[Politics] In Defense of Rangel's Draft

It seems to me that Congressman Charles Rangel (D – NY, 15^th District, i.e. Harlem) tends to get a bad rap in public circles, often portrayed as a kook, as if he is elected in a district where the constituents aren’t smart enough to know better. And at no time is this characterization used more than when Rangel expresses his desire to reinstate the draft. His critics, and even his own party, seem to simply let his idea air out comically like the dirty laundry of some nut.

I’m here to say Rangel is as far from crazy as anybody else in politics. He is a hard-working public servant with a brilliant story of perseverance and success. He represents a district that, I’m sure, gets as little respect in the Capitol as you can imagine, and he is true to his constituents and his beliefs there. But because those beliefs, particularly that of the draft, are unpopular, he is often made the whipping boy of political pundits.

I am not in the military, nor do I live in Rangel’s district, but I, unlike many others it seems, do not think Rangel is crazy for his views on the draft. In fact, there are many reasons to defend it, reasons we would certainly like to ignore, particularly in the midst of an unpopular war in Iraq.

As far as our current military situation, it is understandable that Rangel’s position is considered political suicide, but prior to or after this war, the arguments against it dwindle away exponentially. And since apparently few else have, I would like to take this opportunity to play devil's advocate and defend Rangel’s call for the reinstitution of the draft.

To reiterate Rangel’s points: The draft would make the nation’s leaders less likely to engage in war so long as their families would be equally at risk. Additionally, a draft would create a military more representative of the American populace. These are both fine reasons, but truly only the tip of the iceberg in what could be a very intriguing proposal.

Rangel grew up on the heals of what Tom Brokaw deemed “The Greatest Generation.” To make things clear, those born between 1911 and 1924 are no greater than you or I, but I think they feel greatness within themselves far more than those born afterwards. The Greatest Generation persevered through a depression, fought a noble war in Europe and Japan and returned home to build America into the international power it is today. Is it any wonder they feel greatness?

In a recent article in New York magazine Rangel describes being motivated into politics after returning from the war in Korea, noting of course the enormous racial divide that still existed when he was just a humble employee in the garment district: “I was unloading a truck, and these boxes fell out, spread all over the street. This cop came over and said, ‘You better clean that up, boy.’ I started picking up the boxes and I’m thinking, I’m pretty sick of this crap. I thought I’d reenlist, go back into the Army. Then I thought to myself, ‘No. I’m Sergeant Charles Fucking Rangel. Who are these people to treat me like this?”

Even in that time of strict oppression, Rangel felt greatness, and in no way was it in spite of his service (Consequently, the last time that I thought to myself 'Who are these people…,' I probably deserved to be treated exactly as I had been).

In subsequent generations, that “greatness” feeling has slowly passed. The Baby Boomers were great for speaking their minds, fighting the values of the status quo and helping to bring about equality. I guess Generation X is proud for bringing about the information age and the wave of technological advances we currently enjoy. My generation seems content simply to be apathetic. Yes, it is a sad state, and maybe someone does need to light a fire under our asses, and forced conscription is certainly more than anyone else has suggested. (Hey, if nothing else, it would give this generation something to rebel against other than just the suburban malaise that seems to foster a teenage obsession with violence).

So let’s consider the idea for a moment, and let’s do so creatively.

For one, if that many more people entered into conscripted service, the term of that service could be drastically reduced from the current standard of four years for volunteer recruits, to two years, which is the norm in places like Israel where service is compulsory. Second, Rangel himself suggested in a recent interview on Face the Nation that a draft need not limit itself to the armed forces, and could include services such as port and airline security. Let’s take it another step further and include the National Guard, border security or even service in the Peace Corps. In other words, draftees could be placed into any of the many programs that are meant to provide security, relief and aid to citizens of this country and the world. Instead of being exclusive to the military, a draft could also give the option of compulsory community service among the hundreds of programs already in place that many conservatives say waste taxpayer dollars through coddling. This would actually reduce some of the financial burden of those programs, as those draftees would not be paid to the extent of a full time employee in such a program. And surely giving draftees a choice abut the type of service they could perform on behalf of the United States would lessen the resistance and criticism from both sides of the aisle, right? The face of war has changed so why should the draft system be what we remember from the 1960s?

There are other benefits as well. A draft could actually alleviate two areas where the US is currently lagging far behind much of the developed world: healthcare and education (two institutions I know liberals would very much like to improve the quality of). The military currently provides volunteers with both money for college, and health benefits for life. With the financial relief provided through compulsory participation in either military or humanitarian programs, a draft could provide the same benefits for draftees, and imagine the result: everyone in this country in better health and with a better education for the small price of serving the United States for two years. There are certainly worse, not to mention more bureacratic, leading to ultimately more corrupt, ways to fight these problems.

Finally, perhaps a draft could combat the greed, numbness and insignificant minutia that dominate our current state of concerns. I don’t want to get on a soapbox and pretend that I haven’t succumb to much of the self aggrandizement of the daily working and consuming world, but at least I am taking responsibility for it here. If every up-and-coming generation had at some point, for some time, sacrificed their time in the name of this country, and for the benefit of others, would our six o’clock evening news really feature stories about dog shows, celebrity gossip, frivolous lawsuits and athlete arrests? It may be wishful, but I’d like to think that the public would demand more substance from their surroundings had they too been more directly effected by worldly, and not simply personal, matters.

A draft may not be the answer to these problems, and, again, during an unpopular war, I think you’d be hard-pressed to get support for such a method of solving them. But one thing I am certain of is that if we are able to make even the slightest dent in issues of homeland security, humanitarian aid, domestic healthcare and education, through a draft or any other means, surely this generation could stake its own claim to “greatness.”

read more......

[Sports] The Patriot Drive

For Tom Brady and the Patriots it was familiar territory…a little too familiar if you are a San Diego Chargers fan: divisional playoffs, on the road, fourth quarter, down by eight. And for all the season-long pontificating about how the Patriots are not the same team that won three Super Bowls, they sure looked like it…and no one should’ve been surprised by the outcome.

For a split second it looked like the San Diego Chargers may have ended any semblance of the all-too-familiar Patriot comeback when Charger’s safety Marlon McCree intercepted a Tom Brady pass in San Diego territory with just over three minutes to play. But in Patriot playoff games split seconds, and the decisions made during them, have a funny way of bringing in the tides of victory. Instead of falling on his interception, or simply knocking the ball to the ground, McCree made a move and stayed on his feet, leaving fourteen-year-Patriot-veteran receiver Troy Brown just enough room to reach his arm into McCree’s and strip the ball away. And just to put a bit of ironic icing on the cake, it was former Charger Reche Caldwell that recovered the fumble at the San Diego 32, breathing new life into the Patriot’s drive. Caldwell then caught the touchdown pass that put the Patriots within just a two-point conversion from tying the game – a two-point conversion that only Zeus's lightning bolt could have stopped, when the snap went directly to seven-year-veteran back Kevin Faulk who ran it easily into the endzone.

After the defense's three-and-out crushed any chance the Chargers’ had to answer the Pats magic, Tom Brady proved to be the only Houdini in the house when he found Caldwell, yet again, on a go route down the right sideline for a 49-yard gain to set-up Patriot kicker, and rookie, Stephen Gostkowski for the game-winning 31-yard field goal.

For those who thought the Patriots had squandered away their chances at a fourth Super Bowl title by trading away stars like Deion Branch, David Givens and the most-clutch kicker in the game, Adam Vinatieri, think again. The Patriots may not have the title yet, but they have rightfully silenced all critics with an offense of names still new to many sportscasters.

But the one name they all stand behind has quickly become tattooed on every coach’s and analyst’s brain: Bill Belichick. Two questions now dawn upon the league:

First, can a fourth Patriot appearance in the Super Bowl in six seasons be good for the NFL?

The answer is a most resounding yes. In fact, nothing could be better for the game than another Patriot appearance. To all non-Patriot fans this sounds like insanity, until you examine how the Patriots have won their titles.

When in his first Super Bowl victory Tom Brady was awarded the MVP, he would only accept the award with his entire team present. It was that move that set the tone for the first NFL dynasty in ten years. Brady may still be with the team, but, by trading away star players like Deion Branch and Adam Vinatieri soon after those championship seasons, the Patriots did the unthinkable: put their team above the demands of the star athletes that got them those titles. They say hindsight is 20/20, but, for the Patriots, there is no need to look behind them, they have 20/20 foresight. Their decisions have paid dividends…and not just for them, but for the league too.

For one thing, the Patriots may have single-handedly proven that big egos are obsolete character affects of great players. In fact, egotistical players may easily be the Achilles heal to many otherwise great teams. The Patriots say “No,” to talent that comes with heavy-baggage. And they win because of it. Their teams are built on character and class. If I were a head coach, I’d be taking notes. And if I wereTerrell Owens, I’d be worried about my job.

Belichick describes his search for role players (not stars): “If you put them in one particular spot, you may have a guy that’s better at that one thing than they are, but when you look at the players versatility, his intelligence, his physical skills, his ability to understand concepts and adapt to different situations, that he just has so much value on a broad base, that that’s really more valuable to your team even than a guy whose better at one.” It is this attitude that has brought in the subtle-but-significant playmakers in Kevin Faulk, Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney.

Beyond building for character and role, the Patriots build for morale – a morale that actually shares its wealth all over the league. Even to Patriot fans, not resigning Adam Vinatieri to whatever contract he asked for seemed, at the beginning of the season, like a colossal error. But that’s Patriot policy: winning is not rewarded with money; winning is its own reward. And the beneficiaries of that policy are all the teams in the league. It has certainly benefited the Indianapolis Colts, who signed Adam Vinatieri in the off-season, and who now have him to thank for a victory over the Baltimore Ravens on Saturday. The Patriots faired pretty well in that exchange too with the drafting of Stephen Gostkowski, who, though it maybe too early to say, displayed his own Vinatieri-esque poise with the game-winning field goal on Sunday.

And so the second question: Can clutch play be coached?

If the answer is yes, then only the Patriots have proven it with Belichick’s coaching genius – genius that has now achieved the status of pure mystique. One thing is for sure: There has been no more clutch a team in all of sports over the past decade than the New England Patriots. So, if clutch play cannot be taught, it is certainly then learned by osmosis.

Most astonishing in that fact is that, while Tom Brady has already been crowned the king of clutch, the clutch play in Sunday’s game actually came from others. The most notable was Troy Brown’s strip of what would have otherwise been a game-ending interception in the fourth quarter. This has to be one of the most heads-up plays all season. It would be easy to say it was McCree’s fault for not falling on the ball or batting it down, but it is hard to blame an athlete for trying to make a great play even greater.

No, the credit should go entirely to Brown, who, when others would have been witnessing the end of their season in that interception, instead saw an opportunity (though certainly playing as a defensive back on occasion helped). Seeing opportunity when the prospects look otherwise dismal is the foundation of clutch playing, and it is the reason other teams feel imminent defeat coming against the Patriots, even, or perhaps especially, with a lead in the fourth quarter. For the Patriots, a fourth quarter deficit is the backwards equivalent of “We got ‘em right where wewant ‘em.”

The other clutch players of the day were Reche Caldwell, Jabar Gaffney, and rookie-kicker Stephen Gostkowski, none of who came to New England with a reputation for such performances. Caldwell, the former Charger, picked up the McCree fumble, caught the touchdown pass that would tie the game, and made the 49-yard catch to put the Pats in position for the game-winning field goal. Within four minutes of play, Caldwell defined clutch three different times (and all the while probably made Marty Shottenheimer sick to his stomach).

Jabar Gaffney may not have made headlines for his plays, but, under the radar, he gave another 100-yard receiving performance for the second consecutive playoff game, something totally unexpected from a man who began the season without a team at all. In six seasons with the Houston Texans he had only had one such 100-yard performance. Gaffney has 18 receptions so far in this post-season, which is seven more than he had all season long after the Pats signed him, essentially off the street. The Patriots are quickly gaining a reputation for taking the players others don't want, and then beating them with those players (as with their Texan squashing earlier this year, where Gaffney scored his first touchdown of the season).

Finally, there is Stephen Gostkowski. Now, hitting a 31-yard field goal may seem less like clutch play and more like simply doing your job, but better players have screwed up easier plays (just ask Tony Romo). And the other thing that defines clutch is not wincing in the face of pressure. For a rookie, nervousness under pressure is practically a give-in. For a clutch player, it is not an option. Gostkowski may not have hit a very long or very difficult field goal, but he looked as cool as Adam Vinatieri doing it. Something tells me that grace under pressure is simply a Patriot specialty, and it is something every team in the league should be looking to coach next season.

read more......

[Art] The State of The Art

My first Rudy Word blog comes as an inspiration from Becky’s latest MySpace entry: a rousing look at one of New York’s more highly coveted artists of the day, Dash Snow, a so-called descendant of Andy Warhol’s downtown New York Factory scene of the 1960s (who is known, in part, for jerking off onto newspaper headlines and having his friends take pictures of him nude, doing lines of coke with hookers). And, as chance would have it, the inspiration it provided me is perfect for my first blog subject: the current state of art.

As Becky pointed out, the “cutting edge creativity” that is now put on the art world’s pedestal is little more than simple shock value, something that, to completely understate it, there has already been a plethora of over the past 40 years. Shock is what the artists want from the viewers and rebellion is what they want the audience to perceive in them. It is only too bad that the rebellion they imitate, the one that found much of its roots in the downtown New York scene of the 1960s, is now the cover story of the status quo’s weekly magazine. The Velvet Underground are in the Rock ‘N’ Roll Hall of Fame, and probably on the stereo of half of America’s boardrooms. (You can be sure Nissan advertisers were channeling that "non-conformity" when they used VUs “Heroin” in a Pathfinder spot that asked audiences to “explore”…something I can only humorously imagine a heroin addict even considering, and not so long as he or she had enough money to buy a month-long fix.)

The question now is not only why are these “rebels” still considered idols, but also, why does the art world, and artists themselves, merely wish to recreate the cum-shooting rebellion of their predecessors? The easy answer is: money, street cred, and, well, an easy answer. Let’s be straight: “Rebellion” sells, it makes people look tough, and it’s easy. Case in point: Pete Doherty and Kate Moss. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why two drug addicts, in this day in age, are considered cool, and, in Doherty’s case, why his art is not tossed amongst the used syringes for the lack of originality it, and his personality, show. But it has surely been an easy route to money, fame and credibility for him (though it is still mind-boggling to me).

What occurs to me is something Illinois Senator Barak Obama said in a recent story in New York magazine (and by the way, by bringing in a politician to comment I have hearby tossed aside any “rebellious” or “cool” rep I may have had). In talking about the current political state between Democrats and Republicans, Obama said that the way in which the two sides talk about the issues, it seems as though they are simply rehashing the arguments they were having in their college dorm rooms in the 1960s. I feel very similarly about art today.

In our current state it seems as though everyone is looking for “the next Bob Dylan,” “the next Andy Warhol,” “the next Jack Kerouac.” It makes sense. Everyone in the art world that builds the next superstar can remember when they first heard The Velvet Underground, and no doubt they were shocked and delighted by the envelope that was pushed. So it comes as no surprise that those searching for “the next big thing” want to floor their audiences as much as they were by the counter-cultural icons of the 1960s and ‘70s. The only problem is that when you are searching for the new Iggy Pop, you can only end up finding the old Iggy Pop, everything about which will be forty years too late, only this time ripe for commercial success. There’s nothing cutting-edge or original about that. The art world, much like the political sphere, seems to be simply rehashing the debates and themes of forty years ago…only this time with corporate sponsors.

Yes, rebellion is dead, and not too far behind it is originality (for further evidence of this just look at current fashion trends which are essentially just a retrospective on punk rockers, flappers and minutemen). So, what baffles me is why artists and the art world still covet so-called “rebellion,” and yet the answer is plainly obvious: rebels are the most sought-after demographic target. “Rebels” are not outside the box; there is a box specifically for them, one which has been charted, graphed, surveyed, analyzed and marketed. In fact, “rebellion” is the most marketable item out there. And if the most marketable item is your attempt at non-conformity then you need to find an artistic goal far beyond shock value and even farther beyond what your predecessors have already accomplished. But what is that? And will the art world take it under its capitalist wing? (Ask any decent hip-hop artist and they will tell you that without an album riddled in guns, drugs and hoes, they have no chance of reaching the very communities they wish to empower away from such stereotypes).

I could go into a tirade here about media conglomeration and the corporate stranglehold on America, but that would simply be bucking responsibility for the artistic vacuum to the very status quo art is supposed to challenge. The fact is artists are as much to blame as the finders, sellers and critics are.

Dash Snow is not a cutting-edge, rebel artist. He is a pawn in America’s corporate obsession with rebellion. He is little more than Lou Reed and Andy Warhol doing a spread for Hustler Magazine. His art is not original, and certainly not meaningful. It is actually something much worse: low-brow pretension. It reminds me of a certain platinum-recording rap artist: 50 Cent, who packages the rebellion of gang-violent ghettos to sell to middle-class, white, suburban youth. When Biggie Smalls did it, it was a heart-felt statement of ghetto reality, and often a melancholic one at that. When 50 Cent does it, it is capitalist plundering. Similarly, when Andy Warhol was paying an assistant to piss on his paintings, it was an experiment in artistic vulgarity; with Dash Snow it is a desperate attempt at rebellion. Yes, when it comes to challenging the status quo, time is of the essence. It seems the seekers of cutting-edge art have forgotten what year it is.

Read what the Saatchi Gallery of London wrote about Snow’s cum-stained newspaper headlines: “Adopting all the attitude of hip hop posturing, Dash Snow’s Fuck the Police presents a prized collection of newspaper headlines emblazoned with instances of cop corruption. Each salacious story is splattered with cum and framed and mounted as a trophy. Wittily combining protest with hard-core bravado, Snow’s installation draws upon fictional connotations to conjure sociopathic images of gangsta persona. In his ballsy statement of counter-culture vehemence, Snow merges Warhol reference with Tarantino sensationalism in humorously pathological display.”

Now, I cannot speak for those who appreciate or buy Snow’s art, but I did go to college (and majored in English) and I know bullshit when I read it. And this is a steaming pile. I’ll quickly break it down. Firstly, “the attitude of hip-hop posturing?” I think many of those living in poor neighborhoods would actually be quite offended by the idea that their gripes with the police are nothing more than “posturing” (if you have any doubts, just ask Sean Bell’s family). But, my favorite line is, “…draws upon fictional connotations to conjure up sociopathic images of gangsta persona.” I like this line for two reasons: 1. It reaches a level of bullshit I can only dream of achieving, and 2. The Saatchi Gallery actually spelled it “gangsta” with an “a,” just to increase their street cred I assume. I’ll tell you now, coming onto newspaper headlines is not sociopathic gangsta-ism. It is at best an empty comment and an impotent protest (and I’m sure I could find a couple thousand teenagers that have jerked off onto a newspaper before). Furthermore, the very description of it as a “fictional connotation” even further robs his art of any political comment it may have had in the first place. And finally, Snow is not referencing Warhol or Tarantino; it's the art gallery that's referencing them, in what is yet another transparent attempt to find the next rebel.

[Oh, and Snow’s art is not witty…not in the least. And it is certainly not ballsy (though I’m sure the Saatchi Gallery could not resist any effort to utilize that obvious pun).]

What occurs to me is a cycle of pretension that exists in art today on every level, from Dash Snow to Lindsey Lohan (whose latest pop album was described by All Music Guide as “a blend of old-fashioned, Britney-styled dance-pop and the anthemic, arena rock sound pioneered by fellow tween stars Hilary Duff and Ashlee Simpson. Lohan stands apart from the pack with her party-ready attitude and her husky voice.” For the record, Hillary Duff, Ashlee Simpson and Lindsey Lohan have pioneered nothing!) In Snow’s case, the pretentiousness of his art is utilized to even greater pretension by the gallery’s and critic’s descriptions of his work, descriptions which are then used to prey upon an unwitting audience that actually lives for pretentious writings about art, and who will then perputuate that pretension upon the masses. That’s right, the real subject matter of all of this work is you, the consumer…or should I say, the sucker, the one that actually believes that five-seconds of pre-mature vulgarity or a jiggy pop-beat is true art.

So, to return to my original question, where should art journey to next? If you thought I had a simple answer then I am sorry. And if you thought I had a sexy answer, then you should probably just continue praising the Dash Snow’s and Lindsey Lohan’s of the world. The answer I have is simply honesty. Dash Snow is not a rebel, and Hillary Duff is not a pioneer, and any critic worth a damn better know and say that. Art's next step should be an attempt to empower the audience toward staunch individualism, the kind that is not bound by any image, interest or affiliation, and if it does that, then it can avoid the pitfalls of the partisanship, the pretension, the corporate philandering, the superfluous deviance and the junky rebellion of the world today (and, not so coincidentally, forty years ago).

read more......