Blog

  • The Soundtrack Of Our Lives

    Every Sunday, The Soundtrack of Our Lives looks back at some of the music that was popular, and the performers who were influential, around the time Richard Nixon was elected President.

    ODETTA

    At the March on Washington in 1963, one of the artists who performed for the crowd before Dr. King spoke was Odetta. She had already been famous for several years as “The Voice of the Civil Rights Movement”. Before Washington she had sung at Selma. And not long after she played for President Kennedy and his cabinet on a nationally-televised civil rights special Dinner with the President.

    This role and these commitments has tended to overshadow the seminal role she played in the establishment of folk music as a popular form during the 1960s.

    It took the middle class white troubadours —Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Judy Collins, Peter, Paul and Mary— to move folk music into the mainstream.

    It was Ms. Baez who truly brought it all back home by making the cover of Time in November 1962. Scoring that spot doesn’t mean all that much these days; but in the ’50s and ’60s it was the secular equivalent of canonization. When her portrait (not particularly flattering but very period) appeared in that hallowed place, it was a clear signal that this new music —with its message, its lifestyle, its artists, and its vast new campus audience— was more than just a fad. When Time took notice America paid attention.

    But a decade before Ms. Baez even arrived at Harvard Square or Mr. Dylan ambled into Gerde’s Folk City in Greenwich Village, Odetta had been on the road and in the studio. It’s no disrespect to them to say that Odetta was a giant on whose shoulders they were able to stand — as they have been the first to acknowledge.

    Bob Dylan: “The first thing that turned me on to folk singing was Odetta. I heard a record of hers [Odetta Sings Ballads and Blues] in a record store, back when you could listen to records right there in the store. Right then and there, I went out and traded my electric guitar and amplifier for an acoustical guitar, a flat-top Gibson. … [That album was] just something vital and personal. I learned all the songs on that record. It was her first and the songs were- ‘Mule Skinner’, ‘Waterboy’, ‘Jack of Diamonds’, ”Buked and Scorned’.”

    In No Direction Home, Martin Scorsese’s 2005 documentary on Bob Dylan, Odetta’s influence was discussed and this short clip of her distinctive hammer-hits-rock version of Avery Robinson’s 1922 prison work song “Waterboy” was featured:

    In some respects Odetta had been born just a shade too soon (in Birmingham, Alabama, on 31 December 1930) and was maybe just a tad too talented. The fact that she didn’t write original material undoubtedly limited her commercial potential (a limitation Judy Collins and others —including Ms. Baez herself— soon set themselves to overcoming). And her repertoire was so diverse that she never slotted easily into a single niche which is never good for building blockbuster sales or arena audiences. And her commitment to causes, and her availability for radical rallies and protests, was considered disturbing or risky by many managers and bookers.

    An Odetta performance or LP could include classic Child ballads and traditional American folk songs, Negro spirituals and slave songs, civil rights anthems, foursquare hymns, weary love or strident protest blues, outright jazz, and, increasingly, the original compositions of the new generation. Christmas Spirituals was released in 1960; Odetta and the Blues appeared in 1962; Odetta Sings Dylan followed in ‘65.

    She showed off the warmth and breadth of her range when she joined Tennessee Ernie Ford on the hymn “What A Friend We Have In Jesus” on his popular network variety show. Here’s how the show’s archives describe it:

    One of folk music’s most stunningly original performers is Ernie’s guest for this March 10, 1960 show. In one of only two network television appearances in five years, Odetta graces this Ford Show with some of the most awesome music and powerful performances ever captured on kinescope. At a time when folk was on the cusp of completely changing the American cultural landscape, every other prime-time variety show out there was playing it decidedly safe and definitely conservative; booking The Kingston Trio, The Dillards or The Smothers Brothers. “Hang Down Your Head, Tom Dooley” was about about as controversial as the Big Three wanted to be. Odetta, however, was anything but conservative. A major voice among the rising ranks of folk artists in Boston, Connecticut and The Village, she had become, by 1960, one of the principal influences and architects of the new wave of social protest. …On the Ernie FordShow!?

    Odetta Holmes grew up in Los Angeles. She started classical voice training at 13 and by 19 she had a degree in music from LA City College. She found her first jobs touring in road companies of Finian’s Rainbow and Guys and Dolls.

    She settled down in San Francisco where she felt immediately at home in the burgeoning coffee house scene that combined caffeine with poetry and music and protest. She worked cleaning houses so she could play gigs.

    She had a naturally commanding stage presence, and before long she was headlining in important night clubs, including San Francisco’s hungry i, Chicago’s Gate of Horn, and New York’s Blue Angel.

    A gig at the legendary Chicago venue lent its name to one of her first hit LPs — 1957’s At the Gate of Horn —although it was a studio album. Odetta at Carnegie Hall (1960) was recorded live, followed by Odetta at Town Hall (1962).

    Odetta participated in and performed at civil rights rallies and marches. Her signature song (which she sang at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963) was the “Spiritual Trilogy” comprised of “Oh Freedom”, Come And Go With Me”, and “I’m On My Way”.

    After the Newport Folk Festival infamously plugged itself in for the first time in 1965, the folk movement started taking a decided turn towards folk pop and folk rock — the sound increasingly amplified not only by electrical current but by controlled substances. As folk became more flexible and market oriented, she remained committed to the causes she believed in and that made her less commercial by comparison to her erstwhile folkie admirers.

    Although her recording slowed down in the late 1970s, Odetta continued to perform in colleges and clubs and at civil rights events right through the ’80s. She appeared in a couple of films including the TV classic The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman.

    In the late 1990s, she signed with a new management and returned to the studio for To Ella — a tribute album to her recently-deceased friend Ella Fitzgerald. Blues Everywhere I Go, her tribute to famous blues singers, won a Grammy nomination in 2000.

    David Letterman decided to bring The Late Show back on the air during the week of 17 September 2001; on the 19th, Odetta was the musical guest, backed by the Boys Choir of Harlem. Here’s how the Home Office’s diarist remembers that night on the show’s website:

    They started with “We Shall Overcome,” which led into “This Little Light of Mine.” During the commercial break Odetta blessed us with “Amazing Grace.” “Amazing Grace” gets me every time. It’s a real “lump-in-the-throat” producer. I’m sure I’ll be hearing it quite a bit on the bagpipes in the days ahead.

    As she has added on the years, she has added on the honors. In 1999 President Clinton presented her with the National Endowment for the Arts National Medal. She noted that it was a special honor to receive it in Constitution Hall on the same stage on which, sixty years before, her friend Marian Anderson had been forbidden to sing.

    In 2004, Odetta received a Kennedy Center “Visionary Award” along with a tribute performance by Tracy Chapman. In 2005 the Library of Congress presented Odetta with a rare “Living Legend Award”.

    For several years she had a productive performance and recording collaboration with Seth Farber (who accompanies her on the following clip as he did above on “Midnight Special/This Little Light of Mine”). Here is “The House of the Rising Sun” from a 2005 concert. Her version of the song alone is simply definitive. And her a capella interpolation of the old Anglo-American ballad “One Morning in May” is riveting.

    Any notion that age or honor have made Odetta lose her bite will be dispelled by a viewing of a recent concert performance of Leadbelly’s 1938 “Bourgeois Blues” which manages to be scathing and rollicking in almost equal parts. Its embedding has been disabled (my guess would be by the Washington D.C. Chamber of Commerce) so I can’t do the work for you. But if you take my advice —and when have I ever misled you?—-you will watch it by clicking here.

    Her most recent album is last year’s Grammy-nominated Gonna Let It Shine — a live concert recording of Christmas songs.

    In 2005, on the eve of her 75th birthday, she talked with Steve Inskeep on Morning Edition about her early life. She serenaded him with “Amazing Grace” and sang the segment out with an abstract account of “Home on the Range”. In January of this year she appeared on the Tavis Smiley Show. It’s an excellent interview and worth listening to.

    Here’s a clip from that show’s conclusion — her performance of “Keep On Movin’ It On”. This is a master class in authority, mastery, restraint, presence, commitment, joy, spirit, and soul — and all in two minutes. Odetta will be 78 on New Year’s Eve; she is now confined to performing in a wheel chair, but she shows that you don’t need legs to give a song wings.

  • Falling Chinese Infrastructure

    Yao Ming and earthquake survivor and hero Lin Hao, 9

    Hugh Hewitt’s criticism of this comment by Sen. Obama is on the mark:

    Everybody’s watching what’s going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics. Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business you’re starting to think, “Beijing looks like a pretty good option.”

    Merely to elaborate Br. Hugh’s thorough argument: (1) A thoughtful China hand tells me that while the PRC is celebrated for producing more engineers than the U.S. to keep pace with coastal China’s frenetic growth, on average they’re not as well-trained as ours. (2) Obama’s comment displays insensitivity to the suffering that persists in Sichuan Province, where 70,000 died in May, many of them crushed under school buildings to which “vastly…superior” doesn’t remotely apply. Writes Professor Zhi Wenjun:

    The great disaster of the Wenchuan earthquake has evoked serious thinking by many people, especially on the quality of public construction, such as the phenomenon that many schools collapsed in the earthquake with serious casualties inflicted….In addition to the fact that the earthquake intensity went far beyond the state seismic fortification requirements in these regions, apparently the collapsed school buildings represented jerry-built construction projects.

    The earthquake exposed extensive, fatal problems that exist in architectural design and construction in China.

  • 24 July 1969: Home From The Moon

    On 24 July 1969, RN was in mid-Pacific welcoming the Apollo 11 crew home from the moon.

    Like the rest of the mission, everything had gone almost flawlessly.

    After traveling 240,000 miles, the capsule —named Columbia— splashed down less than two miles from the target. (RN requested that the band play “Columbia, Gem of the Ocean” as the three Apollo astronauts set foot on the deck of the recovery vessel.)

    A helicopter picked them up an hour later and brought them to a special quarantine unit on the deck of the USS Hornet, where a proud and buoyant POTUS was waiting —along with CINCPAC Commander Admiral John McCain and many other dignitaries— to greet them.


    Here is the text of the not always entirely comfortable exchange (but you try having an easy chat with three men who have just spent a week in space and are behind glass because they may have picked up some ghastly moon bug and with the entire crew of the Hornet not to mention the entire world looking over your shoulder and fastening on every word):

    THE PRESIDENT:

    Neil, Buzz, and Mike:

    I want you to know that I think I am the luckiest man in the world, and I say this not only because I have the honor to be President of the United States, but particularly because I have the privilege of speaking for so many in welcoming you back to earth.

    I can tell you about all the messages we have received in Washington. Over 100 foreign governments, emperors, presidents, prime ministers, and kings, have sent the most warm messages that we have ever received. They represent over 2 billion people on this earth, all of them who have had the opportunity, through television, to see what you have done.

    Then I also bring you messages from members of the Cabinet and Members of the Senate, Members of the House, the space agency, from the streets of San Francisco where people stopped me a few days ago, and you all love that city, I know, as I do.

    But most important, I had a telephone call yesterday. The toll wasn’t, incidentally, as great as the one I made to you fellows on the moon. I made that collect, incidentally, in case you didn’t know. But I called three, in my view, three of the greatest ladies and most courageous ladies in the whole world today–your wives.

    From Jan, Joan, and Pat, I bring their love and their congratulations. We think it is just wonderful that they have participated at least in television in this return. We are only sorry they couldn’t be here.

    Also, I will let you in on a little secret. I made a date with them. I invited them to dinner on the 13th of August, right after you come out of quarantine. It will be a state dinner held in Los Angeles. The Governors of all the 50 States will be there, the Ambassadors, others from around the world and in America. They told me that you would come, too. All I want to know is: Will you come? We want to honor you then.

    MR. NEIL A. ARMSTRONG. We will do anything you say, Mr. President, anytime.

    THE PRESIDENT. One question, I think all of us would like to ask: As we saw you bouncing around in that float out there, I wonder if that wasn’t the hardest part of the journey. Did any of you get seasick?

    MR. ARMSTRONG. No, we didn’t, and it was one of the hardest parts, but it was one of the most pleasant, we can assure you.

    THE PRESIDENT. Well, I just know that you can sense what we all sense. When you get back now incidentally, have you been able to follow some of the things that happened since you have been gone? Did you know about the All-Star Game?

    COL. EDWIN E. ALDRIN, JR. Yes, sir. The capsule communicators have been giving us daily reports.

    THE PRESIDENT. Were you American League or National League?

    Col. ALDRIN. National League.

    MR. ARMSTRONG. Neither one.

    THE PRESIDENT. There is the politician in the group.

    MR. ARMSTRONG. We are sorry you missed that.

    THE PRESIDENT. You knew that, too?

    MR. ARMSTRONG. We heard about the rain. We haven’t learned to control the weather yet, but that is something we can look forward to.

    THE PRESIDENT. Well, I can only summarize it because I don’t want to hold you now. You have so much more to do. You look great. Do you feel as great as you look?

    MR. ARMSTRONG. We feel great.

    THE PRESIDENT. Frank Borman feels you are a little younger by reason of having gone into space. Is that right? Do you feel a little bit younger?

    MR. ARMSTRONG. We are younger than Frank Borman.

    THE PRESIDENT. He is over there. Come on over, Frank, so they can see you. Are you going to take that lying down?

    ASTRONAUTS. It looks like he has aged in the last couple weeks.

    COL. FRANK BORMAN. They look a little heavy.

    Mr. President, the one thing I wanted–you know, we have a poet in Mike Collins. He really gave me a hard time for describing the words “fantastic” and “beautiful.” I counted them. In 4 minutes up there, you used four “fantastics” and three “beautiful.”

    THE PRESIDENT. Well, just let me close off with this one thing: I was thinking, as you know, as you came down, and we knew it was a success, and it had only been 8 days, just a week, a long week, that this is the greatest week in the history of the world since the Creation, because as a result of what happened in this week, the world is bigger, infinitely, and also, as I am going to find on this trip around the world, and as Secretary Rogers will find as he covers the other countries in Asia, as a result of what you have done, the world has never been closer together before.

    We just thank you for that. I only hope that all of us in Government, all of us in America, that as a result of what you have done, can do our job a little better.

    We can reach for the stars just as you have reached so far for the stars.

    We don’t want to hold you any longer. Anybody have a last–how about promotions? Do you think we can arrange something?

    MR. ARMSTRONG. We are just pleased to be back and very honored that you were so kind as to come out here and welcome us back. We look forward to getting out of this quarantine and talking without having the glass between us.

    THE PRESIDENT. Incidentally, the speeches that you have to make at this dinner can be very short. If you want to say “fantastic” or “beautiful,” that is all right with us. Don’t try to think of new adjectives. They have all been said.

    Now, I think incidentally that all of us, the millions who are seeing us on television now, seeing you, would feel as I do, that, in a sense, our prayers have been answered, and I think it would be very appropriate if Chaplain Piirto, the Chaplain of this ship, were to offer a prayer of thanksgiving. If he would step up now.

    RN was genuinely excited by the mission, the men, and the moment — he was sincere when he said he was the luckiest man in the world. A troublemaking reporter took the President’s hyperbolic assertion about the “greatest week in the history of the world since the Creation” to Billy Graham and elicited a correction; Rev. Graham said that there were greater times, including the first Christmas, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection.

    When RN saw this story in his News Summary, he made a note to Bob Haldeman: “H —- Tell Billy RN referred to a week not a day.”

    In RN, RN noted: “When I talked to Billy Graham a few days later, he said, “Mr. President, I know exactly how you felt, and I understand exactly what you meant, but, even so, I think you may have been a little excessive.”

  • Gen ‘08

    In the July 30 “New Republic,” Michael Crowley has a thoughtful profile of McCain right-hand man, co-author, and speechwriter Mark Salter. Here’s the 53-year-old Iowan’s challenge as he heads to to his cottage in Maine to work on Sen. McCain’s acceptance speech at the GOP convention:

    Salter hints the speech will spotlight McCain’s moments of self-sacrifice, as when he refused early release from captivity in Vietnam or challenged his own party over campaign finance reform. The contrast, he says, will be the “selfishness” of “self-interested” political partisans–i.e. Obama–who, he argues, have risked nothing of substance in their lives.

    …[T]he challenge Salter’s convention speech encapsulates is the generational showdown this election has become. The baby-boomer speechwriter must come up with an address that explains why voters should choose the elderly McCain’s experience and grounding in traditional values over the youthful Gen-X audacity of Obama. In the Salter narrative, the self-sacrificing war hero could not meet a better foil than the Obamamaniacs’ narcissistic world of Facebook and YouTube and Scarlett Johansson. But voters aren’t likely to base their decision on the past. With the economy on fire, gas prices soaring, and the Bush presidency a disaster, voters are feeling the fierce urgency of now. Even many Republicans concede John McCain may be waging an unwinnable fight.

    A funny thing happens in that second paragraph. After reprising Salter’s somewhat overwrought argument that McCain’s narrative is redolent with self-sacrifice compared to that of the untested Sen. Obama and his self-obsessed, youthful hordes, Crowley doesn’t bother sticking up for the younger cohort. It wouldn’t be a tough argument. After all, aren’t Salter’s own boomers supposed to be the most narcissistic generation in history? Instead, Crowley nods in the direction of Salter’s world view but then suggests that voters will be so distracted by their troubles and worries that they…well, I guess he’s saying that they’ll vote for whomever more persuasively promises instant relief.

    That sounds like a voters-are-dumb argument. Since voters definitely aren’t dumb, perhaps Republicans shouldn’t be so discouraged. Obama is brazenly reaching for the Kennedy mantle, especially with his coming star turn in Berlin. Not much of a Kennedy person, even I’m offended. Obama’s no Kennedy. A 13-year veteran of the House and Senate, the son of a U.S. ambassador, Kennedy’s World War II and Cold War bona fides (together with his fictional missile gap and deft manipulation of state secrets about Cuba) even enabled him to edge to Richard Nixon’s right on foreign policy in the 1960 election. He didn’t shift a whole range of positions within weeks of winning primaries with them, and he never said blithely that he’d be President “eight to ten years.” He earned his aura by his easy style and humor in office as well as his martyrdom. Obama pretends to it as a national figure for under two years. If Europeans go nuts over him, what does that prove? That they’re as easily fooled as Americans and their lapdog network anchors?

    Sure, Obama may be the real thing. Inexperienced leaders have sometimes risen to historic, wrenching challenges. But nobody really knows if Obama is such a leader, because nothing in his record demonstrates it. Supporting him urgently is by and large an act of faith. Meanwhile, there’re ample grounds for Obamagnosticism. Ryan Lizza, who studied him carefully for “The New Yorker,” wasn’t even willing to say for sure that Obama puts the public’s interests ahead of his own political advancement. His policy shifts, even if some are in the right direction, add credence to the view that he’ll do whatever is necessary to win. I think voters will notice that and begin to hold him to a higher standard than either they or the media have so far. In the months to come, for the very reason that they’re worried about their future, as Crowley notes, voters in key states will look for a substantive debate about issues that matter to them, and they’ll know when they’re being spun and manipulated. In anxious times, authenticity counts. McCain’s “experience and grounding in traditional values” may yet come in handy.

  • The Big Anti-Semitic Lie that Won’t Go Away

    While fires were still smoldering at Ground Zero, the Pentagon, and in a Pennsylvanian pasture, malicious people conjured up an evil myth. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, many in the Arab world believed that the vicious attack on America was not the work of Islamists, but rather was an Israeli-driven Mossad operation. This legend soon developed muscular legs and is now widely regarded by millions of Muslims as the truth.

    And why not? For decades school children in Muslim nations (not to mention their parents at home) have been baptized in anti-Semitic narratives. The opinions in their world about Jews in general, and Israel in particular, are concrete – thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.

    And the most persistent and pernicious ideas that have been accepted by millions as factual truth flowed from the poisonous pen of a guy named Mathieu Golovinski.

    The spurious publication called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an Islamist must-read. The work tells a story that fits the pattern of long-standing prejudices. The words reinforce the visceral hatred Islamists have toward Jews.

    Islamist anti-Semitism is not a new thing. It didn’t begin with the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948, or the Six-Day War in 1967. It was around long before there was a Hitler – in fact, it grew up alongside Islam from the beginning. It’s an enmity that can be traced back to Muhammad and what he said, wrote, and did. And to those looking for ammunition to use against people they have been historically conditioned to hate, the often denounced and repeatedly refuted forgery is just what the evil doctor ordered.

    In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, it is true that non-Muslims and non-Nazis have at times bought into the notions set forth by the Protocols – some even in the name of Christianity. This is sad. But it is also statistically rare these days. Neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan types apparently still peddle the book, but these people are the proverbial skunks at our national picnic. And eighty years ago, there were a few prominent Americans (automobile magnate Henry Ford notable among them) who endorsed the writings. But that was a passing, though very regrettable, thing.

    The Protocols of the Elders of Zion purports to be written evidence of a vast and secret Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. It’s presented as a factual and detailed description of a late-nineteenth century meeting to plot international Hebrew hegemony through manipulation and treachery. These ideas are at the root of the mother of all conspiracy theories for those who live in the bizarre world of alternative historical reality.

    In fact, the publication is a forgery – probably the most sinister and infamous fake in literary history.

    The year is 1898, and Nicholas II rules a Russia that’s beginning to experience the revolutionary stirrings of modernism. The Tsar is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and tends to be easily led by strong people around him. He tries to take incremental steps toward leading the nation away from its feudal past, but some in his court are alarmed. Thus, evil men began to seek a way to short-circuit these liberalizing influences.

    If only they could convince the Tsar that the voices of change he’s listening to are motivated by something other than the best interests of Russia – but how? It was in this environment that the greatest of all anti-Semitic lies was born. A threatening conspiracy would be manufactured – one that would bring Nicholas to his senses – and the Jews to their knees.

    Mathieu Golovinski was living in Parisian exile at the time. Though he was Russian, having been born in the Simbirsk region in 1865, he was forced to flee after repeated clashes with Russian authorities, usually having to do with his tendency to fabricate documents and evidence in legal matters. He was a master of spin, innuendo, and dirty tricks. He was also very skilled in the arts of forgery and plagiarism.

    And he worked for the Okhrana – the Tsar’s secret police.

    He was approached by agents’ provocateur from the Tsar’s inner circle about creating a convincing anti-Jewish legend. They needed a narrative, one that would be seen as proof of a sinister plot behind the winds of change beginning to blow in Russia. Golovinski was commissioned to fabricate the evidence.

    He came across an old book, written in 1864 by an anti-monarchist activist named Maurice Joly. It was entitled, Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquie and was written as a thinly disguised attack on Napoleon III’s rule in France. The book was suppressed by the French government and the writer was imprisoned. He committed suicide in 1878.

    A plan was hatched to borrow from this obscure book, changing some of its cosmetics and phrasing. It would be recast, using Joly’s fictional dialogue for a model, as the actual deliberations of a secret cabal of Jews bent on taking over the world. When the fake was finished, it was spirited back to St. Petersburg, and all that would be needed was a way to get it before the ruler of the realm.

    Enter the other religious zealot in and around the court of the Tsar.

    When most think of religious influences around Nicholas II, attention is usually given to Grigori Rasputin, the mad monk who haunted that scene beginning about 1905. But often overlooked, and certainly more ominous as far as long-term impact on the world is concerned, is the influence of his cultic contemporary, Sergei Alexandrovich Nilus. He was a writer on religious matters and a self-styled spiritual mystic.

    And he is also the man who first published Golovinski’s sinister forgery.

    Initially placing the Protocols as a chapter in one of his books, Dr. Nilus saw to it that the potentate was fully briefed and convinced about the purported Jewish threat. And like Rasputin, he also had the ear of ruler’s wife – so the Tsar, never a man to have his own firm opinions, fell prey to the lie. And in the days following his nation’s defeat at the hands of the Japanese at a loss of several hundred thousand men, not to mention overwhelming financial expense, circumstances were ripe for the rotten fruit of a compelling scapegoat story.

    On January 9, 1905, the Tsar’s troops opened fire on protesters who peacefully marched near the palace in St. Petersburg. This would become known as Bloody Sunday. The Tsar and his inner circle saw in the Protocols the real reason for the unrest – it was a big Jewish plot to overthrow the monarchy.

    So it began – the gargantuan conspiratorial lie that has reared its hideous head time and time again over the past one hundred years. Jewish plotters were blamed for The Great War (1914-1918). Then in its aftermath, when Germany was struggling to recover from defeat, the big lie was discovered by the greatest demagogue of the day, Adolf Hitler. By the time the future German dictator was sent to prison in 1923, he was well versed in the Protocols and drew significantly from the forgery as he wrote his own hate-filled and delusional tome, Mein Kampf.

    The Protocols of the Elders of Zion became, to men already filled with anti-Semitic ideas, proof positive of a sinister Jewish agenda. To those who believed the lie, the writings were sufficient evidence for the indictment, condemnation, and eventual execution of these conspiratorial people. The Protocols in many ways fueled the Holocaust.

    Yet all along, reasonable people – scholars, journalists, and statesmen – have gone to great lengths to expose the fraudulent nature of the Protocols. Beginning with a lengthy analysis in the Times of London in 1921, to a celebrated trial in Switzerland in 1935, to a report by the United States Senate in 1964, good people have said again and again: “the book’s a fake.” Good people still do.

    It’s the bad people who are the problem.

    The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the biggest publishing hoax of the past one hundred years, is not going away. This is largely because Islamists are using it, with great effectiveness, to fan contemporary flames of hatred. In fact, it’s arguable that there are more copies of this lie-laden text extant, than ever before. The forgery is used by politicians and clerics in the Muslim world to justify their distorted and destructive world-view.

    Gamal Abdel Nassar, the late president of Egypt, recommended the book to his countrymen. His Saudi contemporary, King Faisal, had the forgery put in hotels in his nation, like Gideon Bibles (he once gave a copy to Henry Kissinger). The Ayatollah Khomeini, who took over in Iran in 1979, made the Protocols a national bestseller. An entire generation of Islamic thinkers and scholars now aggressively promotes the forgery as literal fact.

    Hamas owes Article 32 of its charter to these long-ago-discredited writings when it says things like: “Zionist scheming has no end…Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of Zion.” And it’s, of course, a perennial favorite with Holocaust deniers such as that wacky Iranian, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    Islamist anti-Semitism is at the root of the so-called War on Terror. The bad guys use the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as their proof-text. It would make sense that if we really want to eradicate the symptom we must deal frankly with the cause. Islamism isn’t an aberration. It’s an ideology based on prejudices rooted in the distant past and old lies that won’t seem to go away.

    Shortly before his death in early 2005, the legendary pioneer of twentieth-century graphic art, Will Eisner, a man who spent much of his life debunking the infamous forgery, called the Protocols a “terrifying vampire-like fraud.”

    Indeed. – DRS

  • The Great Pennsylvania Debate – in McKeesport

    Presidential debates, especially the intra-party variety we are witnessing these days, are frequent to the point of becoming common place, if not benign. They seem to prove what Marshall McLuhan said about medium equaling message. The recent gotcha-fest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could make even the wildest political animal long for the days when debates were fewer and farther between.

    Or at least interesting.

    I’ve found myself longing a bit for those sixteen silent years between 1960 and 1976, when debates weren’t part of presidential campaigns. In fact, they were rarely mentioned at all. Maybe Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were on to something.

    In spite of abundant current evidence of forensic mediocrity, there does seem to be renewed interest these days in the gold standard for political debate – those serious and cerebral verbal exchanges between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas one hundred and fifty years ago. And, even though their experience was part of a campaign for a U.S. Senate seat, and not the White House itself, comparing that historic dialogue with what political debating has become in our age tempts one to switch the television channel to something with more depth.

    Like a rerun of The Price is Right on The Game Show Network.

    It actually took ninety years for what Abe and Steve did so well to even begin to impact modern American presidential politics. In 1948, Republican hopeful Harold Stassen debated Thomas Dewey before the Oregon Republican Primary. In 1956, Estes Kefauver debated Adlai Stevenson before the Florida Democratic Primary. And, of course, all modern day discussion of presidential debates inevitably includes a reference to the Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960.

    The first of those now legendary debates took place in Chicago on September 26, 1960. It was moderated by Howard K. Smith and watched on television by more than 70 million Americans. But, in fact, it really wasn’t their first debate.

    With this year’s Pennsylvania primary now on center stage, it’s interesting to note that Richard M. Nixon and John F. Kennedy had their very own Keystone state debate moment many years before – back in 1947.

    The two young Navy war veterans were elected to Congress in 1946 – Kennedy from Massachusetts and Nixon from California. During their first days in congress, they were appointed to the House Education and Labor Committee and were, as Nixon later recalled, “like a pair of unmatched bookends.”

    In April of 1947, they traveled to McKeesport, Pennsylvania, a coal mining and steel industry town of around 50,000 citizens at the time, located about fifteen miles from Pittsburgh, at the confluence of the Monongahela and Youghiogheny Rivers. They had been asked to debate before a Junto Forum (this kind of discussion-based group dated back to the days of Benjamin Franklin) and to argue the merits, or lack thereof, of a piece of legislation informally known as the Taft-Hartley bill (officially, it was “The Labor-Management Relations Act”).

    This legislation had already passed the House and was at that time before the Senate. It was designed to rein in what was referred to at the time as Big Labor, and was the most successful of more than 200 similar bills proposed in the immediate aftermath of the war, as the country faced significant labor unrest. It would eventually clear the Senate and be vetoed by President Truman, who referred to it as a “slave labor” bill. His veto was then overridden and he actually found himself using the act a dozen or so times during his presidency.

    The debate took place at the Penn McKee Hotel, with about one hundred and fifty people in the audience. Nixon spoke in strong support of the bill. Kennedy was opposed – but not without commending certain aspects of the legislation. Chris Matthews in his 1996 book – “Kennedy & Nixon: The Rivalry that Shaped Postwar America”- suggested that the crowd clearly favored Kennedy (being a largely blue-collar and pro-labor district) and that the catcalls from some had been so fierce that “a local business leader felt called upon to apologize to the Republican congressman in writing.”

    But Kennedy saw it differently. In October of 1962, just three days before he would see the first photographic evidence of the Soviet missile build up in Cuba, President Kennedy returned to McKeesport. In his speech that day at their City Hall, he recalled: “The first time I came to this city was in 1947, when Mr. Richard Nixon and I engaged in our first debate. He won that one, and we went on to other things.”

    Indeed.

    It’s a fascinating little bit of history in preview – a joint appearance of these two young men with such compelling and interrelated futures ahead of them.

    Following their debate that evening long ago, the two future fierce opponents made their way to the town’s Star Diner to eat hamburgers and talk about baseball. They were killing time before heading to the train station to catch the midnight Capital Unlimited back to Washington.

    Sharing a compartment on the train, they drew straws to see who got the lower berth. Nixon won that one too.

    By all accounts, Mr. 35 and Mr. 37 talked long into the wee hours of the morning about the issue that most resonated with them – foreign policy. The Cold War was underway, and these two men who would play such vital roles during its most critical moments, contemplated their world.

    If only we had a transcript of THAT debate. — DRS