Toomer's Corner: A Rivalry Poisoned

The rivalry between the University of Alabama and Auburn University has a colorful and storied history that goes beyond what happens on the field of play. Indeed, within days of moving to the state my sophomore year in high school, it was impressed upon me that I had to choose sides. I tried to remain indifferent for a while, but at one point, in a spirit of playfulness designed to poke the ire of a dear friend of mine (and fellow clarinetist - you know who you are), I aligned myself to Auburn and really, never looked back.

I've seen the best the rivalry has to offer, and until recently, thought I had seen the worst. People take their football passionately down here, and anyone who follows the college sports world knows that the Auburn-Alabama rivalry can get pretty intense. Most of the time, it's all talk and bluster and bravado. But this past season, it took a dark turn, based in part on Auburn's successful run to the BCS National Championship trophy.

Toomer's Corner has long been the site of many Auburn celebrations, with cherished trees that are lovingly rolled with toilet paper following an Auburn victory. For many Auburn fans, Toomer's Corner is sacred ground. And despite the fact that repeated rolling and hosing down of toilet paper in itself takes a toll on the trees, the spot remains a precious treasure in the hearts of Auburn men and women. We do care about the trees.

And now those trees are going to die.

They are going to die, because according to reports, a man claiming to be a devoted Alabama fan called into a local radio show to announce that he had dumped lethal doses of a herbicide called Spike 80DF at the base of the trees. Yesterday, Auburn University confirmed that after soil testing, the man's claim was true.

The famous live oaks at Auburn University's Toom­er's Corner have been given a lethal dose of herbicide and probably can't be saved, university officials said Wednesday.

The soil around the ap­proximately 130-year-old trees, an icon of the univer­sity, registered up to 65 times the normal dose of the herbicide Spike 80DF, Au­burn spokesman Mike Clardy said. Auburn city po­lice are investigating and faculty and grounds crews are trying to rescue the fragile trees but say it's unlikely. …

Auburn officials sampled the soil around the oaks Jan. 28, a day after a University of Alabama fan identifying himself "Al in Dadeville" called in to Paul Finebaum's syndicated radio show and claimed he had poisoned the trees the weekend after the Nov. 26 Iron Bowl game.

"It was kind of hard to take it seriously, and then as he went on it started sounding more serious," Finebaum said. "And now that we've played it back, there's no doubt that he was absolutely serious."

Apparently so. Today, police announced the arrest of a 62-year old man, who describes himself as a former Texas state trooper, on a Class C felony.

Without question, this rivalry has taken a terrible turn. Numerous Alabama fans are themselves aghast at this act of vandalism, which goes far beyond the ordinary pranks that crop up from time to time. I confess to being worried that some similarly destructive individual might seek to retaliate.

What's done is done. Auburn will move on, and I'm certain that in one form or another the Toomer's Corner tradition will remain intact. The rivalry will survive, but make no mistake - the poison seeping through the roots of those beloved trees is also seeping through the hearts of fans on both sides. Unless, and until, people start to put things in proper perspective, the bitter poison will continue to ruin this rivalry. And that's a shame.

Seriously?

A few days ago, in a post about the recent unrest in the Middle East, I wrote:

Are we on the verge of a broader Middle East war, perhaps within the next year or two? Or will the alarm and unrest pass? The winds seem ominous to me, but again, I'm not sufficiently educated or even armed with enough facts to speculate.

Tonight, as I read reports of Iranian ships seeking passage through the Suez Canal en route to Syria, reports that the new foreign minister of Jordan (which has a peace treaty with Israel) calling Israel an "enemy and terrorist state," and reports of continued unrest in Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and Yemen … I can't help but to think that the timeline to the next Israeli war is much shorter than we think. And then I read this:

The U.S. informed Arab governments Friday that it will support a U.N. Security Council statement reaffirming that the 15-nation body "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity," a move aimed at avoiding the prospect of having to veto a stronger Palestinian resolution calling the settlements illegal.

Seriously? This is the response from our government? To join an anti-Israel bias in the U.N. condemning their right to build settlements within their own recognized territory? Here is Israel, being visibly hemmed in on all sides, with open hostilities a real possibility, and we're going to pile on by rebuking our ally for building apartments?

This article does go on to imply that this is just a "diplomatic ploy" to keep from having to issue a rare Security Council veto. Perhaps I'm being too naïve to expect us to take a honorable, principled position - but condemning an ally simply to make ourselves "look better" to the Arab world is nothing short of an act of fear. I'm not buying the spin that we need to do this to be perceived as an "honest broker." I'm not suggesting we blindly support the internal policies of our allies, necessarily. But when the lone representative democracy in the region is facing a truly existential threat, you would think that the only major superpower in the world would have the moral courage to stand up in support. At a minimum. A strong statement of support would do more to stabilize the situation than playing shell games with U.N. resolutions.

Israel is running short on friends these days. I used to think the U.S. was one of them. Now I'm not so sure.

Update 2/17: Iranian Ships Cancel Trip Through Suez.

Cagney: The Fighting 69th

My all time favorite movie - and the one that inspired my hobby to collect all movies starring James Cagney - is The Fighting 69th. Cagney plays Jerry Plunkett, a punk with a tough-guy act and cowardly soul who ultimately redeems himself through a final act of valor on a WWI battlefield. Among the cast are such stalwarts as Pat O'Brien (as Father Duffy), Alan Hale (the father of the actor many of us watched on Gilligan's Island), Frank McHugh, and Dennis Morgan (Christmas in Connecticut) as Lt. Ames. I treated myself this afternoon to watching this old favorite.

The movie as a whole pays tribute to the 69th Infantry Regiment, and in particular to Father Francis Patrick Duffy. Duffy Square, the northern half of Times Square, is named after him. The poet Joyce Kilmer was a sergeant in the 69th, and died on the battlefield in 1918. The movie includes a spoken excerpt of his poem "Rouge Bouquet," written to commemorate the loss of 21 soldiers of the 69th. So while the movie is a fictionalized account that centers around Cagney's character, many of the periphery events are factual.

I was first introduced to this movie in a high school history class. I'm not sure why it captured me and birthed a fascination with Cagney. A couple of years ago, I even went so far to buy online a piece of movie memorabilia from this film, an authenticated still photo of the scene where Cagney and Hale first face off as Cagney receives his uniform (below).


I think part of what drives my love of this movie is my appreciation for the roles Cagney and O'Brien play. Cagney's Plunkett is a malcontent who has major problems with authority, who despite his bravado finds himself making a huge mistake, resulting in the deaths of several of his comrades. Later, while on a recon mission, Plunkett panics and tries to run away, crying out and giving away their position to the enemy. After a court martial that results in an execution order, a major battle ensues that gives him a final chance for faith, courage and redemption, all of which he takes. O'Brien's Father Duffy, however, really captures my attention. The scripture he quotes and the prayers he utters all throughout the movie, although delivered in typical 1940's movie stiffness, nevertheless ring authentic and true. Duffy goes after Plunkett as he would the lost sheep, leaving the other 99 for the sake of the one gone so far astray. Nobody is beyond hope, despite all appearance and evidence to the contrary.

The movie ends with O'Brien reciting a prayer, as faces of the fallen march by. I cannot find the scene online, and don't have my system setup to capture it myself at the moment. Nevertheless, the words are powerful, and are a fitting end to both the movie and this post:

Oh Heavenly Father,
Here I beseech you the prayer of this America's lost generation.
They loved life too, O Lord,
It was as sweet to them as to the living of today.
They accepted privation, wounds, and death,
That an ideal might live.
Don't let it be forgotten, Father.
Amid turmoil and angry passions,
When all worthwhile things seem swept away,
Let the tired eyes of a troubled world rise up,
And see the shining citadel of which these young lives
Form the imperishable stones, America.
A citadel of peace. Peace forevermore.
This I beg of you,
Through Christ our Lord, Amen.

A Different Paradigm

Quite obviously, the big news of the day is the surprise resignation of Egypt's president-for-life, Hosni Mubarak. I say surprise, because just yesterday he gave a defiant speech declaring his intent to stay in power until elections are held in September. While the details are still fluid, it appears that between the predictable outrage of the crowds in Tahrir Square and understandable misgivings of the top brass in Egypt's military, Mubarak's hand was forced, and now the military is in control. There appears to be a fair amount of jubilation over this outcome, despite the fact that turning over power to a council of military leaders in itself apparently represents a violation of Egypt's existing constitution. Moreover, there seems to be some sentiment that this event, which by some accounts could be argued as a non-violent military coup, is somehow a great victory for freedom and democracy. What a strange notion that a military takeover of a government can be viewed as a victory for democracy.

Egypt (like its regional neighbor Turkey) has a military that historically is a strong player in national politics, most notably beginning with the 1952 Revolution in which the military overthrew the British-backed monarchy. In a fascinating article about the role of Egypt's military in the current crisis, Ellis Goldberg writes:

The Egyptian political system under Mubarak is the direct descendant of the republic established in the wake of the 1952 military coup that brought Gamal Abdel Nasser and the Free Officers to power. Nasser and the officers abolished Egypt's limited parliamentary monarchy and ousted an entire generation of civilian political and judicial figures from public life. They created their own republic stocked with loyal military figures. Their one experiment with technocratic governance, allowing Egyptian legal experts to write a new basic document, was a failure. The experts' draft had provisions for a strong parliament and limited presidency, which the officers deemed too liberal. They literally threw it into the wastebasket and started over, writing a constitution that placed immense power in the hands of the president.

Such an arrangement would prove to work out well for the military, as every Egyptian president since 1953 has been an army officer. For two generations, the military was able, through the president, to funnel most of the country's resources toward national security, arming for a series of ultimately disastrous wars with Israel. These defeats, combined with the government's neglect of the economy, nearly drove the country to bankruptcy. Popular revolt erupted between 1975 and 1977 over the government's economic policies. To regain control, the military turned its attention away from war and toward development. It gradually withdrew from direct control over politics, ceding power to domestic security forces and the other powerful backer of Egypt's ruling party -- small groups of civilian businessmen who benefited from their privileged access to government sales and purchases to expand their own fortunes.

Now, of course, the military has stepped back into direct control. While it certainly can be argued that this move at least brings temporary stability and limits the potential of terrible bloodshed in the near term, claiming that this is a victory for democracy as we understand it is a bridge too far. It would be highly unusual for a military coup, bloodless or not, to lead to a true representative democracy that would in any way diminish the role of the military. This may be a good thing for regional stability, with a nation that is vital to U.S. national interests, but that does not in turn mean freedom for the people. Read the whole thing, but as Goldberg concludes (emphasis mine):

The Mubarak regime as it has existed for the last decade -- an increasingly corrupt and incompetent government that has conferred immense economic advantages on a handful of politically connected businessmen -- has been shattered. A more open political system and a responsive government that ensures its own safety by trimming back the power and privileges of the military could still emerge. And the army may step in as a transitional power and recognize that, as much as it might like to, it cannot return to complete control. The Egyptian military is far more professional and educated than it was in the 1950s, so many officers may recognize the benefits of a democracy. More likely, however, is the culmination of the slow-motion coup and the return of the somewhat austere military authoritarianism of decades past.

Contrast this now with the model of the U.S. civilian-military relationship. By no means am I an expert in any of this, but it is clear that our paradigm for this relationship is far removed from the model typical in several Middle East nations. With the foundation of civilian control of the military, we are accustomed to a grand "bargain" that, while not without tension, has maintained a unique equilibrium between the people, the civilian government and the military. In a post on Powerline earlier this morning, before news broke about Mubarak, Mac Owens summarized his new book, U.S. Civil-Military Relations After 9/11: Renegotiating the Civil-Military Bargain. Owens writes:

The United States has been fortunate in that its military has successfully defended the Republic on the battlefield while avoiding threats to civilian control, the most extreme and dangerous forms of which are coup d'état and praetorianism. But tensions have always existed and are manifestations of the fact that from the time of the Revolution to the present day, civil-military relations in America essentially have constituted a bargain among three parties: the American people, the government, and the military as an institution.

The goal of this bargain is to allocate prerogatives and responsibilities between the civilian leadership on the one hand and the military on the other. From time to time throughout U.S. history, certain circumstances--political, strategic, social, technological, etc.--have changed to such a degree that the terms of the existing civil-military bargain become obsolete. The resulting disequilibrium and tension have led the parties to renegotiate the bargain in order to restore balance in the civil-military equation.

He goes on at length from there, asking some fascinating questions that he addresses in the book. It's lengthy, but a good read that makes me wonder if I should buy the book sometime. In the end, I find it worthy of reflection, if not essential to our understanding, of just how fortunate we are to not have the civil-military relationship so prevalent in places like Egypt. Military rule is authoritarian, and cannot by definition be democratic - yet to survive, a democratic form of government depends on military strength, with appropriate roles and responsibilities, checks and balances. For all of our flaws, we truly have a remarkable system.

Another Inch, Another Lost Day

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man ... a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is … Winter in Alabama ....

Once again, North Alabama is a blanket of white wintery wonder. While heavier in some places, the inch plus that fell nearby last night hit the road, melted, and froze. An inch of snow on the grass, a quarter inch of pocked ice on the driveway and neighborhood roads. Schools that were only to be delayed this morning have closed due to numerous accidents across the county this morning. With the temperature not expected to get close to freezing until late in the day, once again the powers that be have closed roads and are recommending we all stay home.

I learned to drive in the frozen wastelands of North Dakota, and it is tempting to think that with a little extra time, I could find my way into work this morning. However, after taking a running slide down the driveway, and coupling that with the fact that I have telecommuting privileges, I suppose it is best to stay clear of less experienced drivers and trouble spots.

So I'll make some coffee, throw a log in the fireplace, and get back to work on my research assignment while stealing glances out the window at the world of white.

And through that window, looking back at me across space and time, I just know that Rod Serling is waxing poetic.

Sing it Proudly, Sing it Right

While I am no longer a rabid fan of the NFL, I do pay attention during the playoffs, and usually watch at least part of the Super Bowl. Much to my distress, I watched tonight as yet another recording artist found a way to mangle the singing of the Star Spangled Banner. Some years, the arrangements are designed to draw attention to the artist. Other years, whether out of nervousness or plain lack of preparation, they trip over the lyrics. I don't want to be too harsh here, but I really wonder if we're raising a generation that can't be bothered to learn the words and music to our precious national songlist.

Browsing around tonight, I found that there many people expressing their frustration at tonight's rendition, and nearly all of them pointed back to the 1991's Super Bowl XXV as the best they ever heard. In 1991, of course, the Gulf War had just started, so there was something extra in the air. Nevertheless, the performance by Whitney Houston is simply powerful. She doesn't perform the anthem, she sings it. As I view it, she's not drawing attention to herself, but rather she leads the crowd in a large group revival.

The point is, the Star Spangled Banner is an American treasure, and should be treated as such. Sing it proudly, sing it triumphantly. And above all, sing it right.


(h/t): Everybody.

Preclearance: A Perpetual Punitory Practice?

In the recent November election, the people of the State of Alabama chose to put a Republican majority in the state legislature for the first time in 136 years. On top of that, we elected Republicans to Governor, Lt. Governor and a majority of other state offices. Needless to say, after generations of Democratic leadership, changes are to be expected.

One of these initiatives involved the passage of a new law in December designed to break the hold of two powerful unions - the Alabama Education Association (AEA) and the Alabama State Employees Association (ASEA). Prior to December, public employees were permitted to contribute directly to these unions through payroll deductions, very much a conflict of interest given the role these organizations play in the political life of the state. However, the argument either for or against this legislation is not the topic at hand.

According to the Associated Press, this new law has to be approved by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) before it can be put into effect. The reason? The 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Arising out of the civil rights conflicts across the nation - and most famously in the South - the Voting Rights Act followed closely after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The primary intent, according to the text of the Act (Section 2), is to ensure:

SEC. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.

Again, as a reinforcement of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, there is really little here to argue, nor would I presume to do so. There is another section however that is much more punitive and controversial, and becomes more so after 45 years and counting:

SEC. 5. Whenever a State or political subdivision with respect to which the prohibitions set forth in section 4(a) are in effect shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964, such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, except that neither the Attorney General's failure to object nor a declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure. Any action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the United States Code and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.

In practice, this is known as the Preclearance Requirement. Basically, the passage of any state law that intersects ever so slightly (even changing a polling place from one location to another) requires approval from the federal government. But note, this requirement doesn't apply to all states. Instead, it applies only to what is called the "covered jurisdiction." That covered jurisdiction is illustrated in the map below (click for larger version):


Arguments have been made that this is an infringement on state's rights. Likewise, arguments have been made that the only way to enforce the Act was to impose Preclearance on those jurisdictions guilty of prior abuse or neglect of the 15th Amendment. After 46 years, has the culture of these states changed enough that the scarlet letter can be removed? Or are past infringements completely unforgivable, such that the towns, cities and states must forever get permission to pass laws that have no bearing or application at the federal level? For now, the punitory practice continues.

According to the Alabama Attorney General, submitting such laws for review per the Preclearance requirement is routine. After 46 years, that's not surprising. What is surprising is the continued acquiescence after so much time. All it would take would be a politicized DOJ to arbitrarily block state legislation from being enforced. And only some states at that. Clearly, not all states have sovereignty.

But I suppose there is nothing to worry about. The DOJ would never allow itself to become politicized, playing favorites or selectively enforcing some laws and not others, right?

Red Moon Uprising?

I haven't been in the mood of late to delve too deeply back into the world of politics, and in a way I am loathe to do so now. I still keep up with the news of course. I could expound on my thoughts about the litigation working its way through the courts on the healthcare law, or on the economy, the budget deficit and whether the new leadership in the House can actually accomplish anything. But as it is, bigger events are happening on the world stage, and we here in the U.S. may finally be starting to take notice. Maybe.

I read with interest a few weeks ago about the uprising in Tunisia, which resulted in the overthrow of the government and ongoing instability there. The government of Lebanon came under full control of Hezbollah. Rockets continue to rain down on Israel from Hamas. The big news this past week has been filled with an uprising in Egypt, which seems likely to end the 30-year reign of Hosni Mubarak.

And today, the King of Jordan, perhaps trying to get ahead of a possible uprising in his own country, preemptively dismissed his entire government and set about trying to form a new one.

Egypt and Jordan are by far the most alarming developments. These two countries are the only ones in that part of the world that have diplomatic relations with Israel. In Egypt, if the Muslim Brotherhood organization gains control of the government, peace between Egypt and Israel may not last. Jordan, which like Egypt also shares a border with Israel, is important because if it were to fall, Israel would have adversaries literally on every side. Furthermore, Jordan borders Iraq and provides supply lines to the American forces still in country.

I'm not smart enough to comment on these developments authoritatively, and from what I see and read, I'm not sure anyone really is. It is too difficult to know what is really happening on the ground. Most governments, including our own, are mostly just issuing public statements of concern that carry little weight. We can hope that the State Department and the White House are actively working behind the scenes diplomatically, but I imagine there is concern about our ability to be effective in the face of an uprising that does not view the U.S. with friendly eyes. One lesson seems clear: Autocracies (even friendly ones) are rarely stable for more than a generation or two, and they are usually replaced by new autocracies after a violent revolution or rebellion.

Are we on the verge of a broader Middle East war, perhaps within the next year or two? Or will the alarm and unrest pass? The winds seem ominous to me, but again, I'm not sufficiently educated or even armed with enough facts to speculate.

One thing seems certain: major change is coming to the region, and may already be underway. How we respond and how it affects us remains to be seen.