Monday, October 12, 2015


A ‘Star Trek’ Dream, Spread From Upstate New York NY TIMES

Photo
James Cawley on the bridge of a Starship Enterprise replica at a studio in Ticonderoga, N.Y.
Credit
Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times
The action might have once unfolded at Desilu Studios in Hollywood, where the original “Star Trek” series was filmed, but it happened in a former dollar store on the main street of this upstate town, best known for its 18th century stone fort where a part of the Revolutionary War was contested over 200 years ago.
It was a sequence for “Star Trek: New Voyages,” a project inspired by the childhood passion that James Cawley, the show’s executive producer, had for the 1960s science-fiction television series. Episodes, which are only available online, feature a handful of professional actors in lead roles (including Brian Gross as Kirk and Brandon Stacy as Spock) and volunteers who do whatever is needed to keep the spirit of Star Trek alive. George Takei, the actor who played Sulu in the original series, made a cameo appearance in an episode titled “World Enough and Time.”
Photo
The studio in Ticonderoga, N.Y., where Mr. Cawley is producing an unofficial “Star Trek” series. 
Credit
Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times
“People come from all over the world to take part in this — Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia and every state in the union,” said Mr. Cawley, a Ticonderoga native, who also happens to have a national following as an Elvis Presley tribute artist. “That’s the magic of Star Trek. It’s spawned this whole generation of fans who went on to professional careers — doctors, lawyers, engineers — who are now participating in that shared love here.”
Mr. Cawley founded a nonprofit 12 years ago to create the series. It was produced in two smaller spaces before moving last year into a studio inside the old Family Dollar store, where an inaugural episode was shot in early summer. “It’s basically a big Star Trek fan club,” he said. “It gives people a chance to work on the show and be on the show. Episodes are basically crowdfunded, crowdsourced for the fans, by the fans.”
Mr. Cawley’s sets are careful replicas of those used for the original series, including the transporter room (“Scotty, beam us up”), captain’s bridge — where Kirk guided the Enterprise to bold new worlds — and the sick bay, where Dr. Leonard McCoy treated ill crew members.
“This is James’s sandbox,” said Mike Powers, a mechanic at a local Chevrolet dealership who volunteers at the studio. “He just kind of lets us play in it.”
“Star Trek” was first broadcast on NBC, but the rights to the show are now owned by CBS. The Ticonderoga studio steers away from copyright issues by not charging people to view the episodes, Mr. Cawley said.
But this is no amateur show.
Photo
Signed photos of cast members from the original series.
Credit
Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times
One of the contributing writers and producers is David Gerrold, who wrote “The Trouble With Tribbles,” one of the most popular episodes of the original series. Mr. Gerrold said Ticonderoga’s quiet atmosphere minimizes distractions, while providing a pleasant destination for actors and studio workers.
“Having the sets in a small town keeps them away from casual curiosity-seekers and gives the production crew the privacy necessary to film an episode,” he said. “I am most impressed by the enthusiasm, the commitment, and the spirit of everyone who volunteers just for the fun of working their butt off. That’s what makes it special.”
An episode filmed this summer, called “Tormented Destiny,” is currently in postproduction and is scheduled for release after Christmas. Plans call for filming the next show, which will take about 10 days, later this month.
In addition to studio productions, Mr. Cawley organized a first-ever “Trekonderoga” convention over Labor Day weekend, where fans rubbed shoulders with actors who made guest appearances or had roles on early Star Trek episodes, including Sally Kellerman, Sean Kenney, BarBara Luna, Don Marshall and Louise Sorel.
“Star Trek,” created and produced by Gene Roddenberry, aired from 1966-69 — a time marked by race riots, Vietnam War protests and the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy.
Against this backdrop, the show offered viewers hope for a better world, which helps explain its enduring popularity. Many grandchildren of 1960s “Trekkies” are now fans, Mr. Gerrold said.
Photo
The sick bay on the Starship Enterprise set of “Star Trek: New Voyages” in Ticonderoga, N.Y. 
Credit
Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times
“ ‘Star Trek’ has become the iconic view of the future because it’s an optimistic view,” he said. “It says that we, as a species, can be both rational and passionate and build a world that works for all of us, with no one left out. That inclusive promise inspires everyone.”
It is a theme reflected in Capt. Kirk’s multicultural crew. The main characters — in addition to Spock, who had a Vulcan father and a human mother, and Sulu, a helmsman of Asian descent — included a Russian-born ensign, Pavel Chekov, and Lt. Nyota Uhura, a black woman.
“We were exploring ideas, big ones, like what does it mean to be a human being?” Mr. Gerrold said. “We weren’t there to defeat villains, but to make friends with them so we would never have to fight again.”
Mr. Kenney, the actor who portrayed Capt. Christopher Pike in four episodes in the original series, said the show’s story lines were a significant departure from other intergalactic shows like “Lost in Space” and “Buck Rogers.”
“Before ‘Star Trek,’ nobody had ever touched subjects like greed and war in a space-related show,” he said. “It was historically a really giant leap.”
That’s why Ticonderoga, symbolically, is the right setting for “New Voyages,” Mr. Kenney said.
Photo
Costumes at the studio, where almost all of the cast and crew are volunteers.
Credit
Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times
In May 1775, a band of American rebels captured Fort Ticonderoga from the British, and in 1776 cannons from the fort were used to force the British to evacuate Boston. The fort was captured by the British in 1759 during the French and Indian War.
“People know the name Ticonderoga,” Mr. Kenney said. “It’s part of the foundation of America’s freedom. It represents a turning point in history. ‘Star Trek’ was the freeing of an old idea, too. It showed that space is attainable, that it isn’t this scary dangerous place with monsters lurking everywhere. ‘Star Trek’ depicts a turning point in how we can get along in space, and the present day.”
The “Trekonderoga” convention, in addition to set tours and autograph sessions, had numerous workshops and demonstrations, including “Makeup for Films and Media,” “Sets and Lighting” and “Creating Creatures on a Budget.”
Bill Garrison of Ithaca, N.Y., dressed as a Klingon, the fierce warrior tribe from the original series, for the event. “I’ve been following their productions on YouTube,” he said. “When I heard they were having a convention I said, ‘I’ve got to go.’ The sets are amazing, so realistic. You don’t get to sit in the captain’s chair anywhere else.”
Mr. Cawley, 49, was not quite old enough to watch “Star Trek” during its run on NBC. He became a fan after it was syndicated and watched reruns as a young child on WPIX in New York. “It was on two or three times a day,” he said. “I knew the lines forward and backward.”
“I always wanted to be Captain Kirk, the cool guy in charge,” Mr. Cawley said, smiling. “He got the girl, the whole nine yards.”
Mr. Cawley will turn 50 next year, as will the original “Star Trek” series. The show’s anniversary will likely generate plenty of nostalgia, but Mr. Cawley said he is focused on the show’s future. “It’s a tomorrow we can all buy into,” he said. “We’re going to go where no man has gone before. There are a lot of stories still to tell, always something that needs to be talked about. The universe is a pretty big place.”

Friday, October 09, 2015


An Armed Robber Finds an Easy Target Down Under the Plaza

By MICHAEL WILSON NY TIMES

No one at William Greenberg Desserts remembers seeing him come or go. Same with Billy’s Bakery and the Lady M Cake Boutique.

A waitress at the bistro Vin Sur Vingt didn’t even learn about what had happened here, one floor beneath the Plaza Hotel, until the next day. And three days after the fact, two servers at Olma Caviar Boutique and Bar said it was the first they were hearing of it.

These and some two dozen other purveyors of fine food are encamped in the Plaza Hotel Food Hall, a humming, high-end bazaar below street level at the historic building on Central Park South. Everything from a $410 dish of beluga caviar to the humble black-and-white cookie (if one allows for humbleness in a $3.50 black-and-white) can be found in this labyrinth — even another food hall within the food hall.
One outlet offers no food. It is that one that an armed robber quietly struck on Monday morning, committing a crime remarkable not only for its brazenness and ease, but also for its particular setting and circumstances, none of which was an accident.
The robber had done his research. At least twice in recent weeks, he had visited foreign currency exchanges, Lt. Marco Gonzalez of the Midtown North detective squad said on Friday as he stood in the food hall. Both times, Lieutenant Gonzalez said, the man had inquired about converting American dollars to euros. Both times, he had changed his mind and left empty-handed. And both times, he was facing a clerk standing behind a bulletproof-glass partition.

This time would be different.

It was about 11 a.m. on Monday when the suspect, tall, buttoned-up in a dark cardigan and wearing thick eyeglasses, entered the hotel through the door to the Oak Room, opposite the southern edge of Central Park and the clopping of passing horse-drawn carriages. He walked past a row of large photographs of celebrities — the Beatles, Sinatra, Marilyn — and descended the stairs to the food hall.

The robber then seems to have found a blind spot, undetected by the food hall’s video cameras, which detectives have examined. Did he eat? Unknown.

“We lose him for six minutes,” Lieutenant Gonzalez said.

The lunch rush was already starting at 11 a.m. Depending on his route, the robber may have strolled past a dozen or more booths and counters and sit-down nooks filling with tourists and hotel guests and office workers in suits.

“It’s busy then,” said Eva Haynes, a counter attendant at Greenberg’s, which is known for its black-and-whites. “You blend right in.”

After his six-minute sojourn through the hall, roughly the length of a city block, the robber arrived at the Travelex Currency Services office. It is unique in the Midtown Manhattan constellation of currency exchanges in a way that, for the robber, was perfect.

The Travelex office had no partition, bulletproof or otherwise. Just a desk, with a woman seated behind it. The man sat and asked for $500 in euros, and the woman opened a drawer and pulled out a box of cash in various currencies, including dollars. She had begun counting out euros when the robber pulled a pistol from an envelope he was carrying and demanded them all. She dropped them on the desk, and he scooped them, one-handed, into the envelope.

The woman screamed.

“Five guests are visible on the video, taking note,” Lieutenant Gonzalez said. The man calmly stood and walked past them, to an escalator where a security officer normally stands, riding up to a row of high-end shops — the jeweler Misahara, the perfumer Krigler — and beneath a chandelier and then walking out a revolving door onto West 58th Street, where he turned east, toward Fifth Avenue, and disappeared. He had opened the cardigan along the way, fanning it, exposing a dress shirt and necktie.

“Cool as a cucumber,” Lieutenant Gonzalez said. “There are aspects of the crime that are more organized than the act itself.” The police have distributed a picture of the suspect to other currency exchanges in the area, as well as to hotels where desk clerks keep small amounts of foreign cash on hand as a courtesy to guests.

The distance from the drawer of cash to the exit, and the sheer number of potential witnesses and heroes between the two, did not appear to give the man pause.

“No one in the area even noticed it until the police started showing up,” a clerk at Billy’s Bakery said. “They started, like, guarding the door.” By then, it was too late, and the man and 4,635 euros were gone.

“It didn’t stop the flow of traffic,” Ms. Haynes of Greenberg’s said. “People still buy cookies.”

Thursday, October 08, 2015

Photo
Credit
Gary Panter
Locating the best of times within the worst of times is no mean trick, especially in a historical novel where the history is recent enough that many readers remember firsthand just how bad those times were. That’s the delicate and ultimately moving balancing act that Garth Risk Hallberg pulls off in “City on Fire,” his ­Dickens-size descent into New York City circa 1976-77. Surveying a landscape that stretches from the smoldering South Bronx to the rubble-strewn vacant lots of Hell’s Kitchen to the spaced-out melee of Alphabet City, Hallberg doesn’t shortchange the era’s squalor. The thickets of graffiti are omnipresent; the detritus of drugs is underfoot; “Ford to City: Drop Dead” is on the front page. Yet humanity keeps bubbling up amid the ruins.
“Budget cuts and crime and unemployment had brutalized the city, and you could feel on the street this sense of soured anarchy, of failed utopia,” one of his characters reminisces some years later. “But as sad as it was, it was in many ways the ideal playground for ninth graders with preoccupied families and fake IDs. You could go hear the early rap records or the late New Wave ones or the thing disco was becoming at unlicensed clubs where black and brown and white and gay and straight still mixed openly.” Hallberg’s cross section of New Yorkers runs the gamut in generation, class, race and sexuality, but the city is at once playground and hellhole for most of them. The muchness of its muchness, defined by the boundary-breaking artistic revolution raging downtown no less than the fires raging some 150 blocks to the north, is pulsing through this book’s ­pages as insistently as its Patti Smith/Donna Summer playlist.
Whatever their age, more than a few of the major characters of “City on Fire” are lost kids in flight from their parents. The most lost, and surely the most magnetic, is William Stuart Althorp Hamilton-­Sweeney III, the wastrel heir of “those Hamilton-Sweeneys,” a family whose ruthlessly maintained wealth and power are apotheosized in a Midtown office tower bearing its name. A boarding school washout, William had earned notoriety as Billy Three-Sticks, the frontman for an early punk band, Ex Post Facto, that produced a single legendary album. As we first meet him at age 33, at the tail end of the Bicentennial, he is juggling a heroin addiction, a stormy domestic relationship with a 24-year-old male lover and an obsession with making a Great American Painting. When a young woman comes upon William’s unfinished magnum opus in his clandestine Bronx studio, she is astonished to find that it’s nothing less than an attempt “to recreate the face of the entire city” on canvas. “She couldn’t tell if it was good, exactly,” Hallberg writes, “but no one could say it wasn’t ambitious.”
The question of whether “City on Fire” is good does not lend itself to a glib answer. But no one can say it isn’t ambitious, and exceptionally so for a first novel. Hallberg devotes more than 900 pages to his own effort to recreate the face of an entire city in all its confounding complexity, complete with collagelike inserts replicating a coffee-stained manuscript by one character and the dense East Village zines of another. His talent is as conspicuous as the book’s heft. There’s rarely a less than finely honed sentence or a moment when you don’t feel that a sophisticated intelligence is at work. Hallberg expertly manages the gear-shifting of multiple narratives and time frames (some back stories date to 1960) while keeping his present-tense New York in sharp relief.
Even so, there are some real lulls along the way; not all of the characters earn the swaths of pages they receive. There are also passages of true beauty, none more so than the nearly 150-page climax, where “City on Fire” plunges into the Great New York Blackout of July 1977 on a scale worthy of “Cecil B. DeMille, or that Soviet version of ‘War and Peace’ ” (as one witness observes of the outage). It’s a tour de force of narrative crosscutting and chiaroscuro scene-painting reminiscent of the infernal Hollywood riot, the figurative “Burning of Los Angeles,” that caps Nathanael West’s “The Day of the Locust.” But unlike the embittered serfs of West’s Depression-era Hollywood, the lost souls of Hallberg’s bankrupt New York rise above the chaos, arson and looting, as if a short-circuited urban jungle could cast a transformative spell akin to Shakespeare’s Forest of Arden. Intentionally or not, Hallberg’s generous vision of the blackout feels like a premonition of Sept. 11, when another cross section of New Yorkers behaved in unexpected ways as their city threatened to go down.
He achieves that generosity without sentimentalizing or sanitizing the underlying reality. As subsequent history tells us, and as Hallberg underscores in his own denouement, the New York of “City on Fire” is fated to remain rigidly divided by class, ruled by big money and impervious to lasting reform. While Hallberg’s blackout may recall Don DeLillo’s deployment of the 1965 blackout in his sweeping historical phantasmagoria “Underworld,” his book has more in common with Tom Wolfe’s more didactic “Bonfire of the Vanities,” set a decade after “City on Fire.” Hallberg shares much of Wolfe’s pessimism about the immutability of the pecking order in a modern metropolis where every downturn, however ominous, is inevitably followed by another Gilded Age in which the old order reasserts itself. Not for nothing do Wolfe and Hallberg both provide deliciously malignant set pieces portraying upper-crust soirees as vulgar variations on “The Masque of the Red Death.” In their late-20th-century Gotham, the developers always win, papering over the city’s latest scar tissue under the guise of urban renewal. Even AIDS can be commoditized by the cultural marketplace. Like Wolfe, Hallberg does offer some underclass challengers to the status quo — post-1960s white radicals in lieu of the black activists of “Bonfire.” Under the sway of a fatuous nihilist known as Nicky Chaos, punksters from Billy Three-Sticks’s old circle have formed an anarchist cell with terrorist aspirations, the Post-­Humanist Phalanx, in an East Third Street squat. But they are doomed to be outwitted and co-opted by the very ­f­orces they hope to overthrow. As one of their generational peers wisecracks, “The reason we can say anything we want in America is that we know it makes no difference.”
Beyond the echo in their titles and the overlap in their dyspeptic worldviews, there is an aesthetic kinship between “City on Fire” and “Bonfire.” As Wolfe announced his intention to revive the epic 19th-century social novel — in his case by injecting his journalistic investigations of the Way We Live Now into a fictional framework — so Hallberg seems inclined to play Dickens to Wolfe’s Trollope by building his own “Bleak House.” William’s lover, Mercer Goodman, an African-­American refugee from the Georgia provinces, has come to Manhattan to teach sophomore English to the preppies at the Wenceslas-Mockingbird School for Girls while taking a stab at a Great American Novel rivaling William’s art project. When, in one of many bouts of procrastination, he daydreams about sitting for a Paris Review interview, his imaginary interlocutor notes that he is bucking his generation’s “minimalist” vogue in fiction. Mercer pleads guilty: “I wanted to explore again the old idea that the novel might, you know, teach us about something. About everything.”
Photo
Garth Risk Hallberg 
Credit
Mark Vessey
Hallberg is the natural novelist that Wolfe was not. Nearly 30 years on, what remains indelible in “Bonfire” is its Hogarthian depiction of the pandemonium of racial polarization, the dead-on skewering of Wall Street’s “masters of the universe” and their women’s auxiliary, the “social X-rays,” as well as the undying caricature of a nominally disguised Al Sharpton. The Wolfe characters who lack a roman à clef provenance, the more generic figures in his page-turning plot, have washed away with time. By contrast, Hallberg often dispenses with the dictates of journalism to burrow into the psychic and familial underpinnings of his characters in a Franzenesque, if not Dickensian, manner. (Humor is generally not part of Hallberg’s arsenal, in this book at least.) Though “City on Fire” draws on journalistic ­accounts — Jonathan Mahler’s “Ladies and Gentlemen, the Bronx Is Burning” is among the acknowledged sources — ­Hallberg does not feel any obligation to revisit the Koch-­Cuomo-Abzug mayoralty race or the equally heated adventures of the Reggie Jackson Yankees. Son of Sam gets a name check but is shoved into the shadows so that “City on Fire” can construct its own fictional plot out of the unsolved New Year’s Eve shooting of a New York University freshman in Central Park by a rumored “Kneesocks Killer.” The marathon vigil at the comatose girl’s bedside at Beth Israel becomes the flickering star around which most of the major characters orbit.
And why not? By sticking to his own literary terms, Hallberg delivers a fresh vision of New York that is more dream­scape than reportage. (Or perhaps cinemascape: The characters have seen “The French Connection” and “Taxi Driver,” and at times seem to be re-enacting chunks of them.) And as gorgeously realized as the backdrops are, there are also some characters who, like William, can hold their own against it all — most notably, Charlie Weisbarger, a nerdy asthmatic with messianic ambitions, and Samantha Cicciaro, a budding Bohemian artiste, 17-year-olds from middle-class Long Island who have stolen away to the big city to reinvent themselves, with both tragic and heroic results.
Nonetheless, “City on Fire” is burdened with its own share of characters who either conform to type or are undernourished. William’s sister, Regan, a smart Vassar girl of the pre-Friedan era who settled for less in marriage and in career, seems a hand-me-down from “The Group” and its progeny (including “Mad Men”); her faithless husband, Keith Lamplighter, a slick money manager who places a bad bet on municipal bonds and an even worse one on an extramarital affair, is cut from the same Brooks Brothers cloth as Wolfe’s Wall Street bond salesman, Sherman McCoy. Among the other stock figures are a ­zeitgeist-seeking New Journalist with a professional résumé that mirrors Wolfe’s (but whose writing style is a pastiche of Gay Talese and J. Anthony Lukas); a seen-it-all New York police detective taking on one last big case before retirement; and William’s mentor in culture and homosexuality, a drawing-teacher-turned-art-dealer named Bruno Augenblick who looks “like a less jolly Michel Foucault” but sounds like Mel Brooks’s Roger De Bris if he’d ended up selling paintings in SoHo. (“As ever, William, your way of seeing the world is sui generis,” Bruno purrs to his young protégé.) None of these characters ever say a line of dialogue you don’t expect them to say. And much as Hallberg tries to mix up his melting pot, his black, Jewish and Vietnamese-­American characters more often than not seem lightly sketched from the outside in.
These cogs do gum up the works. So, occasionally, does the more showy writing. To take one small but representative example, when Hallberg writes that “the click of the conductor’s ticket punch” is “a tiny, elegant noise, like a beak stabbing at a tree,” you find yourself appreciating the craft even as you question its relevance to any task at hand. An editor should have saved Hallberg from such advertisements for himself, as well as from his tendency to hammer in motifs, notably those involving fire and fireworks, and his overuse of chance discoveries of buried evidence to keep the Central Park murder case on a low boil. Someone should have caught the occasional factual errors (the location of Needle Park) and linguistic anachronisms (“wintry mix”).
But this is a first novel, after all, and there is much to savor, and much that lingers, for those who stick with it. In the end it is the largeness of Hallberg’s spirit rather than the size of his sometimes patchy canvas that matters most anyway. “City on Fire” may not be as good as it is ambitious, but in the tradition of other precocious New York debuts since time immemorial, it is radiant with the possibility that its author will do something great.

CITY ON FIRE

By Garth Risk Hallberg
Illustrated. 911 pp. Alfred A. Knopf. $30.

Thursday, October 01, 2015


Vladimir Putin’s Guide to World History

Masha Gessen NY Times

Vladimir V. Putin came to the United Nations General Assembly on Monday to demand that Russia be taken seriously and treated as an equal partner by the world’s great powers. In preparation for his visit, Russia in recent weeks has expanded its military presence in Syria, kept quiet in Ukraine, and even stepped back from its domestic antigay campaign — all in the hopes of reclaiming its place at the table.

The Kremlin ultimately succeeded in convincing President Obama to meet with Mr. Putin. But more than anything else, the Russian president succeeded in New York in laying out his worldview for all to hear. He did so earnestly, rarely raising his eyes from his prepared text. After speaking for over 20 minutes, he sat down, his legs uncharacteristically close together. As he waited for the customary round of handshakes to commence, he bit his lip and fidgeted with his watch.

The biggest and most dangerous enemy in Mr. Putin’s world is the United States. So sinister is this enemy that its name cannot be uttered: His speech criticized U.S. behavior without naming the country, referring to the Americans as “those who created the situation” in Syria, and as outsiders who provoked an armed coup in Ukraine.

According to Mr. Putin’s reading of history — in which Russia was instrumental in creating a participatory world order that the United States subsequently flouted — these descriptions make sense. He claimed that the United Nations was founded at the 1945 Yalta Conference, a momentous event that occurred “in our country,” on the Crimean Peninsula. 

This is a highly selective version of events: the United Nations actually traces its founding to an agreement signed by representatives of 14 governments on June 12, 1941, when the Soviet Union was still an ally of Nazi Germany. In any event, the United Nations does not recognize Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, so Mr. Putin’s reference to “our country” was off base — unless he meant to position himself as a representative of the Soviet Union.
Continuing in this vein, the Russian president criticized the lopsided geopolitics that emerged with the end of the Cold War, when a certain country came to think itself all-powerful. Without naming names, Mr. Putin pointed a finger at “those who wound up at the top,” who thought that because they were “strong and exceptional” they “knew better” than anyone else and could ignore the U.N., which just “gets in the way.”

In his view, America’s sense of exceptionalism, and its resulting export of “so-called democratic” revolutions that cause chaos and violence, threatens the U.N.-protected world order. True, the Soviet Union made similar mistakes, Mr. Putin noted — but the (still unnamed) United States should have learned from the Soviet past. Sadly, he concludes, it has not.

Here Mr. Putin drew a rare distinction between contemporary Russia and the Soviet Union. Though Russia has bitten off territory from two of its neighbors — Ukraine and Georgia — and actively supported radical opposition in several European countries, Russia does not view itself as expansionist, according to Mr. Putin. Its ideology is grounded in the idea of a clash of civilizations — one of “traditional values” vs. the West — and Russia merely strives to protect the former.

In his interpretation, the United States is the expansionist power. “First they pursued the policy of expanding NATO,” Mr. Putin said, now referring to the enemy as “our colleagues.” He said it was this “logic of confrontation” that produced “a major geopolitical crisis” in Ukraine, where “the fact that a large part of the population was unhappy with the current administration” was exploited to incite an armed struggle. Ultimately, he said, that crisis — which he termed a “civil war” — was the result of a coup “orchestrated from outside.”

As Mr. Putin sees it, that’s what happened in Syria as well: America sided with the protesters who took to the streets in 2011, and this inevitably led to chaos. “I almost want to ask those who started it, ‘Now do you understand what you’ve done?”’ said Mr. Putin. “But I’m afraid this question will go unanswered because they are sticking with a politics based on overconfidence, exceptionalism and the certainty of impunity.”

The way to deal with Syria and the refugee crisis, he said, is to support “the legitimate government of Syria,” by which he meant the Assad regime. Here again he was articulating his own position in the approaching negotiations with Mr. Obama. Mr. Putin firmly believes that the United States was behind both the 2011 Syrian uprising and the months of protests that erupted in Ukraine in late 2013, and that this has led to catastrophe. He also believes that America backed those who protested in Moscow and elsewhere in Russia in the winter of 2011, and that only his own firm hand has averted a similar fate in his country.

In the end, Mr. Putin proposed creating an international antiterrorist coalition that could, “like the anti-Hitler coalition, bring together a broad range” of forces — including the Syrian government — to fight the Islamic State. This return to the World War II theme served not only to remind the General Assembly of the U.N.’s origins, but underlined the fact that, historically, the fight against a greater evil has compelled nations to set aside their differences. In his scenario, the fight against ISIS is a good reason to stop talking about Ukraine.

Before joining the anti-Hitler coalition in 1941, the Soviet Union had annexed parts of Finland and Poland, and all of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. At Yalta, the world’s leaders agreed to let Stalin keep all that and exercise his dominance over Eastern Europe. For its part in defeating Hitler, the Soviet Union’s reward was becoming a superpower. Mr. Putin is determined to have Russia again acknowledged as a superpower, at least equal to America in deciding the fate of a country like Syria. In the name of fighting ISIS, Russia wants the West to let it continue carving up Ukraine and flex its muscles over much of Eurasia. In Mr. Putin’s speech, and in his mind, this would be not only logical but plainly right.

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Syria, Obama and Putin

Thomas L. Friedman NY TIMES

Your Honor, I rise again in defense of President Barack Obama’s policy on Syria.
Obama has been right in his ambivalence about getting deeply involved in Syria. But he’s never had the courage of his own ambivalence to spell out his reasoning to the American people. He keeps letting himself get pummeled into doing and saying things that his gut tells him won’t work, so he gets the worst of all worlds: His rhetoric exceeds the policy, and the policy doesn’t work.

Meanwhile, Obama’s Republican critics totally lack the wisdom of our own experience. They blithely advocate “fire, ready, aim” in Syria without any reason to believe their approach will work there any better than it did for us in Iraq or Libya. People who don’t know how to fix inner-city Baltimore think they know how to rescue downtown Aleppo — from the air!
Personally, I’ll take the leader who lacks the courage of his own ambivalence over the critics who lack the wisdom of their own experience. But ambivalence is not a license to do nothing. We can do things that make a difference, but only if we look at our enemies and allies in Syria with clear eyes.

For instance, today’s reigning cliché is that the wily fox, President Vladimir Putin of Russia, has once again outmaneuvered the flat-footed Americans, by deploying some troops, planes and tanks to Syria to buttress the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and to fight the Islamic State forces threatening him. If only we had a president who was so daring, so tough, so smart.

Really? Well think about this: Let’s say the U.S. did nothing right now, and just let Putin start bombing ISIS and bolstering Assad. How long before every Sunni Muslim in the Middle East, not to mention every jihadist, has Putin’s picture in a bull’s eye on his cellphone?
The Sunni Muslims are the vast majority in Syria. They are the dominant sect in the Arab world. Putin and Russia would be seen as going all-in to protect Assad, a pro-Iranian, Alawite/Shiite genocidal war criminal. Putin would alienate the entire Sunni Muslim world, including Russian Muslims.

Moreover, let’s say by some miracle the Russians defeat ISIS. The only way to keep them defeated is by replacing them with moderate Sunnis. Which moderate Sunnis are going to align with Russia while Putin is seen as the prime defender of the barrel-bombing murderer of more Sunnis than anyone on the planet, Bashar al-Assad?

Putin stupidly went into Syria looking for a cheap sugar high to show his people that Russia is still a world power. Well, now he’s up a tree. Obama and John Kerry should just leave him up there for a month — him and Assad, fighting ISIS alone — and watch him become public enemy No. 1 in the Sunni Muslim world. “Yo, Vladimir, how’s that working for you?”

The only way Putin can get down from that tree is with our help in forging a political solution in Syria. And that only happens if the Russians and the Iranians force Assad — after a transition — to step down and leave the country, in return for the opposition agreeing to protect the basic safety and interests of Assad’s Alawite community, and both sides welcoming an international force on the ground to guarantee the deal.

But to get there we need to size our rhetoric with our interests in Syria as well. Our interests right now are to eliminate or contain the two biggest metastasizing threats: ISIS — whose growth can threaten the islands of decency in the region like Lebanon, the Kurds and Jordan — and the tragedy of Syrian refugees, whose numbers are growing so large they are swamping Lebanon and Jordan and, if they continue, could destabilize the European Union, our vital partner in the world.
If we want something better — multisectarian democracy in Syria soon — we would have to go in and build it ourselves. The notion that it would only take arming more Syrian moderates is insane.

During the weekend The Times reported that “nearly 30,000 foreign fighters have traveled to Iraq and Syria from more than 100 countries since 2011.” So 30,000 people have gone to Syria to join ISIS to promote jihad and a caliphate. How many Arabs and Muslims have walked to Syria to promote multisectarian democracy? Apparently zero.

Why do we have to search for moderates like a man with a dowsing rod looking for water, and then train them, while no one has to train the jihadists, who flock there? It’s because the jihadists are in the grip of ideals, albeit warped ones. There is no critical mass of Syrian moderates in the grip of ideals; they will fight for their own homes and families, but not for an abstract ideal like democracy. We try to make up for that with military “training,” but it never works.

Are there real democrats among the Syrian opposition? You bet, but not enough, not with the organization, motivation and ruthlessness of their opponents.

Everyone wants an immaculate intervention in Syria, one where you look like you’re doing something, but without the political cost of putting troops on the ground or having to make unpleasant compromises with unsavory people. There is no such option.

I think Putin’s rash rush into Syria may in the end make him more in need of a deal, or at least a lasting cease-fire, that stops the refugee flows. If we can do that, for now, we will have done a lot.

Friday, September 25, 2015

What Can ‘Star Trek’ Teach Us About American Exceptionalism?

The quintessentially American urge “to boldly go,” regardless of consequence, has gotten humanity into a heap of trouble.

By John Feffer The Nation

They were the “best and the brightest,” but on a spaceship, not planet Earth, and they exemplified the liberal optimism of their era. The original Star Trek, whose three-year TV run began in 1966, featured a talented, multiethnic crew. The indomitable Captain Kirk had the can-do sex appeal of a Kennedy; his chief adviser, the half-human, half-Vulcan Mr. Spock, offered the cool rationality of that “IBM machine with legs,” then–Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. And the USS Enterprise, on a mission “to boldly go where no man has gone before,” pursued a seemingly benign anthropological interest in seeking out, engaging with, and trying to understand the native populations of a fascinating variety of distant worlds.

The “prime directive,” designed to govern the conduct of Kirk and his crew on their episodic journey, required non-interference in the workings of alien civilizations. This approach mirrored the evolving anti-war sympathies of series creator Gene Roddenberry and many of the show’s scriptwriters. The Vietnam War, which raged through the years of its initial run, was then demonstrating to more and more Americans the folly of trying to reengineer a society distant both geographically and culturally. The best and the brightest, on Earth as on the Enterprise, began to have second thoughts in the mid-1960s about such hubris.

Even as they deliberately linked violent terrestrial interventions with celestial ones, however, the makers of Star Trek never questioned the most basic premise of a series that would delight fans for decades, spawning endless TV and movie sequels. Might it not have been better for the universe as a whole if the Enterprise had never left Earth in the first place and if Earth hadn’t meddled in matters beyond its own solar system?

As our country contemplates future military interventions, as well as ambitious efforts to someday colonize other planets, Americans would be smart to address this fundamental question. Might our inexhaustible capacity for interfering in far-flung places be a sign not of a dynamic civilization, but of a fatal flaw—for the country, the international community, and the species as a whole?

THE ORANGE ZONE
The United States has never had much use for a precautionary prime directive. It has interfered with “alien” societies at a remarkable clip ever since the late 19th century. Indeed, such interference is inscribed in the genetic code of the country, for America is the product of the massive disruption and eradication of an already existing native population. Columbus also boldly went where no (European) man had gone before, and we recapitulate his voyage every time we send the Marines to a foreign shore or our drones into foreign air space. Native Americans didn’t need “discovering” or new infectious diseases any more than Iraqis needed lectures about democracy from neoconservatives.

Despite considerable evidence of just how malign our recent interventions have proven to be—in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere—the US government continues to contemplate military missions. Iran is, for the moment, off the hook, and so is Cuba. Washington has also repeatedly emphasized that North Korea is not in the crosshairs, though our aggressive military posture in East Asia might suggest otherwise, particularly to the paranoid leadership in Pyongyang.

But even the diplomacy-friendly Obama administration is still wedded to the use of drones in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Yemen, not to mention a new secret program in Syria. It has dispatched Special Forces to 150 countries. And it has conducted, along with its coalition allies, more than 5,000 airstrikes against the Islamic State. US troops remain in significant numbers in Afghanistan (9,800) and Iraq (3,500). Hundreds of US military bases, with around 150,000 service personnel deployed on them, gird the globe.
These military actions have remapped the world—and not in a good way. America’s post-9/11 invasions, attacks, and occupations have created a crescent of crisis that stretches from Afghanistan across the Middle East and into Africa. Fragile states, like Somalia and Yemen, have been thrown into desperate chaos. Syria and Iraq have become incubators for the most virulent strains of extremism. And authoritarian leaders in Egypt and the Gulf states are using this turmoil to justify their own iron-fist policies.

Even the recent refugee crisis, the most significant since the end of World War II, can be traced back to the Bush administration’s military responses to September 11. For many years, Afghanistan was the leading exporter of refugees to the world, with Iraq a close second. Today, the leading source of refugees is Syria. Although the United States hasn’t invaded that country, it has meddled there nonetheless, initially to depose Bashar al-Assad and then to “degrade” the Islamic State and its affiliates. In the 21st century, America’s efforts to reengineer societies across the planet are ending up just as badly as its 20th-century fiasco in Southeast Asia.

Meanwhile, the impulse to “boldly go” is no longer restricted to neocolonial interventionism or military adventurism. There is now growing enthusiasm for sending an expeditionary force beyond Earth. Several competing initiatives aim to begin the colonization of Mars, in part to provide humanity with an alternative should global warming make planet Earth inhospitable to human life. These extraterrestrial efforts reflect a growing anxiety that the end is nigh, at least for the home team.
Indeed, many writers (not to speak of scientists) have postulated that Earth is reaching a tipping point. Whether as a function of nuclear weapons, carbon emissions, or sheer reproductive fervor, humans seem to be approaching an important threshold in our life on the planet.

Let’s call it the Orange Zone, in honor of the erstwhile terrorism color index. For the last half-century or so, humans have had the capacity to blow up the planet with our nuclear toys. We have also been burning up fossil fuels at a remarkable and increasing rate in a burst of economic activity that has brought us to the brink of irreparably destroying the ecosystem. And we have reproduced so successfully that, like voracious locusts, we threaten to outstripthe planet’s capacity to feed us.
If we can figure out how to lower the threat alert and leave the Orange Zone, we will have passed the civilizational test. Once we put away our childish things—our nuclear weapons, our coal-fired power plants, our religious prohibitions against contraception—we can graduate to the next level of planetary consciousness. Otherwise, we flunk out. And there won’t be any make-up summer school credits available.

There may, in fact, be an even more fundamental test than the nuclear, carbon, or demographic challenges. And that’s the human propensity for intervention—across borders, over seas, and potentially even in outer space. That Star Trek urge “to boldly go,” obeying the prime directive or not, has gotten humanity into a heap of trouble. Establishing outposts in far-off lands is often considered the ultimate American insurance policy, but it’s precisely our predilection for getting mixed up in other people’s messes that has distracted us from fixing our own. The focus on setting up a colony on Mars, instead of getting serious about climate change on Earth, is the functional equivalent of devoting close to a trillion dollars a year to the US military instead of using that money to fix all that is broken at home. Talk about an advanced case of attention-deficit disorder.

THE CHINESE WAY
In the 15th century, the Chinese admiral Zheng He took a fleet on seven voyages throughout Asia, to the Middle East, and as far as Africa. He defeated marauding pirates in the vicinity of China and intervened militarily in far-off Ceylon. His huge treasure ships, each one six times larger than Columbus’s Santa Maria, brought back rare items, including a giraffe, for the Chinese emperor. As a diplomat, he established tributary relations with dozens of foreign lands, though not Europe, which was still too backward to attract Chinese interest. Zheng’s last journey, in the early 1430s, took place two decades before Christopher Columbus was even born.

Zheng He’s maritime explorations might have served as the basis for China’s colonial domination of significant parts of the world. But it was not to be. “Shortly after the last voyage of the treasure fleet, the Chinese emperor forbade overseas travel and stopped all building and repair of oceangoing junks,” Louise Levathes has written in When China Ruled the Seas. “Disobedient merchants and seamen were killed, and within a hundred years the greatest navy the world had ever known willed itself into extinction.”

China didn’t entirely turn its back on colonialism. It maintained a tributary system in its Asian backyard. Nor did the Middle Kingdom immediately lose out to a rising Europe, for the Chinese would remain a dominant force for several more centuries. Still, the emperor’s decision to renounce Zheng He and his accomplishments is often identified as a key pivot point in modern history. China effectively decided not to go the way of the Enterprise. It would not “boldly go” into unexplored lands or establish a far-flung colonial empire. Nor did it develop the military means to police such domains.

By the 19th century, it would instead find itself subject to the predations of European colonial powers, which divided up the coastal areas of China as if they were a treasure chest for the taking. More than 100 years of humiliation ensued, followed by a succession of Chinese efforts to regain the wealth and power of dynasties past.

China today is not a military weakling. But it also doesn’t possess the kind of expeditionary power of the United States or even Russia. It has vast commercial interests around the world. But it does not style itself the world’s policeman. During its “soft rise,” China has focused largely on cultivating its own garden—transforming its enormous economy into a global powerhouse. Although it has certainly increased military spending over the last several decades, it does not want to get into the kind of arms race with the United States that doomed the Soviet Union. It has not generally shown itself interested in establishing neocolonial relationships—it has extracted resources from Asia, Africa, and Latin America without installing client states, building military bases, or sending in the equivalent of the special forces—and even its semi-tributary relationship with North Korea generates considerable skepticism in Beijing.

As its economic growth declines from the stratospheric to the merely impressive, however, China may be facing another Zheng He moment. Dramatic economic growth has allowed for double-digit increases in military spending. China is currently modernizing its nuclear arsenal, acquiring more significant air and sea power, and flexing its muscles in territorial disputes with its neighbors. Can Beijing refocus on its economic project, ensuring environmentally sustainable growth at the expense of global ambitions? In other words, will China follow the self-destructive path of other superpowers or will it help lead the planet out of the dreaded Orange Zone?

China could go either way. Chinese hawks worry that if Beijing repeats the emperor’s rejection of Zheng He, foreign powers will again humiliate the Middle Kingdom. And indeed, Beijing certainly might feel the need to acquire even greater force projection capabilities if Washington doesn’t engage it in serious arms-reduction efforts.

THE ESCAPE CLAUSE
The multi-billionaire Elon Musk is not one to rest on his laurels. He’s a product of the dot.com age—he made his first millions with PayPal—and has transformed the electric car into a real contender in the marketplace. He is also betting big on solar energy through his SolarCity venture.

But he has even grander ambitions. Writes Sue Halpern in The New York Review of Books:

While Musk is working to move people away from fossil fuels, betting that the transition to electric vehicles and solar energy will contain the worst effects of global climate change, he is hedging that bet with one that is even more wishful and quixotic. In the event that those terrestrial solutions don’t pan out and civilization is imperiled, Musk is positioning SpaceX to establish a human colony on Mars.

SpaceX  is Musk’s escape clause for the planet. At the moment, SpaceX rockets perform a glorified FedEx function by sending supplies to the International Space Station that NASA and four other international space agencies have been maintaining since 1998. But Musk wants to put people on Mars by 2026, approximately a decade ahead of NASA’s best-case scenario.

Meanwhile, the outfit Mars One, started by Dutch entrepreneur Bas Lansdorp, is winnowing down 100 potential Mars colonists to a final group of 24. These intrepid proto-astronauts plan to shove off for Mars in 2026 as well—on a one-way journey to lay the groundwork for a human colony on the planet. Blue Origin, another private space exploration firm started by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, also aspires to “extend humankind beyond our planet.” The space race once pitted the Cold War superpowers against each other in an effort to prove their technological superiority. Today, the space race is not so much between countries as between the planet’s richest alpha males.

In his influential 1893 essay, “The Significance of the Frontier in American History,” historian Frederick Jackson Turner argued that the American character had been shaped by endlessly “available” lands in the West and the desire to colonize the entire continent. The closing of that frontier at the end of the 19th century coincided with the onset of the American empire and the spread of “American civilization” to purportedly less enlightened corners of the globe. The pent-up energy to “boldly go” had to go somewhere.

We are now witnessing another closing-of-the-frontier moment. There are no longer any unexplored pockets of the world. And the frontier ideology of spreading civilization—or is it mayhem?—has come up hard against the realities of present-day Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the post-Arab Spring political disappointments of Egypt and Libya. It is no surprise, then, that restless spirits like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have identified space as their “final frontier.”

Mars is not inhabited. We won’t be displacing any native populations, nor will we have to debate the finer points of the prime directive in the absence of foreign cultures to interfere with. But don’t be fooled by that. Our intervention on Mars will nonetheless share some of the defects of our terrestrial follies.

“Wherever we go, we’ll take ourselves with us,” environmental journalist Elizabeth Kolbert writes in The New Yorker about the various developing plans to colonize Mars. “Either we’re capable of dealing with the challenges posed by our own intelligence or we’re not. Perhaps the reason we haven’t met any alien beings is that those that survive aren’t the type to go zipping around the galaxy. Maybe they’ve stayed quietly at home, tending their own gardens.”

Perhaps the truly intelligent ones followed in the footsteps of the Chinese emperor: They stopped building ships.

THE SEARCH FOR TERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE
In tandem with the push to colonize Mars, scientists are putting renewed efforts into the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). A new project, Breakthrough Listen, just established with a $100 million budget, will rely on two large radio telescopes to target the nearest one million stars and the 100 galaxies closest to the Milky Way. In a reflection of the growing importance of crowdsourcing, three million people are using their combined computer resources to help analyze all the radio telescope data that is flowing in.

Chances are good—according to the Drake equation’s calculations of habitable planets in the universe—that somebody or something intelligent is indeed out there. But if we can hear them, they can probably hear us, too. And what extraterrestrial intelligence in its right mind would want to contact a species that seemingly worships Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Kardashian?

Whether there’s anything out there or not, trapped as we are in the Orange Zone, we are still heavily involved in the quixotic search for terrestrial intelligence. Scientists continue to await definitive evidence—Stephen Hawking, Toni Morrison, and Yo-Yo Ma aside—that human intelligence is not an oxymoron. After all, what we have traditionally defined as intelligence—a relentless pushing at borders both conceptual and territorial—has led us into the cul-de-sac of impending self-annihilation.

Evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr once argued that human intelligence is itself a lethal mutation that has put the species on a collision course with its own and possibly even the planet’s extinction. We and the planet were, it seems, better off when we were just hunters and gatherers, before someone had the bright idea to rip up the earth, plant seeds, and build cities.

To go boldly forward, humanity will have to redefine intelligent life. That doesn’t mean returning to a nomad’s existence of venison and berries. But it does require a different kind of intelligence to turn one’s back on the treasures that the modern-day equivalent of Zheng He’s ships promise to bring from all corners of the universe. It requires a different kind of intelligence to close one’s ears to the siren song of democracy promotion, terrorism suppression, and market-access preservation. And it requires a different kind of intelligence to focus one’s energies on conserving this planet instead of putting so much time and money into plans to befoul another one.

With each nuclear weapon, jet engine, and space rocket we deploy, we venture further into the Orange Zone, heading blindly, if not boldly, toward the point of no return. Like those would-be Mars explorers, whether we know it or not, we are all on a one-way trip into the unknown, except that our rocket ship is our planet, which we’re about to destroy in a suicide mission before it can ever arrive at a safe and secure place.