Josephus’s Jumble, the 21st Century Edition: 2007 in Review

Josephus’s Jumble, the 21st Century Edition: 2007 in Review

As my loyal readers probably know, I am a direct descendant of the historian Flavius Josephus. Aside from writing such seminal works as War of the Jews (c. 75), Josephus wrote a column for The Titus Times. He called his column, “Josephus’s Jumble.” In the first column of every month, Josephus reviewed the past month. It is my honor and privilege – and some might argue, my birthright – to resurrect Josephus’s Jumble, the 21st century edition. In this particular edition, I’m reviewing some of the stories covered in 2007.
     Are You Ready to Jumble?

THE WOMAN IN BETWEEN

The year was 1993. I had just dropped out of graduate school to write fiction. I was living in New York, on 101st street. Every day I would walk down to 12th street. I didn’t have any money and I didn’t own a computer. I traveled downtown to use my friend’s computer. I walked the ninety blocks, both ways, to save on train fare.
     These are the habits of young writers in poverty.
     On the way back, I’d occasionally walk through the park. On one of those walks I ran into a woman in a burqa. It was late summer, late afternoon, and she was perspiring heavily.
     With the exception of a young boy to her side, there was nobody else around. Later, I would find that odd. An ex-president, for instance, would always have someone in tow. An aide or a member of his entourage. Certainly a few members of the Secret Service.
     The woman in the burqa, the woman sitting on a park bench, was Benazir Bhutto. Her “odd” lack of security served as a harbinger for the sad events of December 27.
     Benazir Bhutto in 1993 was out of power. In 1990, after two years as prime minister, Bhutto’s government had been dismissed following charges of corruption. Charges never validated. In the autumn of 1993, Benazir Bhutto would again become prime minister. Three years later her government would again be dismissed due to corruption.
     These are the habits of Pakistani democracy.
     In the late summer of 1993, Bhutto sat on a park bench in Central Park. She held a book up close to her face and her then oversized eyeglasses. She read aloud. Her son – Bilawal, the world would learn this past week – listened to every word. He clung to his mother’s voice. He barely budged, even despite the heat and humidity. He was five-years-old at that time. I was amazed by his presence, particularly his stillness.
     When listening to his press conference over the weekend, in the aftermath of his mother’s assassination and his succession, I was even more amazed by his presence, particularly his stillness. He sat calm in a room of mania. He exhibited introspection. His father, Asif Ali Zardari, a polarizing figure in Pakistan, spoke with a rage that bordered on frenzy. The journalists posed their questions and wrote their notes in a similar frenzy.
     The son spoke with a quiet composure. His words acted like thunder. “My mother always said democracy is the best revenge,” Bilawal stated. He then told the world that he was taking on a new family name. Bilawal Zardari was becoming Bilawal Bhutto.
     In the late summer of 1993, I sat down on a park bench adjacent to Benazir Bhutto and Bilawal Zardari. I watched the mother reading and the son listening. I too listened to the words.
     Benazir Bhutto had chosen an interesting book to read to her eldest son that day. She’d chosen Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses.
     This, I came to realize, was Benazir Bhutto’s way. She was no fan of extremism. She was not a reactionary. Here was a woman in between. She lived in between the customs of Islam and the forces of democracy. She lived in between the powers of leadership and the pressures of motherhood. She lived in between India and Iran, two suspicious neighbors from the Pakistani perspective. Satanic Verses took place in India. Ayatollah Khomeini, who sentenced Salman Rushdie to a death-sentence fatwa, lived in Iran. Benazir Bhutto had to understand both angles. She was not a fan of George Bush’s “You’re either with us or against us” creed. Benazir Bhutto lived in between.
     While listening to Bilawal Bhutto, at the tender age of 19, assume the leadership of the Pakistan Peoples Party, I thought about President Bush and wondered if he’d ever read Salman Rushdie to his daughters.
     Satanic Verses was probably Rushdie’s worst story. Midnight’s Children was arguably his best. Haroun and the Sea of Stories was very good, too. These last two books were written for children (of all ages). Did George Bush ever read Midnight’s Children to Jenna and Barbara? If so, did the twins sit quietly and listen?
     The line of succession that flows from Prescott Bush to George H.W. Bush to George W. Bush is not a quiet, thoughtful line. It is an unctuous line. It is a conceited line. It is a line of tremendous power and tremendous corruption.
     The line of succession in the Bhutto clan is a line of tremendous power and tremendous corruption, too. Shahnawaz Bhutto, the grandfather of Benazir, led Pakistan’s split from India in the independence movement of 1947. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Benazir’s father, became prime minister in 1971. He was executed in 1979 after a coup. He’d been charged, and found guilty of, conspiring to murder the father of a political opponent. Shahnawaz Bhutto, Benazir’s younger brother, died in France in 1980. The circumstances surrounding his death remain mysterious. Murtaza Bhutto, Benazir’s eldest brother, was murdered by police during a shootout. Asif Ali Zardari, Benazir’s husband, spent eight years in prison on corruption charges. There is a niece, Fatima. She writes for the English-language daily, The News. She has been critical of her aunt. There is a theory that Benazir Bhutto planned the death of her eldest brother and Fatima’s father. This leads to Bilawal.
     Back in 1993, he sat up straight on a park bench and he listened to his mother’s reading and he seemed stoic. The child, then, had presence. Like his mother. The child is still a child today. What does this mean for Pakistan? What does this mean for South Asia? What does this mean for the United States?

NUMEROLOGY

The numbers don’t lie. Isiah Thomas became the president of basketball operation of the New York Knicks on December 22, 2003. Since that time, the Knicks have won 123 games and lost 195 games. Since Isiah Thomas took over the head coaching duties for the 2006/2007 season – and continued on as president of basketball operations – the Knicks have won 38 games and lost 62 games. Since Isiah Thomas received a multiyear extension on March 2007, the Knicks have won 12 games and lost 35 games.
     These are absolutely astounding numbers of ineptitude. Here’s another. Twenty-nine games into the season, the Knicks are 18 games behind first place Boston in their division.
     It gets worse.

THE SAUDI ARABIA LEGAL CODE, PART I

In October, a jury in New York ruled that Isiah Thomas harassed former team executive Anucha Browne Sanders. Further, the jury ruled that Madison Square Garden fired Sanders in retaliation for complaining about the unwanted advances. The jury awarded Sanders $11.6 million in punitive damages, with compensatory damages to be decided later. The jury could not decide if Sanders should be paid damages directly by Thomas. On that matter, the judge declared a mistrial. Isiah Thomas is fortunate he doesn’t live in Saudi Arabia. If a judge found Thomas guilty of sexual harassment, a criminal offense in the Arabic world, Thomas could be sentenced to emasculation, an archaic but still occasionally used sentencing procedure.
     In December, Madison Square Garden agreed to pay Anucha Browne Sanders $11.5 million, saving itself millions in possible compensatory damages. Isiah Thomas offered a statement, “As I’ve said before, I am completely innocent.”
     Madison Square Garden offered a statement too, “The outcome is a travesty of justice.”
     These are the habits of the guilty in America: accept punishment privately, publicly proclaim indisputable innocence.
     David Stern, the NBA commissioner, felt compelled to weigh in. The settlement, he said, “demonstrates that they’re not a model of intelligent management. There were many checkpoints along the way where more decisive action could have eliminated this issue.”
     The Isiah Thomas harassment case isn’t the only harassment case facing Madison Square Garden. Another lawsuit, filed in 2004 by Courtney Prince, a cheerleader for the New York Rangers, alleges sexual harassment. In addition, two security supervisors, both black women, are expected to file a suit alleging sexual and racial discrimination.
     Perhaps, in some cases, the severity of the Saudi legal code is reasonable.

THE SAUDI ARABIA LEGAL CODE, PART II

And then there are the cases that make you shudder. In November, a Saudi woman, known as the “Girl of Qatif” – after her hometown in eastern Saudi Arabia – was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail. Her offense? Initially, she was punished for violating laws on segregation of the sexes. She entered an unrelated man’s car. For that crime, she received 90 lashes and a few months in jail.
     When she appealed, the judges doubled her sentence. World leaders expressed outrage. Canada called the sentencing “barbaric.” The White House expressed “astonishment.” President Bush wondered how he would react if the “Girl of Qatif” had been one of his daughters.
     President Bush, however, did not take his complaints to the King of Saudi Arabia. Bush’s father, during his own political career, was known in the Middle East as the “Saudi Vice President,” for his deep allegiance to Saudi rulers. Apparently this Bush is the “Saudi Concubine.”
     As for the “Girl of Qatif,” according to her story, she met a high school friend in his car in order to retrieve a picture. She had recently married. “It would be improper for another man to have my photo,” she told the court, reportedly.
    Moments later, two men barged into the car. One man got behind the wheel. He drove to a secluded area where five more men waited. The seven men raped both the “Girl of Qatif” and her male friend.
     Saudi Arabia’s Justice Ministry put out a statement in support of the sentence: “The charged girl is a married woman who confessed to having an affair with the man she was caught with. Under Sharia (Islamic law), adultery is punished by flogging.”
     Saudi Arabia’s Justice Ministry did not address the crime committed against the girl or her friend. Apparently, adultery – if that indeed occurred – trumps rape.
     On December 17, in a rare act of clemency, King Abdullah pardoned the “Girl of Qatif.” In speaking for the King, a justice minister said, “The King always looks into alleviating the suffering of the citizens when he becomes sure that these verdicts will leave psychological effects on the convicted people, though he is convinced and sure that the verdicts were fair.”

THE SAUDI ARABIA LEGAL CODE, PART III

In December, Michael Vick received a 23-month prison sentence for his role in promoting dog fighting, and the ruthless killing of pit bulls. “You were instrumental in facilitating, putting together, organizing and funding this cruel and inhumane sporting activity,” Judge Henry Hudson told Vick. “I think you need to apologize once again to the millions of people who look up to you. I don’t believe in your sincerity.”
     “Yes, sir,” Vick answered.
     He did not offer a second apology. These are the habits of the fatally arrogant.
     As for Michael Vick’s love of dog fighting, when he gets out of prison nearly two years from now, he should consider moving to the Middle East. Dog fighting is considered a sport there.

THE STATE OF RACE RELATIONS IN AMERICA

Speaking of insincere apologizing, guess who’s back? “Dick Cheney is still a war criminal,” Don Imus said in his grand reintroduction. “Hillary Clinton is still Satan. And I’m back on radio.”
     Imus dressed for the occasion. He wore a tan cowboy hat, a gold vest and worn boots. Imus looked like the northern version of Ross Perot, if Ross Perot had suffered from a severe case of jaundice and/or chronic renal failure. Why is Imus so yellow?
     If his disparaging remarks have been forgotten, here’s a reminder. Back on April 4, Imus’s sidekick, Bernard McGuirk, referred to the Rutgers basketball team as “some hard-core hos.”
     Imus took the bait, turning “some hard-core hos” into “nappy-headed hos.”
     In December, during his grand reintroduction, Imus claimed, “I will never say anything in my lifetime that will make any of these young women at Rutgers regret or feel foolish that they accepted my apology and forgave me. And no one else will say anything on my program that will make anyone think I did not deserve a second chance.”
     If this sort of verbiage sounds like garbage, wait until you hear Mitt Romney down below.
     Imus then promised “an ongoing discussion about race relations in this country.” In order to facilitate this discussion, the Imus show has added two new cast members, two black comedians.
     Apparently, race relations to Don Imus are a joke.
     The man most responsible for protesting Imus’s “nappy-headed hos” remark back in April, the Reverend Al Sharpton, responded to the changes, “I don’t know if they’re for the good, or if they’re choreography for the radio station. Whether he’s sincere or not time will tell. And we will be monitoring.”
     Speaking of monitoring, the FBI and the IRS are currently investigating whether Reverend Sharpton improperly misstated the amount of money he raised during his 2004 presidential campaign. But that’s a story for 2008.

THE MITT ROMNEY PATHOLOGICAL LIAR PORTFOLIO

Exposé number one in the Mitt Romney Pathological Liar portfolio: At a campaign stop in South Carolina, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney was in the midst of criticizing the Democrats in their “battle in the global war on terror. Just look at what Osama – uh – Obama said yesterday. Barack Obama calling on radicals, jihadists of all different types, to come together in Iraq. That is the battlefield. That is the central place, he said. Come join us under one banner.”
     Mitt Romney might have said “Osama – uh – Obama” but in fact he wasn’t talking about anything candidate Barack Obama had ever said. Mitt Romney was talking about the recently released audiotape by Osama bin Laden, calling on insurgents in Iraq to unite.
     After the event, the Romney camp backpedaled. “Governor Romney misspoke,” the campaign announced. “He was referring to the recently released audiotape of Osama bin Laden and misspoke when referencing his name. It was just a brief mix-up.”
     A brief mix-up. Romney followed that up by telling Republican rival Rudy Giuliani that “facts are stubborn things.” No doubt Giuliani needs a lesson in candor but is Mitt Romney the man to deliver the message?
     Exposé number two in the Mitt Romney Pathological Liar portfolio: Trying to show off for would-be voters in New Hampshire, Romney recalled how, as a child, he went hunting with his cousins but struggled to kill rabbits with a single-shot .22-caliber rifle. He then joked that when someone loaned him a semi-automatic killing became a whole lot easier.
     The New Hampshire crowd laughed in appreciation. Romney seemed to grow in confidence. He continued. The last time he went hunting – for quail in Georgia, he claimed – he’d “knocked down quite a few birds. So I’ve been pretty much hunting all my life.”
     The Associated Press challenged him on that statement. No surprise, the Romney camp backpedaled. In a statement, Romney admitted that he’d been hunting twice in his life.
     Exposé number three in the Mitt Romney Pathological Liar portfolio: On NBC’s “Meet the Press” Romney claimed that, while running for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, he’d received the endorsement of the National Rifle Association (NRA). That was a shock to Wayne LaPierre, the CEO of the NRA. “Trust me,” LaPierre stated in an interview on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” “we never endorsed the guy.” LaPierre then found it necessary to clear up another misconception perpetuated by Mitt Romney. “He’s been going around saying he’s been a member of the NRA for years. He joined in August.”
     “Will you support him for president?” George Stephanopoulos asked.
     “No way,” LaPierre was quick to answer. “His past votes have been anti-gun and I feel like it may just be a campaign strategy that we’re not going to fall for. I’ve never seen a politician change his way of thinking 180 degrees, except when he was running for office.”
     Exposé number four in the Mitt Romney Pathological Liar portfolio: In a highly publicized speech about his Mormon faith – his Kennedy moment – Romney claimed that his father marched with Martin Luther King.
     The DrudgeReport went to work on that claim. “No doubt,” the DrudgeReport declared, “that Mitt Romney’s father, Governor George Romney of Michigan, was active in the civil rights movement. However, marching with King and supporting civil rights from the governor’s mansion in Lansing are two entirely separate animals. We here at the DrudgeReport find it highly unlikely that any march featuring Governor Romney and MLK took place.”
     No surprise, the Romney camp backpedaled. Romney claimed that he “figuratively” saw his father march with King.
     Exposé number five in the Mitt Romney Pathological Liar portfolio: In attacking his chief rival in Iowa, Mike Huckabee and his record on reducing penalties for methamphetamine-related crimes, Romney stated, “I’m very proud of the fact that we, my state, when I was governor, we made it tougher for people with meth labs… We passed legislation to make sure we did everything we could do to keep our kids off of this terrible, pernicious, captivating drug.”
     Good descriptive adjectives, Mitt, but it turns out that your office proposed legislation. The bill stalled in the legislature.
     In reacting to his own propensity for lying, Mitt Romney sounded too chipper. “There’s going to be hyperscrutiny of each word,” he said. “That’s part of running for president. I’m up to it. You can look at the things I’m saying about my record and about the events of campaign and history and you’ll find if now and then I miss a word or I get something slightly off, I’ll correct it, acknowledge where it’s wrong. But the overall thrust, the overall meaning of the story, is very accurate.”
     Don’t be surprise if, in the coming days, the Romney camp is forced to backpedal on this statement, too.

IF ONLY JUDGE HENRY HUDSON HEARD THE CASE

In a backpedaling of a different kind, Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte acknowledged that he’d tried human growth hormone (HGH). Two days after his name had been implicated in George Mitchell’s report, Pettitte became the first player to confirm its findings. “If what I did was an error in judgment on my part,” Pettitte said, “I apologize.”
     If? His own actions confirmed that Pettitte himself thought it was an error in judgment. In 2002, while recovering from an elbow injury, Pettitte injected HGH on “two to four occasions.” He explained, “I felt an obligation to get back to my team as soon as possible. For this reason, and only this reason, for two days I tried human growth hormone. Though it was not against baseball rules, I was not comfortable with what I was doing, so I stopped.”
     Major League Baseball banned HGH in 2005. But Pettitte’s own discomfort at the time of injections spoke volumes. His apology was pathetic. If Judge Henry Hudson had sentenced Pettitte, he would have questioned his sincerity.
     Meanwhile, Pettitte’s good buddy, Roger Clemens, has hired lawyers and private investigators to prove his innocence. Like Pettitte, his name has been implicated in George Mitchell’s report. For all of the bluster and bravado that’s sure to come – after all, you can’t disprove a negative. All you can do is to go after the accuser’s credibility – one fact hurts Clemens more than any other. His good buddy Andy Pettitte has essentially established the credibility of the accuser.

Sponsored by EnterTo.com the first REAL spam free email

Click Below to discover and share content from anywhere on the web

The Gonzo Journalism of Brian Josepher

Josephus’s Jumble, the 21st Century Edition: 2007 in Review