H2O Man's Journal
Member since: Mon Dec 29, 2003, 07:49 PM
Number of posts: 52,576
Number of posts: 52,576
- 2015 (97)
- 2014 (134)
- 2013 (71)
- 2012 (90)
- Older Archives
Serving on a public school board is a unique experience. I find all types of systems fascinating, and a Board of Education (BOE) is obviously a sub-system within other systems. Besides the BOE itself, you have the school (administration, faculty, other adult positions, and students); the school is within the community (parents, tax-payers, alumni, and businesses); and more, it is within the state and federal systems.
In my opinion -- for what it is worth -- public education is an essential foundation stone for our democracy. For this reason, public education is under attack from the 1%; unfortunately, a lot of people who see problems with public schools too often side with those who have an agenda to destroy it, rather than repair it.
This may be helpful as a model to illustrate the three distinct levels of conversation that people can engage in: discussions, debates, and arguments. In the context of public education, it’s good to recognize that we discuss issues with those we are in general agreement with; we debate with those who we trust hold the same general values per public education, but hold very different opinions on how we reach our common goals; and we argue with those who seek to destroy the institutions of public education, because our values and goals are polar opposites.
With the second group, we rely upon rational thought as a most valued tool. It can increase people’s levels of understanding, thus increasing the potential for agreement. Yet, with that third group, it is not a failure to grasp our positions that creates the divisions between us. In fact, it’s the opposite: the enemies of public education know full well its benefits. Indeed, that is exactly why they want to destroy it.
This is a rather simple model. It’s not limited to discussions of public education alone. It can be applied to a wide range of social and political issues. If you were to look at, say, just the first page of OP/threads on DU:GD, you could easily find a dozen discussions where this simple model could be or is applied; and two dozen examples where it should be applied, but isn’t, thus resulting in unpleasant and unproductive arguments.
And what, I ask you, would Henry Fonda have to say about this?
With warmest of regards,
Posted by H2O Man | Fri Jan 16, 2015, 05:13 PM (5 replies)
Two weeks ago, the internet boxing site “BoxRec” listed a fight between Floyd Mayweather, Jr., and Manny Pacquiao as being scheduled for May 2, 2015. Recently, that information was removed from the site. However, it appears that both camps have agreed to terms on the issues that have prevented the fight from happening in the past.
This week, Pacquiao has been quoted as saying that he will be able to announce the fight’s date by the end of this month. My understanding is that, at this point, the only unresolved issue has to do with the Pay-Per-View coverage, and how much each fighter will get from PPV sales. Floyd is contracted with Showtime, and Manny with HBO. This is similar to when Mike Tyson challenged Lennox Lewis years ago; Showtime and HBO were able to co-promote the fight for PPV.
Mayweather’s PPV sales are significantly higher than Pacquiao’s, and so he will definitely earn more. Pacquiao reportedly has tax “issues” in both the United States and the Philippines, which is why two of his last three bouts have been held in China. Hopefully, his cut from the PPV sales will be enough to pay off any taxes he owes -- it’s always sad to see an aging champion in debt, due to poor advice from his advisors.
Mayweather will also be guaranteed a much larger purse, because he is both undefeated, and will be the defending champion. In Manny’s two 2012 bouts, he was decisioned by Timothy Bradley in a close fight, and flattened by Juan Manuel Marquez. While he avenged the loss to Bradley, his other two bouts were against soft competition.
The May 2nd date has created a problem, as far as the proposed (but not finalized) middleweight title bout between champion Miguel Cotto and challenger Saul “Canelo” Alvarez. This bout would be the biggest PPV event of 2015, if not for Mayweather vs. Pacquiao. It is interesting to note that Floyd typically fights on the Cinco de Mayo holiday. Canelo had hoped to cash in on the Mexican holiday, and if Floyd were fighting anyone else, it is likely that HBO would have been willing to compete with Showtime for PPV sales. (See below link)
The Mayweather vs. Pacquiao bout should set the record for PPV sales, and become the single largest money-making event in sports’ history. Floyd’s bout with Oscar de la Hoya currently has the most PPV sales; his fight with Canelo made the most money (Floyd made $92 million for that fight).
The fight would have been “bigger” had it happened years ago. This isn’t to say it won’t make a similar amount of money today, but both fighters are obviously older, and on the decline from their physical primes. On the other hand, both might be wiser today in terms of applying their ring skills. Still, there is some controversy regarding why the bout did not happen before. The first roadblock came in February of 2010, regarding “drug testing.” The ESPN clip linked below documents the nature of that disagreement. (The most important information comes when Teddy Atlas speaks, at about 7:30 into the clip.)
Pacquiao had been scoring devastating knockouts during his extraordinary rise in weight classes up until this time. This resulted in his PPV sales skyrocketing, and the demand for a fight with Mayweather. However, it’s interesting to note that since the steroid controversy discussed in the above ESPN clip, Manny has not scored a single knockout. Hence, the PPV numbers have fallen.
In previous discussions, Atlas has said that he believes Mayweather is simply too big and strong for Pacquiao, and would defeat him in the ring. When I interviewed former champion Greg Haugen, he said that both he and friend Roberto Duran believe Floyd would knock Manny out within five rounds (this was before Marquez flattened him).
Styles make fights. I’ve never thought Pacquiao posed as much of a threat to Mayweather as some other contenders with lower rankings. Manny’s footwork -- specifically his ability to land combinations and move to the side quickly -- could be effective for a few rounds. But Manny has set patterns, on both offense and defense, that Floyd would exploit, just as Marquez did.
I think it is more likely that the fight goes to a decision, however, even though a knockout is a very real possibility.
What do you think?
Posted by H2O Man | Tue Jan 13, 2015, 12:23 PM (9 replies)
January 17, at Las Vegas (on Showtime):
Bermane Stiverne vs. Deontay Wilder, for Stiverne’s WBC heavyweight title (12 rounds)
Wladimir Klitschko is the heavyweight champion of the world. However, for purely financial reasons, various “commissions” and promoters have created a number of “titles,” thus creating the fiction that there are anywhere from four to six “champions” per weight class.
When Wladimir’s brother Vitali retired, he held the WBC title. Stiverne won that title in an impressive showing against Chris Arreola. On Saturday, he will defend his title against Deontay Wilder; the winner of this fight will get the opportunity to challenge Wladimir later in the year.
The Klitschko brothers have dominated the heavyweight division for the past decade. Although they are considered “boring” by the American fight fans, they have been consistent in winning. By fighting primarily in Europe -- where they are wildly popular -- both brothers have been allowed to openly and consistently break the rules of the sport. This, plus the fact they tend to be much bigger than their opponents, in one of the weakest eras in boxing’s history, has made it difficult to determine where they rank among the all-time greats.
It is assumed that Wladimir is coming to the end of his career. This has added to the hopes for a new American heavyweight, who can bring excitement to the division. Thus, the expectation is that Saturday’s fight will identify the division’s future.
Stiverne was born in Haiti; is a citizen of Canada; and currently resides in Las Vegas. Wilder is from Alabama. Both men possess the explosive punching-power that can end any fight with a single blow. More, in recent fights, each has shown an impressive “delivery system” for that power. Hence, the excitement grows as Saturday approaches.
Stiverne, 36, stands 6’ 2”, and has an 80” reach. Wilder, 29, is 6’ 6.5” tall, with an 83” reach. Both fighters are orthodox (right-handed). Stiverne has won 24 bouts (21 by KO), with one loss (by TKO), and one draw. Wilder has won all 32 of his bouts by KO -- and all within four rounds.
Stiverne had a deeper amateur career, and has fought tougher opposition in the professionals. He had originally hoped for a career in football, but a knee injury in college ended that dream. He is heavily-muscled, and thus is not particularly fast. He tends to be a counter-puncher, using timing to capitalize on his opponents’ mistakes.
Wilder is tall and relatively thin -- he weighs less than 230 pounds -- and has impressive speed of hands and feet. His impressive wing-span usually allows him to connect from a safe distance, and his size and speed make it impossible for a hurt opponent to get away from him.
Stiverne has solid balance in the ring. This adds to his ability to absorb solid punches, remain calm and relaxed, and to fight 12 rounds if needed. Wilder tends to get excited in fights, and to get off-balance by extending his punches way too far. It is unknown if he has the endurance to go into the late rounds. He has been “wobbled” by punches while off-balance.
Although Wilder is a slight favorite to win, I think that a good case can be made for either man. I was mildly surprised that Teddy Atlas has predicted that Deontay will score a first round knockout. He believes that Wilder’s hand speed and reach will allow him to catch Stiverne cold. That’s certainly a possibility. Likewise, if Wilder extends a punch too far, Stiverne has the ability to end it in the first with a counter-punch.
I favor Wilder in the first four or five rounds. If it goes beyond that, I think Stiverne will win. But nothing would surprise me -- except if the fight goes to the scorecards. Enjoy this fight!
Posted by H2O Man | Mon Jan 12, 2015, 10:01 AM (9 replies)
“In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
-- President Eisenhower; January 17, 1961
It’s fair to say that President Eisenhower’s “farewell address” to the nation serves as the best-remembered act of his two terms in office. Despite the fact that Ike was a WW 2 war hero, courted by elements of both the Democratic and Republican Parties, had fairly consistent high-approval ratings, and would be the last president to leave a budget surplus until President Clinton, his presidency has been marginalized -- except perhaps to the dwindling minority of folks alive at that time -- largely due to the very issues he spoke of in that farewell address.
Being old, and recently even more physically limited due to a rather hard fall upon the ice outside my home, I’ve recently been thinking more about Ike’s warning. And, because the presidential section of my library is located beside the chair I’ve been inhabiting, I’ve had access to some interesting information on that address. So, if by chance you are bored -- or, better yet, are experiencing difficulty in getting to sleep -- take a few minutes to read this!
There is an incorrect belief that the aging General reached his belief in the dangers of the military-industrial complex late in his presidency. Yet when one studies his 1952 campaign, the central theme in his speeches is the price of the war machine: he repeatedly spoke of how a single fighter jet robbed the public of the potential for hospitals, schools, and/or highways.
More, as a war hero/ General, and student of history, Eisenhower consciously attempted to use the model of George Washington. This included Ike’s fascination with President Washington’s farewell address to the nation -- which, of course, was not an “address” at all, but rather a message delivered in letter form. While Eisenhower differed in his approach to some issues, most notably his focus on ties to other nations, he believed that his approach to the presidency was most like that of Washington.
Thus, after the mid-term congressional elections in his second term, Ike would begin to plan his farewell address. In the early fall of 1960, he presented Malcolm Moos with the central themes he wanted to address, with instructions to model the speech on Washington’s farewell address. In Eisenhower’s presidential papers, there are actually 29 “rough drafts” of the speech, which allow historians and watermen on ice to study its evolution.
Two things stand out. Throughout the middle-to-end drafts, there are references to the “military-industrial-congressional complex.” Ike was aware of the growing influence of the combination of the military and industry on Congress, and was searching for a way to bring this to the attention of the American public. Even in those “early days,” Eisenhower saw that retired military leaders were being absorbed by industry, and that this dynamic was changing the nation’s fabric in potentially dangerous ways.
A central concern was that, in order to justify investing huge amounts of tax dollars in weapons programs, not only would it require that industry have undue influence over elected representatives, but the American public would have to be kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety. The most obvious example of the negative potential of this was, of course, found in the actions of Senator Joseph McCarthy. That artificially-induced level of fear and anxiety could only serve to make the nation more prone to war -- including attacking not only other nations, but domestic proponents of peace. (McCarthyism is a closely-related topic that actually requires a separate essay exploring it in today’s context.)
The final drafts, and the address itself, also contain Ike’s warning on the dangerous influence of the military-industrial complex on higher public education. The removal of “-congressional” from the earlier description weakened that warning, in my opinion. Eisenhower was disturbed by how federal grants to colleges and universities required those in the fields of science to focus primarily upon advances in military technology. He recognized that this served the financial needs of industry, while denying potential advancements in the quality of human life.
Eisenhower’s farewell address was watched by over 70 million Americans. This was shortly after the first televised presidential debate, between VP Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy, viewed by a similar number of citizens, proved the power of television to influence public opinion.
About a decade-and-a-half later, after televised hearings helped remove President Nixon from power, the American public became aware of the direct influence of the military/intelligence community on the media. Not surprisingly, a large number of journalists, editors, and station managers were shown to served two master. It was obvious which master exercised more power.
In today’s modern media, in which the overwhelming majority of major sources are owned by the industries Ike warned of, retired military generals and intelligence officials routinely serve as “guest commentators.” (Bob Woodward may be the only intelligence officer who continues to claim to be a journalist.) Many of these people do add interesting and valuable information to the coverage of incidents such as the recent violence in Paris -- just as retired police officers can add to discussions on Ferguson, etc.
Yet the very danger that President Eisenhower warned of is also ever-present: by focusing the discussion in the context of the military-intelligence-police viewpoint -- no matter how sincere and well-intended the individual may be -- the media by definition is managing the public’s perception, and excluding a wide range of other interpretations of events. And the “crown jewel” of that, of course, was the high percentage of the American public that believed that Saddam Hussein was an active participant in 9/11.
It is unrealistic to expect that people who were so convinced of a “connection” that did not exist -- to the extent that they were willing, even eager, to send American youth to invade Iraq -- to be able to identify, understand, and appreciate the very real connections between the global violence and the American military-industrial-congressional industry. (To a large extent, I’d add the other two branches of the federal government in there, too. Certainly, the Bush-Cheney administration represented industry over the public interest -- or military interest, as well. And the US Supreme Court not only selected Bush-Cheney, despite the actual election outcome, but it has determined that industries are citizens with constitutional rights.)
Is it possible to change the public’s perception today? I think that it is. And I am convinced that President Eisenhower’s farewell address holds the keys.
Posted by H2O Man | Sun Jan 11, 2015, 01:55 PM (21 replies)
A couple of years ago, a foreign exchange student from France lived with my family. She remains in contact with us -- the miracle of the internet! -- and plans to visit us in the late spring/ early summer. She’s a wonderful young lady, a talented artist, and I’ve been thinking about her a lot in the past couple of days.
It’s strange for me to have one of my “daughters” living in a war zone. It is, sadly, a rather common feature in the human experience. I’m not particularly bright, but I do understand the role of colonial France in causing suffering among human beings. And I understand that the relatively limited amount of violence in France in the past 72 hours
Instead, I’m thinking of a human being ….in this case, a young lady who brings a smile to my face when she calls me “Dad,” and who was absolutely a sibling to my other four children. I think about how she and I talked about “American culture” -- warts and all -- and how she would accompany me to public government hearings, where I advocated for a clean environment.
I compare that to these young adults from the Muslim world who have been convinced by some older adult -- my age -- that they have a duty to maim and kill other human beings, with a promised reward in the afterlife. Odd how these old men skipped their opportunities to blow themselves up (much like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney sat out the war in Vietnam).
In recent times, it seems as if the dark forces of hatred is sending its unholy warriors out against humanity “not in single spies, but in battalions,” to quote Shakespeare. It is essential that we respond, by way of a peace movement.
Posted by H2O Man | Fri Jan 9, 2015, 04:06 PM (2 replies)
“Spiritual consciousness is the highest form of politics.”
“Intolerance betrays a want of faith in one’s cause.”
A couple of nights ago, a news commentator said that while Mario Cuomo’s Democratic Convention speech defined his career, his lesser-known speech at Notre Dame delivered an equally-important message. Hours later, after both of my daughters had gone to bed -- leaving my computer “open” -- I re-read that speech.
“This ‘Christian nation’ argument should concern -- even frighten -- two groups: non-Christians and thinking Christians.
“I believe it does.”
-- Mario Cuomo at Notre Dame
Governor Cuomo’s commentary on the ever-present tension between politics and religion is worth reading. He understood -- much like Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. -- that “tensions” can be either positive or negative. The positive aspect brings forth growth, starting with the individual, and thus benefiting the group. The negative aspects include self-righteousness, and violence.
A few hours after reading that wonderful speech, the initial reports about the ugly violence in France began to play on the television. Like everyone, I found the news disturbing ….disgusting in that it is all too common. Having had two relatives shot in October, with one killed, the viciousness of this act leaves me less interested in considering an in-depth analysis of the political, economic, social, religious, and cultural dynamics that came into play. It is not that I do not recognize the importance of such things; rather, at this time, I don’t have the energy to go there. Sometimes the human condition simply knocks you for a loop, and it’s okay to just sit back for a brief moment.
With all the “bad” in the world -- and there’s enough difficulty in just every day life, without the brutality of the morally- and ethically bankrupt brutes -- there is a heck of a lot of “good,” including good people …..or else the world wouldn’t keep on going. I try to not forget this. I try to think about ways in which good people can make progress, not because of this extremely negative tension, but in spite of it.
This morning, for the second day in a row, I dropped my older daughter off at a recording studio. In a few days, it’s back to the university for her; besides classes, she’ll continue with her music. Human expression, be it music, writing (including satire), or whatever, have the ability to make sense of life, and even to lift our spirits. Life goes on.
Posted by H2O Man | Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:08 PM (21 replies)
I remember a sunny, cool day in the fall of 1990. The media was reporting that Governor Mario Cuomo was going to be visiting a Veterans’ Home in our county. A co-worker and I went to the event on our lunch hour. After Governor Cuomo gave his speech -- and that man was a most powerful communicator! -- he saw me in the audience, and came over to discuss a Native American issue.
I don’t mind saying that I loved that Governor Cuomo started our conversation by thanking me for assisting him previously, with a rather hostile crowd. For in those days, the state was considering placing a nuclear dump in our county. Although I was as opposed to that concept as anyone, I had treated Governor Cuomo with great respect. For I had learned, from back when he served as NYS’s Lieutenant Governor, that Mario Cuomo was an honest man.
At that time, I was a single father, raising two little boys. My life was pretty full: my wonderful little boys; working at the mental health clinic; and also serving as Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman’s top aide on burial protection and repatriation issues in the northeast. I did have a crush on my co-worker, and I suspect that conversation with Mario Cuomo impressed her in a positive way. (We soon began dating, and she was one of the most outstanding people I’ve ever had the pleasure of knowing. However, after about a great year, we recognized that I was too busy with my sons, and working with Paul, to be able to invest the time and energy in the relationship she surely deserved. We parted as good friends. It remains one of those “what if?” episodes of my life.)
It likely comes as no surprise to any conscious DU community member that there have been very few non-Indian politicians that the traditional Iroquois have respected. The only other one that I can think of from the century of the 1900s would be Robert F. Kennedy. I could write for a week about why men such as Nelson Rockefeller or George Pataki were deemed as wholly unworthy of respect. Yet Kennedy and Cuomo were exceptional -- they could be trusted. I guess two other “what if’s?” would be if either had ever served as the President of the United States? I’m fully convinced our nation would have benefited from human beings of their quality serving as president.
(A brief “side-note”: a reporter from an area newspaper approached me moments after my conversation with Governor Cuomo. He asked if I would tell him “what that was all about?” I asked him why he had mis-quoted me in an article 18 months previously? He said that the editor had changed his work, specifically attributing some utter nonsense to me. I didn’t believe him at the time; however, I did talk to him about a burial protection issue that was heating up. And, for the next two years or so, he did write a number of outstanding articles on Native American rights, including the case at hand, which ended up in NYS Supreme Court.)
Although I can’t say that I was ever “friends” with Mario Cuomo, he did give me a card that day, upon which he gave me “private” contact information. I had the honor of meeting him a few times. And I remember a meeting at his office in Albany, that his closest friend/attorney set up. A large construction company, complete with their lawyer and “hired-gun” archaeologist, was seated at one side of the table; Chief Waterman, two Oneida representatives, and I were on the other side. The Council of Chiefs had determined that I would serve as our side’s spokesperson. I remember Paul saying that he wasn’t concerned that I was going against two men who had Ph.D’s, because I was telling the truth. I was younger then, of course, and I remember after the meeting, that I felt the same as I used to after one of my best boxing matches. Plus, I wouldn’t end up sore the next day -- in boxing, everyone gets hurt. But that night, I easily destroyed our opposition’s lies. I was on fire, the way young men can be.
Several months later, Governor Cuomo’s attorney friend called me at my work. The state was going to open a new department, to work exclusively on Native American issues. Besides the burial protection issues, it would focus on disputes about both taxes, and a proposed casino. I would be lying if I said that I wasn’t pretty interested in the job he was offering me. But there was no way that I would stop serving with Chief Waterman, the most honorable human being that I’ve ever met.
Back then, Andrew Cuomo served his father as a top advisor. We all knew that the son was a highly intelligent man. My impression of him from back then was that he was ambitious. I am not intending that as a compliment. He struck me as cold. It was funny: although his voice sounded exactly like his father’s, and he clearly shares some physical attributes with Mario Cuomo, he seemed to lack the quality of humanity. I can’t think of a better way to express that; I hope that it makes sense.
The last communication that I had with Mario was about six months ago, when I e-mailed him. I didn’t hear back from him, but that was fine. Of all the politicians that I’ve met over the decades, Governor Mario Cuomo impressed me the most. By far, really.
It’s strange: yesterday, the NYS public schools’ teachers union went to picket outside the Governor’s residence. Sad to say that public education is being attacked, even here in this state. I had spoken with some regional union leaders two days before, suggesting that the union and the Board of Education(s) should be joining together on the issues involved. While I am unsure if Andrew Cuomo would approve of that, I’m confident that his father would have said it was important that the teachers union and BOEs join together to advocate for public education.
Rest in peace, Governor Cuomo.
Posted by H2O Man | Fri Jan 2, 2015, 07:14 PM (20 replies)
“I did not know then how much was ended. When I look back now from this high hill of my old age, I can still see the butchered women and children lying heaped and scattered all along the crooked gulch as plain as when I saw them with eyes still young. And I can see that something else died there in the bloody mud, and was buried in the blizzard. A people's dream died there. It was a beautiful dream.”
-- Black Elk
This haunting quote from the Lakota holy man Black Elk describes his insight on the Wounded Knee Massacre. Today is the anniversary of the December 29, 1890 conflict, in which the US military attacked a group of Indian people who had surrendered their freedom the day before.
Spotted Elk, a chief of the Miniconjou, had led approximately 350 people, from various tribes, on a trip towards the reservation the military had selected for them. They had camped along the bank of the Chanjkpe-Opi-Wakpala, or Wounded Knee Creek.
According to historians, on the morning of the 29th, the military attempted to secure the guns that some of the Indians had. A deaf man, Black Coyote, did not understand when a soldier attempted to take his gun. Thus, the violence began: over 200 Indian men, women, and children were killed, and 51 wounded (4 men, and 47 women and children); some of the wounded died in the days that followed. Twenty-five soldiers were killed, and 39 were wounded (six of the wounded died in the following days).
The dead Indians were buried in a mass grave. The Wounded Knee Massacre would mark the end of the “Indian wars” of the 1800s. There were, of course, other incidents of conflict, where people were injured and killed. Though it was not the only such massacre, it stood out in our nation’s history.
Posted by H2O Man | Mon Dec 29, 2014, 01:35 PM (27 replies)
“Carter repeatedly spits out words like ‘kill’ in conversation. They reflect an easily triggered violence that lies barely restrained beneath his malevolent-looking exterior. In the boxing ring it is a violence that excites fans and is calculated to terrify opponents. ….Carter has not always used his fists in what can only be called his private war against society. Sometimes it has been knives, sometimes guns, sometimes cobblestones. …During last summer’s Harlem riots, for instance, he suggested, in jest, to Elwood Tuck, his closet friend, ‘Let’s get guns and go up there and get us some of those police. I know I can get four or five before they get me. How many can you get?’.”
-- Milton Gross; A Match Made in the Jungle; Saturday Evening Post; October, 1964.
In Norman Jewison’s 1999 movie “The Hurricane,” Rubin Carter makes the unfortunate remark quoted above, during an interview with a reporter. It was actually Carter’s manager/ business advisor, Elwood Tuck, who told the story to Gross. At the time, Carter was preparing to challenge middleweight champion Joey Giardello, in a bout that had previously postponed. Tuck was attempting to boost interest in the bout, by adding to the public image of Rubin as a scary black man.
The worst part, of course, was that Rubin said such a thing. The morning after the magazine hit the stands, Sugar Ray Robinson was on the phone, telling Carter that this could only be taken in a most negative manner by law enforcement across the country. And indeed, it was. I think that it is very difficult for anyone who did not live through that era, to fully appreciate both how tense “race relations” were at the time.
There were riots in Paterson, Elizabeth, and Jersey City, NJ, and Harlem and Rochester, NY, among other places. They had all started over a confrontation between police and an individual male “suspect.” In Paterson, there were broken windows, fires, Molotov cocktails, and random gun fire (no one was killed). And here was someone talking about shooting police.
Police saw a top athlete -- potentially a world champion -- that they believed posed a risk to their safety. Add to that the then-current heavyweight champion, Muhammad Ali, who was a member of the Nation of Islam. Police knew that Carter, like Ali, had an association with Malcolm X, and with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Yet, unlike the current “controversy” about Rev. Al Sharpton, no one worried that Carter’s words would influence others -- they believed that Carter himself posed the threat.
In my opinion, it was a stupid thing for Rubin to say to Tuck, or anyone else. And it was a really stupid thing for Tuck to feed to the reporter. It wasn’t only law enforcement that found this offensive. Boxing, which was featured weekly on the popular “Friday Night Fights” in living rooms across America, had a number of “character-actors,” and Carter both looked and purposely (for boxing) promoted an image as a vicious felon. Carter’s popularity would plunge after the article was published. And a string of documented incidents -- at times associated with bars late at night -- began taking place. Although they appeared to be harassment, there was a pattern being made.
It was also stupid on Tuck’s part, because he was a bar-owner in Paterson, NJ. It was a decaying industrial city, with tensions between the black, brown, and white communities. A significant part of the tensions included complaints against some members of the police force. More, various studies have documented an unhealthy relationship between police, prosecutors, and politicians from Paterson, and members of organized crime.
By the mid-1960s, non-whites associated with organized crime had risen from the ranks of “enforcers” (something that former heavyweight champion Sonny Liston, also a friend of Rubin’s, was often accused of being), to more mid-level positions. Much of the “vice” in those days -- drugs, gambling, and prostitution -- were run out of bars. There had already been tensions between two mob “families” over control of the Paterson region. And then black men began stepping up their role.
Part of the story that Gross wrote had to do with Giardello’s connections with organized crime. Testimony before the Kefauver Committee indicated that, for example, Frankie Carbo used to own Giardello. By the time of the Carter fight, Giardello fought for Antonio “Tony Bananas” Caponigro. Joey also had a violent felony in his background. The thrust of Gross’s article was that boxing was an ugly, violent sport, controlled by the mafia.
After losing a 15-round decision to Giardello, Rubin would replace Tuck as manager, though the two remained friends. And, in a relatively short time, Carter was convicted of a brutal triple-murder in a Paterson bar. For years, few people who were familiar with the Hurricane’s ring image doubted that he was a mad-dog killer.
Twenty years later, the federal court system would vacate the conviction, which was based upon a “racial revenge theory.” A black bartender had been murdered earlier on the night Carter was accused of murdering a white bartender. Although Carter did not know either victim or gunman in the earlier crime, prosecutors claimed that Carter sought revenge, by killing three complete strangers. In federal court, the NJ prosecutor admitted that there was no evidence that Carter “hated” white people, but that without this “motive,” he could not have gotten the conviction.
I’ve been thinking about that Saturday Evening Post article, since watching the news about the tragic murder of two police officers in NYC, and reading some discussions here on this forum. I have the added burden of insight, having had two relatives shot (one killed) by an off-duty officer less than two months ago. I understand how emotions impact the manner in which we process information about the world around us. I know how and why people who are hurting say some crazy things.
I go back in my mind to the late 1970s: a friend of mine was killed by some railroad workers. For a “prank,” they hung a cable on an old, abandoned railroad bed -- there had been two railroads in the town, and the police chief had recommended my friends ride their motorcycles on the old one -- along a blind curve. The workers, who knew that the cable would injure someone, saw my friend hit it from a distance. They laughed about it in a bar shortly afterwards, not knowing it had decapitated the young man.
Later that night, some of our friends wanted to get “revenge.” I was in the minority, in saying that was not the way. A few hours later, the depot was burned . The area media, of course, paid far more attention to the arson, than to my friend’s death.
The following summer, I led a group of friends in making the area our buddy was killed into a public park. My friend’s parents much preferred that to the arson. A few years later, they donated the money from the railroad to the human service non-profit agency I worked for, to start a program for “at risk” children and youth.
I remember having long discussions with Rubin, who was still incarcerated, about both the park and the program for children and youth. This was at the time when Rube was undergoing the transformation that the movie shows. The park piece was before the Canadians; it was when Rubin was isolating, and only communicating with myself and one other gentleman from Boston.
The other fellow (Thom) had introduced Rubin to Victor Frankl. As a result, Carter began putting away his law books, and concentrating on being released from his cell. For Frankl’s message is simple: we can do the right thing, not because of the horrors that life sometimes lays in our path, but despite them. This is the way to transformation -- both as individuals, and as groups.
We waste time and energy in “arguing” with those who, having been consumed by Fox et al, want to blame people who exercise Amendment 1, for the tragic deaths of those two police officers. And we are at a time when we do not have the luxury of time and energy to squander. More, all of that negative emotion is spiraling, and fanning the flames of hatred and fear, and that can only lead to greater violence.
Times of crises provide opportunities for transformation. And there has never been a time in this nation’s history when true growth has been needed more.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Posted by H2O Man | Wed Dec 24, 2014, 09:39 AM (2 replies)
“I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together.”
-- John Lennon
Last night, I watched the 2010 documentary, “I Am,” by Tom Shadyac. The film chronicles his journey from a successful film-maker, to a conscious human being. While I have heard of some of his previous movies, this was the first time that I have ever watched any of his works. It was, in my opinion, a worthwhile investment of 90 minutes.
Briefly, a bike accident that caused a relatively long-term injury to Shadyac’s brain caused him to question the meaning of life. Previous to this, he was the very definition of “successful” in the context of our society’s material world. But a severe post-accident depression sent him on a quest to find a greater meaning to life than accumulating material possessions.
The documentary included clips of interviews with scientists, environmentalists, religious leaders, and philosophers. They focused upon two general questions: what is wrong with the world?; and, what can we do about it?
Part of the attempt to answer these questions was based on the human understanding of two systems. The first is the mechanical -- for example, the life cycle of water, from rain to stream to river to ocean to evaporation and back to rain. The second is Darwin’s concept of survival of the fittest.
In the human culture of “western civilization,” the concept of “social Darwinism” has led some to consider how to exploit the natural world, with its various systems, for individual financial gain. This is connected with the need to make others -- the masses -- into less-than-human consumers. Little if any of this is “new” to most participants on this forum, I suspect. Yet, I think there is potential value in reviewing it -- perhaps especially at this “holiday season,” when a lack of ability to buy/consume products that we likely don’t really need, creates feelings of loneliness and separation from that group that, at least in theory, is our family and/or social circle.
The late December holiday season tends to bring about stress for the majority of people. Stress, of course, is part of human life experience, and can be positive or negative. The dynamics of modern society tend to create far more negative stress at this time of year; hence, for many adults, there is a sense of “I can’t wait until it’s over.” Other than when my children were little, I know that I have not enjoyed the Christmas season since I was little.
The documentary noted how important “little” things are -- even just how we respond to people as we pass by them on the street or in a store. It notes that it is the sum total of these small events that actually brings about change, far more so than a “big” event, such as a new act being passed by Congress. This is, in fact, the key to changing the world in which we inhabit: our every-day actions with the living environment, of which human beings are but one important part.
At risk of sounding utterly foolish, I would thus propose a living experiment for DU:GD that I hope others will be willing to participate in. In part, it is rooted in the message of that documentary. But a bigger part has to do with the tone of some of the OP/threads that I’ve read here in the hours since watching the flick. While the majority appear to be posted in an effort to stimulate thought and discussion, too many have a harsh, hostile quality that is unlikely to lead to anything positive.
Let’s make an effort during the week to be polite. That doesn’t mean that we should agree with everything that other folks post here. Not at all. But it does mean that we should respond in a thoughtful manner, rather than simply reacting with an insult -- even if a statement appears to beg for a verbal spanking.
More, no matter if one celebrates any religious or spiritual “holiday” this week, we are all aware that others do. And we know that this includes having a fair number of community members here who are dealing with loneliness, loss, poverty, or any number of other unpleasant issues that are worse during the holiday season.
And, even more, we just might find that, by putting our minds together, we can find not only the common ground that makes life more pleasurable, but who knows? We might come up with some good ideas for us to approach as a community in 2015.
Posted by H2O Man | Sun Dec 21, 2014, 04:40 PM (22 replies)