Thanks, But No Thanks

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that despite President Bush's low approval ratings, people will soon "start to thank this president for what he's done."

CNN on-line article, December 29, 2008


Condoleeza Rice is living in a dream world of her own making. I can well understand Laura Bush supporting her husband's work as she did within the past few days, but I cannot understand Condoleeza Rice's defense. She ought to look around and take note of the fact that the rest of the Bush/Cheney Gang is keeping publicly silent. Silence would seem the better path for those who are responsible for the current mess.

Even if you could excuse her for the notion that Americans will be thanking Bush for the trillions spent, the deepening national debt, the incalculable damage to our Bill of Rights, and the disaster that is our economy, the above comment isn't Ms. Rice's greatest howler. In the same CNN article, she states:

"This isn't a popularity contest. I'm sorry, it isn't. What the administration is responsible to do is to make good choices about Americans' interests and values in the long run -- not for today's headlines, but for history's judgment,"

I only agree with that part of her comment that indicates this isn't a popularity contest. As much as I don't like President Bush for his personal mannerisms, arrogance and ignorance, I am already positive that I will detest his legacy since I will have to live with it for some time to come. I am far less concerned about what a historian may say in 50 years about the Bush/Cheney presidency than I am about how to deal presently with the wreckage of my retirement plans.

To make it explicitly clear, I hold President Bush personally responsible for the actions, inactions, omissions and moral vacuity that led to the current state of affairs. He cannot hide behind the excuse of market forces or matters beyond his control to explain away this legacy; he was in charge and either established or maintained the polices that led to the current debacle. He cannot blame Cheney for the damage to our Bill of Rights, since he selected the man for the Vice Presidency -not once, but twice - thereby explicitly condoning, if not actively complicit in, its disembowelment.

George Bush frittered away his time in office on vacations while our Bill of Rights, the economy and the Middle East burned. If only he had learned to play the violin!

From the standpoint of history the worst legacy the Bush/Cheney Gang leaves for America is not the state of the economy, but the damage to our Bill of Rights. Economies fluctuate up and down and periodically go into recession, and then usually recover and remain generally strong for some period of time. I suspect the same thing will happen to this mess, and that we will eventually recover and move on. In so saying, I do realize that depressions happen as well, but I have faith in the incoming President to help us avoid a depression. Suffice it to say that I have all fingers, toes, and eyes crossed in support of the hoped for truth of that statement. I would also cross any other crossable body part in support of this theory, but I am unable to identify any that qualify.

The damage done to our Bill of Rights has a much longer tail of associated ill effects than does the economy. Future Congresses will have to spend significant time and energy to repeal the bad laws of the previous Congress. Because of the nature of the judicial process, the courts grind slowly in their attempts to support civil liberties and it may be years before they are through with the litigation backlog that presently exists and which will be forthcoming under a new administration. The executive branch of government has its own work to do in the form of undoing regulations and presidential decrees, and it cannot undo them all with a single stroke of the pen on Inauguration Day. By the time each of the branches of our government do their work, an entire generation of young Americans will have lived under policies that we wouldn't have tolerated a decade ago. They will know no better and will have to be convinced that there once was a better world.

It is the gradual erosion of rights over time that is the greatest worry for me, since any time you take away civil rights and people adjust to a new reality it becomes harder to win back the lost rights. The will to take back civil liberties doesn't normally appear in the general populace until such time as civil liberty denials are egregious and excessive and affect almost everyone to the point that they are living in fear. Gradual erosion is, in the minds of most people, not worth fighting for because, after all, life can go on and we aren't entirely a police state. The energy and will it takes to rise up against a despotic government is not easy to elicit, and it generally takes a revolution to accomplish it.

Meanwhile, it is hard to drum up enthusiasm among the general populace for those who continue the fight to protect against the erosion of our civil liberties. In fact, organizations who do this, like the ACLU, are often seen as vaguely unpatriotic by many since their efforts are misunderstood. People tend to identify with the government in power - after all, it was elected in an open vote - and organizations such as the ACLU seem to many to be subversive of that government's legitimate power. If only the voters could learn to appreciate that the incremental loss of civil liberties is worse than a wholesale suspension of our Bill of Rights, in the sense that the former can occur with little fanfare and with general acceptance and approval and last for an extended period of time while the latter would likely spark a revolution which would immediately overturn the loss.

So we have work to do - hard, slogging work that begins when George W. Bush leaves office in January. I am very thankful he is leaving, but I am not thankful for what he has left us.

Goodbye George, and good riddance to you.

Christmas Morning

It is early this Christmas morning and, as is my habit, I am awake long before the others enjoying the quiet and the anticipation. Strangely, in a time of shared and extended family, this is the time of Christmas I like best. I can anticipate the day, the family games, the pleasure that I hope my gifts to the others will bring and, mostly, the thoughts of my family and my friends across the country in various stages of Christmas awakening.

Despite our continued snowfall, my youngest son and his girl friend are in residence and we enjoyed last evening together watching a Christmas movie. We did everything one expects on the eve of this holiday - cheese, crackers and sausage in the afternoon, a Christmas movie, dinner and desert, and conversation. Nothing remarkable in the sense of tradition, but satisfying and of substance, nonetheless.

I wish for many things each Christmas morning, some personal and some not. I suppose that much of what I wish for - peace, sanity, and food, health and security for all - will not likely come true in a society composed of flawed humanity. But, in any event, I can wish for these things in the considered hope that more of us do so each year than last. If I am incorrect in this hopeful assumption, I don't wish my belief to be shattered or diminished - not on Christmas morning anyway.

This is not intended as a sectarian thought, and my use of the word "sectarian" is not meant to be limited to the many varieties of Christians in the world. My usage is an attempt to encompass all beliefs about the existence of mankind and its condition of being - including those which are religious, those which are scientific, and those which are mixed or neither. All of conscious humanity has some sense of the wonder of our place in a firmament which is vastly greater than that which we can know. All of us wonder why we exist and what our shared purpose, if any, may be. It is as much a part of the human condition to wonder about these things, as it is to want to be with family in the deep midwinter.

As the ease of communication among our species expands, it seems likely that many of the barriers created by our genetic suspicion of differences will be overcome. I have long felt that we are hardwired to be suspicious of those who look and act differently from the society with which we are accustomed. It is my firm hope that because of the increased ease of information sharing we will learn to put aside these suspicions and, instead, celebrate the differences of humanity's opinion, ceremony and beliefs in recognition of the many ways in which humanity has discovered to travel the distance from birth to death. The ingenuity of mankind's many methods of living a life deserves no less than such celebration.

Such are the thoughts of my Christmas morning as the world is slowly coming awake and the sharing begins.

A Christmas Gift

Old age is
a flight of small
cheeping birds
skimming
bare trees
above a snow glaze.

William Carlos Williams


We are snowed in at our house in Humptulips County. We haven't seen this much snow in our County in recent memory. Whether it is the result of global warming, a benevolent God, a freak of nature or something else equally unknown does not take away from its beauty and grandeur.

Everything is covered with snow to a depth, in some places, of 18 to 20 inches. The children and dogs are the chief beneficiaries, romping without hesitation for long periods of the day. Their play is not sophisticated. They toss snow balls, sled and build snowmen with abandon. It is the kind of play I remember enjoying in the 1950's. There is something about the snow that makes children of all of us. While I didn't toss a snowball yesterday, I found myself happily batting at our many pines with a broom to knock the snow off the branches in an effort to avoid their breakage.

We are snowbound - we haven't been able to get out since last Friday due to the depth of snow and the icy conditions of the region's roads. While we often get an annual snowfall or two in Humptulips County, they are usually of short duration and the snow isn't deep and piled. Our normal snowfall is one or two inches of dry snow that eventually evaporates within two or three days into patchwork, lace-like decorations adorning gullies and North facing hillsides. Our current snowfall is wet, deep and of sustained duration, and more snow keeps being added to the mix. This is the stuff of the American Midwest and Northeast.

We aren't suffering in this snow. The power is on, we have phone and Internet access to the world, and my very intelligent wife stocked up on food in advance of the event. We are eating far too many Christmas cookies and thoroughly enjoying the scenery. We will probably spoil the entire experience today by digging our way out to the road and going in for more supplies. With any luck, I might even finish my interrupted Christmas shopping - but I am beginning to wonder if I am not already finished, since we have been given this wonderful gift of snow that I hadn't planned upon.

Being snowbound is as much a state of mind as it is a physical experience. Everything is cosier and more cloistered. The mind wanders to matters of personal relationships, perhaps because the snow reminds us of our need to depend upon one another for survival. We seem to be reveling in our relationships. I have been sharing emails with friends far and wide, and my wife has been calling her many friends and sharing our outdoor experiences here on the farm. We all feel slightly giddy in a childlike manner, as if in hopes of more wonder and beauty to come.

The snow is not without its dark aspects. We have tree branches - and, indeed, entire trees - down in some places from its weight. Our Christmas ham from Harrington's of Vermont is somewhere in a UPS truck and cannot be delivered due to the condition of the roads. My son and his girlfriend may not be able to make it to the house for Christmas if more snow falls. I think there are Christmas presents en route to and from our house, but I cannot be certain whether the presents will arrive in time for Christmas.

But I don't much care about all of that because we are warm, cocooned and safe. While I wouldn't want to be snowbound for too long, the occasional hunkering down in our Winter den is not only acceptable, but appreciated. We have been granted the gift of snow for Christmas, and it is a gift that I plan to enjoy while I may.

"Tyrant! You are a tyrant!"

Washington State Justice Richard B. Sanders to Attorney General Michael Mukasey at the annual Federalist Society dinner, 2008

I don't normally find myself in much agreement with Justice Richard Sanders of our State's Supreme Court. He is as conservative as I am liberal, and we share little in common other than our age. I believe that he and I took the bar examination together those many years ago.

Justice Sanders has always been outspoken in his beliefs, leaving little for anyone to guess at in terms of his meaning. While I haven't often agreed with his beliefs, I have always admired his forthrightness. One need not often guess at the meaning of his words, since if you find any ambiguity in them he will promptly clarify his meaning for you.

During the annual Federalist Society dinner this year, Justice Sanders engaged in the above spontaneous outburst several minutes in advance of Attorney General Mukasey's subsequent physical collapse. The outburst was in response to the Attorney General's remarks defending the Bush administrations interrogation techniques used in the so-called "War on Terror." The news media has been fond of playing the outburst in counterpart to the Attorney General's collapse as if one was the cause of the other, but the two events would appear to have little in common other than in the media's salacious dreams. Justice Sanders has indicated that the outburst was truly spontaneous and, in fact, has come to regret his specific choice of words. With reflection, he now believes that if he had used the word "tyranny," instead, he would have properly indicated his dissent from the policies of the Bush administration and not evidenced what appeared to some to be a personal animosity toward the Attorney General.

For once I am in complete agreement with Justice Sander's remarks (revised version 1.1). Were he to know much about me, he might be as surprised as I am. However, I suspect we both have an abiding belief in the Bill of Rights regardless of our respective political affiliations. This is just one more example of how we should ignore the usual political labels when discussing matters of fundamental right and wrong. Political labels are meaningless in such situations.

The primary definition of "tyranny" is the use of oppressive power by a government. By any stretch of the imagination, the government's actions at Guantanamo and in secret renditions constitute the use of oppressive power. The government seeks to justify the use of acts that are an anathema to the Bill of Rights on the basis that those suffering the interrogation techniques are not American citizens. They are, however, human beings and the United States is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948. Among its other declarations, Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

This language is reasonably clear and unambiguous, but I am certain that Attorney General Mukasey has several dozen reasons for its inapplicability to those held at Guantanamo. After all, he is a lawyer, and that's what lawyers often do. As I have previously noted, I am not always proud of my profession when it comes to situations of this kind. Too many of us forget and/or set aside our basic moral codes in our zeal to represent our clients.

There are times when a client should be told that he or she is just plain wrong, and this is clearly one of them. I suspect that Justice Sander's reaction was initially personal to Attorney General Mukasey based upon his understanding of this dichotomy - a lawyer needs to have a moral base from which he or she will not deviate and, when appropriate, should be prepared to tell his or her client that they are full of beans (as my grandmother used to say) if the client is about to engage in something that violates the attorney's basic moral code. And, if corrective action from the client is not immediately forthcoming, an attorney should fire the client without regard to the loss of income that will result.

None of us can control much of what happens around us, since we are always subject to outside influences, pressures, events and matters over which we have no control whatsoever. However, there is one single thing that each of us has in his or her absolute control - our personal integrity. No client is worth the sacrifice of my integrity. Whether other lawyers can say the same is up to them to decide, but if they feel to the contrary, they will eventually find themselves in an ethical bind from which there is no escape.

While I have always believed this way, it was, curiously enough, a client that brought the point home to me in the most meaningful way. Many years ago I was involved in helping the client acquire a business in another state. I was a little startled when the opposing attorney called to ask if we would send more than the purchase price to his client at closing. When I asked why we should do that, he indicated that they were deeper in debt than anticipated and needed the excess funds to clear title to the assets we were purchasing. I told the attorney that we might not have a deal and, upon informing the client of the problem, immediately found myself going to a meeting involving my client, the seller and his attorney. The meeting was very difficult as it became clear the seller was in a bad way and about to lose his business if my client did not complete the sale. At the midpoint of the meeting, my client called me into his private office for a one-on-one conference during which the client told me that he was going ahead with the transaction and wanted to explain to me why he was about to do so. Despite my protest that it was his money at stake and that if he wanted to do proceed with the deal I would certainly act on those instructions without further explanation, he insisted that it was critical that I understand his motives for proceeding. After I indicated a willingness to listen, he said 5 words to me that I have never forgotten. They were: "I shook this man's hand."

We ultimately consummated that deal because my client had a moral base from which he never deviated in a multi-decade business career. His word was always his bond. At the time when my client died last Winter, he was equally respected for his morality as he was for his business acumen. His was a life well and truly lived.

The sense of self evidenced by my client is what each of us must maintain in order to manage our way through this life. That sense of self is what our government must have in order to maintain legitimacy at home and in the world. The Bush administration's greatest single failing and its worst fault is that it simply forgot the most basic principles of what it means to be an American. All of its myriad deficiencies seem to arise in some fashion from this fault. It's as if we have been governed for the last 8 years not by the idiots that we can see, but by aliens who cannot relate to our culture, mores and beliefs.

OK, OK, they are idiots as well as aliens.

So, I can not only relate to Justice Sander's outburst, I can also, and do, applaud him for having the guts to say what he thought and to leave the room in disgust. If more of us had had the gumption to do so with other government officials in other venues at other times, perhaps these aliens would have returned to the planet from whence they came with their tails between their legs and perhaps our country would not now find itself an international laughingstock and the object of disgust and/or dismay in the eyes of many of those abroad.

The Chief Justice of our Supreme Court has publicly indicated his displeasure at Justice Sanders' remarks and has said he would speak with Justice Sanders privately about the behavior the Chief Justice would like to see judges on his court display. I would urge the Chief Justice to rethink that statement. Rather than chastising Justice Sanders, the Chief Justice should be congratulating him for having the courage to tell one of the most powerful men in America to his face that he is engaged in the exercise of tyranny. To do so is the essence of patriotism.

I only regret that Justice Sanders didn't take the next step and remind the Attorney General that, as a lawyer, he is entitled to his own moral code and that it is long past time for him to fire his client and walk away from the evil that the Bush administration has perpetrated.

So from one ardent liberal to one ardent conservative: Justice Sanders, I congratulate you on a job exceedingly well done. Thank you for remembering the importance of personal liberties and holding that importance as a part of your personal moral code.

A Thanksgiving Prayer

Steve Inskeep: “What does it mean to be American?”

Junot Diaz: “It is a question that as individuals and as a country we wrestle with every day. It’s the wrestling with that question that defines us, not any of the answers.”

NPR’s Morning Edition on November 24, 2008


It is Thanksgiving week and a time when all of us should think about those things that matter to us as a nation and for which we should be thankful. While it is difficult to contemplate the concept of our riches amid the steady stream of woeful news articles about global recession, failing banks, shrinking retirement accounts, and falling stock markets, it is, nonetheless, true that we, as a nation, are rich indeed. In fact, it may well be that these very market forces should cause each of us to examine the complexity of our nation and rejoice, once again, in simply being one, single ingredient in that most wonderful of stews - the American melting pot.

There are two things that unite everyone in this country - the diversity of our ultimate place of origin and the rights we share as American citizens and residents.

The idea that our very diversity is a source of unification might not be apparent to some, but it is the common heritage that the everyone in this country shares. Because of North America's geographic distance from the original home of mankind, all of our forebearers came from somewhere else - even those of the Native Americans who enjoy the unique role of being descended from those who settled here first. The land was a vacancy waiting to be filled, and we are still in the process of adding newcomers and filling it. The United States is a continuing grand experiment in mixing races, religions, cultures and viewpoints that has lasted since its inception as a nation. Just when some dominant group decides that their culture uniquely represents America and all others are foreign and inferior, reality sets in and the grand spirit of immigration overwhelms that group's notion that they should control and define who we are once and for all.

It has been ever thus since our founding. J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur said in 1782 in his Letters from an American Farmer:

"…whence came all these people? They are a mixture of English, Scotch, Irish, French, Dutch, Germans, and Swedes... What, then, is the American, this new man? He is neither a European nor the descendant of a European; hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds. . . . The Americans were once scattered all over Europe; here they are incorporated into one of the finest systems of population which has ever appeared."

At the time it was written, the focus of de Crevecouer's view upon our European heritage was not misplaced, even as it failed to recognize the existing strains of Native Americans and African Americans in our culture. And the truth is that little has changed since his writing except for the incredible array of additional ingredients now in the stew. Whether he would like it or not, de Crevecouer would recognize the strains of change due to increasing diversity in today's society even if the present day majority does not. Change the spices to add those from Africa, the middle East, the Caribbean, Asia, South America, Africa, India and so many other parts of the world in addition to those from Europe, and de Crevecouer's comments would remain valid today.

This ever increasing diversity has been our genius. Instead of being afraid of it, we should embrace it as the essence of the American spirit and accept it as the defining element of our nation. I am not trying to argue that the process of diversification is ever easy or that each new group suffers the same exact process of assimilation upon arrival. I could not argue either point of view, since both are incorrect. I am arguing, however, that the process of diversification - no matter how it may play out for any particular group - is the defining and unifying experience of our nation and one that we should embrace in the spirit of continual reinvention of the American stew.

The energy which comes from that constant reinvention of culture is what makes America unique. The rough and tumble of our politics and the constant spark of ingenuity that governs our science, our business and our culture comes from this, our diversity - from the constant rearranging and mixing of styles, cultures, viewpoints, and attitudes. I strongly suspect that without this incredible cornucopia of diversity, the United States would have been just another enclave of statehood where a dominant voice would have ruled to the exclusion of all else, and that its history would have been quite different, far less interesting and far less successful.

The other thing we all have in common is our form of government and, more importantly, the human rights that spring from that source of government. While we haven't always been the best at granting or securing those rights for all, our history has been one of a gradual realization that everyone is entitled to those rights. Out of the common shame of slavery and World War II relocation camps has come the understanding that to deny uniquely American rights to some is as unamerican as it is possible to be. While I would like to think that those lessons have been learned for all time and that we will not repeat those mistakes in future, I am fairly certain that the strains of the melting pot will cause us to err again in a similar manner and that we will eventually learn from whatever particular error we do commit. That also seems to be part of the American stew - while it blends, it does so slowly and cautiously.

This constant struggle is of the essence of Americanism: because we care about our rights and their application to all peoples, the struggle will continue unabated into the future. This will happen because we are simultaneously human beings who remain afraid of the unknown and Americans who share a common sense of right and wrong as expressed in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I have confidence that eventually the second strain of our character will see us to the right conclusions as the melting pot - the American stew - continues to boil and reinvent itself.

We have especially good reason to be thankful in this year of economic chaos. Amid that chaos has occurred a remarkable event that most of us didn't anticipate for years to come - the election of a President who doesn't look the same as his 43 predecessors and who is quintessentially American in his views and approaches. In sharp contrast to the present sitting President, he demonstrates intelligence and articulate rhetoric. He represents both immediate and long lasting change, for our American universe can never remain as it was prior to his arrival on the scene.

As we watch the melting pot boil on this Thanksgiving day, enjoy a helping of our American stew. Don't bemoan the new ingredients, but think ahead to future Thanksgiving days and wonder with anticipation what the stew will then taste like. To our standard helpings of turkey and dressing, imagine the wonderful new foods that will come to define this day - and enjoy the prospect.

Palinopsia

palinopsia pal·i·nop·si·a (pāl'ə-nŏp'sē-ə)n. Abnormally recurring visual imagery.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary


What is the hold that Sarah Palin seems to have on the American media establishment? There doesn't appear to be any real substance to her, yet the media persists in a series of interviews based upon her perceived star power. They cannot be conducting these interviews with an aim to convince all of us of her intellectual acumen, since the depth of her knowledge makes the depth of the nearest kiddie wading pool seem like that of the Marianas Trench by comparison. What is the fascination?

The possible answers would appear to be one or more of the following (hereinafter, the "Palinopsia Possibilities"):

1. The media is suffering from Palinopsia, and what we are seeing is nothing more than recurrent after images generated by the overly strong spotlight in which she was bathed for the several weeks of her involvement in the presidential election campaign. This is the kindest of several possibilities.

2. The media, always fascinated by behavior that is less than stellar and that borders on blowzy, is once again engaging in its favorite pastime of gossip mongering for lack of any real idea of responsible journalism. This is the most likely of several possibilities.

3. She really, truly is the future star of the Republican party, and her every move between now and the next presidential election cycle deserves to be chronicled in all of its magnificent detail for an admiring world. This is the least likely of several possibilities, but the answer that the media will give, if pressed for one.

4. The national electorate is actually dumb enough to eventually conclude that she is a viable candidate for anything outside of Wasilla, Alaska. After all, Alaska voters have already made that mistake on a statewide scale, and the media owes it to those of us in the lower 48 to prove her viability for national office. This is the most dreaded of several possibilities.

5. The public's fascination with the continued free fall of the world economy needs to be diverted by bread and circuses, and a lurid vision of Ms. Palin in the middle of the Coliseum floor surrounded by stalking lions may be the very thing to allow the powers-that-be to retain their hold despite their incompetence. This possibility has the media as the hapless tool of the aristocracy. Another dreaded possibility.

6. She is the political equivalent of Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears et al, and the very essence of her awfulness is of a source of media enthrallment. This is my personal favorite - it is simple, it fits the nature of the media, and reminds one of a cat playing with a mouse.

If I didn't know better, I would have to conclude that the media has been ensorceled by La Palin and that they are well and truly bound by their state of enchantment to repeat her every word and ponder her every possibility. I rather suspect, however, that they are really a pack of wild dogs circling their intended prey while waiting for the first sign of weakness before attacking. If this is correct, the final attack is well overdue given the fodder for a feast that she has already given us. Only by visualizing the media as toying with that proverbial mouse can we explain their reluctance to proceed to a kill.

Personally, I am hoping for an early cure to our Palinopsia. The image burned on my retina is not a pleasing one that I care to ponder for an indefinite period of time. I confess to wondering what her ultimate downfall might be and to relishing the various hypothetical means by which it might occur. But this, too, is a version of the cat playing with the mouse, since her take down is inevitable. As the potential victim, she is doing her best to invite the inevitable meal with her as the main course by her blatant attempts to pander to every possible voter within view. How else can one explain her statement that she admires President-elect Obama even though she still wonders about his attachment to an avowed terrorist?

There is a great headline this morning at mlive.com that says: "Palin has reached her sell-by date." This is so true - so much so that one wonders how the likes of Matt Lauer, Larry King, Wolf Blitzer and the remainder of the current clique of "heavyweight" media pundits cannot seem to grasp it. The reason simply has to be somewhere among the Palinopsia Possibilities. If only I could be certain which one it might be!

As a postscript, I tried very, very hard to arrive at a suitable palindrome in order to name this piece "Palinopsia and Palindromes," but without any suitable success. The only palindrome I could find or imagine was "Harass selfless Sarah," but if there is anything at all selfless about Sarah Palin it must be of the nature of the universe's long sought antimatter - a theoretical place holder impossible of validation given the present state of our scientific knowledge.

Seeing is Believing

There is a report this morning that President-elect Obama is working on a plan to close Guantanamo immediately upon taking office. It is essential that he follow through on this matter immediately upon taking office, without qualification, hesitation or backtracking, if America is to reclaim a place of moral authority in the world.

However, there are some aspects that are troubling, such as a report that for some Guantanamo detainees a new form of special court may be required. I truly hope that this sort of thinking will not prevail, both because our existing court system ought to be able to handle anything thrown at it and because we don't have the time to debate the nature and rules of a new court system if we are going to demonstrate effectively to the world a renewed commitment to human rights. It would seem to me that the legal authorities assisting President-elect Obama in this matter would do well to involve sitting federal judges in their planning to determine how existing federal courts might be used to prosecute the more intelligence sensitive matters. I would much rather see special court rules adopted by existing federal courts than a further debate in Congress over an issue that was clearly answered by our citizenry on November 4th.

As in all delicate matters, we need to revisit our priorities and goals, and use them as a measuring stick in order to determine how to proceed. Not only has our moral voice been severely muted in matters of international diplomacy by keeping prisoners indefinitely in Guantanamo without any serious attempt to give them a fair trial, many in the world have come to think of us as human rights abusers. America's greatest authority on the world has not come from its extensive military might, but, rather, from its position as a moral authority. All of the military might imaginable is insufficient to allow us to maintain our position as a superpower, witness the fact that we are currently stressed beyond capacity in the occupation of two foreign countries. Our true authority has always stemmed from the essential morality of our positions. Even if we have not always been consistent in our approaches to the world and even if certain members of the international community have disagreed with our basic values or quibbled from time to time over our methods of their application, prior to the Bush administration's hegemony there was little suspicion among other nations that we lacked a basic moral precept.

Thanks to the Bush/Cheney administration, that last statement is no longer true. In eight short years, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney squandered decades of hard work to earn the trust of the international community. Based upon the international reaction to Obama's election, there appears to be a residual hope in the international community that America is not really as Bush and Cheney have painted it. This is a legacy of all the hard work in the decades preceding Bush from which we may still benefit.

We must bear in mind at all times that the election of Barrack Obama to the presidency has not cured international skepticism about our moral precepts, but only has given hope to the international community that we will return to our senses. As January 20 gets closer, the world is likely to hold its breath to see if the election's promise bears fruit. In other words, the hope will turn into belief only if the actions suit the words and the implementation of a new policy is swift and unqualified in its breadth. Conversely, if our actions do not suit our words, the hope generated by Mr. Obama's election may quickly dissipate or turn to bitterness. We cannot afford to hedge our actions in any manner that even remotely smacks of the thinking of the Bush administration on this subject. If the hope of the international community is not swiftly turned into belief by the new President, his goal of returning America to a position of international leadership will become much harder to achieve.

The world is a complicated place, and the President will always receive advice, solicited and unsolicited, from all corners of the spectrum prior to taking any action, however major or minor. I hope and trust he will remember to keep his priorities firmly in front of him when making decisions of this magnitude, and use them as measuring sticks to cut through the cacophony of conflicting opinions and position. No matter what decisions he makes, there will be significant disagreement from portions of the electorate and senior politicians, so he will succeed best if he makes decisions consistently in accordance with his personal values and priorities. He would be better served by criticism that he is consistently incorrect in his positions than by criticism that he has no clear path to success on subjects due to inconsistent decision making.

In short, a President is better off being complained of for sticking to his or her positions than for having no discernible positions at all.

Lessons From the Long, Dark Night of Our Soul

Yesterday marked a series of signal events in our history, the foremost of which was the election of a young, African-American man as the 44th President of the United States. His election generated immediate hope and energy in a country starved for both at a time when we will need all of the hope and energy we can muster to deal with several daunting tasks, any one of which, if taken alone, would be considered a formidable challenge for a new President in ordinary times.

Most importantly, Barrack Obama's election marks the beginning of the end of an era during which the nation's very soul has been challenged by direct attacks upon our most fundamental and cherished beliefs - a period when our government deemed the use of torture to be legitimate in the pursuit of goals for which consensus was lacking and little attempt was made to develop one; when our government sacrificed our personal rights in the belief that all should feel safer in the cocoon of an idealized state that more nearly matches that of the Third Reich than the rough and tumble of traditional American democracy; when our government evidenced a disgust, dislike and disdain for the rest of this wonderfully chaotic world in which we live, simply because "they" didn't think like us and, one strongly suspects, didn't look like us. In short, we are about to complete a period in which the American dream was supplanted by a nightmare of our own making - a Bushmare, if you will. A nightmare wherein we engaged in persistently lower standards of national conduct in the pursuit of presidentially declaimed national goals shared only by the few and the self-appointed and promoted by the rank manipulation of our collective fears.

Having acquired more than a few gray hairs due to the passage of time and from the"enjoyment" of the vicissitudes of life, I have learned a simple, stark truth: not all of our time in this world is pleasant. Following the first of several dark episodes in my life, I was struck by the fact that while I seemed to have weathered it, I hadn't learned anything from it since I promptly repeated the seminal mistake and entered into a second period of darkness not dissimilar from the first - except with respect its intensity. Repeated stupidities are generally far less satisfactory than the first time in which we engage in them. This second period of brain damage made me realize, however, that there is a way to profit from darkness. Since periods of darkness are, by definition, not enjoyable or fun, one has to find other ways to profit from them by knowledge gained and/or lessons learned. These periods can make us wiser and stronger simply because it is, in fact, possible to learn from our mistakes. But to do so, we must take the time to engage in the necessary sober reflection to do so.

So it is in this spirit that I offer the following as possible lessons to be learned from our national Bushmare. We are about to enter a period of unprecedented change, and not just the kind of change promised by politicians everywhere. Are there lessons to be learned from our Bushmare? These are my nominations:

1. No society can succeed by acting contrary to, or from the misapplication of, its shared core values. The discord, animosity and calamity that results from acting contrary to our national cultural identity has no redeeming qualities. At best, such behavior can only be divisive. At worst, such behavior bankrupts society, causing the loss of national pride and, eventually, the destruction of the will to continue.

2. Never give away easily that which was so hard won. Hard won rights take centuries to define and develop, and we cannot be so careless as to disavow them within the space of a single political generation. The resulting slippage can only be erased by the efforts of many subsequent generations - merely to return to a condition we once enjoyed. Therefore, we must be a responsible steward and recognize the value of our predecessors' sacrifices by using them to shape and attain our goals, by furthering the effort they began during our time in charge, and by leaving theirs and our legacy intact so that our children may serve as stewards in their time.

3. Understand that basic human rights are not merely important to the American psyche, but are an integral part of its very warp and woof. Recognize that personal liberties are not merely a convenience, but are, rather, the singular essence which unifies the diversity which is our only common heritage - sons and daughters of immigrants of every conceivable variety and Native Americans alike. Understand further that when we diminish the human rights of non-Americans, we diminish our own honor and integrity while attacking the basic fabric that holds our society together.

4. Realize that we are not a super-power able to run roughshod over the world; that no single nation can, in a world of such variety and vastness, seek to impose its will on others without severely damaging its own internal stability. Recognize the Bush Doctrine for the basic threat to our internal security and peace that it is.

5. Never, never seek cover, security and comfort by allowing our government to preach a form of collective security at the expense of our personal liberties. Never fear the exercise by ourselves or others of our personal liberties, and learn to recognize the joy we share, as a nation, from our sanctification of their exercise.

6. Learn to celebrate, not fear, the panoply of peoples, customs, beliefs, ideas, cultures, religions, nations, and histories, and the respective acts of creativity that led to their existence. In short, listen to life's cacophony and revel in its rhythms and teachings.

We are now faced with an imperative to change in order to preserve the best of our society. The imperative is not driven by a wish to do better, but by the failure of the basic economic model as practiced for the last 20 to 30 years. This will be a period for which the mythical Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times" was invented.

Why it might be a curse to live in such times is beyond me. Change is opportunity. We can each make of it what we will, employing our personal resources to the best of our respective abilities. It is times like this in which we can find the stuff of which we are made.

It is also a time in which we can learn and employ the lessons of the long dark night of our national soul, thereby assuring that the national angst of the last 8 years is not wasted but is employed for our mutual profit.

A Lot of Guys Named "Joe"

"But the manner of death seemed unimportant. Murder had been done at Buchenwald."

Edward R. Murrow, Visit to Buchenwald

We live in a confused world. I suppose much of the variety and confusion arises from our very diversity, but much of it arises from our ignorance and fear of people and things we don't take time to understand. The confusion causes me to reflect upon the nature of good and evil, but without any expectation of having any new or startling insights on a subject of ancient concern.

The particular source of these thoughts comes from the dissonance I am suffering between (a) news accounts about thwarted plans for white-top-hatted-and-tailed skinheads to kill Barrack Obama in a grandiose drive-by shooting, and (b) my attendance today at the annual luncheon of the Washington State Holocaust Education Resource Center. Ironically, the two items couldn't be more disparate or more closely linked. Both speak to the ongoing, innate capacity of mankind for hatred and cruelty of one member of our species to another, while the first bespeaks the continuing need for the efforts expended by the second.

At the WSHERC luncheon, we heard from a survivor of the Holocaust and one of the soldiers that first reached Buchenwald where that survivor was incarcerated. The then 19-year-old soldier, Leo Hymas, was clearly unprepared for what he found after helping to blow the Buchenwald front gate with explosives on April 11, 1945. One has to assume that prior to his gate blowing exploits he was a typical American boy of the period - slightly innocent, yet world weary from fighting in a great war to preserve democracies from Nazi domination - in short, a typical American citizen soldier on whose backs the US portion of the war was fought. What he found that day were the seeds of change that eventually made him into a man well deserving of our respect, acclaim and sympathy.

I am not going to make an attempt to describe what Mr. Hymas found, smelled and heard that April day at Buchenwald. It is well beyond my powers to do so, and I have not the imagination to try. If you want some idea, you must listen to Edward R. Murrow describe Buchenwald following his visit there on April 12, the day that Franklin D. Roosevelt died and the day after Mr. Hymas helped liberate Buchenwald: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYVn0hzcSs0. Murrow must have had some minimal preparation for his visit to Buchenwald. Imagine Mr. Hymas' reaction, who lacked Mr. Murrow's resources and who, along with two other members of an advance infantry patrol, had been told by their commander to "find out what that barb-wired compound is over there," and who then walked, in the last moments of his innocence, over to meet his fate. If you have an ounce of empathy, perhaps you can barely begin to understand the impact Buchenwald must have had on Mr. Hymas' life, but if you or I presume to really understand, we can only be lying to ourselves.

Sometimes, the presence of profound evil generates the greatest good. For years after that April day, Mr. Hymas struggled to rationalize what he had seen, smelled and heard, apparently living with anger and depression. And then, sometime in the 1980's, he met a Buchenwald survivor and his healing began. Eventually, he connected with WSHERC who asked if he would be willing to visit high schools in our state to tell his story in an effort to keep the lessons of the Holocaust alive and real to a generation for whom it is only a story in a book. He then began a long career of teaching about the Holocaust in the company of numerous Holocaust survivors living and residing in our region.

As I watched Mr. Hymas quietly cry while being introduced by Robbie Waisman, the Buchenwald survivor who was 15 when Mr. Hymas and his fellow American soldiers blew open its front gates, I began to understand I was in the presence of simple goodness. For Mr. Hymas wasn't crying over the honor he was about to receive, but over Mr. Waisman's statement that had he known, on April 11, 1945, that his entire family and home had been destroyed by the Nazis, he would not have gone on. Mr Waisman's survival of Buchenwald had been based upon his belief that he would be reunited with his family, and he had exercised his extraordinary will to survive to achieve that goal, only to be subsequently, and cruelly, disabused of his hopes. His will to live drove him onward, however, and now he lives in Vancouver, BC amid the family he created for himself after the war, and spends his time helping others understand the lessons of the Holocaust.

Just being in a room with Mr. Hymas and Mr. Waisman with 600 others and being able to hear the barest outlines of their stories was a true privilege for which I thank WSHERC. I need these reminders as a guide for my own, personal behavior.

It is only through our personal behavior that we can help prevent future occasions of genocide, for the seeds of the Holocaust and of genocide lie within our individual actions and thoughts. While I am unable to deny the skinheads now under arrest in Virginia the success of their wicked dreams and must leave that to the civil authorities, I can control what I think, what I say and how I act. I can teach my children; I can behave in a manner consistent with my beliefs; I can, perhaps with luck and time, serve as a role model to a few. I can also speak up and speak out.

And, so I will.

For example, the latest case of stupidity by public celebrity comes from the mouth of Sarah Palin. Without the slightest attempt at verification, she reads lines no doubt penned by a Karl Rove clone to assert that Barrack Obama is palling around with a college professor she denominates as a former spokesperson for the Palestine Liberation Organization. At a campaign event in Ohio she says: "It seems that there is yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years." When asked if she isn't calling Mr. Obama un-American, she blithely dissembles and claims that it "is not negative campaigning to call someone out on their record."

What record? The record doesn't support the statement. The only possible reason for making the statement is that it is the last minute in the campaign, the Republicans are behind, and just maybe, if they can smear the muck fast enough and thick enough at a moment when there is barely time for the Democratic campaign to respond, they might get votes. And the appeal is to our dark side - references to the "radical professor" who is "from the neighborhood" can only be intended to raise the issue of race in the campaign in the only roundabout manner deemed acceptable by the campaign powers that be - by sly innuendo followed by a "who me" look of innocence when questioned by others regarding your intent.

When our public officials behave in this manner, they are playing with fire. For in statements like these lie the seeds of racism which, if planted firmly and well enough, may eventually grow into a further evil. And, if evil is allowed to sniff around in the corners of our lives, it only does so in its ceaseless attempt to find center stage where it can blossom into the conflagration it fervently seeks to become.

Mr. Hymas and Mr. Waisman know this about evil, and this is why they do what they do without thought of pay or other personal gain. Mr. Hymas was then, and is now, one of those whom Mr. Murrow, in that same broadcast, called "a lot of guys named Joe" who did what they did, and who still do what they do, simply because it was and is the right thing to do. Mr. Waisman is another such Joe, and is living proof that evil is alive in our world, but that it can be successfully resisted by one person - one Joe or one Jill - at a time.

Thanks again to WSHERC for the privilege and honor of being able to associate, however remotely, with those for whom personal honor is a lodestar. They represent what it really means to be a guy named "Joe."

Let's Give It a Rest

As the end of the world's longest political campaign nears, it is time for us to take stock and ask ourselves why we continue to wallow in our extended misery. Not only do we take far longer than any other nation to pick our leadership, we spend ungodly amounts of money in the process. Since our leadership doesn't bother to question the wisdom of a process in which they are totally invested, it is up to the rest of us to question our sanity.

I suspect that our presidential election process must have been the creation of Rube Goldberg. I cannot imagine anyone else who could have dreamed up something this bizarre, something that would try the patience of a three-toed sloth. Even the candidates I want to vote for are tiresome by now, much less the ones I cannot stand. If it is one of Rube's jokes, the joke is on us.

There is something seriously wrong with our entire federal political system. The campaigns are endless, the amounts spent are staggering, the results achieved are akin to stagnation mixed with invective, and the standard of governance achieved might have been effective for student government during my senior year in high school, but I doubt it. In short, nothing is working well.

We usually spend our time blaming the politicians. As a sport, politician bashing is sometimes fun, but mostly it is an excuse to vent our disgust at the system in an unprofitable manner. In fact, I have come to believe that politician bashing is keeping us from focusing on the real problem - the obsolescence of our system of government. I suspect that a careful analysis would show that the system our founders installed is leaking at the seams and that no matter whom we elect we will get substandard governance as a result.

Our Constitution was a marvel of its time. When it was adopted, it was a serious attempt to create something more than rule by royalty. It was not an attempt to create a democracy, no matter what we may say about our country and our beliefs. It was an attempt by our founders - members of the colonial elite - to create a form of representative government that would enshrine that elite in power. For its time, it was daring, novel and far more democratic than anything else then in existence. While it was not more democratic than some of the early Greek city states, for its time it was truly revolutionary.

Anyone who thinks we were creating a democracy when adopting our Constitution has read neither its text nor the Federalist Papers. Our founders created a republic - a form of representative government that they felt fit the needs of their times. They wanted more democracy than the King provided, but wished to also accommodate a basic distrust of the general populace. Given the condition of roads and the means of communication then available to our founders, they wrought something magnificent. They created something that we have all come to revere even though it harbors many anti-democratic ideas.

And in that very reverence are the seeds of our current despair. We continue to enshrine our Constitution in our hearts and minds and don't bother to re-examine its dictates in the light of today's society. The system it created has been broken for several decades and no longer serves us well. As much as I would like to blame the Republicans for all of the stalemates in Congress, the truth is that it is the system that creates a fertile environment for stalemate no matter who is in charge or the size of their majority. Our vaunted system of checks and balances means that nothing can be accomplished in a timely manner and, all too often, means that nothing can be accomplished at all.

Our founders wanted to widen access to government but they had no intention of throwing it open to all and sundry. Again, read the Federalist Papers if this statement seems heretical to you, and then consider the founders in their time and place. For their time and place, they were revolutionaries. But their dreams, judged by today's standards, are no longer visionary but, instead, are representative of a far gone past. I strongly suspect that if Thomas Jefferson were alive today as a fully cognizant man of this century, he would be foremost among those arguing for a new constitutional convention.

Ironically, the country from which we splintered when the Constitution was adopted has a far more modern system of government than we. It is still a representative government, but it operates, as a system, with far more effectiveness and efficiency. Is it the paragon of governmental structures? Somehow I doubt that, but we should be reviewing our own form of government as a predecessor to the parliamentary form currently prevalent in Europe and Canada, and be designing a new system that fits our size and our times.

Having said this, I have a great love for our Constitution. But the love that we all share for this document is precisely the reason why we are unable to see that it no longer functions effectively. We have deified the document to the point where we are unable to see its flaws. With all due respect, it has served us well, but the time to give it a rest is upon us.

A call for a national constitutional convention will be seen as many as a call for chaos. Nothing could be further from the truth to my way of thinking. Until a new constitution is ratified, we still enjoy the form of government that has served us these many years. If the members of a new constitutional convention are unable to agree, at least they will focus us upon the issues that can and should be debated until a consensus can be reached. In any event, since when have we been afraid of debate in this country? Instead of debating endlessly as our Congressional structure demands, shouldn't we decide to engage in a debate that might actually produce a constructive outcome?

I suspect the biggest problem with our present Constitution lies in the structure of the legislative branch of government. Our current structure is a recipe for stalemate. But the institution of the Electoral College is equally suspect, since it is the most singularly anti-democratic institution left enshrined in our Constitution. Think about it. The founders didn't truly trust the average voter, so they created an Electoral College of the elite to make certain that not just any Tom, Dick or Harry became President. In doing so, they ensured that we got a George as President - one as equally demented, ineffective and as sorry an excuse as a sovereign as the one from whom we escaped all those many years ago during our pre-Constitutional revolution.

I don't have a recipe for doing it right next time. I have some ideas, but whatever we choose should be the result of able minded men and women of all colors coming together in a national constitutional convention to find the way forward. Everything should be open to review - even the Bill of Rights which, as you may well recall, was not part of the original Constitution in the first place. We absolutely need a bill of rights in a new constitution, but its contents should be carefully reviewed in light of the times in which we live, our population density and the state of our communications.

In short, let's venerate our Constitution as it deserves, but not let it blind us to our present needs. The time has come to give the old dear a rest and let it take its rightful place in history. We should never forget what it has meant to us, but it is time to move on to something for our times. It is past time to rekindle the spirit of our founders and to revisit the schemes and means of government. Two Georges are too many.

New Name; Same Blog

"The end of an empire is messy at best
And this empire is ending
Like all the rest
Like the Spanish Armada adrift on the sea
We're adrift in the land of the brave
And the home of the free"

Randy Newman, "A Few Words"


While I don't wish to take away from the philosophy with which we started this blog (see first entry), I have decided that the blog's title was hackneyed. I have always been fond of the new title, which is from a William Faulkner short story entitled "Adolescence." The more I think about what Eliot and I are interested in, the more it becomes apparent that this new title is appropriate. While Eliot and I are not in despair, we seem to be focused on distant despairs and the sources and means of their existence.

The truth is that some of the despairs which we have been observing aren't so far away after all, and each of us - you, Eliot and myself included - engage in some behaviors which contribute, however remotely, to the existence of all despairs, near and far.

It is a cliche that ours is a small world, but the funny thing about cliches is that, often, they are cliches because they represent fundamental truths. If nothing else, the recent financial crisis should convince mankind once and for all that no one can hide behind an artificial political border and ignore what is going on in the rest of the world. What is going on in the rest of the world can and will affect us immediately or with time, with some matters more directly affecting us than others, but with all matters having some affect upon us for good or ill.

By so stating, I am not arguing that we ought to interfere routinely in the activities of others in order to stave off adverse effects or to police the world in accordance with our narrow standards. We have already seen that we lack the capacity as a single country to do either well -at least most of us who don't live in the White House or who aren't subservient to its current occupant have realized that. What our current administration has failed to understand is that in trying to make everyone else in the world think and act as we do, we have initiated counteractions which are now reverberating and affecting us adversely in many instances. While we bluster about assuring democracy for the world, we seem oblivious to our own engagement, in the name of democracy, in various horrendous activities which are, at the very least, antithetical to democracy - if not more appropriately classified as human rights violations or, in some cases, as war crimes.

So our failure doesn't lie merely in the fact that we are extravagantly wasting our treasury of money and good will in unwinnable causes; we are also actively damaging our moral fiber from within, while claiming to be the good guys, when, in stark fact, we aren't. Such moral incongruity simply cannot be maintained without material adverse consequences to our national psyche.

If you believe that a nation can undergo such dissonance for any significant period of time without material detriment, take a look at history. Every country that has wallowed in the arrogance of its power to such an extent that the ability of its fundamental, founding beliefs to control, limit and advise its leadership has become emasculated, has failed. I don't mean by that statement that they have failed in their goals or failed in some particular action; I mean that they have failed as a country. Think of the German people under Adolf Hitler and then ask yourself how we can observe and condemn that behavior, but be unable, with one voice, to rise up and condemn water boarding for the vile act of torture that it is. We are unable to do so because our arrogant leadership has convinced many that we can and should, in the name and pursuit of democracy, behave toward non-Americans in ways we would never tolerate if dealing with ourselves.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is known in my grandmother's lexicon as a load of crap. If you think we can survive such an extreme moral dilemma without suffering significant harm, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Just don't ask for a warranty deed, because it won't be forthcoming. Furthermore, I will only accept cash in payment.

Big lies seem to be the hardest to for us to recognize probably because, while we want to disbelieve them, we are rendered insecure in the face of their sheer magnitude. We torture ourselves with the fact that our incredulity is as large as the asserted lie, and we cannot reconcile our disbelief with the fact that someone would make such an assertion with a straight face. We need to see past our incredulity and accept the big lies for what they are - lies. The truth about lies of this kind is really quite simple no matter the level of our incredulity at their assertion: what is wrong under our shared moral standards is simply wrong, and, no matter how hard you try, you cannot gussy it up so that it is anything but wrong. To say that you can do wrong to some in the pursuit of good for others doesn't even rise to the level of sophistry - it is just, plain old stupidity at all times, and evil most of the time.

Therefore, because of the basic inter-connectivity between our actions and the actions of others elsewhere in the world, I am positing that we must adopt a wider vision in making our decisions than the narrow one that our current leadership possesses. In this world and at this time, we must come to understand that our actions affect others as much as their actions affect us, and that, therefore, the only rational means of international engagement is in forms of give and take that are mutually beneficial to all varying viewpoints. Easy? No. But we have always been a creative nation, and this standard merely challenges our creativity. Have we lost so much faith in ourselves that we are no longer willing to trust our success to the promise of our creativity and ideas?

We must quit pretending that we are benefiting others by trying to make them think and act as we do. It is one thing to assert our values as an internal societal right in the governance of our own community; it is quite another to think that all nations must behave as we do at all times. It is one thing to explain our thinking and our values to the world by rational discourse and consistent behavior; it is quite another to seek, by means of war, intimidation, or other exercises of raw power, to compel others to live solely in accordance with our standards. One is our right; the other is simply wrong - and, as noted above, just plain stupid.

So this is what what Eliot and I seem to be doing here - shoveling crap to expose lies. As we do so, I have begun to realize that these rumors of far despairs are far closer to our home here in Humptulips County than I like or wish to condone. And so it is that I have decided to say what I think in accordance with the KISS principle - you know, the one that says "keep it simple, stupid" - since I am convinced that at the very heart of every seemingly complicated situation or circumstance lie simple rights or wrongs which can and should be used as measuring sticks to determine our way forward.

Besides, as long as we adhere to the KISS principle, the more likely it is that those currently in power might actually come to understand our concerns and commentary. After all, you must play the hand you are dealt.

Palinburgers, anyone?

Far be it for me to attempt to predict the outcome of the next presidential election. Remember the foolish headline that the Chicago Daily Tribune put out on the streets announcing the election of Tom Dewey and inferring that Harry Truman had lost? Well, I do, and I shy away from doing anything even close to it.

But, one can make assumptions.

So assume for purposes of contemplation and speculation that John McCain does not win the election. OK, he will once again be able to roam the Senate office building without presidential and electoral concerns, pound the podium as he speaks to an empty Senate chamber and be free to maverick away in the Senate to his heart's content. But what about Sarah Palin? Will she just trundle back to Alaska and take up where she left off, hounding her former brother-in-law out of his uniform as an Alaskan State trooper and being a simple aw-shucks hockey mom and moose skinner?

No, siree. That isn't the way the system works, not the "democratic capitalistic" system that George W. You-Know-Who set out to save this week when he invited the heads of many large and small nations to confer with him soon on the future of the world's economy. In fact, the system doesn't work in one simple way. The ways are many — and they can be very lucrative. Now, then, here's where I'm willing to make a prediction.

The prediction is that Sarah Palin will become one of the richest women in America. No doubt about it. As Browning might have put it, "Let me count the ways."

The GOP has bought her a new $150,000 wardrobe and hairdo. That's a start. From here on, it should be easy pickins'.

There will be a newspaper column. Karl Rove writes one. Why not Sarah, too? Lots of folks will want to hear what she has to say whether or not she really says anything. Then a talk show. Rush Limbaugh spews stuff to a rapt audience regularly. If memory is accurate, not so long ago he signed a contract to keep the barrage of words up for around $425 million. If Rush can do it, shouldn't Sarah? Politics aside, she's a lot cuter.

Speaking engagements should keep the coffers full. No question about it when the going rate is at least $50,000 to $100,000 a pop. If she really is smart, she'll sign up George W. to be on her team, and with good writers they might even create a comedy routine, like "Who's on first?" or a ventriloquist act reminiscent of Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy — although who would be the dummy is an open question.

With some ghosting and editorial assistance, an autobiography should make the best seller lists. Not in the same category as "The Making of a President" but still "The Unmaking of a Vice-President" should find a significant klatch of followers.

When counting the ways to politically inspired riches, let's not forget the product endorsements. Here we're also talking big money: Sarah Palin's Hair Moose, Palin Genuine Moose Jerky for those in between snacks, Palin autographed hockey sticks from Spalding made from Alaskan birch wood, signature T-shirts, Palin inscribed hats with moose antlers (it's way past time for those silly Mickey Mouse hats to go), Palin's Presidential Perfume, Palin's Platforms and on and on —you name it. It's there to be had.

Last — well, maybe not last — but certainly not least, will be the "grateful" party supporters. These are the pillars of the "democratic capitalism" that I alluded to before. They provide well-paying seats on boards of directors of Fortune 500 companies, vacations to exotic places, stock market tips, vacation homes in warm climates, cruises on private yachts and trips to faraway spots in company jet aircraft.

And for the long run there are charitable foundations. I can see them going into action now. "Unwed Teenage Mothers In Need" (UTMIN), "Palin Eskimo Relief Fund" (PERF), "Hockey Moms For Family Values" (too long for an acronym). Remember Evita Peron? The money kept rolling in. It will for Sarah, too. Bet your best moose skinning knife on it. Foundations need management, don't they? Of course. A spot for Todd — with appropriate salary, health insurance and a retirement plan.

Think I'm kidding? That's how the political system takes care of those who labor in the trenches. Always.

As Sarah, herself, said recently at a political rally: "...there are many possibilities."

118,673,464 To Go, Dear Reader

"Oh good. Only 118,673,465 blogs still up"

Doonesbury, Sunday October 19, 2008

I have enjoyed posting on this blog and expect that I will continue to do so with fair consistency - weather, work load, other singular distractions and interesting subject matter permitting. However, I have to ask myself what might be the enticement for doing so in light of no reasonable assurance that anyone, anywhere is reading it. Since I have no interest in making a living doing this, in attracting advertisements or other means of income, or in measuring the number of hits to the blog, why bother? Why post to a blog when you are nothing more than one small noise in a hurricane?

I had to laugh at myself when I read Doonesbury this weekend and saw the above.

The internet is a truly special place for many of us, and I have learned to respect it for what it is - a means of open and free expression available to anyone, anywhere, regardless of race, religion, politics, or personal attribute. I first came to understand this when watching my youngest son spend what I then believed to be an inordinate amount of time on the internet during his formative years. As concerned parents, my wife and I began to lecture him on the amount of time he spent on line, worried about his school work and his social development in real time. One day, it suddenly dawned upon me that my son, who happens to be hearing impaired in real time, suffered from no impairment whatsoever while on line, and that during his time on line he was on a level playing field with everyone else with whom he might be dealing. In short, I had this epiphany: for him, being on line was a form of liberation and I was trying to restrict his liberty. Recognizing this at last, my wife and I toned down the level of our objections significantly in favor of letting him become whomever he might choose to become in this world that was so enticing to him and so foreign to us.

My son has grown into a responsible adult and is undertaking a post-graduate degree in - what else? - digital information management. His first love remains all things digitized, and the digitized world will be his vocation, avocation and, I hope, his oyster. I have come to believe that he is one of those truly rare persons who knows what he is made for from birth. He began using a computer at age 2. As I have watched him develop, I have enjoyed sharing with him his interest in cutting edge discussions and debates on the subject of managing digitized information and have become increasingly aware of the power of the internet - for both good and bad.

It was my sense of his feelings of liberation that caused me to consider posting to a blog of my own. I thought about doing so for several months before actually trying it out, somewhat hesitantly, last month. There are many things in the world that puzzle and delight me, and one of those has come to be the feeling that I can say whatever I wish to say in a place where anyone can read it. Posting to a blog is somewhat akin to writing graffiti on a high wall - people may notice it or not, may be annoyed by it or not, and may, or may not, even see some art in the result. The fact is, however, that it is your graffiti and your art, and the enticement of posting it lies in the ability to make a public statement in a manner meaningful to the author - even when it is unknown whether the public is interested in it.

I think this explains why there are blogs on almost every subject under the sun. Any time someone posts to a blog, it represents a statement, publicly made, about something of personal interest and importance. Anyone else can read or ignore it at their whim. The fact that others may ignore your particular post is irrelevant to the joy of knowing that you have publicly plead your case.

I will continue down this path for my own enjoyment if for no other reason. After all, I always, secretly, wanted to be the one with the spray can next to that vacant brick wall, but was too respectful of private property to try it. So, until some byte hugger starts a campaign to "save the bytes," I can, and will, feel free to post here and to have my say.

Mockingbirds and Stopwatches

"'What's the matter?' I asked.

Atticus said nothing. I looked up at Mr. Cunningham, whose face was equally impassive. Then he did a peculiar thing. He squatted down and took me by both shoulders.

'I'll tell him you said hey, little lady,' he said.

Then he straightened up and waved a big paw. 'Let's clear out,' he called. 'Let's get going, boys.'"

Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

I have just seen a piece in the legal press regarding Craig MacGlashan, a California lawyer who is Chairman of the Sacramento County Republican Party, who posted material on a website about Barack Obama which, among other things, suggests that Mr. Obabma be waterboarded and compares him to Osama bin Laden. This is well and truly beyond anyone's pale. I strongly suspect that John McCain, if he ever learns of this, will immediately repudiate it. Not only has he begun to speak out against such excessive attacks on Mr. Obama, but he has consistently fought against torture as an American investigative tool - hardly surprising given his own experience. Even though I feel he has gone not nearly far enough in doing so, I give him credit for beginning to reassert his values in recent days.

This campaign has had far too much of this sort of horse manure. Once expects incivility in a political campaign since contenders hardly seem able to avoid it in the heat of battle, but suggestions of torture, killing and slurs (many racially motivated) are simply a new low in American politics. The Republican party ought to be ashamed of itself for promoting an environment where such garbage can flourish, and needs to examine its teachings and culture carefully to see what it is doing to foster evil in this form. Partisan politics is one thing; filth, muck and outright urging of domestic terrorism are something entirely different. While I reluctantly acknowledge that the former has its place, the latter should never be allowed to see the light of day. It will be informative to see what, if anything, the Republican party brass does to Mr. MacGlashan and how fast it does it. If the top party brass fails to remove him from his position with dispatch and promptly censure him in the process, the party will simply ratify his un-American message and become deserving of outright censure in its own right.

This is the action of a desperate party falling precipitously from power, after living large and excessively for far too long. Further, if Mr. Obama were white (see previous post), I seriously doubt that messages of the type attributed to Mr. MacGlashan would (a) see the light of day, or (b) be tolerated for longer than thirty seconds by the powers that be within the Republican party. This means that the speed with which the Republican party reacts to Mr. MacGlashan's remarks will also say much about its tolerance for racism within its own ranks.

The stop watch is on and ticking.

The stop watch is also on and ticking with respect to the California Bar Association's reaction to this filth. Given the speed at which ethics complaints are processed in any jurisdiction, the Bar Association deserves more time in which to react, especially given the need for due process in what is essentially a judicial proceeding. I hope and trust, however, that one or more of my California colleagues will see fit immediately to file a complaint under applicable ethics codes to begin the process. While I decry the actions of the Republican party in creating an environment in which Mr MacGlashan can unashamedly state "Some people find it offensive, others do not. I cannot comment on how people interpret things," I have to acknowledge the failure of the American bar, as a whole, assertively to insist upon civility in the practice of law. Shame on my own house for this failure. Lawyers should be leaders, not followers.

While it is true that judges and those at the top of the American Bar Association and the various state bars have wholeheartedly rejected the growing lack of civility in the practice of law, I also have to acknowledge that many individual practitioners simply see incivility as either their right or as an acceptable tactic in the practice of law. While one not only has to wonder about the sense of honor possessed by any lawyer who believes this way, one must also question whether they have any brains at all if they somehow see such tactics as effective. While various courts and bar associations have begun to create codes of civility to which they urge adherence by lawyers, it is well beyond time for these same courts and bar associations to begin to actively sanction obviously uncivil behavior.

I take the notion of being a counselor at law very seriously. While I aspire to the status of an Atticus Finch, I know I fall short - but I keep trying. I well know that I have to behave in a civil manner not only while engaged in the practice of law, but in the conduct of my personal affairs as a citizen of this great country. I can only wonder whether Mr. MacGlashan understands that to do otherwise is to bring discredit upon our shared profession and to bring shame upon his own house. I suggest that he look in his mirror and tell the rest of us what he sees staring back.

The exchange in the above quotation from To Kill a Mockingbird occurs on the front porch of the court house, under the incongruous floor lamp, while Scout wonders why Mr. Cunningham and his "friends" are challenging Atticus, who has come to defend Tom Robbins from lynching. She understands nothing of the situation other than the one, singularly essential element common to everyone there - the need for man's humanity and civility to his fellow man. Her simple assertion of this creed by questioning the strange expressions she sees on the faces of those around her defuses an otherwise ugly situation.

Can we not all learn from Scout? I hope I have and will continue to do so. I wish Mr. MacGlashan would. I would be happy to send him a copy of To Kill a Mockingbird, gratis, if he will only furnish me with his address.

Let "7" Be Like It Always Was

Over many millenia, mankind has fastened onto certain numbers, among its many superstitions, as talismans of good luck. Of course, there were also numbers that were deemed unlucky, even diabolical. Rolling dice to show a combination that adds up to “7” brings good fortune in a crap shoot, and for many that number in dealings of general commerce and every day life is also as good as, or even better, than owning a lucky rabbit’s foot. Certainly true in the USA and in places with a Las Vegas kind of mental outlook although other areas of the world undoubtedly adhere to a different number or combination of numbers as a symbol of prosperity.

But what about 7 hundred billion, the lucky 7 with 11 zeros after it? Or how about adding another 7? You might think that two 7s would imply twice as much good fortune as one.

Well, consider.

In terms of dollars, that would equal the latest effort by Congress to put a number on what it takes to unravel the recession in which the USA is enmeshed. It would also equal somewhat less than the amount of revolving credit owed by Americans, you know, mostly credit card debt plus a few billions of small change attributable to other improvident indebtedness, but not mortgage or car loans. It is also the same number that the Brits expect to cough up in order to free up the credit freeze there. And have you heard of the war in Iraq? Official cost around 700 billion greenbacks (although there are some who say that it is more like $3 trillion).

There is more: the “official” current budget deficit is something over $400 billion, but that doesn’t include off-budget expenditures. My guess is that if the government bean counters were committed to “transparency” (now there’s a word to dream about), the deficit would close in on our magic number of $700 billion. Then, there is the current account deficit. Guess what, right at 700 billion.

It’s not yet time to cease this catalogue of 7s. On October 9, 2008, the Dow plunged almost 700 points. Again, it did the same and a bit more on October 15.

Then there are numbers with two 7s, like the unemployment rate in California — 7.7%.

In my book — pardon me, blog — the number 7 seems to have lost its cachet as a lucky number, and has become a number to beware of, until the Dow explodes some time in the distant future with a 700 point rise. For the moment, there are many stock traders, i.e., horse players, who would say that right now a 7 ranks with snake-eyes. So, the next time you see a 7 on your side of the street, think about crossing over to the other side — unless you are looking for a Seven-Eleven Food Store where you hope to buy a 7-up.

All of this, of course, is superficial, just plain coincidence, not quite double-talk but certainly seven-speak. Interesting, but not leading very far toward a solution that will unmire the world from the deluge of 7s. However, those economists and public officials who have been honest and forthright say that they don’t know what the solution is.

So let’s move on.

More significantly, the subject raises many questions. When, how and what transformed our culture into one in which most citizens assumed they could live beyond their means forever and borrow more than they could ever hope to repay? Where did they learn about that kind of a life? Was it from their parents? Was it a derivative of laissez-faire economics? How did the guardians of the financial world, the banks, decide to toss time honored and prudent lending practices to the winds? What kind of a balance sheet would a bank show if the asset side consisted of underwater loans? Who in his right mind thought he was fooling anybody for long by packaging such loans in various forms of previously unheard of credit type securities? A wolf in sheep’s clothing it turned out to be, devouring everything and everybody in sight.

When did the “ American dream” come to mean entitlement to the good life, rather than the promise of opportunity?

How did anyone — our leaders, the wise men, the thinkers — buy into the notion that it was smart to invest untold treasure — say $700 billion — in a country whose people had never heard of democracy, didn’t know what it meant and didn’t want it anyway? Was that venture merely an extension of the credit card mania, the idea that because you want it you can have it, that we could go on indefinitely borrowing from Bejing to pay Riyadh?

That’s a lot to think about, especially all at once, so I’ll save my thoughts right now for another day and another blog.

Meanwhile, contemplate the grief inherent in the number 7 as it repeats over and over again in the daily headlines. Take a measure of courage from the lyrics of a song from Kurt Weill’s Street Scene. The words speak a sentiment that is on most everyone’s mind these days as eyes blur over with the procession of bad 7s: “Let Things Be Like They Always Was.”

Posted by Eliot Mentor at 8:37 PM

Botox and the Media

"All successful newspapers are ceaselessly querulous and bellicose. They never defend anyone or anything if they can help it; if the job is forced on them, they tackle it by denouncing someone or something else."

H. L. Mencken

"It's white and black like industrial waste, Pollution of the highest degree, You wonder why I don't hang out much, I wonder how you can't see."

George Harrison, The Devil's Radio

There is a report this morning that the Washington Post is investigating whether Joe Biden has had a botox shot. I have been waiting a long time for someone to tackle this most important issue, since I suspect that the fate of the free world and free markets hinges upon getting a correct answer to the matter. I am particularly gladdened that it is the Washington Post, that most venerable of newspapers, that has chosen to tackle as important an issue as this. After all, we cannot allow our country to rest on its botox.

The really important question is "why?" Why on earth would anyone care whether Biden did or didn't have a botox shot? Why would a prestigious newspaper like the Post waste time on this drivel? Why would other news media report that the Post is so engaged? Why would Biden's campaign deign to issue a denial (as, in fact, they did)? And, why is it the subject of this blog entry?

The answer to the last question is that it isn't the subject of this blog entry, but only my excuse to wonder aloud about the nature and character of those working in the news industry. I warned my faithful readers (is there such a thing?) I would do this; I was simply biding my time until the inevitable opportunity presented itself.

Among the many suspicions I harbor about modern life is that the concept of "news" is nothing more than one end of a continuum of information sharing that ranges from "news" (acceptable information about shared events) to "common gossip." They are of a kind, with one end of the spectrum being rightfully condemned by George Harrison in song as "industrial waste" and the other end elevated beyond acceptable into a commodity for which we are willing to pay. The question then becomes: what is the nature and character of those who determine where information fits on this continuum.

At any given time, it is the currently active journalists, reporters and editors that make the decisions that matter about the newsworthiness of an item. The professors, critics and pundits can subsequently debate whether or not something was newsworthy at the time it was published, but by the time they get around to having the debate it is too late to matter, since the subject of the debate has, by then, long since been reported and largely forgotten. The results of such a debate may well marginally influence some future reporting event, but likely not to any appreciable degree since publication decisions happen in the urgency of real time. So it is the people working in the news industry - the journalists, reporters and the editors - who effectively decide what is reportable news and what isn't. It is their character and nature that should interest us.

It appears to me that far too many of the decisions to publish "information" are in the gray area between news and gossip, and that the consistent quality of these decisions must say something concrete about the nature of journalists, editors and reporters. Whether they get the continuum placement decision wrong 10% of the time or 75% of the time in your point of view, the fact is that they get it wrong with far more frequency than any thoughtful person should care to see. We would like our news people to be dispassionate, to report the facts, to leave the editorials to the editorial page, and not to report gossip. I would have presumed that someone of the stature of Edward R. Murrow - a true, serious journalist whose reportage was stellar, but who was reduced by his editors to broadcasting programs that he despised and which brought him no honor - would prefer to stay far clear of anything that even remotely smacked of gossip.

Without further preamble, it is my humble opinion that many employed in gathering and reporting news take on far too many of the characteristics of the gossip monger than they do of the serious journalist. How else can you explain the need to determine whether Joe Biden has had a botox shot? I suppose, if you are absolutely determined to try and justify a salacious interest in the subject, you can argue that your interest has something to do with Mr. Biden's underlying character, but wouldn't you rather be honest and simply say you want to know because you need fodder for a good gossip session? That Mr. Biden might have some aspects of personal vanity can hardly be news to any of the rest of us who have our own private vanities which we "enjoy" - and, in case any of you are wondering, the term "the rest of us" as used in this sentence includes everyone, everywhere, specifically including me and all of the gossip mongers and serious journalists out there.

I am as certain that not all journalists are gossips as I am that more than a fair share of them are gossip mongers or little more than such. No other conclusion explains the syndicated entertainment gossip shows, the extraordinary and almost loving focus on the bad behavior of Britney, Paris and Lindsay, the immense popularity of magazines such as People, and, yes, any sort of interest whatsoever on whether Joe Biden has had a botox shot. Scholars might well counter that many of the folks starring in the syndicated gossip shows are not real journalists, but these folks maintain stoutly and loudly that they are. Talk about lipstick on a pig!

The journalistic professionals can make whatever distinctions that please them about such matters, but, to those of us outside the profession, it seems as if an inordinate amount of time is spent by the media in informing us about the more disgusting aspects of the lives of celebrities that most of us would never willingly invite into our homes in the absence of such information.

Of course, people pay good money to listen to or read this garbage, so one cannot wholly blame the media for pandering to their tastes when they are trying to earn a living. One can, however, ask serious journalists - like those working at the Washington Post - to refrain from becoming infected by the gossip mongering bug if they wish to continue to be taken seriously.

To quote George Harrison again (check out YouTube if you want to hear a great song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0mGBpoFxB4 ):

I hear it through the day, Airwaves gettin' filled, With gossip broadcast to and fro, On the devil's radio.