I Can Hear Lloyd Bentsen Now

"Mr. President, I knew Harry Truman. Harry Truman was a friend of mine. Mr. President, you're no Harry Truman."

So Dubya is fascinated with the man from Independence, and fancies himself Harry Truman's spiritual heir due to Dubya's own massive unpopularity with the American voting public.

Just more evidence that Dubya is not even close to being a student--of history or of anything else, for that matter.

Number one: Korea was a United Nations "police action." The US played a large part in it, yes, but our involvement in Korea was not a bit like our involvement in Iraq. We were working within the context of the world community in Korea. In Iraq, the US went in unilaterally, has consistently ignored the opinion of most of the rest of the world, and has generally thumbed its official nose at everyone who dared question what "we" were doing.

Besides, Truman was unpopular with the voting public for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that Truman was no FDR. Dubya is no Bill Clinton, but that's irrelevant in this context. Clinton appealed to the "good times" Bubbas. Dubya appealed to the "family values"Bubbas. Furthermore, Truman saw military service in WWI. Dubya studiously avoided it, with Daddy's help, during Vietnam.

Number two: Truman had the balls [pardon my French, but no other word is adequate in this instance.--Ed.] to fire Gen. Douglas MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to escalate things by nuking China. Dubya had to be forced to fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and even then he couldn't be honest about it. He claimed he had made up his mind to fire Rummy before the recent elections, and as if that weren't bad enough, he praised Rummy to the skies in Rummy's official farewell ceremony last Friday.

Number three: Harry Truman worked in and with the rest of our allies and indeed, the entire world community. He didn't alienate us from everyone else in the world. He didn't sink the standing of the USA by his actions and his decisions. As a true student of history, Truman understood the world and how best the USA could operate within it--all the while protecting our own interests. Dubya's approach is "my way or the highway," however, and he actually seems to take delight in playing at being more macho than anyone else on the planet. The esteem in which many others in the world traditionally have held the USA has disappeared right down the toilet of Dubya's ambitions. So despite Dubya's insistence that he's protecting the US, he's succeeded only in making the whole world less safe for Americans.

Number four: Harry Truman knew his own mind. He didn't need the advice, guidance, leadership, or decision-making skills of others to decide what he was going to do and how he was going to do it. Contrast Dubya, who frequently seems to have turned over all Executive Branch decision-making processes to Vice President Dick Cheney and all political posturing decisions to advisor Karl Rove.

Number five: Harry was no poseur. He didn't come from money, and he didn't see any need to pretend to be something he was not. Dubya, on the other hand, grew up as a Connecticut preppie, the child of wealth and privilege, and has convinced himself that he's just a "good ol' boy" from Texas. I'll give Dubya this: he does have the accent correct, down to his monumentally irritating mispronunciation of the word "nuclear." At some very important levels, however, the only person he fools is himself.

Ah, well. There are none so blind as those who will not see, and Dubya is as blind as a bat. If not blinder. A bat won't knowingly fly right into the middle of a situation adverse to its health or safety.

How can we even dream of having a Merry Christmas when our troops are dying for no good reason?

Christmastime Is Here

There has been lots of talk on the radio lately about people's favorite and least-favorite Christmas music. One person's Handel's Messiah is another person's Chipmunks' Christmas, Christmas Time Is Here.

And vice versa.

My personal list, like everything else about me, is eclectic. I love the entire recording of The Bells of Dublin, but Elvis Costello's The St. Stephen's Day Murders alone is worth the price of admission. Wouldn't be Christmas for me without it. It's a little slice of reality--laced liberally with black humor--that curbs holiday schmaltz.

The Manhattan Transfer's entire Christmas Album is wonderful. I can't hear their take on Santa Claus Is Coming To Town enough. "Look out, Old Santa is back!" It's not even remotely one of my favorite Christmas songs. Manhattan Transfer's take on it is that good.

Nor can I get enough of Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass's Christmas Album. The whole thing is a delight. I don't have enough air to blow a horn to save my life, but I've always had an affinity for horn music--especially when it has rhythm. This album reeks of rhythm.

And, God help me, I like both of The Brian Setzer Orchestra's Christmas albums for the same reason. If you haven't heard either Dig That Crazy Christmas or Boogie Woogie Christmas, give them each a listen sometime. They have irresistably catchy rhythms, so they are fun, which for me goes a long way toward easing the stresses of the always too frenetic holiday season.

I used to love everything Christmas-y by Mannheim Steamroller. After a painful personal encounter at one of the Steamroller's Christmas concerts, however, I find I cannot listen to its holiday music without re-experiencing a great deal of emotional distress. [And they say no one remembers pain. Hah!--Ed.] Too bad for me. The music is glorious.

Unlike that of the Trans-Siberian Orchestra, that is. Mannheim Steamroller did it first, and did it much better. The TSO is just loud and overwrought. That's a great disappointment. Based on what I'd read before I ever heard anything by the TSO, I was fully prepared to like its music. No such luck. But it sells well, so people out there must enjoy it. Good for them. They can have it.

I have many recordings of carols arranged for voice and choir(what a shock!), brass, pipe organ, orchestra, music box, and even glass armonica--all of which enhance my holidays greatly. Heck, when I'm feeling peckish, I actually get a kick out of listening to Hooked on Christmas. Disco Christmas carols?!? Who knew?

Handel's Messiah and J.S. Bach's Christmas Oratorio also make my "must listen to every year" list. The power and majesty of this music are comforting, oddly enough. Why do I like this music so? Probably for the same reason I prefer "high church"-type ceremonies and Gothic cathedrals and the like to their more prosaic "low church" cousins. They seem more reverential and in keeping with the true spirit of the season than, for instance, does a song like Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer.

Wouldn't you know, however, that my three all-time favorite Christmas CDs are jazz-oriented? Handel's Messiah: A Soulful Celebration, on Reprise records, produced in chief by Quincy Jones, is brilliant. Highlights of Handel's Messiah, arranged in genres from call-and-response to soul to blues to rap, and performed by everyone from Al Jarreau to Stevie Wonder, Take 6, The Boys Choir of Harlem, and Mike E.,to name just a few, is guaranteed to get you up and dancing, filled with the joy of the Lord. It is simply great, from first note to last.

On the cooler side of jazz, guitarist Kenny Burrell's Have Yourself A Soulful Little Christmas has become another of my holiday sine qua nons. I picked up my copy from the Jazz Heritage Society's bargain bin, and believe you me, it is a bargain-and-a-half. Frankly, I am surprised at how much I enjoy listening to this album. [OK, OK. I'm old enough to remember--heck, to have--LPs, so please don't castigate me for using "recording," "album," and "CD" interchangeably. I can't help it. But all the selections I've discussed here are on CD in my own collection.--Ed.] It's thoroughly soothing, like sipping a warm glass of mulled wine to take away the chill of having been out in the cold and snow. Even when there hasn't been any (real) cold or snow. Listen to it, and your soul will be serene.

But my all-time favorite is Vince Guaraldi's A Charlie Brown Christmas. The instrumental of Christmas Time Is Here perfectly evokes the stillness in the nighttime winter air just after a snowfall. It is the quintessence of peacefulness. [Don't everyone break into "There's A Kind of Hush," now.--Ed.]

And Linus and Lucy is, well, Linus and Lucy. Why do you think I named my little heathens after the Van Pelt siblings?

Good Reasons That Economics Is "The Dismal Science"

Don't count me among those mourning the recent death of free market economist Milton Friedman. I don't think that markets are really "free," first of all; nor do I think that markets, when left to their own devices, are good, wise, noble, kind, or rational. I do think that the current high esteem in which Friedman's ideas are held is depressing (that's my interpretation of "the dismal science," with all due respect to Adam Smith). I also think that people like Friedman who promulgate "free markets are the be-all and the end-all" of life are downright wrong, on at least four counts.

One: markets are not rational. Markets are artificial constructs. People make decisions. Most people are not rational. Consider how reporters present the daily Dow Jones news. Is the average higher or lower than it was in the most recent previous report? "Higher" is presumed good; "lower" is presumed bad. No one stops to think that the numbers might be down temporarily because investors (who want to) are taking profits. No one stops to consider that even if the numbers are down compared to the day before, the numbers may well still be higher overall than they were last week, or last month, or last year.

Graphic adjuncts reinforce the irrationality of the reporting. "Marketplace Morning Report" plays We're In The Money in the background when the average is higher than it was in prior reports; it plays Stormy Weather when the average is lower. Broadcast networks put the numbers on screen with arrows pointing up or down--and the arrows are physically larger and more colorful than the printed numbers accompanying them.

Newscasters tell us that the market is "jittery" because of things like the war in Iraq or that the market is "happy" with some economic report or company profit and loss statement. Hello! Markets are inanimate, artificial things. Markets cannot and do not have feelings . . . but people do. Again, people are not rational. There's a reason the grade of "C" is average--at least half the population operates at that level or below. Furthermore, people in groups are less rational than people acting as individuals tend to be. It has been well and oft demonstrated by sociologists that humans succumb to the herd mentality quite easily. So everyone waits around for the news about what everyone else is doing, and they then go do the same themselves. [Yes, there are exceptions. Those are your "A" and "B" students.--Ed.]

Two: each side in any give economic transaction does not share equal power. Why do you think labor unions were created? To gve at least the color of leveling the playing field. One lone job seeker is not on equal footing with any employer. Have you ever heard of anyone going into a job interview, informing the employer of the conditions under which he'll accept a job, and then getting that job on those terms? Anyone who is Joe Average, that is. Unique personal skills, such as those of the highest paid actors or the most talented athletes, change the scenario. But how many of such people are there compared to the entire work-seeking population? No more than a tiny, tiny percentage.

Yes, a potential buyer can choose not to spend his money . . . for a time. What if you've put off buying a winter coat for too long already, and it's 20° below and you can't wait any longer? You either freeze or buy whatever you can find, whether it's what you really want to purchase or not. No matter how bad your personal economic situation is, there comes a time when you cannot refrain from spending any longer. You must have transportation, food, shelter, clothing. And if any or all these things are in disrepair (or worse), and you don't have a good job, you wait as long as you can. Sooner or later, however, you must buy. Most sellers have the economic size and clout to wait you out. There is always someone else who's already reached that "point of no return," that point at which he cannot stall any longer, so there is always someone stoking the engine of profit by buying.

Three: markets and the decisions people make as expressed through them are not value-neutral. Businesses regularly break the law by hiring illegals. They do it because it's cheaper for them than it would be to hire legitimate, legal workers, who sometimes have union or other legal protections, such as the guarantee of a minimum wage. Even if the businesses get caught and have to pay a fine, it's often less expensive for them to take that course than it is to obey the law in the first place. Do you really want to teach our children that such disrespect for law is acceptable? I for one do not.

Businesses often close or move locations not because they are losing money, but because they are not making enough money (as they perceive it) at their present locations. They claim they are consolidating or automating [do you hate long voice mail menus as much as I do?--Ed.] or whatever for the sake of better customer service. Right. Since when is wasting a considerable amount of a customer's time by making the customer do the work improved customer service? The real bottom line is (oddly enough) the bottom line. If it's cheaper to automate than to have a live person on the other end of the telephone line, then the business will automate. The only people corporations are beholden to are their shareholders. Boards of directors are surprisingly frank in admitting that their sole responsibility is to maximize the returns on their shareholders' investments. We are at their service, not vice versa.

Larger and more long-term goals, like sustaining life on the planet, are of tertiary--if that high--importance. Good PR comprises the secondary tier of importance. Make no mistake, either: good PR is a question of style, not of substance. Only the appearance matters. The business would go back to having a live person instead of automated voice mail if enough bad publicity attended the use of voice mail.

But making money is what business is about. If it's cheaper to use single-hulled oil tankers and risk oil spills than it is to refit or build tankers with double holds, well, kiss the environment good-bye. If it maximizes profits to build and sell gas-guzzling SUVs ["SubUrban assault Vehicles"--thank you, Jay Leno.--Ed.] and it costs more money than it would generate in profit to build and sell alternative-fuels vehicles, well, don't expect to see fuel-cell-powered vehicles on your local car lot any time soon.

Four: markets aren't really free. Nor do they want to be. Nor do we really want them to be. Have you ever read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle? Do you want to go back to the days before USDA regulation of the wholesomeness and safety of our food? I, for one, emphatically do not.

Businesses want all the government regulations in the world which will maximixze their profits while minimizing or obliterating their risks. For instance, many want to keep foreign steel and wood out of the American domestic market--the steel companies and the wood processing companies being the two most vocal about it. Those businesses couldn't care less that their position hurts consumers by maintaining artificially high consumer prices. They care only about their own net profits. Where is the "free" market in that? Hint: there isn't any.

Globalization makes it impossible for any of us, as individuals, to be knowledgable, attentive, careful, and safe consumers. No one person can gather all the information necessary to protect himself from bad buying/consuming decisions. Governments exist to do the things that people as individuals cannot or will not do for themselves. Protecting us from predatory merchants, given the international interconnectedness of the global business community, is vital and fundamental.

Don't get me wrong. Most people in business are honest and upright. Besides, they themselves are consumers, too. But there are always those who will take advantage of the rest of us. Too many in position to influence business behavior think anything goes so long as it maximizes that bottom line. Does the name "Enron" ring a bell? The classic model of the free market does not reflect or incorporate the nature of modern life. "Free markets" might have been fine in the days where almost no one ever travelled more than 5 miles away from the place of one's birth . . . but that is not the world in which we now live. Our philosophies should recognize reality.

Unrestricted caveat emptor is no longer the rule of the day. It is impossible. The only question is not whether we should have free markets, but is rather to what degree should we regulate markets? It is folly to pretend otherwise. It is dangerous, to boot. Any honest student of US history will tell you that every time the government has relaxed the regulation of businesses and markets, we've had Hell to pay in terms of economic scandals and the disastrous financial fallout from same. In Nebraska, all you have to do is mention "Commercial Federal" and watch people who lost their life savings in that credit union deregulation debacle turn red as their blood pressures skyrocket.

No one wants the government to tell businesses how many widgets to produce in a given economic period. But anyone with half a brain would want the government to make sure that whaever widgets were made were both functional and safe for use--and produced under safe working conditions, to boot.

Quibbling--Another American Experience

Did you happen to watch the episode of The American Experience aired on PBS last night? It was about Robert F. Kennedy. It was excellent, overall. I am astounded that after 38 years, my sense of grief, of loss, and of having seen the death of hope in America is still so palpable, such a punch in the gut.

Yes, I was in tears by the end.

As I have said before, John F. Kennedy's assassination was the first body blow that knocked the wind out of the collective American body; the twin killings in 1968 of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and of Bobby Kennedy comprised the knockout punch, the death blow to fundamental American optimism--to hope for the future, to the expectation that things really would keep getting better, to the idea that we could make the world a better place for everyone, not just those already priviledged with wealth and power.

One of the ironies of Bobby Kennedy's life and death is that his brother's assassination made Bobby a better person [probably even better than his brother--Ed.]. His grief opened not just his mind, but his heart, to the needs of the disenfranchised and dispossessed, and compelled him to speak out against injustice, including America's ever-escalating presence in Vietnam. Eisenhower sent the first advisors; JFK sent more; JFK's hand-picked successor, Lyndon Johnson, made it a conflagration. Bobby, an ardent anti-Communist, at first supported Johnson's policies, but as the war dragged on and our entanglement worsened, he came to realize it was a mistake . . . and frequently wondered whether John, had he lived, would have been wise enough to see that and pull America out before it was too late.

We'll never know. I am somewhat chagrined to say that I doubt it--for it took the constant fruitless escalation to demonstrate the error of being there in the first place. The overarching great shame of the entire fiasco is that Ho Chi Minh came to America after WWII hoping for our assistance in throwing out the French colonial power. He was a nationalist. He became a communist only because we rejected his request in favor of our "ally," France. [And we all know how helpful France has been since, don't we?--Ed.]

One of the other ironies of Bobby's life is that it took his brother's death for Congress to pass John's Civil Rights Act. The national outpouring of grief in the wake of JFK's senseless death propelled Congress to pass the bill that had been languishing in the national legislature for several months before Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger 3 times in Dallas in November, 1963.

An additional irony is that just as "only Nixon could go to China," only a Southerner could get meaningful civil rights legislation passed, and Texan Lyndon Johnson used his prodigious political skill to push the bill to passage.

Johnson was often a despicable human being, but it is still a shame that Vietnam became the bete noire of his presidency; he actually accomplished great things in domestic policy and legislation . . . but it's all been underappreciated in the wake of Vietnam. [Not that the same could be said for Dubya. His domestic policy seems to consist of undoing everything good done in the past 40 years . . . and if his misadventure in Iraq minimizes historical recognition of that, all the worse for us. It was breathtaking how relevant what Bobby said against the war in Vietnam still sounds today. If you didn't watch The American Experience episode last night, please be sure to watch it when PBS airs it again. It's well worth your two-hour investment.--Ed]

As engrossing and instructive as the episode was, however, I do have a quibble. In discussing Bobby's growing recognition of American racial injustice, Nicholas Katzenbach (long-time member of the Kennedy inner circle) tried to demonstrate how limited RFK's initial understanding was by saying "Bobby used to compare the discrimination against blacks to, to [sic] the 'No Irish wanted.' And you know, that that [sic] was a wrong, a wrong comparison; one, I think, that was actually resented by blacks, despite the fact that he meant it well."

If Katzenbach meant Bobby was wrong in the long term, he is correct. The Irish, after all, eventually could assimilate, unlike blacks, whose mere skin color prevented them from doing the same no matter how much time passed.

If Katzenbach meant Bobby was wrong to make the comparison at all, however, Katzenbach himself is in error. I have seen editorial cartoons and commentaries dating to the early 19th century that clearly show the Irish as being, in the opinion of the WASPs in America and the English in the UK, just as ape-like and primitive as any black was seen to be. In their oversized upper lips, their knuckle-dragging posture, their low foreheads, their tendency to be lazy, drunk, and overly aggressive, the Irish as drawn in the cartoons and discussed in the commentaries were as black as blacks . . . except in skin-color. Were you to see one of these scurrilous cartoons with the caption removed and the skin-color indeterminate, you'd interpret it as anti-black, too.

As I said, however, it's a quibble. In its entirety, the program was stunningly evocative of a time and place too many Americans nowadays wrongly think is irrelevant. Please take the time to watch it when PBS airs it again. You will not regret it.

Through The Looking Glass--Darkly

Hey, mashing up Alice and St. Paul is no more weird than what Dubya said last week while he was in Vietnam (38 years late [thank you, Jay Leno--Ed.]).

He had the gall/temerity/stupidity to announce that "the lesson" of the Vietnam War was that America will win as long as America doesn't give up. Excuse me, but we did give up--what the heck did Dubya think that exodus by helicopter from the US Embassy in Saigon in 1975 was, a sightseeing tour? And remember, we didn't do that until we'd poured hundreds of thousands of young American lives down the drain in a cause the public had turned against at least 7 years before. We "lost" Vietnam in 1968 after the Tet Offensive changed the American general populace's mind that we were winning. This despite the fact that as a purely military matter, we "won" the Tet Offensive. That wasn't the way it was perceived at home. Perception became fact, despite the facts.

So much for Dubya responding to the "thumpin'" he admitted the GOP took in the recent election. He's already backtracking on his pledge to chart a new course in Iraq. If that statement he made in Vietnam wasn't a new incarnation of "stay the course," I'd like to sell you several bridges in New York City.

We all know Dubya isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer . . . and that he wasn't exactly a serious student while in college . . . but his 180° wrong interpretation of America's Vietnam experience goes beyond reconfirming either or both of those observations. His ignorance of history is willful, thus dangerous. Of course, several of us were out crying in the wilderness about this before he dragged us into Iraq to avenge Saddam Hussein's dissing his daddy, but no one paid attention then.

The real resulting horror is that more young Americans are dying every day the Iraq debacle continues. Oh, but not his kids, or the kids of anyone else in his circle. Just as during Vietnam, not him nor any of his fellow rich young men. too bad that in the furor over Dan Rather's getting suckered into using faked documents to establish that Dubya had help avoiding the normal consequences of his National Guard "service," everyone seems to have forgotten that the woman who confirmed the documents were fake also confirmed that what those documents said was in fact true.

And what those documents said was that Dubya wasn't where he was supposed to be when he was supposed to be there, and that strings had been pulled and influence exerted to protect Dubya not just from having to go to Vietnam (on time [thank you again, Jay Leno--Ed.]), but from the usual consequences of not going.

I know this is not a unique question on my part, but I have to ask it anyway: why is it that the chicken hawks are the loudest war mongers? My answer: to cover up their own inadequacies. They think that if they bray loud and long enough, no one will notice that they didn't really serve when they had the chance. How wrong they are!

Yet the horror and the slaughter go on.

Give Me Your Hat--I'm Going To Puke In It

Two items that hit the news yesterday were at least as stomach-churning as any of the banquet scene courses in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

First, the Republicans in the US Senate have voted Trent Lott to be their # 2 in command. Other GOP senators interviewed about it, including John McCain and Chuck Hagel, brushed aside the specter [pun intended for you political junkies out there--Ed.] of Lott's remarks several years ago lauding Strom Thurmond's segregationist stand in his run for the US presidency in 1948. "It's old news, Lott's a good man, Americans believe in redemption" were the official themes of the day. Right. The real themes of the day were that (1) the GOP will do anything to hold onto whatever vestiges of power it has--in this case, via obstructionism (Lott is a master of the Senate's rules and knows how to keep bills the GOP doesn't like from getting full Senate consideration), and (2) people of color who belong to or who support the GOP in its present incarnation are fools--or tools--or dupes--or worse.

Second, O.J. Simpson is now promoting a book and Fox (it figures) TV special called something like "If I Did It, This Is How," regarding the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and of her visitor Ron Goldman. Even the book's publisher says it's a confession of O.J.'s guilt. Has anyone connected to this beyond-tawdry enterprise given a thought to how this will affect O.J.'s children with Nicole? "I'm your father, and I didn't murder your mother, but if I had, here's how . . ." That is utterly sick.

The only remotely possible good that could come from this is that Nicole's and Ron's families can garnish any profits generated by it as at least partial payment of the multimillion dollar civil trial judgment they won against O.J. (for having caused Nicole's and Ron's deaths). O.J. hasn't paid one single penny of that judgment to date.

But is it worth the cost?

I suspect the Brown and Goldman families think not.

Is It Safe To Come Out Yet?

Has all the mud been slung? Now that election day is here, are we finally free of negative campaigning? Can I stop ducking and covering now?

Why do candidates "go negative," anyway? Poll after poll after poll indicates that the public hates it, is turned off by it, and generally has no use for it. However, return after return after return indicates that "going negative" works. Which is the real reason it continues to plague us.

I suppose this is a variation on the old product marketing and advertising notion that no one cares whether you remember a product positively or negatively, just that you do in fact remember it. "The Selling Of America" continues apace. Actually, it's a tough situation. The person or party on the receiving end of the first mud slung must respond in kind if s/he does not want to be called a wimp . . . or a loser . . . or worse. You doubt this? Exhibit # 1 in support of my contention: Michael Dukakis's ill-fated presidential run.

Still, negative campaign ads are a strong argument against a totally unregulated free market. Would that we could rein in the excesses of the marketplace (in all areas, not just politics--note as an aside that commercial speech has never been afforded the total protection given to political speech. You can't just go yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, unless it's true, that is.) Too many people, however, fail to recognize the uniqueness of our First Amendment. Political speech, even crass and false political speech, is absolutely protected and sacrosanct. I see no end, ever, to negative political advertising. The ultimate moral of the story provides another lesson in being a member of a truly free society, however: freedom requires self-restraint. Just because you can do something does not mean that you should. We could probably stop most negative advertising if we could convince people not to be the first one to sling mud. OK, OK. How many "r"s are there in "fat chance"?

A more important question: did you vote yet? I did. And I was amazed. I got to my polling place at about 10:30 a.m. and was the 107th voter. That means that 106 people had already voted in the 2 1/2 hours my polling station had been open. I think the pundits who predicted lower than usual (even for off-year elections) turn-outs were wrong. I am glad to see it.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom anyone who complains about the system yet who does not participate in it. One of my uncles is in this crowd. He is politically astute and aware, but he hasn't even registered. He sees no point it voting. [OK, maybe he's not as astute as I said. Better yet, he is astute about the substance of the issues, even if not so much about the process.--Ed.] I think he's nuts. We both live in a part of the country that is much farther to the right than we tend to be. We both tend to lose on more issues than we tend to win.

Nonetheless, I maintain that even in a losing effort, our voices matter. If we present enough numbers, we cannot just be ignored or blown off. Our opinions must be considered when the majority implements its plans. Besides, participation is a good civic exercise, in and of itself. I shudder to consider what my uncle is teaching his son and daughter about what is important about being an American, and how important it is to be heard, even when not winning. Despite what Vince Lombardi said, winning not only isn't everything--is it not even the only thing. Somebody out there help me--what's the quote carved into the outer facade of Memorial Stadium on the University of Nebraska main campus in Lincoln? "Not in the victory but in the participation, not in the glory but the effort, . . ." I know I don't have it memorized correctly. My spotty memory, however, does not make the point less valid: participation matters for its own sake. It reinforces both a sense of community and respect for diversity (of opinion, one hopes), qualities vital to the success and even survival of any civilization.

OK, all you wags out there. I know you are saying there is no sign of civilization or even of intelligent life here. Heck, I've said it myself, only partially in jest. But the right to complain about, to poke fun at, to castigate the system should be limited to those with a stake IN that system. That means to those who participate. Yes, not participating is a form of participation . . . but it's like silence. It's inherently ambiguous. Did you not vote because you agree with how everything is going now? Did you not participate because you just don't care? Did you not participate because you are ignorant of the issues? Did you not participate because you feel it's useless?

If the last, why are you living in America? America is not just a place--it's an idea--and to fail to help express the idea (by participating in voting) is to KILL the idea.

"Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you . . ."

School Daze(d) And Confused

Let me first add my voice to the chorus condemning University of Miami President Donna Shalala and her totally wimp-out response to the brawl between the Hurricanes football players and the players from Florida International University during their game last week. Florida International suspended 14 players indefinitely; Miami gave one player an indefinite suspension and one-game suspensions to 12 more (if memory serves). Shalala tried to justify this by claiming she didn't want to throw Miami's student-athletes "under the bus." Bull. She didn't want to lose the money the University would lose if they weren't in a bowl game.

She caims that Miami's policy regarding such incidents is "zero tolerance." Really? That's news to not only me, but just about everyone else on the planet. Miami has a long tradition of recruiting and playing thugs . . . ask any University of Nebraska fan about the Hurricane teams of the mid-80s if you don't believe me.

I used to think better of Shalala, but I am entirely appalled by her reaction here. What's worse, she didn't want to view the films of the brawl because she didn't want "the facts of the incident" to affect her judgment. Say wha'? The facts of the incident should form the very basis of her judgment.


Just one more example of how having lots of fancy degrees and national-governmental-level experience doesn't make someone smart. I'll bet the GOP is glad to learn they don't have a monopoly on stupidity, despite the fact of Dubya's existence.

While we're talking college football . . . will someone please explain to me why no one in Lincoln is calling for Bill Callahan's head right now? He installs the West Coast (passing-oriented) offense, and the Huskers proceed to stink for two years. This week, the weather gets bad in Lincoln and he--gasp--goes back to a running game. [Well, d'uh!--Ed.] But then, when Nebraska has an upset of Texas all but locked up, he calls for a passing play on a critical third down, the receiver fumbles the ball, and Texas gets enough field position (and has enough time on the clock) to kick a game-winning field goal. What a fiasco! The pundits at ESPN all thought the Huskers were going to lose, however, so the fact that they played the defending national champs "close" means the Huskers are respectible again. Right. I repeat: what a fiasco!

[Sometimes a good loss is better than a bad win--witness Tom Osborne going for 2 and losing the Orange Bowl and thus the national championship to Florida State in the mid-1990s. That was a good loss, because the attempt to win demonstrated Osborne's desire to either win or lose the national championship, not back into a piece of it by tying the game. But Callahan? Despite his Irish ancestry, he doesn't get it. He played too conservatively against USC, and lost. He played unnecessarily aggressively against Texas at the end of the game . . . and lost.--Ed.]

Still on the subject of college football--Joe Montana is not dead, but Brady Quinn must be channeling him at Notre Dame. Did you see the end of the Irish's game against UCLA yesterday? Talk about "wak(ing) up the echoes!" So now I can't get the Notre Dame fight song out of my head. It could be worse. It could be raining. Oh. It is raining. Maybe even snowing. But who cares? God's in his heaven (the Golden Dome) and all's right with the world.

I have to ask, however, if the Huskers were so dead-set on getting a former NFL coach, why didn't they get Charlie Weis instead of Bill Callahan?

* * * * * * * * * *

On to more academic pursuits. Critics everywhere of late bemoan the loss of teaching children the skill of cursive writing. On one hand, I concur. The traditionalist in me thinks that handwriting can be truly expressive (as can be no other form of writing), and that the discipline needed to master the skill is worth having. Nonetheless, the world is changing . . . and long has been, though the pace of change has increased. We no longer collectively mourn the loss of teaching Greek and Latin in our pre-college schools. Their mastery is an option open to those who wish to pursue such skills, and indeed, is required of certain university-level pursuits and career tracks . . . but their lack of mastery by John Q. Public is not tragic.

So, let it be, people. Even those of us who know how to produce cursive script are no longer writing as beautifully or even as neatly as we once did. I've been unable to decipher my own scrawls on occasion. And as I can no longer write faster than I can type (thanks to my computer), I choose to mourn neither the loss of my own nor anyone else's cursive writing skills.

This does not mean that I think everything should be 100% easy and fun for students, however. Two ostensibly unrelated news items reported earlier this week show why. According to the Associated Press, a study from the Brookings Institution's Brown Center on Education Policy shows that "nations with the best math scores have the least happy, least-confident math students."

The best and the brightest seem to be the least happy because they feel real pressure to excel, as opposed to current US policy, which misguidedly posits that students will have high self-esteem and succeed if they are praised no matter how poorly they actually do. I think the US kids know that at some level they are being fed a load of bull, but they are kids. Most of them don't have the self-discipline to try harder than adults expect. So when adults expect nothing, kids, being kids, do nothing. We need to rethink this notion that "if it's not fun, the kids won't learn." Just the opposite seems to be true, based on the study.

This reminds me of the old canard about how kids say they want more freedom and trust, but act stupid when they are given same. Despite what they say, kids want and NEED limits, rules, structure, and order. Deep down, they appreciate those who give them same.

Let's go back to teaching math in a way that makes us all miserable. We'll get better substantive results.

The other article, also reported by the AP, shows that some skills already wrongfully banished from our schools are still useful and should be retruned to prominence. According to an article published Thursday in Nature, scientists are finding that nasty, antibiotic-resistant bacteria can be conquered by artificial anti-microbial peptides that are created following the rules of GRAMMAR, of all things. The scientists discovered that the peptides which beat the bugs followed consistent patterns of construction and organization of their amino acid building blocks. Those patterns of construction and organization reminded all of the scientists involved of grammar--the placement of the subject, object, verb, and other modifiers affects meaning, thus effectiveness. [Computer techie-types could really stand to learn this.--Ed.]

I must confess that I learned more about English grammar from studying foreign languages than I did from studying English grammar directly. I'd not have been able to adapt what I leared from studying French and German, however, to my studies of English if I'd not already have had the English grammar lessons to give me the vocabulary to make sense of what studying French and German taught me. So let's go back to making 8th graders even more miserable by teaching them some grammar . . . but let's make sure their teachers get comprehensive training first!

There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See

Faithful Republicans who are truly outraged by the conduct of former US Representative Mark Foley (motto: "I'm gay; I'm a drunk; I want sex with teenage boys") nonetheless are straining to find ways to preserve their illusion of belonging to the party of moral superiority.

In countless TV and radio news reports I've seen and heard on the subject, those interviewed are starting to lockstep to the refrain of "He was just one person; everyone in the party is outraged by his behavior and we will not put up with it."

Note that they are (conveniently) forgetting--if they ever cared to know--that the real scandal is not as much about what Foley said and wanted to do as it is about how the GOP powers-that-be turned a blind eye to Foley's "indiscretions" for as much as 5 years. This is not and never has been about the behavior of one sick individual. It's about getting and keeping power at the expense of what you claim to value above everything else.

Give it up, people! You know as well as I do that you just want to preserve the Republican majority in Congress, and you will strain and grasp at anything that allows you to keep doing it while maintaining the self-delusion that you are somehow better than those nasty, immoral Democrats (and the occasional aberrant GOP bad apple).

Reality check: no one group has a lock on virtue. Far better that you admit to yourselves that you prefer the GOP's stand on issues like NOT raising the minimum wage, NOT keeping the government neutral regarding expression of religious faith, NOT ensuring that everyone eligible to vote has easy access to the polls, NOT protecting the health of our vulnerable women and children, NOT making the government accountable for the mess in Iraq, and so on . . .

Give up the hypocrisy of claiming that you support the GOP because you and it are the defenders of "family values." If you look at the effects of the laws the GOP passes to implement its values, you must see that the GOP's basic philosophy is in fact "it's every man for himself." Well, I've been in a family where that was the prevailing attitude, and the only result was to promote sefishness, ruthlessness, and the overall "screw you--I've got mine" attitude that represents too much of what the GOP these days does, no matter what it says it believes in.

As reprehensible as I find most of what the GOP does these days, I can live with members of the GOP who are honest about it. This desperation amongst the party faithful to befog their real motives with a "holier than thou" attitude serves no one well. It merely perpetuates the error of injecting what should be matters of personal belief into the bloodstream of the body politic . . . which was never designed to withstand that poison.

Shane! Come Back, Shane!

A/K/A Arsinio, come back Arsinio!

Talk about things that make you go hmmm . . .

Everyone in the business community seems to be really up in arms about the Hewlett-Packard "pretexting" scandal. In case you hadn't heard, the Board of Directors was very upset about leaks of confidential Board business to the Wall Street Journal and other news outlets. So the Board authorized a plan to find the leaker(s) by getting the phone records of everyone who was suspected of leaking. [Please resist the temptation to call up a visual image of people leaking. Thank you.--Ed.] "Pretexting" comes in because the investigators pretended to be the very parties they were investigating in order to get the information they wanted.

And yet the business community in general seems to have no problem with Dubya's warrantless wiretapping program.

Weird.

I guess it's simply a matter of who is perceived to be in the cross-hairs of the investigation. ("Leakers" = "Bad." "Terrorists" = "Bad." "Simple businesspeople doing business" = "Good.") Which doesn't make it right, in either case. But for the sake of what makes America "America," I am more worried about warrantless wiretaps than big business shenanigans. Governmental abuse of power is much more frightening to me than business irregularities. Courts can deal with those who commit business irregularities . . . but when the government itself bends its power in an unchecked way against the individual, we are living in a totalitarian state, not the USA.

My country, where art thee?

So What Should Be The Guiding Principle For Life?

You've got your Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

You've got your Rule of Thelema: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

You've got your Prime Directive: Do not reveal anything to any alien civilization that will upset its natural evolution--no references to space, no revelations of higher technologies--no interference in its own advancement at its own pace.

You've got your Metalaw: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.

(I am sure there are other such guiding principles, but 4 is a large enough number with which to deal in one sitting.)

I'll come back to the Golden Rule in a moment. I've already explained my objections to the Rule of Thelema (see "Son Of Misuse Of Logic"). The Prime Directive seems more honored in its breach than in its keeping, if you believe what you see on Star Trek in any of its incarnations, that is. Despite what Trekkers will tell you, Star Trek has not yet become reality. [We could fervently wish that it were reality, but that is after all a wish. Doesn't make it so, alas.--Ed.] The Prime Directive seems to be an offshoot of the Golden Rule, anyway, so I'll say no more about it here.

Metalaw, created in the mid-1950s by Washington D.C. attorney A.G. Haley (and promoted by other forward-thinking jurists), was a thoughtful response to the question of what would we, Earth-born human beings, do upon our first contact with alien civilizations. It seemed like the time to ask and answer that question, as our first successful forays into space were then becoming increasingly plausible. In that regard, it's an intellectual grandparent to the Prime Directive.

On its surface, Metalaw is intriguing. On its surface it is appealing. On its surface it is also dangerously seductive. I did some research into it in the late 70s and was impressed with it. But it wasn't until I started this whole "Misuse of Logic" theme I've been writing about lately that I realized Metalaw's fundamental problem.

Treating aliens as they want to be treated is a recipe for disaster if they want us to treat them as our conquerors. Anyone remember the Twilight Zone episode To Serve Man? (Yes, I intended the connection by using the word "recipe" in the preceeding sentence.) If we treat the aliens the way they want us to treat them, and they want us to treat them like we are their food supply, we've just engineered our own destruction. ("Not that we aren't really just a bunch of cows anyway," she remarked dryly.) Remember: "It's a cookbook!"

So that leads us back to the Golden Rule. I can find no logical reason to abandon it as the most simple and elegant guiding principle for living a fulfilling life. It's a question of enlightened self-interest. The best way to be treated well is to treat others well. I keep thinking of the wise mother who had one child cut the last two pieces of cake and who had the other child take first choice as to which piece s/he'd get. You can bet the cutter would strive mightily to make those two pieces as even as possible. In its very simplicity lies its elegance.

You got a better idea? Let's hear it. And your reasons for supporting same. For now, I choose to strive to live by the Golden Rule. Kindness is almost never wrong--the only time it's an obvious error is when one shows kindness to one who will do nothing but take advantage of that to one's own detriment. [In the larger scheme of things, kindness may be the better course even then. I'm just not that saintly all the time.--Ed.]

What A Couple Of Hypocritical Pigs

Both Matt Drudge and Bill O'Reilly (who is an embarrassment to people of Irish descent everywhere), self-proclaimed paragons of decency and champions of family values, are trying to blame the congressional pages for the sins of now-disgraced (and now former) US Representative Mark Foley, R-Fla. Foley is the adult here. He's the one who sent raunchy emails to the pages (all boys). He's the one responsible for his actions. Blaming children--who did nothing to lead Foley on, BTW--is just plain disgusting. Drudge and O'Reilly care more about their politics and their chosen party's hold on power than they care about protecting the most vulnerable among us.

At least some conservatives have enough principles to call for further investigation and even to call for House Speaker Dennis Hastert to resign. Facts are coming to light which suggest that the GOP Powers-That-Be in the House knew a lot more about Foley's sick desires than they were--and are--letting on. They, too, apparently were willing to put political expediency ahead of the safety of children. I am glad to know that at least some in the GOP are decrying this whole sordid mess.

This should not be a question of politics at all. It's a simple matter of "right" and "wrong." Messing sexually with children, in any form, even just emails, is WRONG, period. Anyone caught doing such things, and anyone aiding and abetting such behavior, should suffer maximum consequences. And Drudge and O'Reilly ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Martha Stewart May Actually Be Onto Something Here

I think I spit my breakfast cereal though my nose when I heard that Martha Stewart wants to have rapper Eminem as a guest on her show. She says her audience likes his music. [I'll bet they can't make out the lyrics.--Ed.]

But she may be onto something. If the word gets out on the street that the Martha Stewarts of the world like rap, even gangsta rap, that "music" is going to become totally emasculated and irrelevant.

What a great way to get rid of a blight on our culture!

But then again, one must wonder what would come along to take its place . . . and one would have to fear that whatever it was, it would be even worse.

So, what's better: the devil you know, or the devil you don't know?

Son Of Misuse Of Logic--Post Mortem

Jim O'Gara was sentenced for two--count 'em, two--years in prison for his crimes. Allowing for time served, he'll be getting out later this month.

I'd say that that was a total travesty of justice, except he did get more than the federal sentencing guidelines indicated for the crimes he committed and the circumstances under which he committed them. The judge thought O'Gara was still a substantial danger to others (he had, after all, continued to dupe people out of "front money" even while under indictment for the frauds for which he finaly was convicted). But that's not enough.

Which leads me back to a thought I've expressed before: several things are wrong with our justice system. My first example is that people convicted of committing crimes while drunk tend to get lesser sentences because they were in a state of diminished mental responsibility due to being drunk at the time they committed those crimes. However, logic suggests that they rather should be held to a higher standard unless they can prove that someone put a gun to their heads and forced them to drink themselves drunk.

If someone voluntarily drinks to a state of drunkenness, and that someone is of legal age, that someone is aware of what drinking will do to one's "self." Therefore, one started on the path to one's crimes of one's own free will. Instead of reducing one's culpability, then, one's culpability should be increased.

By the same token, O'Gara got two years for a spree of frauds that netted him, according to the final newspaper story in the Sunday World-Herald, of over $ 3 million. Some of O'Gara's crimes had been committed so long before that they could not be counted as "points against" him under the sentencing guidelines. I would argue that they should in fact count more, because they indicate just how entrenched and on-going O'Gara's criminal behavior is.

What's worse is that someone else, who fraudulently obtained a credit card under another's name, and who charged about $ 1,500 worth of electronics and music on that card, got a sentence twice as long. That person's other crimes were included as "points against" because they were more recent in time and place.

And a woman who merely accompanied a drug dealer on a sale of meth got 10 years when she got busted at the scene. And the only reason she got off that lightly is that she cooperated with the authorities and gave them a ton of other information that allowed them to arrest several other criminals.

The system is broken. Not in its conception, but in its execution. Given how little our legislators want to spend on it, however, it doesn't seem that much will ever change. God help us all!

The Queen City Dealt Us A Joker This Time

I've been watching ESPN's presentation of baseball's "Hometown Heroes." Sponsored by DHL, this 3-part series recapped the votes of more than 15 million baseball fans for the single greatest player from each of the 30 major league teams. Of course, the ballots were limited to 5 players per team before the voting even began. In some cases, this was unnecessary. I mean, really, who is going to be the Chicago Cubs' "Hometown Hero" except for Mr. Cub himself, Ernie Banks?

In some cases, however, it was downright necessary. I know perfectly well that Babe Ruth must get the nod (and indeed, does) as the Yankees' "Hometown Hero," but consider the sheer number of great players on the Yankees throughout the franchise's history. No one would win. The votes would have been split among so many players that none of them would have received a plurality, let alone a majority, of the votes cast. [I am no Yankee fan; I'm a National League girl. But facts are facts, and the Yankees, player for player, probably have had more truly outstanding players than any other franchise in baseball history. That's why the Yankees have won all those championships, and why the rest of us, especially Dodger fans, hate the Yankees so. That, and George Steinbrenner's mere existence.--Ed.]

The interesting thing is how much the players for the various teams were cited by the fans for their contributions to their communities off the diamond, as well as on it. As one fan said, the players who are the best are "doing things the right way on and off the field (emphasis added)." Virtually all of the players chosen as "Hometown Heroes" were chosen by the fans as much for their involvement in their communities--even after they retired from playing the game--as for their prowess as players.

Consider Pittsburgh's "Hometown Hero," Roberto Clemente. He lost his life transporting food, water, blankets, and clothing to the victims of an earthquake in Central America. Or Ted Williams, "Hometown Hero" for the Boston Red Sox. He gave up over 4 of the most prime years of his baseball career to serve in the US Marines in both WW II and Korea (where he flew with John Glenn, in case you didn't know). Or Ken Griffey, Jr., the Seattle Mariners' "Hometown Hero," who spent long lengths of time (often on the days of critical games) giving his time, energy, and attention to "Make A Wish" Foundation kids. And who then went out and played great baseball.

Not to mention Jackie Robinson, "Hometown Hero" for the Brooklyn/Los Angeles Dodgers, who gave the greatest gift of all to our entire nation by holding his temper and maintaining incredible dignity in the face of truly execrable treatment by morons who didn't like his breaking the color line in the majors.

But Cincinnati voted for Pete Rose!?!?!?! An admitted gambler and liar who bet on baseball while playing AND managing a major league team. A man who has been banned from baseball for life and who, despite his feats on the field, will never be voted into the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. "What a role model he is," she said, sarcasm dripping from every pore.

Cincinnatians had many other choices that would have been much more positive: Johnny Bench and Joe Morgan, just to name two. Heck, Ken Griffey, Jr., now that he's back in his real hometown. Or Ken Griffey, Sr., for that matter (who played in Cincinnati himself, which is the reason Junior is from Cincinnati in the first place). Indeed, just about anyone on the great Big Red Machine teams of the mid-70s . . . except for Pete Rose.

Nearly everyone on the list of 30 is already in the Hall of Fame, or will be, once eligible (a few of them are still playing, so their beginning eligibility is more than 5 years away). Now Cincinnati has a strong image as a blue-collar, working class kind of town, and I will admit that Pete Rose is the dictionary definition of "work ethic." He says it himself: he didn't have the most talent, but he worked harder than anyone and wanted success more than anyone. Being from the same sort of blue-collar background myself, I admire that kind of drive. But I do NOT appreciate how in anyone's mind that that can eclipse Rose's bad behavior off the field. He knew better. He wouldn't have lied about it for so long if he honestly hadn't known better. Rose simply does not belong in the "Hometown Heroes" company to which Cincinnatians have voted him. Talk about giving your city a baseball black eye!

Maybe I should have titled this post "One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others, One Of These Things Is Not The Same."

Son Of Misuse Of Logic

I know people who ascribe to the teachings of the late (and unlamented, by me anyway) Aleister Crowley. Crowley, a British scholar of the occult and other things "magickal," created a belief system he called Thelema. He summarized his teachings thusly: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

I always have been uncomfortable with that as a guiding principle for life. Until I started reading a series of articles in this week's Omaha World-Herald on a superficially unrelated topic, however, I could not clearly say why. Now I can, so I will.

The articles, which are to conclude this-coming weekend, tell in chronological order the story of one Jim O'Gara, erstwhile attorney and consummate fraud artist, who wreaked pure havoc all over the Midwest and left a tangled mess of debt, divorce, and fraud victims in his wake. He got disbarred for (among other things) lying in affidavits to the court. He obtained a grand total of well over $ 1 million from banks and private investors by fraud, including forging his then-wife's signature on loan guarantee paperwork. (Her father, the original developer of Westroads shopping mall, was quite rich . . . and so was she, until she married O'Gara. She wound up bankrupt and got a divorce after O'Gara defaulted on the loan for which he had forged her signature--a loan she knew nothing about until she was served with the court papers notifying her of the judgment against her.) He bought a thriving, well-established furniture-crafting business and ran it into the ground in only 3 years. He hid its tangible assets from creditors and lied about that under oath. He generally conned his way through the court system, getting naught but slaps on the wrist from courts in several jurisdictions because O'Gara managed to con friends and family members over and over to speak out on his behalf.

While I do not yet know the ultimate outcome of O'Gara's story, I think he will finally pay for his crimes. The World-Herald articles have included enough foreshadowing to suggest it, at least. That's what separates reality from Aleister Crowley's teachings.

In the real world, humans are social beings. We live in societies. We create societal institutions to protect us from the things from which we cannot protect ourselves. In the real world, you can do any damn thing you like, so long as you are willing to accept the consequences. But in Crowley's world, you can do any damn thing you like, period. There are no consequences. You are to serve yourself and your own self-perceived needs, wants, and desires.

It's upside down. It raises the individual above the whole. It's a recipe for anarchy and chaos. Now don't get me wrong. I do not believe everyone must live in perfect lockstep, conforming "or else." The title of this blog establishes that. And I am a great believer in protecting the rights of the minority against the tyrannies of the majority. Just because most people believe something doesn't make it true, right, or correct. After all, when asked, a great majority of Americans consistently state that "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is enshrined in our US Constitution . . . instead of correctly identifying it as being the cornerstone of classical Marxism.

But as I said, we are social beings. And the problem with Crowley's belief system, oddly enough, is the very same as the problem with Marxism (as Karl designed it, not as it has been misused by the totalitarian governments claiming to implement it), to wit: who decides? In the real world, we social beings work though our social institutions and come to consensus. Often, this is not without acrimonious contention (even to the point of shooting wars), but we do work it out. In Crowley's world, as with classical Marxism, the individual's judgment of his own circumstances is raised above everything else. So what do we do when one individual takes advantage of that to his gain and others' detriment? The real world has answers (e.g., "don't do the crime if you can't do the time"). In Crowley's world, nothing happens. The individual is all. If anyone gets run over in the process, too bad for him.

Who knows? I may be wrong about this. Crowley may very well have instituted larger controls on the individual's behavior. Frankly, however, I found what I read of Crowley's writings so disturbing that I could not delve deeply enough into them to discover any such larger controls. If I am wrong, and am shown to be wrong, I will stand corrected. But I don't think I am wrong. Larger controls would be antithetical to Crowley's statement of The Law. In any event, I am totally certain I do not want to live in a world that lets predators and psychopaths like Jim O'Gara justify their behavior in victimizing the rest of us with no adverse consequences to themselves.

[Which leads me to an observation about those who claim passing a law to stop something will do not good, "because criminals will continue to break the law." Laws do not deter. Many laws are broken by people who have no idea those laws even exist. In the real world, we pass laws so that we have a societal mechanism for dealing with people who break those laws. We cannot prevent bad things from happening to people. We can make amends or provide some compensation to those who have suffered as a result.--Ed]

[Which leads me to a related observation as to why I am an iconoclast in the first place. I reject "isms," and political correctness to boot, for the reason that the people pushing those agendas impose their notions of what is good and right and proper on the rest of us without any regard for the sensibilities of the people being imposed upon--or for those of the people being affected by said imposition.--Ed.]

The real world is most certainly not perfect. The line between the rights of the individual and the rights of the larger social whole is amorphous at best. Nor is it always drawn in the correct place. But the real world is much preferable to a system that would loose people like Jim O'Gara on the rest of us without giving us any recourse against the predators amongst us.

* * * * * * * * * *

Postscript: How to Identify a Psychopath

[from the Psychotherapy Checklist for Clinicians, created by psychology professor Robert D. Hare]

Is someone you know: glib and superficial? Egocentric and grandiose? Deceitful and manipulative? Impulsive? Lacking in remorse, guilt, and empathy? Lacking behavior self-controls? Lacking a sense of self-responsibility? Addicted to excitement? Demonstrating early behavior problems and adult anti-social behavior?

That someone may be a psychopath. Exhibiting some of these traits is not by itself conclusive. But it does raise red flags all over the place, and you should be very careful in any dealings you must have with such a person.

Misuse Of Logic III

[Now that I have a trilogy, I ought to get a movie deal.--Ed.]

I heard just a few moments ago that Dubya is challenging the collective conclusion of the heads of the 16 involved intelligence agencies that the US invasion of Iraq has made us less safe, not more safe. What he said, as aired in the snippet of his speech shown on the NBC Nightly News, was "I've heard this theory that everything was fine until we went into Iraq."

Whoa, Nelly!

That is NOT what the intelligence report concluded. No one ever said everything was fine until we went into Iraq. Good Lord! One does not have to be a biblical scholar to know that various factions in the Middle East [I nearly just typed "Muddle East," which actually is a more accurate description . . . --Ed.] have been fighting each other for over 5,000 years now.

What the report concluded was that matters now are worse than before our invasion--and that our invasion played a direct role in making those matters worse.

Which leaves me with this question: is Dubya evil (i.e., Machievellian in his misuse of logic), or is he just plain STUPID?

I don't find any comfort in either choice, frankly.

If there's another, more comforting option, please tell me. I am not sure we collectively are going to survive until we can throw the bums out in 2008.

Another Misuse Of Logic

A recent contributor to the Letters to the Editor page of the Omaha World-Herald contends that our use of torture in fighting the war on terror is not wrong, because even if we stopped, "the terrorists would not be appeased."

Perhaps. But that misses the larger point. We as a country, even though we have the biggest arsenal and are uniformly considered the remaining superpower in the world, cannot afford to "got it alone."

Everybody needs friends and allies. If our government's official policy continues to be we can do whatever we like because our cause is good, we make the following potentially fatal errors: (1) we lose the moral high ground. If we don't stand for something better, and act consistently with what we say we believe, we ARE no better--and thus offer the world nothing unique that merits our continued survival. (2) We alienate the people who otherwise would gravitate toward us and help us. After Hugo Chavez called Dubya "a Devil" in his speech at the UN, no one in the UN challenged him or otherwise stood up to defend us. Domestic politicians who normally have no use for Dubya had to carry the torch for the USA--and even though Charles Rangel (HR, D-NY) spoke out strongly against Chavez's remarks, what Rangel said really came down to "you have no right to criticize him--that's our job." [A real domestic politics triumph for Rangel. He is being patriotic, because "discord stops at the border." We present a united face to the world. But he still didn't minimize his political differences with Dubya, either. Brilliant!--Ed.]

I just hope that the gang of Dubya doesn't go so far in damaging the USA's moral leadership standing with the rest of the world that no one can bring us back. Note that I am not holding my breath.

On The Uses and Misuses of Logic

Or, Mr. Spock, Where The Heck Are You When We Need You?

Since yesterday, I have stumbled across two egregious misuses of logic I'd like to bring to your attention . . . in the hopes that we can all learn from, and avoid making, such faux pas in the future.

First, US Representative Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., is running an ad claiming her challenger, Democrat Chris Miller, is "wrong on security and wrong for America" because Miller wants to "waste valuable time" waiting for a warrant when terrorists are planning attacks on us over the phones. This actually is not so much a misuse of logic as it is a misrepresentation of fact--nevertheless, it is wrong, and deserves to be revealed as such. FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) allows warrantless wiretaps for up to 72 hours. Anyone who cannot get a warrant in 3 days is either totally incompetent or unjustified. Johnson's claim that Miller is "weak on security" is out-and-out wrong. Indeed, Miller would be justified in running a reply ad that says Johnson is weak on maintaining the proper separation of powers our Constitution requires and thus Johnson has no business being in Congress.

Second, and perhaps a bit more frivolously, the Oregon Ducks upset the University of Oklahoma Sooners in college football last Saturday. The instant replay officials erroneously allowed an incorrect call on the field to stand. Oklahoma had a 5-point lead with about 1 minute to go; Oregon tried for an onside kick and was awarded possession of the ball even though an Oregon player, the first one to have touched the ball, did so in less than the 10-yard distance the rule on onside kicks requires. Under the rule, Oklahoma thus should have been awarded possession . . . and could have run out the clock and won the game. Instead, despite clear video evidence showing Oregon violated the rule, the officials gave Oregon the ball. Oregon thereupon scored a touchdown and won the game by 1 point.

Now several Oregon fans are saying that even though the officials obviously got the call wrong, the Sooners still could have stopped the Ducks from scoring, so the bad call is no big deal and it's not wrong for Oregon to claim victory.

At least this misuse of logic has the color of plausibility. Nonetheless, it is wrong. It fails to account for the normal human reaction of being in a stressful situation and getting disoriented for a critical few moments when confronted with something shocking. You cannot separate the bad call from the OU players' reaction to it and from what thereupon ensued.

Besides, it's really irrelevant. The bad call on the field should have been overturned, period. What happened after it was not overturned would not have happened but for the failure of the officials to correct their on-field mistake in the first place. It's a very good thing the PAC-10 suspended the officiating crew for a game and is looking into its policy of using only PAC-10 officials for PAC-10 home games. [I hope the PAC-10 has the guts to do what obviously needs to be done, which is to change that policy, in the interest of avoiding even the appearance of favoritism/impropriety.--Ed.]

Furthermore, Oregon fans should be ashamed of themselves for trying to justify the unjustifiable. I know I would be.

A Salute To Phineas Taylor

I understand that Target Stores Inc. has entered into a marketing agreement with some chi-chi Beverly Hills designer. For the first time, Target is allowing its logo (the ubiquitous red bull's-eye) to be put on merchandise not sold in Target stores. You know, on jeans, purses, jewelry, and other accessories. And yes, the collection is called "Target Couture" . . . and yes, it's pronounced "tar-zhay."

So rich and silly people like Paris Hilton are paying lots of money (the purses are going for several hundred dollars each) to promote the logo of a store in which they would not be caught dead shopping. A little frivolity in the world is not a bad thing, but frivolousness is quite another thing altogether.

Isnt it wonderful that the 19th century can still be relevant to the 21st? P. T. Barnum was right about two things: (1) no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public; (2) there is a sucker born every minute.

Phineas Taylor, I salute your wisdom!

The World Is Getting Entirely Too "In Your Face" For Me

This has nothing to do with anything, but am I the only person in the world who is offended by both the title of the new fall show "Ugly Betty" and by the Dairy Queen commercial for its chili double cheeseburger that ends with the woman telling her male significant other to "pull my finger"?

Hardly anyone seems to grasp the concept anymore that subtlety has its uses, and that you actually can get more attention by being "low key" than by being "in your face."

Why else do you think women who are considered sexy tend to speak in a breathless whisper?

OK, I admit it. I tend to speak in a breathless whisper, but I am not sexy. I'm just out of breath.

Even some of my favorite programs are on occasion too intense for me. Whenever "Meerkat Manor" shows a dead/dying baby meerkat, I have to look away--and even then, I often cry. I am too soft-hearted for this world, I guess.

And Notre Dame just got its collective butt kicked by Michigan. No wonder I'm so upset!

How can it be the middle of September, with college semesters already into their fourth week, college football games of major importance already airing on TV, and the afternoon high temperatures still getting into the 80s? And as if that all weren't bad enough, some local businesses actually put signs up this week predicting that Nebraska would LOSE to USC tonight.

That is simply unheard of around here. I wonder whether anybody in Lincoln was so daring. Probably not, but one never knows . . .

Maybe it's not so much that I am too soft-hearted as it is that I am suffering a major disconnect from this strange conjunction of events.

I know I don't at all feel like putting up my Halloween decorations yet, and the stores are already cramming Christmas down our throats.

I heard the other day that Dubya says America is in its third Great Awakening of religious fervor. I know that he and Iran's President Ahmadinejad share the belief that the "End of Days" is coming . . . although I am quite sure their takes on its details differ radically from one another's.

If Nebraska manages to upset USC tonight, I just might have to agree with them that the End of Days is coming. Soon.

Please Don't Give Me That Old Time Religion

I'm with Leonard Pitts, Jr.: literalism has no place in interpreting the Bible. In an op-ed column recently published in the Omaha World-Herald, Pitts recounted an email exchange he had with a reader named Al, who informed him that criticizing the death penalty was criticizing God. Al went on to note that this was not a good thing.

Pitts responded by noting that the Bible also condemns to death people who curse their parents and people who commit adultery. Al's response to that was that those people should be put to death too, "if one wishes to accomplish God's will in the matter."

Pitts dryly added that people like Al scared him. Me, too. [Well, I have my reasons for thinking that condemning adulterers to death might not be a bad thing, but I am willing to take a larger view in light of the greater social good. Financial thumbscrews are punishment enough for adulterous swine.--Ed.] [That last was said half in jest, to all you literalists out there who do not get my sense of humor.--Ed.]

Pitts' main objection to interpreting the Bible literally is that the people who insist on it so that they can, for example, condemn homosexuals, will not even admit it applies when quoted passages from Scripture exhorting us to "love our enemies," "turn the other cheek," and not "store up treasures on Earth."

In other words, he rightly points out that too many literalists/fundamentalists miss the forest for the trees. The larger message of redemption as carried in the New Testament comes by "sacrifice, redemption, and love," in Pitts' own eloquent expression.

He even broke the news (to me, at least) that the venerable Billy Graham has of late rejected the extremes of both left and right, and has chosen instead to accept God as "a loving mystery." He quoted Graham as saying that people of faith can absolutely differ on the details of theology: "I'm not a literalist in the sense that every single jot and tittle is from the Lord. This is a little difference in my thinking over the years."

Amen! I have maintained for a long, long time that on the one hand there is God, and on the other there are the churches and the Bible and other works of man, and there is no inherent contradiction in accepting The One while at the same time rejecting the other.

Pitts concluded by noting that Exodus (35:2) condemned those who work on the Sabbath to death. He said he'd like to ask people like his email correspondent, Al, where his church's leaders stood on that one, but he was afraid to--implying he feared the answer.

I don't blame him.

From Various Files

From the "Even a Stopped Clock is Right Twice a Day" file: Cal Thomas, uber-right wing commentator, just called on liberal commentators to give the same satiric treatment and overall attention to Andrew Young's case of foot-in-mouth that they did to US Senator George Allen's use of an ethnic slur.

I already did, thank you very much. But I agree with Thomas in that the errors, omissions, sins, and otherwise stupid actions of everyone, no matter what side of the aisle s/he occupies, must be fair game and must be brought to light by everone in the commentary biz, be the commentator of like or dissimilar general world views.

It is distasteful for me to admit that someone as mean-spirited and vindictive as Cal Thomas often is can be correct about anything, but in this case, he is. And now I am going to go wash my hands for having posted this.

* * * * * * * * * *

From the "Let's Blame the Victim" files: a recent letter to the Editor of the Omaha World-Herald claimed that the reason we lost Vietnam is that the draftees doing the fighting were less than motivated to accomplish the tasks set before them.

That idea is beyond offensive. It is downright odious.

We lost Vietnam for three main reasons: (1) politicians, not military men, made not just strategic, but tactical, decisions; (2) public perceptions in this country were that we were losing the war, especially after the Tet offensive; and (3) you can't fight and win a guerrilla war with conventional armies.

Too bad neither Dubya and his minions nor the Israelis have recognized this in regards to Iraq and Hezbollah, respectively.

* * * * * * * * * *

From the "Hold Your Enemies Closer" files: Op-ed columnist Jonah Goldberg recently posited that liberals have an inconsistent view of the US Constitution. For certain purposes, liberals want the Constitution to be a living, flexible, expanding document. For other purposes, however, liberals insist that the document remain rigid and inflexible.

He concludes that liberals have it backwards, because of where they want the Constitution to be flexible vs. where they want it to be static. He says the Constitution should be flexible to allow us to fight the war on terror, and should not be construed to forbid prayer in school, for example.

As I read his article, I knew instinctively he was wrong, but it took me a while to reason out why. He's wrong because the Constitution's ultimate purpose is to describe and limit the power of the government vis-a-vis the freedom of the individual citizen. Or else what's the use of our championing the concepts of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"? Still, his is the sort of conservative op-ed column that everyone must read, because on the face of it, his argument has a certain seductive power. In other words, it's thoughtful and reasoned, not just a piece of partisan screed, and thus deserves a respectful response/refutation.

Goldberg says there is nothing wrong with the warrantless wiretap program and other such efforts to fight the war on terror because the executive branch has the sole power to conduct foreign policy and wage war--and besides, "al-Qaida is using new technologies the founders never could have imagined."

I might agree with him, except for one small detail: these warrantless wiretaps are happening on US soil without any judicial supervision or oversight. The executive has the power to conduct foreign policy and wage war, but the legislative branch has the sole power of the public pursestrings (how can you fight a war when Congress won't pay for it?), and the judicial branch has the sole power to decide which actions of the other branches do or do not pass Constitutional muster.

Checks and balances are the heart of the Constitution. To posit that any branch can act without at least input from the other two is to ignore the very structure on which our government is built.

I don't disagree with Goldberg that present technologies, never conceived of by the founders, make it easier for terrorists to turn our liberties into "weapons against us." I do disagree with Goldberg when he says that that makes it OK to limit or even curtail those liberties.

Every Time I Think I Have Something Figured Out . . .

I discover yet another way of looking at it.

Submitted for your consideration: I always used to say that it was not a good thing that Americans collectively have a very, very short historical attention span. After all, it is axiomatic that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.

But in thinking about the recent waves of illegals coming into this country, and the waves of sectarian prejudice gripping people of various faiths all over the world, I have decided that our notoriously short attention span is not necessarily a bad thing.

After all, it has kept America from being infected with all the ancient feuds and hatreds of the Old World. Yet those very feuds and hatreds seem poised to overwhelm us now.

To expand a bit by example: World War II seems, to most Americans with whom I've discussed it, to have taken place a long, long time ago, and is very old news. Yet in Europe, its scars are still exceedingly visible (consider the Kaiser Wilhelmskirche in Berlin, for instance). Indeed, World War I still seems to be an immediate experience to most Europeans I know. To Muslim extremists, the Crusades took place yesterday, not 900 years ago. Further, non-Muslims subjected to the hatred of Muslim extremists seem to be returning that hatred in kind.

If we are not going to let America be inundated, and thus lose a large part of what makes America unique, we must consciously stop falling into the trap of taking and giving endless revenge, retribution, and retaliation.

Go ahead, ask me how we go about doing that. I honestly have no idea. I just know it needs to be done if the idea that is "America" is to survive. I welcome your comments, suggestions, insights. This topic must be explored and the problem it poses solved if we want to restore and keep lighted the American beacon of hope for the rest of the world.

Maybe Ritual Idioting IS Just For Cricket Players After All

I was half-asleep when I heard this report on NPR, so if I get any of the information wrong, please tell me!

In a recent test between England and Pakistan (which England had already won, but you have to play out the string), an umpire named Hair (Hare? spelling was not specified) was of the opinion that the Pakistanis had somehow doctored the ball. In protest, the Pakistanis refused to come out to play the next game. So the umpire went on to declare a forfeit.

The cricket players of all South Asian countries have had a feud of sorts with this umpire for a long time, apparently--they collectively are of the opinion that he lacks respect for them and the high quality of their play--and so several Indian newspapers had a lot of fun with the headlines for articles reporting this most recent incident ("Bad Hair Day," "Hare-Brained" being amongst the best puns).

The Pakistanis are also saying the umpire was too quick to declare the forfeit, as they were just going to come out late as a protest of his previous ruling about the state of the ball.

Does the term "tempest in a teapot" occur to anyone but me? If the outcome of the entire match were in doubt, this protest would be worth a lot more, but still . . . far be it from me to chastise anyone who wishes to protest "on the principle of the thing." I am one for whom principles matter. So I say to the Pakistani team, right on!

It does seem odd that this news was reported so soon after my last posting. Doubtless, it's merely coincidental . . . but then again, the Lord moves in mysterious ways!

Ritual Idioting--It's Not Just For Cricket Players Anymore

Monty Python to the contrary, ritual idioting is not solely the province of those who play cricket.

We have plenty of idiocy to go around on this side of the pond, thank you very much.

The most recent examples, from both sides of the aisle, as it were, of which I am aware are: (1) US Senator George Allen, R-Va., calling the only person of color at a Republican rally "Macaca," and (2) Andrew Young, civil rights leader and erstwhile improver of Wal-Mart's public image, implying it's OK for Wal-Mart to drive out the "mom and pop" grocery stores, because the Jews, Koreans, and Arabs who run those "mom and pop" stores have ripped off blacks long enough.

What makes Allen's remark so heinous is that he knew the man who was its object would get the point. For Allen's remark is common slur used by French Tunisians, of whom Allen's mother is one descendant. And Allen's comment's object, one S.R. Sidarth, though born and raised in Virginia, is himself of East Indian descent. He was at the rally to videotape it for Allen's Democratic challenger in the senate race, one James Webb.

Worse, Allen has since claimed that (a) he didn't know what the word meant; (b) he fumbled saying the word "mohawk" as he was really referring to Sidarth's haircut [which technically wasn't even a Mohawk to begin with.--Ed]; and (c) that he's really sorry if Sidarth took offense, as none was intended.

Note that he never once apologized for making the remark in the first place. Further, Allen's audience at the rally seemed to appreciate greatly his use of the slur. So the rich white guys are still speaking in code to attempt to keep the rest of us cowed and so intimidated that we let them get away with their @$$%*&*^&@#@#.

Not that what Young said was any better. Wal-Mart promptly distanced itself from his remarks [if nothing else, Wal-Mart does understand the larger implications of bad marketing.--Ed] and Young had the decency to resign his position as head of Working Families for Wal-Mart. The AP report I read said Young had apologized for the remarks, but since what he said as apology was NOT printed, I have no idea whether Young acknowledged the wrongness of the stereotypes those remarks promulgated. Indeed, from what the AP article did say, I have my doubts. Young was quoted as saying "[t]hings that are matter-of-fact in Atlanta, in the New York and Los Angeles environments tend to be a lot more volatile." First, I'm not sure the racism in Atlanta that Young's quote suggests is true. Second, I'm quite sure that Young's statement also implies he thinks what he said was true, and not offensive in and of itself.

I'm no fan of political correctness, but I do believe in courtesy and accuracy. Young's original remarks were tactless and not necessarily accurate, especially when you consider the additional things he said, to wit: that the "mom and pop" stores deliberately overcharged black customers, and sold bad meat, stale bread, and wilted vegetables.

I'm not even going to get into the whole subject of whether a civil rights leader should have anything to do with a huge corporation that pays the absolute minimum in wages and benefits that it legally can get away with paying, and which goes out of its way to stifle all employee attempts to unionize.

Has air pollution wrecked our collective ability to think clearly? The whole world lately seems to think that if someone shouts something loudly enough and long enough, that makes it true, even when it most definitely is not.

One more example of that wrongheadedness is Dubya's insistence in the face of a federal judge's ruling to the contrary that his warrantless wiretap program passes Constitutional muster. I'm so sick of Dubya's take on the whole subject that I can't even address it rationally anymore, beyond crying out the warning once more that our very system of government, of putting laws before men, is in great danger . . . and I don't mean from terrorists, whether they are Islamo-fascists or not.