Shoot 'Em Ups

A NEW WESTERN AND AN OLD ONE, separated by a Great Plain of 37 years -- the recent Appaloosa directed by Ed Harris, and 1971's The Hunting Party with Gene Hackman and a surprisingly winsome Candace Bergen. Took both DVDs out of the local library last week, watched them, and as you probably guessed I'm here to tell you all about it.

What's eerie is how similar these flicks turned out to be -- like two long-lost cinematic cousins that came together in my DVD player. Both feature a ruthless gang of outlaws that kidnaps a woman and then of course the "good guys" trying to get 'er back. I put good in quotes in that last sentence because the Gene Hackman character (Brandt Ruger) in Hunting Party is such an unsympathetic sumbitch that you end up rooting for the kidnappers. Mean Gene plays his usual tortured soul here to perfection, even reveling in some downright kinky scenes where he coldly dominates poor Candace and then cruelly torments a terrified Asian hooker.

Now, I'm a pretty hard marker when it comes to Westerns both old and new, mainly because I've seen enough of them to know how memorable and effective they can be when done right. Sadly, in my opinion neither one of these merits a repeat screening (although my friends Bob and Holly had seen Appaloosa already and they didn't mind watching it again at my house last week).

Usually good Westerns -- especially of the more spicy spaghetti variety -- are less about the top of the poster stars than an interesting supporting cast of character actors: think Good, the Bad & the Ugly, think any Western Clint Eastwood made from '64 to '76. Hunting Party wins out in this measure over Appaloosa, boasting fine actors that you definitely would know from other movies (L.Q. Jones, G.D. Spradlin) and obscure actors with rugged faces seemingly made to play rustlers, outlaws and thieves. The older Western also just does a better job of avoiding frontier cliches, but then again there were probably fewer of them around back in '71. I think both movies are most effective when staying close to an almost Sergio Leone-like cynicism regarding the human race, but each fails to deliver anything as gratifying or offbeat as that legendary director's work.
In Appaloosa, new arrival Renee Zellweger, in full scrunch-face mode, first falls for lawman Ed Harris over his sidekick Viggo Mortenson, then goes for young Viggo, and finally even old Jeremy Irons gets in on the action when he later abducts her and let's just say tucks her in a few nights.

In Hunting Party, Hackman's wife, the future Murphy Brown, is seized by the Oliver Reed character, who -- get this -- kidnaps Candace Bergen because he thinks she's a schoolteacher and the guy is dead set on learning how to read! I know, I know -- the whole literacy thing is pretty far-fetched, and the movie gets weighed down by more than one tediously preachy scene where good old Murphy Brown teaches the alphabet to Oliver Reed. Yeesh, as they used to say in the Old West!

Appaloosa, despite the clueless blurb from Peter Travers right on the DVD box that the movie is a real nail biter, is lame in more than a few ways. It's a sort of buddy film with both leading men attracted to the same dame. Unfortunately, in between taking turns shooting bad guys they spend far too much time sitting around the saloon trading equally painful Western banalities.

This film would have been wise to have kidnapped a few of the writers from HBO's brilliant Deadwood and then forced them to write some scenes featuring that show's trademark lively frontier banter. If nothing else it would demonstrate even in an action genre like the Western, talkiness is not necessarily a bad thing. Unfortunately, however, much of the the "Appaloosian" dialogue is downright spotty, stilted and just plain boring for long stretches, nowhere more than in the unconvincing early scene where Harris, Morgensen and Zellweger meet in a hotel lobby. No kidding when I say you've heard more scintillating conversation at the local coffee shop from random strangers.
Now, as you might expect from a movie called The Hunting Party, there's plenty of cold-blooded shootin', and the weapons here don't disappoint; indeed, the guns play an increasingly key role in the proceedings. See, Hackman plays a rich railroad baron, and he's among the very few in the whole country to get his hands on a new model of high-powered-scope rifle that's able to shoot close to 800 yards -- or about twice as far as any gun before it -- with deadly accuracy. In fact, the rifle Hackman used throughout the movie won a Best Supporting Firearm award at the '72 Oscars, and was a big attraction at gun shows well into the 1990s.

Anyway, Hackman and his hunting buddies are on their way to a weekend hunt when news of his wife's kidnapping reaches them, so they soon set their sights on human prey. The rest of the film features Hackman & Co. methodically hunting down Reed's gang of dirty misfit scoundrels one by one, picking off like 26 of them along the way in spectacularly gory, Sam Peckinpah-like slow-motion cinesplatter. In the grand finale, after tracking his wife and captor through the desert, he slaughters the both of them before collapsing as the credits roll.

Ed Harris doesn't let his jealousy drive him that far in Appaloosa, taking Zellweger back despite suspicions of infidelity, but by movie's end I wouldn't have minded so much if someone fired a few rounds at old scrunchyface. Not saying blow her head off, just a glancing blast that shuts up all that dang overacting. Candace wins out in a big way over Renee as the better, more sympathetic damsel -- not sure what these movies are trying to say about the plight of women in the Old West, but as pawns designed to move a Western along and get to all the shootin' and killin' and bleedin', well, there are worse plot devices than a damsel in distress on the open plains.

Actually, there's a bit of a women's lib subtext underneath all the manly mayhem, in that Bergen's character falls for Reed's character, who, paradoxically, treats her better in captivity than her husband ever did in matrimony.
Out of curiosity, I just cracked open my trusty 2002 Leonard Maltin's Movie & Video Guide, where Hunting Party is rated a BOMB: "Fine cast wasted in repellently violent Western that adds nothing new to tired plot, unless you count the bordello-equipped train." Damn, forget about that last bit, Leonard. That was cool: Hackman thoughtfully providing hookers for all his buddies. Maybe I will watch it again...

Out & About

STRANGE ARTICLE THE OTHER DAY in amNew York, one of the free daily papers here. You might even call it a little queer. Turns out a number of major tourist destinations are bending over backwards to appeal to "the gay dollar." I can hear dear old Mom now: Take that money out of your mouth, you don't know where it's been.

Anyway, the piece mentioned New York among some 10 cities courting gay travelers, targeting ad campaigns in a concerted effort to attract gay and lesbian tourists and their coveted disposable incomes:

Many in the industry say gays -- who often live in two-income households without children -- are less likely to cut back on travel. "The gay dollar has been shown to be more resilient (in a recession)," said Bob Witeck, a marketing consultant who works with the Gay and Lesbian Travel Association.

Warden's World was able to get hold of the list of proposed slogans for some of the destinations that are marketing themselves specifically to gay tourists.

Philadelphia, already known as the City of Brotherly Love, is thinking of going with "Yo, 'Mos!" in honor of Philly native Sly Stallone and the world-famous Rocky movies.

The Canadian city of Toronto is favoring a straightforward approach -- no pun intended -- in its campaign, hoping that "Be Gay Here, Eh!" catches on with the homosexual class the world over.

The tourism boards of England, Wales and Scotland have already launched a joint website specifically for gay visitors. Wales is billing itself as "Sodom by the Sea," England is going with the reliable "Bring Out Your Gay," while Scotland, known for its open-mindedness through the ages, has chosen "Trannyspotting" in honor of Trainspotting, the Oscar-nominated 1996 film set in Edinburgh and starring Ewan McGregor.

New York City is not taking its firmly entrenched position -- bad pun intended -- as the No. 1 fairy- , flit- and pansy-related vacation destination for granted. Its tourism agency is thinking of erecting -- pun pending -- a temporary statue of a drag queen going down on the Statue of Liberty, giving travelers entering New York Harbor a glimpse of what excitement awaits them in the Big Apple. The Big "Gay" Apple, that is!

And finally, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, the highest-ranking openly gay official in NYC, announced that the Yankees and Mets will host a series of "Out a Gay at the Game" nights, with both home teams planning to wear colorful rainbow caps representing tolerance.

The city of San Francisco was said to be beside itself with rage, at press time threatening to scratch the eyes out of any city that comes near it.

SPEAKING OF ODD, what to make of those contrived so-called Tea Parties, those patently-faux grassroots rebellions sponsored by Fox News and other right-wing media outlets? The crowds gathered with their "Obama = Socialist" signs, parroting the same conservative talking points that are drilled into their soft, receptive craniums with the regularity of a dripping faucet.

All but ignoring the political referendum known as the national presidential election held just 5 months ago, speakers at these scripted rebellions tried to incite the crowd along the typical anti-taxation, anti-spending lines -- with some, like Texas Governor Rick Perry, even mentioning secession -- a bone, no doubt, to all the unreconstructed confederates who are "fightin' mad" over the direction of the country. Imagine if you dare a collection of Joe the Plumber types massing by the hundreds around the country and you get an idea of the level of dumbed-down nuance involved. Throw in appeals to all the hard-core racists who will never get past the idea of a black man in the White House, and you have a tried-and-true recipe for stirring up these simpletons. They don't want to pay taxes, but where do they think the money comes from to build all the bombs we drop all over the world -- the weapons that supposedly prevent another 9/11?

When the Bush crowd and their minions in the mainstream media were whipping up fear-based rhetoric with the endgame of cowed citizens surrendering their constitutional rights to a Patriot Act bill of goods, where was the outrage from this gang? When the billions of dollars poured into rigged government contracts for Republican crony companies like Halliburton and Blackwater, where were the Tea Parties? When Bush/Cheney continually invoked the sacred memory of 9/11 in election campaigns -- in the process fueling wars in two countries and a global war on terror -- where were the mass protests?
These idiots give tea drinking a bad name.

I mean, I'm all for protesting against the system. But I prefer doing my marching with well-informed fellow citizens who like me are outraged that over the last 25 years, the richest 1% of American households increased their net worth by over 75%. Where during the same period, the bottom 40% lost close to 60% of their net worth. Where more than 1 in 3 households now has less than $10,000 in net worth. And where over 5 million Americans have fallen below the poverty line since 2000, the year a bitterly partisan Bush-Cheney administration began forcing through Congress its now widely discredited supply-side economic agenda.

The reliably nutzoid New York Post covered the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) parties as if the swelling crowds paralyzed major thoroughfares of cities and jammed traffic across this once-great nation of ours. The page 7 headline declared Protests sweep nation & DC, and claimed "5,000 people jammed the streets around New York's City Hall, where conservative icon Newt Gingrich spoke." No mention in the article that these "spontaneous" protests were promoted hundreds of times this week on Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News stations, a sure barometer of non-partisanship.

There are three photos accompanying the Post article, and in the middle one my eagle eye spots a spelling error: some joker holding a sign reading: "Can we banrupt the country? Yes We Can!" Perhaps misspelling bankrupt is not quite as memorably clueless as the jackass holding the Get A BRAIN! Morans GO USA signs at a pro-Iraq war rally a few years back, but I feel a strong need to mock nonetheless. Next time, I'd like to stand near the same guy with a sign reading: "Can you sheeple spell? No, You Can't!" Just a little proofreading humor to lighten things up.

But in light of the just-released Homeland Security Department report on the growing right-wing domestic terror threat, maybe the organizers of the latest tea party know what they're doing. It's only a matter of time, and opportunity, before some laid-off gun nut gets whipped into a frenzy by someone like Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity and takes a shot at a politician.

WITH SOMALI PIRATES ramping up the harsh anti-American rhetoric in the wake of the successful rescue operation last weekend, it's also just a matter of time before the next hostage situation, or worse. On Wednesday, a U.S. cargo ship was shot at by pirates using grenade launchers, but the crew foiled the attack at the last minute.

And if that act didn't signal the pirates' intention to inflict harm on Americans, one pirate from the Somali port of Harardhere made it even clearer: "We will seek out the Americans, and if we capture them, we will slaughter them. Last night, an American-flagged ship escaped us by a whisker."

That's the downside of not paying the pirates' ransom and then shooting 3 of them dead while negotiating with a 4th: they're gonna start taking that kind of stuff personally. And that's what we've got on our hands here, and so it's all hands on deck, shiver me timbers and at last report some 15 men on a dead man's chest, and we all know how painful that can be.

But seriously folks, did you see some of the juvenile coverage on the pirate drama in the New York Post last week? Something about pirates really brings out the bad taste in the Post newsroom. One beaut of a cover had a photo of Johnny Depp in full Pirates of the Caribbean regalia channeling The Simpsons -- the giant headline blaring YO HO D'OH! US heroes foil pirates. Talk about your pop culture reference overload. Any wonder why the paper is considered a laughing stock?

Turning to more reliable news about the ongoing pirate menace, Somali's Prime Minister is pledging his government's help in curbing pirate activity. "We have information on who is behind this, who is involved," Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke said from Kenya. "There is a lot of money flowing in ... we are following very closely how money is distributed here."

But in Somalia, the pirates have become so powerful that they not only seriously damage the already weakened state of the government, but threaten its very existence. That makes the PM's ambitious plan to "prevent (the pirates) from going into the waters" and to "establish at least ten or more observation posts on the coastline" grandiose at best and possibly foolhardy under a worst-case scenario.

As the Associated Press tactfully reports,

Still, it was not clear how this plan could cover the 1,900-mile Somali coastline, since his government controls only a few square blocks of the capital, Mogadishu, with the aid of African peacekeepers. Donors have also been reluctant to fund a government with little accountability but the recent spike in piracy attacks may change that.

The inevitable American casualty, which we came close to seeing a few days ago, would undoubtedly drive a wave of international retaliation against pirate strongholds in Africa, just like it sometimes takes a fair-haired murder victim to personally feed a city's tabloid frenzy when waves of darker-hued corpses washing up on the shore are chalked up as mere crime statistics.

The New Pirate Menace

THE FIVE-DAY HOSTAGE STANDOFF off the coast of Somali ended in dramatic fashion yesterday when Navy snipers aboard the USS Bainbridge shot and killed three pirates holding American ship captain Richard Phillips on a nearby lifeboat. But the violent resolution of the crisis -- coming on the heels of the French decision Friday to use deadly force on a hijacked yacht which freed 4 of the 5 people held but ended in the deaths of one hostage and two Somali pirates -- is likely to raise the stakes when the next act of piracy occurs, with one Somali pirate promising to take revenge on the next American or French nationals they encounter:

"The French and the Americans will regret starting this killing. We do not kill, but take only ransom. We shall do something to anyone we see as French or American from now."

With five American warships already in the area, a more active military role in curbing the pirate menace is inevitable. Greatly complicating matters are the 228 hostages held aboard 13 ships in possession of the Somali pirates. The latest addition includes 16 people seized on board an Italian tugboat just after the attack on the Maersk Alabama last week. This latest threat of retaliation becomes at the very least a negotiating tool, and more likely to be carried out as the pirates feel threatened onshore in known Somali pirate dens like Eyl and Gaan. One of the pirates holding a Greek ship in the latter port has already bluntly stated, "We will retaliate for the killings of our men." Based on the actions of ruthless pirates down the ages, there's little reason to doubt him at his word.

Americans have probably heard more about real pirates this last week than in the past century combined, having long condemned to the past larger-than-life characters like Blackbeard, Captain Kidd and "Calico" Jack. Not counting the lucrative Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, of course, which in itself is no small indication of the enduring fascination of pirates in the popular imagination, even as we struggle to avoid attaching old, familiar pirate tropes to the current band of misfits menacing humanity.

No matter which era of piracy you want to talk about, it all comes down to money. The danger pirates face as they attach their grappling hooks to the deck of a targeted ship and storm onboard, guns blazing and knives drawn, is the same in any age, which explains why only the most desperate sign up for the pirate package. And as long as ships sail on the sea, there will be people in other ships trying to seize them.

We all know the famous opening stanza to the official Battle Hymn about of the U.S. Marines:

From the Halls of Montezuma,
To the shores of Tripoli;
We fight our country's battles
In the air, on land, and sea...

Well, you may not know that Tripoli refers to a famous battle in the Barbary Wars (1801-1804). It just so happens that, among many other "underlying causes" of the war, as we used to call them in grade school, President Thomas Jefferson's refusal to pay the ransom of a ship taken by pirates caused Tripoli along with Tunis and Algiers, the Barbary states, to declare war on the U.S. The nascent U.S. Navy responded in force, bombarding the Muslim states sponsoring terror on the high seas. The Barbary pirates "hijacked European ships with impunity and ransomed back the crews" -- a practice so widespread that in 1784 the U.S. Congress allocated money in the budget for "tributes" to meet the demand of the corsairs operating out of North Africa. While Jefferson was ambassador to France in the 1780s, he once accused an envoy from Tripoli of supporting acts of piracy, later recalling the response:

"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."

Demonstrating once again that History is nothing if not heavily ironic, the warship Navy SEALS shot from yesterday to take out the Somali pirates is named after William Bainbridge, a major player in the last major U.S. operation against organized pirates based in Africa over 200 years ago. And although Bainbridge later went on to become a Commodore for his heroics in the War of 1812, in the First Barbary Wars his role was somewhat less distinguished but notable nonetheless. According to fairly reliable sources,

In 1800, Bainbridge was sent to carry the tribute which the United States still paid to the dey of Algiers to secure exemption from capture for its merchant ships in the Mediterranean. Upon arrival in the 24-gun USS George Washington, he made the tactical mistake of anchoring in the harbor of Algiers--directly under the guns of the fort. The dey demanded that he ferry the Algerian ambassador and retinue to Constantinople or be blown to bits on the spot. With great disgust, Bainbridge raised the Algerian flag on his masthead and submitted to the embarrassment of serving as the dey's messenger service. ^[1]

When the United States found that bribing the pirate Barbary states did not work, and decided to use force, he served against Algiers and Tunis. In command of the USS Philadelphia, when she ran aground on the Tunisian coast on 29 December 1803, he was imprisoned until 3 June 1806. On his release, he returned for a time to the merchant service in order to make good the loss of profit caused by his captivity.

Hopefully, the next band of Somalian corsairs will take note of the name of the American ship that came to the rescue of Captain Phillips, read up on the relevant American military history, and change their present course with all due haste. More likely, pirates see the deaths of their comrades in arms as the price of doing business, just as pirates down through the ages realized what they were getting into. One local maritime expert predicted the deadly rescue missions by French and American forces would result in a more cutthroat brand of pirate in the future:

Andrew Mwangura, coordinator of Mombasa-based East African Seafarers Assistance Program, said the rescue would change the stakes in future pirate attacks. "This is a big wake-up to the pirates. It raises the stakes. Now they may be more violent, like the pirates of old," he said.

Back to last night's rescue. I'm sure more of the details will surface surrounding the use of deadly force against the 3 pirates in the lifeboat while a 4th was negotiating onboard the Bainbridge. All's fair in love and war, and piracy is nothing if not a declaration of war against whatever country's flag the hijacked ship is flying. Interestingly, most reports have Captain Phillips tied up on the deck of the 24-boot lifeboat, with his captives training their AK-47s on him, when the decision to fire was given. Last night, for instance, in How Captain Phillips was rescued, the BBC reports that "One pirate was seen through a window pointing an AK-47 at the back of Capt Phillips, who was tied up." But on the same website, another story reported that the snipers opened fire after Phillips jumped into the water in a second escape attempt and the Somalis opened fire on him. Apparently the latter scenario has been discounted, as the BBC story I bookmarked last night has Phillips tied up and still on the boat when the shooting occurred. Call me naive, but I'm pretty certain if the good captain had his arms tied, he's not inclined to jump into the ocean and make a swim for it.

Short of arming merchant ships, there will be more pirate attacks as long as the ransoms are paid. Two factors to keep in mind. With insurance rates already escalating, the pressure to keep crews at a minimum to keep the profit margin as high as possible works in the pirates' favor, as does the sheer size of the ocean when it comes to patrolling the area. Moreover, the last thing ship owners want to see is a firefight on their vessel, especially container ships carrying oil or other combustible cargo.

Will swift, harsh punishment against the few pirates in custody act as an effective deterrent to their increasingly brazen brethren? Not as long as the dire conditions remain intact that are driving these hopeless desperadoes in the first place. Not only is the whole pirate operation financed and sponsored by warlords and organized criminal elements onshore, but the lure of a high reward will offset the risk for the millions with little to lose.

Unemployed Somali fishermen make up a large component of the Somali pirate class. In fact, they consider themselves marines or a form of coastal defense against illegal commercial fishing. In the early 1990s, with the collapse of the Somali government, European conglomerates, mainly Italian and Swiss companies, illegally dumped hazardous waste in the waters off Somali, destroying much of the country's traditional fishing ground:

Somalia's long, remote shoreline was used as a dump site for the disposal of toxic waste. The huge waves which battered northern Somalia after the tsunami are believed to have stirred up tonnes of nuclear and toxic waste that was illegally dumped in the country by several European firms ... European companies found it to be very cheap to get rid of the waste, costing as little as $2.50 a tonne, where waste disposal costs in Europe are something like $1000 a tonne.

What the toxic waste didn't damage, foreign commercial fishing interests took away, further fracturing the blighted Somalia's economic base. The result is a country where over 70% of the population lives on less than $2 a day. Is there any wonder people might turn to crime given such squalor?

Now that Americans have been singled out for reprisal by the Somali pirates, who knows whether elements of Al-Qaeda or other terrorist cells will join forces for acts of terror against U.S. ships. The increased military presence in the area seems like an inviting target, and an opportunity unlikely to be resisted indefinitely.

Perhaps the most successful pirate in history, Bartholomew Roberts, once neatly summed up what attracted him to piracy as "better being a commander than a common man." Of course, not every pirate captures 470 vessels, as Black Bart is credited with. Yet the Welsh pirate is known today as much for his cruelty when angered as for the immense wealth he accumulated plundering shipping in the Caribbean, off the American coast, and off West Africa. The legacy of Roberts is further enshrined by the code of conduct he drew up to enforce an Honor Among Thieves that survives to this day, including mainstays like equal votes, proper shares, no gambling on ship, and provisions for being wounded in battle. It's fair to say Roberts ran a tight ship, if Article 2 of his code is any indication:

Every man shall be called fairly in turn by the list on board of prizes, because over and above their proper share, they are allowed a shift of clothes. But if they defraud the company to the value of even one dollar in plate, jewels or money, they shall be marooned. If any man rob another he shall have his nose and ears slit, and be put ashore where he shall be sure to encounter hardships.

But aside from the harsh code of justice, the sheer number of ships plundered, the vast treasure he is said to have accumulated during a prolific 30-month period, and even his striking appearance, Roberts is remembered for a string of attacks he conducted against Barbados and Martinique in the 1720s. So infuriated was the bloodthirsty pirate with what he saw as unwarranted interference in his operation that he designed a flag specifically intended to terrify the inhabitants of those island nations. According to Angus Konstam's The History of Pirates:

One showed a pirate figure, presumably representing Roberts, standing on two skulls. Under one skull were the letters ABH, meaning 'A Barbadian's Head,' and the second was labeled AMH--'A Martinique's Head.' The threat was clear, and sailors from these two islands could expect no mercy if they offered any resistance.

Now the very real threat of piracy competes with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the economic recession-slash-depression for President Obama's attention on any given day, as if America had nothing else to occupy its attention and concern. What has to keep U.S. decision-makers up at night is whether intensifying the military effort to stamp out what Secretary of State Clinton is calling the "scourge of piracy" will result in escalating violence against American nationals. With modern-day Somali pirates showing an increasing adaptability that their forebears might envy, there's every reason to believe the threat at face value. As a 30-year-old Somali told the Associated Press yesterday, "From now on, if we capture foreign ships and their respective countries try to attack us, we will kill the hostages. (U.S. forces have) become our No. 1 enemy."

"A Bad Meeting"

SOME FAST BREAKING NEWS, or what's known in the news business as a big development, in that pirate story. For the last two days, as you had to have heard by now, four Somali pirates have kept Richard Phillips, the American captain of a merchant vessel, hostage in an enclosed lifeboat. Now it turns out Phillips made an unsuccessful escape attempt sometime last night, jumping into the water. It's not clear from The New York Times story whether Phillips' action was coordinated with the American warship stationed nearby.

The Somali kidnappers are said to be desperate to make it back onshore with their captive, while at the same time a pirate known as Badow is saying additional pirates are on their way to the scene of the standoff in the Indian Ocean:

“They had asked us for reinforcements, and we have already sent a good number of well-equipped colleagues, who were holding a German cargo ship,” the pirate, identified only by the name Badow, was quoted by The A.P. as saying.

“We are not intending to harm the captain, so that we hope our colleagues would not be harmed as long as they hold him,” Badow told them. “All we need, first, is a safe route to escape with the captain, and then ransom later,” he added.

Last year alone, Somali pirates collected a cool $80-100 million via ransom, and I'm fairly certain they didn't declare it on their income tax statements when they split up the loot. Let's face it: defiance pays.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the pirates "nothing more than criminals" and, showing off her encyclopedic knowledge of pirate history, reminded everyone that "One of the very first actions that was undertaken by our country, in its very beginning, was to go after pirates along the Barbary Coast” of North Africa. Aside from that history lesson, there's really little her State Department can do at the moment given no state of Somalia to negotiate with. Using language similar to my Scourge of the Seas post the other day, Clinton called on the international community to “come together to end the scourge of piracy.” Good luck with all that. Civilized nations have been saying that for years, going all the way back to the mid-18th century, when when the famous English jurist William Blackstone wrote:

As, therefore, the pirate has renounced all the benefits of society and government, and has reduced himself afresh to the savage state of nature by declaring war against all mankind, all mankind must declare war against him: so that every community has a right, by the rule of self-defense, to inflict that punishment on him, which every individual would in a state of nature have been otherwise entitled to do.

Looks like the Somali gang still hasn't gotten that memo, if the quote attributed to one of the four pirates holding Phillips hostage on the lifeboat is any indication: "We are safe and we are not afraid of the Americans. We will defend ourselves if attacked."

If that's backing down, I'd hate to see them when they're being uncooperative. Just heard that these modern-day Blackbeards are demanding a ransom of $2 million. Actually, in the past the ransom has been paid off in crisp U.S. $100 bills, as opposed to Pieces of Eight, the traditional pirate currency of yesteryear. My money no pun intended would be on the pirates. Seemingly outgunned and outmanned, what with the American warships in the area, yet they're still calling all the shots, and they hold the main card in the deck: the American captain of the Maersk Alabama.
Incredibly, just minutes ago came the report that a French attempt to rescue five of its citizens held captive aboard yet another ship seized by Somali pirates has ended in the death of one hostage and the freeing of four others, including a child, with two pirates killed and three others captured. The French vessel, a 41-foot yacht, was hijacked about a week ago. According to the BBC News:

The French operation to free those on board the Tanit - the third time French troops have freed hostages from pirates - began late on Thursday, five days after the yacht was seized, the office of President Nicolas Sarkozy said. Negotiations with the pirates which began earlier this week had failed to secure the release of the hostages, the president's spokesman said.

With obvious implications for the resolution of the American hostage crisis, a BBC reporter quotes the French government official as saying that with "the threats becoming more and more specific, the pirates refusing the offers made to them and the [yacht] heading towards the coast, an operation to free the hostages was decided upon."
Even if this one ransom attempt is thwarted, it's doubtful to have any lasting effect on the stunning frequency of hijackings taking place recently in the waters off Somalia. It would take a long-term concerted effort to root out the numerous pirate lairs along the hundreds of miles of African coastline, to say nothing of the deep-rooted conditions that make the area ripe for piracy and terrorism. It's the broken parts of the world that have always produced the best candidates for piracy, and in that regard the year 2009 is no different than 1809 or 1609.

A famous sea shanty composed in 1609, "Ward the Pirate," tells of the notorious English pirate John Ward, who later changed his name to Yusuf Reis, converted to Islam and made a fortune plundering ships sailing in the same part of the world where the Maersk Alabama found herself confronted on Wednesday:

A ship was sailing from the east
And going to the west,
Loaded with silks and satins
And velvets of the best,
But meeting there with Captain Ward,
It proved a bad meeting;
He robbèd them of all their wealth
And bid them tell their king.

According to Wikipedia,

Ward was an enigmatic figure, in some ways like a Robin Hood, but in the 16th and 17th centuries many English pirates operated out of the mouth of the Sebo River and preyed on Mediterranean shipping. Ward was supposed to have spared English ships while attacking "papist" vessels. John Ward and Simon Danseker are credited with introducing Barbary corsairs to the use of square-rigged ships of northern Europe.

I kind of imagine that in Somali these modern-day corsairs are enigmatic figures, and if they get away with the two million in booty, you can bet there's gonna be a folk song or two written about the daring exploits of the fearless pirates who defied the Americans and lived large enough to tell all about it later.

Scourge Of The Seas

"I am a free prince, and have as much authority to make war on the whole world as he who has a hundred sail of ships and an army of a hundred thousand men in the field." --Captain Edward Low

Under the Black Flag: The Romance and Reality of Life Among the Pirates (1997, David Cordingly)

The History of Pirates
(1999, Angus Konstam)

The Pirates' Pact: The Secret Alliances Between History's Most Notorious Pirates and Colonial America
(2009, Douglas R. Burgess Jr.)
________________________________________________________________

SO THERE I WAS, planning this review of the above three pirate histories for a few days now-- mulling it over, making notes, trying to find a good lead-in -- when the top story coming out of my radio this morning is that Somali pirates have struck again, this time blatantly seizing a U.S.-flagged ship in the Indian Ocean. The latest update reports the crew of the Dutch ship, which includes 20 Americans, had retaken control of the vessel, with one Somali pirate in custody, but the American captain apparently has been taken hostage by the pirates in a lifeboat. The Maersk Alabama, a 17,000-ton cargo ship carrying emergency relief supplies to Kenya, was the sixth ship seized by Somali pirates in the last week alone -- indicating a new strategy that targets merchant vessels sailing hundreds of miles away from the now-heavily-guarded waters off the African coast, a presence which now includes patrols by five American warships.

Just as a fractured nation like Afghanistan proved a breeding ground for terrorism in the 1990s, history also teaches that failed states like Somali are exponentially more likely to contribute to illicit activity. The result is that such large-scale disenchantment with the status quo provides a willing supply of candidates with little or nothing to do, with a willingness to take up arms a common thread shared by pirates and terrorists alike.

When Angus Konstam writes about piracy being "an attractive alternative to dying of starvation, becoming a beggar or thief on land, or serving in appalling conditions on a ship with no chance of substantial financial reward," it's clear that for the economically hopeless the lure of striking it rich is not confined to the Golden Age of Piracy (1650-1725) but has implications which reverberate today. With life "nasty, brutish and short," it's little wonder that "for many desperate poor, or simply greedy people, piracy provided a slim chance to beat the system."
The plague of piracy goes back almost 4,000 years, with wall paintings depicting raids of ancient Egyptian cities by neighboring seafaring peoples. The Romans went so far as to call pirates hostis humani generi: "enemies of the human race." Julius Caesar was among prominent Romans kidnapped by Cilician corsairs operating out of southern Turkey. True to his word, after his ransom was paid and he was released, Caesar returned with a military force and destroyed the pirate lair where he was captured. These and other attacks on merchant shipping led to the great general Roman Pompey being given a mandate to stamp out the pirate menace once and for all, and with a force of 500 ships, 120,000 men, an almost unlimited budget, and the right to tax neighboring cities and raise additional militia, he did just that. In less than four months, he had cleared the Mediterranean of the threat, killing up to 10,000 pirates and pardoning or granting clemency to thousands more.

The recent hijackings by the Somalis -- not far from where pirates famously made their base on Madagascar during the so-called Golden Age of Piracy -- may yet result in such a large-scale effort to eradicate them once and for all. Back in the 17th century, pirates preyed on the shipping lanes used by the East India Company, where great treasure fleets carried gold, silk and other riches from India and China to the Middle East and Europe. Pirates of this era also engaged in the slave trade, ferrying their captured human cargo from Africa to the West Indies and the American colonies.

In the late 16th century, English privateers not only routinely plundered Spanish fleets carrying gold and silver coins back to Europe, but men like Henry Morgan conducted daring raids of Spanish colonial strongholds like Panama City. These often-brutal attacks enriched the English treasury to the extent where it was captured Spanish treasure that directly built the navy that ushered in the British Empire a century later. That's the thing about piracy, no matter what the age it takes place in: it all depends upon which side of the cutlass you find yourself on, with one man's sea scum another's benighted hero. The Somali pirates undoubtedly are hailed in their home ports as fearless warriors with the hearts of lions, just as four centuries earlier during the Elizabethan Era, the British reading public literally could not get enough of the exploits of a Sir Francis Drake.

Ironically, the Navigation Acts of 1651, enacted to protect British trade from Dutch competition, made it a criminal act for the American colonies to accept goods from anyone other than British merchants, opening the door for smugglers and pirates being accepted and even encouraged in places like New York and Rhode Island. According to Burgess,

"In England the acts seemed draconian; in the colonies they were ruinous. Merchants watched helplessly as their trade dwindled to nothing, and imports -- which were the lifeblood of every colony -- slowed to a trickle. Ships sat idle in their ports, and more and more disgruntled seamen were discharged onto the streets... At the other side of the equation lay the now-insatiable demand among the colonies for imported goods. Nearly everything that could be brought in -- spices, cloth, indigo, foodstuffs, enamelware, and, of course, specie [coined money] -- brought high prices at dockside auctions ... Piracy became -- and would remain, a staple of colonial commerce long after the acts themselves were revoked."

The following entertaining exchange quoted in The Pirates' Pact occurs around 1696 between Captain Josiah Daniell, a customs agent who has seized a suspected pirate ship, and Governor William Markham of Pennsylvania, an official known for liberally granting questionable privateering commissions and handsomely profiting from the plunder:

Daniell began by demanding that Markham "give (himself) a little trouble on his Majesty's account and cause strict inquiry to be made" and he went on to insult his recipient at great length: "The worst sailors know how ready you are to entertain and protect all deserters ... It is ruin for any ships to lade here so long as they have such encouragement to run in your parts, whence they are allowed to go 'trampuseing' [pirating] where they please. I read in last July's Gazette a proclamation to apprehend Captain Every and his crew, and hear that some of them are in your province ... I wonder that you prefer to gratify them rather than have regard for the King's service ... If you fall my way, I will endeavor to treat you as well as I am capable." Markham, in the face of these threats and imprecations, chose to see the humor in them. "Yours of the 9th inst. is so indecent that it seems rather penned in the cook-room than the Great Cabin ... I know not what you mean by 'trampuseing,' unless you aimed to show your breeding, which you have ill set forth in your mother tongue ... I hope I shall not fall in your way, lest my treatment be such as I find in your letter. I wish you a good voyage and a better temper."

Each of these three pirate histories approaches the subject in a slightly different way. Under the Black Flag's stated mission is contrasting how pirates have been portrayed in popular culture -- movies, plays, novels and paintings -- with what the record left behind tells us about how pirates conducted themselves. Not surprisingly, for instance, there are few instances of captives being forced to walk the plank; it was far more common for pirates to unceremoniously toss anyone offering resistance overboard.

Cordingly also traces the development of pirate flags like the Jolly Roger, where images of skulls, swords and hourglasses ("Time is running out on you") were meant as tangible reminders of their notorious reputation. The sight of a pirate ship hoisting their red or black banners usually inspired such fear in a targeted merchant ship that the crew would surrender immediately rather than risk incurring the wrath of these "hungry, stout and resolute" men hellbent on destruction.



















The Pirates' Pact focuses on primary sources in trying to piece together the historical record, mostly relying on correspondence between colonial administrators and the official governmental bodies charged with implementing crown policy. Burgess makes great use of letters going back and forth between America and England, with governors on the one hand protesting charges of countenancing known pirates and the Board of Trade demanding illegal trade and smuggling be stamped out.

In a chapter titled "The Most Hated Man in America," we learn that toward that end, a surveyor named Edward Randolph was sent by the Crown to the colonies to report on the state of piracy. Described by Burgress as "crusty and tenacious, morally above both politics and bribery, a sixty-four-year-old zealot whose cause is the English state," Randolph's surviving letters confirmed the worst suspicions of the Board, with Randolph bluntly detailing the worst transgressions:

"William Markham the Governor (of Pennsylvania) entertains several pirates who carry on an illicit trade with Curacao and other places ... Rhode Island (is) a free port to pirates and illegal traders from all places; the people are enriched by them ... It cannot therefore be expected that the frauds and other abuses complained of in the Colonies can be prevented unless duly qualified men, of good estates and reputation, be approved by the King as Governors."

The History of Pirates, compared to the relatively narrow missions of the other two books, is a straightforward chronological narrative hitting all the major figures and events. What sets Konstam's book apart is the sheer number of illustrations and maps. In a story so richly visual, it's almost indispensable to have in front of you the renderings of the famous pirates through the ages, along with the kinds of ships used, as well as clear indications of the territory in question.

Let's leave it there for now, because for better or worse, if today's extraordinary events are any indication, obviously the "final" chapter on piracy is still being written.

Fool Court Press

AFTER MY RECENT MICHAEL GOODWIN DIATRIBE, it felt good to see a like-minded letter in last Sunday's Daily News from M.W. Fischer of East Brunswick, N.J., under the heading Going negative:

Another day, another anti-Obama column by Michael Goodwin. I thought the Daily News Op-Ed pages got enough ignorance and right-wing spin from the odious Iraq War cheerleader Charles Krauthammer. If Obama's campaign slogan was "Yes, we can," then Michael Goodwin's slogan apparently is "No, we can't."

Fischer's spot-on sentiment pretty much mirrors my own problem with the very idea of an out-of-touch elitist like Goodwin being the Daily News' most prominent op-ed contributor. I wrote my own haranguing letter directly to the columnist right after I finished my original post:

Mr. Goodwin: Funny how you're so quick to write off the Obama administration less than 1/24th into its tenure, yet if memory serves you towed the Bush line for years and years' worth of columns with nary a disparaging word to say about the Bush/Cheney/DeLay agenda that got us into this mess in the first place. You repeatedly carry water for the rich man's burden, at a time when the recession is destroying the very fabric of middle class life, as if a slight increase in the taxation of the very well off represents a threat to the fabric of our capitalist system itself. How would you explain the discrepancy between the increasingly critical tone of your writing toward the new administration and the virtual free ride you gave the neoconservative agenda of the previous one?

In an older, more unabashedly chivalrous time, perhaps I would have challenged a scoundrel like Goodwin to a duel, but as it was the new president's honor, not mine, being offended, I quickly withdrew the notion. Instead, I will continue to monitor this malignant stain on the body politic. For the record, Goodwin's column of March 25, President Obama Failed to Sell His Budget Plan to American People, played to form, amounting to little more than a thumbs-down review of Obama's Tuesday night press conference ("His silver tongue seemed tied in knots...").

Goodwin's 3/29 Sunday column focused on AIG spending billions in taxpayer bailout money to settle accounts with its bankers, claiming "Washington's outrage over the millions paid for bonuses counts as a trivial pursuit" compared to where the rest of the money went. It's a legitimate claim here by Goodwin, but by column's end he can't resist returning to his latest relentless meme: "And as the bonus flap proved, the White House and Congress are not competent to make day-to-day or strategic company decisions. Washington can't even manage its own books." But enough Michael Goodwin already...

...My brother caught this next one and pointed it out to me. On the Village Voice's Tracking Shots page, which features 5 or 6 short movie reviews every issue, there occurred a most unusual coincidence/confluence in the March 25-31 issue. In reviews for the films American Swing and Guest of Cindy Sherman, two separate critics used almost the exact same phrase -- "genial, schlubby" and "genially schlubby". Apparently the two colleagues -- Melissa Anderson and Ella Taylor -- share a very thin thesaurus, or else these critics think in uncannily, almost eerily similar terms. What other conclusion can one draw when Anderson writes, "Levenson, a genial, schlubby horndog from Long Island..." and Taylor, in the very next review, writes of "A reclusive avant-garde artiste paired with the genially schlubby co-host of a public access television show..." ? Either the Voice employs the world's worst copy editor or, more likely, none at all in this age of downsizing...

...How long do you think the Daily News sports editor was saving this one for? Figuring he may never get a better chance, on Sunday we got the following headline above a story on the Rangers' 4-3 loss to Pittsburgh the night before:

Refs & Sid vicious
Calls help Crosby, Pens sink Rangers

Now that's killer...

...My favorite craigslist job ad of the young year is the one I came across for Fictional Writer Wanted. Part of me wanted to reply: "Hey, I'm your man. Or woman. Heck, as long as I'm fictional, I'll be whatever gender or age or height you need me to be. Now let's talk money. Since we're being fictional here, how about $50 an hour. Good, then it's settled. Have your imaginary people call my make-believe representatives." I bookmarked the ad, but now it just says "This posting has expired." Craig should've kept that one up a while longer...

...Someone needs to explain to me why on god's once-green earth The New York Times sees fit to waste everyone's time with a front-page profile of Glenn Beck, the right-wing nutjob who hosts a cable talk show on Fox? I knew about Beck for years, but the last time I caught his sorry act was almost exactly a year ago, where my Cancun hotel room had just 3 channels in English, one being CNN, and I watched Beck and wanted to throw up all over the TV, then I remembered that sort of thing is frowned upon in Mexican culture. But an hour-long show with Beck and guests like pathetic Ben Stein spouting patriotic platitudes should have come with a stern parental guidance warning from the FCC and the Mental Health Association.
Instead of dismantling this clown's disturbing brand of American chauvinism, the Times 3/29 portrait through the looking glass instead is not only almost critique-free, but writers Brian Stelter and Bill Carter indeed come offering something very close to unadulterated praise of the latest conservative media icon. For a less curiouser, more fact-based approach to covering an anti-progressive nemesis like Beck, the website Media Matters helpfully has a page with video links to this cretin's latest rants, where you can see for yourself the scope of the man's lunacy; last night Beck suggested that "the government is a heroin pusher using smiley-faced fascism to grow the nanny state." This from a man who saw nothing wrong with being invited to the Bush White House on numerous occasions to receive the latest talking points direct from the Horse's Mouth and the Horse's Mouthpiece (Rove and Bush, respectively). Beck, in all fairness, is best represented by another part of exterior equine anatomy.

The Beck feature was itself all too reminiscent of the infamous puff piece of the unctuous Rush Limbaugh that ran in the Times' Sunday magazine last year. The only thing worth noting in this latest sordid affair is the intensity and volume of feedback on the Beck story (lamely titled Fox News's Mad, Apocalyptic, Tearful Rising Star).

Among the 362 comments following the Times' singularly crapluster take on Beck is a passionate response from dkatie of portland, oregon:

"I can't believe that the NYTimes actually gave this man front page coverage. I can't believe it! YOU guys wrote about him as if he is a real newscaster, as if he has the pulse of the USA? I can't believe this! The man is an idiot who appeals to small but loyal part of the USA public, and not a very bright one at that. This man is a nutcase! Millions of Americans watch Montell Williams and the dramatic on-tele court drams and the rest of us do not take them seriously either -- Millions of people buy the National Inquirer and believe that Elvis is still alive and that doesn't make it NEWS. Gads, NYTimes, what is wrong with you people? The man is a dangerous sick individual -- Rush Limbaugh is not as bad as this guy. I can't believe you covered him in this manner. You all have lost your minds and good judgement."

...I guess that's just the kind of world we live in, a world where a Glenn Beck has 2.3 million nightly listeners. Now, my guess is that his audience is the same 2.3 million that first listens to Rush Limbaugh in the morning, then Sean Hannity and Michael Savage in the afternoon, then tunes into Beck and finally Bill O'Reilly in the evening, before falling asleep at around 10:00 smugly satiated with their daily fix of righteous anger...

...It's the kind of world where you hear sports radio host Max Kellerman has been fired from ESPN Radio, and you say to yourself: Finally, someone has seen through this obnoxious drone! Only to read a few weeks later in Bob Raissman's Daily News column that Kellerman will be joining WFAN as Mike Francesa's partner in the afternoon. Just the idea of such a self-centered loudmouth landing on his feet is a small blow to the very idea of How Things Should Work. Like a Glenn Beck being canned from CNN and then winding up on Fox News and getting good ratings. That's the kind of world we're gonna pass on to the kids...

...On the positive side of the street, Maureen Dowd has written one good column after another for a long stretch now. Moving away from Hillary Clinton as a subject has freed her from overdoing the oversimplified gender politics which she delighted reveling in during the long and bitter Clinton-Obama campaign. Sometimes she reverts to bad form, as in a recent overwrought Michelle Obama piece, but Dowd's twice-weekly column is once again a safe place to turn for an incisive if sometimes catty take on the culture of national politics...

...Independent journalism took another hit last week with the announcement that Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. purchased The Brooklyn Paper, an award-winning local paper. First Murdoch bought their competitors a short time ago, adding to a collection that includes small papers in Queens and the Bronx. The Times article raises the issue of how coverage of the controversial Atlantic Yards real estate development would be affected. Given the precedent of News Corp.'s takeover of The Wall Street Journal, I wouldn't be inclined to give Rupert Murdoch the benefit of even one column inch of doubt.