Spike Lee's Lament

This week the mainstream Media will be marking the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. They will probably cover the story with plenty of images from the devastation that was an environmental massacre of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and the Florida panhandle. We'll probably see stories of recovery and loss; how FEMA failed to help victims and images of dead bodies floating in water. I expect these stories to be short of detail and full of sympathy for the victims. They'll tell us what we know but not what we've learned.
 
Spike Lee, the great American filmmaker and NY Knicks supporter, has just released a documentary film called, ''When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts". It was produced by HBO and recently broadcast on The Movie Network in Canada and HBO in the United States.
 
To suggest that Lee's film is critical of government would be incomplete. The film is an indictment of the American system. The breakdown of the levees as symbols of the breakdown in government support all dressed in subtle forms of racism and chauvinism. It is the sum of all that is failing in America today, be it corporations, government or its class system. It doesn’t cast blame at any individual or organization, but over-all you get the sense that the American Dream has failed miserably.

Lee’s use of the first person narrative is a technique of story telling that is most effective for eliciting our own response. In a way, it’s a conversation rather than a lecture; living history versus interpretation. Every person interviewed had a story to tell from the Mayor of New Orleans who tried to act effectively to the single mother who lost her 5 year-old in the flooding. We hear from musicians, religious leaders, children, parents, soldiers and civil servants. What we experience is the collective pain and frustration of each one of them as Hurricane Katrina approached, landed and left with a wake of destruction.

Lee’s film is a lament for the American Dream and one of the most important of the year.
 
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

The Politics of AIDS

The 16th International AIDS conference was in Toronto this past week, marking 25 years since the world first heard about HIV/AIDS and the disease that became de rigeur in the 1980s. But to think that government had anything to do with bringing this disease to the mainstream of health care would be incorrect. It was a grassroots movement that brought it to the forefront of health issues in the 20th Century. It was the Arts community issuing red ribbons at the Tony Awards in 1991; it was June Callwood, a Canadian writer and activist, who lobbied to open the first AIDS Hospice in Toronto. The Gay Community opened its collective hearts and took the disease seriously because people were dying. These simple initiatives were not led by government. They were led by working people who argued for government support. Ironically, they are still asking for it.
 
Now, 25 years later, Bill Gates proves that the battle against the disease is still not being done effectively by governments. It's being done by dedicated health specialists, volunteer caregivers and NGAs. Government, as always, is usually 6 months behind the rest of us and as a result drags its collective feet when it comes to leading the battle against AIDS. It's no coincidence that the slogan for the 2006 Conference is "Time To Deliver". Gates's donation of $500 million embarrassed most governments, including his own, in the fight against AIDS.
 
Clearly, the world is ready to move forward against this disease. But are governments going to lead or follow?  As Margaret Mead once said, "A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." She was right.
 
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Lamont vs Lieberman

Last Tuesday Senator Joseph Lieberman lost a primary vote to Ned Lamont, a rich newcomer in Connecticut politics. I guess Joe failed to "connect" with the members of the Democratic Party who voted in this primary. But considering Lieberman's record over the past 2 years, it's no wonder he's failed the Democratic Party; he hardly represents them anymore.
 
From an outsider's POV, the vision of two distinct parties in the United States is blurry: one person’s Republican is another person’s Democrat. There's very little difference between the two and if there was, everybody would know it. But looking at the voting records in the Senate and House of Representatives, it's remarkable how often the Democrats support Republican legislation. One example would be The Patriot Act, that wasn't even read by elected officials when voted on. It passed easily because there was no opposition and there lies the deeper, political problem in the United States.
 
There's no elected opposition in the American system. It's a pseudo-mix of left versus right, intellectuals versus idealists and a lot of hot air in between. This has been the case since 2000 when Al Gore rolled over after the rigged Florida result. [Lieberman was running for Vice-President] That was the last gasp of opposition against the Bush gang. Since that time it's been a pattern of verbal rhetoric and soft resistance to anything  the President has to offer. The Iraq War is another example of soft opposition as Democrats held their collective noses and voted in favour of increased funding and special powers to the President.
 
Ned Lamont, the new candidate for the Democratic Party in the Constitution State, is voicing opposition: "...America is no safer, Israel is no safer, Iran is more dangerous, Osama bin Laden is still at large, and our brave troops are stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war. I believe that those leaders who got us into this mess should be held accountable."  With respect to Mr. Lamont, talk is cheap. It remains to be seen whether he'll remain consistent in his opposition. We’ll know by November.
 
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Heart of Congo

This week the Democratic Republic of Congo held its first elections in 40 years. This momentous occasion was the start of another chapter in the long, blood-filled history of this central African country. The success of these elections depends on voter turnout, which at this point is low, since most people were either afraid to cast their vote or were astonished by the notion of actually doing so. It's hard to say. Recent violence actually closed most polling stations some time ago. Monday’s vote was a second chance, in more ways than one.
 
The Congo is a confused state of over 250 ethnic groups, four official languages and a government that is, at best, ambiguous. While it has struggled against Imperialism, particularly from the Belgians, it has also fostered its own homegrown tyrants and oppressive leaders. To say that the Congo is in transition, would be an understatement. Millions of people have died in various ethnic wars and the hope for peace is a faint one.

For this election, fear has been the most powerful force in the regions. According to a story in the Associated Press, voter turnout is between five and 15 per cent. Most people aren’t even registering to vote and seats are allocated to the percentage of registered voters.
 
Perhaps Joseph Conrad put it best in Heart of Darkness, the famous tale of the trip into the region recognized as the Congo. We can no longer separate ourselves from the interior as Marlow did by traveling up the river. By stepping on the land we enter the real Congo. Perhaps this is the same route to understanding Africa as a whole. Like most people in the Northern Hemisphere, we can no longer be ambivalent to the situation.
 
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.