Theater Of The Absurd

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Have you been watching impeached Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's media blitz this week? I confess that I have worked actively to avoid most of it--it reminds me of a car-train wreck. You don't want to look because of all the blood and gore, but somehow can't seem to turn away. But I did watch his one-on-one interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow last night.

I'll give Gov. B-Rod this: he's a very clever politician. He managed to stay on message (his message, which often had precisely nothing to do with addressing the questions actually asked) through most of the interview. In an odd way, it's amusing to see him, a Democrat, excoriate the Democrats in the Illinois legislature as being "out to get him" for his "legal" political moves with which they disagree. Amusing in a "through the looking glass" sort of way, that is. He wants people to think the legislature is out to get him because he wants to reduce seniors' health care costs by reimporting drugs from Canada, thus reducing seniors' prescription medication costs.

Note that the real issue in that case is whether how he did what he did was "legal" in the first place, not whether his stated goal was a good thing--but he won't address the issue in its true form, for he knows he'll lose.

Nor does the man have self-esteem problems. He's already compared himself favorably to the martyred Dr. King and to Gandhi. Who's next? Jesus Christ?

He also says he's the "anti-Nixon," because he wants ALL the tapes played, not just the ones he says the prosecution cherry-picked to make him look bad. This last is downright ironic, as B-Rod has made no secret of the fact that when he was growing up, Nixon was one of his first political heroes.

He also seems to think that by boycotting his impeachment trial in the Illinois Senate, he's somehow establishing that it's a witch hunt and not a legitimate proceeding. He keeps saying "the fix is in," knowing he'll be convicted. What else can he do? He knows he's guilty, but as long as he swears he isn't and that the trial is illegitimate, he preserves his image.

But he's guilty as sin, and he knows it. Not only does he know it, he made some mistakes in his interview with Maddow that prove it. When she asked him whether he tried to get the Chicago Tribune to fire its editors who were regularly attacking him as a "tit-for-tat" for help with financing to (as the governor put it) "keep Wrigley Field in Chicago," he said no one directly said so to the Tribune's owners. But he couldn't deny he'd wanted the Tribune's editors to lay off. And his mush-mouthed attempts to explain it away only confirmed that he knew he'd screwed up and was doing lame damage control.

I don't know that I agree with Madow that the governor's admission that he'd hoped for help from the Obama administration with getting certain legislation passed in exchange for a say-so on whom he'd appoint to take Obama's vacated US Senate seat was an admission of guilt. As ham-handed as the governor's answer was, I understand that he was trying to say "this is the normal give-and-take of politics." Since there was no PERSONAL gain in it for the governor, it could not be considered illegal extortion.

I do agree with Madow that Blagojevich's admission that he made the taped calls from his home phone because he didn't want to be seen as doing anything "political on a government phone" is a clear admission of guilt. "Doing politics on a government phone" is the essence of his job, for heaven's sake! He really botched that answer.

Two even more telling indications of his guilt: (1) his lead attorney quit, and (2) when he couldn't talk around a question any longer, he still never gave a straightforward answer. He reminded Maddow that the attorney who quit was "just one" of his attorneys, and claimed that their difference was one of tactics, not substance. I beg to differ. No ethical attorney quits on the eve of a trial (even if it is an impeachment and not a criminal trial) unless he/she has a really good reason to do so. Tactical differences alone are not sufficient.

Besides, if the governor has nothing to hide, why not give straight answers to straight questions, and why not give them during the impeachment trial instead of waiting until criminal charges are brought against him? Why not do everything he can to be vindicated as soon as possible? So what if "the fix is in" and he's going to be convicted in the Illinois Senate no matter what he does? He'll have proven the Illinois Senate to be a bunch of crass politicians, and his honor and martyrdom will remain intact.

I'll tell you "so what." As long as he stays away from official proceedings of any sort, there's no penalty for less-than-forthright answers to the questions he's asked. He's not under oath. He can claim whatever he wants with no fear of retribution. But he's only delaying his day of reckoning, not stopping it.

He's a clever man--too clever by half, as my great grandmother would have said. His cleverness isn't helping him, however. It's only dragging out the inevitable--not because "the fix is in," but because he's guilty as charged.

Someone Really Underestimated The Creepiness

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Have you seen the E*Trade (?) commercial wherein the baby is trading online and says he's going to use his "extra coin" to rent a clown? We then see Bobo making balloon animals in the background. The ad's tag line is "I really underestimated the creepiness." No kidding!

Whomever hired Dennis Hopper to be Amerprise's ad spokesman really underestimated the creepiness, too. There is something fundamentally wrong about having a 60s counterculture icon tout retirement funds.

Or maybe I'm just grumpy because it reminds me that I'm getting older despite myself.

* * * * * * * * * *

I watched a DVD yesterday of 15 Academy Award-winning cartoons. Most were originally produced by MGM, though the funniest were originally produced by Warner Brothers. [Hey, I like "Tom and Jerry" just fine, but those cartoons are really a one-trick pony.--Ed.] The oddest inclusion was a winner not for "Best Animated Feature" but for "Best Documentary Short." It was a 1950s era promotion for the Public Health Service, directed by the venerable Chuck Jones.

If you saw it, I think you'd cry. I did. It promoted a vision of Public Health Services as a positive good, costing every taxpaying American a whopping (!) 3¢ a day [yes, this was back in the day when you could max out a 2-hour parking meter for 1¢, but still!--Ed.], and its emphasis was on the high quality and wide quantity of services offered throughout one's life, all because it was both better for everyone and cheaper for everyone to support universal systematic public health services than it is to let them be implemented haphazardly--or not at all.

Remember: this was during Dwight Eisenhower's presidency. What the heck has gone wrong in the succeeding 50 years? [That was a rhetorical question.--Ed.] I am in mourning for a sensible vision and plan lost.

* * * * * * * * * *

Have you seen the new Major League Baseball Network (MLBN)? It has been a godsend to those of us for whom this is the bleakest time of year . . . which only gets worse once the Super Bowl is over. Still, pitchers and catchers are scheduled to report to Spring Training on Valentine's Day, so happy days will soon be here again.

Anyway, the best program I've seen on MLBN so far is "Prime 9," which lists the nine best in any number of major league baseball categories ranging from "The Best Characters" of the game to "The Greatest Shortstops" in major league history. It's a top-nine list instead of a top-ten list because, after all, baseball has nine players per side and a game usually lasts nine innings. The show also promises to start more arguments than it stops.

I'll second that. One episode that just aired was for "The Greatest Records." Note that this is "records" as opposed to "feats." Hitting 3 home runs in a single game is a feat. Hitting for 56 games in a row is a record. I have no quarrel with any of that. What I did disagree with was that Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak was ranked only 7th on the list. It has been said by wiser heads than mine that the hardest thing to do in sports is to hit a round ball with a cylindrical bat so squarely that the batter is rewarded with a base hit.

Not only did DiMaggio do something that no one else ever has been able to come within even six games of accomplishing, it was a solo effort. Baseball is unique in that it's a team game that allows for individual accomplishment by every starter on each team. A team can still win even if one--or more than one--individual team member has a slump. But no one else could do it for Joltin' Joe. The streak lasted as long as he could make it. [Yes, he did get a favorable scoring decision in the middle of it, but that happened well before he was into record-breaking territory, so it should not count against him or minimize his effort.--Ed.] So the "degree of difficulty" was higher for DiMaggio than it was for all the team records on the list. I'd have ranked it as high as #2, right behind Cy Young's career win total of 511, which came in at #1, and ahead of Cal Ripken's 2,632 consecutive games played streak, which "Prime 9" ranked as #2.

By the way, I mean no disrespect at all to Cal Ripken. What he did is gargantuan. But anyone who chooses to play for 16+ years and who wills himself to start in every game (no matter what injury or illness he may have) has a chance to break that record. It's mostly a question of mental toughness. However, no matter how much you want to, hitting in more than 56 games in a row is harder than starting every day, even for 16 years in a row. The hitting streak requires the player to conquer many variables that are totally out of his control. To name just three: the home plate umpire's strike zone, the pitcher's "stuff" on any given day [and now that the game has specialty pitching down to the level of short-relievers and closers, the degree of difficulty is raised even higher than it was in DiMaggio's day--Ed.], and the official scorer's decision on close fielding plays.

"Prime 9" ranked the New York Yankees' five-years-in-a-row streak of World Series championships from 1949-1954 at #3, which was the highest team record listed. In my rankings, it would have been #4. But "Prime 9" did get it right in terms ranking team vs. individual accomplishments. I do think no other team ever will win the World Series for five years running. The last team to win even three World Series in a row was the Oakland A's, and that was 20 years ago. As the Yankees'(and for that matter, the Atlanta Braves') recent travails have illustrated, even with the best players in the game, it's so much harder to get back to the World Series than it used to be that even repeating becomes nearly impossible. Five-in-a-row? Unthinkable.

Of course, I hope I am remembering correctly that Cy Young came in at #1. Pitching has changed more than any other aspect of the game, it seems to me, and not only will no pitcher ever get to 511 wins ever again, we may never see another career 300-game winner after Randy Johnson and Todd Glavine retire.

I will say that every entry in the "Prime 9" list deserved to be there. Probably none of those records will ever be broken. But then again, one of the great beauties of baseball is that every year we see things we've never seen before, including the breaking of supposedly "unbreakable" records.

So I won't hold my breath.

* * * * * * * * * *

You know what one of the most immediate signs of the economic meltdown has been? TV advertisers are using old commercials instead of coming out with new ones. This is tax season, and H&R Bloch is using a commercial (the one with the guy in the "money suit") it first used at least a year ago. And most of the "baby doing online trading" commercials premiered over a year ago, in time for last year's Super Bowl.

Watching the ads during this year's Super Bowl is going to be very, very instructive.

* * * * * * * * * *

Back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and even the 90s, I used to want to scream at those who were pushing an agenda of greater rights for states (at the expense of both individuals and the federal government's proper, Constitutionally-ordained bailiwick) that "The Civil War ended in 1865. You lost. Get over it! Grow up and move on, already!"

The 00s ["the Aughts?"--what are we going to call this decade, anyway?--Ed.] have changed precisely nothing. When true civil libertarians lose on an issue, we are supposed to suck it up and move on--so why aren't the forces of reaction required to do the same? They have all the money, that's why. They can afford to keep rehashing their losing causes until they get their way.

* * * * * * * * * *

And while we're at it, a quiz: what grates on the ears like fingernails on a blackboard? The GOP's lockstep use of the noun "Democrat" when grammar requires the use of the adjective "Democratic." I am ready to pull out my hair every time I hear some GOP wise-ass say "The Democrat Party" this and "The Democrat Party" that.

AAARRRRGGHHHHH!

I know why they do it. Some dim bulb in the GOP who fancies him/herself a bright light decided it would be better to be grammatically incorrect than to have even the slightest hint that someone would hear small-D "democratic" instead of capital-D "Democratic." And GOP spokespeople followed in lockstep. Heaven forfend that Republicans should even inadvertently seem to compliment Democrats or give them the positive attribute of being "democratic."

But not only is is ungrammatical. It's petty. It contributes only to the sense of "the permanent campaign" that Karl Rove (among others) championed, and in its admittedly small way adds to the sense of "politics as usual" that everyone with even half a brain hates.

Besides, it debases the language--so much for English first and other such traditional values. And it gives me additional support for my contention that were Lincoln alive today, he'd not be a member of the Republican Party.

The More Things Change . . .

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Those who know history are doomed to suffer the slings and arrows flung by those who do not know history--and also by those who know history but who choose to put their own gain ahead of what's best for the country.

So much for the era of post-partisanship. The Republicans in Congress are kicking up a stink about provisions in the president's economic stimulus bill, even though Obama has already caved in to most of their demands regarding tax cuts. They aren't offering anything new, and the voters repudiated them in November, but it doesn't seem to matter to them. They are eternal three-year-olds. They want what they want when they want it, and the rest of the world can go hang.

All this despite the fact that, as David Cay Johnston's book Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You With the Bill) demonstrated in copious detail last year [and in its new paperback edition this year--Ed.], the rich have gotten vastly richer in the past 8 years at the expense of the rest of us. Something on the order of over 97% of all the wealth in this country is held by less than 1% of all the population. And yet the GOP says we are supposed to give them more and more tax breaks.

Let's face it: The GOP's agenda is clear. The rich on the right are not going to be happy until they drive the country into such an economic hole that the only way out will be to cancel Social Security and Medicare--two of the most successful government programs in history, and two of the most hated by the rich, which do not need to use them and despise those of us who do.

So I say screw the GOP. It would be nice to have bipartisan support for the stimulus bill, but it's not necessary. The GOP votes against it will be on the wrong side of history and will be remembered by the voters who will benefit from the bill's passage. If the goal really is to get the country moving again, it's more important to pass the bill than it is to get bipartisan support to pass the bill.

Heck, take the tax cuts in the bill out--they were put in only to placate the rabid right wing, and they didn't work, so eliminate them. Add funds to the infrastructure spending already in the bill, most of which can be spent on providing real jobs to everyday people within 18 months. If the GOP kicks up more of a stink, remind the Republicans that passing the bill over their objections will help them come the next election if the bill doesn't work, so they have nothing to lose. They should just shut up and realize that they LOST in November and give other ideas a chance to stand or fall on their own merits.

OK, OK. We all know that won't happen, precisely because what the GOP really fears is that the stimulus bill (as presently written) will work, leaving them even more marginalized than they've managed to make themselves to date.

Toot The Tooters! Drum The Drums! Fet The Confetti!

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Oh, Happy Day! Our too long national nightmare is--finally--over! Barack Obama is about an hour away from taking the oath of office and becoming the 44th President of the United States. For the first time in eight years, I think the light at the end of the tunnel may not be an on-coming train after all.

And shame on me for not immersing myself in inauguration coverage, but I don't want to burn out or suffer overload. Sometimes the most momentous occasions are best experienced in quiet reflection. The image I'm taking away from all the festivities so far is that of Obama standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial, delivering his pre-inaugural remarks in the same place Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., gave his "I Have A Dream" speech. "Will The Circle Be Unbroken" indeed.

I don't know if it was the perfection of symbolism, the television lighting, the time of day, or the HD signal, but the image was breathtakingly crisp and sharp. I am thankful that such things still move me and still matter to me, for they embody my image of America as the beacon of hope for all the world.

Underneath my analytical exterior, I am a hopeless romanticist. I do not apologize for it, nor am I ashamed of it. It's the core of my being. It is my strength. It tempers the often cruel conclusions to which my analytical bent can lead me.

On the other hand, it can make me giddy, and that's why I am glad I have my analytical abilities, too. Balance matters. This day for me symbolizes the return of balance to our public order. I am positively giddy about that!

The Problem With Trying To Use "Original Intent"

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

I had a real "Eureka!" moment this morning when I was waking up. For years, I have been wrestling with the contention advanced by people like US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and right-wing commentator Pat Buchanan: that the Founding Fathers, in writing and adopting our Constitution, had certain very clear meanings in mind, and that we therefore must base our interpretation of the Constitution on those meanings, i.e., we must obey the Founding Fathers' "original intent" in deciding what the Constitution means today.

I have always held that could not be true. As a matter of sheer expediency, it would be impossible to do so. The world in 1789 was not filled with airplanes and computers and space satellites and men like Scalia and Buchanan themselves (and women) who have the vote. Since it's no longer the world of 1789, it can no longer be the Constitution of 1789, and the Founders were wise enough to know that. We wouldn't need a Supreme Court at all if the Constitution's meaning were plain and undeniable in the way people like Scalia and Buchanan make it sound.

However, since none of the Founders is on the record as saying flat out that the meaning of the Constitution is designed to expand as the world around us changes, the "strict constructionists" like Scalia and Buchanan have been able to maintain their position.

My "Eureka!" moment? Realizing that the meaning of words can change over time as a natural, organic thing--and that everyone who has ever looked up a word in a dictionary knows it. Therefore, the Founders knew it, too. The specific word in my case was "nice." When "nice" first came into regular use, it was not a bland compliment. It meant "trivial and petty." Examining great literature from the days of Shakespeare forward will reveal the natural evolution of the word's meaning and usage. And the Founders, well-educated men all, knew this body of literature.

Further, one of the greatest problems of studying history is trying to figure out what "everyday" people believed about their lives. Until relatively recently, most people didn't record the things that shaped their daily attitudes. They just lived their lives. Modern technology and the spread of education have made it possible for us both to leave records of our thoughts on such subjects and to wonder what our ancestors thought about them in their turn. I doubt that a concept like "original intent" even crept into our ancestors' conscious thinking. It would have been utterly foreign to their actual, real-world experiences. They wouldn't have to discuss it because its opposite was axiomatic. That the meaning of words changes over time was a given. It didn't need to be explained because everyone already knew it was true.

Recognizing this also puts the lie to the claim advanced by some that the Founders intended the Constitution to change only through the process of formal amendment [which is something that self-styled "clever" people have been braying about in letters to the Editor of the Omaha World-Herald of late--Ed.]. Yes, they made amending the Constitution a difficult process, both time-consuming and requiring an extraordinary level of societal consensus. But that was to keep the document from getting cluttered (the way most state constitutions have) with trivia or other matters of limited scope and interest.

The Constitution was designed to stand, as clean and uncluttered as possible, as our society's most basic expression of its governmental organization. It was written in general terms because the Founders knew they couldn't anticipate every possible permutation of every possible issue they addressed. They knew the particulars would be sorted out as the need arose. They came from a "common law" tradition, which by definition says law evolves incrementally as judges apply general principles to specific facts--or, in modern terms, the judges make the law [again, it's impermissible "activism" only when you disagree with the specific conclusion--Ed.] based on their understanding of societal consensus within the framework. In other words, it's inherently flexible.
The Founders didn't expressly adopt "original intent" because they knew it wouldn't work in a thriving society. On the other hand, the Founders didn't specifically deny "original intent" because it never occurred to them that they needed to.

I understand why the strict constructionists want to hang onto some rock-steady, solid and unchanging view of the Constitution and its meaning. It gives them comfort in a world filled with an ever-increasing pace of change--change that frequently is frightening. But it's a losing proposition. It flies in the face of reality on all levels, including science. The Founders, men of the Enlightenment all, knew the science of the day as well as they knew literature. All they had to do was look around to see physical evidence that everything changes over time. Fossilized seashells found on land were known to men of science in those days. They didn't know why the fossils were no longer under water, of course [heck, many scientists "pooh-poohed" plate tectonics as recently as 40 years ago--Ed.], but they knew that something had changed, otherwise there would be no reason for the remnants of aquatic creatures to be found far from the oceans in which they lived and died.

Ironically, "change" is the only constant. All of life is change, and it always has been--even before Darwin forced the world to face up to it. "Adapt or die," we say . . . and with good reason. Everyone and everything does die, eventually. But everyone and everything that hasn't adapted has died too soon when compared to everyone and everything that has.

See? I Told You I Can Disagree With Obama, Too

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Yesterday's New York Times included an article by David Johnston and Charlie Savage detailing President-elect Obama's stated reluctance to investigate Dubya administration policies, like implementing waterboarding--excuse me, torture. Obama gave a reasonable explanation for his reluctance: he does not want career intelligence officers to be looking over their shoulders, in fear of their own government, as that would severely hamper their ability to do their jobs.

Fair enough. But going after the operatives who carried out the Dubya administration policies is NOT what those of us demanding accountability are asking for. That would be no different from limiting prosecutions for the My Lai massacre to Lt. William Calley [which was all that was done during Vietnam, if you'll recall--Ed.]. Those of us demanding accountability are asking Obama to go after the real sources of the problem, to wit: President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Oddly enough, Dubya's self-indulgent and yet myopic view of his presidency as expressed yesterday during his final press conference establishes my point. Bush himself admitted to being in on the process and of approving the use of torture techniques like waterboarding. Cheney already admitted to his role. This is high crime, people! It is war crime. We used to prosecute people who committed these atrocities on Americans. We should not be doing such inexcusable things to others.

To let Dubya and Cheney totally off the hook would set a very, very dangerous precedent. It would give ANY future American president the power to break the law virtually at will. No one person should have so much power. That's the ultimate reason we broke from England in 1776 in the first place.

Nobody--especially NOT the President--is above the law. Nobody has the authority to decide which laws s/he will and will not obey--not without accepting the consequences of being caught breaking them.

To say he doesn't want to rattle career intelligence officers is to obfuscate the issue. To say he wants to look forward, not backwards (even if it is for the sake of the country), is to avoid the consequences of ignoring the issue. It is imperative that the Obama administration take steps to ensure that justice is done and that war criminals, no matter who they be, answer for their crimes.

Otherwise the change that Obama has promised for America is NOT change that's good for America.

Vanity, Vanity, It's All Insanity

(with apologies to Ecclesiastes)

The best definition of "insanity" I've ever seen is "doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting the results to change." Note that this is not a legal construct, nor a medical construct, nor a psychiatric construct--it's a real-world, practical application. And we are all insane in our own ways, about our own issues.

But what's going on in Israel and the Gaza Strip at the moment--and more importantly, the reactions to it--has to be the classic, dictionary illustration of this definition of insanity.

Israel is using military force to try to wipe out Hamas, the militant Palestinian faction legitimately voted into political power in the Gaza Strip. Hamas started the latest round of violence by shooting rockets into Israel and claiming it's all Israel's fault. The rest of the world is doing a lot of hand-wringing . . . and everyone is finding fault with the few serious attempts to broker a truce.

My biggest complaint is that those criticizing the latest negotiation efforts are claiming that we can put the details off till later--we need to stop the fighting now. They say that the negotiations cannot succeed as long as everyone tries to hammer out all the details first.

But getting a cease-fire and waiting till later to resolve the details is the very reason the fighting keeps erupting. This is truly insane. Why not try a different tack? Why not actually address the root issues for once and for all?

OK--it was a rhetorical question. I know why almost no one seriously wants to address the truly core issues. There's no money in it. The arms merchants, the extremists (on both sides), the other major political and military powers in the world--all of them have plenty of reasons to keep the conflict going, with only momentary lulls between the spasms of violence, and no real reason to cheer a true and lasting peace.

Some would lose money; some would lose power; some would lose prestige; some would lose their own raisons d'etre. The only ones who would gain anything are the bystanding victims of the violence, and those of us who think a change in the status quo would actually be a good thing.

As long as those with real power have no serious motivation to change, the violence will never end. Hell, it's been going on for over 5,000 years already. In their calculations, what's a few hundred more so long as they keep making money or holding on to their power?

I don't care what Adam Smith said about greed being a good motivator of economic (and other) behavior because in aggregate, it's filtered through so many diverse interests that it results in value-neutral societal decision-making. The facts of history and of current events plainly demonstrate Smith was wrong, wrong, wrong. We need to find another, a better, way.

W W J(osiah) D?

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

And an Unhappy New Year to you, too. I just read an AP report that says Waterford Wedgwood UK has filed for bankruptcy. I am in mourning at this news, but not really in shock. For, you see, when I worked for Wedgwood some 17 years ago [it can't really have been that long, can it?--Ed], I saw it coming. Yes, way back then.

Sit back and get comfy, and I'll tell you the story. Waterford purchased a controlling interest in Wedgwood in 1986, which was implemented at the retail level in 1990. Talk about Jonah swallowing the whale! At the time, Wedgwood was the much bigger company of the two, any way you compared them: total assets, market share, physical size, worldwide presence, you name it. But the deed was done, and Jonah's had indigestion ever since.

Unfortunately for all of us who love the high quality and tradition of fine things made in the British Isles, the ownership of the combined company put ex-auto company executives in charge of restoring profitability. Their solution was to lower labor costs. [Where have I heard THAT before?--Ed.] How did they do that? They fired all the most experienced master cutters and craftsmen and women.

I was not the only American working for Wedgwood in Europe who screamed bloody murder at this, but I probably was the loudest. Every one of us who worked in the Army and Air Force Exchange Services Wedgwood concession shops (located on bases in West Germany, Belgium, Italy, and Greece) tried to explain to the "powers that be" that while Americans in particular love a bargain, they also have a keen appreciation for quality--and are willing to pay more so long as they perceive they are getting excellent (not just good) value for their money. Just as the Frugal Gourmet explained that the cheapest was not always the most frugal, and that quality entered into any calculation of "value," I tried to tell anyone in the hierarchy that Wedgwood's prices in and of themselves were not the problem with Wedgwood's declining sales.

As long as buyers perceived that the quality of their purchases was extremely high for the money they spent, they'd be willing to pay more and buy more. On the other hand, since Americans in particular live and die by the word "sale," I also noted that Wedgwood's sales might actually improve thusly: if prices were raised, then cut back a bit less than the increase, and the decrease was called a "sale," Americans would buy--happily. Repeatedly.

Well, no one in the hierarchy liked that. They were of a mind that the word "sale," in and of itself, "decreased the value of the brand." I was reasonably disgusted by this. People who do not understand to whom they are marketing are not going to have long-term success. And they didn't.

The problems increased in succeeding years. For as the manufacturing of both china and crystal was outsourced to less expensive labor markets (in places like Poland and Hungary), the buyers' perception of the quality of the merchandise went down. The prices, however, did not. I do not denigrate the craftspeople of Poland, Hungary, or anywhere else where WW UK outsourced labor. All those places have long and honorable crystal-cutting and china-making histories of their own. But they are not Wedgwood. They are not Waterford. The cachet of place cannot be underestimated in trying to sell fine china and crystal to buyers all over the world.

The upshot? Customers became increasingly unhappy with the quality of the merchandise they were being asked to buy. I cannot tell you how many emails and phone calls and in person conversations I've had with people who said they weren't going to buy any more Waterford unless it could be proved that what they were buying was MADE IN IRELAND. Ditto for Wedgwood and MADE IN ENGLAND.

Heck, I had that reaction myself. My biggest Wedgwood china set used to have the floral border motifs painted by hand. Every piece had three-dimensional texture; every piece matched; yet every piece was unique. However, it took me a long time to complete my set. The last few pieces I have were made after production had switched from hand-painting to applying lithographs--just a fancy word for "decals." You may or may not be able to see the difference, but I assure you: I can. And do. And I don't like it, not one bit. So I don't use those pieces except in dire emergencies. They don't look right. They don't look like, well, Wedgwood.

Worse, though production costs decreased greatly, the retail prices never did. So I feel as though I got ripped off merely because I wanted to complete my set. [It's moot now, anyway, as the pattern went entirely out of production about a year after I bought my last plate. And the prices on the secondary market, especially for the older, hand-painted pieces, are exorbitantly more than I can afford.--Ed.]

This is truly a sad day. Not only is the Waterford showroom in Waterford Town, Ireland, closed--which will have a ripple effect on the entire Irish economy, because tourism is what put Waterford Town on the travelers' agendas--Wedgwood itself may be sold off, piece by piece, if a reorganization plan cannot be implemented, or a buyer willing to keep running the company cannot be found.

I know how to fix it. I wonder whether Warren Buffett would loan me the $2-4 billion it would take to do so. Probably not. Damn.

As to WWJD ("What Would Josiah Do?")--well. Let me first note that in England, Josiah Wedgwood is regarded the way Thomas Edison is in the USA. He wasn't just a master potter and craftsman. He was a scientist, an inventor, and a shrewd businessman. He is largely responsible for the rise of the stable middle class, for he gave them things to buy with their new, Industrial-Revolutionarily-earned wages. He created AND satisfied increased aspirations. He's probably doing at least 78 RPM in his grave right now. If he were here, I daresay he'd be taking off his wooden leg and beating the lunkheads who so richly deserve it for running such a fine and storied company into the ground.