Duty to report

On July 14, a man, his fiancee and her cousin were strolling on the beach of Lake Tahoe (a popular tourist destination in the mountains of northern California) when they were targeted with derogatory racial comments by a couple of locals. When the man confronted them, he was physically assaulted and ended up with broken bones in his face. The victim, described as a San Francisco executive, was an American citizen of Indian origin. His attackers, who were Americans of European descent, had called the his group "terrorists" and "relatives of Osama Bin Laden".

The incident hardly created much of a ruffle in this part of this state or outside, but the reaction would have been even less had it not been preceded by a more tragic incident in nearby Sacramento, the capital of California. On July 1, an altercation took place at a local park between two picnicking groups, and the physical confrontation that followed resulted in the death of a 26-year old Fijian native of Indian origin. All members of the victim's group were of similar Fijian/Indian origin while the rival group was made up of East European natives; racial and homophobic slurs were exchanged prior to the fight.

The Sacramento crime had the unmistakable mark of a hate crime and instantly became a rallying point for many. The apparent reasons for the incident were both the victim's racial origins and his (perceived) sexual orientation, thus it mobilized both immigrant advocacy (Sepia Mutiny, a quasi political desi mouthpiece also picked up the story) and gay rights groups. The case was also picked up by a group advocating a hate crimes bill in the California legislature.

There is an interesting side-bar to the homophobic aspect of this incident. Sacramento is home to a large community of about 100,000 Slavic immigrants from the former Soviet Union (mostly from Ukraine). Interestingly, this community isnt of the Orthodox Christian following; instead most of them are Evangelicals (the belief that has become nearly synonymous with American conservatives in recent years). Many among this community who moved to Sacramento from their homes "looking for a Christian country" were shocked to be greeted by the thriving gay community in the city. In recent years the Slavic community has made its displeasure about homosexuality apparent with demonstrations at the state legislature and protests at events of the gay community. Both the suspected attackers in the fatal attack in Sacramento belong to the city's Slavic community.

Apart from the fact that the incidents were separated by only two weeks, they took place in places that are not very likely to be associated with such crimes. Lake Tahoe is known for its clear blue water and aquatic sports, surrounding ski slopes, and other tourist attractions. Sacramento, on its part, is a fairly liberal city. It would be reaching too far to suggest that these two incidents represent a trend, but their timing and location does make you pause.

Reading between, and to the right of, the lines

Growing up in urban India with an operable grasp of the English language, it wasnt too hard (indeed, it was nearly unavoidable) to get glimpses into American life and culture, even in the pre-internet and pre-cable age. There were Hollywood movies, pop music, occasional TV shows and documentaries on Doordarshan, snippets and syndicated columns by and about Americans in the Times of India, and, of course, comics and books.

One source that stood out was the Reader's Digest. When I was little my parents regularly borrowed this magazine from a nearby library, and I remember hungrily devouring it from the index page all the way through the artwork on the backface. What was unique about RD was that it offered a very different perspective on America and Americans than other media. If Hollywood was about the beautiful and cheerful songbird on the summit of a tall tree, RD told stories of the small, unglamorous creatures on the forest floor and in the bushes. RD mostly featured, and still does, stories about everyday Americans in everyday (and sometimes exceptional) circumstances.

It had been years since I had laid my eyes on a Reader's Digest when I found one in a friend's living room. While flipping through a couple of articles, it occurred to me that the tenor sounded familiar....and disturbingly so. I am in the habit of tuning in to right- and left-wing talk shows on TV and radio (helps remind me of, and appreciate, my sanity), and there was my reference point - the revered Reader's Digest turns out to be a right-wing mouthpiece!

Not to say that I had carried my childhood enamorment all along. By the time I was in college, I had grown tired of the gooey and staged nature of the stories in RD and had quit reading it. Around a same time a cynical relative of mine, who had just returned after studying the critical arts in the US, sneered when she saw a copy of the magazine in a highbrow bookstore, "Redneck trash for some is literature for others", or something to that effect, the full meaning of which I did not comprehend then. No wonder I was so surprised to discover for myself that RD is on the same limb as Rush Limbaugh!

Take a look at a recent issue. One of the articles titled "World's Most Dangerous Leaders" is a rap-sheet on Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-il, Bashar al-Assad, and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. Of course, there is no denying that these leaders are openly hostile to America and is likely that they wish her harm, but some of the "charges" against them are little more than innocent facts; for instance, Venezuela program of exchanging cheap oil for healthcare personnel with Cuba is projected as an affront to America (maybe the author was simply pissed off that America, which has a disastrous healthcare system, didn't think of it before Chavez!). There is a good chance that changing circumstances will have America supplying these very leaders with arms and encouragement as soon as, say, a decade down the line (yeah yeah, its happened before)...it would be interesting to see if the RD would still portray them in the same light.

Another telltale article is about how "your safety is at stake" while traveling by road because "thousands of truckers are on the road illegally". Ostensibly, the central story of the piece is about corruption in motor licensing departments, whereby unqualified truck drivers get permits by paying bribes to avoid tests. It is a serious issue that deserves concern, but what RD really has in its sights is - guess - illegal immigrants! The article cites two stories of fatal accidents where the truck driver involved had procured licenses by paying bribes; maybe it is only a coincidence that both these drivers happen to be immigrants. It reminds me of a rather amusing argument I had seen between Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera, where O'Reilly insists that the central issue of a fatal drunk driving accident was the nationality of the guilty driver (an illegal immigrant from Mexico).

An idle search turned up a wiki with a similar assessment of the magazine, though certainly more colorful than mine:

"...Reader's Digest has since its creation consistently reflected a conservative viewpoint. From Cold War-era anticommunist screeds to modern neocon essays, some of the excerpts have always reflected a rah-rah, military booster, "God, Country, and Family", barbarians-at-the-cultural-gates rightist tilt. These selections...(seem) to offer less a denouncement of leftist excesses than a sense of indignation at the simple existence of any in the first place."

"Rah-rah, military booster" publications and commentators are not hard to find in mainstream American media, and raise no eyebrows here. What tickles me is the fact that the RD ships out this worldview, in addition to cliches like the American dream and liberty, to all over the globe where numbskull readers like me gladly suck it up.

The fall of Barack Obama

Till a week back, my favorites for the US presidential nominations were John McCain and Barack Obama, on the Republican and Democratic tickets respectively. There were many reasons for my preferring these gentlemen, not least being a strong desire to not see Hillary Clinton as the president (to me, Clinton represents everything that is reprehensible about American society and politics; more on that later).

However, Obama has made made my position easier by crowing himself out of favor and reckoning. On Tuesday, he announced that he is open to the idea of using military force unilaterally on Pakistani soil to strike al-Qaeda targets, if Pakistan does not cooperate. It has been argued that he did it to stiffen his reputation as an able foreign policy player after Clinton's recent comments indicating otherwise. While I have little love for Pakistan or al-Qaeda, and do not understand much about the complexities involved in the said affair, what made me balk was Obama's choice of rationale and words.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . ."

This statement, which would not have raised my eyebrows had it been said in 2002, comes across as unbearably moronic when said today, with crystal-clear hindsight of the disaster that followed the disaster of 9/11. As America stands amidst the ruins of Iraq and the bones of at least 50,000 Iraqi civilians, Obama's statement reeks of a lack of moral remorse and personal culpability, as an American if not as an individual, for the pain of Iraqis and for the colossal outrage that the Iraq invasion was. As ludicrous as it may sound, the truth is that over the past 6 years America has, through her own actions, wiped out the debt of sympathy, sorrow, and understanding that was due to her for the incidents of 9/11. America, and Obama, have expended the moral right to be outraged over 9/11. Obama's position against the Iraq war does little to rid him of the baggage, and less so if he is elected to the presidency.

There is an Indian lore about a woman who goes out to fetch a pail of water from the well while her baby plays with their pet mongoose in the house. While she is gone, a snake approaches the baby but is halted by the mongoose. A fierce fight between the two ends with the snake being killed and the mongoose getting bloodied. When the mother returns, the mongoose gleefully greets her at the doorstep....however, when she sees the mongoose with blood on its face, she fears that it harmed her child and instantly kills it by dropping her pail of water on its head. She realizes her mistake when she enters the house and finds the baby safe and sound, with a dead snake besides it. The affair ends on a rather sad note, with the mother weeping remorsefully for the needlessly killed mongoose. The moral of the story, as told to us kids, was to never be hasty with your judgment.

The story and its moral is lost on America (and Obama).

Pakistan protested Obama's comments, the White House distanced itself from them, and the left (part of Obama's constituency) didnt like them either. None of this was unexpected, but it was remarkable that all these arguments were based on strategic or political grounds, and not on conscientious grounds.

I call this Obama's "fall" to reflect a personal sense of betrayal. Of course, it would sound absurd that I desert Obama for a rare pulse of belligerence while continuing to support McCain who is more hawkish by orders of magnitude. But thats how it is - a wolf is just a wolf, but a wolf in sheep's clothing is a mean, treacherous creature.