Julian Assange: Of Men and Mice

By Peter Rodman

Let's face it, most of my posts follow a left-wing line, with fairly predictable consistency. 
So this may shock some of you, I know--but I'm just not ready to jump into lock-step with my fellow liberals, who seem ready to canonize 'Wikileaks' founder, Julian Assange.
After viewing his 60 minutes interview with Steve Kroft, I'm more convinced than ever, that what we have here is a mighty pale imitation of the brave whistleblowers he counts among his forebears.

And while it's true that we ought to eventually address the substance of the leaks in detail, I must say it's also entirely appropriate--and a much bigger story-- to attempt to decipher the logistics and the ethics (if any) behind how this much 'classified' information found its way on to Wiki-leaks, in the first place.

Like I say, on most issues, I'd proudly categorize myself as a 'far-left' kinda guy, but I see, in Julian Assange, a cheap-suited, garden variety 'rat'--and although I'm basing this almost entirely on my internal 'Bull-O-Meter,' it appears to me he's playing what seems like a game to him, with virtually no guiding principles, except a personal determination to exploit worldwide anti-Americanism, for his own self-aggrandisement.

My feeling is, if you believe 'classified documents' should even exist at all, then you have to accept the premise that not just anyone can or should release them, and then be able to hide behind calling themselves a "publisher." That is assuming one accepts the posit that legitimate law exists, disallowing such release, and even providing serious punishment, for same.

The outcry from the left concerns the lack of media attention given the substance of his leaks.
But anyone shocked by shady back-door diplomatic deals, legal grey areas, or even 'Spy vs. Spy' bunglings and murders in matters of international intrigue, needs to rent a few James Bond movies.
One friend of mine expressed shock, that "illegal spying, bombing, war making, and coup facilitating" was detailed, in the reems of pilfered and posted material, on Wikileaks.
Really?
I'm sorry, but that is not as big a story (if it's even a story at all) as is the inability of this nation to protect its secure secrets, period. And if those things weren't a part of our world, and sometimes even integral to our survival, why the hell would we even need "classified documents," in the first place?

In fact, it's his very lack of interest in what he's releasing,  that makes Julian Assange (to me, anyway) the much bigger (and far more dangerous) story, than any of the actual content released, thusfar.

Mr. Assange, upon realizing he was being actively hunted down for his willy-nilly, indiscriminate release of millions of classified US documents (on hundreds of random topics) purposely released the latest batch to ACTUAL publishers (something he had not done in previous dumps), like the New York Times, hoping to cloud the issue, in his own defense--once it became obvious how seriously the Attorney General was going to take this, in going after him. 
This allowed him the meek defense (on 60 Minutes) that he, "like all publishers," has special exemptions from prosecution, or even (one presumes) scorn.

He may be more imp than wimp, but a towering worldwide figure, as he seems to imagine himself? 
Not so much. 
(Then again, in the age of Sarah Palin, who can tell, anymore?)


Is he at all a "publisher," like the New York Times? 
No. Not even one like the tiny, renegade beat-poets who founded City Lights. 
Not by a long shot.
In fact, he doesn't actually "publish" anything...he simply copies and spews--spitting it all out in grain-silo volumes, like some Quaker Oats jackpot, for armchair conspiracy theorists.


If anything, Assange is counting upon the appeal of his sheer audacity, to mitigate his Kinko's Gone Wild act.

I thought Steve Kroft let him off easy in the 60 Minutes piece, by not following up on the moral distinctions in any depth. Kroft's assertion that the press community, as some sort of presumed monolith, "feels" a certain way about Assange, was preposterous--and should have had no part in the story. I suspect Kroft will find himself roundly criticized on that score in the next few days, as he came off more like a cheerleader than he should have, and cut Assange huge amounts of slack, on the open issues of legality (and morality) about these leaks, issues that even liberals like myself find unsettling, and eminently debatable.

I recently viewed the remarkable video of a 1968 conversation on Canadian television, between Norman Mailer and Marshall McLuhan.  In it, their shared prescience for the internet age was uncanny.  But even more shocking was the insightful realization that we may actually be subsuming our collective conscience, in a mindless tsunami of information--too mind-boggling to even allow for such trifles as 'moral distinction'...as personified by Assange, himself:

MAILER: "I think that there's a kind of totalitarian principle present, in this sort of avalanche of 'over-information,' if you will.  There's a lack of form, and order, and category in the modern experience, which speaks to me of nothing so much as entropy."
McLUHAN: "An electronic world re-tribalizes  man, yes."

Again, I have no doubt that large chunks of the revelations on Wikileaks do deserve closer scrutiny, vis a vis any wrongdoing behind closed doors, in our government.
But I nonetheless remain a serious fan of the country Assange couldn't give two shits about (America), and I root AGAINST hackers like him making the decisions for us all, about what is to be released, or not released.
His goal seems to be nothing more noble than the very "re-tribalization" McLuhan spoke of, in 1968. 
In effect, Julian Assange is an anarchist.
Random Doc-u-man, merry prankster, mischief maker, pick your nick-name...but please, let's not imagine for a second that this guy is any kind of hero.
The sheer randomness and volume of his releases smacks more of vandalism than valor, and shows no evidence whatsoever, of any discernable moral 'sorting mechanism.'
In other words, I don't think this guy even pays attention to content.  Just give him more, and he'll release it.
Just give him more attention, and he'll leverage it to get more to release.  And so on.

Unless you believe nothing should be held away from public view, you've got to find Wikileaks troubling, if not threatening, on at least as large a scale as the merely embarrassing diplomatic conversations contained in his millions of scattershot, stolen documents.
But it gets a little more serious than that, no matter how you feel about Afghanistan (and I am against the war, myself): Because--by Assange's own admission--informants valuable to our own 'side' may have DIED, because of these leaks.
And I'm just not sure his "Oh, well" shrugs are enough for me.

PR (center) with Pentagon Papers
whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg (right)
and jazz flutist Paul Winter(left) ,
in Boulder, circa 1981.

In fact, his whole act seems cowardly, not principled--completely the opposite of, say, Daniel Ellsberg, whom I got to know fairly well, for a brief time, a few decades back.  Ellsberg personified virtue;  Assange, on the other hand, seems virtually free of it.

I guess I'm saying something about this Assange guy strikes me as more weasely than wily; even the name 'Wiki-leaks' seems to befit a wimp with prostate problems, rather than the whistleblowing hero of 'the common man' he pretends to be. 

Don't get me wrong: I'm always glad, when tyrants--including in my own government!--are exposed as phonies, a la Ellsberg.

But I'd say this, to the 'Terrabyte Terror':

You wanna play 'cat-and-mouse' with the Big Boys, Julian?
With no regard for any specific topic, other than a generalized aim to rattle some cages, for fun?
Do you really want to test the biggest power on Earth, with your grandiose and vague threats to release more stuff--in fact, anything you please, regardless of any potential life-or-death consequences to others--just to preclude anything happening to YOU, personally?

Then don't be surprised, when the big cat you've taunted finally does decide to engage you...and in short order, just goes ahead and plays with you for awhile, before doing what cats normally do to mice.

______________________________________

This column, and all photographs and graphics contained herein, are Copyright 2011 by Peter Rodman.  All Rights Reserved.  No portion may be copied or retransmitted in any form without express written permission from the author.

Partied to Death

October 22, 2010

By Peter Rodman

I recently received, from a conservative couple I am close to, a clipping about how retirees' health benefits are becoming unsustainable.   
To be clear, they are folks who consider President Obama a socialist, and the single worst thing to ever happen to America; who believe all undocumented aliens should be apprehended and deported; who think taxes are too high, and government spending should be drastically cut;  oppose gay marriage; think 'affirmative action' has outlived its usefulness; hate the public school system, and would rather people not have to pay into it, if they prefer private schools; who are actually stockpiling canned goods, in anticipation of the coming collapse of our economy; and who further signaled their hard-right turn by actually attended a Tea Party rally in Washington, last year.

Now they are worried--like we all are--about social security, medicare, the national debt, and the escalating cost of "retirees' health benefits."
Attached was a seemingly innocent note that said, "So what do we, as a nation, do with this dilemma?  No politics involved."
Considering their vehement opposition to everything I believe in politically, I took a long breath...and finally decided to give them my unvarnished opinion:

Glad you asked.
But please...let's not pretend "it's not political"...or that having a frank political discourse is necessarily a bad thing.

We 'as a nation' have undergone a massive, wholly destructive re-thinking of what it means to be a good citizen, ever since Ronald Reagan declared "Government isn't the solution;  it's the problem."   Had he simply gotten elected on that clever slogan, it might not be so bad.  But coupled with its intrinsic disingenuousness (Reagan grew the government and the deficit more than all of his predecessors combined), the popular mindset it engendered has set this country back a hundred years.
Instead of feeling like a part of the greatest nation of Earth, building interstates, traveling in space, doing scientific research, etc., we now feel like everything should be free.

Every road should fix itself.
Every school should hold a bake sale for books.
Every citizen should decide for themselves whether to pay that $75 a year, for fire protection!
Welcome to Private Sector World.

Our taxes, since Reagan's time, have been slashed to cripplingly  low levels.
You now have the lowest tax, relative to your standard of living, in American history.
And in a way, you're right:
It's not political, any longer:  it's endemic.
In fact, it's entirely symptomatic of a selfish populous, so infected by the handed-down anti-government Reaganisms that they are no longer interested in world affairs (other than to wage war); they give ONLY lip-service to paying cops and fireman and teachers, but are in reality unwilling to pay them a living wage; and so concerned with corporate freedoms and anti-unionism that we've finally cut the average American out of the picture altogether, and exported all but our service industry jobs--creating a fatally diminished revenue pool that is shrinking faster even than our taxable income pool.

I say 'pool,' because you are right, that it's a serious dilemna.
I think we can all agree...we're drowning.
But I would argue that it's less from our national debt than from an anti-civic movement that will disable us from all repair thereto.
It's the perfect storm, for a populous that cried 'wolf', until it went literally down the drain.

Each entitlement we decry is our own hard-earned rung, on a ladder of civilization and civic pride that was carefully built over hundreds of years of finely honed thought by the best minds this nation had to offer, and by respectful debate--by two parties, willing to sometimes sacrifice their dogma, in the long-term interest of the greater good.
Yes, it is political.
All of it.

Words like "fairness doctrine" are now considered terrible to you--yet, as American citizens now get pounded away at--day by day, 24/7-- with nothing but anti-government invective and "Where's mine?" philosophies, the entire notion of "one nation," (under ANYTHING) is evaporating, before our myopic eyes.
As we speak, President Obama's tax rates are--all of them---LOWER than Bush's, still lower than Clinton's, lower than 41's, etc.etc.--and that's the fact.
Yet, the caterwauling continues, and nothing but greed--both corporate and personal--is behind it.

The fact is, taxes were far, far higher--all of them--under Eisenhower!
Remember that socialist...Ike?
Remember actually building schools and university systems?
Remember growth?
Remember how "handouts" (like the G.I.Bill, for starters--a far bigger entitlement/welfare program than any other) jump-started the post war economy?
Remember our post war reconstruction efforts in Europe...pure giveaways of American tax dollars, supported by the public, simply because it was the right thing to do??

Remember when bailouts saved us, not just in 1932, and 1976 (Ford to NY: DROP DEAD!), but just this year...as GM returned to viability, and the whole damn thing got paid back?  Remember that??
It was one of the truly great moves by any president in history, to save a major symbol of American industry and manufacturing on OUR soil, at a time when the national psyche most needs it, which should have been regarded as being in the great tradition of benevolent leadership, but...but....instead...what happened?
The cartoon whack jobs of Fox News and hate-talk radio made their marching orders clear, to impressionable minds everywhere:
This was socialism.
"Obama is taking over Chevrolet!"
And so, even as ALL the money got paid back in record time, "big government" once again got no credit, only blame, and Americans further resolved to continue shouting it down, just in case anything good ever comes up again.
Lovely.

The answer to your question is a complicated combination of taxes and revenue streams which could be easily generated in a heartbeat--simply by restoring HALF of the (thought to be temporary, ten year) Bush tax cuts on the richest 1% of this nation.
Key word:  'Complicated'...but do-able, yes!
Under Clinton, those rates were famously 39%.
Problem is, with the politics of beauty-pageantry and bumper-sticker philosophies being foisted upon us by the 'sound bite right', detailed thought and complex answers have no room at the table, anymore.
If Joe the Plumber (who was not a plumber) can't grasp it...heck...let's just elect him to something!

Under Eisenhower, and for most of our lives, personal and corporate income taxes were as high as 95%!  Obama's tepid suggestion that we go from the current all-time low of 15% back up to 'near 20%' is not nearly enough, yet even that  is being shouted down--and (in true tea party, Bizarro World fashion) it's now actually being blamed for the whole corporate unwillingness to lend, because (so the narrative goes) "Wall Street hates uncertainty!"

Are you kidding me?

That is just ONE answer to your question--and a tax based one, at that.
I mentioned it first, because it's the quickest solution to solving the "dilemna" of honoring our long-standing promises to the retirees who've EARNED their benefits.  More systemically, the decreasing revenue stream caused by the cutting of your dreaded 'union wages' (read: the whole middle class's wages) is another key reason we find ourselves in this national pickle.  And it may well be the most important one, too:
When incomes fall, yes...corporations do better. But America does worse, as do those same corporations, in the long run...because nobody has any money to spend!!!

So here we are:  The ultimate in deregulated society, happily legislating guns in bars, but unwilling to even face punishing punishing BP, without somebody on the right saying we're "stifling business."  

The man who destroyed America, by appealing to our basest instincts to hate immigrants, revere corporate greed, outsource jobs, export war, and cripple the middle class--all the while increasing government spending on everything from imaginary safety nets in space (remember 'Star Wars'?) to financing small time dictators who then used OUR weapons to kill our own soldiers, time after time (Saddam, Chile, Contra...shall I go on?) has lived to haunt us still.
We hired an actor to do a serious man's job, when we hired Ronald Reagan.

We have since set about methodically demonizing the very best minds in America.
When they say things we don't like, they're "elitists!"
With...uh oh...a "Harvard education!!!"
And that's  somehow scarier to you, than Christine O'Donnell or Jan Brewer?
I'm serious:  America is in deep, deep trouble if we continue to look at shiny things (Sarah Palin) and shun serious ones (from Paul Krugman to Elizabeth Warren, to the president himself).
So go ahead, enjoy your daily cartoon party, imagining that the "founding fathers" would have loved this hatred of government, then offering up only friendly shrugs, to accompany the overall "dilemna" that creates.

Like everything else in our society, it seems that now, we can no longer even afford to take care of our elderly--and you want to blame everything BUT the most destructive and obstructive rhetoric in American history, which comes from your political camp--not mine.  Because while this nation--this whole big, once-wonderful tribute to imagination and ingenuity-- is sinking like the Titanic, it appears the chorus of cackles from the mindless right will continue--also sinking the hearts, and the hopes, of millions in our nation--as they insist, "We simply cannot afford to be who we once were."

How lovely, to see that Raleigh, Nashville, San Francisco, and a few other cities are beginning to outsource crime investigations from the police to the 'private sector' (hiring people off the street!) so that...what?
A real  incompetent  can investigate your home burglary?
Why?
Because YOU say..."Hey...we can't afford it!"

How far-sighted, to alienate (pun intended) the more than 12 million undocumented laborers we've grown to count on,  as a nation--as their families (and the future majority in this nation, Hispanics) grow. 
Why do this? So that they will ultimately resent their mistreatment enough to finally put the last nail  in our current system--knowing it hates them, and does not include them?  Knowing that it does them no good to prop up an old order, for the bigoted white nostalgia that is its primary proponent now?
But YOU say..."Throw the bums out!!"

And how wonderful to hear your deep concerns--at this late hour--over how we're going to pay for such frivolous 'entitlements' like...health care,  for our retirees!--when we all  know, deep down, that it is our own fault:
We have lost our moral, ethical, and civil compass to a band of gypsy broadcasters, who stole our hearts, simply by amusing us to death.

Now, the Fox/Limbaugh machine has seized upon the (admittedly unjust) firing of Juan Williams, to demand the complete shut-down of NPR.  No wonder.  Why wouldn't  they want to close down the last vestige of liberal thought on the radio, in America?
With no 'Fairness Doctrine' to hamper their invective, why not use the argument that "political correctness" is a worse scourge than the daily barrage of racist, hateful, jingoistic slime they proffer?  Instead of calling for the firing of the lady who fired Williams, they want to erase this entire outlet of civility on the air.
"Let no bastion of reason slow our merry march toward oblivion!"  
(Nobody said that...but they might as well  have!)

Think about it:
Over these things, you'd rather have a 'Tea Party' and watch everything fall apart, than seriously begin paying into our nation's future, before it slips away for good?
It sure looks that way, to me.

So let the band play on--even as the whole ship sinks.

"Patriots, or pinheads?"

We report; you decide.


______________________________
This article Copyright 2010 by Peter Rodman. All Rights Reserved.

Remembering Kenny Edwards

August 22, 2010

Earlier today, someone sent a link to a 'remembrance page' for Kenny Edwards.  I don't know exactly who I was writing this to, but this is what came out...

I first met Kenny Edwards with Karla Bonoff, in 1978, when they came out to play Boulder.

  KBCO had helped 'break' Karla's solo debut album there (although we didn't know it quite yet, it was the first-ever 'triple A' radio station), so it seemed to make good sense, for her to kick off her new 'major label' solo career, in one of the few places where everybody already knew her name. 

The Glenn Miller Ballroom was packed that night, and we broadcast the entire show 'live.'

Karla remains a timelessly great singer/songwriter, to this day--but at that time, she was a slightly reticent, almost 'green' solo performer.  Across the stage, but always within her sight-line, Kenny Edwards stood tall--essentially right beside her, casting encouraging glances to this shy performer, the whole time.
He'd known her for a decade or more by then, and as surely as an Olympic coach 'spots' his gymnast, Kenny was right there, to make sure she'd never fall.

The show was history making--and seemed to literally launch her whole career.
At the end of their set, they'd played the whole debut album and a couple other songs, but the crowd kept stomping their feet, and screaming wildly: "More! More! More!" This went on for like ten full minutes--a remarkable thing, for college kids responding to what were, for the most part, essentially introspective, quiet songs.
Karla was totally stunned.
Heck...we all were!

But Kenny smiled his usual smile, sensitively leaning down to huddle with her, at center stage...and there, bathing in the din of adulation, they whispered a few words back and forth, to the effect of, "Geez...what else do we know?"
Finally, they settled on one last Karla Bonoff original. "We only know one more song," Karla said sheepishly, "and we hadn't planned to play it, but it's all I have left."

She wasn't kidding: It was a CHRISTMAS song, of all things!
"Everybody's Home Tonight" was received joyously, and moved many in the crowd to tears, even though Christmas was nowhere in sight.
Having wrapped the show perfectly, the crowd filed out into a balmy Boulder night, and it was clear they had given these performers as much as they had gotten. That's what all great shows do. It's a fluid exchange, between art and the love of art.
As a footnote, Karla's amazing Christmas song subsequently became a much sought-after collectors' item, and wasn't even officially released, until almost 20 years later.  To this day, it remains one of my favorite Christmas songs ever written.  But it would never have been played, had she not had Kenny's quiet sense of confidence behind her, on that magical Boulder night, so long ago.

I've known Karla and Kenny ever since.
Seen 'em dozens of times, in several different cities--and never was there a doubt, watching them, that this was a lifelong team. I cannot say that about almost any other act, in the 40 years I've been around music. But with them, you just knew this was forever. As though they'd grown up in the same house, almost.

Rarely would she venture out to perform without him. (And don't get me wrong:  Karla Bonoff is a tough-as-nails, World Class  solo performer.  It's just that Kenny's presence seemed to allow her to 'exhale'...i.e., plumb deeper emotions onstage, something essential to all great singers.)  His rock-solid bass playing, superb sense of harmony and dynamics, and most of all, his sense of safety and reason, helped her to not only navigate the records, and the road--but even to filter through some of the oddball adulation a female singer can sometimes encounter out there, with some sense of sanity, if not surety.
You always got the sense that if there was any 'heavy lifting' to be done, Kenny Edwards would be happy to do it for you.

The only time I ever saw her do a week of shows alone was at The Fairmont Hotel in Chicago, around 1990 or so.  Since I was living there at the time, Karla invited me to come 'sit in on a few shows' for the week (not playing... just to sort of be there) with her. I decided I'd go to them all. Clearly, not having Kenny Edwards there was somewhat disconcerting--even for such a pro, as this--because she was just so used to the 'comfort zone' he provided, both onstage and off. And after that week, I never saw her perform without him again.


By 1992, I was living in Santa Barbara, and had kept in touch with Karla from there.  I remember her telling me on the phone that I really should come down to L.A., to meet this guy named "Billy Block," whom she said was almost single-handedly assembling a very casual (but elite) music scene, at a small place called Highland Grounds, on Santa Monica.  "We're all going down to play this week.  Why don't you come down?"  So I did.  And so did Andrew Gold, Wendy Waldman, and of course a very happy Kenny Edwards--'Bryndle Rekindled', if you will.  I remember Alannah Myles ("Black Velvet") was there, too...and a very  young Kevin Montgomery!

"For the first time in a long while," Karla had told me, "there's a scene developing, here." She was right--and Billy Block was the catalyst for that scene--just as he would be later on, here in Nashville.

As it turned out, the night I was there was their very first night back together, (onstage, as Bryndle) in 20 years.  And there--again--right by her side (and Andrew's and Wendy's and a few others, during the evening), stood the gentle bassman, Kenny Edwards--serving up support, with chops to spare.


A couple years later, I landed here in Nashville on Lightning 100, and a more polished 'Bryndle' came to town.

Bryndle with Peter Rodman, circa 1995.
(l to r) Wendy Waldman, Kenny Edwards,
Karla Bonoff, Andrew Gold, Peter Rodman

They played the Ryman, now reviewing each of their solo hits ("Saved the Best For Last," "Lonely Boy", etc.) and brimming with confidence. Our history was deep. (It's scary to think how long ago it was now, but my first radio interview with Wendy Waldman had been way  back...in 1975!  And I still have the tape.)  Anyway, to see the four of them "officially" together onstage, was just an astonishing delight.  They played off of each other, that night--Wendy's outgoing and ebullient stage presence; Andrew's versatile pop sensibility; Karla's endearing class; and the 'straight man' for all the patter, pretty much leading the band...Kenny Edwards.


After that, there were shows in Boulder and California, equally fun...and always, as the spotlight shifted from songwriter to songwriter, one thing remained ever-constant:  Kenny Edwards. No matter what the style-shift or harmony requirement, he was their "utility infielder" --and in that role, truly deserved a 'Golden Glove'.
As the years rolled on and I left radio, I'd see them individually here and there (Andrew played on a record project of mine, etc.)...but the group seemed to dissipate.
Still, Karla's shows invariably had Kenny in there, somewhere.  But as Bryndle wound down, it seemed Kenny finally turned towards his own music, whenever he wasn't touring with Karla.
Now, finally, he was starting to feel free to create his own brand, his own way.


Kenny did come to Nashville a few times on his own, when trying to launch that fledgling solo career. Over the years his warmth, and his quiet, dependable talent had generated many lasting, collaborative friendships.  Sometimes, he looked a little tired on those trips--understandable, for a guy who'd been preoccupied by other projects for years, before ever getting around to his own!  It was almost as if he thought of his own career as 'moonlighting.'

On one such solo visit by Kenny, I vaguely remember being upset about something a mutual friend had done, and he patiently listened to my tale of woe, as we drank our beers. When I was finished relaying the story, I said, "Gee, you know what? I think just sitting here with you, literally drained all the hostility right outta me, Kenny! How'd you DO that?"

He smiled a knowing smile, as if to say, "You're not the only one I do this for. This is me. I do it all the time. Don't worry about it; this is what I do."  What he did say was, "I'm glad you felt comfortable enough to share it with me. I understand. And I'm happy it helped you to let it go!"

And it was true: I had  let it go!  (In fact, I can't even remember what it was that was bothering me, now!)  
THAT was Kenny Edwards, to me.
I thanked him profusely--now flustered and embarrassed at the silliness, of my tirade--and then swore him to secrecy about it. That was another thing he did well. (I never had any worry in my head, about it leaving his lips.)

The BIG 'secret' about Kenny Edwards was how unflinchingly supportive he could be offstage.  Receptive, fair minded, conscientious, and positive.  These priorities pre-empted personal grandeur, for Kenny Edwards--the ultimate 'team player,' and the bestest confidante a person could ever ask for. 

That nobody ever knew he'd kept my confidence--that one night in Nashville--is kind of the whole point, about Kenny.

You could almost forget his production credit (on the Karla Bonoff albums), as finely polished and handcrafted as the work was; you could nearly miss the stellar co-writing efforts ("Trouble Again"), or the effortless mandolin work. He just plain did not CARE about taking credit, even if people might forget all about him. To say his contributions were 'understated' is an understatement, all its own!

Kenny was all about helping everyone around him to be their best. Their best songwriter. Their best performer. Their best singer. And yes...their best person. And in that-- for so many he touched-- it turns out that Kenny Edwards was that rarest of birds, in the music business...their best friend. God bless Kenny Edwards. I've never met his Mom, but I hope somebody tells her, she really raised a good one.

My heart goes out to her, as well as of course Karla, Wendy, Andrew, Linda Ronstadt, Val Garay, and everyone else who knew and loved this fine, gentle man.
I'm happy our paths crossed.


Love to All Always,


Peter Rodman
Nashville, Tennessee

Celebrity Casting on Broadway: What's in a Name?

By Peter Rodman
June 24, 2010

Today’s New York Times posed the question, “Where do you stand on the issue of the celebrity blitzing of Broadway?
"Boon or blight--or both?”
My answer, in a word, is “both.”

Scarlett Johanssen did a fine job in "A View from the Bridge," but it's a travesty that she beat her female co-star, what's her name (Jessica Hecht), and that other guy (Liev Schreiber)--who carried the whole affair--lost out to Denzel Washington's dumbed-down James Earl Jones impression, in the recent revival of "Fences."
"Bridge" is a great example of the two-headed monster that is celeb-infused Broadway. By all accounts, it was probably the best-ever production of a previously thought-to-be-lesser Arthur Miller play. Its wordy, nuanced, dramatic, changing moods required a yeoman's job from all concerned, each and every night--but while Johanssen certainly added the appropriate sparkle (and some terrific acting chops) she'd still have been the 'least missed', if you absolutely had to lose one of the three main characters, onstage.
Oh, and then there's this: It opened in January, and closed in April.

James Gandolfini  (Photo by Peter Rodman)

Likewise, "God of Carnage" exemplifies the best and worst of this phenomenon. While its cheesy, slapdash set made the stars seem almost greedy for sopping up the whole budget, it gave Marcia Gay Harden and Hope Davis two confidant screen actors to play against. And while James Gandolfini used the stolid surroundings to exorcise his inner Tony Soprano, it sometimes seemed he and Jeff Daniels were in two different plays.
Couple this with Daniels's decision to take over the Gandolfini role a year later, and you've got the good and the bad of it all, embodied in a single play.
A limited run 'celebrity engagement' intoxicates its producers, who reduce their budget by offloading talent, quicker than you can say "Florida Marlins."
The overall trade-off is obvious.
Drawing 'fannys to the seats' is top priority, and always will be.

Abigail Breslin  (photo by Peter Rodman)

But as we sometimes marvel at the ascent of a hard working young starlet (Abigail Breslin in 'The Miracle Worker' comes to mind), so too will we occasionally be appalled, by the community theatre-level overacting of their co-stars, as with the better known Matthew Modine, in that same production.
In foisting everyone from Catherine Zeta-Jones to Rosie O'Donnell on its touristy clientele, Broadway has a long tradition.
Invariably, musicals have been better off *without* such star turns...if it weren't for that pesky issue of survival.


What seems to irk Broadway veterans the most is the fact that in "limited runs," Hollywood celebs are swooping into town like hungry vultures, making off with a passel of Tonys, and flying back out again, barely having seemed to stop in New York at all. One pictures them clutching trophies in their talons, squawking with talentless glee as they fly off, in this purists' portrayal.
The theory is that Broadway's perennial 'farm team' (of young stage actors devoted exclusively to craft) will get somehow swallowed up, overshadowed,or--worst of all--tempted to leave--by all the hype.

But the "play play"--the non-musical outing--has long needed (and benefited from) the star power of, say, a Madonna, to bring fans out to see a relatively unknown Joe Montegna ("Speed the Plow")--or an Al Pacino, to nurture a (now deceased) James Hayden ("American Buffalo"), as if in an Actor's School seminar.
Non-theatre people just don't tend to go to non-musicals as a destination, unless that's all the TKTS booth has at half-price that day. The added "oomph" a star can give actually draws fans to see much deeper fare than "Cats", without so much as a single moment of tap, or a single note sung.
And if all this means is that Willam H. Macy takes the lead in "Oleanna" or Scarlett Johanssen plays a nubile temptress I have to watch up close...I'm fine with that!




Scarlett Johanssen  (Photo by Peter Rodman)

 Tony Randall understood this principle as well as anybody, in establishing the marvelous National Actors Theatre, back in the early '90s. I saw everyone from DeNiro to DeVito there, and was rarely disappointed.

In my view, the general rule of thumb for celebrity ‘stunt-casting’ is:
Musicals, no.
From the time roughly forty years ago, when Mickey Rooney and Ann Miller became parodies of themselves on the road forever, this casting ploy has almost always screamed "summer stock."
But dramatic plays, on Broadway?
If carefully casted...yes.
Both Broadway and Off-Broadway have generally done a marvelous job at this.
There is a definite danger, in overdoing it--witness, "God of Carnage 2."
(All things in moderation.)
But overall, I'd say that--creatively, at least--the dramatic genre has fared far better, and with fewer indignities, than the musical.

To hear the purists tell it, you'd think we'll all soon be sitting in theatre balconies, blaring all those plastic horns like at the World Cup, if we don't stop celebrity casting, ASAP.
I say they're alarmists, snobs, and elitists--who'd sooner take the fun out of seeing a movie star up close, than realize the undeniable benefit of 'elevating' a theatre full of just-plain-folk, with something truly worthwhile.

It all boils down to the age-old question: ‘What’s in a name?’
___________________________________

This article and the photographs herein Copyright 2010 by Peter Rodman. All Rights Reserved.

Exactly Who's 'Going Postal,' These Days?

By Peter Rodman



This morning, a friend of mine who is a top executive with the Postal Service forwarded me a column about a 'Tea Party' demonstration in which a mailman named 'Mo' was more or less harrassed, while trying to do his job.

Here's an excerpt from it:

He wound his way through the crowd to the mailbox, saying "excuse me" and "I'm just trying to do my job" as he tried to get through the mass of people. He noticed that a lot of people would see him and immediately look away. Others did not acknowledge his presence and refused to move out of his way.
As he tried to get to the mailbox, people stood in his way. He told the crowd, "I've got a job to do here." People still didn't move. One woman screeched at him -- screeched was Mo's word -- "Nobody's stopping you."
Mo replied, "Oh yes you are."
A man blocking Mo's access to the mailbox shouted at him, "You don't have a job. You work for the government."
Let's pause for a moment to examine that statement. OK, done? Nope, I don't get it either.
At this point, Mo was getting kind of frustrated and asked the guy, "What is your problem?"
See, all due respect, but that's the wrong question. A lot of people have been asking that question, and the answer never makes much sense. These people seem very angry about something.
The guy answered, "I don't have a problem. You're the problem. The government."

None of that was surprising to me, until I received a second e-mail from an obvious skeptic, whom I remember being a big Bush supporter who thought you had "forgotten 9/11," if you were against that war, and who also worked for the Postal Service for many years--as a management negotiator, in dealing with (read: against) its unions.
Needless to say, she had an entirely different take on it.
"I don't believe a word of it. Think about it!" she wrote.

That got me to thinking. We've disagreed in the past, but I nonetheless have great affection for her, so I wrote her back.

Maybe I got carried away. Here is what I wrote:

You may not believe a word of it, just like you don't believe anybody spit on this congressman, or called that one the "n" word, or Barney Frank a fa&&ot, or anything else you haven't seen with your own eyes.
Maybe you don't even believe there was a moon landing, now.
That is your right.

But the rest of us, here on Planet America, choose to support our government and our social services, because we realize that without them, we'd have anarchy.

ABC's Nightline (I know, "lamestream media") surveyed all the "militiamen" in Idaho, and found that nearly 80% were unemployed, and 70% were on Unemployment Insurance! Their defense? "It's insurance, not welfare."
Uh huh.
So let me get this straight: In Tea World, we want to kill the government that pays us!

And I don't know about any of you, but my tax return--and my weekly take-home pay--reflect the largest tax cuts I've experienced in decades. Under George Bush, I got one $300 check.


The other night, Bill O'Reilly took Republican Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) to task for "lying" about Fox News. O'Reilly said his "researchers" had "looked into it," and "couldn't find a single instance, not one time" when anybody on Fox had said people "would be thrown in jail, if they didn't get health insurance" under Obama's new reforms.
"So that's settled," he harumphed, "You were wrong, on that. Now, on some folks at Fox and other places demonizing Nancy Pelosi, maybe you've got a point."

Unfortunately, though...there have now surfaced around ten seperate times when Beck, Hannity, Dick Morris, and yes, O'Reilly himself actually DID say that "folks will be arrested" if they don't buy health insurance.

Here's the problem with the right wingnuts: Unless you prove it, they won't believe it.
And WHEN you prove it, they still won't believe it.

So, can I prove this incident ever happened, with the mailman?
Bear with me while I continue...

Obama gets elected. But suddenly, he's not even born here, so it can't be legit!
Some guy is actually refusing his deployment to Afghanistan, based upon the legal claim that Obama cannot be his Commander in Chief...since he wasn't born here.
There's definitely a pattern emerging.

A group of people in the area picked up on that and, pointing at Mo, started chanting, "You're the problem. The government."
I advised Mo that perhaps he should have told them, "I'm not the government; I'm the postal service." Or, he could have said, "Be nice. We're the people who deliver your Social Security checks."
He did neither. Instead, he made his way to the mailbox and began collecting the mail.
One letter blew out of the box and onto the sidewalk. When Mo went to pick it up, a man standing by the mailbox stood on the letter, ignoring Mo's request to move his foot so he could get the letter. Mo finally was able to wrench the letter away.
As he started back to his truck, people in the crowd tried to get in his way. One person did say, "Have a nice day" as he walked away.

Essentially the same thing happened to Clinton, with Paula Jones. From the day it became apparent he'd be elected--and re-elected, the Republicans sought not just to oppose him through normal means, but to remove him from office.

Recently, health care reform was passed in both Houses of Congress, as prescribed by the Constitution the right so fiercely insists they wish to defend...and yet...even after fair votes, representing every single district, in every single corner of this nation were completed-- Fox, Limbaugh and others claim the result was "illegtimate," and "does not reflect the will of the American people."
Really?
Under precisely what system of democracy do you live?
The 'Fox/Rasmussen Poll' system???

See, in America, we have only one poll that actually counts. And that is when we elect people, and then they vote for us. Not by polls...but by conscience. Which is what we elect them to do.

The truth is simple and all too obvious: Republicans are SORE LOSERS.
Any time they do not get their way, they attempt to tear down the very country itself.
They were FOR bailouts to Wall Street, until we joined them in that pursuit.
They were FOR huge national deficits, until Democrats took office.
Health care passes BOTH HOUSES of the American Congress--but it's somehow not what the people really wanted.

Gee...really?

Now, as angry white people form "Tea Party" demonstrations on Tax Day, you'll see a hundred **VERY TIGHT** shots of these demonstrations, on Fox News, tonight--carefully cropped, to avoid showing how small they actually are. If 5,000 people show up in DC, it'll be called "tens of thousands," and--as Hannity has proven he'll do, before--they'll simply splice in old footage, if it serves their narrative.

Let's see now.

Do I believe that this postal worker was dissed?

Hmmmm.

Think about this, for a moment:
I have traveled the world for a living, for 26 years. I have used mail services from nearly every major country in existence, and have yet to find a better run, cheaper, more efficient service than our own.
Some of you here are intimately familiar with the slandering of our Postal Service, and just how unfair and inaccurate that can be.
It hurts, doesn't it.

But most Americans--from late night comics to average Joes--delight in mocking our supposedly lousy service.
It's almost like a national sport!

Why do you suppose that is?

I'll tell you why:
Because every day, on every single talk show that ever mentions "government," or "the mail," or the "Postal Service", the host of that show will proffer single view: That it all SUCKS.
His mission is to make you believe that these things are the Devil Incarnate.

Unfair, right?
Inaccurate...yes??

I agree.
But even as you concur on this point, do you stil somehow refuse to believe that a populus so inundated with anti-government, right-wing propoganda could never obstruct a mailman, at an anti-government demonstration?

Is this another "show me" situation?
Nobody ever sent threatening letters to Pelosi? Shumer? Frank? 10 others??
Nobody ever used he "N" word at a Tea Party demonstration, even though we've seen the Hitler/Obama posters they carry?
And now...nobody kept their foot on a letter, taunting the mailman, during an angry demonstration?

I'll grant you this:
It could've happened; it could've not happened.

But the overall antics these mobs are up to are far more onerous:
They hate any America that's not totally white, far right, and a twisted tribute to the past they think they remember, but never was.

You gotta love all these folks who say, "My parents worked so hard, and never took a dime from the government!"
Oh really? That was the "Greatest Generation," wasn't it? You mean the ones whose "GI Bill" represented the greatest single housing giveaway in the history of government giveaways...and gave ALL of our families the head start we so badly needed, after WWII?
You mean the biggest government bailout in history...which drove 50 years of prosperity in our lives?
Oh, I guess that doesn't count.

In "Reagan World" (which is akin to Bizarro World, for you Superman fans), "Big Gub'mint isn't the solution, it's the problem!" Great applause line, from a B- list actor...but it's virtually destroyed our nation, ever since.

Taxes bad! Unions bad! Gubmint bad!

Guess what, nostalgia buffs:

When we grew up, nobody ever had to hold a "Bake Sale," for basic school supplies. Public Education was respected, and adequately funded--and if the city or the state or the Feds needed more money to do it, they raised your taxes. And while folks complained about it (as they always have), nobody adopted the kind of "Who cares about the future, cut my taxes!" attitude we've had, ever since the '80s.

For me, a pivotal moment was seeing an actual bridge--in use by thousands of morning commuters--collapse from age, in Minnesota, during the Bush administration.
That is the perfect metaphor for America today.
If you want to see modern bridges, folks...google "Hong Kong bridges" --and while you're at it, try "Shanghai skyline."
They're a full 50 years ahead of anything we have, and that's no lie.

This country is in serious decline, as a direct result of a 'Reagan World' populus, who hates its own government enough NOT to fund it..and then wonders why nothing gets done!

It blows my mind, to see O'Reilly on the air talking about California going broke, yet never mentioning the fact that tax cuts from the "conservative philosophy" are precisely what's strangling our governments and suffocating our infrastructure, our roads, our schools, and our future.

If the Postal Service did what it SHOULD do, and made the cost of delivering a letter a dollar, their problems would be solved...and then some. But GUESS WHO would scream the loudest!
Would it be liberals? Reasonable people, who realize the ground has shifted under our mail system?
Not hardly.
It would be one big, fat, white "Tea Party."

Frankly, most of us mail,so many fewer bills that such a price hike would hardly even be felt, except at Christmas time. Bu in a "me, me, me" world of anti-government, anti-funding, anti-everything...that'll never happen.
So instead, let's continue to close post offices, close schools, cut government agencies, and watch everything decay until it falls apart just like that bridge, shall we?
What a great party.

So we obstruct the mailman. We laugh, about the lousy Postal Service. Ha, ha.
We pay our bills online, that much you can all agree with me about.
We even go to UPS, because "private enterprise is better than a Big Gub'mint agency, even if it's inependent."

I 'll bet you're wondering now...did it really happen, this blocking of a mailman?
I don't know.

But I do know this:
The other morning, a man in his UPS uniform walked into my Post Office, right in front of me, and mailed a whole lotta UPS packages. Packages people THINK are going UPS, and that they paid higher UPS rates for...but that will be delivered faster, quicker, and for much cheaper than UPS could do...by the unionized Post Office.

Who can figure out what's a lie, about these demonstrating morons, having a 'Tea Party' that rails against our government and everything associated with it?

We don't have time for that. We're too busy paying "private enterprise" twice the fare, to ship our gun parts to our fellow militiamen, who are on unemployment.

Seems some of us just like to lie to ourselves...a lot.

______________________________________________
Copyright 2010 by Peter Rodman. All Rights Reserved.

Me, About Brad About You

By Peter Rodman
March 20, 2010

I guess I must've missed the big news, that Brad Schmidt (of 'Brad About You' and Channel 2 fame here in Nashville) had gotten a DUI, and been dismissed from the station.

Back before Brad was really all that well known, I had read a lot of his 'crime beat' work in The Tennessean, and it was straight-up good writing. At some point, he and Susan Thomas (another writer there) went "undercover" in a local housing project, and wrote a month-long series on what it was like to live there. Despite some moral qualms about its pretensions, I read the first installment, and liked it--so I invited them to come on the air each Sunday night for the whole month, as a sort of live 'update' about their life as a 'couple,' supposedly living in a downtrodden and somewhat dodgy area of town.
We made a big deal out of promoting their appearances, and to this day, I believe that more or less put Brad Schmidt's name on the map, as far as public recognition goes. These were his first-ever local media appearances, and they garnered lots of attention. We took phone calls and really mixed it up nicely, for nearly an hour of each week's program, and I could tell Brad was happy with the recognition, and more than a tad intrigued by my gig, as a celebrity interviewer. Go figure.
Anyway, we hit it off quite well, and I even took he and Sue out for a beer, after one of the shows.

A year or so later, I got canned from Lightning–strictly for internal political reasons–and saw Brad at the Ryman one night, a few months later. Delaney Bramlett had appeared there as a surprise guest, and just to make conversation in the lobby at intermission, I said to Brad, “Delaney’s amazing…I was just at (his daughter’s) house with him last night, and we played and sang for hours! Just amazing…”
Brad was by this time a “Page 3″ columnist at the paper, essentially covering the same celebrity beat I had carved out for myself, at Lightning. He came back rather loudly, with “Oh, the great Peter Rodman was with him last night! At the house! He knows everybody!”
There was an awkward silence.
I didn't know what to say.
I could almost feel my face turning red.
Finally, I spoke.
“Give me a break," I said, obviously stung.
Then, lowering my voice, "I can’t believe you’d say that to me, Brad. I was just making conversation!”
I went away not feeling so good at all.

Ironically, I’ve heard people mocking Brad in that very same tone (as I'm sure he has) over the ensuing years, ever since he went full-bore, into the “celeb” beat. People always tell other people you're too big for your britches, if they're not big enough for the job. But even though we're supposed to know it's only professional jealousy, it still hurts.
Anyway, that night when I went home, I think I pulled the covers over my head, and curled up into fetal position for a few months--my exile from public life now seemingly complete.

A few months later, the Mavericks invited a whole lot of people into the recording studio, as they recorded an album they hoped would evoke (on video) a circus-like atmosphere, kind of like when the Beatles recorded “All You Need Is Love,” with lots of people hanging around in Abbey Road.
I saw Brad there, but was careful to stay to myself–not too anxious to get burned again, at all.
It had been a rough time for me, finding out how many folks were NOT really my friends, now that I was no longer on the radio.
Eventually, after the session wore on, Brad got up to leave. I watched as he went around shaking hands and gregariously saying goodbye to everyone, and I thought to myself how bon vivant, and what a “man about town” he’d become, and how different that was from the relatively shy and unassuming guy I’d first met and put on the radio, simply because I liked his writing, before all the celebrity fluff.
After Brad left the studio, I remember I was thinking about leaving myself. It had been a fun day out for me, and so good to be around 'music folk' again--and at the time, there weren’t too many fun days, for this newly anonymous, former radio talk show host in Nashville.

About ten minutes after he’d gone, Brad came walking right back in.
I was even more startled when he walked straight up to me, offered his hand, and said, “Hey, Peter. I’m sorry I didn’t say goodbye to you before. So I came back, just to let you know that. Good to see you again.”
And with that, he turned and left the studio again!
Obviously, he had remembered the hurt in my eyes, back at the Ryman; he knew he'd once kicked me when I was down, and now he had decided that he didn't want to do it again.
He may even have gotten in his car and then come back, just to be kind.
And he may not have known it that day…but I do hope he’ll know it now:
It meant the world to me, that he did that.
So many people may have a public face–Brad certainly does, I did–but they are capable of growth and change, and Brad showed me a lot, just by that little gesture.
He’d obviously given it all some thought.

I’m sorry to have rambled some here, but I just thought this might help tilt things away from the “pro or con” nature of some of the discourse surrounding Brad's dismissal. I endured much the same thing surrounding mine--there was a lot of crazy gossip out there--though in my case, there wasn't much behind the firing, but internal politics. The bosses didn't like me anymore.
"I didn't like his show," said one, when pressed by the Nashville Scene, for a reason.
At the end of the day, radio shows come, and radio shows go.
Mine got cancelled. So what?
Likewise for Brad's TV tidbits. These days, a local station hardly needs a specialized reporter for celebrity stuff we can all get, everywhere we look.
That's just the fact; I'm not saying it's a good thing.
But I can say I’m less of a fan of Brad's celebrity work, than I was of his earlier, straight-up reportage.

And now, let me add something else:
It’s important to remember that (because it’s politically correct, and as a requisite to federal funding for all kinds of things) Tennessee has a “.08″ DUI law, and virtually ANYONE is illegal to drive, after two drinks. Period.
So what I guess I'm saying is, "There but for fortune, go you or go I."
I know this will not be a popular thing to say, but I don’t care:
It’s a ridiculous law.
Either close the bars altogether, or make it .10, which is far closer to realistically “drunk.”
I myself no longer go to bars at all, with rare exceptions. It's ironic that the very downtown area that's supposed to attract folks to Nashville is so ardently avoided by most of its residents, for this very reason.
Who wants to go have two glasses of wine, and end up paying $5000 for the priviledge of losing their license? Is that your idea of a great night out?
Allow me to just say, "No thanks!!!"

As I write this, I honestly do not know any of the circumstances of Mr. Schmidt’s arrest. In fact, I just found out about it today--almost a month after the fact. (Note to Self: Must get interested again!)
But it sounds rather like Channel 2 might have been seeking an opening to make a change anyway. At a station so concerned with cost savings that they’ve literally trained their reporters to be 'all-in-one' solo cameramen for themselves, this is not too shocking. I hardly think a DUI arrest--unrelated to the job-- merits much more than a suspension. If he were a vital anchorperson, that's what Brad would have incurred. So let's be real, here: This was a business decision they wanted to make.
As a media guy of over 30 years myself-– in print, on TV, and radio -– I can vouch for the fact that a lot of this harsh turbulence more or less “comes with the territory.”

I do want to say that there are lots of facets to most people inside the media, me included, just like there are for anybody else. And if Brad has stumbled here, he seems to know it--having gone away for a month of personal reflection--and I would hope people would be a little more compassionate, instead of just piling on. I know what it feels like to be in the public eye, and then suddenly you're nobody. I remember every person who stood by me when I needed them, and yes--everyone who didn't, too.
I think I know a little bit about how Brad must feel, right about now. No one can take too many pot-shots, without getting bruised.
I've been there, and believe me...it hurts.
There is "alone"--and then there is going from having a very public platform, to being completely alone.

All of which is just to wish the boy well, in whatever his future pursuits might be.




______________________________________________
Copyright 2010 by Peter Rodman. All Rights Reserved.

Memories of Fort Hood, in Unbroken Sunlight...

By Peter Rodman
November 5, 2009

Hearing today's tragic news about Fort Hood brought back memories--many of them pre-dawn or post-midnight, as we landed 747s on-base, to deploy 400 troops at a time to Iraq or Kuwait or Afghanistan, on MAC (Military Aircraft Command) charter flights, beginning in 2003.

These were unscheduled charter flights--whereby, under law, the military can (more or less) commandeer commercial aircraft, in order to move troops and supplies, worldwide.
It was volunteer work, but we did get paid for it. The hours were hugely unpredictable, but a tiny sacrifice, compared to the true sacrifice of our service men and women...which is humongous, on a daily basis.

The troops would sometimes sit there all night long, on school busses, waiting--either for us (to drive in from the dumpy, just off-base motel in Killeen, Texas, where we'd just spent the night) or more often, to accomodate some eastern European airbase's arrival curfew--so as to smoothly and safely effect their secure transfer, on other end of the trip.
At the designated time, they'd walk 50 yards or so, across the tarmac, and board our airplane--having sat in a packed school bus for as many as six hours overnight, without complaint. I was honored to receive (and still have) several coveted "base medals," which are rare indeed, from base-commanders at Fort Hood and elsewhere. They would tell me it was because I helped coordinate their passage, in some small way...but in truth, I still feel guilty that most of the rest of my crews (for the most part) didn't get 'em. Actually, I think it was just given to whomever they arbitrarily selected to hand out the one or two coins they had, and I tended to be the one greeting them, out on the ramp.

Fort Hood is in the middle of nowhere.
Few outposts in mainland America are farther from anything.
It takes almost ninety minutes by van, to just get from Austin out there, in completely flat and barron land, and the entrance itself is at least three or four miles long. The airstrips are nothing but flat concrete, for as far as the eye can see. The base shop (a little convenience-store type of thing) is the only thing of any interest whatsoever, and it is of no interest, whatsoever.

When we first started going, in 2003, the troops were young, and 'gung ho'.
Imagine 400 large rifles, each at their seat beside the uniformed soldiers--unstowed, on a 747! It was strange, to say the least.
When the base commander shook my hand, before we would close the airplane door, he would look me in the eye, and almost tear up: "Take good care of them," was all he said.
These kids had been drilled and drilled and drilled, and I don't mind telling you, they proudly liked to think of themselves as 'killing machines.'
One kid looked up at me once, and said, "You know that saying about about 'winning hearts and minds'? I have a saying, too..." With that, he motioned toward his weapon. "One in the heart...and two in the mind."

Many of these young men and women had hardly ever flown before; were shocked at how "good" the coach-style meals were; had no idea how to operate the movies; and in fact, were totally amazed, to see such "luxury," onboard an airplane. I got the clear impression they had not grown up as children of wealth.

Fully 70% of the troops onboard missions we did (which were to drop troops off at a European airbase--'staging area'--and retrieve another full load, coming home, in later years) were "minorities." The ones who weren't were largely farm kids, by their own description.
That is the volunteer army. (I always say to people, "Next time you root against the Williams sisters at Wimbledon, remember...they ARE the Americans!!!")

The vast majority of today's troops (that I saw, on many MAC missions) are tattooed; love hip-hop and rap music; and enjoy texting, and ultra-violent video games.
I would say a majority are either black, hispanic, asian, or a beautiful combination of various races, including white.
Many are of Arabic descent, too.
Keep in mind, "Maliks" are easily as common as "Franks," in today's American army.

By 2006, some of the same faces began showing up--only now they were seasoned, weary adults--not children, anymore...on their *third or fourth* tour, of Iraq or Afghanistan. Understandably, as the nationwide fervor for 9/11 revenge became less focused, the troops I flew seemed to express less of a 'patriotic' motive than they once had, when the war began--and spoke more of their service as a 'career move,' now--something to set up a secure future, for the families many of them had already started. A surprising number had decided to remain "career soldiers."

At Fort Hood, like Camp Mirimar, Fort Bragg, and others, there'd be nothing but horizon, at dawn or dusk...and the purity of that scene was often broken only by barbed wire, way in the distance. Lots of orange light shone off the cowlings of our huge jet engines, and filled the endless sky, as they either anxiously filed onboard (in the appropriately-named 'fatigues'), ready to go fight...or...wearily exited the aircraft, after making it all the way home.
To even see a tree there was rare, and quite beautiful.
The light plays very differently on planet earth, when there's not much else in the way...

It's hard to believe, I know...but the troops never quite knew where we were taking them--it was top secret, especially from them! ("Come on!" they'd whisper. "Where are we going?")
We were under strict instructions not to discuss or answer questions about our destination, until the onboard commander either announced it himself, or the Captain did so, halfway (or more) over the Atlantic Ocean.
To this day, I rarely discuss which cities these were, but they were (in some cases) quite unexpected (for me, anyway) locations in Europe, indeed.

Our planes were decorated by the crews with many flags and banners, thanking them for their service--unlike any plane you've ever seen. Occasionally, I would have to take down some George Bush 'speech' a crew member might hang on the airplane walls, defending his political actions--because this was not a political statement for any of us...just a patriotic one.

Even those few of us who (privately) thought Iraq was an idiotic decision, supported the troops enough to volunteer to transport them, and did nothing to dissuade their enthusiasm, ever.

It was a simple decision, to me. Our troops needed replenishment, and were stretched too thin. The fresher they were, the sooner we could (hopefully) end all this madness.
Many times, I would go off to cry, on my own, after watching an innocent young woman or man embark upon possibly their last life adventure. And most times, fewer people returned, than we had first brought overseas.


I will express one firm political opinion here, and that is that I found it disgraceful, that America was never allowed to even see their coffins coming home, for six full years.
I truly believe we must always see the cost of war, before we embrace any deployments at all.
Some of those coffins contained the bodies of people I was proud to serve, if only for a moment--and more importantly, were proud to serve me, in the most ultimate, meaningful way.
They gave their lives.
It HONORS them to look...and to remember.
That bond with those troops has never diminished, for me--although I no longer choose to fly the MAC charters. (I'm too old for those kinds of hours!)



MAC Charter Flight:
Another 400 soldiers embark
on a journey to war.
That's me at bottom right,
welcoming them onboard.

Today on CNN, I actually heard a reporter say this:
"Authorities cannot confirm whether the gunmen got their uniforms in one of the many 'army surplus supply' stores, located just off-base."
Oh, really? What kind of stupid country even HAS Army uniforms for sale, in stores, just outside its bases?!!?

We have a lot more work to do, in deciding when (and where) to fight.
But no matter how you feel about the war(s), it has to bring a lump to anybody's throat, that several hundred kids (soldiers) are about to deploy tomorrow, regardless of the fact that 31 of their group (who were also ready to deploy) were injured today, and a dozen killed.
Some no doubt lost their best friends, today.
That is what they will leave behind, as they board an empty 747 on that same tarmac, sometime in the next couple days.
Talk about 'heavy hearts'...one can only imagine.

I pray tonight for the victims, their families, and the larger 'family' of servicemen and women, worldwide. And I offer a special prayer to Fort Hood--and to our Arab-American soldier-patriots, who will endure (with their usual grace) the inevitable 'additional scrutiny' imposed upon them now, through no fault of their own.
God bless America...all of it.



MAC Charter (ferry)

______________________________________________________

This Article is Copyright 2009 by Peter Rodman. All Rights Reserved.
______________________________________________________
NOTE: I've decided to post this, from the heart--although I will entertain no personal questions regarding these trips. Any stuff that takes it where I don't want to go will just be deleted.
I hope you'll understand.