Category: National

Who among us doesn’t ache for all immediately touched by the tragic Terri Schiavo case? Having said that, if I were advising Michael Schiavo, I’d make a couple of suggestions. And they are, admittedly, designed to help carry the day in the court of public opinion. That may seem coldly calculating to some, but isn’t that why Schiavo and his attorney, George Felos, went on Larry King?

To wit: “Michael, you can’t help looking drained and anxiety-ridden at this point. The ordeal has taken an obvious toll on you. But you don’t have to sound as cold as you do. So do this. Play up dignity and empathy and play down the obvious animus with the Schindlers. Frankly, something tells me you might not have been on the best of terms during the best of times.

“Try this: In any public forum, always, always include a preamble that acknowledges that you understand in a very visceral way the Schindlers’ position. Even though you adamantly oppose it.

“But do agree that any parent, given such traumatic circumstances, could understandably be driven to see what they want to see. After all, how emotionally wrenching must it be to gaze upon your own flesh and blood in such a state? And yet there is life.

“As a result, what parent wouldn’t want an infinite number of straws to grasp? Who, under such unfathomable stress, wouldn’t perceive possible signs of possibly meaningful cognition? Who, then, wouldn’t hold out for a miracle recovery? Parents can’t just go on with their lives after the natural order of life has been reversed.

“Then make your case, which you articulate well, for what you believe Terri would have wanted — given the nature of her well-documented ‘permanent vegetative state.’

“As you know, there is no happy ending. There is just the most merciful conclusion, one based on a humane preference that you — her husband and legal guardian — were privy to.

“Let others criticize the Schindlers and castigate the right-to-life crowd, the Florida Legislature and Gov. Jeb Bush. Be about Terri — but above the bashing.”

I had lunch the other day at The Noodle Lounge, a Vietnamese restaurant on Gandy Boulevard in South Tampa. Good food, pleasant setting, gracious service. I had the “Hanoi Beef” (and noodles), which was delicious.

It wasn’t on the menu, but also served up was food for thought. I couldn’t help thinking how unlikely it would have seemed 30 years ago that American diners would think nothing of going to a good Vietnamese restaurant and ordering up the “Hanoi Beef.”

Life goes on.

The U.S. now has normal diplomatic and trade relations with the country we were once at war with — and where some 50,000 American G.I.’s died. In fact, Vietnam has even pledged to help the recovery effort in Iraq.

Then I glanced down at my newspaper and saw this headline: “U.N. Asks U.S. To End Cuba Embargo.” It noted that for the 12th straight year the U.N. General Assembly had urged the U.S. to end its 42-year-old trade embargo against Cuba. Once again, the resolution, which is not legally binding, passed overwhelmingly.

Voting with the U.S. — against the resolution — were Israel and the Marshall Islands. Not even Tony Blair could sign on to this one.

Not all life goes on.

At the recent donors’ conference in Madrid, the United States won some $13 billion in commitments for Iraqi reconstruction priorities, including $500 million in rice from Vietnam. The largest amount pledged from a single country was $5 billion — from Japan. Saudi Arabia, by contrast, offered $1 billion in loans and $500 million in export credits.

The Japanese-Saudi contrast is noteworthy.

The Japanese were not — and are not — complicit in the fundamentalist scourge that threatens so much of the planet. They haven’t paid protection money to terrorists. They don’t foster schools that preach hatred of American “infidels.” They don’t underwrite charities that skim off money for terrorists, including homicidal bombers.

As for the Saudis, their contribution amounts to approximately $65 million per 9/11 terrorist. Thanks again for helping out. We know it’s the least you can do.

Recently the Pentagon’s Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin spoke out of turn and referenced the war on terrorism in religious terms. As in Us vs. Them. As in Christianity vs. Islam. Bad move.

It might be “jihad” to the other side, but we keep it secular. In fact, we pledge to do so. Defending America is a life-and-death challenge, but offending others is unconscionable.

A predictable firestorm of outrage resulted from Boykin’s bumbling. Calls for his ouster immediately ensued. Sure, a Saudi diplomat went apoplectic, but the domestic backlash included Democratic presidential candidates. When we’re on top of our self-criticism game, nobody bashes us like us.

Administration embarrassment was palpable, and there were the requisite apologies.

Now consider something that Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir Mohamad said the other day. He stated that “Jews rule the world by proxy” and recruit others “to fight and die for them.” In a historical take of alarmingly devious proportions, he declared that the Jews “invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong

Rush Limbaugh gets, in effect, fired by ESPN for going off the reservation with some ill-timed racial comments. Robert Novak, however, still plays the cartoon conservative on CNN’s “Crossfire” and “The Capital Gang” despite his despicable outing of a CIA operative.

Obviously some indiscretions are judged more harshly than others. Limbaugh was easily labeled a racist and had to go. Novak, however, was only guilty of selfishly putting an agent at risk and compromising the credibility and safety of all her contacts.

Maybe you saw it; maybe not. It was easy to miss.

It was another one of those official, rhetorically flourished, knee-jerk responses from Havana blaming Washington for something. More criticism of a democracy by a dictatorship. As such, it was given its proper media burial — less than three inches on page 8 of the Tampa Tribune’s Nation/World section last week. Right under another brief: “Kennedy Memorabilia Collector Dies.”

The item noted that the Cuban government was accusing the Bush administration of pandering to Cuban-American voters with some new, loophole-closing initiatives aimed at Havana.

President Bush had earlier ordered the Homeland Security Department to crack down on illegal U.S. tourism, limit heretofore-legal “people-to-people” visits and raise the number of Cubans eligible for legal admission to the United States. He had done so in a prominent Rose Garden address in front of an embargo-friendly audience, basking in the ostensible imprimatur of Secretary of State Colin Powell and the enthusiastic concurrence of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez, a Cuban native. Powell and Martinez will be co-leading a commission to prepare for — and hasten the onset of — a sovereignty-challenged, post-Castro Cuba.

Havana, of course, blasted the administration for using Cuba as a forum to help secure a Florida election victory next year.

But here’s what hurts. It’s true. And it would have been no less true if Al Fox, Al Sharpton or Al Franken had said it. Forget the messenger on this one.

Just recall that in the last, mother-of-all-contested presidential elections, Bush won approximately 80 per cent of the 450,000 votes cast by Cuban-Americans in South Florida. In what could be another razor-thin, statewide margin, he wants to keep those anti-Castro votes in a Republican lock box.

When it comes to Cuba, American administrations have been gutless — but not guileless. The Bush administration is an extension of that pro-embargo, exile-community-panderfest of a policy, an especially absurd extension given that we are that much farther removed from any Red Menace threat of Fidel Castro and his Marxist acolytes.

In a post-9/11 world, Muslim fanatics and policies of pre-emption and unilateralism are our priority issues and gravest concerns. Dysfunctional relics of the Cold War aren’t relevant, save for narrowly focused, one-issue constituency, domestic political ends.

Treating Cuba as if it were still a Soviet outpost of geopolitical pertinence is beyond bewildering. Treating it as if it were all a matter of principle is hypocritical in the context of America’s relationships with former enemies and Mideast autocracies. It’s also mean-spirited and inhumane to all the innocent people adversely affected. Moreover, it’s counterproductive and stupid; engagement is more effective than isolation. What’s more, it’s venal.

In fact, heavy on the venality when it comes to presidential politics; Florida has 27 electoral votes and 1 million Cuban-Americans. Arguably, President Bush can’t be re-elected without Florida.

When Bush recently declared that he is tightening the screws on Castro, it played predictably well in South Florida and among the usual hardliners here in Tampa, who even objected to the Ballet Nacional de Cuba coming to town.

Bush wants the embargo maintained, American visitations reduced, Cuban immigrant visas increased and U.S.-government supported Radio and TV Marti expanded. Fewer American travelers, reasons Bush, would mean fewer dollars for Cuba’s $2-billion tourist industry. It is estimated that some 200,000 Americans annually visit Cuba, as many as a third illegally.

But the president phrased it in vintage Bushspeak. Fewer American visitors, he opined, would also mean fewer dollars “to prop up the dictator and his cronies” and to feed “the illicit sex trade, a modern form of slavery which is encouraged by the Cuban government.”

Sounds like Batista has returned to re-establish the brothels and casinos

It won’t be known for some time exactly how successful that operation in Dallas was that separated the 2-year-old Egyptian twins conjoined at the head. But so far, so good for Ahmed and Mohamed Ibrahim. This much, however, is known. The Egyptian parents and caregivers knew where to go for help. To America.

Mrs. Ibrahim was quoted as “thanking everybody around and thanking her faith that brought her to this great place: Dallas, Texas.”

Wonder if that soundbite ever surfaced on Al-Jazeera?

The other day the Pentagon’s Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin spoke out of turn and referenced the war on terrorism in religious terms. As in Us vs. Them, Christianity vs. Islam. Bad move.

It might be “jihad” to the other side, but we keep it secular. Defending America is a life-and-death challenge, but offending others is unconscionable.

A predictable firestorm of outrage resulted with calls for Boykin’s ouster. Sure, a Saudi diplomat went apoplectic, but there was also domestic outrage, including Democratic presidential candidates. When we’re on top of our self-criticism game, nobody bashes us like us. Administrative embarrassment was palpable, and there were the requisite apologies.

Now consider something that Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said recently. He stated that “Jews rule the world by proxy” and recruit others “to fight and die for them.” In an historical take of intriguingly devious proportions, he declared that the Jews “invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong

Now that Limbaugh has been given the bum’s Rush, and there’s more interest in his interest in OxyContin, here, upon further review, is what the whole “quarterblack” flap was about.

When ESPN hired Limbaugh for its Sunday NFL pre-game show, it was expecting — and hoping — for controversy and a resultant ratings spike. But polarizing, controversial commentary is one thing; polarizing, controversial commentary on race is entirely different. It’s still too taboo. Not even Limbaugh — love him or love to hate him — can transcend that one.

First, let’s put the whole “quarterblack” matter into its appropriate context. It’s obviously a subset of the politically correct, racially sensitive times we live in. For too many, the difference between a racial reference and racist rhetoric is indecipherable or incidental — when the speaker is a non-minority. Warren Sapp commenting on “Anglo scrubs” isn’t news. It’s just the way it is. It’s part of the double-standard, linguistic minuet we dance to in contemporary America.

For example, if you’re in the media, you have to watch your wording in a restraining order of self-censorship. Even if you’re Howard Cosell — and just “monkeying” around — the onus is on you to prove what you did not mean. Using the proper code words is a must to avoid an arresting moment by the nuance police.

If an announcer says a player can beat you with his “athleticism,” what color might that player be? If he says that a player can’t beat you with his “athleticism,” but is like a “coach on the field,” what color do you think of? Happens all the time.

If you said black players were behaving like boorish clowns by their celebratory, look-at- me antics on the field, are you a racist? Well, it so happens that white players, except for the occasional tight end from the University of Miami, don’t do that. Then, again, maybe it’s a matter of cultural insensitivity. Or perhaps you’re just no fun.

Racial or racist?

The morphing of racial into racist, especially in sports, can be seen in all manner of ways. Intent is in the eye of the beholder. Imply and infer are synonyms.

Suppose, for example, you disagreed with Temple University basketball coach John Cheney who wants black recruits admitted to Temple regardless of academic standing. Cheney will tell you it’s part of giving poor kids a chance in life and a ticket out of the inner city cul-de-sac.

Are you a racist if you argue that Temple — or any university worthy of the higher education label — is not the place for remediation? Are you a racist if you were to suggest that less emphasis on sports — and more on schooling — would be a more helpful ticket to pursue? Would you be a racist if you were to note that virtually everyone who excels in football and basketball can’t make a living at it?

Does it matter if you argue that uncompromised standards really send a positive signal to inner city, student-athlete wannabes that academics do count as much as scoring averages? Does it matter if you argue that a “no” to an academically sub-standard black athlete probably means “yes” to the next best black player with decent grades and test scores?

But back to ex-ESPN commentator Limbaugh. His brains aren’t on loan from God, but neither are they borrowed from David Duke. And as difficult as it is, never mind that he’s an arrogant neocon-lover.

His views on who wants to see quarterblacks succeed is not way off target. Just dated. Such observations would have been more pertinent a decade or two ago. Currently, more than a quarter of NFL starting quarterbacks are black, among them Duante Culpepper and Steve McNair, who are franchise-type players. Not among them, alas, is Shaun King. Anyway, it’s a long way from James Harris going solo for the Los Angeles Rams as a quarterblack a generation ago.

NFL is sensitive

Would the media like to see more quarterblacks succeed? That’s not that relevant; besides, it’s a rhetorical question. Reporters are not supposed to cheer from the press box — whether it’s for the home team or the home boyz. But most sign on to a liberal agenda, of which race is the centerpiece in this country. So, the answer is yes. (Probably an emphatic “yes” regarding McNabb, who is articulate and well liked.) To the media, the more stereotype-busting QBs, the better. So what else is new?

The NFL’s take, however, is more important.

It remains embarrassed — and subject at a moment’s pique to Jesse Jackson extortion — because in a league dominated by black players, it has so few black head coaches. Teams get fined for not interviewing black applicants. Ownership is white. Most of the fans and advertisers are white. It’s getting more like the NBA. It’s not unlike the Romans watching the Christians take on the heavily favored lions.

So the next best thing for NFL show-and-tell is the highest-profile position on the field: QB. What better way to say, in effect, “We really are progressive. We’re not part of the Al Campanis-Jimmy the Greek generation. We think black players assuming the consummate cool-under-fire, make-good-decisions, lead-your-men-in-battle position reflects well on our league. It helps bury those stereotypes that still linger that blacks are gifted athletes who aren’t as smart as their white counterparts. It helps buy us time until we can showcase more black head coaches.”

Now to Donovan McNabb, the Philadelphia Eagles’ versatile, black quarterback.

Fans want winner

For all their loutish, mutant behavior, Philly fans are pretty savvy sorts. Most of them, especially after the Eagles’ horrible, season-opening, offense-challenged losses to the Bucs and the New England Patriots, wouldn’t dismiss out of hand Limbaugh’s comments about McNabb being overrated — and their choice of words would be x-rated. He looked awful.

Philly fans remember former Eagle QB Randall Cunningham. He had enough, uh, athleticism to have his own highlight video. But in big games, they will tell you, you couldn’t count on him to make good decisions. Ron Jaworski took them farther.

They see haunting parallels in McNabb, who’s better than Cunningham. They will tell you that the biggest fault of the Eagles offensively is forcing NcNabb into being more of a pocket (read: white) passer than he should be. He was free to freelance — and do what he does best and put up big, Pro Bowl numbers — when the Eagles were a non-contender.

But since the Eagles became better balanced, he’s been asked increasingly to play within a more disciplined system. (As was the case with the backups who replaced an injured McNabb last season and still won.) But when he stays in the pocket, within the system, Philly fans will tell you, he’s not nearly as effective. And he won’t be leading the Eagles to any Super Bowls that way. Moreover, he will likely look “overrated” in the process. The fans are frustrated as only Eagle fans can be.

And in moments of despair and candor, they’ll tell you that the Eagles are better if McNabb just stops trying to be too much of a traditional pocket passer. If that sounds like they want him to be less like a stereotypical white quarterback, they don’t care. If it sounds like they want him to be more like a stereotypical black quarterback and use his legs a lot, they care even less. They don’t want a black Koy Detmer. They don’t want social justice. They just want to win.

For the record, the hard-core fans in Philly were much less upset about the Limbaugh flap than were some presidential candidates and the media, including Philadelphia’s own. Philly fans were about as upset as the strangely silent Michael Irvin seemed to be when Limbaugh made his stop-the-presses comments.

And this final thought.

Amid all the agenda-pushing and knee-jerk comments across the political spectrum, the one person with significant insight who came across as notably classy was McNabb. Regardless of ratings, overratings and racial politics, he remains a superb athlete and a talented quar
terback. He also took the high road when so many around him couldn’t get out of the rhetorical ditch.

The daily dispatches out of Iraq have made it abundantly clear how challenging it is to convince Iraqis that they are more “liberated” than “occupied.” As the sabotage and sniper attacks persist and the ante is upped by the recent truck bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, the words of syndicated columnist Thomas Friedman continue to haunt.

He spoke at USF in February when the Iraqi war was still a Pentagon drumbeat and a UN minuet. He drew an analogy between post-war Iraq and Pottery Barn. “If you break it, you own it,” he said.