Blog-Ed

Home Page > Articles in English > Blog-Ed

Celebrity Baby

In 2006, People Magazine paid more than $4.1 million for the North American rights to photos of Angelina Jolie's and Brad Pitt's first baby. Now, the magazine dished out 15 million dollars to publish the photos of "The Twins". In this economic climate, where the media are struggling and thousands of journalists are being laid off, and where most Americans can't seem to make ends meet, People Magazine has sunk to a new low.

Shame on the magazine and on its editors. May I suggest that this time, the proceeds from the cover sales of this issue will be given to charitable causes (as the twins' parents have pledged to do with the money they received)?

And maybe now, there will be a few regular People Magazine readers, who'll finally refuse to pay for yet another cute, bald celebrity baby shot (or two) and even agree with me that instead, the magazine should put this picture of a starving child in Sudan on its cover and grieve over the fate of millions of babies in the real world.

But I don't hold my breath.

The above picture was taken in 2006, and there is only a very slim chance that the baby is still alive today.

But let's not fool ourselves: Neither People Magazine nor most of its readers give a hoot about this baby girl.

[comment]

Top

A sombering point of view on U.S.-Israeli relations by Yossi Beilin, published in Ha'aretz, July 9, 2006:

Signs "When Bush writes to us that as part of any peace agreement there may be a need to take into account the facts that have been created on the ground, we are so excited it brings tears to our eyes. No one has really bothered to explain to us exactly how this statement would affect serious negotiations on an agreement between Israel and the PLO. [...]

The United States is cut off from a number of Muslim countries. It does not have any form of dialogue with Iran or Syria, it boycotts the Hamas government, and all that is left for Rice to do is call Israel, Egypt and Jordan. [...]

The worsening violent conflict in the Middle East is a blatant reflection of the weakness of the American partner. At the moment of truth, when Israel needs a powerful third party capable of moving things in the area, it turns out that little beyond the repetitive recitation of Bush's vision and of the dust-covered road map can be expected, which neither side intends to actually implement."

Israel's TV news "Mabat" opened today with what it called an "astonishing public comment on Iran" made by Vice Premier minister, Shimon Peres, after the dovish politician said to Reuters today that "the right to destroy, to kill is terrible; now when it comes to destruction, Iran, too, can be destroyed," implying that Israel could contemplate a strike.

Israeli commentators were quick to criticize Peres and said that they expect an Iranian reaction soon. The Israeli media fear that Peres' unusual fiery warning to the Iranian president about the destruction of another country (especially coming from a politician who was directly involved in Israel's own nuclear capabilities) has put Israel in the midst of the ongoing verbal mud slinging and power struggle between Iran and the Western World.

Israeli military officials "are rubbing their eyes in astonishment and despair that today, of all days, when the U.N. Security Council is debating Iran's nuclear ambitions and possible U.N. sanctions, a prominent Israeli politician chooses to speak his mind."

For decades, Israel has worked behind the scenes against Iran, has gathered intelligence and has let others to talk tough with Tehran, leaving foreign commentators to suspect now that Israel could be involved, or even initiate, a preemptive strike against Iran. The head of Israel's Military Intelligence, Major General Amos Yadlin, told the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee recently that Iran will acquire nuclear bombs by 2010.

Regardless, most Israeli commentators believe that Peres should not have said what he said; at least not yet. Besides, as one journalist put it wryly, "if we will have to act, let's at least follow the old Wild West motto, 'If you want to shoot, shoot; don't talk.' "

It is naive, however, to think that Israel isn't already part of the Iranian-American-European arm wrestling; even as a "spectator" behind the scenes, it will be the first to feel the political, and military, implications should the conflict erupt. This could mean 1991 all over again.

Iran wants to destroy Israel. Nothing new here. But most Israelis strongly believe that the Jewish state shouldn't trust the United Nations - nor the United States - to clean up the mess. Israelis are tired of someone else fighting their fights (remember the Gulf War?).

Reuters has reported today that "the government of Sudan and the main Darfur rebel faction signed an agreement to end three years of fighting in Sudan's vast west."

But according to the news agency allAfrica, the rebels have only agreed "with reservations" to sign the accord.

April 29, 2006 (And still very relevant now as you read this!)
Where in the World is Darfur?

Go to http://www.savedarfur.org/home and sign the "Million Voices for Darfur" postcard to President Bush and send an invitation to do the same to your friends! This is the least you can do to help raise awareness about the genocide going on in the Sudan. The very least.

In the last three years of fighting there, 300,000 people have been killed and more than 2 million persons displaced. Thousands of women have been raped and mutilated; children have been murdered or have died of malnutrition and disease.

It is inexcusable to still not know about it. It is despicable to not want to know about it. It is shameful to stay silent. It is a crime to stand by and watch or to not take the time to act. What will you say, later, when you're asked where you were when millions suffered and were killed in the Sudan?

According to the United Nations' head of humanitarian aid, Jan Egeland, Darfur is the world's worst humanitarian crisis. And even though a peace agreement between the warring sides, the Sudanese government and the rebels, was signed last year, there is no clear solution as who will safeguard peace and who will pay for it. The proposed 7,000-strong African Union force is regarded as much too small to handle the task. And, let me guess, the oil-rich Gulf States are too busy raking in the cash from the rising oil prices to find the time, and the funds, to help their brethren in Africa.

The elections in Israel have come and gone, and nobody seems to really care. Whereas Hamas’ victory in the recent Palestinian elections had all the makings of a political thriller, the lukewarm election campaigns and the (albeit weaker than expected) victory of Ariel Sharon’s Kadima Party has shaken few.

"Kadima" means "Go!" in Hebrew, but instead of a political thriller, Israel’s new centrist party has the energy of "Sleeping Beauty... and the Seven Dwarfs." The main protagonist is lying in a coma, while one of the dwarfs, acting prime minister Ehud Olmert, has reluctantly taken up the helm. One can only hope that he can count on the backing and the good will of his fellow players and deliver what was promised to the voters, namely some sort of truce, and maybe peace and quiet. And what will happen when Sleeping Beauty awakens?

“Today, regardless of the result of the Knesset elections, we should consider the significance of political involvement in the period in between elections. It is much more important and influential than the question of whether we bothered — on the public holiday that we received — to leave home and put an envelope in a box," mused an editorial in Yediot Aharonot.

But nobody summarized the mood better than Israeli author Etgar Keret, who wrote in an op-ed in the New York Times (March 27):

For students in France, spring has always been the season for political revolts, strikes and an impetus for social change and renewal. It happened in May 1968, and it is happening again, as millions have taken to the streets this past week to protest a new labor law.

For many students in the United States, on the other hand, spring means only one thing: a raucous spring break, when masses of drunk college kids hit the beaches and party like there is no tomorrow to worry about. (An exception are the more than 22,000 mostly Hispanic students who walked out of their schools in Los Angeles in mid-March to protest Congressional proposals that call for a crack down on illegal immigrants and the fortification of the U.S.-Mexican border.

Meanwhile in France, students and union workers are ferociously protesting a new labor law, the "First Employment Contract," that would make it easier for employers to fire new employees under the age of 26 without cause, who work less than two years in their jobs. The new law is meant to cut France’s high youth unemployment (which stands at a record high of 22%, more than in any other European country) by making it more attractive for employers to hire younger workers.

This year’s protest has turned into the largest nation-wide strike — initiated by students — against the French government since the 1968 uprising that forced President Charles de Gaulle to dissolve Parliament and caused him to eventually step down. This time, 1.5 million French have joined forces to protest the new labor law; about 85 public universities shut down, and for the first time since May 1968, the Sorbonne was occupied overnight by students. Protesters clashed with police forces in the streets — even though (at least for the most part) the demonstrations were peaceful. And again, as happened in 1968, it was the student union that first called for action.

Regardless whether one agrees with the French students or not, one thing is certain: Many young Europeans are politically alert, willing to stand up for what they believe in. They vote en masse and see the future as theirs to take part in and ultimately shape. And they demand accountability as well as social, political and economic justice.

Many American students on their spring bacchanal, on the other hand, are too complacent to notice that things are amiss in their neck of the woods. And they're too drunk to care.

We stepped off the plane, bleary-eyed and half-asleep, at 5 am after a 14-hour flight from Israel. New York, JFK airport: A walk through endless gray tunnels, vast deserted halls; we were channeled into the "Immigration and Naturalization Office." "Ma'am, would you please wait here," I was graciously told. I had my immigration papers in order, the temporary Greencard in hand, and was now waiting to be formally allowed entry into the US. We fell into the cushioned seats, exhausted.

Suddenly, a faint rattling behind us. "Keep quiet over there," somebody shouts, "as long as you are here, you belong to me!" The voice comes from a stout man in uniform — and he isn't addressing me. His fleshy neck has light pink patches of anger that gradually turn purple. "You, shut up, I tell ya," he barks. I hear more rattling, and look back: behind me, far away from our row of cozy cushioned seats, on long wooden benches, a few dozen dark-skinned illegal immigrants are waiting for deportation. Their feet are chained to the benches.

We are ushered into an adjacent office, where we are greeted with courtesy, and my fingerprints are taken. My papers are in order. "What is your middle name?" I am asked. "I don't have a middle name." I receive an astonished look. "Never mind that," the officer says. "Welcome to the United States!" I hurry out, past the enormous Star-Spangled Banner, past the row of chained human beings, and am on my way.

I can still feel the sense of bewilderment I felt then. I was outraged by the way those people were treated. But I also felt that I was part of something. Immigrants made this country. I was merely one among many — and apparently, I was lucky.

Everybody here has a middle name. ‘Middle name' is a constant and standard component on all forms I had to fill out. I have yet to understand why, but it seems to be highly important to Americans.

If you don't have a middle name, you should at least add "junior," or "senior," or be vain enough to attach "the Second," or "the Third" to your name. I couldn't fill out the field "Middle Name" on the immigration documents I had to submit. It was left open, naked on the sheet of paper; as though I am incomplete, my name missing a vital link. I stick out: I am from "the old country." I am a European living in New York. I am an American from Europe.

The names Americans give their children reflect their own fast-paced world: Bob, Jim, Jack, and Jane. No Marie-Antoinette, or Magdalena, or Hans-Dieter. No. Ken, Tim, and Jeff — names that can be yelled out merrily on the football field. This is one of those no-nonsense approaches that define this society: Short and to the point. No time wasted and no complications. And since nobody feels the need to formally address one another — which would be far too time consuming — everybody seems equal when spoken to. Dick can be a president — but a street cleaner as well.

This society is divided into rich and poor, strictly on an income/asset basis, and only then into races. You are free to do whatever you want: to become rich, to speak all that's in your mind, to die in the gutter. Here, you can never rely on any social safety net. Socialism equals communism in the minds of many. The socialist worldview of the European is regarded here with suspicion, as backward and restrictive. Freedom above all, freedom from the state, and freedom to be miserable. But, it still doesn't matter where you came from, what family roots you might have. You are not forced to stay poor, to belong your whole life to a class, a caste. You're not called "Lord," or "Ladyship," but Bob, Jim, Jack, Jane. Here, the richest man in the world is simply referred to as Bill. And so was a president.

I know workplaces in Germany, where, after many years of working together, people keep addressing each other formally. It seems, as if Europeans need more privacy. You are not at ease with strangers, don't immediately throw a cheerful "Hey, how ya doing, what's up?" in the air. You circle each other, check out the terrain. Privacy is holy in Europe. But this ‘buddy feeling' in America doesn't stop at addressing one another.

I believe a society can be measured through its bathroom habits. So, compare public restrooms in the United States with those in Europe: In America, all stalls have huge gaps between their mounted sides. Once inside, I can sometimes see myself in the opposite mirror through those gaps. And if I can — others can too. This would be inconceivable in Europe. I feel so very uncomfortable.

So, Europeans and Americans are different. Americans laugh a lot, are less dour, more easygoing and funnier than the average European. In the beginning, I attributed it to the fact that no American was ever threatened by anything: Wars were fought far away, one didn't have to take part if one didn't want to, and the country was always too powerful to be in any real danger. But there seems to be more to it.

Though most Americans can trace their roots to the old country, and regardless of the relentless Americanization of Europe after the war, we do embrace different cultures. European culture is based on the past, on the glorious days, when Europe was the cradle of cultures and the arts, and it perceived the United States to be a mere wasteland, a dust bowl, its hinterland sparsely inhabited by people who spoke funny and wore feathers. Some still stick to this view: "Americans are fun to be with," they think. "But they don't have class."

But there is an American culture, and it serves the core idea behind the United States. This is a country made of a mosaic of cultures, blended together to form something new, an interaction of ideas and personae, not anchored in tediously upheld traditions and dusty presumptions, but in the here, now, and tomorrow.

Sometimes, those ideas clash; sometimes, this society goes from one extreme to the next: from conservative to liberal, from filthy rich to poor. At the end, all Americans are deeply sentimental, fervent patriots. "The Greatest Nation on Earth," Americans proudly proclaim, and they can get away with it. Only here, as the rest of the world is frequently reminded, can the idea of freedom be safeguarded. In a "nation of heroes," anything goes.

The American worldview requires one to detach oneself from the shackles of the "old," to plow ahead, to question everything. Many things get lost along the way—but many are gained: namely the almost innate reflex to improvise, to effortlessly swim against the current; characteristics, increasingly needed in the information age—which we Europeans lack.

Many Americans lack something else, however, no less important: Modesty. They seem to see themselves as the center of it all, and don't find it strange to call their annual baseball tournament the "World Series," which is a series of baseball matches to determine the champion of Major League Baseball in the United States.

But more importantly, there is a tendency that whatever happens outside ones own realm rarely sparks interest. Many Europeans are citizens of the world. Many Americans, so it seems, couldn't care less about events and realities that don't affect them directly. "The impressive integrative power of American society seems to generate a kind of obliviousness to the world, a multicultural unilateralism," writes the German novelist and essayist Peter Schneider. "The result is a paradox: a fantastically tolerant and flexible society that has absorbed the whole world, yet has difficulty comprehending the world beyond its borders."

I wasn't among those chained to benches and denied entry. I was ruled fit to stay.
A European in New York.

For so long, Israel has been the black sheep of the United Nations. But recently, within the U.N. and other world bodies, the attitudes toward Israel have shifted to the positive.

Recently, Israel has become a member of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, allowed to operate under a neutral symbol, no longer be forced to adopt the Muslim crescent or the Christian cross as its banner, a requirement that had kept Israel out of the movement for nearly six decades. The price of admission, however, was relinquishing its symbol, the Red Star of David. "If that's a victory," quipped the Wall Street Journal in an editorial, "we'd hate to see a defeat."

On Nov. 1, 2005, in a historic first, the U.N. adopted an Israeli resolution designating January 27 as an annual “International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust.” The Israeli resolution also urged U.N. members to teach future generations the lessons of the genocide so that it will not be repeated in the future. Earlier in the year, the U.N. officially commemorated for the first time within its walls the victims of the Holocaust in a daylong event at U.N. Headquarters in New York. And for the first time since Israel became a member of the organization, its ambassador to the U.N. was appointed acting deputy president of the General Assembly.

In scandalous times, patching up its relations with Israel may be what the United Nations needs. In light of the blatant injustices with which Israel has had to cope since becoming a member of the U.N., recent decisions, remarkable as they are, are mere rectifications of past wrongs. Because the U.N. consistently demands from the Jewish state more than it expects from any other country — while itself failing to live up to its unbiased role in world politics — its efforts are no more than a cosmetic face lift, a convenient photo op, a mere fine tuning of unjust protocols and procedures.

The list of grievances is long. Israel was the only country in the U.N. that for decades was excluded from full membership in the regional grouping system — until it was recently included in the “West European states and other countries” group; some 20 of the 70 annual U.N. resolutions address Israel-related issues; about 20 committees in the international organization openly operate against Israel; in the U.N. Commission of Human Rights, Israel was the subject of more than 25 percent of all debates, the target of half of the commission’s 10 country-specific resolutions, the only state singled out for scrutiny over the years and excluded in all of the commission’s regional groups (the Israeli representative is literally left standing in the corridor during the commission’s regional meetings). Above all, Israel is frequently cast an enemy of human rights. In this climate, all efforts to reform the U.N. are doomed to fail — because too many member states continue clinging to their attitudes.

A fair treatment of Israel can help restore the U.N.’s credibility. And only by thoroughly reforming its bodies can the U.N. reclaim its moral authority. First, a permanent human rights council should replace the ludicrous human rights commission that is headed by human-right’s abusing countries like Syria, Libya and Sudan.

Second, the annual ritual of adopting anti-Israel resolutions, put forward each November by the Palestinians, which has occupied the General Assembly’s 191 member states for the past 30 years has to stop. This year’s six resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were adopted by a whopping 160 states.

The 60-year commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz last year was the first event held in the distinguished halls of the U.N. that mentioned Israel and did not denigrate or vilify the Jewish state. For the first time ever, Israel’s national anthem was played in the General Assembly Hall. To some that was tribute enough. In reality, the U.N. has done little to address its own shortcomings in dealing with the Mideast peace process, which it still treats as a zero-sum game.

Until the U.N. unanimously decides to change its position toward Israel, the Jewish state needs to continue pushing resolutions of its own, in spite of the difficulties. In 2003, the Jewish state put forward its first resolution in nearly 30 years in the General Assembly; it had to withdraw it later, however, in the face of strong opposition by most member states. This draft resolution had called for the protection of Israeli children from terrorism — mirroring a similar resolution on Palestinian children that had effortlessly passed the General Assembly earlier.

In the ABC series Commander-in-Chief, Gina Davis played Mackenzie “Mac” Allen, the first woman president of the United States: tough and compassionate, brainy and powerful. The blatant chauvinism of her opponents fueled her indignation and ours, and many women hailed the show as a daring breakthrough.

[UPDATE: The show has been put on hold, will return in the fall as a 2-hour movie and will then, probably, disappear. Too bad that ABC decided to take the series off the air. But that speaks volumes for what TV executives, and, apparently the audience, are comfortable with. Read Bob Herbert's column (published in the New York Times on May 18, 2006) and a letter to the editor to the Times, written by The White House Project, reacting to Herbert's column. And make sure to read Helen Thomas' column on BostonChannel.com (2/8/2006) titled "Why Not a Female President? Hillary Clinton Looks Ready to Run".]

As a European, I found it disappointing that Americans were watching TV rather than doing more in the real world to advance female leadership. The United States is in 63rd place in the world in terms of elected female representation in government — behind Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Yet, more than 90 percent of Americans said they could envision a female president in 2008 according to a recent CBS News/New York Times poll. If only.

Eighty-five percent of the members of Congress are male, in the Senate — 77 percent. Only six of the 50 states have women governors; of the top 100 U.S. cities, only 15 have female mayors. One might argue that we're making progress; but in fact over the past five years, women’s representation has stayed constant. Yes, there were (and are) strong women in politics and beyond in America. But so far, a female intern and her stained dress have triggered the most buzz in the White House.

What a contrast with where I grew up. Europeans didn’t need a TV show to get their act together. Germany’s last government was 43.6 percent female, and the country just elected a female chancellor. Since 1988, no Norwegian government has been formed with less than 40 percent women. In 1999, Sweden had more female ministers than male, and conservative Spain has eight women and nine men running its government. In contrast, the Bush Administration has a sad showing of three women versus 17 men.

On Commander-in-Chief, the First Husband (a ”wuss” in the eyes of his son) had to decide whether he wanted to accept a job outside the White House. He felt undervalued and under appreciated. No law denies the spouse of a president a career outside the White House. Who knew? Yet in reality, half of the American public believes it inappropriate for a First Lady to hold a paying job outside the White House, while two-thirds think that it would be acceptable for a President’s husband to do the same (according to a USAToday/MacNeil-Lehrer Productions/Gallup Poll conducted in 2004.)

What does that say about Americans and how they see women leadership? American women are different from European women, because they have become complacent. They take their rights and opportunities for granted without aggressively debating the larger issues that affect them. American women may think of themselves as progressive feminists, but in truth, they, compared to their European sisters, are mostly followers — not leaders. In Europe, politicians’ spouses continue with their professional lives because they were not elected into office, and no one cares what they do. No loud howl is heard when a woman is elected into higher office in Europe — not even a proud collective self-congratulating shoulder slapping.

To be sure, European women haven’t broken every gender barrier — especially not the glass ceilings in the corporate world and in business. But behind their self-imposed veil of feel-good feminism, American women should take a cue from Europe and demand real representation in politics. “The one thing I do not want to be called is ‘First Lady’,” Jacqueline Kennedy once said. “It sounds like a saddle horse."

The celebrity media have struck again. They bombard us with the questionable details of actress Jennifer Aniston's and her husband Brad Pitt's break up. Again, celebrity journalists are scrambling, head over heels, yelping like dogs in heat, falling over each other to dig up the dirt. They call it a "tragedy," and declare that they're in "full battle mode" (New York Post, Jan. 12, 2004.) The New York Daily News tries to be even more original, dare I say witty, in referring to the story excitedly as "the mother of all celebrity stories" (Jan. 12, 2004).

But nobody has sunk to such a low as the general manager of US Weekly's parent company Wenner Media and spokesperson for the dumbing down of our culture, Kent Brownridge. He recently proclaimed, "For a celebrity weekly, this is our Tsunami." Coming only weeks after a Tsunami devastated East Asia and killed more than 150,000 people, it makes you wonder whether the man is living on the same planet. Or, for that matter, whether his readers are.

Who are these people? Who can give such weight to the mediocre? Keeping a straight face while telling the predictable story of a celebrity divorce? Are they trying to sprinkle their shallow empty lives with celebrity dirt in the hope that Hollywood stardom will shine a halo on them as well?

How can a media executive like Brownridge get away with giving a word that describes a natural disaster of catastrophic dimensions a positive spin, and then further reveal his shallowness by admitting, "I can't think of anything bigger than the king and queen of Hollywood breaking up?"

Isn't there anyone who is bothered by this show of ignorance? This utter lack of sensitivity?

Millions of readers buy trashy magazines faithfully. But the industry is now facing the consequence of its own genius: most publications are indistinguishable. All of them use exclamation marks on their covers to describe everything from divorces, pregnancies, affairs, eating disorders et all of a small group of celebrities. "Demand may at least be sated," quips the Economist (Feb. 25). "On current trends, the number of magazines could soon exceed the number of celebrities they feature."

And Kurt Andersen writes in New York Magazine under the headline "Celebrity Death Watch" (April 3, 2006):

In the meantime, allow me to use as daunting a word as readily as Brownridge did and just say that I, for one, will avoid these publications like the plague!

But the masses won't let go. These publications are here to stay — as light reading in the doctor's office — or in the bathroom during the dumb TV commercial breaks that interrupt all those even dumber reality shows.