LA COMEDIE INHUMAINE

As you all know, the great French writer Balzac's magnum opus is a compendium of short stories and novels entitled, "La Comédie Humaine.'.Although the French comédie refers here more to a play then to a comedy, that is, Balzac's writings are like a stage on which French society is realistically depicted.  The English word, comedy, also seems to apply, since realistically depicted people with their vanities and weaknesses are not without comic qualities, often tragi-comic ones.  It is in both senses of the word that I am writing this little essay entitled La Comédie Inhumaine.  I will discuss a minor episode that has to do with political correctness and the relentless jockeying for power that characterizes current American politics.  Although it is a minor episode, I do believe it gives insight into our current sorry state of affairs.  I call it "The Inhuman Comedy" for two reasons: it is not without its comic aspects, and, sadly, the jokes are all on us.

The Super Bowl, which will take place in two days as of this writing, has became famous not only for its spectacle of athletes but also for its spectacle of commercials.  Companies pay a fortune for their ads and really do their best to be creative, and sometimes, like Flacco in last year's Super Bowl--yes I'm from Baltimore--splendidly succeed.  Apparently, General Mills will broadcast on Sunday their biracial version of the famous Cheerios ad in which a cute, very young kid lectures her waking father of the need to take care of his heart. The cute kid is carrying a large box of Cheerios, and the father, overwhelmed by the sincere concern of his child, will be eating Cheerios for the rest of his life.

In response to the ad--it is not new-- a minor employee of MSNBC, a cable station known for its progressive views, tweeted the following:

Maybe the right wing will hate it,  but everyone else will go awww: the adorable new #Cheerios ad w/biracial family.

The Republican leaders of the RNC (Republican National Committee) were outraged--really outraged.  The co-chair of the organization, Reince Priebus, insisted that the president of MSNBC, Phil Griffin, apologize both publicly and to him or he would do .his best to assure that no one from the RNC would have any further direct contact with MSNBC.  Such a boycott would be detrimental to MSNBC, a station which definitely has progressive views, but, like any other news organization, attempts to cover all sides of the political spectrum.  It was a very aggressive reaction on Mr. Priebus's part, and he undoubtedly meant it.

Mr. Grffiin, as one expects today when power is at stake, gave a treacly apology:

The tweet last night was outrageous and unacceptable.
We immediately acknowledged that it was offensive and wrong, apologized, and deleted it.  I personally apologized to Mr. Priebus and to everyone offended.  At MSNBC, we believe in passionate, strong debate about the issues and invite  voices from all sides to participate.  That will never change.

There is a famous line from Conrad's Heart of Darkness, "Oh, the horror, the horror!"  I will paraphrase it here with, "Oh, the cant, the cant!"

I really doubt whether Mr. Griffin "immediately acknowledged" the offense.  I am almost certain, being a life-long student of La Comédie Humaine, that this tweet wouldn't have resulted in any action on his part if Mr. Priebus hadn't made such a fuss.

The cant was, as one might guess, not limited to progressives.  Here is how Mr. Priebus accepted Mr. Griffin's apology:

With increasing frequency many of your hosts have personally denigrated and demeaned Americans...

Hmm. It's all right to question the patriotism of progressives, but apparently not right to assert that there 'might"--the tweeter used the conditional-- be more racism on the right than on the left.

Do you really need proof of that?  The Cheerios ad is not new--the biracial version first appeared in May of 2013.  The YouTube site was  bombarded with horrible racist comments.  So many of them that General Mills disabled the comment option.  (There were many "lkes" too.)  Do you really believe that the political affiliation of those racists were evenly distributed among Republicans and Democrats?

The wording of the tweet, "Maybe the right wing will hate it..." was of course too broad.  But if the tweeter had written, "More than a few on the right will not like it, but everyone else, etc.," the tweet would have been an all-too-accurate depiction of current political reality.  Yes, the tweet was exaggerated.  The tweet was arguably improper.  The tweet was poorly worded and made a cheap attempt to put an entire group down.  But was it really outrageous to insinuate that the Republican Party might have a problem with minorities?  I think not.  (I do think, however, that the far too cutsy tweet with its somewhat gratuitous dig at Republicans borders on the idiotic.)

Here is an excerpt from a statement by another RNC official:

We appreciate Mr. Griffith's admission that the comment was demeaning and disgusting...

I think he does protest too much.

Disgusting?  If that is applied here, isn't that demeaning that word? There are many issues to which I think the word much better applies: the abuse of boys by priests, the rape of a 51 year old Danish woman in India, the lack of gun control in the United States, the attempts to sabotage universal health insurance in the United States, etc. All those things disgust me.  I do not think the MSNBC tweet comes even close to merit that strong word.

Something else I find offensive, if not disgusting:  Mr. Griffin, to cover his rear end, fired the hapless MSNBC employee who sent the tweet.  If someone in a position of real power does something "disgusting" he or she often gets away with it.  Not so for those at the bottom of the hierarchy.  Mr. Griffith can boast that he is so impartial that he got rid of an offending employee.  The issue of the immorality of firing someone at a time of high unemployment doesn't even come up.   I don't know the full situation, so I won't call his behavior disgusting, but it might come close.


Why do those in power act so stupidly?  The answer is simple: to maintain their power over others and, if possible, to increase it.  Let's first examine a purely financial aspect of power that pertains to our subject.

General Mills placed that biracial ad because they believe they could sell more Cheerios as a result.  Their analysts realize that the animus towards interracial marriage has decreased greatly.  They would not risk their money if they weren't convinced of this. Companies follow trends, they do not set them when their finances might be threatened by doing so.  If this isn't obvious to you, I will give a brief example

I was raised in the 40s and 50s in an exclusively white community.  Nearly everyone assumed members of other races were not quite as human as the white race.  This was a near universal belief among whites at that time.  Whites, who still compose the majority of consumers, did so to a far greater degree then.  We needed to be taught that racism existed in the mind and is not justified by reality.  Now, I ask you, do you think the makers of Cheerios would have released such an ad then, when it was most needed?  I'm sure there were General Mills executives at the time who realized how destructive racism is.  I'm also sure they wouldn't let decency trump the love of cash.  Yes, it is a good thing that General Mills has devised such an ad for modern audiences; in 2014, however,  it is as "heroic" as the tweet is "disgusting."

Regarding political power,  the situation is obvious.  Mr. Priebus realizes that his overwhelmingly white party has to reach out to others to survive.  Otherwise the hope to increase the power of the Republican Party will be in vain.  I think that this is the key to his outrage.  On Mr. Griffith's part is the realization that the ratings for MSNBC are much lower than  for the conservative rival, Fox News; he realizes that he must appear impartial and open to attract more viewers.  This is the key to his willingness to eat a supersized portion of humble pie.

As an old man without power, I am definitely more free to say the things I want to say.  But I am still cautious.  My blog is fairly widely read; I do not want to give false impressions to readers, say,  in China or Poland, about issues and topics I think are important.  I am thus amazed--perhaps the old word, flabbergasted applies--about all the incautious and inappropriate tweets, Facebook comments etc on the internet--What is the matter with these people?  Do they really think a tweet is private?  Why don't they examine what they write before making it public?  Don't they know words have consequences?  Especially these days when people are ready to jump at each other's throats?

La Comédie Inhumaine, the constant jockeying for power.  A good image for our current political  dysfunction is that of two moose banging heads together in Sarah Palin's Alaska.  True, ultimately everything, including human behavior, is part of nature.  But human behavior is supposed to be better than that of belligerent moose.  Ha! Ha! Ha!

UNCLE SUGAR FROM ARKANSAS

1.

I am a white man with gray hair.  That puts me into a unique demographic group, the most conservative voting block in the United States.  If whites were the only ones who voted in the past election, Romney would have carried every state except--irony of ironies--the state where he served as governor, Massachusetts.  If only old white men voted, the margin of victory would have been greater.

I admit it! Some of the  forces that socially constructed American white males in the mid-twentieth century undoubtedly did their best to shape me, too.  It might not therefore be surprising, that, as I age, I do feel somewhat more conservative than I did in the past.  Examples: I believe in personal responsibility.  (OK, I also believe that personal responsibility especially applies to those who are rich.)  I support the legalization of marijuana and the continuance of legal abortion, but I am not a fan of either. And yes, I support capitalism--yet realize, human beings being what they are, that it must be regulated. I also believe that Justin Bieber should be deported to Tanzania.

I am hoping that I might even in good conscience be able to vote for a conservative candidate before I die.  That candidate, however,  must give me reason to believe that his/her policies would benefit the American people more than the opposition's.  By the way things are going now, I'd better not die soon.

2.

Reince Priebus, the co-chair of The Republican National Committee, realizes that the Party, if it is to survive, must become more broad-based.  It must reach out to blacks, Latinos, and especially to women--as the other co-chair of the RNC, Sharon Day, pointed out, women are not a minority but constitute 53% of American voters.   (Good, said the would-be conservative in me.  Not so fast, said the more dominant inner progressive--If you would obtain more votes from these groups you will have to propose policies that address their concerns.  A PR campaign is not enough!  Women, blacks and Latinos aren't stupid--they know where their interests lie. )

During a recent RNC meeting, several people spoke. Then it was Mike Huckabee's turn.  The former governor of Arkansas comes over as a very likeable man.  Yet this is what the apparent Southern gentleman said in regard to the Obamacare requirement that insurances must provide contraception (with limited exceptions.)

“If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it. Let us take that discussion all across America.”

When I read this, the conservative in me was silenced.  The inner progressive was silenced, too.  All I heard for a while was the Jew in me saying over and over, "Oy Oy Oy Oy Oy!"

The statement is misogynous, mean-spirited and just plain crazy.  

First of all, Obamacare does not provide anyone with a prescription.  In this case, it requires that when a doctor prescribes contraception for a woman, insurance companies must comply with the doctor's orders. 

Second of all, coming from someone who states that he is advocating for women, Huckabee viciously insults the entire gender.  He refers to his country in this case as "Uncle Sugar" an urban term for a pimp.  And you know what that turns women into --Women who can't be denied contraception when their doctors order it are whores?  Oy, Oy, Oy, Oy, Oy.

Third, the ignorance of the statement is astounding.  I as a physician have prescribed contraceptives for women who were not sexually active. in order to regulate their periods; I have also prescribed birth control in severe cases of acne.  In short, there is quite a list of conditions when contraceptives are indicated other than to prevent pregnancy.

Four, further insults and ignorance.  He believes that women who wish to fill a prescription for contraception "can't control their libidos or their reproductive system without the help of the government.  (Sorry, I'm all Oyed out on this one.) We've already mentioned that it's not the government, but doctors who prescribe contraception.  Now let's discuss the libido part.

(Before I do that, I would like to make a fifth point, the anticlimax: as governor of Arkansas, Huckabee passed legislation that requires employers  to provide contraceptives to Arkansas women whenever medical providers prescribe them.  The Uncle Sugar of Arkansas!  How many times should one Oy! Oy! for that?)

Mr. Huckabee, you're a grown man, you must know that sex more than occasionally occurs. Human beings, obviously, have lacked contraception until recently.  And, until recently, many women died in childbrith, and even more children did not survive childhood.  Nature assured that women would have multiple pregnancies so that a few offspring would survive to propagate the species.  Times have changed, Mr. Huckabee.  Do you think it's responsible for men and women to produce ten or so children in an age where nearly all who are born survive not only childhood, but live to experience old age?  How could women have careers if they were pregnant all the time?  And why is limiting the number of offspring an issue of women controlling their libidos and not men doing the same? And is it merely a question of controlling libidos?  Do you deny, Mr. Huckabee, that people can have sex as an expression of mutual love? Do you not believe that responsible love includes deciding when to have a child?

If this is the strategy of a self-proclaimed soldier in the war for women, I would hate to imagine the enemy.

Huckabee's speech was, in short, malevolent and crazy.  And many Republicans knew it, so there is hope.  (I would like to believe that some of the many Gentile equivalents of Oy! were going through the minds of many conservatives as they heard Huckabee's speech.) The next day, this is what Priebus told the Washington Post: "I don't know what he was talking about. Sort of a goofy way of using some phrases. Not the way I would have phrased it."

So, if I live to a hundred or so, I just might be able to vote for a conservative candidate after all.  (Only, of course, if Obama's Death Panels allow me to survive.)

THE DAY I SANG IN A DOMINICAN JAIL

                                                                                                                                  January 16, 2014                                                                                                   
1.                                                

                                              
My friend Anita and I were heading back to the capital of the Dominican Republic, Santo Domingo, from where we would fly back to Baltimore the following day.  We had spent ten days mostly in the little but delightful town of La Descubierta, near the Haitian border.  Anita spent two years in the area as a Peace Corps volunteer twenty-four years ago, and returns periodically.(She must have done a great job--she can't walk anywhere in the town without somebody joyfully shouting, Anita, Anita!)  On a clear, warm day, January 16th, we took public transportation to the somewhat bigger town, nearby, Neyba. Our plans were to visit an orphanage and,later,one of her Dominican friends, who is halfway through serving a ten-year sentence in a  Neyba jail.  Eduardo, the director of the little orphanage, was delighted to see Anita and me, and had a Dominican lunch which consisted of plantains, rice, beans, yuca and other savories.  Then we left for the jail, about 3/4 of a kilometer away.
The jail, a two-story concrete structure, painted bright green, was run by the Ejercicio Nacional, the Dominican National Guard.  We had to go back to the orphanage to leave our cameras and other belongings.  We weren't allowed to take even our dark glasses or hats into the jail.  A rather obese woman in fatigues copied all our details from our passports, which were to be kept in her care during the visit.  Then we went into separate rooms, one for men, one for women, to be searched.  Anita was strip-searched twice.  Maybe because I am older, or, as I suspect, the male guard, who wore civilian clothes, was less strict, I was cleared with a perfunctory tap over my wallet, tucked inside my pocket.  I then received a stamp on my forearm and was ready for the visit.
Once we entered the prison, men, some of whom were teenagers, were standing everywhere, blocking the extremely narrow, dark corridors.  We found our friend in his room, which was about eight feet long and seven feet wide.  It was as high off the ground as a bunkbed on a train.  I had to climb up a ladder built into the wall; it consisted of ridiculously narrow wooden slats, about three inches wide.  My friend had no trouble climbing into the room; I needed a little help from one of the prisoners.
Needless to say I felt a little uncomfortable and very claustrophobic. 
Anita, however, was very much at ease.  The prisoner, a robust man in his 50s, and Anita were delighted to see each other and talked about many things.  Al fondo de mi corazon, he said, yo se que soy innocente.  His room was very well ordered; clothes and toiletries, etc, were all in their place.  I sat on a little wicker stool in the narrow corridor beside the bed; he stood next to me facing Anita, who sat on the bed.  One small window with iron bars let in adequate light.  A portable radio was in a prominent place; neatly stored tapes were everywhere.  He noticed that I was wearing a T-shirt with a grand piano on it and thereupon asked me whether I could play piano; I said yes.  He plays guitar, but guitars are not allowed inside the prison.  He also said he sings.  He played several tapes of Hispanic ballads--all of them  contained only accompaniment by piano and a variety of other instruments; they were made for singers to use when no instrumentalists were available.
What a lovely voice! A warm, full baritone; his voice was always on pitch; his phrasing was impressive. . He was much better than all the popular singers I heard--(Recorded music is played very loudly all over La Descubierta--nearly all of them bachatas or merengues). He sang about five songs.   I was instantly put at ease, forgetting everything but the music.Prisoners gathered in the narrow passageway. I suspect that he provides their principal entertainment.  After that, I asked him if he knew one of my favorite songs, Silencio.  Yes, indeed;.we sang it together.  Man, I really got down, singing in full voice without the slightest inhibition.  (I rarely, but increasingly less rarely, sing.)  
We communicated the way musicians communicate for whom music is not merely entertainment, but the very center of life.  The prisoners enjoyed it almost as much as we did.  Anita was amazed; it was a peak experience, as she told us, for her too.
After our visit, one of the prisoners very kindly made sure that I didn't fall on my way down.
Before I left the prison, I said to him, Que tendriamos sin musica?  He replied, Nada, nada.  (What would we have without music?  Nothing at all.) We gave each other a long hug.  We declared that we had just become friends for life.
The song we sang is one of my favorites.  I heard it for the first time in Wim Wender's extraordinary 1999 documentary, The Buena Vista Social Club.  It is sung in the film by Ibrahim Ferrer and Omara Portuondo, two outstanding Cuban singers.  The song was written by the Puerto Rican composer, Raphael Hernandez (1892-1965.)  The singers, once very popular, were now in their 70s.  It is a very emotional intense performance.  Ibrahim has a lovely voice and phrases the words poignantly.  How well both of them know how to slow things down and take liberties with the meter for emotional effect!  Since I first saw the movie, I have listened to several recordings of both singers.  I don't know of any other singer who can slow things down to great emotional effect better than she can. (Most singers sing this song entirely too fast.)
The words also have a special significance for me.  They are as follows:
 

Silencio
Duermen en mi jardín
Las blancas azucenas^[3]
Los nardos y las rosas
[Y]^[4] mi alma, muy triste y pesarosa
A las flores quiere ocultar,
Su amargo dolor.
No quiero que las flores sepan
Los tormentos que me da, la vida
Si supieran lo que estoy sufriendo
Por mis penas, llorarían, también.
Silencio, que están durmiendo
Los nardos y las azucenas
No quiero que sepan mis penas
Porque, si me ven llorando, morirán.
Porque, si me ven llorando, morirán.
Porque, si me ven llorando, morirán
Silence
Sleeping in my garden
The white lilies
The nards and the roses
[And] my soul, very sad and heavy,
Wants to hide from the flowers
Its bitter pain.
I don’t want the flowers to know

    The torments life sends me

If they knew what I suffer
With my pains, they too would cry.
Silence; let them sleep,
The nards and the lilies
I don’t want them to know my sadness,
Because, if they see me crying, they’ll die.
Because, if they see me crying, they’ll die.
Because, if they see me crying, they’ll die.

 I've read an interpretation that this song, about flowers with very pronounced fragrances, "leads to the conceit that the flowers are as sensitive to our emotions as we are to their scents."  This may be a possible interpretation, but it is not mine.  The deeper meaning of the words as I see it is that the flowers are the young children of parents facing enormous difficulties.  They want to protect their children, keeping their suffering away from them as long as they can.  They well know that in the long run this strategy is not going to work.  It reminds me of Buddha's father who tried to keep suffering away from his son forever. (That didn't work either.)

This interpretation, for me at least, gives this song its special poignance.  As a pediatrician, I have seen many parents, hit very hard by difficulties, doing their best to protect their children.  Even in my brief stay in the Dominican Republic, I have seen some people to whom the words of this song apply .  I must admit that I am no different; I have been through several rough patches, and, as they say, growing old is not for sissies. In a certain mood, when no one else is at home but a fly on the wall, I play this balero over and over on the piano.

The Ferrer/Portuondo recording is on YouTube; I am now preparing  a (very amateur) recording of it myself.

The last thing I expected was to be moved to tears of joy  in a Dominican jail.  Once in a while, predictably, the unpredictable happens--when is such an occurrence likely, you might ask?  As Fats Waller famously put it, "One never knows, do one?"

Addendum:  I have recorded my version of the piece and have uploaded it onto the blog.