Taking a humorous but analytical look at just about anything in the spirit of Groucho Marx: I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member!
Forgive me for being a bit giddy. I am still recovering from watching one of the best college football games I've ever seen. Did you see the Colorado-Nebraska game yesterday? Nebraska came from behind with a school-record-breaking 57-yard field goal and a pass interception for a touchdown, both of which happened in the last two minutes, to smack Colorado 40-31. So Nebraska finishes its regular season at 8-4 and is in no way in the hunt for the national championship, let alone the Big XII title. It's a remarkable one-year turnaround from the debacle of the Bill Callahan era at NU. And the Huskers will be going to a bowl game, most probably the Gator Bowl as matters stand now. Thank you, Bo Pelini!
When I was in high school and even when I was a student at UNL, I was in no way a fan of Nebraska football. Football players at NU in those days regularly violated the law and got away with it, all for the sake of fielding teams that could win national championships. But seeing NU's precipitous "fall from grace" during Bill Callahan's tenure was shocking and hurtful. NU is, after all, my alma mater twice over, and I am no different from anyone else in wanting things to which I am connected to be seen favorably by those who know nothing else of me than of those things.
So yesterday was a lot of fun for me despite the fact that Nebraska began the game by giving up two quick touchdowns to Colorado and thus falling behind the Buffaloes 14-0. For some reason, I wasn't worried. Nebraska for decades now has had a tendency to give up long yardage to teams with great passing games, but I had a feeling that as the Husker offense found its rhythm, the game would turn around. I was (for once) rewarded for my patience.
This game epitomizes why I like college football better than pro football as a rule. Crazy things happen in the college game on a regular basis. In the pro game? Not so much--with one notable exception. This past Super Bowl was fun--the Giants played and won the game more like a college team than a pro team, and beat a previously unbeaten Patriots team to do it. That's a classic college scenario, not a pro one.
Nevertheless, I for one will never be totally satisfied with Nebraska football again until the Big XII comes to its senses and returns Oklahoma to its rightful status as Nebraska's foe during "Rivalry Week," the game played the day after Thanksgiving. What the powers that be haven't realized is that "Rivalry Week" has NOTHING to do with geography--if that were the case, Colorado would be a logical choice for Nebraska's opponent--it does have EVERYTHING to do with tradition. And the game rightfully called "The Game of the Century" was between Nebraska and Oklahoma. On the day after Thanksgiving.
I know. Nothing's going to change. The money isn't there, and everything is driven by money these days. But I can dream, can't I?
Holiday madness and all it entails are truly upon us. According to an NPR report I heard earlier this week [Thursday, I think, but no promises--Ed.], a gentleman in Germany is so distressed about the rampant commercialization of Christmas that he is producing and selling gold-foil-wrapped chocolate Jesuses. Spokesmen for all the churches in Germany are up in arms, claiming this is downright sacrilegious.
Put me on the side of the churches in this one. If the chocolatier had genuine concern for the true meaning of Christmas, he'd either be giving away his confections or requesting donations in exchange sufficient to cover their costs of production. But no! He's making them and selling them for resale at retail, which means he expects to turn a profit. That's totally hypocritical. It trades directly on the religious significance of Christmas. The purveyors of chocolate Santas and reindeer are not so blatantly flouting the religious reason for the season, and thus do not share our "hero's" culpability.
Besides, the idea of munching on a personal (even if it is made of the world's best chocolate) Jesus is viscerally gross.
Please do not add Depeche Mode to any holiday classics soundtracks.
How gullible are some people, anyway? I have seen a commercial of late that promises to give parents the ability to solve all their problems with their children in about a minute. I refuse to list the specific product name or the people hawking it on the grounds that I do not wish to (even inadvertently) increase sales of this claptrap.
I will say this: you've probably seen the ad, too. It's the one that starts with the teenage girl screaming "I hate you!" at her mother.
If this product did even half what it promised, we could eliminate Child Protective Services from all levels of government. Just hand out the book/DVD and pass a law saying whomever receives it is required to prove they are using it. All problems solved, and a way to cut a huge amount of government expenditures, to boot!
What's not to like?
Well, to start with, the promises this ad makes are thoroughly impossible. Unless, of course, the book/DVD consists of the advice to lock away your children until they are of legal age. The only sure way to stop disagreements is to give them no place to be expressed. So the book/DVD could suggest that you drug your kids into submission, too, I suppose.
Whatever it suggests, I am not going to spend what little money I still have to find out. You shouldn't, either. If you feel you must spend the money, however, make a donation directly to Child Protective Services, where it will at least do some good.
I know P.T. Barnum is proud of these snake oil salesmen, and I know that such claptrap and hype are part of a free market economy, but I don't have to like it. Truer words were never spoken: caveat emptor!
Forget about the War For the Union--what's going on these days is the War On the unions. Do not count me among those who are mystified by Washington's ability to throw endless streams of billions of dollars at banks and other white collar institutions but not to give even a few paltry billion to the auto industry--as a bridge loan, no less--to keep the last great bastion of American heavy manufacturing viable.
The people giving out the money come from the same white-collar backgrounds as those they are helping. Thus they are protecting their own best financial interests. They don't give a damn about blue collar workers, who are the real backbone of this country, and some of them actually desire to use our current economic crisis to bust the unions once and for all. After all, in the long run, that increases their profit margin. Who cares that it drives hundreds of thousands of people out of work and out of the lower rungs of the middle class?
I do, for one. There is a dignity to honest, hard, physical labor that certain "clever" people do not wish to acknowledge. They also cannot or will not admit that it is the ultimate source of the dollars they have to play their financial investing games. Since they don't recognize the connection, they don't have to see the consequences--the worst of which is that they are cutting their own throats in the long run. At some level, tangibles must be exchanged for other tangibles. "Cold, hard cash" for the physical results of production--an object. When it's just numbers on paper, it has no basis, no foundation, and ultimately will collapse.
I've been saying that for decades, but I'm not sure even I understood the implications completely. I am beginning to wonder whether our going off the gold standard during the Great Depression was such a good idea, though in the context of history, it was both good and necessary.
And I will say that any tangible production qualifies, even the production of ideas on paper. After all, that gives us books and pamphlets and magazines and newspapers--all things that exist, that can be touched and felt. The disconnect exists when we remove anything tangible from the equation. Think about it: even in the case of stocks, the certificates represent the tangible assets of the corporation issuing them. There is supposed to be some monetary equivalence between the value of the certificates and all the corporation owns and produces. This is one of the reasons a lot of people don't like stock splits. It makes them wealthier on paper, but does it really represent accurately the company's value? If everyone with shares were to demand all at the same time either cash or a literal piece of the company (a desk, say), would everyone get the total face value of his/her shares? If the answer is "yes," you have no problem. If the answer is "no" on the other hand, you are in deep, deep trouble.
For that's when you've disconnected the tangible from the tangible. Never forget, at some point somebody is going to want to reconnect and possess the tangible. If enough people get the same idea at the same time, it won't work when the on-paper value exceeds the actual tangible things the on-paper value is supposed to represent. So when you start trading the value of an adjustable rate mortgage based on its potential for profit (e.g., when the interest rate goes up), you've uncoupled the mortgage from the physical property it represents . . . and if you cannot sell the property for the inflated on-paper value of the mortgage, you lose money. If enough people lose money, we have a meltdown. Hence our current collective circumstances.
It is true that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. What I want to know is why do all the people who don't know history have all the money, but the rest of us are the ones who suffer the consequences of the others' ignorance? Because they are willing to do anything to keep their "piece of the pie" at the expense of the larger good of the entire country, that's why. They've convinced themselves that they are one and the same, and the rest of us don't count.
It's not unlike that crap that Sarah Palin, for one, was spreading during the recently concluded campaign about "Real America"--with her implication being that those who are not "Real Americans" are lesser beings, somehow, and are not worth the blessings "Real America" has to offer. If the economic meltdown completely destroys our manufacturing sector, however, those "Real Americans" with all the money are going to have a rude awakening: their "money" isn't going to be worth spit, either, precisely because they trashed the value of labor and of what labor produces. I'm not sure I want to be around to try to live through the chaos that will create.
In his latest literary foray, Call Me Ted, Ted Turner, the infamous "Mouth of the South," defends his practice of colorizing old black and white movies. Excuse me while I cringe. Years ago, when he first bought the MGM film library, I feared trouble was afoot. But after watching the obvious care and affection with which movies are treated on his Turner Classic Movies cable channel, I decided that Robert Osborne and Ben Mankiewicz (hosts of some of the better TMC series) must have corrected Turner's thinking. My bad.
I am no Luddite. I do not disagree that colorizing some old movies is OK. It's fine to colorize old classics such as the Laurel and Hardy films and the Abbott and Costello films. Those movies would have been shot in color in the first place had the technology and the financing been available. If colorizing them now makes them more interesting to a new generation of film fans who otherwise would never bother to watch, so much the better. Familiarity with Stan and Ollie and with Bud and Lou is essential to any film fan's knowledge base. That colorization is flat and relatively lifeless does not harm one's ability to appreciate their movies. Their humor gives those films their real liveliness and reveals their comedic genius. No amount of colorization can kill that.
But it's flat-out wrong to colorize any film noir. And it would be sacrilege to colorize Citizen Kane. Noir films rely on black and white cinematography for their mood and effect. Orson Welles designedCitizen Kane to be shot in black and white. Colorizing it is intolerable. Period.
There may be other films that are on the border between "colorize" and "don't you dare!" Off the top of my head, I can't think of any specific titles. Suggestions are welcome, along with reasons why or why not the suggestions should be colorized. I suspect we're into a "case by case basis" analysis. [Not unlike the ballot-by-ballot recount in the Minnesota US Senate race.--Ed.] This would be a great topic for a dinner party discussion. Come on over--I'll cook!
It seems to be OK, according to the Dubya Administration, to give literal billions of dollars to financial institutions to keep them from total collapse, but not to give even 1/30 of that amount to help keep our troubled auto manufacturing industry from going under. What's wrong with this picture?
(1) The finance industry is white collar, generally conservative, and mostly GOP supporters--and not unionized, to boot. Besides, it's where the vast majority of the people in power have made their own fortunes. So they are in a real way protecting themselves and their own livelihoods.
(2) The auto industry has lots and lots of unionized blue-collar workers. Forcing it to go under will break the unions and thus help maintain the financial supremacy and security of those who already have the most money. The rich get richer, the rest of us get screwed . . .
(3) However: the fallout from the crash of the auto manufacturing industry will directly hurt a lot more people than would the crash of just some of our financial institutions. The auto industry crash fallout will ripple through the whole country, hurting car dealerships, automotive insurance providers, parts suppliers and retailers, body shops and mechanics, gasoline retailers, and even junk yards . . . not to mention consumers. But the fallout from the financial crash, while hurting many people on paper, has yet to directly affect everyone in the country--if for no other reason than that not all the banks crashed. The ones that survived are buying up the others' assets at fire sale prices. They'll be stronger in the end. If all three of the Big Three go down for good, however, we as a country will wind up even further in debt than we are now to other countries. Not a good way to maintain independence.
And yet there are those who insist the problem is that we don't "buy American." Well . . . even such American icons as the Mustang and the Corvette are not made 100% of US made parts these days. Besides, encouraging us to "buy American" is [in a very real way--Ed.] a total contradiction of the encouragers' stated preference for a truly "free market."
If we are to be the best possible consumers and are to make the "free market" work properly, we are supposed to buy the best products at the best prices. If that means buying a Honda instead of a Lincoln, so be it. Lincoln will either have to improve or go out of business. That's what a "free market" does.
If we are to look our for our own non-economic interests first, on the other hand, we should always "buy American" when we can. [Note: Defense spending is a special case. National security compels me to say that we must always "buy American" when it comes to things like military aircraft. Otherwise, some of America's enemies would find it much too easy to gain information about our security measures and abilities--thus the ways to beat them--that we really don't want made widely known.--Ed.]
I'm not keen on throwing good money after bad. Nonetheless, I think failing to help our American automakers is going to hurt more of us, and to a deeper degree in the long run, than will giving the banks a little less of the government's largesse. Besides, we can always put terms on the money we lend to the automakers that will help them (1) modernize their production facilities to let them produce alternative fuel cars sooner than they could otherwise; (2) limit the amounts of executive salaries and bonuses to a reasonable amount; (3) get some reasonable concessions from the unions--I don't know anyone who'd be so stupid as to say "no job with no benefits" is preferable to "a decent job with lesser benefits"--at least until the USS Economy gets herself re-righted. For that matter, we should have put similar (but appropriate to the industry) terms on the money we've already given and are yet to give to the banks.
The way things stand, however, I am forced to conclude that the only reason the financial industry is "worth" the 700 billion dollar bailout but the Big Three automakers are not "worth" 1/30 that amount is that the relatively few at the very tippy-top of the economic food chain as always want to protect themselves. If that's to the detriment of the rest of the country, so be it. Well, isn't that attitude why we "threw the bums" out in the just-completed elections? So let's work to get something going that will help the rest of us first, for a change!
I heard something on NPR yesterday that practically had me screaming at my radio. An otherwise bright and articulate college student urged President-Elect Obama to make "getting everyone who wants one a college education" the number one priority of his administration.
Now, anyone who knows me knows that I swear by the value of education. But this is ridiculous! The USA and the world have other issues that must be tended to first, as a purely practical matter--little things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economic meltdown at home and abroad, and global climate change, just to name a few.
What really fried me about what this college student said is that his family was having trouble (due to the economic meltdown) putting him and his two siblings through college--all in Ivy League schools, no less. He thereby proved my point about Obama's need to address the economic meltdown first, by the way.
Beyond the internal contradiction of the student's statements, however, I was [for lack of a better term--Ed.] totally POed by his attitude. Why the hell should his parents have to pay for his and his siblings' college educations anyway? Why do he and his siblings have to attend Ivy League schools? The quality of one's education depends almost entirely on what one is willing to put into it, so why can't he and his siblings attend a less expensive state university instead? And hasn't he ever heard of [gasp!--Ed.] getting a JOB?
Maybe I am reactionary about this. I don't particularly care. I was the first child of any of the branches of my family in my generation to go to (and finish) college, and I practically paid my own way. I earned an scholarship that covered four years of tuition and fees so long as I kept my grades up, which I did [I was on the Dean's List every semester, and I graduated "with honors"--my school didn't use the Latin "cum laude"--too elitist, I suppose--Ed.]. I earned several small, one-semester stipends (a total of 8 times) that covered the cost of most of my books (I had a double major in history and in English lit, so my book-related expenses were substantially higher than average). I worked both during school and in the summers to cover my personal expenses. My agreement with my parents was that as long as I did those things, they would cover my room and board in the dorms and keep me on their car insurance (which was cheaper than my having my own policy at that age). So I covered the vast majority of my expenses myself. The total amount my parents spent for four years of room and board (and car insurance) came to about 3 semesters' worth of my tuition bills.
I thus finished four years of undergraduate education with absolutely NO student loan debt. When I went on to law school, I won another tuition and fees scholarship that lasted as long as my grades were good, and I also continued to work to cover many of my other expenses. I finally did have to take out my own student loans to cover apartment rent, groceries, gas, and the like. Still, I got my J.D. "with distinction" [a little more classy than the undergrad designation, but still not truly elitist Latin--Ed.}. Indeed, I was in the top 10 [not top 10%, top 10--Ed.] in my class. I therefore got seven years of post-high-school education at a total loan cost to me of only about $15,000.
True, that was 26 years ago. Everything is much more expensive now than it was then. The principles don't change, however. Anything someone earns is worth a helluva lot more than everything that is handed to him/her. So I have NO sympathy for these whiners who are distressed that their Ivy League rides are no longer free to them.
I remember the very first time I heard from a co-worker that she and her husband worked to put their 8 children (yes, they were Catholic) through college. I was shocked. She was still working at the age of 70-something to pay off all the loans they took out over the decades it took to get all their kids through college. I could not for the life of me see then why the kids couldn't pay off their own damn loans, and today I still can't.
I guess the child psychologist John Rosemond was right. Our total approach to parenthood has gone upside down. Not that the kids should be catering to the parents, but the parents for sure should NOT be catering to the kids, especially once they are of college age. How are they ever going to grow up for real if they aren't forced to cope with making some tough choices for themselves?
Sometimes, I think the transition period between the election in November and the swearing-in of the President-elect in January is worse than the campaign season itself. At least during campaign season, the media have plenty of news to discuss. But during the transition phase, especially when the incoming President is keeping a lid on the decisions he's making about Cabinet posts and whatnot, the media have nothing to do but speculate, and this year they have descended quickly into a frenzy of speculation, gossip, and criticism of decisions that haven't even been announced yet.
It's getting old, people. Calm down, already!
The issue that's bugging me the most is the collective focus on "what to do about Joe Lieberman." Other members of the Senate, reporters, and commentators alike seem to be taking great umbrage that President-Elect Obama is said to favor letting Sen. Lieberman, who holds office as an Independent but who caucuses with the Democrats--but who campaigned more than vigorously for Sen. John McCain this year--keep his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. The collective attitude is that such a turncoat has no business holding such an important post.
In the next breath, everyone goes on to rabid speculation about this year's three Senate races that have yet to be concluded, in Minnesota, Alaska, and Georgia--without connecting the two stories.
Surely I'm not the only one [but I seem to be--Ed.] who has figured out that President-elect Obama is biding his time. His grasp of politics as "the art of the possible" is vast. He's simply not borrowing more trouble than he must at the moment. Keep the status quo until there's a need to change it. Wait until we all know how these last three Senate races end--wait until we know whether the Democrats in the Senate get their 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority, until announcing whether Lieberman will in fact keep his chairmanship. Don't jettison him until everyone knows for sure he's no longer needed.
What's so hard to grasp about that? And stop calling me Shirley!
Earlier this month, Chicago Cubs catcher Geovany Soto was named National League Rookie of the Year; yesterday, Cubs manager Lou Piniella was named NL Manager of the Year.
The recognition is well-deserved. I suspect, however, that should one inquire of either man, both would admit that the awards don't count until and unless the Cubs go on to get past the first round of the playoffs . . . and [dare I say it?--Ed/] win the World Series.
When, oh when, will "next year" finally be here for real?
As I perused the headlines this morning, one in particular caught my eye. What it said was "Palin Returns To Alaska." What I saw was "Pain Returns To Alaska." [Talk about your "things that make you go hmm . . ."--Ed.] I was particularly struck by the multiple interpretations my misreading indicated. (1) Now Alaskans are going to be stuck listening to her whiny earnestness again, causing them pain. (2) Pain is leaving the lower 48, thank goodness! (3) But Alaska's entire ecology is now more at risk, which is actually painful to all of us who care about such things.
Yes, I think Sarah Palin is a pain. But I'm not upset with her because she doesn't know much. [I am acutely aware of my own shortcomings all along the frontiers of knowledge.--Ed.] I AM upset with her comfort with her ignorance. She seems to be content to wallow in her ignorance--indeed, she even takes pride in it. I guess that's part of her identifying with the "more patriotic" parts of America? In any event, it is a totally undesirable trait in a leader.
I don't know how many times I must iterate this, but here I go again: the world is not going to shoehorn itself into some semblance of what "America" thinks of it. It is what it is. If we deal with our incorrect picture of the world instead of its reality, we're going to get more of the same results that such disastrous policies have brought us for the past 8 years.
I for one do not want anyone in or close to the seat of federal executive power to be someone with whom I'd "like to have a beer." I want someone up there who is smart enough to figure out what's really going on and to do what's best for America in the face of the realities of the world, not some pre-conceived notion of what the world ought to be. [Not that sitting down with the Prez and sharing conversation over a drink would be bad, but it cannot and should not be one's primary criterion for casting one's vote.--Ed.]
New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristoff touched on this today in his op-ed piece "Obama and the War on Brains." I wholeheartedly agree with everything he said about the need for intelligence in high places and about how Obama by his mere presence in the Oval Office will do a lot to encourage Americans to think that it's OK to have a brain AND to use it. It's positively Kennedyesque, and it's been too long in coming.
I must quibble with one of his side thoughts, however. He suggests that Obama in the White House may well put an end to the American love affair with ignorance. I beg to differ. "Know-Nothingism" has a long and well-entrenched history in this country. Indeed, our forebears, in coming here in the first place, self-selected for it. Most of them came to get away from the rigid class (intellectual, economic, social) stratifications of the "Old World." Once here, they used the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans as insulators. Not only had they escaped the stultified "Old World," their distance from it meant they were protected from it and could, indeed, ignore it.
When practiced to excess, this sense of insularity becomes "Know Nothingism." It's the downside of the notion that all it takes to be an American is to come to America and agree to American ideals. It's a nice way of saying, "Don't confuse me with the facts. I've made up my mind." It's appalling. But it still thrives in this country. McCain lost his campaign for President by counting on it, but if the local and state-wide Nebraska returns are any indication, it's still a "down-ticket" winner.
Nonetheless, Kristoff is right--real intellectuals are no elite--they are the best example of what being a true American is. But as long as the twin infections of our history of "Know Nothingism" and Nixon's "politics of resentment" infect large parts of this country, nothing will improve. It's impossible to get our educational system to focus on teaching our children HOW to think when all the parents care about is teaching them WHAT to think. It's impossible for us to be the world leader in science and technology when we insist that our schools NOT teach Darwin and DO teach Creationism. It's impossible to get our kids to be willing to learn when all the social pressures from their peers AND their parents tells them "being smart means you are an unpopular geek."
So here's one time I hope I have called it wrong and Kristoff has called it right. Is the mere presence of Barack Obama in the White House enough to help us rid ourselves of the influence of perky-but-empty-headed cheerleaders like Sarah Palin? If it isn't, we're all in deep doo-doo.
I would have loved to have been in Chicago for Sen. Barack Obama's victory celebration. Watching it on TV was amazing; experiencing it in person must have been truly mind-blowing.
As impressive as it was, however, just imagine what would happen if the Cubs ever did get into and win the World Series. The entire planet might implode! At the very least, Harry Caray and Mrs. O'Leary [and her cow--Hey! A Holy Cow!--Ed.] would rise from the dead . . .
I try hard to be fair and to give credit where credit is due, believe it or not. So I find I must eat my words and worries about my paranoia that some of the more hard line GOP members of the current administration would not leave peacefully when their term was up. But President Bush was enormously gracious yesterday in pledging a smooth and peaceful transition of power to the incoming Obama administration.
I do believe that the current President did this to salvage something positive for his historical legacy, not out of the goodness of his heart. But that's irrelevant. He did it. So I'm going to have to eat my words, and I will. Just let me make them palatable with a little salt and mustard, please.
[If you're reading this and are confused about the email I sent you yesterday, the post I wanted you to read is the one dated yesterday, November 6.--Ed.]
Gene Roddenberry, creator of Star Trek, built better than he knew. The original Star Trek and all its permutations have influenced not just popular culture, but our whole society, in innumerable ways. A few examples: the original Apple computers were designed to look like Star Trek's desktop monitors; your flip-top cell phone owes its look AND its existence to the Star Trek communicator; your iPhone or Blackberry is our generation's version of Star Trek's tricorder.
But Star Trek did more than influence the development of technology. It gave us hope for the future in a turbulent time. It showed humans of all races working together peacefully and harmoniously when the real world in 1968 seemed to be coming apart at the seams due to anti-war protests, racially-discriminatory-prompted violence, assassinations, and expanded easy availability and use of mind-bending drugs . . . to name just a few of the myriad crises overwhelming us in those deadly days.
For many of us who lived through 1968, the last eight years have been like a "déja vu all over again" experience. But Tuesday night was our breath of fresh hope. So I got to thinking. Did the late, great Gene Roddenberry somehow affect the outcome of this election?
Think about it. Is Barack Obama a real-life Mr. Spock? Spock, as you all well know, is the 1/2 Vulcan, 1/2 human Science Officer of the USS Enterprise. He is known for his impeccable logic, his coolness under fire, and his overall intelligence and knowledge. Barack Obama, the offspring of a black Kenyan father and a white Kansas mother, is one cool customer, as his steadiness in the face of the slimy campaign run against him demonstrated. He, a Harvard Law graduate, is obviously very smart, tremendously well-organized, and knowledgeable about politics and history, two of the broadest academic disciplines. If you know politics and history, you know (or know how to find out) about anything and everything.
Furthermore, Spock, the supposedly non-emotional alien being, had a deep understanding of human psychology and a great sense of humor. [The humor of Star Trek has always been under appreciated, but to my mind it's one of the show's greatest strengths and legacies. But that's a topic for another day.--Ed.] Obama's ability to connect with people demonstrates his grasp of human psychology. He has also regularly demonstrated his sense of humor, especially during some of the most grueling moments of the recently-concluded campaign.
But they are not clones. Spock was most content to be an advisor--to give his captain the information he needed but to let the captain make the final decision. Obama is a natural-born leader who is also smart enough to know when to follow the public will. He modified his stand against offshore oil drilling, for example, when the public mood indicated clearly that his position, no matter how correct (for the environment, for the country, and for the future), wasn't going to fly. Thus my oft-stated admiration for his grasp of politics being "the art of the possible."
My ultimate point, however, is that the existence of and admiration for the character Spock in the public consciousness for the past 40 years may well have played a roll in the public's acceptance of and votes for Obama in the just-concluded election. One of the greatest of human fears is fear of the unknown. That fear often expresses itself as a fear of change, even when the rational mind knows change is necessary. I am convinced that, consciously or not, Americans' familiarity with Spock made them less afraid of voting for the first African-American major party nominee for US President, thus contributing at least in a small way to Obama's large margin of victory. Remember: he didn't just win in a landslide in the Electoral College (more than a 2-votes-to-1-for-McCain margin); he won the overall popular vote by something on the order of five million votes (as I write this).
So wherever you are, Gene Roddenberry, thank you. You've helped us find our own way to improving our chances to live well and prosper well into this dangerous 21st century.
Not-so-random thoughts on yesterday's historic events: Sen. John McCain's concession speech was both gracious and graceful--where was that John McCain during most of the campaign? He'd have been a much tougher opponent to beat than the petty, petulant, snide, and snarky man we saw.
Yet the right-wing apologists are already out in force. Pat Buchanan, for one, claims that McCain would have won except for the "unexpected" and "unpredictable" economic meltdown that started in September. Right. The meltdown did not come out of nowhere, however. Eight years of Dubya Administration pro-deregulation policies and the fundamental greed of certain actors on our national stage produced it. It wasn't just some unfortunate random thing that swept over McCain like a tsunami. It was the direct result of policies McCain has supported for over 26 years. You reap what you sow.
Elizabeth Dole rightly got her butt kicked in North Carolina. Yet she showed absolutely no understanding of or remorse for her vile tactics (especially running an ad claiming her opponent Kay Hagen was an atheist). Indeed, in her "concession" speech, she acted like she was the victim, and that all she'd done was to respond to attacks that had been unleashed against her. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Dole is yet another example of what the lust for power will do to some people. It ain't pretty. You reap what you sow.
I have great hopes for Sen. Barack Obama's administration. He is clearly a student of history. He knows his Lincoln, his Roosevelts (both Teddy and Franklin Delano), his Kennedy, and his Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Nuggets from all those luminaries' speeches shimmered within Obama's victory speech last night. Even more importantly, he was honest. He said things were not going to be easy or simple or quick to fix. But they can be fixed. He also reached out to the people who are still intractably opposed to him, saying he would listen to them and be their president, too.
He's a better man than I am, Gunga Din. He doesn't just know that politics is "the art of the possible," he acts in accord with it. Some of the voter comments on the local ABC TV news web site against Obama (and the Democrats in general) were not only ignorant, but hateful. Scary, even. Obama has demonstrated that he can rise above such screed and will work for sound, plausible, sensible solutions to America's problems. I, no matter how smart I am, no matter how much I know Obama is right, have the gut reaction of responding to such hate with disgust. That's one of the major reasons I have no intention of ever running for any kind of political office. I know Obama's is the better way; I'm not sure I can rise to it. Kudos to him. I hope he reaps what he's sown.
Where do people get the idea that every single last Democrat is not only corrupt, but evil, and has the sole wish to do our country harm? Yes, that was a rhetorical question. I know whence it comes. The people who believe such inanity and who take every opportunity to spew it never got their emotional and intellectual development past second grade. It's an elementary school playground mentality. Strip away all its high-falutin' vocabulary, and it reveals itself to be name-calling of the lowest order . . . devolving quickly into "are too!"/ "am not!" mode.
Grow up, people! There's more than one way to solve our problems. Our diversity is America's real strength. Don't excoriate it--revel in it! You will reap what you sow.
I will be thrilled beyond measure if Nebraska's Second District Electoral College vote goes to Obama, even though it will not affect the outcome of the election. To see a tangible positive effect of one's vote is the best affirmation there is. But I'm not going to hold my breath. It's still "too close to call." This is, after all, just about the reddest of the red states. Our college football rallying cry is "Go Big Red!" for heaven's sake!
Unfortunately, even if the one-out-of-Nebraska's-five Electoral College votes goes to Obama, Obama's coattails weren't long enough to help other Nebraska Democrats. Perhaps the most toadying of all the Republican House of Representatives members, Lee Terry, has won another re-election to the House seat he's occupied for 10 years now . . . after assuring us when he first ran that no matter what, he'd serve no more than three terms. He ran some of the dirtiest ads of this election season--and his GOP "527" buddies ran ones that were even worse. To anyone who claims that Obama's win sounds the death knell for slimy negative advertising, I must say "WRONG!"
Even though the GOP also kept the US Senate seat from Nebraska that was up for grabs this year (with the bowing out of GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel), at least Mike Johanns ran a clean campaign, focusing his ads on what he was going to do for Nebraska, not lying about what his opponent had done and would try to do to Nebraska. Though Johanns has close ties to the Dubya Administration (he was Dubya's Secretary of Agriculture for a while), Johanns gets it. I've followed his career ever since he was the Mayor of Lincoln, NE, and I think he has the kind of political sensibility that bodes well for all of us. [Unlike Lee Terry, who's sole goal in life seems to be convincing Nebraskans that he single-handedly runs the House and is responsible for everything good it's done since he's been in office. His mailings are less informative than they are puff pieces for exaggerating his "accomplishments." In my not-so-humble opinion, he abuses his franking privileges more than any other politician I've ever seen.--Ed]
Overall, however, I think that what happened yesterday is going to be good for America in the long run. We lived up to our better ideals, and didn't fall for the lies of those hawking fear and divisiveness. We are on the way back to restoring America's moral standing in the world. And yes, I am a bit ashamed of myself for my paranoia in worrying that even if the GOP lost, it would refuse to leave, even to the degree of taking up arms. Thank God that the uniquely American tradition of the peaceful transition of power still holds. Let us all hope that America will reap what we collectively have sown here last night.
Election Day is finally here--and it looks as if, for the first time in a LONG time, turnout will be high. Hooray for America! My personal political choices are clear. Above and beyond anything else, however, whether people agree with me or not, I want them to participate. For whom you vote is not as important to me as it is that you vote.
[Of course I'm presuming you've paid attention and are casting an intelligent vote, but that still doesn't mean you must agree with me on the issues. Agree with me only that paying attention and casting your ballot are what matters. That's all I ask.--Ed.]
It seems appropriate, somehow, that today is also Walter Cronkite's ninety-second birthday. Happy Birthday, Most Trusted Newscaster In America! Many, many happy returns! Mr. Cronkite is the embodiment of responsible journalism. In all the years he anchored the CBS Evening News, no one who did not know him personally had any idea what his personal political proclivities were. After he stepped down [was it 1981? Has it really been a generation? Tempus Fugit.--Ed.], I for one was delighted to learn that his personal politics were more "liberal" than I has suspected. Even if that were not true, I'd still say he is a totally "class act," and deserves our collective approbation. Just don't put 92 candles on the cake, or there will be a fire hazard!
On a more personal (and sadder) note, today is also the 6th anniversary of the day I had to have my beloved calico cat Gewürzchen euthanized. She had a malignant tumor in her jaw that grew from nothing to the size of a golf ball in 10 days . . . she was in a lot of pain, and the vet told me even surgery would not guarantee a cure. She'd never be able to eat solid food again, and there was no way to know whether the tumor would return. I know I did the right thing, but I still miss her. She was a sweet if skittish kitty. I hope she is resting in peace and comfort.
