Obama's Big Day and Critical Explanation!

Claude Rains was a better actor than Obama. (See 1 below.)

John Bolton writes that our patience might finally be wearing thin with N Korea and makes some suggestions. (See 2 below.)

China's problem with Tibet is beginning to spread to dissident groups within China proper. The leadership of China must resolve the Tibetan problem or they may well suffer humiliating consequences regarding The Olympics and their wish to show-case their progress. If they continue to kill Tibetans who are seeking relief from Chinese domination and oppression many potential visitors and investors stay home, withdraw their Olympic support and obviously conclude China is still the oppressive China.

No doubt the Tibetan uprising, which came on the heels of when the Dalai Lama was forced to flee Tibet, was also timed with one eye on The Olympics and it seems to be having its desired effect. China finds itself in a compromised position because it assured the Olympic Committee it would respect human rights.

Even though China has become more of an open society and somewhat Westernized its leadership remains in a cocoon when it comes to fully understanding Western discomfort over China's treatment not only of Tibet but also its defense of renegades in Africa and Iran, support for n Korea and how Westerners might begin to respond to their intransigence. China's military will not take the rebellion laying down and could over-react out of true concern that matters could get out of hand. (see 3 below.)

Today, Sen. Obama will try and put out the brush fires regarding Rev. Wright. In doing so he runs the risk that the more he says the more he provides ammunition to those who are beginning to see him in a different light. It should make for interesting drama at the very least. I do not have a clue as to the tack he will take. I can only speculate but it seems he has a limited number of options.

Having stated, in a previous speech, words do matter he finds himself in the position of having disavowed his mentor's words but also tried to soften his rebuke by telling us he his Minister is an "an aging uncle type" and ex Marine to signify his deep-seated patriotism. Nevertheless, Obama would be castigating his mentor in public and how that plays out is anyone's guess.

Obama could try and portray himself as presidential and tough because fearing his softer approach of being a healer and willing to sit and talk has caused him to be seen as naive and lacking judgment.

There were a few "early on" journalists whose voices were drowned out by Obama's meteoric acceptance who informed us about his decision not to have Rev. Wright present when he announced his presidential ambitions even though Obama has now acknowledged he discussed this with the Reverend. Why would Obama not have his mentor with him at that time? Was it because he concerned about a public appearance with a fiery orator whose speeches Obama now asserts he was unaware of because he was never in attendance when they were made. Yet, Michelle could well have been in attendance and based on her own "words" about how she feels about our nation was obviously influenced by Rev. Wright. Are we to believe Obama, when he tells us how close his and his wife are but they never talked about Rev. Wright?

He could play his own race card and attack those who question his veracity and who, like the Clintons, are seeking to gut him and prevent him from his rightful and hard won prize notwithstanding the fact he has more delegates and has won more primary battles. Ferraro was dismissed by Hillary, she apologized for "aw shucks" Bill but "aw shucks" still is out there pleading his wife's case.

Finally, he could do a "mia culpa" admit he has not been completely honest and throw himself on the court of public opinion and trust in their willingness to continue giving him a pass because he has convinced an overwhelming number he truly is the genuine change agent who can best heal a divided nation and he can remind us, once again, how insightful his judgment was about Iraq. However, even that claim is beginning to wear thin.

Obama's back is against the wall but being a bright Harvard trained Lawyer, senior editor of its prestigious Law Review and a proven silver tongue orator today's speech will be a fascinating and dramatic event.

Moving beyond today the question remains will race and religion become the Democrats Achilles heel? Former President Clinton denies he played the race card in S.C. yet his wife apologized for his doing so. It appears the matter of religion has engulfed politics and it not only drowns the debate on the Right but now it seems to be engulfing the Left. Our nation has swung from Puritanism to Liberalism's dictates that just about any type of social behavior is acceptable. What we are now witnessing is a backlash on the part of those who believe the pendulum has swung too far and needs redressing for the sake of our nation's morality.

In the matter of Rev. Wright it is not his religious beliefs that are proving a thorn for Sen. Obama but the Reverend's own playing of the race card and his untoward accusations about our nation's character and motivations. Sen. Obama has some heavy lifting to do. The inflammatory comments of his Minister have now become etched in the minds of a goodly number of Americans who are willing to acknowledge our nation's failures but reject the Minister's vituperation. Stay tuned.

Just as the Tibetans have begun playing their powerful peaceful protest card, Abbas, knowing GW's angst and desire to end his presidency on a high note with respect to peace between Israel and the Palestinians, threatens to quit the peace talks unless he receives the concessions he demands. Petulance is a ploy Arafat employed effectively even to the point of crying and engaging in tirades and Abbas has learned well at the master's feet. Cheney may report back he did not buy Abbas' threat but then again Cheney's possibly tougher stance may not be the one GW and Rice accept. (See 3 below.)

Is a poll discussed by Toameh of Abbas' declining popularity behind Abbas' actions? (See 4 below.)

Shelby Steele offers his own views of Obama and Steele is a brilliant Black Educator speaking about one of his own race. (See 5 below.)

Dick



1) Wrong on Wright: Which Obama is Lying?
By Michael Medved

In the Jeremiah Wright affair, Barack Obama is most certainly lying about something.

He now insists that he is “shocked, shocked” (in the style of Claude Raines in “Casablanca”) to hear that anti-Americanism had anything at all to do with Wright’s ministry.

He has also claimed to be a “devout Christian” who attends church every week and is deeply involved in the life of Wright’s congregation (where he’s been a member for twenty years).

It’s simply not possible that he could be an active member in the church without hearing something about sermons in which the pastor blamed 9/11 on America’s past sins, or called down curses repeatedly (“God D---n America!”) on his own nation. I’ve been involved in synagogue life for more than thirty years, in three different congregations in two different communities. If any of the rabbis who served those congregations ever delivered sermons that were even vaguely controversial, I would have heard about it without question (even on those occasions where I wasn’t present to hear the talk myself). Given the number and intensity of wildly offensive Wright sermons, it’s ridiculous to argue that the first Obama learned of the anti-American bent of his self-described “mentor” was last week in news reports.

And if we assume for the sake of argument that it’s true that he had no idea how Wright really felt about crucial questions like the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, then how can we accept Obama’s insistence on his devout faithfulness and active church membership.

Hey, Barack—it’s either one or the other: either you were lying when you talked about your deep, soul-changing involvement in Trinity United Church of Christ, or else you’re lying when you say you never had any idea (until last week) about the crazy and offensive and sickening contents of the pastor’s diatribes from the pulpit.

My guess is that Obama is actually telling the truth about his deep involvement in the church, but lying (very badly) about knowing nothing about its pastor’s excesses.

The idea that he didn’t realize until a few days ago that mainstream America would view Wright’s remarks (which even Barack himself now describes as “appalling”) as explosive and unacceptable is a troubling indication of Obama’s enclosure in a politically correct bubble, and his profound estrangement from the faith and patriotism commitments of ordinary Americans.

2) Salvaging Our North Korea Policy
By JOHN R. BOLTON


There are signs, albeit small ones, that the Bush administration may be reaching the end of its patience with the Six-Party Talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program. These signs could prove illusory. But as it nears its end, the administration has a serious responsibility: It must not leave its successor with an ongoing, failed policy. At a minimum, President Bush should not bequeath to the next president only the burned-out hulk of the Six-Party Talks, and countless failed and violated North Korean commitments.

Since they were conceived in spring 2003, the Six-Party Talks have stumbled around inconclusively. And for the last 13 months, Pyongyang has ignored, stalled, renegotiated and violated the Feb. 13, 2007 agreement.

Throughout all this "negotiation," which has mostly consisted of our government negotiating with itself, North Korea has benefited enormously. It's been spared the truly punishing sanctions that concerted international effort might have produced. In large part because of the appeasement policies of the two previous South Korean governments, Pyongyang has not felt the full impact of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) on its outward proliferation efforts. The U.S. has muzzled its criticism of North Korea's atrocious oppression of its own citizens. And, perhaps most humiliatingly of all, the U.S., in a vain effort at chasing the mirage, gave up its most effective pressure point -- the financial squeeze -- allowing Pyongyang renewed access to international markets through institutions like Banco Delta Asia.

In fact, the protracted Six-Party Talks have provided Kim Jong-il with the most precious resource of all: the time to enhance, conceal and even disperse his nuclear weapons programs. Time is nearly always on the side of the would-be proliferator, and so it has proven here. In exchange for five years of grace to North Korea, the U.S. has received precious little in return.

Pyongyang is now stonewalling yet again on its promise to disclose fully the details of its nuclear programs, including its uranium enrichment efforts and its outward proliferation. The successful Israeli military strike against a Syrian-North Korean facility on the Euphrates River last September highlighted the gravity of the regime's unwillingness to do anything serious that might restrict its nuclear option.

President Bush should spend the next 10 months rectifying the Six-Party concessions and put North Korea back under international pressure -- efforts that would be welcomed by Japan, and South Korea's new, far more realistic President Lee Myung-bak. Here are the steps to take:

- Declare North Korea's repeated refusal to honor its commitments, especially but not exclusively concerning full disclosure of its nuclear programs, unacceptable. This is the easiest step, and the most obvious. It can happen immediately. Accept no further partial "compliance," as the State Department continuously tries to do. Make public what we know about the North's Syria project, and its uranium enrichment and missile programs, so our 2008 presidential candidates can have a fully-informed debate.

- Suspend the Six-Party Talks, and reconvene talks without North Korea. Although the talks could be jettisoned altogether, continuing them without the North allows Japan, South Korea and the U.S. to begin applying real pressure to China, the one nation with the capacity to bring Pyongyang's nuclear program to a halt. China has feared to apply such pressure, worried that it could collapse Kim Jong-il's regime altogether -- an accurate assessment of the regime's limited staying power. Nonetheless, the effect of Chinese reticence has been to preserve Kim and his nuclear program. It is vital that China know this policy is no longer viable.

- Strengthen international pressure on North Korea's nuclear and missile programs. Ramp up PSI cooperation with South Korea. Remind Russia of its own voluntarily-assumed obligations as a PSI core member. Remind China as well to comply with the sanctions imposed on North Korea by U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1695 and 1718 (which followed the North's 2006 ballistic missile and nuclear tests), and honor its other counterproliferation obligations. Tell them we will be watching with particular care, and that Chinese failure to increase pressure on North Korea will have implications in Sino-American bilateral relations. We can make this point privately to China rather that trumpet it publicly, but it should be made without ambiguity.

- Squeeze North Korea economically. Return the regime to limbo outside the international financial system, and step up action against its other illicit activities, such as trafficking in illicit narcotics and counterfeiting U.S. money. These and other "defensive measures" are nothing more than what any self-respecting nation does to protect itself, and the U.S. should never have eased up on them. Even now they can have a measurable impact on Kim Jong-il's weak and unsteady regime.

- Prepare contingency plans for humanitarian relief in the event of increased North Korean refugee flows or a regime collapse. Both China and South Korea have legitimate concerns about the burdens they would face if the North collapsed, or if increased internal economic deprivation spread instability. America and Japan should make it plain that they will fully shoulder their share of providing humanitarian supplies and assistance if either happened. Moreover, President Lee should increase pressure on Pyongyang -- by reiterating that South Korea will fully comply with its own constitution and grant full citizenship to any refugees from the North, however they make their way to the South.

Doubtless there are other steps. President Bush will not likely be able to solve the threat posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Nonetheless, he still has time to implement policies that will allow him to leave office with the nation back on offense -- thereby affording his successor the chance to vindicate a return to the original Bush administration national security strategy.

3)Both China and followers of the Dalai Lama in Tibet need to return to peaceful means.

Police violence against last week's protests in Tibet put a harsh light on China's claim of a "peaceful rise" to global prominence. But then the riots by the Dalai Lama's followers also reveal frustration at his call for nonviolent resistance against Chinese rule. Which way will resolve Tibet's uneasy status at the roof of the world?

The protests began peacefully enough. Last Monday in the capital, Lhasa, about 300 monks used an anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising – the one that forced the Dalai Lama to flee to India – to demonstrate against the imprisonment of some fellow monks. When a few monks were hurt and arrested, more protests followed. That led to major street riots Friday and protests in other parts of Tibet.

As many as 80 people may have been killed – a slaughter that begins to approach the killings during the 1989 Tiananmen pro-democracy protests in Beijing.

By Sunday, Chinese leaders had effectively imposed martial law on the region. The Dalai Lama called for an outside investigation into what he calls "cultural genocide" of Tibet's way of life, especially suppression of Buddhist practices.

Coming months before the Olympics in Beijing, this heavy hand against freedom protests has seriously compromised China's coming-out party on the world stage. Troops may still be in Lhasa's streets even as athletes are winning medals in Beijing.

Chinese leaders need to return to unconditional talks with the Dalai Lama. He has shown extreme patience for decades, even letting go of his demand for independence in favor of "meaningful autonomy" for Tibet. Nonviolent means can find a nonviolent response.

As the spiritual leader of Tibet (and a Nobel Peace Prize winner), the Dalai Lama says he has sympathy for the street protesters. Even within China, Tibetans are treated as second-class citizens, with stiffer limits on human rights than in other regions. Officials have usurped the Buddhist hierarchy and spread untruths about the Dalai Lama. But it is the campaign to flood Tibet with ethnic Han Chinese, especially after the building of a railroad to Tibet two years ago, that has created new resentment at the skewed benefits given to these new immigrants.

Tibetans are losing faith in the Dalai Lama's approach, and fear that when he dies they will have no leader. His call for a probe of conditions in Tibet needs a positive response from Europe and the United States if his restive people are to follow his peace prescriptions. Without a return to nonviolent means, Tibet could someday go the way of Kosovo, with violence leading to some sort of Western intervention.

In ironic timing, China agreed last week to resume talks with the United States about human rights issues. And in the island nation of Taiwan the people are leaning in a March election toward rejecting the approach of the outgoing president to move toward an official declaration of independence – an approach that has provoked missile threats from China.

Beijing must be tested to see if it is now in a mood to be generous to Tibet. China can be given another chance to show it will use peaceful means to assure freedom in Tibet. Time is running short and trust is running thin.

3) Abbas threatens to quit peace talks, revive Fatah terror


Washington sources report Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas put President George W. Bush and secretary of state Condoleezza Rice on notice. He has warned that he means to break off peace talks with Israel unless prime minister Ehud Olmert comes through with concessions by April. After that, he says, the Palestinians may weigh “alternative actions on the ground” – a transparent threat for his Fatah organization to revive the Palestinian “uprising” (terror campaign) against Israel from the West Bank.

Palestinian sources note this is Abbas’ second threat to reignite the Palestinian-Israeli war launched by Yasser Arafat in 2000. Two weeks ago, he told the Jordanian A Dustour , that while he prefers negotiations for now, he does not exclude an alternative option in the future.

Washington sources disclose the Palestinian leader’s conditions for the dialogue to continue:

1. The Israeli prime minister must meet Palestinian demands for concessions.

2. Foreign minister Tzipi Livni must satisfy her Palestinian opposition number Ahmed Qureia’s demand for a final list of Israeli concessions on the core issues of borders, refugees, Jerusalem and water.

3. Israeli must halt all construction in Jerusalem and the settlements forthwith.

Middle East sources, assert Abbas’s ultimatum was timed to profit from three forthcoming events:

First: US Vice President Dick Cheney’s visit on March 22. Palestinian officials will emphasize to him that they have run out of patience with Olmert and that some American arm-twisting is needed to make him more forthcoming.

Second: The forthcoming Arab League summit on March 29 in Damascus. Abbas is jockeying for a position that will upstage the Gaza issue, which is high on the summit’s agenda, and steal the thunder from radical Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal’s triumphal performance. For this, he needs a more radical platform than tame submission to the US-sponsored peace line.

Third: A fighting stance would pave the way for reconciliation talks with Hamas on the formation of a Palestinian unity government. This would be applauded by all the Arab rulers present.

For Abbas, time is running out with his own people. A new Palestinian popularity poll in mid-March placed Hamas prime minister of Gaza Ismail Haniyeh in the lead - 47 percent to the PA chairman’s 46 percent. Significantly, Haniyeh gained 10 percent in popularity after Hamas smashed the Gaza-Egyptian border wall and escalated its missile onslaught on Israel.

Fourth: The Palestinian leader is under fire from his own followers for letting Israel celebrate its 60th year of statehood in May without discernible progress toward Palestinian independence. The resumption of a Fatah-dominated terror offensive to mar Israel’s anniversary events might quell the dissatisfaction with his leadership.

4) Haniyeh beats Abbas in popularity poll
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH

A Palestinian public opinion poll published on Monday showed Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh would defeat Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas if presidential elections were held in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The poll was conducted earlier this week by the independent Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.

It gave Haniyeh 47 percent of the votes, while Abbas got 46%.

Previous polls had shown Abbas and his Fatah party leading over Hamas. Some polls gave Abbas a 70% majority, while others gave him 55% - 65%.

The last poll, which was conducted in December 2007, showed that Abbas would get 56% of the votes, in comparison with 37% for Haniyeh, if presidential elections were held then. The same poll showed that Hamas would receive 31% of the vote and Fatah 49%.

The gap between the standing of Fatah compared to the standing of Hamas decreased significantly in three months, from 18% to 7%; if new parliamentary elections were to take place today, Hamas would receive 35% and Fatah 42%. This represents a significant increase in Hamas's popularity compared to December 2007.


Hamas's popularity increased to 34% during the breaching of the border with Egypt during the last week of January, while Fatah's popularity dropped to 46%, the poll showed.

In a comparison between Gaza and the West Bank, the poll shows that Hamas is more popular in the Gaza Strip, reaching 40%, compared to 31% in the West Bank.

Fatah's popularity is also slightly greater in the Gaza Strip, reaching 43% compared to 41% in the West Bank.

The poll showed that Haniyeh's government receives greater public legitimacy both in the West Bank (32% to Haniyeh's compared to 26% to Fayad's) and the Gaza Strip (37% to Haniyeh's compared to 34% to Fayad's).

About 56% of the Palestinians polled said they were not satisfied with Abbas's performance as opposed to 41% who said they were happy with him.

Also disturbing for Abbas is the fact that 42% of the Palestinians interviewed in the poll said they were not satisfied with the government of PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad. Nearly half of the Palestinians said they would like to see Haniyeh continue in his job as prime minister.

But the poll found that jailed Fatah leader Marwan Barghouthi would defeat Haniyeh by a clear margin. The poll gave him 57% of the vote, compared to Haniyeh's 38%.

The poll covered some 1,270 Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip and has a margin of error of 3%.

5) The Obama Bargain
By SHELBY STEELE


Geraldine Ferraro may have had sinister motives when she said that Barack Obama would not be "in his position" as a front runner but for his race. Possibly she was acting as Hillary Clinton's surrogate. Or maybe she was simply befuddled by this new reality -- in which blackness could constitute a political advantage.

But whatever her motives, she was right: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." Barack Obama is, of course, a very talented politician with a first-rate political organization at his back. But it does not detract from his merit to say that his race is also a large part of his prominence. And it is undeniable that something extremely powerful in the body politic, a force quite apart from the man himself, has pulled Obama forward. This force is about race and nothing else.

The novelty of Barack Obama is more his cross-racial appeal than his talent. Jesse Jackson displayed considerable political talent in his presidential runs back in the 1980s. But there was a distinct limit to his white support. Mr. Obama's broad appeal to whites makes him the first plausible black presidential candidate in American history. And it was Mr. Obama's genius to understand this. Though he likes to claim that his race was a liability to be overcome, he also surely knew that his race could give him just the edge he needed -- an edge that would never be available to a white, not even a white woman.

How to turn one's blackness to advantage?

The answer is that one "bargains." Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence.

This is how Mr. Obama has turned his blackness into his great political advantage, and also into a kind of personal charisma. Bargainers are conduits of white innocence, and they are as popular as the need for white innocence is strong. Mr. Obama's extraordinary dash to the forefront of American politics is less a measure of the man than of the hunger in white America for racial innocence.

His actual policy positions are little more than Democratic Party boilerplate and hardly a tick different from Hillary's positions. He espouses no galvanizing political idea. He is unable to say what he means by "change" or "hope" or "the future." And he has failed to say how he would actually be a "unifier." By the evidence of his slight political record (130 "present" votes in the Illinois state legislature, little achievement in the U.S. Senate) Barack Obama stacks up as something of a mediocrity. None of this matters much.

Race helps Mr. Obama in another way -- it lifts his political campaign to the level of allegory, making it the stuff of a far higher drama than budget deficits and education reform. His dark skin, with its powerful evocations of America's tortured racial past, frames the political contest as a morality play. Will his victory mean America's redemption from its racist past? Will his defeat show an America morally unevolved? Is his campaign a story of black overcoming, an echo of the civil rights movement? Or is it a passing-of-the-torch story, of one generation displacing another?

Because he is black, there is a sense that profound questions stand to be resolved in the unfolding of his political destiny. And, as the Clintons have discovered, it is hard in the real world to run against a candidate of destiny. For many Americans -- black and white -- Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority. So the Clintons have found themselves running more against America's very highest possibilities than against a man. And the press, normally happy to dispel every political pretension, has all but quivered before Mr. Obama. They, too, have feared being on the wrong side of destiny.

And yet, in the end, Barack Obama's candidacy is not qualitatively different from Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's. Like these more irascible of his forbearers, Mr. Obama's run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance. Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson were "challengers," not bargainers. They intimidated whites and demanded, in the name of historical justice, that they be brought forward. Mr. Obama flatters whites, grants them racial innocence, and hopes to ascend on the back of their gratitude. Two sides of the same coin.

But bargainers have an Achilles heel. They succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. (We don't know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, bargainers all.) Mr. Obama has said of himself, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . ." And so, human visibility is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a "blank screen."

Thus, nothing could be more dangerous to Mr. Obama's political aspirations than the revelation that he, the son of a white woman, sat Sunday after Sunday -- for 20 years -- in an Afrocentric, black nationalist church in which his own mother, not to mention other whites, could never feel comfortable. His pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a challenger who goes far past Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in his anti-American outrage ("God damn America").

How does one "transcend" race in this church? The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol?

What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn't thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to "be black" despite his biracial background. And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity. And anyway, wasn't this hatred more rhetorical than real?

But now the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one's blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America's television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred.

No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity. His is the story of a man who flew so high, yet neglected to become himself.