More articles by Brian JosepherMailbagMailbag
In my last column I mentioned my overflowing mailbag. Actually, my overflowing electronic mailbox. I mentioned the hostility of those letters. There was some hyperbole to that statement. I do receive a great deal of sympathetic responses, including some really lovely letters from the many fans of Jennifer Aniston (for columns written in November 2007), and in particular the Anistons of Annapolis and Paige at www.imnotobsessed.com. Thanks, ladies, for keeping me up to date on all things Aniston. If I do write that celebrity biography, you’ll be the first to know.
Below is a general sampling of letters, names omitted for privacy’s sake, with my responses.
1) In one of your articles you write about the Apple-affiliated store, Tekserve (“The Man in the Marlene Dietrich Pose and other ironies and eccentricities,” October 19, 2007). As part of that article, you described an oversized poster on the wall. According to your article, the poster was of Mohammad Mossadegh, the Iranian prime minister in the 1950s and the victim of a CIA-led coup. In fact, the Tekserve poster is not Mossadegh but Pablo Picasso. Ironically in your article, you wonder if President Bush can identify Mossadegh and yet you can’t identify Picasso. Now, who’s the bigger fool?
Oops. You’re right, but you have to admit that Mossadegh and Picasso look eerily similar. As for who’s the bigger fool, I write a column that impacts upon a score or more of readers. George Bush impacts upon hundreds of millions of people. The question isn’t, “Who’s the bigger fool?” The question is, “Who has the most impact?”
2) In your article “The Reagan Rap” (February 8) you made Ronald Reagan out to be an idiot. I’m sure you realize that you’re very much in the minority. Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century. He gave hope to a withdrawn nation. He picked us up by our bootstraps. His leadership helped to destroy our mortal enemy. I sure wish Ronald Reagan could run for office today. I’d vote for him in a heartbeat. I think most of the country would. Your anti-Reaganism exposes you for who you really are: a liberal propagandist completely out of touch with the country. Reagan in ’08.
If Reagan could run for office in 2008, he would be running as a 97-year-old candidate. When he ran for his second term in office in 1985, at the age of 74, he was already in the deep throes of Alzheimer’s. The man didn’t know who his national security adviser was. That’s why he had so many of them. He just kept appointing them because he couldn’t remember who last sat in that chair.
Reagan should never have run for a second term. His doctors should have declared him unfit for service. Don’t take my word for it. Check out his medical history in the New England Journal of Medicine. http://content.nejm.org/content/vol351/issue12/Reagan.html.
As for an analysis of the Reagan presidency, consider the many scandals of that era. Here are the first five that come to mind:
A) The October Surprise, in which the Reagan Republicans made a deal with the Khomeini regime to delay the release of the hostages until after the election, thereby assuring a victory over the beleaguered Jimmy Carter.
B) Debategate, in which the Reagan campaign, in the days leading up to the one and only debate with President Carter, stole President Carter’s notes and then held practice sessions, prepping Reagan with insider information. If you don’t believe me, check out the testimonials of eyewitnesses to these prepping sessions. The eyewitnesses include: James Baker, Michael Deaver, David Gergen, Edwin Meese, David Stockton (who played Carter during the mock debates), Alan Greenspan, Dick Allen, and George Will. William Saffire, though asked, did not attend. At least he has that going for him.
C) The Savings and Loans Debacle, that era’s sub-prime mortgages fiasco.
D) Iran-Contra, in which the Reagan administration created a constitutional crisis, second only to the Civil War (although the Patriot Act comes in a close third).
E) Iraqgate, in which the Reagan administration (through Vice President Bush) not only armed Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, but then secretly armed Khomeini’s Iran to ensure a stalemate. Over a million people died in that war. The war lasted nearly a decade. The Reagan administration has a great deal of blood on its hands.
Why is all of this relevant? There’s a Bedouin proverb: “Subordinate your ego, eliminate your natural greed, serve mankind.” The Reagan administration flunked in all three categories.
And as for your earlier characterization – “He gave hope to a withdrawn nation. He picked us up by our bootstraps. His leadership helped to destroy our mortal enemy” – are you sure you’re talking about Ronald Reagan? It sounds more like Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
3) I just read your Bhutto column (“Who Killed Benazir Bhutto?,” February 1, 2008). As an aspiring journalist, I’m wondering how you gained access to the spokesmen you cite. Thanks.
Good question. First I contacted the journalist Syed Shoaib Hasan of the BBC. Hasan, the last person to interview the reclusive Baitullah Mehsud, proved invaluable. Not only did he supply me with first-class information but he put me in touch with Mehsud’s spokesman. Zulfiqur, it turned out, liked to talk. A recluse hiring a motormouth to be his spokesman struck me as highly amusing. I would have hired a curmudgeon.
George Little, the personal spokesman for CIA director Michael Hayden, was a little tougher to reach. A spokesman’s job, however, is to speak and Little did that. The CIA director hiring a spokesman in the first place struck me as something of a paradox. Isn’t the CIA based on covert operations? Who publicizes covert operations? Maybe that’s why the CIA has lost some of its luster.
4) Whatever happened to Ted?
Another good question. I wrote about Ted in my column of September 28, 2007, “The View from the 13th Floor.” Ted worked for a firm that specialized in building maintenance. Ted spent his days suspended by ropes and pulleys. He hung hundreds of feet above the ground and reapplied concrete. Just thinking about his job gives me spilkes.
For weeks, Ted worked on that part of the building directly outside my bedroom window. In those weeks he became a part of my family. He volunteered intimate details of his life. He had a pregnant wife. He was scared out of his mind about becoming a father.
Five months later, Ted is still around. My building was built before the Great Depression; it looks like this country did in 1932. Battered, withered, desperate. Ted continues his work on other parts of the building. By the way, his wife gave birth to a healthy boy. Ted Jr., only a few months into his life, is addicted to Coca-cola. I wonder where he picked up that habit.
5) I find your political commentary exceptional and shrewd. Simultaneously, I really struggle with the blowhards on television. I could name names but what’s the point? One’s worse than the next. Is there anyone you like?
Thanks for the compliment. In an election year everyone’s a political commentator. If you want to read some god-awful stuff, check out the Huffington Post. While Arianna can be astute, when she’s not in her celebrity mode, she publishes such bozos as Nora Ephron. Stick to your insensate romantic comedies, Nora. Your attempts at substance sound like the pantings of a really hot dog.
But I digress. You wanted someone worth your time on television. I can think of two. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Stephen, if you’re reading this, how about the Colbert Bump for the Gonzo Journalism of Brian Josepher?
6) Why should we expect our top athletes to be humanitarians? Why should our stars take up social causes? Why can’t we just enjoy their unbelievable talents? Isn’t that in and of itself bringing something important to the world?
The writer is referring to my January 18, 2008 column, “The Legacy of Tiger Woods.” In that article I called out Tiger for failing – miserably – at humanitarianism. I received more hate mail for this article than all other articles combined. Tiger Woods, apparently, is untouchable.
The quantity of hate mail exposes the state of American thinking. Again, I cite the Bedouin proverb: “Subordinate your ego, eliminate your natural greed, serve mankind.” Shouldn’t this proverb apply to all of us, whether we’re star athletes, dentists, elementary school teachers or construction workers named Ted? Tiger Woods is failing in all three categories. Judging from the amount of mail I’ve received on this subject, so is America.
7) I read your article on the hostages in Iran (“Day 52: Christmas in Tehran,” December 14, 2007) and then I chanced upon some interesting information. The American diplomats who served in Iran received huge Foreign Service wages. Double and sometimes triple time. Is this true? If so, if American diplomats chose to go to Tehran to strike it rich, why should we feel sorry for them? After all, they chose to put themselves in a volatile situation, the funds in their bank accounts soared, and they came back as heroes. Over twenty-five years later, we still recognize them as heroes. That sounds like a pretty good trade-off for 444 days in captivity.
One day in captivity sounds awful to me. As for the information you alluded to, you are right -– but not triple time. In February 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran, Foreign Service wages increased to time and a half. After February 14, 1979, when a group of Iranian militants seized the American embassy for a day, the diplomats’ wages doubled. In other words, it paid to be an American official at the U.S. embassy in Tehran in the year 1979.
In addition, after the one-day takeover on February 14, 1979, the State Department changed the classification system. The embassy in Tehran became a hardship post. That is to say, if you were an ambitious diplomat working your way up the State Department ladder, Tehran was a quick way to promotion. Certain diplomats chose Tehran for this reason, and it was more scenic than Idi Amin’s Kampala.
But before we judge these former hostages, consider two cases. The educator Malcolm Plant arrived at the embassy at 9:15 on the morning of November 4, 1979. He became the last person to lawfully enter the embassy grounds. Plant was in Tehran as the point man for the American Universities Abroad System. Tehran was slated as the next campus. Plant was there to sign contracts. At half past nine the student revolution began and Malcolm Plant spent 444 days in captivity.
I can tell you that the American Universities Abroad System didn’t double his wages.
And then there was the case of Robert Ode. In 1975, after spending his career in the diplomatic services, he reached the State Department’s mandatory retirement age of sixty. In the years between 1975 and November 1979, Ode took temporary postings. Three months here, three months there. In Tehran he was filling in for a consular officer on medical leave. He arrived in mid-September 1979. He promised his wife back in suburban Virginia that he’d be home by Christmas. As events played out, he didn’t make it home until after Christmas, of 1980.
8) Iran is a constant theme in your articles. I’m trying to understand why our policies haven’t changed in almost thirty years. We ostracize the government; we subversively fund democratic movements; we sponsor an economic boycott. These are all Jimmy Carter-era decisions. Why is the 21st century policy a mid-20th century policy?
Good question. Personally, I think that Americans are hostile to knowledge. Americans want to be oohed and aahed by technology. Americans want a cell phone that flips pancakes.
The same is true, on a lesser scale, of American policy makers. Back during the first Gulf War, the American Secretary of State, James Baker, didn’t know who a Kurd was. Here we were, supposedly supporting Kurdish independence and he didn’t know what religion a Kurd practiced, what language a Kurd spoke, etc. To his credit, he sought out answers. However, the Bush government let the Kurds dangle in the wind, and die at the gun barrels of Saddam’s Apache helicopters. (Where do you think Saddam got Apache helicopters?)
As for Iran, do you really think that Condoleezza Rice or Richard Armitage or Dick Cheney know who an Azeri is? Do you think they can identify Qom on a map? Do you think they know the significance of Qom?
Tragically for America, all the answers are available. America has scholarship on Iran. Check out the work of Bill James, Richard Cottam, and Nickie Keddie. But if you want to know why America is in the dark, check out book sales. I looked up Richard Cottam’s Iran and the United States: A Cold War Case Study on Amazon.com’s sales rank. It came in, unbelievably, at 3,550,737. Meanwhile, Mark Bowdon’s joke of a book, Guests of the Ayatollah, came in at 550. This is the problem. Americans, and America’s policy makers, rarely read. And when they do, they read trash. Mark Bowdon, even after writing his book, couldn’t tell you who an Azeri is. Mark Bowdon has no idea why Qom is so significant. Bowdon writes for profit, not for understanding. Bowdon is a salesman.
Further, when asked what book he last read, President George Bush mentioned Bowdon’s book. Ouch.
A postscript to this story. In the final days of the Shah’s regime, President Carter sent General Robert Huyser to Iran as his personal emissary. Huyser had no background or knowledge of Iranian history, culture or politics. Huyser did not speak Persian. He met with various persons within the Iranian government. He did not meet with any opposition leaders. He certainly never met with Khomeini or anyone within those circles. He then recommended policy to the president.
Jimmy Carter chose an ignoramus over the expertise of such men as Ambassador William Sullivan and diplomat George Ball and political officer John Limbert. Thirty years later, nothing has changed. The ignoramus Robert Huyser has morphed into the ignoramus Richard Cheney.
9) Dear B, I love your advice column. Your answers are always straightforward, imaginative yet real. You can be very tough. You can also be very kind. I’m just wondering in your relationship history if there are any regrets. Is there someone you’d like to start over with? With admiration, TT
Yes, TT, there is somebody. I don’t usually do this but I’ll share a little bit of my personal life here. Two year ago or so, I became infatuated with a woman. JW, I will call her. In so many ways JW offered exactly what I sought in a companion. She offered a challenging intellect. I respected her curiosity, her tenacity, her way in the world. She respected words. She respected language. She wanted to understand the world. She was a foreign policy wonk. She made Samantha Powers look a little amateurish.
In more personal matters, she was simply adorable. She had this smile that lit up the Atlantic, from here (meaning New York) to Cherbourg. She had the sweetest curly hair. She cooked a fantastic chicken cacciatore. She also loved NBA basketball and as you probably know, I am a Denver Nuggets diehard.
The problem was age. I couldn’t get my head around the ten-year difference. I am not the kind of man who wants to be with a younger woman. The issue came to a head when one night we went out to dinner with her good friends. Her friends were in their mid-20s. I felt fossilized. I sat there smiling and conversing and I felt older than my grandmother (who turns 98 this year). I’m 40-years-old, TT. I’m not ready for that feeling.
Subsequently, I’ve learned that I was wrong. Subsequently, I’ve learned that I let one issue cloud all others. To be in a relationship is to be able to compartmentalize. To let one issue override is to essentially wear blinders. The whole point of blinders is to focus on one spot.
I was focused on that one spot and I missed the panorama.
10) Finally, in my “Dear B” column of February 15, 2008 I received an e-mail from Confounded in Colorado. She expressed a “love” for my advice column and an “infatuation” with the author. In my response, I admitted to loving the Colorado types. I asked her to send pictures.
My mistake. To all of you Colorado types who sent pictures, I deeply appreciate the gesture. But, please, no more j-pegs. This is not a rejection. I’m just a man who is committed to his singularity (with exceptions, as referenced above). I call my state, “Single, but unavailable.” Sponsored by EnterTo.com the first REAL spam free email
Click Below to discover and share content from anywhere on the web
More articles by Brian Josepher |
