtada Sadr, have attacked their former government ally, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki. They accused Mr Maliki of bowing to US demands and sanctioning US attacks on Mr Sadr's Mehdi Army militia. Mr Maliki has said the militia must purge its ranks of criminals. Dozens of people have died in recent fighting between Iraqi forces and Mehdi Army militiamen, amid signs of a growing rift between the Shia groups.

In April, six cabinet ministers loyal to Mr Sadr quit their posts in protest at the government's refusal to demand a deadline for the withdrawal of US troops. Support from Mr Sadr's bloc was critical to securing Mr Maliki's appointment as prime minister last year. The Mehdi Army militia and its allies within the fledgling Iraqi security forces have been accused of operating sectarian death squads, targeting Iraqi Sunnis. The militia's stronghold of Sadr City, a vast slum in eastern Baghdad, was the focus of a major US military operation in late June.

On Saturday, Mr Maliki said the Mehdi Army had been infiltrated by criminals and by members of the Baath Party of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Mr Sadr's supporters said Mr Maliki's comments effectively gave US forces a "green light" to attack the Mehdi Army militia. According to [Sadr aide, Sheik Ahmed] al-Shaibani, Mr Maliki's comments indicated he was ready to implement the US agenda of "ending the Mehdi Army militarily and politically".

Moral Relativism & A Mighty Heart & July 4 (that title is all for one post)
Jim Emerson, scanners movie blog, editor of rogerebert.com
"...that is what "professional obscurers of moral clarity" do -- usually in the name of moral clarity. They distort, spin, and obfuscate. They propagandize. They exploit the blunders of their enemies. And they claim a monopoly on victimhood. Any casualties they cause on the other side -- whether it's the people on those planes or in those buildings on 9/11, or the random innocents who were also sent to Guantánamo -- are incidental. These propagandists are among the extremists who help ratchet up the levels of violence because they see only themselves as victims and consider everyone else an enemy combatant and therefore fair game.

To acknowledge that there are victims and extremists on either side is not to play into the enemy's hands, no matter how they may try to spin it, because then they are forced to acknowledge the same thing. What serves the enemy is behaving in ways that appear to give weight to their propaganda, by far the most powerful weapon in any war. Suicide bombers, by definition, destroy themselves along with their victims. And because of that, they are doomed to lose. The West's challenge is to avoid helping to create more suicide bombers by acting in ways that appear to lend credence to their feelings of paranoia, humiliation, and victimhood.

...the whole "War on Terror" concept, and particularly the inept invasion and occupation of Iraq it was used to justify, is precisely what Al Qaeda wanted: to create the perception of a war between the West and Islam. It's been a worldwide recruiting drive for Al Quaeda and other ideological camps seeking to convert Muslims to terrorism. [Director Michael] Winterbottom is quite specific about the similarities he sees between the stories of his two movies [The Road to Guantanamo and A Mighty Heart], and nowhere do I see him implying that the murder of Daniel Pearl and the secretive detainments at Guantánamo are equivalent. What he's saying, I think, is more like "two wrongs don't make a right" -- that, in war, victims are victims and aggressors are aggressors. No moral relativism there. Just a fact. Judea Pearl's son was savagely murdered, and nothing can rationalize or excuse that fact. Now, how do you explain to an Iraqi husband or father that the death of his children, wife or parents is less morally significant because they were accidental collateral damage?

Back when John McCain still appeared to have something of a moral compass, he criticized the inflammatory and ineffective Bush policies that allowed or encouraged "extreme interrogation methods" or "abuse" or "torture" (depending on whose PC term you want to invoke) by saying: "It's not about who they are. It's about who we are."

That is not "moral relativism." That is "moral clarity." We can't control who "they" are. We can only control who we are.


finally, and, arguably, most importantly:
Dan Patrick Leaving ESPN
Patrick, who has been with the network for 18 years, announced on his radio show Monday that he will appear on air for the last time Aug. 17. Norby Williamson, ESPN executive vice president for production, made a simultaneous announcement.
The final week of Patrick's radio show, which started in 1999, will include a look back at memorable moments, interviews and guests.
"If there was animosity, I wouldn't be doing any radio shows after today," Patrick said on his show, adding, "I hope to be doing radio somewhere, somehow, down the road."
In a news release, Patrick said: "I feel privileged to have had this opportunity and I have extremely mixed emotions about leaving. With that said, I told ESPN that I believe it's time for me to try something different, something that will also be challenging and rewarding. While I'm not sure what that will be, I am grateful to ESPN for its willingness to allow me to pursue new endeavors."