Tuesday, June 30, 2009

The Birth, and Death, of the Asian Babe
The sordid history of the sexually exotic East.
By Johann Hari (Slate)
The porn of the Western world is saturated with the belief that Eastern women are more sexy and sultry and slutty. The most googled brand in the porn world is "Asian Babes." The very phrase evokes legions of solitary sweaty teenage boys in basements across America and Europe. But this stereotype did not emerge with the World Wide Web. It originated with worldwide empires. Suppressed beneath these casual flicks of the wrist, there are five centuries of colonial exploitation screaming to be heard.
In his strange new book about how two different sexual worlds met—and transformed each other in ways that continue to this day—veteran journalist Richard Bernstein distills decades' worth of research into succinct stories. But only a hundred or so pages in, the scent of testosterone and spent semen soaked into its pages becomes bewildering.
The story is fascinating. In the 16th century, Portuguese seamen began leaving a Christian fundamentalist Europe to sail the seas in search of resources and spices to pillage. But as soon as they arrived in Goa, Malacca, Sumatra, and Japan, they also discovered an alternative sexual world where all their repressed longing could roam free. "On one side," Bernstein writes, "was Christian monogamy in which sex was shrouded in religious meaning and prohibition, and regarded as sinful when enjoyed out of marriage. On the other side was an Eastern culture wherein sex was strictly organized, especially when it came to women, but where it was disassociated from both sin and love."
Where the West tied sex to the marriage bed and felt ashamed when it broke free, the East unleashed its libido in the harem, the brothel, and a smorgasbord of sexual options. "In the East," as Bernstein puts it in gushing terms, "it was taken for granted there would always be a certain reserve of women, often supreme models of beauty, cultivation and charm, whose assigned role in life was to provide sexual pleasure for men." The Asian babe as dream-object was born. Rudyard Kipling wrote one of the first rhapsodies to her: "I've a neater, sweeter maiden in a cleaner, greener land!/ On the road to Mandalay."
Since the 1970s—when Edward Said wrote his classic Orientalism, exposing the myriad ways in which the West had patronized and stereotyped the East—such fawning has been dismissed as exploitative, racist distortion. Western merchants depicted the East as a den of sin and depravity, according to Said, in order to justify colonizing the land and taking whatever else suited them, from spices to resources to women. But Bernstein argues that "the eroticized vision of the East carries a hard kernel of truth, which the followers of Said are loath to acknowledge."
In the East—a diffuse term that Bernstein uses to describe Africa, Asia, and the Middle East—Western colonists really did find a different sexual culture. Prostitution really was out in the open, stripped of the silence and shame that coated it in Europe. Political leaders really did have vast harems of young women to pluck from. Men really weren't expected to be monogamous. While Westerners could be condescending and racist in their descriptions of this culture, they were seeing something real.
The white colonists reacted to this discovery in two conflicting ways. Half stripped off and joined in, and half reached for their Bibles and began to call down the Lord. Bernstein is better at describing the first group, in long swooping paragraphs; I could have lived without the endless references to "plum-sized breasts" and "tiny hips." Europe became obsessed with the sultan's harems of nubile young virgins, buying "exposes" of this "filth" by the shipload. When you read excerpts now, they are comic Freudian projections of Europe's suppressed sexuality. Beneath the moral clucking, there is a frenzied longing in the descriptions of how teen virgins would turn to lesbianism as they waited for the sultan to pick them out. Europe indulged in a collective wet dream over free love in unfree lands.
Bernstein focuses on two examples of Western men who dived into this new freedom, believing it superior to the muffling back home: Gustave Flaubert, the extraordinary French novelist, and Richard Burton, the British explorer. They considered the East to be filled with sexual artists who had perfected one of life's great pleasures. Flaubert enjoyed this new freedom in private, while Burton became an evangelist. He wrote home about whole new sexual practices, reporting with awe that a female partner "can sit astraddle upon a man and can provoke the venereal orgasm, not by wriggling or moving but by tightening and loosening the male member with the muscles of her privities." Burton provided the British with the first English translation of the Kama Sutra and campaigned for sex education back home.
But Burton was unusual. Most of those who went east tried to keep their sexual exploration discreet—until, that is, the Americans joined in the European pastime as the 20th century approached. Their arrival was heralded in neon lights. The story of American penetration of the East was first captured—and stored—by Puccini in his opera Madame Butterfly. The story is stark. A typical American military officer named Pinkerton, stationed in Nagasaki in the late 19th century, arranges to buy the hand of Cio-Cio-San, a 15-year-old local girl. She gives birth to his child after he has left, and she pines for three terrible years. When he finally returns, his American wife at his side, he insists he will take his child. Cio-Cio-San cuts her own throat, leaving an American flag flapping silently in her baby's hand.
A million Pinkertons flooded into Vietnam, and few bothered with sham marriages. They were plunged from the Puritan heartlands into a place where sex was guilt-free, and American culture was transformed forever. Half the U.S. servicemen in Nam lost their virginity there, and half a million mixed-race babies were left behind, treated as outcasts. In a strange twist of history, the advance of free love may have owed as much to LBJ and Nixon's war as to the hippies and libertines.
Bernstein deserves credit for raising a tortured subject from which it is easy to avert our gaze. And yet, and yet … there is something deeply uncomfortable about a book that seems at times so complicit in the very exploitation it aims to scrutinize. It's not just the tone, though Bernstein's oblique confession to having his first sexual experiences in an Asian brothel is creepy. It is the fetid attitude toward women.
Bernstein's view of the role of women in his story of cultural and sexual collision is nuanced to the point of being myopic. He is describing men who went to foreign places, toppled their leaders, stole their resources, and then tossed their women a few pennies to spread their legs. Yet he writes: "From the standpoint of the currently fashionable political morality, [this behavior] appears very bad, an illustration of the unfairness of colonial rule. … But let's try to see the erotic history of the West and the East as part of a great human pageant, one in which the women, the girls and the boys involved were not necessarily passive."
Wait, why should we try? Bernstein's own attempts to claim that the women were involved in choosing their fate are extraordinarily feeble. He tells a story about an Arab queen choosing to have sex with a Western traveler, but how typical was she? He concedes that "much of the sexual opportunity presented by the East has always been, and still is, based on exploitation and injustice." But he goes on to defend the men who took part in that exploitation. Of Burton and Flaubert, he says, "They used no force; they abused no children; they did what they were invited to."
But this is not true, even on the evidence he offers. They could act as they did only because their governments had terrorized the population into acquiescence with massive violence. Flaubert talked about "the terror" that "everyone displays" in the presence of white men, and when a prepubescent boy offered him his mother "to fuck" for a fee, Flaubert assessed the situation as "excellent." Burton described the sexual habits of slave girls, almost certainly from personal experience. How is having sex with slaves or people who are terrorized by your countrymen, or who are sunk in poverty created by a long colonial rape, simply doing "what they were invited to"? How could these women have said no?
This newfound sexual freedom was freedom for men alone. The women involved were often literally enslaved or imprisoned against their will in harems and brothels or kept down by systematic violence if they tried to reject their role as sex toys for men. When I reported on sex trafficking in Bangladesh, I went to one of the "harems" Bernstein turns moist and sweaty over. The brothel on the border with India was a mess of rusty tin huts with sticky mattresses. The women there had mostly been stolen from their families as young teenagers and imprisoned ever since, drugged, and forced to pleasure men for a pittance. The woman who is most deeply scarred onto my memory is Beauty, then a 34-year-old. Sold to the brothel at 13, she is still there now; she will die there.
It is hard to escape the feeling that Bernstein has written this book in part to stem a guilty conscience about his own past. Every admission that this system was built on suppressing women seems to be wrung out of him in passing; every experience of male liberation is described with approving ejaculations.
This is, in the end, a darker and bleaker story than the one Bernstein wants to tell. European and American men really did find sexual liberation in the East. Some returned home and helped to sexually liberate their own countries in ways we all benefit from today. But the freedom came at the cost of exploiting an extreme form of patriarchy in the countries they went to, and to imply that the beaten-down, deeply deprived women wanted it is revolting.
Bernstein's story—and ours—ends with a strange irony. With the sole and ongoing exception of Southeast Asia, in this sexual conflict East and West have swapped sides—suddenly and definitively. "The very places where Western men in the past sought pleasures and excitements are today amongst the most sexually conservative places on the planet." Burton saw the Arab Middle East as a font of sexual freedom; today, he would be beheaded there for acting as he did.
In most of the East—in Africa, China, India, and the Middle East—this flip happened very fast. In the mid-19th century, "most of the world still subscribed to the harem culture, and in only the few small countries of the West, the small peninsular domain of Christendom, did a different attitude prevail." By the end of the century, it was the other way around.
How did this happen? Frustratingly, Bernstein doesn't offer many convincing explanations, but he does note that the colonial East attracted more missionaries than Burtons in the end. In Somerset Maugham's novel Rain, a missionary complains, "I think [it] was the most difficult part of my work, to instill in the natives a sense of sin." But they did. They succeeded. They soaked the East in a Western sense of sin, and saw it freeze up into a new frigidity.
So the Whore of Babylon has long since hitched up her skirts and moved to Amsterdam. The long colonial dream of the Eastern girl who won't—or can't—say no is losing its remaining links to reality, one country at a time. Somebody needs to tell the world's masturbators: The days of the Asian babe splayed on the road to Mandalay are over.
Johann Hari is a columnist for the Independent newspaper in London. He was recently named newspaper journalist of the year by Amnesty International.
Copyright 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
President Obama's address to Stonewall Aniversary at White House
(Andrew Sullivan)
It's good to see so many friends and familiar faces, and I deeply appreciate the support I've received from so many of you. Michelle appreciates it and I want you to know that you have our support, as well. (Applause.) And you have my thanks for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard and care about their communities -- and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. (Applause.)
Now this struggle, I don't need to tell you, is incredibly difficult, although I think it's important to consider the extraordinary progress that we have made. There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop. And though we've made progress, there are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; and who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted. And I know this is painful and I know it can be heartbreaking.
And yet all of you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make but also by the power of the example that you set in your own lives -- as parents and friends, as PTA members and leaders in the community. And that's important, and I'm glad that so many LGBT families could join us today. (Applause.) For we know that progress depends not only on changing laws but also changing hearts. And that real, transformative change never begins in Washington.
(Cell phone "quacks.")
Whose duck is back there? (Laughter.)
MRS. OBAMA: It's a duck.
THE PRESIDENT: There's a duck quacking in there somewhere. (Laughter.) Where do you guys get these ring tones, by the way? (Laughter.) I'm just curious. (Laughter.)
Indeed, that's the story of the movement for fairness and equality -- not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who've been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; who've been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them. It's the story of progress sought by those who started off with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion and courage and sometimes defiance wherever and whenever they could.
That's the story of a civil rights pioneer who's here today, Frank Kameny, who was fired -- (applause.) Frank was fired from his job as an astronomer for the federal government simply because he was gay. And in 1965, he led a protest outside the White House, which was at the time both an act of conscience but also an act of extraordinary courage. And so we are proud of you, Frank, and we are grateful to you for your leadership. (Applause.)
It's the story of the Stonewall protests, which took place 40 years ago this week, when a group of citizens -- with few options, and fewer supporters -- decided they'd had enough and refused to accept a policy of wanton discrimination. And two men who were at those protests are here today. Imagine the journey that they've travelled.
It's the story of an epidemic that decimated a community -- and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; and who continue to fight this scourge; and who demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion and support in a time of need -- that we all share the capacity to love.
So this story, this struggle, continues today -- for even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot -- and will not -- put aside issues of basic equality. (Applause.) We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love.
And I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that. It's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago.
But I say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps. And by the time you receive -- (applause.) We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration. (Applause.)
Now, while there is much more work to do, we can point to important changes we've already put in place since coming into office. I've signed a memorandum requiring all agencies to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as current law allows. And these are benefits that will make a real difference for federal employees and Foreign Service Officers, who are so often treated as if their families don't exist. And I'd like to note that one of the key voices in helping us develop this policy is John Berry, our director of the Office of Personnel Management, who is here today. And I want to thank John Berry. (Applause.)
I've called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination -- (applause) -- to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country. Now, I want to add we have a duty to uphold existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides. And fulfilling this duty in upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law. I've made that clear.
I'm also urging Congress to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act, which will guarantee the full range of benefits, including health care, to LGBT couples and their children. (Applause.) My administration is also working hard to pass an employee non-discrimination bill and hate crimes bill, and we're making progress on both fronts. (Applause.) Judy and Dennis Shepard, as well as their son Logan, are here today. I met with Judy in the Oval Office in May -- (applause) -- and I assured her and I assured all of you that we are going to pass an inclusive hate crimes bill into law, a bill named for their son Matthew. (Applause.)
In addition, my administration is committed to rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status. (Applause.) The Office of Management and Budget just concluded a review of a proposal to repeal this entry ban, which is a first and very big step towards ending this policy. And we all know that HIV/AIDS continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of Columbia. And that's why this past Saturday, on National HIV Testing Day, I was proud once again to encourage all Americans to know their status and get tested the way Michelle and I know our status and got tested. (Applause.)
And finally, I want to say a word about "don't ask, don't tell." As I said before -- I'll say it again -- I believe "don't ask, don't tell" doesn't contribute to our national security. (Applause.) In fact, I believe preventing patriotic Americans from serving their country weakens our national security. (Applause.)
Now, my administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we'll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress.
Someday, I'm confident, we'll look back at this transition and ask why it generated such angst, but as Commander-in-Chief, in a time of war, I do have a responsibility to see that this change is administered in a practical way and a way that takes over the long term. That's why I've asked the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal.
I know that every day that passes without a resolution is a deep disappointment to those men and women who continue to be discharged under this policy -- patriots who often possess critical language skills and years of training and who've served this country well. But what I hope is that these cases underscore the urgency of reversing this policy not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it is essential for our national security.
Now, even as we take these steps, we must recognize that real progress depends not only on the laws we change but, as I said before, on the hearts we open. For if we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that there are good and decent people in this country who don't yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters -- not yet.
That's why I've spoken about these issues not just in front of you, but in front of unlikely audiences -- in front of African American church members, in front of other audiences that have traditionally resisted these changes. And that's what I'll continue to do so. That's how we'll shift attitudes. That's how we'll honor the legacy of leaders like Frank and many others who have refused to accept anything less than full and equal citizenship.
Now, 40 years ago, in the heart of New York City at a place called the Stonewall Inn, a group of citizens, including a few who are here today, as I said, defied an unjust policy and awakened a nascent movement.
It was the middle of the night. The police stormed the bar, which was known for being one of the few spots where it was safe to be gay in New York. Now, raids like this were entirely ordinary. Because it was considered obscene and illegal to be gay, no establishments for gays and lesbians could get licenses to operate. The nature of these businesses, combined with the vulnerability of the gay community itself, meant places like Stonewall, and the patrons inside, were often the victims of corruption and blackmail.
Now, ordinarily, the raid would come and the customers would disperse. But on this night, something was different. There are many accounts of what happened, and much has been lost to history, but what we do know is this: People didn't leave. They stood their ground. And over the course of several nights they declared that they had seen enough injustice in their time. This was an outpouring against not just what they experienced that night, but what they had experienced their whole lives. And as with so many movements, it was also something more: It was at this defining moment that these folks who had been marginalized rose up to challenge not just how the world saw them, but also how they saw themselves.
As we've seen so many times in history, once that spirit takes hold there is little that can stand in its way. (Applause.) And the riots at Stonewall gave way to protests, and protests gave way to a movement, and the movement gave way to a transformation that continues to this day. It continues when a partner fights for her right to sit at the hospital bedside of a woman she loves. It continues when a teenager is called a name for being different and says, "So what if I am?" It continues in your work and in your activism, in your fight to freely live your lives to the fullest.
In one year after the protests, a few hundred gays and lesbians and their supporters gathered at the Stonewall Inn to lead a historic march for equality. But when they reached Central Park, the few hundred that began the march had swelled to 5,000. Something had changed, and it would never change back.
The truth is when these folks protested at Stonewall 40 years ago no one could have imagined that you -- or, for that matter, I -- (laughter) -- would be standing here today. (Applause.) So we are all witnesses to monumental changes in this country. That should give us hope, but we cannot rest. We must continue to do our part to make progress -- step by step, law by law, mind by changing mind. And I want you to know that in this task I will not only be your friend, I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a President who fights with you and for you.

Monday, June 29, 2009

40 Years Later, Still Second-Class Americans
By FRANK RICH (NY TIMES)
LIKE all students caught up in the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s, I was riveted by the violent confrontations between the police and protestors in Selma, 1965, and Chicago, 1968. But I never heard about the several days of riots that rocked Greenwich Village after the police raided a gay bar called the Stonewall Inn in the wee hours of June 28, 1969 — 40 years ago today.
Then again, I didn’t know a single person, student or teacher, male or female, in my entire Ivy League university who was openly identified as gay. And though my friends and I were obsessed with every iteration of the era’s political tumult, we somehow missed the Stonewall story. Not hard to do, really. The Times — which would not even permit the use of the word gay until 1987 — covered the riots in tiny, bowdlerized articles, one of them but three paragraphs long, buried successively on pages 33, 22 and 19.
But if we had read them, would we have cared? It was typical of my generation, like others before and after, that the issue of gay civil rights wasn’t on our radar screen. Not least because gay people, fearful of harassment, violence and arrest, were often forced into the shadows. As David Carter writes in his book “Stonewall,” at the end of the 1960s homosexual sex was still illegal in every state but Illinois. It was a crime punishable by castration in seven states. No laws — federal, state or local — protected gay people from being denied jobs or housing. If a homosexual character appeared in a movie, his life ended with either murder or suicide.
The younger gay men — and scattered women — who acted up at the Stonewall on those early summer nights in 1969 had little in common with their contemporaries in the front-page political movements of the time. They often lived on the streets, having been thrown out of their blue-collar homes by their families before they finished high school. They migrated to the Village because they’d heard it was one American neighborhood where it was safe to be who they were.
Stonewall “wasn’t a 1960s student riot,” wrote one of them, Thomas Lanigan-Schmidt, in a poignant handwritten flier on display at the New York Public Library in the exhibition “1969: The Year of Gay Liberation.” They had “no nice dorms for sleeping,” “no school cafeteria for certain food” and “no affluent parents” to send checks. They had no powerful allies of any kind, no rights, no future. But they were brave. They risked their necks to prove, as Lanigan-Schmidt put it, that “the mystery of history” could happen “in the least likely of places.”
After the gay liberation movement was born at Stonewall, this strand of history advanced haltingly until the 1980s. It took AIDS and the new wave of gay activism it engendered to fully awaken many, including me, to the gay people all around them. But that tardy and still embryonic national awareness did not save the lives of those whose abridged rights made them even more vulnerable during a rampaging plague.
On Monday, President Obama will commemorate Stonewall with an East Room reception for gay leaders. Some of the invitees have been fiercely critical of what they see as his failure, thus far, to redeem his promise to be a “fierce advocate” for their still unfulfilled cause. The rancor increased this month, after the Department of Justice filed a brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the most ignominious civil rights betrayal under the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton.
The Obama White House has said that the Justice Department action was merely a bureaucratic speed bump on the way to repealing DOMA — which hardly mitigates the brief’s denigration of same-sex marriage, now legal in six states after many hard-fought battles. The White House has also asserted that its Stonewall ceremony was “long planned” — even though it sure looks like damage control. News of the event trickled out publicly only last Monday, after dozens of aggrieved, heavy-hitting gay donors dropped out of a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser with a top ticket of $30,400.
In conversations with gay activists on both coasts last week, I heard several theories as to why Obama has seemed alternately clumsy and foot-dragging in honoring his campaign commitments to dismantle DOMA and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. The most charitable take had it that he was following a deliberate strategy, given his habit of pursuing his goals through long-term game plans. After all, he’s only five months into his term and must first juggle two wars, the cratered economy, health care and Iran. Some speculated that the president is fearful of crossing preachers, especially black preachers, who are adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage. Still others said that the president was tone-deaf on the issue because his inner White House circle lacks any known gay people.
But the most prevalent theory is that Obama, surrounded by Clinton White House alumni with painful memories, doesn’t want to risk gay issues upending his presidency, as they did his predecessor’s in 1993. After having promised to lift the ban on gays in the military, Clinton beat a hasty retreat into Don’t Ask once Congress and the Pentagon rebelled. This early pratfall became a lasting symbol of his chaotic management style — and a precursor to another fiasco, Hillarycare, that Obama is also working hard not to emulate.
But 2009 is not then, and if the current administration really is worried that it could repeat Clinton’s history on Don’t Ask, that’s ludicrous. Clinton failed less because of the policy’s substance than his fumbling of the politics. Even in 1992 a majority of the country (57 percent) supported an end to the military ban on gays. But Clinton blundered into the issue with no strategy at all and little or no advance consultation with the Joint Chiefs and Congress. That’s never been Obama’s way.
The cultural climate is far different today, besides. Now, roughly 75 percent of Americans support an end to Don’t Ask, and gay issues are no longer a third rail in American politics. Gay civil rights history is moving faster in the country, including on the once-theoretical front of same-sex marriage, than it is in Washington. If the country needs any Defense of Marriage Act at this point, it would be to defend heterosexual marriage from the right-wing “family values” trinity of Sanford, Ensign and Vitter.
But full gay citizenship is far from complete. “There’s a perception in Washington that you can throw little bits of partial equality to gay people and that gay people will be satisfied with that,” said Dustin Lance Black, the screenwriter who won an Oscar for “Milk,” last year’s movie about Harvey Milk, the pioneering gay civil rights politician of the 1970s. Such “crumbs,” Black added, cannot substitute for “full and equal rights in all matters of civil law in all 50 states.”
As anger at White House missteps boiled over this month, the president abruptly staged a ceremony to offer some crumbs. The pretext was the signing of an executive memorandum bestowing benefits to the domestic partners of federal employees. But some of those benefits were already in force, and the most important of them all, health care, was not included because it is forbidden by DOMA.
One gay leader invited to the Oval Office that day was Jennifer Chrisler of the Family Equality Council, an advocacy organization for gay families based in Massachusetts. She showed a photo of her 7-year-old twin sons, Tom and Tim, to Obama. The president cooed. “I told him they’re following in Sasha’s footsteps, entering the second grade,” she recounted to me last week. “It was a very human exchange between two parents.”
Chrisler seized the moment to appeal to the president on behalf of her boys. “The worst thing you can experience as parents is to feel your children are discriminated against,” she told him. “Imagine if you have to explain every day who your parents are and that they’re as real as every family is.” Chrisler said that she and her children “want a president who will make that go away,” adding, “I believe in his heart he wants that to happen, his political mistakes notwithstanding.”
No president possesses that magic wand, but Obama’s inaction on gay civil rights is striking. So is his utterly uncharacteristic inarticulateness. The Justice Department brief defending DOMA has spoken louder for this president than any of his own words on the subject. Chrisler noted that he has given major speeches on race, on abortion and to the Muslim world. “People are waiting for that passionate speech from him on equal rights,” she said, “and the time is now.”
Action would be even better. It’s a press cliché that “gay supporters” are disappointed with Obama, but we should all be. Gay Americans aren’t just another political special interest group. They are Americans who are actively discriminated against by federal laws. If the president is to properly honor the memory of Stonewall, he should get up to speed on what happened there 40 years ago, when courageous kids who had nothing, not even a public acknowledgment of their existence, stood up to make history happen in the least likely of places.
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Sunday, June 28, 2009

The Gay Generation Gap
Forty years after Stonewall, the gay movement has never been more united. So why do older gay men and younger ones often seem so far apart?
By Mark Harris (New York Magazine)
This week, tens of thousands of gay people will converge on New York City for Pride Week, and tens of thousands of residents will come out to play as well. Some of us will indulge in clubbing and dancing, and some of us will bond over our ineptitude at both. Some of us will be in drag and some of us will roll our eyes at drag. We will rehash arguments so old that they’ve become a Pride Week staple; for instance, is the parade a joyous expression of liberation, or a counterproductive freak show dominated by needy exhibitionists and gawking news cameras? Other debates will be more freshly minted: Is President Obama’s procrastinatory approach to gay-rights issues an all-out betrayal, or just pragmatic incrementalism? We’ll have a good, long, energizing intra-family bull session about same-sex marriage and the New York State Senate, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Project Runway and Adam Lambert.
And at some point, a group of gay men in their forties or fifties will find themselves occupying the same bar or park or restaurant or subway car or patch of pavement as a group of gay men in their twenties. We will look at them. They will look at us. We will realize that we have absolutely nothing to say to one another.
And the gay generation gap will widen.
You hear the tone of brusque dismissiveness in private conversations, often fueled by a couple of drinks, and you see the irritation become combustible when it’s protected by Internet anonymity. On the well-trafficked chat site DataLounge, a self-described repository of �gay gossip, news, and pointless bitchery,� there’s no topic, from politics to locker-room etiquette to the proper locations for wearing cargo pants and flip-flops, that cannot quickly devolve into �What are you, 17?���What are you, some Stonewall-era relic?� sniping. And some not entirely dissimilar rhetoric is showing up in loftier media. In April, a 25-year-old right-of-center gay journalist argued in a Washington Post op-ed that many gay-rights groups are starting to outlive their purpose, and chided older activists for being stuck in �a mind-set that sees the plight of gay people as one of perpetual struggle � their life’s work depends on the notion that we are always and everywhere oppressed.� The scathing message-board replies pounded him at least as hard for his age as for his politics. �You twentysomething gays seem to think being out equals acceptance � Don’t be so quick to dissolve the organizations that made it possible for you to be so naïve,� wrote one reader. Another, blunter response: �Forgive me for not falling all over myself to do exactly what an inexperienced 25-year-old decrees � Don’t waltz in and start barking orders, little boy.�
Public infighting is a big minority-group taboo�it’s called taking your business out in the street. And it may seem strange to note this phenomenon at a juncture that, largely because of the fight for gay marriage, has been marked by impressive solidarity. But let’s have a look. Here’s the awful stuff, the deeply unfair (but maybe a little true) things that many middle-aged gay men say about their younger counterparts: They’re shallow. They’re silly. They reek of entitlement. They haven’t had to work for anything and therefore aren’t interested in anything that takes work. They’re profoundly ungrateful for the political and social gains we spent our own youth striving to obtain for them. They’re so sexually careless that you’d think a deadly worldwide epidemic was just an abstraction. They think old-fashioned What do we want! When do we want it! activism is icky and noisy. They toss around terms like �post-gay� without caring how hard we fought just to get all the way to �gay.�
And here’s the awful stuff they throw back at us�at 45, I write the word �us� from the graying side of the divide�a completely vicious slander (except that some of us are a little like this): We’re terminally depressed. We’re horrible scolds. We gas on about AIDS the way our parents or grandparents couldn’t stop talking about World War II. We act like we invented political action, and think the only way to accomplish something is by expressions of fury. We say we want change, but really what we want is to get off on our own victimhood. We’re made uncomfortable, or even jealous, by their easygoing confidence. We’re grim, prim, strident, self-ghettoizing, doctrinaire bores who think that if you’re not gloomy, you’re not worth taking seriously. Also, we’re probably cruising them.
To some extent, a generation gap in any subgroup with a history of struggle is good news, because it’s a sign of arrival. If you have to spend every minute fighting against social opprobrium, religious hatred, and governmental indifference, taking the time to grumble about generational issues would be a ridiculously off-mission luxury; there are no ageists in foxholes. But today, with the tide of history and public opinion finally (albeit fitfully) moving our way, we can afford to step back and exercise the same disrespect for our elders (or our juniors) as heterosexuals do. That’s progress, of a kind.
Next: How the generation gap is evident in activism.
These unnuanced generalizations, as everyone who makes them quickly notes, do a gross injustice to both groups. The gay community�or more accurately, communities�is hardly monolithic, and its divisions, not just of age but of race, gender, region, and income, are too complex to paint with a broad brush. And Pride Week�which this year falls on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Inn riots�is a reminder that we have always been able to unite when faced with either a common cause or a common enemy. It’s when we’re not on the front lines that tensions flare. �On its simplest level,� says Jon Barrett, 40, the editor-in-chief of the 42-year-old gay magazine The Advocate, �we think they’re naïve. And they think we’re old.�
Even on those front lines, it’s a complex moment. Last November, eight days after the election, I found myself marching with thousands of gay men, lesbians, and friends of the cause from Lincoln Center to Columbus Circle to protest the passage of Proposition 8 in California. The air was charged; many of us were eager to call out the enemy�a well-organized, well-financed coalition of conservatives who were using churches as political-action bases designed to roll back civil rights for gay Americans. And our response was anger. We held up signs with slogans like TAX THIS CHURCH! We yelled ourselves hoarse.
But the demeanor of many of the young attendees felt unfamiliar to older protesters. They were smiling more than seething, and I noticed that many of their picket signs�LET ME GET MARRIED, LOVE ISN’T PREJUDICED, NYC LOVES GAY MARRIAGE�were more like let-the-sunshine-in expressions than clenched fists. Shouting did not come as naturally to them.
Activism is an unlikely realm in which to spot a generation gap; by definition, a rally attracts people who identify themselves by a shared goal. But it’s sometimes an uneasy union; the march marked an encounter between age groups that, although part of the same community, had previously spent little time together. And a difference in outlook was unmistakable. �After Prop 8 passed, a tremendous number of young people who had never been to a protest before wanted to release that energy,� says Corey Johnson, the event’s 27-year-old organizer. �And that night was a great example of the two generations being bridged in a productive way. But my impression is that there is a difference. Young people are, I think, upset, but it’s not with the level of anger that a lot of older folks feel, and perhaps there’s more hopefulness involved.�
To many young gay people, the passage of Prop 8 was shocking but not alarming; it has jolted them into action, but one suspects it’s out of a Milk-fed belief that identity-politics activism can be ennobling and cool. What doesn’t seem to be driving them is fear; their cheerful conviction that history is going their way seems unshakable compared to ours. That can lead to callousness on both sides; we patronizingly warn them that their optimism is dangerous; they patronizingly tell us that we’re too embittered by our own past struggles to see the big picture.
The notion that anger no longer has a primary place in the gay-rights movement can feel awfully uninformed to anyone raised on the protests of the late eighties, when say-it-loud outrage was one of the movement’s only effective weapons. To some of those whose identities as both homosexuals and activists were forged in the early years of the AIDS epidemic, this new aura of serenity is way too �Kumbaya.� It’s hard to overstate the centrality of the AIDS crisis in any gay generation gap (the divide between those who are currently 45 and their elders once yawned at least as wide). If you want to know where you stand in gay history, ask yourself where you were in 1982, when the disease took hold in public consciousness. If you were already sexually active by then and you’re still here to read this, you are someone who surely knows that fury has its uses. If you were in your teens, wondering how to take even your first steps into life as a gay man in a world in which a single encounter could become a death sentence, you understand fear, and its warping effects down through the decades. And if you were a kid, you grew up seeing AIDS as an unhappy fact of life.
But what about the ever-growing cohort of gay men who weren’t even born in 1982? For most of them, AIDS is not their past but the past. No wonder some of us feel frustrated; when we complain that young gay men don’t know their history, what we’re really saying is that they don’t know our history�that once again, we feel invisible, this time within our own ranks.
Next: Why connecting to a subculture was important 25 years ago.
Were we that uninterested when we were that young? Actually, no, we weren’t; we were thirsty to acquire the vast range of knowledge, tastes, and encoded references that seemed to derive from some mysterious User’s Guide to Homosexuality, because even if we then rejected them, they still constituted a lingua franca (in an era well before LGBT studies programs or even many books on gay history made that kind of information easily accessible). Now, a familiarity with those movies, those plays, and those books will likely get you branded an �old queen� by people for whom �old� is by far the worse of those two epithets (unfortunately, a morbid fear of aging is one of the few ideas we seem to have done a good job instilling in the young).
For gay men who came of age 25 years ago in a tougher environment, knowing your (sub)cultural iconography was not only a way of connecting to past generations but a means of defiantly reorganizing the world, of asserting your right to literally see, hear, and perceive things differently. The need to hide yourself was thus transformed into the privilege of joining a private club with a private language. But to many younger gay men who grew up with gay public figures, fictional characters, and references, it’s a dead language�a calcified gallery of Judy Garland references and All About Eve bon mots that excludes them as much as it does the straight world.
So they react, as they react to many things, with a pose of bored indifference. Which is, of course, infuriating: There’s nothing duller than a young gay man who ornaments his ignorance with attitude and whose curiosity about the world doesn’t appear to extend past his iPod, certain that anything not already within his firsthand experience is by definition antiquated. But once we start blaming gay twentysomethings for not having gone through what we did, we turn into sour old reactionaries telling ourselves self-flattering lies about how misery builds character. Worse, we may in fact be doing damage. According to a 2005 report by the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, our �emphasis on suffering reflects not the current reality of many LGBT adolescents so much as recollections of previous generations’ own �horror’ � LGBT adults’ residual fears and pain may be acting to magnify the real difficulties of LGBT teens.� Put simply, we talk too much, telling nightmare stories about AIDS and the Reagan administration when we should be listening�and then we get angry that they’re not listening to us.
�We’re just like our parents,� says a colleague of mine who came out right after college, in the mid-eighties. �We fought really hard so that our children would have things easier than we did, and now we resent them for it and sit around complaining that they lack character because they had everything too easy.�
That parent-child analogy also points to a larger cultural change, one that helped breed the hurt feelings that created the gay generation gap, which is that young gay men are, by and large, not our kids, even symbolically. The last twenty years�thanks to political progress, activism, education, the dying-off of a lot of homophobes, the Internet, and the mighty guiding arm of popular entertainment�have brought about a remarkable growth in straight America’s acceptance of homosexuality. Without forgetting that for too many gay kids, coming out is still hell, we’re also witnessing the rise of a parallel generation of gay kids with unflinchingly supportive parents, buddies who cheer their comings-out on Facebook, high schools with gay-straight alliances�in other words, kids who have grown up in a world that’s finally beginning, in a few places, to look like the one we wanted to create for them, or for ourselves.
And it would be dishonest to suggest that those kids�brash, at ease in their own skin, exuberant, happy�are being greeted by older gay men with nothing but uncomplicated joy. We can’t help but wonder how our lives might have been different if things had been easier for us, too. Some envy, some wistfulness, even some resentment is only human. And to add one further injury: Those kids don’t seem to need us anymore. For decades, gay men functioned as unofficial surrogate parents to the newly out and/or newly outcast. They’d offer reassurance that being gay didn’t mean being lonely. It was a bond that linked many generations of gay men across the age spectrum and created a real emotional connection, even if what necessitated it was pervasive prejudice. Today, though, the notion of quasi-parental gay mentorship feels ancient, a trope out of Tales of the City.
Unlike heterosexuals, most gay kids don’t grow up around adults who are like them, and gay adults in their forties, fifties, and sixties don’t have many occasions for routine, ordinary contact with a younger group of gay people. One of the benefits of Pride Week is that, however artificially, it breaks that barrier down and restarts the conversation. That’s appropriate for an occasion that’s meant to be steeped not just in optimism but in an awareness of history�a history that, by the way, includes a generation gap of its own. As author David Carter reminds us in his excellent 2004 book Stonewall, back in 1969, gay New York was deeply factionalized. Gay older men �passing� in coat-and-tie jobs on Madison and Park Avenues and then discreetly meeting each other in Turtle Bay bars had contempt for long-haired, sideburned Village hippies, and the reverse was also rudely, robustly the case. Even though gay Americans seem to have lived a century of tumult and progress since then, it’s good to know we still have something in common with our ancestral brothers-in-arms.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Did Drugs Kill Michael Jackson?
By Alice Park Time
The initial autopsy report on Michael Jackson came at 3:30 p.m. on Friday, June 26, 2009, from Craig Harvey, spokesman for the Los Angeles County coroner's office: "The coroner has concluded the autopsy for Mr. Michael Jackson. The cause of death has been deferred."
It will be several more weeks until details of the full autopsy will be released to the public. For now, said Harvey, the coroner had not found "indication of any external trauma or indication of foul play on the body." The cause of death, however, could not be determined. Results from further testing on the brain and Jackson's pulmonary system, as well as a toxicology analysis of what substances may have been present in the singer's body at the time of death, will take an additional four to six weeks to complete. The preliminary results came just over a day after an unidentified man placed a call to 911 from Jackson's rented Holmby Hills mansion on Thursday: "He's not breathing ... he's not conscious ... he's not responding to anything. He's not responding to CPR, anything," the man said.
When the 911 operator asked how Jackson had collapsed or whether anyone had witnessed it, the caller replied, "The doctor has been the only one here."
That physician — presumably Jackson's personal doctor, cardiologist Dr. Conrad Murray, who was called on Wednesday night when his patient complained of not feeling well — has disappeared. He left the car that he drove to Jackson's home, a silver BMW registered to an associate, in the driveway. Dr. Tohme Tohme, a Jackson associate who has served as a spokesman for him in the past, told the Los Angeles Times that Murray, who has filed for bankruptcy in the past and has financial problems, was hired by Jackson's concert promoter, AEG Live, to live with Jackson and care for him during his upcoming shows. Los Angeles law-enforcement authorities towed Murray's vehicle on Thursday night, saying the car could contain "medications pertinent to the investigation" into Jackson's death.
As the Jackson family awaits results of the autopsy performed Friday on the 50-year-old King of Pop, some family and close friends have raised the possibility that Jackson's alleged drug use played a role in his sudden death. Brian Oxman, a former attorney for the family, believes that Jackson's use of medications was "extensive" and that the people who surrounded him were "enabling him," encouraging his reported drug dependence. A family member told the celebrity gossip website TMZ.com that Jackson had been receiving daily injections of Demerol, a narcotic painkiller.
In high enough doses, Demerol can slow respiration almost to the point of suffocation, which can lead to sudden death by depriving the heart of oxygen, according to Dr. Douglas Zipes, a cardiologist at Indiana University and past president of the American College of Cardiology. Demerol can also cause a sudden stoppage of the heart in patients who are dehydrated. The drug causes blood vessels to dilate, or expand, and dehydration would impede this stretching, leading to a dangerous drop in blood pressure and blackout, which can cause sudden death.
Before his death, Jackson had apparently been rehearsing intensely for his 50-concert comeback, which was to launch in mid-July at London's O2 Arena, but there are no reports yet of whether the physical strain had left him dehydrated Wednesday evening.
When EMTs arrived at the Holmby Hills mansion where Jackson had collapsed, they would have had a series of quick-fire decisions to make, based on little information. Had Jackson suffered a heart attack? A drug overdose? A stress-related event? Did his condition require paddles or a syringe of epinephrine?
In the case of either a heart attack or cardiac arrest — a heart attack can also cause cardiac arrest — EMTs' initial response is to begin cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in order to keep blood flowing. According to the 911 tapes from Jackson's case, his physician was "pumping his chest." That physician and the EMT team that brought Jackson to the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center attempted to resuscitate him for more than an hour, according to a statement issued by the hospital. Typically, however, there is only a four- to six-minute window of opportunity to revive a patient in cardiac arrest; the chances of survival drop 7% to 10% with each minute that passes without CPR or defibrillation.
A heart in cardiac arrest, says Zipes, "looks like a bag of squiggly worms, totally uncoordinated, disorganized, with no effective pumping." In a normal heart, the pumping chambers beat 70 times a minute or so, while an organ in cardiac arrest can spasm anywhere from 400 to 600 times per minute. Unless a regular rhythm can be restored, brain death and ultimately death can result.
It is not known what measures the emergency workers took to save Jackson, but if they had determined that he suffered from cardiac arrest triggered by an overdose of narcotics, they would have likely used a shot of naloxone, a drug that counteracts opioid overdose, to get the brain back online and the heart beating again, says Connie Meyer, an EMS captain in Johnson County, Kans. In cases where it's not clear whether narcotics are involved — cardiac arrest may be caused by a wide range of factors, including stress — some EMTs will use epinephrine, a shot of adrenaline that jump-starts the heart back into action.
Jackson's autopsy will include a toxicology report that will identify any substances present in his body at the time of death, but even still, it may not yield a definitive cause of death. "A toxicology screen can only tell you the drugs were or were not there," notes Zipes. "It cannot tell you if the drugs caused the event."
The autopsy could, however, rule out a heart attack. If Jackson's cardiac arrest had been triggered by a heart attack — caused by a ruptured plaque blocking blood flow to his heart — then pathologists should be able to see the occluded vessel and the fresh evidence of the clogged-up heart.
After all the speculation and rumors and bizarre events that have peppered Jackson's medical history, it may be the case that ultimately he died from the same condition that claims 440,000 other middle-aged Americans each year: heart disease. A longtime friend, Patti Austin, who duetted with the singer on "It's the Falling in Love," told CNN that Jackson rarely ate right and didn't exercise. "When you live like a hummingbird, you don't have a long life span," she said.

Friday, June 26, 2009

Remembering Michael Jackson
Andrew Sullivan
There are two things to say about him. He was a musical genius; and he was an abused child. By abuse, I do not mean sexual abuse; I mean he was used brutally and callously for money, and clearly imprisoned by a tyrannical father. He had no real childhood and spent much of his later life struggling to get one. He was spiritually and psychologically raped at a very early age - and never recovered. Watching him change his race, his age, and almost his gender, you saw a tortured soul seeking what the rest of us take for granted: a normal life.
But he had no compass to find one; no real friends to support and advise him; and money and fame imprisoned him in the delusions of narcissism and self-indulgence. Of course, he bears responsibility for his bizarre life. But the damage done to him by his own family and then by all those motivated more by money and power than by faith and love was irreparable in the end. He died a while ago. He remained for so long a walking human shell.
I loved his music. His young voice was almost a miracle, his poise in retrospect eery, his joy, tempered by pain, often unbearably uplifting. He made the greatest music video of all time; and he made some of the greatest records of all time. He was everything our culture worships; and yet he was obviously desperately unhappy, tortured, afraid and alone.
I grieve for him; but I also grieve for the culture that created and destroyed him. That culture is ours' and it is a lethal and brutal one: with fame and celebrity as its core values, with money as its sole motive, it chewed this child up and spat him out.
I hope he has the peace now he never had in his life. And I pray that such genius will not be so abused again
Michael J. Jackson
Times of London
He liked to be known as the King Of Pop and only a handful of performers — Presley, Sinatra, the Beatles — could outrank Michael Jackson as the most successful popular music entertainer of all time.
Although ill-health impeded his career in later years and his reputation was irrevocably tarnished by the allegations of child abuse levelled against him in 1993 and again in 2004, the sheer scale of Jackson’s achievements remains undiminished. With sales now in excess of 57 million copies, Thriller, his magnum opus, released in 1982, remains by far the best-selling album ever released.
The follow-up, Bad, from 1987, has sold 23 million copies and sales of Dangerous (1991) also stand at 23 million. His total album sales, by 2005, had passed the 130 million mark. These staggering statistics mark only some of the peaks of a career begun at the age of five.
Born on August 29, 1958, in Gary, Indiana, Michael was the seventh of nine children born to Joe Jackson and his wife Katherine (neé Scruse). Joe was a steel mill worker who in his spare time played guitar in a local R’n’B group called the Falcons. Katherine, a devout Jehovah’s Witness who played clarinet, piano and sang, worked as an assistant in a department store.
Under Joe’s strict tutelage and with encouragement and support from Katherine, five of the brothers formed a group called the Jackson 5 with Michael as the lead singer. The sixth, Randy was still too young but eventually joined the line-up much later on while, of the sisters, LaToya enjoyed limited success as a solo act in adult life and Janet eventually became a superstar in her own right. "I was so little when we began to work on our music that I don’t remember much about it", Jackson mused in his autobiography Moonwalk, published in 1988. "When you’re a showbusiness child. people make a lot of decisions concerning your life when you’re out of the room."
Joe Jackson managed the group with a rod of iron and in later life Michael spoke regretfully of the rift which subsequently developed and was never healed between him and his father. Nevertheless, Jackson Snr successfully steered the group from talent competitions and a residency in the local strip-tease parlour, to a recording contract with Tamla Motown records, signed in 1969 reputedly for a dismal 2.7 per cent cut of the royalties.
Success with Motown was both instantaneous and spectacular, as the group’s first four singles — I Want You Back, The Love you Save, ABC and I’ll be There — all went to the top of the American chart, each title registering sales in excess of one million copies. Michael was aged 11 when he first saw his own little face on the cover of Rolling Stone. In 1971, two years after the Jackson 5’s first hit, Michael was signed separately to Motown as a solo act and immediately sallied forth with a string of his own hits — Got to be There, Rockin’ Robin , Ben (a US No. 1 in 1972) and others — which were released in tandem with his work as a member of the group.
In 1975, frustrated by Motown supremo Berry Gordy’s unwillingness to let them write or produce their own material, four of the Jackson 5, including Michael, joined the exodus of acts from the ailing label. Changing their name to the Jacksons for contractual reasons, they signed to Epic, where they teamed up with the celebrated writing and production team of Kenny Gamble and Leon Huff. The results were mixed. The single Show Me The Way To Go was the group’s first and only UK No.1 in 1977, but the album Goin’ Places, released later the same year, failed even to breach the American Top 60.
In 1979 Jackson accepted an offer to co-star with his long-standing friend and mentor Diana Ross in The Wiz, a film version of The Wizard of Oz. While working on the film he met the veteran producer Quincy Jones and invited him to produce his next solo album Off The Wall. This was the collection which marked the start of Jackson’s passage to the super league and took his success as a solo artist into realms beyond anything achieved by the Jacksons. It has sold 15 million copies to date. Even so, no one was fully prepared for the epoch-making success of Thriller.
Again produced by Jones, the album yielded an incredible total of seven Top 10 hit singles in America. Retailers reported that Thriller’s appeal reached far beyond the normal strata of record buyers, attracting people who had never previously visited a record shop in their lives. Even a documentary, The Making of Michael Jackson’s Thriller (1984), quickly became established as the bestselling music video ever released.
Quite why Jackson should have been so phenomenally successful at this point is difficult fully to explain. Musically, he was no great innovator like Elvis Presley or Bob Dylan, nor was he ever a role model for a generation like the Beatles or the Rolling Stones had been before him. But he emerged as a spectacularly talented all-rounder at a time when pop music was taking over as the world’s primary mainstream entertainment. He was as good a dancer as he was a singer and he employed new technology to make videos that were as full of stylish impact as his music. The appeal of his impossibly slick, pneumatic song and dance routines transcended barriers of age, race, class and nationality.
Above all, Jackson was a stringent perfectionist. He explained why it had taken five years to release Bad, the follow-up to Thriller: "Quincy and I decided that this album should be as close to perfect as humanly possible. A perfectionist has to take his time. He can’t let it go before he’s satisfied, he can’t. When it’s as perfect as you can make it, you put it out there. That’s the difference between a number thirty record and a number one record that stays number one for weeks."
Bad was very much in the latter category, as was Jackson’s next album, Dangerous, released in 1991. And even HIStory — Past. Present And Future — Book 1, an unwieldy double-album combining 15 greatest hits and 15 new songs released after the torrent of bad publicity surrounding the first allegations of child abuse in 1993, had achieved global sales of 13 million copies by 2005.-Jackson did not react well to the relentless barrage of (frequently prurient) media attention which was generated by success on such a grand scale. "Success definitely brings on loneliness," he wrote in Moonwalk. "People think you’re lucky, that you have everything. They think you can go anywhere and do anything, but that’s not the point. One hungers for the basic stuff."
As he became an increasingly reclusive and secretive figure, so reports of his eccentricities became ever more lurid and fantastic. In Britain, The Sun newspaper posed the question that came to dominate popular reportage of his private life: "Is Jacko Wacko?" He was known to have kept snakes and a pet chimpanzee called Bubbles who, it was said, slept in the same room as Jackson. He attempted to buy the bones of John Merrick, the so-called Elephant Man, after seeing the movie starring John Hurt. He was photographed wearing a face mask to ward off germs and slept in an oxygen chamber, a practice which he apparently believed would help to prolong his life to 150.
He was known to have had a nose job and a cleft put in his chin, but Jackson categorically denied persistent allegations that he had had his whole face restructured and his skin tinted a shade lighter than its natural tone. As he got older, though, his features became oddly contorted and he took on a distinctly unhealthy pallor. "I have a skin disorder which destroys the pigment of my skin," he told Oprah Winfrey in February 1993. "It’s in my family. We’re trying to control it. I am a black American."
When his Bad tour reached England in 1988, Jackson’s constant companion was the American television child actor Jimmy Safechuck. In London, the pair paid an after-hours visit to the toy store, Hamley’s. It seemed as if Jackson, having started his career so young, had been forced to stretch his childhood well into adult life. "I believe I’m one of the loneliest people in the world," he wrote, in what was to become the most frequently quoted remark from his Moonwalk book.
But as he approached middle-age, it was Jackson’s abiding interest in children which was his undoing. In August 1993, the Los Angeles Police Department announced that the superstar was under criminal investigation following allegations by a Beverley Hills dentist that Jackson had molested his 13-year-old son, Jordan Chandler. The story provoked a prolonged "feeding frenzy" among the world’s media and Jackson eventually settled out of court, paying the Chandlers a sum believed to be in the region of $26 million to drop the case, while continuing vigorously to protest his innocence. The announcement, some months after the event, that on May 26, 1994 Jackson had married Lisa Marie Presley, the daughter of the late Elvis Presley, was initially greeted with disbelief and subsequently derided as a cynical PR ploy, designed to repair Jackson’s tattered image. But at least neither partner could be accused of marrying for a stake in the other’s fortune. Their combined worth was said to be close to half a billion dollars.
The marriage lasted just 17 months. In 1997, Jackson married Debbie Rowe, a 37-year-old nurse, who bore him two children, Prince Michael 1 and Paris Michael Katherine before leaving him (and the children), and filing for divorce in 1999.
It was ironic that a near-fanatical interest in fitness was in itself the cause of concern about Jackson’s health. Rail-thin all his life, he was a strict vegetarian who put himself through various punishing regimes involving days of fasting and long spells of obsessive dance practice. In 1979, while working on The Wiz, he burst a blood vessel in his lung. In 1988 he collapsed onstage during one of the Bad shows in Europe, and in 1990 much was made of a suspected heart attack which turned out to be an inflamed rib cartilage, damaged through excessive exercise.
He cancelled the last six dates of the European leg of the Dangerous tour in 1992, because of "throat problems" and, in 1993, as the publicity surrounding the child abuse allegations reached a crescendo, the South East Asian leg of the same tour collapsed in disarray and Jackson retired to undergo treatment for addiction to painkillers. It was not until December 1995 that he attempted a return to live performance, but disaster struck again when he collapsed during rehearsals for a show that was to have been televised worldwide from a New York theatre. He was rushed to intensive care suffering from low blood pressure, dehydration and a suspected virus affecting his heart.
Jackson’s next full-length album, Invincible (2001), was a creditable collection of R&B songs which sold six million copies, a huge success if judged by any standards other than those of Jackson’s earlier work. A greatest hits compilation, Number Ones, released in 2003, shifted well over a million copies in Britain alone, despite the almost continual controversy that by now surrounded him. Almost a year earlier, after parenting another son, Prince Michael II with an unidentified surrogate mother, he dangled the baby dangerously over the railing of a balcony at a hotel in Berlin. The pictures were circulated around the world and raised questions about his suitability as a parent. There was further cause for concern when an infamous TV interview with the documentary film maker Martin Bashir, first screened in Britain in 2003 revealed a middle aged man trapped in a child's mindset. More disturbingly, Jackson's admission in the same interview that he routinely slept with children in his room created further lurid speculation and led to his arrest by the Santa Barbara police which charged him with molesting a 13 year-old boy. Jackson's lawyers promised that there would be "no quarter" given in their efforts to defend him and fans were vocal in protest. "His life has been about peace," insisted Jackson's elder brother Jermaine.
The case opened on January 31 2005 and the huge media circus outside the Santa Maria courtroom was not disappointed as Jackson provided them with an almost daily supply of dramatic stories. Even before the jury had been sworn in, he announced a list of star witnesses that included Diana Ross, Elizabeth Taylor and Stevie Wonder, although in the event none of them were actually called to the stand and nor was Jackson required to testify himself. Even so, the strain on Jackson took its toll, visibly so. He twice sought medical attention at a hospital, once for flu-like symptoms and once for back pain. At one point, Judge Melville threatened to revoke the singer's $3 million bail and lock him up for the rest of the trial after Jackson shuffled in weakly, more than an hour late, wearing his pyjamas. On June 14, almost five months after the trial began Jackson was sensationally acquitted of all ten charges of child abuse, charges which carried a maximum possible sentence of more than 18 years in prison. Hundreds of fans who had kept a vigil outside the courthouse, celebrated with abandon. But for Jackson, grim-faced and by now extremely fragile, there was only relief that the ordeal was over and that he still had his freedom. In the aftermath of the trial he sought refuge from the public eye in Bahrain, where it was reported that he had purchased a property close to the palace of his friend Sheik Abdullah bin Hamad al Khalifa. Yet another greatest hits compilation - The Essential Michael Jackson - sailed to No.2 in the UK chart, but could only limp into the American chart at No.128, a disastrous showing for the man who once reigned supreme.
Jackson's last years were marked chiefly by stories of financial difficulties brought on by years of extravagant spending. His fans remained loyal, however. The singer's death came only weeks before he was due to begin an unprecedented series of fifty concerts in London. When the performances were announced there was a strong suggestion that they might be Jackson's last and that he would retire when they were over. The dates sold out at once.
Michael Jackson, pop singer, was born in Gary, Indiana, on August 29, 1958. He collapsed and died on June 25, 2009, aged 50.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

From The Times of London
Why Iran is obsessed with the British wily fox
Ali Ansari
Tehran's distrust is a useful smokescreen as it crushes dissent. It reveals a love-hate relationship dating back to Empire
In a briefing to heads of foreign missions in Tehran this week, Manochehr Mottaki, the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran, lambasted the West for its criticism of the Iranian elections. Taking his lead from the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Mr Mottaki reserved his severest criticism for Britain.
In what must rank as one of the most idiotic statements made by a serving Foreign Minister of an Iranian Government, Mr Mottaki charged that “they [the British Government] sent planes full of passengers to Iran with special intelligence and security ambitions”, providing as evidence of this apparent deluge of spies, the observation that “they had to turn the small flights to Tehran from the UK into Boeing 747 airliners”.
One wonders what the European ambassadors made of such a revelation, not least the British Ambassador, although one thought that may have crossed their minds was the inefficacy of the Iranian immigration and border police in stopping such a flood of intelligence officials into the country.
It is not unusual for Iranian officials to weave narratives of extraordinary complexity, and indeed, Iranians are often criticised for their conspiratorial turn of mind. But in this case, as with much else over the past two weeks, the presentation has been blunt and clumsy.
The madness does, of course, have some method attached to it. It has succeeded, for instance, in shifting the news stories from the suppression of dissent inside Iran to the international dimensions of the crisis. And, of course, this kind of rhetoric plays to a particular constituency in Iran, which still sees Britain as the root of all evil.
Perceptions of Britain as the “wily fox” run deep in the Iranian political class - some are even convinced that American foreign policy is dictated by Whitehall - and, if this is tinged with admiration, it nonetheless betrays a profound anxiety about the role of Britain in modern Iranian history.
Britain, or more accurately England, has enjoyed relations with Iran stretching back to the beginning of the 17th century, longer than those it has with many European states. But formal diplomatic relations were not established until the beginning of the 19th century when Britain sought to secure Iranian friendship against the ambitions of Napoleonic France and, later, Tsarist Russia, in defence of British India.
These relations crystallised at a time when Iranian power was in decline and the British Empire was in the ascendant, so it was never a relationship of equals. The Iranians felt this loss of power acutely.
Iranian politicians often struggled to balance the demands of Russia and Britain as the two imperial powers struggled for dominance in the region. Russia was always the more brutal of the two, but Britain left deeper political scars. Quite why this should be so is a matter of some debate - but the meddling of the British Imperial Bank of Persia, and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company played a part. It was the nationalisation of the oil company in 1951 that led ultimately to the Anglo-American coup against the nationalist Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq. This last event, in particular, has left a deep impression among Iranians, although its exploitation by the Government in recent years has been opportunistic.
That is not to say that those who push this anti-British agenda do not believe in it. President Ahmadinejad's world-view, largely supported by the Supreme Leader, is deeply antithetical and suspicious of the West. But Britain, not America - whoever is in the White House - has been the target of their wrath.
Yet the truth is more complicated. The means by which Britain sought to extend its interests in Iran were often more sophisticated than those used by the Russians, in large part because British resources were more limited. Politics and diplomacy, rather than brute force, were the order of the day.
This meant that British scholars, politicians and diplomats were able to engage intimately with Iranian politics in ways that were not only manipulative but also encouraged mutual admiration.
Lord Curzon and Edward Browne exemplified the two sides of this love-hate relationship. Curzon, for all his fascination with Iran, is condemned in the Iranian popular imagination as the man who sought to turn the country into a British protectorate. Browne, on the other hand, a Cambridge professor who vigorously championed the constitutional revolution of 1906 and shaped Persian studies in Britain, still has a street named after him in Tehran.
The paradoxical nature of the relationship between the two countries continues to this day, long after the British Empire has ceased to be anything but a powerful figment in the imagination of some Iranians. The focus of the ire is now the BBC Persian Service, originally in its radio form, but now given more bite through its new television channel. The paradox is that the BBC Persian Service continues to be a source of irritation precisely because it is perceived by many Iranians to be reliable.
The BBC, for all the opprobrium heaped on it, is still regarded by many in Tehran as the perfect way to manage state broadcasting, while Britain remains the destination of choice for thousands of Iranian students seeking higher education. More strikingly, many senior clerics support and sponsor Islamic centres in the UK and see London as one of the most important hubs for Shiaism.
Caricatures are, of course, mutual. While few Iranians support the rampant Anglophobia of President Ahmadinejad and his followers, many in the West have an excessive regard for Iranian cunning and duplicity, and some continue to indulge in the most obnoxious stereotypes.
Yet President Ahmadinejad's Government has taken the paranoia to new heights and, in so doing, has done nothing in recent years to enhance its image among the vast majority of ordinary Iranians. As one Iranian wit commented, Mr Mottaki's bizarre protestations can only make the British more popular in Iran. Perhaps the British are behind this, after all?
Professor Ali Ansari is director of the Institute for Iranian Studies at the University of St Andrews

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

fighting words (Slate)
Persian Paranoia
Iranian leaders will always believe Anglo-Saxons are plotting against them.
By Christopher Hitchens
I have twice had the privilege of sitting, poorly shaved, on the floor and attending the Friday prayers that the Iranian theocracy sponsors each week on the campus of Tehran University. As everybody knows, this dreary, nasty ceremony is occasionally enlivened when the scrofulous preacher leads the crowd in a robotic chant of Marg Bar Amrika!—"Death to America!" As nobody will be surprised to learn, this is generally followed by a cry of Marg Bar Israel! And it's by no means unknown for the three-beat bleat of this two-minute hate to have yet a third version: Marg Bar Ingilis!
Some commentators noticed that as "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamenei viciously slammed the door on all possibilities of reform at last Friday's prayers, he laid his greatest emphasis on the third of these incantations. "The most evil of them all," he droned, "is the British government." But the real significance of his weird accusation has generally been missed.
One of the signs of Iran's underdevelopment is the culture of rumor and paranoia that attributes all ills to the manipulation of various demons and satans. And, of course, the long and rich history of British imperial intervention in Persia does provide some support for the notion. But you have no idea how deep is the primitive belief that it is the Anglo-Saxons—more than the CIA, more even than the Jews—who are the puppet masters of everything that happens in Iran.
The best-known and best-selling satirical novel in the Persian language is My Uncle Napoleon, by Iraj Pezeshkzad, which describes the ridiculous and eventually hateful existence of a family member who subscribes to the "Brit Plot" theory of Iranian history. The novel was published in 1973 and later made into a fabulously popular Iranian TV series. Both the printed and televised versions were promptly banned by the ayatollahs after 1979 but survive in samizdat form. Since then, one of the leading clerics of the so-called Guardian Council, Ahmad Jannati, has announced in a nationwide broadcast that the bombings in London on July 7, 2005, were the "creation" of the British government itself. I strongly recommend that you get hold of the Modern Library paperback of Pezeshkzad's novel, produced in 2006, and read it from start to finish while paying special attention to the foreword by Azar Nafisi (author of Reading Lolita in Tehran) and the afterword by the author himself, who says:
In his fantasies, the novel's central character sees the hidden hand of British imperialism behind every event that has happened in Iran until the recent past. For the first time, the people of Iran have clearly seen the absurdity of this belief, although they tend to ascribe it to others and not to themselves, and have been able to laugh at it. And this has, finally, had a salutary influence. Nowadays, in Persian, the phrase "My Uncle Napoleon" is used everywhere to indicate a belief that British plots are behind all events, and is accompanied by ridicule and laughter. ... The only section of society who attacked it was the Mullahs. ... [T]hey said I had been ordered to write the book by imperialists, and that I had done so in order to destroy the roots of religion in the people of Iran.
Fantastic as these claims may have seemed three years ago, they sound mild when compared with the ravings and gibberings that are now issued from the Khamenei pulpit. Here is a man who hasn't even heard that his favorite conspiracy theory is a long-standing joke among his own people. And these ravings and gibberings have real-world consequences of which at least three may be mentioned:
1.There is nothing at all that any Western country can do to avoid the charge of intervening in Iran's internal affairs. The deep belief that everything—especially anything in English—is already and by definition an intervention is part of the very identity and ideology of the theocracy.
2.It is a mistake to assume that the ayatollahs, cynical and corrupt as they may be, are acting rationally. They are frequently in the grip of archaic beliefs and fears that would make a stupefied medieval European peasant seem mentally sturdy and resourceful by comparison.
3.The tendency of outside media to check the temperature of the clerics, rather than consult the writers and poets of the country, shows our own cultural backwardness in regrettably sharp relief. Anyone who had been reading Pezeshkzad and Nafisi, or talking to their students and readers in Tabriz and Esfahan and Mashad, would have been able to avoid the awful embarrassment by which everything that has occurred on the streets of Iran during recent days has come as one surprise after another to most of our uncultured "experts."
That last observation also applies to the Obama administration. Want to take a noninterventionist position? All right, then, take a noninterventionist position. This would mean not referring to Khamenei in fawning tones as the supreme leader and not calling Iran itself by the tyrannical title of "the Islamic republic." But be aware that nothing will stop the theocrats from slandering you for interfering anyway. Also try to bear in mind that one day you will have to face the young Iranian democrats who risked their all in the battle and explain to them just what you were doing when they were being beaten and gassed. (Hint: Don't make your sole reference to Iranian dictatorship an allusion to a British-organized coup in 1953; the mullahs think that it proves their main point, and this generation has more immediate enemies to confront.)
There is then the larger question of the Iranian theocracy and its continual, arrogant intervention in our affairs: its export of violence and cruelty and lies to Lebanon and Palestine and Iraq and its unashamed defiance of the United Nations, the European Union, and the International Atomic Energy Agency on the nontrivial matter of nuclear weapons. I am sure that I was as impressed as anybody by our president's decision to quote Martin Luther King—rather late in the week—on the arc of justice and the way in which it eventually bends. It was just that in a time of crisis and urgency he was citing the wrong King text (the right one is to be found in the "Letter From a Birmingham Jail"), and it was also as if he were speaking as the president of Iceland or Uruguay rather than as president of these United States. Coexistence with a nuclearized, fascistic theocracy in Iran is impossible even in the short run. The mullahs understand this with perfect clarity. Why can't we?
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, now out in paperback.

Copyright 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
Martyr of Tehran
Martin Fletcher Times of London
Her name was Neda Salehi Agha Soltan and she was a philosophy student. But the manner of her death has turned her into an instant, global symbol of the Iranian regime’s brutality.
This innocent woman aged 26 was shot in the chest during running battles between opposition protesters and Iranian security forces in Tehran on Saturday. Since then, a grainy, 40-second video showing her final moments, blood streaming from her nose and mouth as a man implores her not to die, has ricocheted around the world on YouTube, blogs and social networking sites.
Miss Soltan, whose first name means “voice”, has become a martyr for freedom, Iran’s equivalent of the student who defied China’s tanks in Tiananmen Square. Pictures of the “Angel of Iran” are being held aloft at demonstrations outside Iranian embassies around the world. Tribute sites have been set up on Facebook, and Twitter has been inundated with heart-rending messages.
“If an innocent girl gets shot halfway across the world, does she make a sound? Yes, the whole world hears her,” says one. “Angels aspire to be Neda. She is our leader, our martyr, our hero,” says another. “Your last breath was our first hope,” says another.
The regime blocked a wake for her in Niloufar mosque in central Tehran yesterday lest it become a focal point for another massive demonstration. It halted a planned vigil for her in Haft-e Tir Square, with mourners walking through the square with candles.
It ensured that Miss Soltan, like other victims of the violence, was buried quickly and privately, surrounded by heavy security, in a cemetery in southern Tehran. “As things stand we are not allowed to hold any gatherings to remember Neda,” her fiancé, Caspian Makan, told BBC Persian TV.
Her poster has begun to appear on walls around the capital. There is even talk of trying to rename the street where she died. “People start weeping every time you mention her name,” one man told The Times.
The authenticity of the video, and the source of the bullet, cannot be verified independently but that hardly matters any more because millions of Iranians and hundreds of millions of others around the world firmly believe the story to be true.
Mr Makan said she had gone into central Tehran with her professor. She got out of their car when it became snarled in traffic and “that’s when she was shot dead”, he told the BBC Persian service.
Some reports say she was shot either by a Basij — an Islamic volunteer militiaman — as he passed on a motorbike, or by two plain-clothed Basiji.
Another account, posted on the internet by someone who claims to have witnessed her death, says that she was standing with her father in Kargar Street when she was shot by a Basij from a nearby roof.
“He had a clear shot at the girl and could not miss her,” the witness wrote. “However, he aimed straight at her heart. I am a doctor, so I rushed to try to save her. But the impact of the gunshot was so fierce that the bullet had blasted inside the victim’s chest, and she died in less than two minute ... Please let the world know.”
The video clip, apparently filmed with a mobile telephone, casts no light on who shot Miss Soltan, but it is deeply harrowing. It shows her sinking backwards to the ground as two men rush to her side. Her long black cloak falls open to reveal Western jeans and sneakers below. As the camera zooms in on her face her eyes roll sideways and she loses consciousness.
“Don’t be afraid, don’t be afraid, don’t be afraid, Neda dear, don’t be afraid,” says a white-haired man in a striped shirt, presumably her professor. Suddenly blood starts gushing from her nose and mouth. The voices become desperate.
“Neda stay with me, stay with me,” screams the man. Then the footage ends abruptly.
The bloody images could have a big impact on public opinion in Iran, where the idea of martyrdom resonates deeply among a population raised on stories of Shia Islam, a faith founded on the idea of self-sacrifice in the cause of justice.
“This is an image that will be burnt into the Iranian psyche,” one Iranian analyst said last night. “It will haunt the regime forever.”

Sunday, June 21, 2009

George Harrison: the ultimate guitar hero
A new compilation of the Beatle's work spans his career as a songwriter - Here Comes the Sun, Something - and musician
Mark Edwards Times of London
There’s a new George Harrison compilation in the shops — Let It Roll: Songs of George Harrison, on Capitol/EMI — that tells us two things. First, it reminds us what a great songwriter the “third best writer in the Beatles” actually was. Then, as the first compilation to truly span the man’s career, it serves as a rebuttal to the idea that he made one great solo album, All Things Must Pass, and that nothing much after that is worth bothering with. (Although it also, sensibly, traces his work back into the Beatles era, with live versions of Here Comes the Sun, Something and While My Guitar Gently Weeps — taken from the 1971 Concert for Bangladesh.)
The one thing that never gets said about Harrison, however, is this: he was the greatest rock guitarist of all time.
It’s a contentious view, I know. I don’t suppose Harrison has topped a poll of guitarists in the past 40 years. When Rolling Stone listed the 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time a few years back, he wasn’t even in the top 20. Predictably, and inevitably, Jimi Hendrix came first, with the likes of Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page, Stevie Ray Vaughan and Duane Allman not far behind.
The usual criteria for being considered a great guitarist are clear: noise, speed, flashy showmanship and obvious virtuosity. The Rolling Stone poll, like most, chose the best guitarists in the same way a toddler would decide what to run towards on entering a new room: oooh, shiny!
Harrison wasn’t particularly loud, wasn’t particularly fast and was never knowingly flashy. While he was clearly a virtuoso on the instrument, he never did anything to draw attention to the fact. Harrison had a different talent, an extraordinary talent. Harrison never played a wrong note, and never played a note that wasn’t necessary. Every single note he ever played made the song better.
Let’s use a football analogy here. Barcelona are the champions of Europe. Their star player is Lionel Messi. He can do amazing — almost unbelievable — things with a football. But if you told most football managers in the world that they could sign just one player from Barcelona, they’d choose Xavi, the rarely spectacular, but always, always effective midfielder whose passing holds the team together. Messi can turn a game, but Xavi controls virtually every game.
Similarly, the flashy guitar gods can blow you away with a few notes at the end of a solo; but Harrison makes every song work. Harrison is then, to use another sporting term, rock’s Most Valuable Player. His “stats” are incredible.
Here’s the proof. Ask yourself: have you ever heard a cover version of a Beatles song that is better than the original? You can’t think of one, can you? And that’s extraordinary. If we take any of the band’s peers — the great artists of the 1960s — we find that the same isn’t true. Dylan? Well, Hendrix’s All Along the Watchtower is better than his. Leonard Cohen? Many people will choose Jeff Buckley’s Hallelujah or REM’s First We Take Manhattan over the originals. Lou Reed himself said that the Cowboy Junkies’ version of Sweet Jane was better than the Velvets’.
So why can’t you think of a Beatles cover that tops the original? Yes, they were the best songwriters around, but we’re not talking about the songs here, we’re talking about the performance. The reason is this: to do a better version of a Beatles song than the band themselves, you have to come up with a different — and better — guitar part than Harrison played on the original. And that just can’t be done. He always made exactly the right decisions.
One day someone will invent a software program to prove this, but for now we must use the evidence of our ears. The half-dozen notes that introduce Something — what else could you put there? The riffs that drive Ticket to Ride and Day Tripper — how exactly would those songs work without them? Or the vicious guitar break in Paperback Writer — if Keith Richards had played it, that would be revered as one of the great guitar riffs, but Harrison plays it, so it’s not con­sidered on its own as a great riff, it’s taken simply as part of a great song. The same is true of the intricate figure in I Feel Fine. Harrison doesn’t draw attention by going off on mazy runs, but he’s always there for his team-mates.
In fact, Harrison’s aversion to guitar heroics was so great that on the one song he wrote that just begged for a showy solo — its very title, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, demanded one — he got his mate Eric Clapton in to play it.
One reason Hendrix always tops polls of guitarists is the idea that he “invented” rock guitar, that he was the great innovator. Yes, he was an innovator, but so was Harrison. Think about it. The Beatles, after all, did virtually everything first, and even if that innovation was, at first, driven by Lennon and McCartney, I don’t believe there are any recorded instances of Lennon snatching Harrison’s guitar and saying “No, like this”. Harrison was always ready to match them, as they moved from pop to rock, by venturing into dissonance, aggression and feedback; and, pretty soon after the band began pushing back the horizons of pop, he revealed an innovative spirit of his own. Putting down your electric guitar and picking up a sitar instead would seem a little quirky if the lead guitarist of a chart-conquering band did it today; back in the mid-1960s, it was stunning.
If Harrison’s understated excellence has sometimes been overlooked by music fans, or undervalued by opinion-forming journalists, there has been a succession of younger guitarists who have learnt from Harrison’s example, embodied his attitude and spirit, eschewed flashy solos and instead concentrated on creating artfully structured guitar parts that have come to define their bands’ songs. They’re listed in the box on the right, along with a couple of Harrison’s like-minded contemporaries.
These are rock guitar’s Most Valuable Players. It’s quite an array of guitar-playing talent — but Harrison still comes out on top.
Pop's most valuable players
George Harrison
Every note he played made the Beatles better.

Rosewood