Picture Perfect?

Last week we met with Louis Masur, professor of American Institutions and Values at Trinity College. He talked with us about the importance of photographs in our society, and how one picture can shift the beliefs and convictions of millions. Masur’s prime example of this was a photograph taken in 1976 of a white man attacking a black man with an American flag at a rally in Boston. The image is stunning, with the attacker about to spear the helpless man with the flag’s pole. Masur talked about how the photo not only sparked the interest of millions in America, but it also put into question the progress of race relations in our country.

This is just one of millions of pictures that have shaped American history, but sometimes the American government doesn’t want certain images to be seen. This is what is occurring right now, as President Obama is refusing to release images of Iraqi prisoners being humiliated or hurt by American soldiers. The President, who months earlier told the public that he would not withhold war photos like George Bush, changed his mind last week when government officials convinced him that the photos would be harmful to the soldiers and would not help the cause in Iraq. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are furious at Obama’s decision to withhold the photographs, saying the public has a right to see them and judge the pictures for themselves. This is not the first time in the Iraq War that controversial photos have surfaced. Five years ago at the Abu Ghraib prison, several photos were taken that showed soldiers physically and sexually abusing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners of war. The pictures caused a backlash against the military and put the cause of the war back into question. Now, as Obama seeks to conceal these new photos, Americans are wondering if the President could be accused of using the same tactics of lies and deceit as George Bush.

Back in 1971, the Supreme Court had to decide whether or not to release secret documents containing information about the Vietnam War. The court ruled that the documents should be released because the defense that “[people] could get hurt from the release of the papers” was not compelling enough proof. Obama is using that same defense to keep the photos under wraps, and officials think the courts will eventually make the same decision they did 38 years ago. “What Obama cites as dangers, a court might find mere speculation,” said an ACLU lawyer. And in the case of the Pentagon papers almost forty years ago, the papers were eventually published, but no soldiers or Americans were harmed. This legal precedent could hurt Obama’s chances of keeping the photos secret.

I don’t know if Masur with agree with Obama’s decision to withhold the photographs from the press. But what I am sure of is that Masur would tell Obama that the impact of these photos would extend far beyond the individuals who committed the crimes against the prisoners. Hatred would be directed toward the entire military force in Iraq for letting this atrocity happen. The Obama administration would be under pressure to explain why they had tried to cover them up, and Obama himself would take a lot of the heat. So would any good come out of releasing these photos? I believe the anger already associated with Iraq would only become more intense, and our country would be further divided—especially in view of Obama’s strong stand. Maybe this is one time an image could stir up more emotion and controversy than our country can handle, especially on the world stage. Maybe those images are best left alone.

The Real Ron Kovic

In “Born on the Fourth of July,” we witnessed Ron Kovic’s struggle to overcome his devastating injury in Vietnam. On January 20, 1968, Kovic was hit by a Viet Cong bullet that left him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life. Kovic fought to stay alive, and was eventually brought to a veteran’s hospital in the Bronx. The hospital was awful, with “rats on the ward, paralyzed men lying in their own excrement, pushing call buttons for aides who never came,” recalls Kovic. The Vietnam veteran and former Marine battled insomnia and anxiety attacks for years. The boy from Massapequa, Long Island, who wanted to fight for his country so badly found himself spiraling downward into deep depression. As Kovic puts it, “I don’t how I got through the day. It was terrible. It was almost impossible.”

But in 2006, almost forty years after that fateful day in Vietnam, Ron Kovic is a new man. He is still in a wheelchair, but he has a new outlook on life and his injury. Kovic is now an anti-war advocate, and in the article, “The Forgotten Wounded of Iraq,” he relates his own story to the experiences of soldiers injured in Iraq. Kovic talks about how, just like in the 1960’s, the government [under the Bush administration] is not spending enough time or money on veteran’s hospitals. Conditions are below health standards, but the government continues to cut back millions of dollars in funds for these facilities. Much of this money is being siphoned to create new weapons and war technology, so American soldiers will be able to kill and injure more people.

Kovic is on a mission to spread the word about injured Iraq War veterans, whom he believes are being censored out of the news by people who don’t want Americans to see what’s really happening to soldiers in Iraq. “The soldiers are returned to Dover Air Force Base in the darkness of night as [the Bush] administration continues to pursue a policy of censorship, tightly controlling the images…and rarely ever allowing the human cost of its policy to be seen,” he explains. Following his injury in Vietnam, Kovic felt used and betrayed by the government. Now, he wants to prevent young men and women from making the same mistake he did by revealing the truth about Iraq.

Kovic once woke up miserable every day because of his injury. But today, the veteran sees his condition as a “blessing in disguise.” Kovic explains that his wound gave him a new perspective on life and war, one that he never would have known had he gotten out of Vietnam unscathed. He believes it is now his duty to tell his story, showing what it really means to “sacrifice for your country.” He is an anti-war activist, and has spoken at such events as the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

A once bitter, angry man is now an inspiration to millions who believe that war is not the answer. As Kovic says: “We must break this cycle of violence and begin to move in a different direction; war is not the answer, violence is not the solution. A more peaceful world is possible.” Hopefully the new administration will listen. He’s been living that same message now for 40 years.

Starr Wars

Our first artifact in this unit included a handout with the lyrics of the song “War,” by Edwin Starr. The artifact described Starr as “the guy with the coolest voice ever.” I, like everyone else on the planet, have heard “War” many times on the radio and in movies. But I wanted to know more about the song: who wrote it, when was it written, and how did people react to such a hard-hitting, controversial song?

First written in 1969 by popular Motown songwriter and producer Norman Whitfield, “War” was a song of rebellion and protest against the United State’s seemingly useless war in Vietnam. It was not originally written for Starr. Instead, the song was created for the Temptations, one of Motown’s most popular singing groups. “War” was included on the album Psychedelic Shack, along with seven other songs. The anti-war tune was an instant hit, and fans clamored for it to be released as a single.

Whitfield fought to get Motown to listen to its fans and release the Temptations song as a single. But Motown said no. They worried that “War” was so hard-hitting and controversial, it could endanger the success of one of its most popular, profitable bands. Whitfield, however, kept fighting. Finally, another Motown singer, Edwin Starr, heard about the argument, and came up with an idea. He offered to re-record the song, giving Motown a less risky solution. At the time, Starr was a little-known black singer with a rough, vigorous singing style. The Temptations’ version of “War” had been done in a laid back, acoustic style. But Starr changed the song’s mood completely, turning it into a hard-driving, passionate single that boldly captured the nation’s angst about the futility and stupidity of war.

Starr turned Whitfield’s Vietnam protest song into an immediate smash hit. “War” reached number one in the United States in 1970, and boosted Starr’s career to a new level. The song resonated with millions of Americans who felt that the war in Vietnam was a waste of time, and that young men were getting killed over nothing. In the same year that the National Guard at Kent State University shot and killed four war protesters, Starr and Whitfield gave anti-war activists a renewed passion to fight for their cause.

The determination and persistence that Whitfield and Starr showed in re-recording “War” contrasts sharply with the story of the young man who runs away from the U.S. to Canada in “On the Rainy River.” The narrator, Tim O’Brien, holds the same convictions about Vietnam that Whitfield and Starr did in their song. But he doesn’t act on them because he doesn’t have the courage to risk the backlash from patriots like parents and friends at home. His dilemma is a lot like Motown’s: what was he willing to risk, and what would he lose, by voicing an unpopular view about war? What would be the cost of acting on his emotions, and leaving the U.S. to avoid the draft?

O’Brien describes his angst and torment in trying to resolve this as he writes a letter to his parents and confesses, “I try to explain some of my feelings, but there aren’t enough words…” He talks about how “Intellect had come up against emotion…” and he confesses to being in “desperate trouble…I couldn’t talk about it. The wrong word—or even the right word—and I would’ve disappeared.”

In the end, O’Brien doesn’t have the courage to leave the security of the life he’s always known for the sake of his convictions. And that, perhaps, is the key to the power of Starr and Whitfield’s song. Their music captured what words and logic in that Vietnam era never could. Their re-released single sang the story of the torment and passion of Tim O’Brien.

Bringing Cuba Back

After discussing America’s conquest of Cuba in the Spanish American War in class, I was interested in a recent New York Times article discussing President Obama’s new plan to reconnect the United States with Cuba. During George Bush’s presidency, Cuba was made out to be an enemy, a country with whom we should not have relations. Bush continued the embargo on Cuba the U.S. initiated in 1962, and made travel to the island nearly impossible. The former president alienated a struggling country that needs America’s help, but Obama is working to fix that.

This week, Obama and the presidents of 33 other countries in the Western Hemisphere held a summit meeting to discuss Cuba’s future and whether it should join the Organization of American States after it was expelled from the group in 1962. Cuba was not at the summit meeting, but talks seemed promising for the island that has struggled as a Communist country for the past 45 years. Unlike Bush, who brushed issues with Cuba aside, Obama is taking the challenge head-on.

Although Obama did not discuss the trade embargo on Cuba, he did promote the rights of Cubans living in the United States to “travel freely to the island and send money to relatives there.” Obama also opened the door to communicating with Cuba’s president, Raul Castro. While George Bush wanted to simply end all exchanges with Castro, Obama wants to create a relationship with the president, the first step toward making U.S.-Cuban relations move in a positive direction.

As we talked about in class, the United States once fought for Cuba’s freedom from Spain. But, as we saw in the political cartoons, Cuba was portrayed in very different ways in the early 20th century, both as a lovely woman in a ball and chain that needed America’s help, and also as a filthy, violent dark man that Uncle Sam is glad to be rid of. It had many different guises. Since Cuba became a Communist country in the early 1960’s, and the U.S. closed its doors to the poverty-stricken nation, there is only one way to view Cuba now: beaten down.

But today, a century after the Spanish-American war, President Barack Obama is attempting to mend relations between the United States and Cuba, and in the process stepping up to a challenge that no president has been willing to face for forty years. Obama’s plan may get Cuba back on its feet and allow it to rejoin the Organization of American States. From there, Cuba would decide whether or not to help make the world a better place. But first, it has to help itself—and America’s overtures might be the catalyst.

Barack "Billy Mays" Obama

This week, America watched in wonder as a new television pitchman was born. But he doesn’t want your money. He just wants to jumpstart our country’s economy. And he’s doing it like a marketing pro.

One of the activities we did in this unit was study advertising and how companies portray their products through television, billboards or magazines. We also talked about how salesmen draw consumers into buying their product, whether it’s giving the item a humanistic, compassionate feel in a magazine image, or repeating the toll free phone number on a commercial six times. Good marketing is key to a company’s success, and in this recession it is even more vital when consumers are spending less.

Recently, a new salesman has emerged on the advertising circuit. But he’s not selling ShamWows or deluxe butter knives. This man doesn’t even want you to spend a penny. He wants you to save thousands of dollars a year. But it’s not the Geiko gecko.

President Barack Obama is an infomercial salesman.

Well, not exactly. But according to a New York Times article, it sure seemed like it the way Obama repeated five different times a new web address that can help people refinance their home. Because of the housing industry crisis, interest rates on homes are almost at an all-time low. Millions of Americans are taking advantage of this by refinancing their homes, which lowers their interest rate. With rates so low, homeowners can save up to $3,000 a year. President Obama is making sure all Americans know about this golden opportunity.

On Thursday, Obama went on the air to spread the word about home refinancing. Besides using repetition, a common sales tactic, Obama also brought in people from the D.C. area to talk about how much money they saved by lowering their interest rates. Obama wanted to show that refinancing is a great way to save money, and he pushed to connect with homeowners by showing real people who endorsed his pitch. Obama spent hours promoting something that could begin to turn the economy in the right direction. And he could definitely compete for salesman of the week.

There is something to be said for Barack’s unique endorsement. He is the first President to ever use an “infomercial approach” to help the American people. It may be because our nation is in the worst financial crisis since the Depression, when FDR introduced new techniques like his “Fireside Chats” to connect with Americans. Perhaps Obama is beginning a new age of innovation that our country has needed for a long time.

An American Dream Dies

link
Jiverly Wong was not doing well. A Vietnamese immigrant, Wong came to the United States for the same reason as millions of foreigners: he wanted to live the American dream. Unfortunately, that dream never became a reality for Wong. He lived in Los Angeles for over a decade, and later moved to New York City. But Wong could never hold a steady job. Unsuccessful at having any steady relationships, Wong worked as a sushi delivery man, vacuum assembler, and an I.B.M. computer dissembler. But Wong was extremely frustrated, financially and in his daily life. The man struggled to learn English, and a heavy Vietnamese accent made it hard for him to communicate and socialize with coworkers. As a man who worked with him at Shop-Vac said, “He was really a loner. He didn’t have any personality problems that I could see…he just didn’t speak very much English.”

From the outside, people who knew Wong thought he was just a quiet guy. But no one knew what was really going on in Wong’s head. He began taking out his frustration at a local firing range, where he would go every weekend and shoot targets. He got his gun certification in 1996. He used to talk about how he was going to shoot the politicians running for office. When a coworker told him he was going to call the police if he talked about killing people, Wong responded: “I’m just joking around.”
Yesterday in New York, Wong walked into the building where he had been trying to improve his English, the headquarters of the American Civic Association. With two handguns, he shot and killed 13 people. He then shot himself. It was the worst mass killing since the Virginia Tech shootings. The kid who killed all the people in Virginia was not so different from Wong, a loner who felt he had no place in the world.

This is an example of a man who came to America looking to find his foothold, to get a steady job and support a family. But he soon learned what it means to be impoverished in America. He was one of millions looking for employment in these tough times. His belief in the American dream slowly eroded as time went on, and it left an angry, bitter man who needed a purpose. He finally left his mark on history yesterday, in the only way he could.

But once, he was just a dreamer.

Northern Trust vs. Captain Sully

In our American Studies class, we are discussing the history of the Progressive Era and the differences between the privileged and impoverished. But this week two important news stories revealed a real-life parallel to early 20th century America. In one case, Northern Trust Corporation, a Chicago-based bank, recently became one of many banks to misuse the money trusted to them by the government in the $700 billion bailout-bill. Money given to the banks, in Northern Trust’s case $1.6 billion, was supposed to help people secure loans and mortgages from the banks again after the economic meltdown. But Northern Trust decided to dedicate their share to a much more noble cause than the American consumer: the Professional Golfer’s Association.

This past weekend in Los Angeles, the Chicago bank hosted the Northern Trust Open, a PGA golf tournament. According to a New York Times article, the bank “treated clients to four days of posh hotel rooms, salmon and filet mignon dinners, music concerts, access to the Riviera Country Club with Mercedes shuttle rides and Tiffany swag bags.” Northern Trust seems to have forgotten the fact they recently laid off more than 500 employees just to keep their business afloat. Just like the big businessmen at the turn of the century, the executives of Northern Trust care only about their own wealth and benefits, providing minimal support to the average employee or consumer.

But Congress isn’t standing for it. In Washington D.C., “eighteen Democrats on the financial service panel told CEO Frederick Waddell to immediately return the money spent on the outing to the government.” The amount spent is still unknown, but the government is finally bearing down on foolish CEOs.

Contrast Northern Trust’s shenanigans with pilot Chesley Sullenberger’s meeting with Congress this week.

Sullenberger, the pilot of flight 1549 that successfully landed into the Hudson River, testified before Congress this week, claiming that pilots’ salaries have rapidly declined with the economic recession. Sullenberger personally had his salary cut by 40 percent and his pension was taken away. “I do not know a single professional airline pilot who wants his or her children to follow in their footsteps” Sullenberger said. If piloting is getting a bad reputation in terms of compensation, this could mean great pilots, like Sullenberger, won’t be around anymore. And that could be a big safety risk for Americans. The pilots are just like the unsung working-class heroes of the early 1900’s, providing a necessary service for the public, but never getting fairly rewarded for their hard work.

The big-shot bankers who helped put our country in an economic recession are off relaxing on a California golf course. The pilots of our nation and Sullenberger, a national hero who saved 150 lives, are fighting for every cent just so they can continue doing their jobs.

Is there something wrong here, or is it just me?

The Blago Blog

Rod Blagojevich is one of the most disgraced men in politics today. People know the former Illinois governor for his underhanded deals in the choosing of the next Illinois Senator, outrageous phone conversations and his eccentric haircut. But a recent article in the Chicago Tribune entitled “This Explains It,” tells Blagojevich’s story from the perspective of a college friend from Northwestern, Bill Powell. He describes the Blago of the seventies as a fun, energetic, hard working college student. The future governor used to prank call radio stations, go to restaurants at 3 am and leave without paying and crank Elvis in his dorm room. Rod had a small group of friends, but he was closest to Powell. As the writer puts it: “(Rod) and I weren’t casual friends, but someone you think you know cold; you know what motivates him, frightens him, ticks him off and makes him laugh.”

But Rod Blagojevich also had another side. The former governor lived on the West side of Chicago, and was the son of a Serbian immigrant. Blagojevich didn’t have all the money and wealth of the average Northwestern student, so he was motivated to himself to the top through hard work, intense schooling, and, later on, deceit. As Powell describes it: “He identified with Nixon, the up-from-nowhere guy who busted his butt to get where he is. If you brought up Nixon’s crimes, Rod would insist that the Kennedys were worse.” Blago took the side of Nixon, whose parents, like Rod's, had humble beginnings. He had to achieve success on his own. But Rod, like Nixon, took his stop-at-nothing-to-achieve-success mentality too far when he reached high office in the government.

Politicians like Blago and Nixon may be symbols in our unit of poverty and privilege. Both began with little money and support, but used their work ethic and brains to reach the top. But even when they became President and Governor, the driving force to escape their humble beginnings still haunted them, so they fought for more power or money anyway they could. These two men are not so different from the entrepreneurs at the turn of the century, many of whom started out poor, but ended up changing the face of industry in America--no matter how many cows they had to slaughter or how many immigrants' lives they had to ruin. One hundred years later, a man from the West side of Chicago used the same take-no-prisoners mentality in the office of Governor, but instead of escaping from his underprivileged childhood, he made himself the disgrace of our state.

Misfits of the Universe

For decades, a career as an investment banker was the ultimate job. Before 2008, working on Wall Street, being stock market savvy and making millions of dollars was the definition of success in America. As author Tom Wolfe noted in Bonfire of the Vanities, a satire about Wall Street, investment bankers are “the masters of the universe.” Although investment banking may not be the most exciting or engaging job, a fortune could be made through in-depth knowledge of the stock market. For the past few decades, America has put the job of investment banking on a pedestal, lusting after the wealth and power associated with the occupation…until 2008, that is, when everything on Wall Street, and our country, changed.

There is no question that investment banking is important in our country’s economy. It is a great way for corporations and entrepreneurs to leverage their cash and balance sheets, and for small businesses to expand, by engaging the finesse of Wall Street. What’s more, as the paychecks of executives in investment banking have swelled to hundreds of millions of dollars, so too has America’s enchantment with the profession. For example, according to The New York Times, “From the 1960s through the 1990s, Harvard graduates who chose careers in finance made three times the pay of their peers.” Also, from the mid-1990s to 2006, “compensation in finance was 30 to 50 percent higher than in the rest of industry.” For reasons like these, Americans ignored that fact that investment bankers weren’t invincible, and could have their jobs collapse just like any other profession. But when the financial crisis hit the U.S. in 2008, our entire country got a wake-up call about the less glamorous side of working for an investment bank.

The stock market plummeted in 2008 because of greed and stupidity on the part of investment bankers and their clients. These industry leaders were greedy and careless, never worrying about how increasingly risky their deals were. But the general public shares some blame as well. After all, they helped put the investment banking industry up on such a high pedestal. Everyone lost touch with the truth.

But the truth became pretty clear last month in, of all places, Davos, Switzerland. Each year, the banking industry meets there to hold a World Economic Forum, where they socialize and debate about issues such as “collaborative innovation” and “the values and leadership principles for a post-crisis world.” Last year, for example, Bono and Bill Gates made a pilgrimage to Davos to rub shoulders with the gurus of investment banking. For $220,000, any company can attend and have a private meeting with the “industry leaders." This year, however, a lot of their talk rang hollow. The New York Times even published a satire on the entire week-long event, while America’s disenchantment and distrust grew.

In the meantime, back on Wall Street, JP Morgan’s management put a restriction on the use of office supplies. Employees must ask a secretary for a key to the supply room if they need a pen. And in San Francisco, Goldman Sachs recently stopped providing free soy milk and Diet Cokes. Last week, the water cooler was also wheeled out of the office. “Word went around pretty quickly,” said one employee. “Bring your own water.”

The days of Davos, Switzerland may be numbered. Investment bankers are no longer the “masters of the universe” in our very troubled 2009 world.

From the Whitewashed Shack to the White House

It has been 159 years since Jim Robinson was born into slavery. Robinson, born on a plantation in Georgetown, South Carolina, lived as a slave, picking rice on the Friendfield Plantation and living in a small house with four or five other slave families. After the Civil War, Jim and his family lived as free sharecroppers in Georgetown. When Robinson died in the late 1800s, few people knew what he did or who he was. In fact, historians can only speculate where his body is buried. But today, over a century-and-a-half later, Jim’s life has become the beginning of a miraculous family story. The story of his great-great-granddaughter, Michelle Obama, our First Lady.

A Chicago Tribune article titled, “Michelle Obama’s Family: From Slavery to White House,” tells the amazing story of Michelle’s father’s family. Jim, who lived as a slave until he was fifteen years old, was illiterate and never ventured far from the plantation where he lived. In 1884, Jim’s wife gave birth to Fraser Robinson, who was illiterate early on in life but later taught himself to read and write. Fraser began the Robinson family tradition of pursuing education by bringing home the black newspaper “Palmetto Leader and Grit” for his kids to read. One of the children was Fraser Robinson Jr., Fraser Senior’s oldest son and Michelle Obama’s grandfather.

Born in 1912, Fraser Jr. was the first Robinson to receive a legitimate education after he graduated from high school in 1930. Fraser Jr. faced rough times in Georgetown because of segregation and the Depression. Because of this, Michelle’s grandfather made the decision to move to Chicago in search of a steady job. It was in Chicago where Fraser got married and had a son named Fraser Robinson III, Michelle’s father. Fraser III didn’t get a college education, but he helped guide Michelle to Princeton University and Harvard Law School. Now, Michelle will be using her family’s emphasis on knowledge and education to guide her through the responsibilities of the First Lady.

In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and our study of the history of slavery, we can see that being literate and educated was one of the key differences between slaves and their owners. In Huck Finn, we can all see that Jim is a smart, kind man, but he is also ignorant. This ignorance is the reason that Huck can take advantage of the slave so much, because he can cheat or lie to Jim and he won’t know the difference. But the Robinson family worked for four generations to overcome the education hurdle that kept them from being equal to other Americans, even after slavery ended.

Through decades of hard work, Michelle Obama’s family not only helped catapult her from the slums of slavery and illiteracy, they gave her the chance to become the first African-American First Lady. The White House was built by slaves like her great-great-grandfather, but thanks to the work ethic of his descendants, Michelle is continuing the tradition of hard work with her intellect and leadership skills, and not her body.

A Curious Connection

Over winter break, my family and I saw the movie, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” The film, based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, stars Brad Pitt as a man who is born old and ages backwards until he dies after 80 years, as an infant. I went into the theatre thinking I was going to enjoy the movie. I was wrong. Although I knew the plot was going to be fictional, the acting and plot twists turned out to be so ridiculous that I just laughed during some of the most over-the-top moments of the film. Although the original story was written by a legend of American fiction, the screenplay was written by the same guy who wrote “Forrest Gump,” and about halfway through the movie I started wondering if a shrimp boat might be coming along to rescue Benjamin, and me, sometime soon.

But even though the film was a bust in my view, I still related to one of the larger themes and messages emerging from it: the importance of living your life to its fullest and taking the initiative to find what makes you happy and pursuing it, rather than just waiting around for things to change. I found this message very similar to one conveyed by Emerson and Thoreau: you have to be willing to take risks to pursue a life that makes you happy and is self-rewarding.

What’s interesting to me is, the Transcendentalists of the 1800’s captured the significance of pursuing a rewarding life in a much more hard-hitting, understandable way than the big-budget movie-makers of 2008.

To be exact, it cost the producers of “Benjamin Button” $150 million to make what they hoped was an inspiring and profound film. Thoreau and Emerson? I bet they spent less than one hundred dollars, combined, on their projects. But I was a lot more motivated and inspired by their words: “Most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them.”

Something to think about.