Flu PANdemIC!

The New York Times is reporting this morning that Mexican authorities say the number of individuals in that country who have actually been diagnosed with the H1N1 flu virus is substantially lower than first reported.

Of 908 suspected cases, less than 400 have been confirmed. Sixteen of those have died.

While scientists do the painstaking work necessary to better understand the virus, the media are whipping everyone into a frenzy. As of Friday, there were only 141 confirmed cases in the US, with one death. Yet around the country, schools and workplaces were closing and community events being cancelled. People were donning surgical masks for prevention. Hospital emergency rooms were being taxed by way too many folks coming in to report general flu symptoms. In its voracious need to fill the 24/7 news cycle and compete for viewers and ratings, the media have lost all perspective on this one.

It didn’t help that the World Health Organization, within only days of the virus being identified and before the numbers of confirmed cases were in from Mexico, ratcheted up its world pandemic warning. The media will certainly cite WHO’s scary pronouncements in its defense.

Meanwhile, Dr. Javier Torres, a leading infectious disease expert in Mexico, told the Times: “The number of those exposed and infected has gone up, and the number of fatal cases has gone down. We can be comfortable with those facts.”

And an official with the Centers for Disease Control in the US, referring to a historic epidemic that killed millions, said: “We do not see the markers for virulence that were seen in the 1918 virus.”

It might also help if someone clarified that thousands of people die every year in the US from common, identifiable flu viruses. This may not be comforting, but it’s a good reality check. We are all vulnerable all the time. Some of us will get sick; some of us will die. Common-sense prevention measures (which the media is purveying well) are always advisable.

The risk for the spread of new and deadly viruses is a real one. Our health authorities must be vigilant and our mass media accurate and sober sources of public information. The current flu hysteria does not give me much confidence that a real threat will be managed effectively. Added to that concern is the danger that false alarms will desensitize people and make them skeptical and lethargic when the real need for action does arise.

Susan Boyle Soars

Have you seen the YouTube phenom Susan Boyle? If not, prepare to be amazed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY

Susan, a delightfully real, middle-aged, unemployed Scotswoman, shook the rafters, brought down the house (insert your own showbiz cliché here), and won three ecstatic “Yes” votes from the judges, including curmudgeonly Simon Cowell, on “Britain’s Got Talent.” Within days, Susan’s brilliant voice, previously available only in her church and (presumably) her bathroom shower, was spread internationally with a YouTube audience of more than 22 million.

Susan’s voice is absolutely stunning, but an additional factor at work was the judges’ and audience’s initial misperception of her based on her looks. Susan, with her bulges and bushy eyebrows, is decidedly not a cover girl. You could hear derision in the bumptious music playing behind the two-minute intro and you could see it on the faces of the judges and the audience as she ambled onstage. You could see it in the skeptical grimaces that greeted her stated desire to be like Elaine Paige (a British theatre and cabaret star).

And then they cued the tape. And Susan sang.

What a kick to literally see jaws drop before she finished eight notes of the song – only eight notes! – and to see people’s prejudices utterly dashed. OK, it was the typical teary power ballad that wins over audiences, in this case “I Dreamed a Dream” from “Les Miserables.” But it is a great song, and more significantly, this unknown, unassuming woman from Scotland just recorded what may be the definitive version of one of our modern standards.

“It was a complete privilege listening to that,” said judge Amanda Holden, who appeared emotionally jarred by the performance.

A privilege it was, and a welcome reminder, in our increasingly decadent culture, to value character and talent above appearance.

Try Things, Barack

In the immortal words of Gerald Ford: “Our long national nightmare is over.”

Unfortunately, a new one is beginning.

What an ordeal. I should have been blogging about the election all year (actually for the past two years) like all the other pundits who have no lives and who think the world is hanging on their every observation. However, even with the addition of a thyroid medication to my daily regimen (“Speed!” a friend enthused approvingly) I could not muster the energy. The news cycles with their ups and downs, low blows and high drama were exhausting.

One of my greatest satisfactions was seeing Rudy Giuliani fizzle. Better yet was being able to vote for Hillary in the primary, knowing I could also vote for Barack in the general election. Hey, if I’m going to triangulate, it seems only appropriate to do so for a Clinton!

The highest satisfaction will come, of course, when the most incompetent and delusional president ever to mislead the country steps down in January.

Obama is inheriting a mess that is likely to be much worse by next year. I’m an unapologetic Franklin D. Roosevelt Democrat who hopes that Rahm Emanuel, presumably speaking on behalf of his boss, will follow through in the determination not to see a crisis like this pass without instituting far-reaching change. Everybody hates government until they need it, especially the rich, who milk it in good times and bad more than a billion “welfare mothers” ever could. Despite preliminary fear-mongering from the right, socialism will never come to this country. But given how selfish and reactionary we’ve become, the farther to the left they can move us is OK by me.

The economic collapse is an utterly predictable (and bipartisan) result of capitalism run amok, our policy of what Gore Vidal calls “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace” an equally predictable result of imperialist overreach and blind jingoism. (“USA! USA!” the young, male GOP thugs roar. Yeah, right.) If Barbara Tuchman were alive, she’d have enough material for a second volume of “The March of Folly.”

FDR’s first inaugural speech in which he castigated the “unscrupulous money changers” and declared “This nation is asking for action, and action now” is as stirring and relevant now as it was in 1933. Obama certainly has the rhetorical chops and the historical understanding to emulate FDR. Time even put him on its cover in FDR’s jaunty pose.

Go for it, Barack. Like FDR, try things. If they don’t work, try other things. Put people to work. Invest heavily in education, infrastructure and the new green economy. Make health care a right, not a privilege. Exert some of that vaunted executive power for the public good instead of crony capitalism and warmongering. Congress, please friggin’ cooperate.

Defending the New Deal in 1936, FDR said: “Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.”

The New Deal was not an immediate panacea. It had fits and starts, flaws galore, and continually bucked up against constitutional restraints. But it’s looking pretty good to a lot of folks right now.

The Original Adams Family

I became captivated by the story of John and Abigail Adams after reading Irving Stone's historical novel "Those Who Love" as a teenager in 1973. It's a compelling page-turner told largely through the point of view of the heroic Abigail Adams who, alongside her husband, participated in the momentous events of the American Revolution and the first decades of the U.S. Stone was a fabulous writer, best known for his novels about Michelangelo – “The Agony and the Ecstasy,” and Van Gogh – “Lust for Life.”

At about the same time, “1776” offered a glitzy take on the struggle for Independence, replete with show tunes and dance numbers. Some of the songs were goofy, some inspired, like the haunting soldier’s lament “Momma, Look Sharp” and the searing indictment of the slave trade, “Molasses to Rum to Slaves.” Today, the musical conventions seem dated but the scenes of debate and conflict within the Continental Congress are quite gripping. At the center of the action is the single-minded, volatile John Adams, the leading proponent of American independence, memorably portrayed by William Daniels.

In 1976, PBS presented an outstanding multi-part series called “The Adams Chronicles,” newly available on DVD. A bit stagey but well-written and acted, this series charted the stories of John and Abigail; their son John Quincy, who became a diplomat and the 6th President; their grandchild Charles Francis, a diplomat; and their great-grandchildren Henry, a historian, and Charles Francis II, an industrialist.

The new generation of feminists embraced Abigail Adams for her early promotion of women’s education and her famous admonition to John that he and his colleagues “Remember the Ladies” in the code of laws they were devising for the new nation. “Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands,” she wrote him. “Remember, all Men would be tyrants if they could.” As pro-woman and outspokenly anti-slavery as she was, Abigail might be somewhat aghast at the extent of women’s “liberation” today. She was, at heart, the daughter of a Puritan minister, and had a conservative moral code and a strong belief in the traditional family.

Last fall, I read a new collection of the letters of John and Abigail Adams called “My Dearest Friend,” which was their most common salutation to each other. They were frequently separated due to John’s political and diplomatic career, so their letters were a lifeline. John’s are rather formal and detached; he worried they could be intercepted and used by the British and, later, by his political rivals. Still, they are a remarkable documentation of the almost daily thinking and activities of one of the Founders. Abigail’s letters are lively, intellectually probing and intimate. Her descriptions of the siege of Boston and other historic events are vital eyewitness accounts. Her expressions of love could melt anyone’s heart.

Concerned that her private thoughts not become public knowledge and probably self-conscious about her uneven spelling and grammar, Abigail repeatedly asked John to burn her letters. John, a scholar who respected his wife enormously, recognized their value and saved them for posterity. You’ve got to love a guy who chose such a great partner and remained true to her for 54 years – it almost makes you forgive him for signing the Alien and Sedition Acts!

With this Adams-mania in my background, I had high hopes for HBO’s series “John Adams.” HBO usually produces high quality drama, but this one... Well, some of the acting was outstanding. Paul Giamatti’s performance as John has been panned but I thought he built the character well and was quite moving as old John Adams in the final episodes. Laura Linney as Abigail? Give her the Emmy now. Who needs dialogue? Linney could teach a master class through just looks and gestures.

The costumes were great, but I concur with many others about the weak writing, uneven pacing, jittery camerawork and leaden direction by Tom Hooper. Tobe Hooper (“Poltergeist”) could have done a better job. There would have been much more blood, but more guts and glory too!

The history and timeline were dicey. Of course, they couldn't include every detail of John’s long, active life, but that doesn't excuse inaccuracies like all eight of the British soldiers charged in the Boston "Massacre" being found not guilty. Hello?! Two were found guilty of manslaughter and branded, a horrific scene Irving Stone used to great effect in "Those Who Love." Like the lack of discussion of slavery at the Continental Congress (dismissed in only a brief aside in the Declaration committee). Like Abigail reading of the surrender of Cornwallis on a lovely spring-looking day in Braintree (he surrendered in the fall; she would have received word in late October). Or the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts (there were four in all), repeatedly called the Alien Act and the Sedition Act. Then there was the weird casting and continuity snafu that had the same child actors playing the Adams’ kids in 1775 and in 1781, none of them apparently having grown an inch.

And what about that family life? In the HBO script, John and Abigail bark one-word orders at their children unremittingly until the kids become hopelessly compliant or dysfunctional adults. Reality check: John and Abigail were New England Puritans with a strict moral code who demanded a lot of their children, their friends and their colleagues. But they were also revered among the same for their wisdom, humor and generosity. Abigail in particular was famous for her warmth and constant caregiving for others. They had a large and loving extended family of Adamses, Smiths, Quincys, Boylstons, Cranches and Shaws, all of whom, at various times, took in each others' kids, helped work each others’ farms, bailed each other out of debt, and held huge holiday and funeral gatherings. John was certainly politically isolated at times, but depicting John and Abigail as utterly isolated from any larger social network or community misses a big part of their identity.

I was not looking for an idealized portrait. Indeed, the HBO series made clear John’s vanity, temper and occasional political obtuseness. His renunciation of his son Charles and his inability to comfort Abigail when Charles dies was played out like the tragedy it was. The later episodes dealt forthrightly with the infirmities of old age, although they could have dispensed with the goopy make-up. Surely, pros like Giamatti and Linney could be trusted to act old.

The best scene had the old John Adams viewing Trumbull’s famous life-size portrait of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Adams clearly thinks it’s bad art and, worse, that it’s bad history. The summer of 1776 was chaotic, he says. In the midst of revolution and war, Congressional representatives streamed in and out of Philadelphia to sign the document at different times. They certainly never gathered all at once and posed for a formal portrait. John mourns that the true history of the Revolution is lost forever. The scene was a sly, perhaps defensive comment by the series' chief writer, Kirk Ellis, about the vagaries of historical re-enactment.

The old PBS series "The Adams Chronicles" is now available on DVD. I haven't seen it in 30 years, but remember it fondly. I also recommend PBS's American Experience episode "John & Abigail Adams," now on DVD. It contains great detail and insight and is only two hours long.

Another "Tragedy" and Cries of "Why?"

America’s latest mass murder unfolded in tiny Crandon, Wisconsin this past weekend and everyone is again asking, “Why?”

See “A Tiny Town, Suddenly Smaller by Seven, Mourns and Wonders, Why?” in the New York Times, or “Crandon Asks ‘Why?’” in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Why? . . . Why?

Because another jealous and angry man, with no impulse control and easy access to high-powered weaponry, decided to slaughter six unarmed individuals, that's why.

A friend, who the murderer sought out after the killings, said that Tyler Peterson was "very sorry" for what he had done. The conscience-stricken assassin then took a nap in the back of his pickup truck.

Since Peterson apparently took his own life, the media have dubbed the incident, as they so often do, a "tragedy." Despite a popular culture saturated with violence, cruelty and gore, we still seem to be surprised when real-life splatter-fests occur in our small towns, our workplaces, our homes, even our churches. And we seem to be able to handle them better if they fit a familiar tragic narrative, with no one really at fault, always neatly tucked away with “closure” and “healing.” A colleague suggested that this is the way human beings are able to make unacceptable things more bearable. That's true. But could it also be making unacceptable things more acceptable?

I believe that emphasizing the tragedy of mass murder-suicides obscures the criminal aspect of the behavior and implies the murder victims’ complicity in the act. This is especially true in cases where men kill their intimate partners, then themselves. In 1986-87, there was a series of murder-suicides in the Milwaukee area in which men killed their female partners, then killed themselves. Some of the Milwaukee Journal headlines related to these brutal murders were "Relationship ends tragically" (8/2/87); "Another tragic end to a romance" (8/14/87); and, worse yet, "Death from love" (1/29/86).

In this case, the lives of the Crandon victims should not be obscured or minimized by a “tragedy” of someone else’s criminal design.

The Crandon massacre is similar to so many, many others, virtually all perpetrated by armed men reacting to some perceived slight.

Male violence is ubiquitous. It destroys families and terrorizes communities. It is destroying the world.

Easy access to weapons of all kinds facilitate this reign of terror.

Anyone who raises these simple, obvious, empirical facts is marginalized as a nut or a "man-hater."

But until community leaders recognize these elementary facts and start discussing what can be done to curb male violence and to reduce access to lethal weapons, we will continue to be assaulted. We will continue to express “shock.” And we will continue to dither and wonder, “Why?”