Earnestly important

The plot is simple: Love and marriage. Two gentlemen, one of them with title but no money (David Jack’s Moncrief), and the other with money but without a title (Christopher Michael Todd’s Worthing) are facing a crucial decision in their lives-getting married. Moncrief does not realize his fate yet, he is a beautiful dandy who believes that marriage is such a disaster that he would try to forget it at once if it happened to him, as “three is company, and two is none”. David Jack presents a man who say “my duty as a gentleman has never interfered in my pleasure.” Still at the end, he commits the most popular mistake; he falls in love and eagerly decides to get married.

But this simple plot is just an occasion for Oscar Wilde to create a cynical social satire against marriage, the hypocrisy of the English upper class, and against optimism. It is also a glorious hymn for hedonism. Many believe that The Importance of Being Earnest is the most sparkling comedy in Oscar Wilde’s repertories, and it is difficult not to agree.

Humor cynism, and the addressed issues, along with Oscar Wilde’s witty remarks, is what make the play a live issue, more than a century after the author’s death in 1900. The cast also probably helps to enjoy the show. A brilliant Cristiane Young’s Lady Bracknell, an English Victorian matron stating bluntly, “To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.”

In this play we have all what we need for a stage success: drama- Miss Prism loosing lord’s child in the dark past, romance, humor, and words of harsh criticism to family and society at large. It is no wonder that the director Judith Jarosz decided to work with the script. And she does it well, although, to be honest, not breathtakingly. Recommended but not a must.

THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST, by Oscar Wilde; directed by Judith Jarosz; set design, David Fuller; lightening design, Hajera Dehqanzada; costume design, Lydia Gladstone; technical director, Aaron Diehl; stage manager, Lauren Arneson; Presented by the Theatre Ten Ten, at 1010 Park Avenue.

Algernon Moncrief…David Jacks

Lane…David Fuller

Jon Worthing, J.P. …Christoper Michael Todd

Lady Bracknell…Cristiane Young

Hon. Gwendolen Fairfax…Vanessa Morosco

Miss Prism…Talaura Harms

Cecily Cardew…Sheila Joon

Rev. Canon Chasuble, D.D. …Greg Horton

Merriman…David Fuller

Hospital Journalist

Sunderam Srinivasan or “Shrini” as his friends call him, is a permanent resident of Coler Hospital. Coler is a long-term health care facility, part of the New York City public hospital system, located on Roosevelt Island in the middle of the East River. Shrini, 62-years-old, has been here for seventeen years, some of it spent attached to a ventilator, all of it confined to a wheelchair.

“In ‘82-’83 I was in the Middle East, this was my first real experience with how the Mid-East attracts laborers to build their countries,” Shrini relates. Looking at him now in his motorized wheelchair in an anonymous hospital corridor, it’s hard to picture him as the active reporter he once was. It was complications from polio he contracted as a baby in his native India that has plagued him his entire life, but this was not enough to dissuade him a career in journalism. His most memorable position was writing for the India Express where he worked covering the 1975 state of emergency under Indira Gandhi’s leadership. It was there that he witnessed first-hand the government’s crackdown and the ensuing loss of freedom of the press.

“I was always fascinated with the power of journalism and how democracy functions,” he said. “Elections give people a voice, they come to elections to express their voice and what they really are expressing is freedom and hope - hope is the most important part of life. Hope leads to service, and service leads to society.”

Polio has given Shrini a small body which in no way reflects his stature in the hospital. He is the president of the residents council, a state-mandated position where he represents the interests of the roughly 800 patients at Coler. In this role, his most noteworthy accomplishment is perhaps the initiation of the hospital’s own radio station, the first of its kind in the country.

“There were three things we were trying to accomplish,” he relates. “It’s a place where patient residents can come to talk, but it is also therapeutic – it allows patients to do something. But then it’s also about networking with other long-term health care facilities – there’s a lot of human interest stories there.”

Warming to his subject, Shrini recounts, “if you really look at health care in America, there’s so much wealth but there’s very little health, which is a paradox,” he says, smiling. “The reason I say that is because the health care industry is controlled by a few people and they’re trying to set policy for the whole country.”

“Why don’t you ask me about the flags,” he questions me, suddenly. Attached to the back of Shrini’s wheelchair is a collection of new-looking colorful flags from nations all over the world, all on wooden poles like those sold at parades. When I comply he delivers the simple explanation while beaming, “because if you love the world, the world loves you.”

Conventional Wisdom

What Conventional Wisdom Says, or…What it Doesn’t

By Merry Pool

New York—On February 2^nd supporters for Barack Obama pulled together an impromptu rally in East Harlem. Known also as “El Barrio”, the organizers hoped to raise awareness about the candidate with ‘lesser name recognition’ in the neighborhood with a large Hispanic population. Holding signs that read, Latinos for Obama, the group of no more than 50 marched from 103^rd street up to 116^th street.

Nathan Feinberg and Davion Marcus, who were volunteering at Saturday’s event, said they were getting a great response from people in Harlem.

“I came with a stack of fliers and I have one left,” said Feinberg.

“Generally immigrants do not tune in to politics,” said Marcus. “It’s not political apathy; they aren’t able to identify with the candidates—we’re trying to get people to participate in the political system.”

Campaign volunteers for both Senators Obama and Clinton have been reaching out to “immigrants,” (frequently alternated with “Latino”) helping them identify with their candidate—(known in some circles as courting the Hispanic vote.) Yet there is mixed speculation about which candidate will be more successful.

Aristide Zolberg, a professor at The New School, said that based on the “conventional wisdom” he doubted that Latinos would vote for an African American.

“Latinos aren’t too happy with Obama, they will go for Hillary,” he said in a phone interview.

In an interview on the radio program, To the Point, Robert Suro, former director of Pew Hispanic Center, discounted the ‘conventional wisdom’ about race relations between blacks and Latino voters as unsubstantiated. Mr. Suro said that based on the exit polling that has been done, “there is not strong evidence that Hispanics are unwilling to vote for an African American Candidate.”

Take for example, Laura Richardson, an African American Congresswoman recently elected in California’s 37^th district, with approximately 25 percent African American and 21 percent eligible Latino voters. In a recent Time magazine article, by Jay Newton, Ms. Richardson said that “race does exist, but more than that people are concerned about he issues…people care about whether they have a job.”

Emphasizing this point, Newton says that “the former first lady [Hillary] represents an era prosperity that many [Latino] women would like to see returned. Not surprisingly, the issue of economic security takes the precedent over race.”

When asked how he intended to address the high unemployment rates and declining wages in the African American community that are related to the flood of immigrant labor, Senator Obama replied:

“Well, let me first of all say that I have worked on the streets of Chicago as an organizer with people who have been laid off from steel plants, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, and, you know, all of them are feeling economically insecure right now, and they have been for many years. Before the latest round of immigrants showed up, you had huge unemployment rates among African-American youth

.

And, so, I think to suggest somehow that the problem that we're seeing in inner-city unemployment, for example, is attributable to immigrants, I think, is a case of scapegoating that I do not believe in.”

Neither Nathan Feinberg nor Davion Marcus had any conventional wisdom about race and the Latino vote. But, Mr. Marcus, an African American, did acknowledge a tension surrounding the subject of immigration and the economy.

“I know that some African Americans feel like immigrants are reaping the benefits of this country and the Blacks aren’t getting anything,” said Marcus. “If Obama is the next leader, it will be difficult for him. There are so many issues and people will expect him to fix everything.”

Living Without Heat in East Harlem

New York, Feb. 10—This morning, like every other for the past month, Jorge Martínez woke to find his small apartment freezing cold. Having slept in two sweaters, he threw on more clothes, gloves, and a hat before making his way to the kitchen. As he turned the dials on the oven, the stovetop burners slowly breathed warmth back into the room, and into his 68th birthday.

Mr. Martínez is one of more than a dozen tenants at 153 East 105th St. that have been left without heat or hot water for over a month.

“The biggest problem is the old people and the children,” he said. “It’s terrible. Once they stop the heat, the old are becoming frozen.”

Martínez and about twenty others gathered outside the East Harlem apartment building this afternoon to protest their living conditions. With help from Movement for Justice in El Barrio, an East Harlem tenants’ rights organization, the protesters chanted, beat pots and pans, and held up signs in English and Spanish denouncing both their landlord and the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD).

Sadly, their complaints are not uncommon in a city known for high rents and cold winters. But this year could be worse than usual, both in New York and across the country. As fears of a nationwide economic recession have grown more serious, and as the price of oil has gone up, many Americans have begun to wonder if they will be able to pay their heating bills this winter. Meanwhile, critics of the economic stimulus plan President Bush is expected to sign on Monday argue that it does little to make this winter any easier, or warmer, for America’s poor.

For Mr. Martínez and his neighbors, things couldn’t get much colder.

“The heat is only in the morning, a half hour, then you wait until the next day again,” he said, standing in a coat and hat in his kitchen. “When the temperature outside is 40 or 45, we don’t get heat for four days.”

But the frigid rooms aren't caused by a broken boiler or unpaid bills. Instead, tenants have been living without heat and hot water because their landlord, Ramón Durán, says heating oil is too expensive.

“I’m not a million dollar guy,” he said. “I have tenants living over here that are paying $300,” he said. “And you know what? $300 isn’t even enough for oil for one or two weeks.”

“I’ve got my children too,” Durán said, referring to the tenants’ worries for their children. Durán does not live in the building. As for the allegations that there is no heat or hot water, he replied: “That’s what they say, but it’s not true.”

Durán and his tenants also disagree over the role that HPD has played in the dispute. By city law, if tenants report being without heat during the winter and nothing is done within 24 hours, an HPD inspector can force the landlord to fix the problem.

According to Durán, his tenants abuse the law. “I’ve got a problem with one or two tenants,” he said. “They call HPD all the time for no reason. They call HPD before they come over to me, or give me a call.”

“HPD is doing their job,” Durán said, sitting at a table in the back of his restaurant, in the same building as the tenants' homes. “They come over here all the time. They inspect this place all the time.”

Durán’s tenants feel otherwise.

“They don’t come to check on the tenants, to see how they’re doing,” said Iris Vargas, referring to HPD. Her stepfather lives in the building. She pointed out cracks in the walls, tape around loose windows, and the steel girders that were put in place five months ago to keep the building from collapsing.

According to Juan Haro from Movement for Justice in El Barrio, HPD inspectors have yet to show up since the tenants began calling in their complaints almost two weeks ago.

“They’re accomplices to the crime,” he said.

As for Jorge Martínez, he spent his birthday protesting in the February cold. But, for the first time in weeks, he came inside to find his apartment warm.

“Now we got the heat at this time now, that’s because you are here,” he said, referring to the journalists covering the protest. “But once you leave, believe me, they’re going to cut it.”

Cold War Attitudes in a Warming World

*** This is a post I wrote for my website, www.theseminal.com. I thought I'd share it as well ***

After more than 40 years of embargo, the end of Fidel Castro's rule is approaching. We don't know when or how it will happen, or what shape Cuban politics will take, but we do know that the US government wants a hand in the succession process.

Strange, then, that there is very little public discussion over the participation our government should seek, and the aims we should advance. Perhaps it's assumed that our role will be subversive, ensuring the revolution crumbles and neo-liberal economic reforms, coupled with our sanctioned version of democracy, take its place. No doubt a large contingency believes this to be the only appropriate course. A sober look at the situation, however, suggests that the best strategy for the United States is to embrace the revolution, encouraging reform from within its framework.

Often our opposition to the current administration in Cuba is painted, and interpreted, as a fight against Fidel Castro, a fight on behalf of a Cuban people who are captives of their leader's ideology.

When President Bush discussed Cuban policy back in October 2007, his rhetoric again reinforced that point:

"The day is coming when the Cuban people will chart their own course for a better life. The day is coming when the Cuban people have the freedom they have awaited for so long."

He then described additional funding Congress had allotted for "Cuban democracy efforts." These efforts, Bush continued, were intended to help Cubans wrest their political freedom from a ruling class whose "grip on power is more important than the welfare of its people."

The thrust of the speech was clear: Cubans are a people in need of liberation, and the US government, as always, was working hard at the task. Everyone who supports the embargo, whether actively or passively, accepts that narrative.

But there are several problems with this interpretation.

Foremost, it's built on condescension towards the political will of the Cuban people. It must be understood that revolutions are not reducible to any one individual. The support of large segments of civil society was necessary to empower the movement in its formative years, and has bolstered it since it was institutionalized. Castro, though his fist is often iron, does not rule with it alone.

Many average Cuban citizens still consider themselves revolutionaries, and many who are discontented by their political situation have not sought, and do not want, US assistance.

Second, to act upon the assumption that Cubans yearn for democracy and neo-liberal reforms is both naive and dangerous. Even if large segments of the population had been sympathetic to our embargo, or were willing to forgive it once it was repealed, would they greet their new status within the free market favorably?

To attempt an answer, one should look at the social gains made by the revolution in the areas of education and health care. These areas have been prioritized under Castro, and their success is undeniable. No doubt, then, that a young Cuban living in the countryside, who until his "liberation" from the revolution was a recipient of free education and free access to medical care, would find his entry into the free market to be a painful birth.

The sense of entitlement instilled by the revolution would be left unfulfilled, social tensions would be great, and those who did not see immediate economic benefit from the dismantling of the revolution (and this would be the majority) would see little to celebrate, much to mourn.

Last, and perhaps most obviously, to paint the embargo as on behalf of the Cuban people is a ridiculous premise. As Pope John Paul II said, "Economic embargoes are always deplorable because they always harm those in greatest need." Indeed, in this case the brunt of the embargo has been borne by common Cubans.

As an example, one can view the early 90's, when the US government seized upon the opportunity presented by the collapse of Cuba's bulwark of support: the Soviet Union. Two pieces of US legislation -- the Torricelli Act and the Helms-Burton Act -- tightened the embargo, contributing to the most dire economic conditions of Castro's rule.

Cuban academics Vilma Hidalgo and Milagros Martinez described the effects on the diet of the average Cuban citizen:

in 1989 the availability of food per capita was 3,108 caloric units and 73 grams of protein, while in 1997 these figures were 2,480 and 51.7, respectively. This drastic change in consumption levels affected the health of the population, as both men and women experienced weight loss, epidemics of some diseases previously unknown in the country broke out, and the birth weight of babies declined.

No doubt the ruling class Bush spoke of were well-fed, an easily anticipated contradiction between the stated intentions and actual results of US efforts.

Self-interest has always motivated the US embargo against Cuba; the assertion of the Cold War good vs. evil mentality; the attempt to starve out a government that would not serve as a pawn to US wishes; the effort to woo the political support of the vocal anti-Castro exiles in Florida. And the list goes on.

But what has the embargo achieved? Castro is still in power. He is a cultural icon in Latin America, David to our Goliath. The model of government he has advanced in Cuba has been proven viable, able to survive in the bad graces of the world's superpower. And right in our backyard at that.

On the US side, the embargo underlines our hypocrisy. We trade with the People's Republic of China. We traded with the Soviet Union during its existence. Why not Cuba? Clearly there is an unhealthy grudge which the international community has recognized time and again; for 16 consecutive years the General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly against the embargo.

For the United States government to force its preferred economic and political system upon Cuba would not only be a move against self-determination, it would be yet another injustice done to a country that has already suffered enough at our hands. Dropping the embargo and demonstrating our willingness to work with the Cuban government is the logical way to advance democratic reform, would be a positive step towards repairing our image abroad, and would help us live up to the ideals we claim as a nation.

More importantly, it's our best means of helping Cubans.

Super Delegates and their Constituents

As the tight race for the Democratic nomination continues, the specter of a brokered convention looms large. The idea of super delegates deciding the nominee for president leaves many voters who participated in the primary dissatisfied, and their desire to have their voices heard translates into certain expectations of super delegates.

Colorado, the site of the convention, offers a perfect example.

Voters in Colorado made clear their choice for the Democratic nominee: Barack Obama garnered 67% of the vote. But, back before the primary, Congresswoman Diane Degette endorsed Hillary Clinton.

What she does with her super delegate vote, then, will serve as her answer to the question posed by David Sirota, a Denver-based columnist and author:

"Are you more loyal to another politician? Or are you more loyal to the democratic spirit?"

Her answer will have consequences: Channel 2 News in Denver quoted Margit Henderson, an Obama supporter, saying "I've supported Degette for a long time, and I'd like to continue to support her. But this is a make or break situation."

Super delegates who endorsed Obama, like Congressman Ed Perlmutter, have an easy decision in front of them. But those who chose not to endorse either candidate are open to the same scrutiny as Degette. That group includes Governor Bill Ritter, Senator Ken Salazar, and Rep. (and current Senate candidate) Mark Udall.

After such a tremendous turnout in the primaries, it'd be a shame to see an undemocratic process decide the nominee. The voters deserve to have their voices heard -- that's the point of democracy-- and the actions of super delegates across the country will reveal whether or not they agree.

Let's hope those out in Colorado, and elsewhere, do indeed.

A Word of Protest

There are some things you just don't do. You don't pass gas on an elevator. You don't take advantage of a captive audience on the subway and air your grievances with society for all to hear. And, my friends, you do not schedule the Super Bowl and all-important primaries within two days of each other.

Now, I hold the politicians responsible for this. The NFL is a sacred institution and everyone knows that February is when the Super Bowl goes down. Everyone also knows that Super Bowl Sunday is a day that brings America together for tacky commercials, unhealthy food, and beer. Two of those things I just can't get enough of.

Politicians' first commitment is to America, and America had plans on February 3 that they should have considered before making February 5 the day that every person with a notebook and pen would have to burn the midnight oil. As a citizen first and a journalist second, I was appalled at the irresponsibility of our leaders. Didn't they consider how much they were asking of the average American? Super Bowl Sunday is a very taxing day that requires at least one day of preparation and one day, at the absolute minimum, of recovery.

I went to the Giants parade on Tuesday. Let me tell you, many, maybe hundreds, maybe thousands, of the Big Blue fans in attendance were in no condition to vote. It seemed that celebrating the biggest upset in football history took priority over exercising their solemn duty as citizens of the US and A. Many of them would have excelled in a hollering contest, but voting? That's asking too much.

On Super Bowl Sunday 93,150,000 people tuned in. On Super Tuesday 22,992,844 people went to the polls. I'll bet you money if many potential voters hadn't been lethargic due to the weight of having tackled a pound of seven layer dip, 25 hot wings, and a six pack of Bud those turnout numbers would have been a bit higher. Politicians, take note.