Friday, August 29, 2008

Hillary Clinton and the Cult of Personality

When the mainstream media saw Hillary Clinton speaking at the Democratic Convention, they saw someone who balanced her duty to the party, to support Barack Obama and to move her “troops” over to Barack’s cause, with her desire to keep her own options open in 2012 or 2016.

But to me, it seemed like her speech was 80 percent of the former and only 20 percent of the latter.

In the 1980s, the rock group Living Colour wrote a song called “The Cult of Personality.” It was about charismatic leaders, some “good” – JFK, Gandhi -- and some evil – Joseph Stalin, Mussolini. Let’s take a look at some of its lyrics:

“I know your anger, I know your dreams
I’ve been everything you want to be
I see the things you need to be
I’m the smiling face on your TV
I’m the cult of personality.”

Hillary’s speech fits that description to a “T.” She kept talking about the people she had met on the campaign trail, such as the woman who had no health insurance but two autistic children, or the person who comes home at 5, eats dinner, then heads out to work the night shift.

I’m sure people this really exist, but her hidden message is that she is the one who has the REAL answers to all their problems. A sociologist who seriously studies the problems poor people face every day would also speak about these issues, but would do so with much more complexity.

Notice that for at least 20 minutes or so, before she even got around to Obama, Hillary mainly talked about herself, her campaign and the people she met in her trips around the country. Then she made a few remarks about supporting Obama and about how Michelle Obama is a nice person.

Compared to what Hillary has said about people she REALLY likes – for example, her calling Congresswoman Nita Lowey “one of the finest examples of a public servant I’ve ever met” – her remarks about the Obamas are tepid indeed.

Looking back, can anyone imagine Lyndon Johnson making such an egocentric speech at the 1960 Democratic convention after he was defeated by John F. Kennedy? Or can you imagine Eugene McCarthy making a similar speech in 1968 after Hubert Humphrey won the nomination? If they had, they would have been shunned by the party faithful for years afterward. More recently, I remember Tom Harkin’s speech at the 1992 convention, and it was not about Tom Harkin, who had lost his quest for the nomination. It was about the victorious candidate, Bill Clinton.

After the convention, according to the New York Times, one of Hillary’s supporters was asked whether she would support Obama. “Of course,” she said. “Hillary told us to!” That’s one of the scariest things to come out of this campaign – a group of people who are loyal not to principles, not to a political agenda, but to a charismatic leader, in this case Hillary. And that’s the essence of the Cult of Personality.

Originally published in Brooklyn Daily Eagle

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Why Isn't MTA Sharing in Upbeat Rail Outlook

By Raanan Geberer
Brooklyn Eagle
The other day, I picked up a publication that I rarely read -- Barron's. As a longtime railfan, the cover story both surprised and intrigued me, "All Aboard!" with the subhead, "with gas prices high, traffic gnarly and imports buoyant, railroads look like terrific long-term investments."

The article didn't only focus on freight rail, long acknowledged as the most profitable segment of the industry. It also focused on passenger rail, and even subways and trolley lines. One of the illustrations depicted the Washington metro, and the article tells us that DC is planning to extend service from Georgetown out to Dulles Airport. It also mentioned new commuter rail being developed in Salt Lake City, a 15 percent rise in ridership in California's Capitol Corridor rail line, and "booming Amtrak."

I just recently, in fact, took a trip to Washington, and saw for myself how efficient and modern their subway system is. I also took note of Baltimore's new subway and light-rail system. All in all, according to Barron's, "over the past five years, the Dow Jones railroad Index has shot up 250 percent."

Contrast this, however, with New York City (I was about to say "Fun City," but younger people wouldn't get the reference). Here, the opening of the Second Avenue Subway is now not expected before 2015, and the MTA is warning that it may have to scale back one of its major construction projects, which also include the Long Island Railroad's East Side Access project and the No. 7 train's extension to the Javits Center. Moreover, the MTA has now requested its second fare hike in two years.

If one is to take all this seriously, it appears that the MTA and its component railroads -- the New York City subway system, the Long Island Railroad and MetroNorth -- are the only systems that aren't booming in the U.S. and Canada. Even across the river, in New Jersey, the Hudson-Bergen light rail, or trolley, line gets extended a few stops every year.

From this, what can we conclude?

I guess we can conclude that the MTA is incredibly mismanaged, that its internal structure is seriously flawed, or that the money is going somewhere that it's not supposed to be going. Or maybe all three. I hope that Governor Patterson orders an independent audit of the MTA -- the sooner, the better!


Originally published in Brooklyn Daily Eagle