 |
|
 |

Issues In Perspective - December 28 & 29
December 28 & 29
|
|
Perspective One
|
SADDAM HUSSEIN – EGOMANIAC
There is perhaps no better evidence of Saddam Hussein=s demented mind than the Mother of All Battles Mosque, a recently opened in Baghdad. It is a vast, newly constructed edifice of gleaming white limestone and blue mosaic that Saddam oversaw from blueprint to completion. Each aspect of the mosque illustrates Saddam=s egomania and his attempt to rewrite the history of the 1991 Gulf War, which he called the Mother of All Battles. It is a piece of propaganda, aimed at his mortal enemy--the United States. Nearly every aspect of the mosque symbolizes something.
· First, the minarets. The outer four, each 140 feet high, were built to resemble the barrels of Kalashnikov rifles, pointing skyward. The inner four, each 120 feet high, are in the form of Scud missiles of the kind Iraq fired at Israel in 1991 during the War. At their peak, these inner minarets are decorated with red, white and black Iraqi flags.
· Second, a special sanctum inside the mosque contains 650 pages of the Koran written in Saddam=s blood. Official legend has it that he donated 28 liters of his blood (50 pints) over two years and that a famous calligrapher, Abas al-baghdadhi, mixed it with red ink and preservatives to produce the handsome calligraphy now laid out page by page in glass-walled display cases.
· Third, there is a reflecting pool that encircles the mosque and is shaped like the map of the Arab world. At the far end, a blue mosaic plinth sits like an island in the clear water. The plinth is a reproduction of Saddam=s thumbprint and atop is a stylized reproduction, in gold, of his Arabic initials.
In a country where millions live in abject poverty on $10 to $13 a month, this mosque costs at least $7.5 million. From this mosque and others he is building, Saddam has set out to make Baghdad the undisputed center of Islamic architecture. For example, a few miles from the Mother of All Battles Mosque, are two others being built that will dwarf it. Over five times the size, one of them will be known as the Mosque of Saddam the Great and will be completed in 2015. The message that Saddam is sending is that he is the natural leader of the Arab world.
From the Mother of All Battles Mosque, Saddam wants Iraqis to view the Gulf War as another glorious chapter in their history. The Gulf War in Saddam=s eyes was a victory. Hence the Kalashnikov rifles and Scud missiles as minarets. Also, his egomania is evidenced in other aspects of the Mosque. The outer minarets are 43 meters in height, for the 43 days of American bombing at the start of the Gulf War. The inner minarets, 37 meters in height, for the year 1937; numbering 4, for the fourth month, April; and 28 waterjets in the pool beneath the minarets, for the 28th day--37-4-28, for 28 April 1937, Saddam=s birthday.
In short, Saddam=s mosque in Baghdad is a poignant testimony to his egomania and his distorted view of history. His architecture is propaganda, the propaganda of a man who has delusions of grandeur, which are destroying his people. In many ways, he sees himself as the new Nebuchadnezzar, who once dominated the entire Fertile Crescent. Saddam will never dominate that much territory. In fact, 2003 will probably see the end of his reign. In feeding his egomania, he is really destroying his country. He is a tragic figure of modern history.
See the most helpful article by John F. Burns, The New York Times (15 December 2002).
Back to top
|
|
Perspective Two
|
|
CASINOS ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS: A COLOSSAL FAILURE
By the end of the 1980s, the federal government perceived that gambling casinos on Indian reservations were a cheap way to wean tribes from government welfare programs, encourage economic development and promote tribal self-sufficiency. Following policy initiatives by the Reagan administration and two US Supreme Court rulings that approved gambling on Indian reservations, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988. According to the recent issue of Time magazine (16 December 2002), the law is “so riddled with loopholes, so poorly written, so discriminatory and subject to such conflicting interpretations that 14 years later, armies of high-priced lawyers are still debating the definition of a slot machine.” Instead of regulating gambling, the act has created chaos and “a system tailor-made for abuse.”
The amount of money involved in such gambling is staggering. Last year 290 Indian casinos in 28 states realized at least $12.7 billion in revenue. Time estimates that the casinos kept more than $5 billion as profit. As Time suggests, that would place overall Indian gambling among Fortune magazine's 20 most profitable US corporations, with earnings exceeding those of JP Morgan Chase and Co., Merrill Lynch, American Express and Lehman Bros. holdings combined!!
Are the Indians really benefiting from this windfall? Time cites some tribes, like the Table Mountain Rancheria of California, that have benefited handsomely. However, the overwhelming majority of Indians receive nothing. Only half of the tribes--which have a total of 1.8 million members--have casinos. The Navajo tribe opposes gambling for religious reasons. Dozens of casinos do poorly because they are too small or are too far from population centers. Therefore, only a small number of casinos on Indian land are making money. Last year only 39 casinos generated $8.4 billion; i.e., 13% of the casinos accounted for 66% of the profits. Gambling has hardly raised the Native American population out of poverty. Here are some of the salient facts that prove the failure of gambling as a tool to help the Native American:
1. Revenue from gambling in Indian casinos in five states with almost half the Native American population--Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Dakota--account for less than 3% of all casino proceeds. On average this produces about $400 in revenue per Indian. Meanwhile, casinos in California, Connecticut and Florida--generate 44% of all revenue.
2. In 2001, US government aid, which entitles tribes to a broad range of benefits, amounted to $9.4 billion, but in most cases more money went to the wealthy tribes with lucrative casinos than to the destitute tribes. That makes no sense.
3. Protecting and fostering gambling on the reservations has become a huge political issue. Wealthy Indian gambling operations are pouring millions of dollars into state and federal political action committees. They are likewise paying large amounts of money to professional lobbying groups. So significant is this issue that Time reports, “Altogether they spend more to influence legislation than such longtime heavyweights as General Motors, AT&T--or even Enron in its heyday.”
4. Since only a federally recognized tribe can open a casino, scores of groups--including long-defunct tribes and extended families--have flocked to the Bureau of Indian Affairs or Congress seeking certification. Since 1979, as gambling began its boom, the number of recognized tribes on the US mainland has risen 23%, to a total of 337. About 200 additional groups have petitioned the BIA for recognition. The most notorious example is the Mashantucket Pequots of Connecticut, who own the world's largest casino, Foxwoods. This tribe had ceased to exist until Congress re-created it in 1983. The current tribe members have never lived on a reservation and most do not qualify for government assistance as Indians.
5. Congress created the National Indian Gaming Commission to be the national government's watchdog over gambling. With a budget of $8 million and 63 employees to monitor the $12 billion all-cash business in more than 300 casinos nationwide, it obviously cannot regulate the industry.
6. As Time observes, many non-Indian investors are extracting millions of dollars from casinos they helped establish. More than 90% of the contracts between tribes and outside gambling-management companies operate with no oversight. The identities, the financial arrangements and their share of the revenue are usually secret.
7. The result of this kind of system is fraud, corruption and intimidation. In passing the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Congress has created a monster. Presumably intended to help the Native American population break the poverty cycle, the result has been the opposite. Crime, fraud, corruption and continued poverty have been the result. In many ways it is the classic case of “the white man wins again.” Anyone who is intellectually honest knows that gambling is a panacea that promises much more than it can deliver and further enslaves those it promises to liberate. It is a dismal failure, one that severely hurts the very people it was intended to help.
See the brilliant report on casino gambling on the Indian reservations in Time (16 December 2002), pp. 43-57.
Back to top
|
|
Perspective Three
|
|
THE VICTIMIZATION CULTURE
We have seen this before: Supposed victims suing a company for damages. One of the most absurd examples involves McDonald’s. Two Bronx teenagers, Jazlyn Bradley (5’6”, 270 pounds) and Ashley Pelman (4’10”, 170 pounds) are suing McDonald’s for damages related to their weight. Their charge is that McDonald’s is complicit in their being obese. But this is only the beginning: Meredith Berkman, 37, has sued Robert’s American Gourmet Food, makers of the snack food Pirate’s Booty, for ruining her diet.
As Joanne Kaufman has observed, “If McDonald’s can be sued for causing obesity, what about all the stores luring you to spend money on gifts for the holidays?” In many ways, these ridiculous lawsuits symbolize the victimization of our culture. If you overeat and stuff yourself with fast food junk, you are not responsible, McDonald’s is! How ludicrous. Such a lawsuit demonstrates the level of foolishness to which we have sunk as a culture. McDonald’s may sell junk food that ultimately is not good for your daily diet. But if you choose to eat such food, you are not a victim; you should not be able to sue McDonald’s for your choices.
In short, this points out the inane tension of our postmodern culture. We demand autonomy in all areas of life, but when we exercise that autonomy and choose that which is ultimately bad for us, we are not accountable. Someone or something else is. Therefore, I have the right to sue that something or someone for all they are worth for my choices! This is a culture of postmodern autonomous people who, when their choices turn out to be self-destructive, become victims. Autonomy produces victimization.
See Joanne Kaufman, Wall Street Journal (29 November 2002), p. W13.
Back to top
|
|
 |