News of the new Alabama Governor’s provocative and unsettling inaugural address
reached me in Melbourne, Australia where I had been blissfully enjoying The Australian Open. The tennis courts were afire with competitive vehemence, psychological one-upsmanship and emotional disarray. But all that was eminently predictable, foreseeable and anything but problematic.
Off the courts all around Melbourne’s colorful and character-filled tennis
venue, spectators from disparate corners of the world were united in a brotherhood
of tennis afficianadoes. Long time foes (actually enemies) like Serbs and Croats
(Novak Djokovic v. Ivo Karlovic) were at ease with each other. Americans, like
yours truly, were not even booed by the heavily Aussie crowd when we cheered
wildly for our countryman(Michael Russell) who was crushing an aspiring young
Aussie player (Matt Ebden). No one squirmed uncomfortably when Russian Dinara
Safina (once ranked #1) was literally demolished by a delightful Belgian (Kim Clijsters).A veteran Japanese player (Date-Krumm) was soundly defeated, but her dignity was unsullied by verbal indelicacies. A Thai player (Tanasugarn) was bludgeoned, but her Americanized-Russian opponent (Sharapova) was gracious to her.
Amidst this highly-charged competition enveloped in international conviviality, I learned that Alabama’s new Governor had –with a fusillade of inaugural verbiage – disavowed me (and countless others) as his Alabama brother. It was then that Governor Bentley’s appalling words - tantamount to a proclamation of socio-religious apartheid- virtually singed my ears.
No, I am not and never was the new Governor’s biological or even emotional brother. In fact, we are, both politically and spiritually, far from being even kissing cousins. But when the Governor disowned me (and so many others) as a brother Alabamian, I was not merely offended, I was also ashamed of him, embarrassed for Alabama and aggrieved as an American.
Sure, tennis is only sport, but it invites ferocious competition. It expects court-controversy which it resolves with instant shot-spot replay. And yes, tennis even contends with on-court verbal explosions like McEnroe’s infamous “You cannot be serious!” and Serena’s tempestuous (but unpublishable) tirade against a line judge. But why, pray tell, would any Alabamian of good-will, good sense and genteel southern upbringing not be inflamed and incensed by Governor Bentley’s intemperate and insulting pronouncement that if one does not hold his Christian belief in Jesus Christ then brotherhood is dead in the Alabama Governor’s mansion?
If tennis players and their fans from across the world can come together in an amicable brotherhood of sport at a Grand Slam tournament, can Alabama countenance a Governor who seeks to discount, demean and emotionally disenfranchise so many good, gracious and loyal Alabamians?
Melbourne, Australia is a lovely tennis venue, but it is not my home. Birmingham,
Alabama has been my home for the last forty years. Sadly, Governor Bentley’s remarks
have now stained my Birmingham residence, tainted my Alabama citizenship and
humiliated me as an American visiting Australia. When next I hear “Sweet Home Alabama” I will have ample reason to loudly shout: “Governor Bentley, you cannot be serious!”
In tennis parlance, the Alabama Governor has double-faulted. His verbal service was a clear fault and his verbal backhand to the people of Alabama was way out of bounds. Perhaps Dr. Bentley should take a verbal-injury time out to reconsider how he double-faulted his way to a love game. He now desperately needs some Divine coaching to restructure his gameplan and save his political match.
After a tsunami of protests, the Alabama Governor tendered a “sincere apology.” Does that mean that he did not mean what he said or that he is simply sorry that he said what he means? No matter, Dr. Bentley would do well to remember that it is not he, but that totally impartial Chair Umpire In-The-Sky who calls all the shots whether they are on an Australian tennis court or in Alabama’s political playground.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
In The Crosshairs Of A Blood Libel
The calculated manipulation and expoiltation of language is the hallmark of saints, sinners, demagogues and despots. That said, Gov. Sarah Palin's unseemly use of the emotionally-tainted term "blood libel" with reference to the heinous murders in Tucson begs for clarification and explication.
At its very core, the infamous blood libel myth originated in twelfth century Europe. It was then that Jews were -with dastardly and willful premeditation- falsely and brazenly accused of kidnapping Christian children to re-enact the martyrdom of Jesus Christ. That egregious calumny was, thereafter, periodically resurrected by those who sought and seek to justify violence against Jews. In fact, the "blood libel" lie has served to undergird Europe's multiple pogroms and massacres as well as the unspeakable events of the Hitlerian Holocaust. (Not incidentally, I recently overheard a young German mother visiting Jerusalem's Yad V'Shem Memorial delicately describe the Holocaust to her son as "unglaublich"---unbelievable!)
Now, for reasons apparently beclouded and befogged by political expediency and/or by a ponderous psycho-social insensitivity, Saint Sarah Palin has seemingly opted to compare herself to one of those wrongfully libeled and woefully-labeled Jewish martyrs.
But let it be abundantly clear, nothing herein suggests or may be used to imply that the good ex-Alaska Governor is anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish or anti-Israel. Quite the contrary seems to be true. In actual fact, Sarah Palin has publicly been a staunch supporter of Israel. Indeed, even Gov. Palin's harshest critics would -in all probability- shrink from suggesting that anti-Semitism lurks behind the Governor's fertile faux pas evident in her plagued choice of a fatally poisoned phrase.
In truth, Gov. Palin may be legitimately aggrieved by those critics who -with unseemly, but predictable righteous indignation- rushed to associate the Tucson tragedy with the Govenor's pugilistic politics. But by willfully using a term that assuredly does not - in any reasonable, coherent or cogent fashion - apply to the circumstances in Tucson, Sarah Palin has now invited scalpel-like scrutiny of why she said what she said. Regrettably, "blood libel" was not simply a poor choice of words, it was an impoverished piece of political punditry unworthy of and wholly unacceptable from a national luminary with presidential aspirations.
At the very best, in the words of Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker, "Sarah Palin, a woman of unquestionable charm and personal appeal, is unfortunately deeply ignorant -- certainly not stupid, but shallow and unreflective." At worst, the Governor's choice of the bloodl libel phraseology suggests not only an abysmal absence of historical perspective, but it also confirms her egregious inability to distance herself from controversy without exacerbating the self-same circumstance from which she seeks to extricate herself. And these are sobering realities that sadly afflict Governor Palin and infect her political persona.
It was sufficiently unfortunate and -giving the Governor the benefit of every conceivable doubt- unwitting that the brain-injured Arizona Congresswoman was previously conspicuously and contumaciously painted in the "crosshairs" of Governor Palin's political hit list. But since Gov. Palin woefully -and with conscious premeditation- willfully appended "blood libel" to her wanton and knowing utilization of "crosshairs," one must be substantially disabused by the grievous ineptitude pregnant in Sarah Palin's psycho-social skills and by the unseemly and flagrant incompetence (or is it a calculated counterintuitive arrogance?) demonstrated by her distressing verbal indelicacies.
Now then, all the foregoing presupposes the absence of some other unspoken and/or
darker agenda hidden beneath, secreted between and/or camoflauged beside Governor Palin's less-than-felicitous choice of words. Perhaps she meant and always means precisely what she chose and chooses to say. And that, my friends, opens pandora's box to quite another set of inauspicious considerations. Caveat loquitor!
At its very core, the infamous blood libel myth originated in twelfth century Europe. It was then that Jews were -with dastardly and willful premeditation- falsely and brazenly accused of kidnapping Christian children to re-enact the martyrdom of Jesus Christ. That egregious calumny was, thereafter, periodically resurrected by those who sought and seek to justify violence against Jews. In fact, the "blood libel" lie has served to undergird Europe's multiple pogroms and massacres as well as the unspeakable events of the Hitlerian Holocaust. (Not incidentally, I recently overheard a young German mother visiting Jerusalem's Yad V'Shem Memorial delicately describe the Holocaust to her son as "unglaublich"---unbelievable!)
Now, for reasons apparently beclouded and befogged by political expediency and/or by a ponderous psycho-social insensitivity, Saint Sarah Palin has seemingly opted to compare herself to one of those wrongfully libeled and woefully-labeled Jewish martyrs.
But let it be abundantly clear, nothing herein suggests or may be used to imply that the good ex-Alaska Governor is anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish or anti-Israel. Quite the contrary seems to be true. In actual fact, Sarah Palin has publicly been a staunch supporter of Israel. Indeed, even Gov. Palin's harshest critics would -in all probability- shrink from suggesting that anti-Semitism lurks behind the Governor's fertile faux pas evident in her plagued choice of a fatally poisoned phrase.
In truth, Gov. Palin may be legitimately aggrieved by those critics who -with unseemly, but predictable righteous indignation- rushed to associate the Tucson tragedy with the Govenor's pugilistic politics. But by willfully using a term that assuredly does not - in any reasonable, coherent or cogent fashion - apply to the circumstances in Tucson, Sarah Palin has now invited scalpel-like scrutiny of why she said what she said. Regrettably, "blood libel" was not simply a poor choice of words, it was an impoverished piece of political punditry unworthy of and wholly unacceptable from a national luminary with presidential aspirations.
At the very best, in the words of Rutgers University political scientist Ross Baker, "Sarah Palin, a woman of unquestionable charm and personal appeal, is unfortunately deeply ignorant -- certainly not stupid, but shallow and unreflective." At worst, the Governor's choice of the bloodl libel phraseology suggests not only an abysmal absence of historical perspective, but it also confirms her egregious inability to distance herself from controversy without exacerbating the self-same circumstance from which she seeks to extricate herself. And these are sobering realities that sadly afflict Governor Palin and infect her political persona.
It was sufficiently unfortunate and -giving the Governor the benefit of every conceivable doubt- unwitting that the brain-injured Arizona Congresswoman was previously conspicuously and contumaciously painted in the "crosshairs" of Governor Palin's political hit list. But since Gov. Palin woefully -and with conscious premeditation- willfully appended "blood libel" to her wanton and knowing utilization of "crosshairs," one must be substantially disabused by the grievous ineptitude pregnant in Sarah Palin's psycho-social skills and by the unseemly and flagrant incompetence (or is it a calculated counterintuitive arrogance?) demonstrated by her distressing verbal indelicacies.
Now then, all the foregoing presupposes the absence of some other unspoken and/or
darker agenda hidden beneath, secreted between and/or camoflauged beside Governor Palin's less-than-felicitous choice of words. Perhaps she meant and always means precisely what she chose and chooses to say. And that, my friends, opens pandora's box to quite another set of inauspicious considerations. Caveat loquitor!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
