Let the hype, not Abu-Jamal, die

Regarding today's top story, "Abu Jamal: New hearing or life term," what seems to be poorly understood by most players (especially Philadelphia's fiery district attorney, Lynne M. Abraham) is that commuting Abu-Jamal's sentence to life in prison would take away his soapbox, end the controversy and allow Daniel Faulkner's widow to finally have closure. 

I know death penalty advocates will balk at this, believing as they do that closure for the families of murder victims can only come through further killing, but this whole saga only reveals the stupidity of capital punishment -- and not for the reasons Abu-Jamal, who is certainly guilty, would want to put forward. How has the international attention paid to Abu-Jamal, his being held up as a symbol of a flawed legal system, been helpful to Maureen Faulkner? Why has the state of Pennsylvania persisted in enabling the Cult of Mumia by pushing death in the face of charges of racial bias, etc.? 

Abu-Jamal has found his audience only because the stakes are so high, and having death hanging over his head has muddled the issue. All parties involved should assent to the clear-eyed decision of the federal appeals court, which would, after all, keep this convicted killer behind bars, even if the (perfectly legitimate, from a legal standpoint) racial bias changes were to be taken into consideration. "To move past the prime facie case is not to throw open the jailhouse doors and overturn Abu-Jamal's conviction," judge Thomas T. Ambro is quoted as saying. "No matter how guilty one may be, he or she is entitled to a fair and impartial trial by a jury..."    

As an aside, I've never understood the "victim's rights" justification for capital punishment. Life in prison punishes the offender -- it takes away an individual's freedom for their entire time on this earth, forces them to consider their reasons for being locked up and, perhaps, allows for something good come of the situation (such as their convincing others not to go down this same path). It does not glorify killers the way capital punishment does, by allowing them to seize the martyr's crown. It also allows for justice to be done should the conviction ever be overturned (think of the way DNA evidence has rocked the legal system -- how many innocent people had been sent to death before then? Even one would be too many.)  

A death sentence, on the other hand, punishes a criminal's family. It forces those who love this individual to go through the same sort of suffering that the offender inflicted on the family of the murder victim. Why would any family rocked by murder want to do this? How is this a fitting legacy for the one they have lost -- to use that death to justify further killing? 

Obama's speech

I'd be remiss not to say something about Barack Obama's speech on race in Philadelphia last week. Most of the criticism I've seen has come from people who either obviously did not watch the speech or are only interested in harping on whatever garden-variety demagoguery comes down the pike (whether from conservative political operatives or inner-city preachers), so long as it buttresses their point of view.

What the Rev. Wright controversy reveals about Obama as a public figure is that he, unlike John Kerry, has the ability to deal directly and forcefully with political nastiness and, even more importantly, redefine it on his terms. This was one case where the medium was indeed the message: the speech was transformative because Obama himself transformed a focus on a few select statements from his pastor, and base insinuation about his own views, into something honest, direct and inspiring. The speech was its own example; it demonstrated how political rhetoric can deal forthrightly with actual issues, rather than myth, bigotry and resentment. 

I watched the speech in North Carolina, where a Republican candidate for governor is currently campaigning on a platform of "crime, gangs and illegal immigrants": rural southern code for "blacks, blacks and Mexicans." Held up against Obama, this guy looks no better than George Wallace (because, in fact he isn't -- the formula his ilk uses never changes, even if the language does). 

Unlike the Wallaces of the world, Obama challenged his audience to manifest what they profess to believe this country to be. His words about our society not being static echo what I once told my kids on a trip to Williamsburg, Va.: American democracy is a process, one that began, but does not end, with white males whose genius was to envision a system that could accommodate the evolving claims of all citizens.

         

Philly-style conundrum: world-class building or parking lot?

Inga Saffron's article in today's paper on the proposed 1,500-foot skyscraper at 18th and Arch streets suggests such projects are good for the city and appropriate as we move into a new era of urban significance. I wholeheartedly agree.

The need for this front page treatment was made clear by some of the comments posted on philly.com after the Daily News ran an article last week on the same subject. There's nothing more poisonous to this city than ignorance mixed with pessimism, and the postings were sadly predictable: it's a waste of money, it's environmentally unsound (one called it "a traffic and environmental nightmare"), we don't need it, we'll never fill it with tenants, it's a terrorist magnet. All wrong.

As Saffron points out, the tower would be energy-efficient and connected to public transit. Such projects are far preferable to sprawling suburban office parks, replace parking lot dead zones with vibrant retail and office space and take advantage of Philly's emerging position as a convenient, low-cost alternative to Manhattan. The timing is perfect.

As to the terrorist threat, people have this notion that Al Qaeda went after the World Trade Center because it was tall. The WTC was attacked as a symbol of American financial might, just as the Pentagon was attacked as a symbol of military power. The mere fact of a building's height (or lack thereof) does not put it in any particular danger.

Philadelphia deserves this iconic structure.

Movie murmurings: "Horton Hears A Who"

So in today's Philadelphia Inquirer we have a review of "Horton Hears a Who," featuring the following observation from movie critic Carrie Rickey: "As any 55-year old can tell you, Horton's story is quite cosmic. For the pachyderm (voiced by an unusually serene Jim Carrey) takes it on faith that there exists a parallel universe that he can only hear. And he remains firm in convincing doubters, including Sour Kangaroo..."

So he's taking something "on faith" that he can hear? That's called evidence, Carrie. This is not a parable of the long-suffering believer hounded by nasty skeptics, though I can easily see the religious right using the movie's release to seize on that interpretation and run with it ad nauseam.

Let's put this nonsense to rest before it really gets going. Our friend Horton is more like a long-suffering scientist trying to convince the willfully ignorant rabble that what he's discovered empirically is the truth. After all, there are some Sour Kangaroos out there who still refuse to accept germ theory (you can't see the little buggers!). 

A modern update of the story might go like this: the Wickersham Brothers are up in arms at the economic implications of Horton's claim, since Who-rights activists might block their pink clover harvesting efforts. They convince the kangaroo to write a column for World Net Daily poking holes in the Who theory without actually taking a serious look at the evidence. Meanwhile, a nasty vulture steals the draft of Horton's master's thesis and drops it where it will never be found --  a university library.