tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-94268072024-03-07T20:54:37.601-06:00The Eclectic IconoclastTaking 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!Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.comBlogger392125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-72206557020829055232011-06-05T10:49:00.006-05:002011-06-05T11:23:28.175-05:00A Mule In Red Petticoats Is Still A Mule<!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br />And dressing it up in them in the first place is a BAD idea. Just as bad as the idea that PBS is now floating, according to a New York <span style="font-style:italic;">Times</span> newspaper article I read in Friday's Omaha <span style="font-style:italic;">World-Herald</span>, which also reported that the idea was broached last week to PBS member stations. <br /><br />It's bad enough that (1) the "sponsor blocks" at the beginning and end of each program are looking ever more like broadcast TV ads <span style="font-style:italic;">[and indeed, some of them actually ARE those ads--Ed.]</span>; (2) those "sponsor blocks" are taking up ever more time out of each hour's programming; (3) we have to endure pledge drives that used to run once a year, then twice, and now seemingly every other month. What's worse is that the smooth narrative flow of PBS programs would be hopelessly compromised, thus making PBS indistinguishable from any other network's programming. <br /><br />Maybe this is an April Fool's Day joke by a procrastinator, though I doubt that. Maybe this is an idea the PBS executives are floating to scare member stations and members into giving more money as a result of the renewed vigor of the Republican Party's push to defund PBS. A more plausible notion, but rather more Machiavellian than I'd hope PBS executives are. Maybe we really ARE at the "end of days" and this is one more sign that the apocalypse is nigh. No . . . that's too paranoid, even for me. Most likely, however, it's the GOP's recognition that what cannot be done directly can be done indirectly. If the GOP cannot neuter PBS by defunding it, it can neuter PBS by making its programming indistinguishable from everyone else's, and further inure us to having microscopically short attention spans, to boot. <br /><br />Whatever else it may be, however, it is definitely one thing: it's a BAD idea. So much so that, in a beautifully ironic twist, it ought to be the subject of a Geico automobile insurance commercial.<br /><br />If PBS is going to make me watch sponsors' ads in the middle of PBS programming, I will stop watching <span style="font-weight:bold;">and</span> stop contributing to PBS. I'll just wait till PBS sells the programs to cable networks like the Discovery Channel, and watch them there. I can put up with pledge drives. I can put up with commercials. I will NOT put up with both during the same program.Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-79733335191174408412011-06-03T11:26:00.015-05:002011-06-03T13:00:00.636-05:00Unbridled Greed<!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br />I remember hearing political commentator Lawrence O'Donnell say once that when he was in law school, he and his fellow students bemoaned the fact that all the great civil rights and other social justice issues had been litigated, laws had been passed, and all was now settled . . . to the point that Mr. O'Donnell and his fellow aspiring lawyers wouldn't have the opportunity to make history by helping make America a still "more perfect Union."<br /><br />I confess to having had that same thought myself while I was in law school. Boy, were we all ever wrong. Despite that fact that there's no argument when only one side (the losing side) keeps yammering about it, law that was long considered settled is suddenly up for review again. <span style="font-style:italic;">[Texas Gov. Rick Perry is one of the worst offenders. He keeps beating the drums of secession, despite the fact that the outcome of the US Civil War made that a moot point. I have two questions for him: (1) if Texas does secede, how long does he seriously think it will last once the federal government pulls out all its resources, from the Johnson Space Center in Houston to all the military bases, to everything else the federal government has there? (2) Doesn't he realize that just because Texas cannot secede, it doesn't mean the rest of us cannot kick Texas out of the Union if we're fed up enough with Texas' behavior?-- But I'll stop beating that poor dead horse . . . for now.--Ed.]</span><br /><br />The motivating factor for all this reopening of settled issues seems to be a combination of the need for lawyers (and their support staffs and the other people, goods, and services they use) to have something to do to make <span style="font-weight:bold;">more</span> money <span style="font-style:italic;">[which in itself is an expression of greed--Ed.]</span> and the utter rapaciousness greed produces in some people. Alas for the rest of us, the most greedy are often the most powerful and already wealthy among us. Most of us will not benefit from these outbreaks of manifest greediness, but we surely will bear the burden of their consequences. <br /><br />What has me riled up today is a divorce case in New York. <span style="font-style:italic;">[Please note: in New York, the state Supreme Court is the first appellate court, and the state Court of Appeals is the highest appellate court--you know, the one every other jurisdiction calls its Supreme Court. Do not ask me why New York jurisdictions are set up the way they are. I have no idea.--Ed.]</span><br /><br />Bask in 2006, after 33 years of marriage, Steven Simkin and his then-wife, Laura Blank, divorced. Most of their considerable assets were split equitably, including the money they had invested with the infamous Bernie Madoff. Ms. Blank took her part in cash; Mr. Simkin, seeing ever more money to be made, kept his money with Madoff. We all know what happened within the next two years. Once Madoff admitted he was running a Ponzi scheme of epic proportions, Mr. Simkin decided his remedy was to recover what he lost not from Madoff, but from his ex-wife. He telephoned Ms. Blank and demanded a "do-over" of their divorce settlement. She refused. He thereupon sued to get what he wanted.<br /><br />Most of the time, when a divorce settlement is made, it's done. This is because the law recognizes that certainty in the outcome of litigation has positive social value--it allows people to move on with their lives, instead of living in fear that what had been done and ruled acceptable by the trial judge could be yanked out from underneath the litigants at any time in the future. The law, however, also recognizes that occasional mistakes are mad--not just in divorce settlements, but in all areas of contract law. The law has allowed for this by allowing parties to raise the issue of "mutual mistake." A qualifying "mutual mistake" is one wherein all parties misunderstand something essential about the agreement they initially reached. As the New York <span style="font-style:italic;">Times</span> article I read noted, the most famous example is when two parties agree that one will sell and the other will buy from the seller a Stradivarius violin, but the violin turns out to be NOT a Strad. In such as case, the contract of sale is rescinded; the seller gives back the money and the buyer gives back the violin.<br /><br />No harm, no foul, in other words. Mr. Simkin is shoehorning this concept onto his divorce settlement, claiming that he and Ms. Blank were mutually mistaken about the nature of the investment with Madoff. The divorce called it "an account." In his filing, Mr. Simkin claims there was no account, only a massive Ponzi scheme. Now, Mr. Simkin is chairman of the real estate department with his firm. <span style="font-style:italic;">[His firm is one of not just New York's, but the nation's, most influential: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.--Ed.]</span> Ms. Blank is herself a labor lawyer for City University of New York. These are not unsophisticated, uneducated, ignorant people. They are not rubes who were duped by Bernie Madoff's bamboozling them with high-falutin' investment lingo they didn't understand . . . though he did dazzle Mr. Simkin, at least, by the obviously outsized returns he promised and for a long time seemed to deliver. What Mr. Simkin is doing in this case, however, amounts to a pile of linguistic legerdemain, sound and fury signifying nothing.<br /><br />Mr. Simkin didn't have to leave his money with Madoff under the terms of the settlement. He could have taken his funds and moved them elsewhere, as Ms. Blank did with her part of the settlement. But Mr. Simkin did not. He saw the returns he thought he was getting, and decided he wanted to continue to cash in. That's greed, pure and simple. When Madoff's house of cards finally fell apart and Mr.Simkin realized he'd lost not just his expected returns, but also most of what he'd invested, and knowing as a practical matter that he'd never get even part of his initial investment back from Madoff, he sued his ex-wife. That's greed, unbridled. <span style="font-style:italic;"> [You know, they teach the "deep pocket" doctrine in the first week or so of law school. That's the doctrine that says "don't sue the one who done you wrong--sue the one who can pay the most." I thought it was ugly then. I think it's ugly now. I apparently stand more alone in this conviction than I thought.--Ed.]</span><br /><br />The trial court rightly threw out his case, but a sharply divided New York Supreme Court ruled 3-2 that the case could proceed. Count me with the appellate court's dissenters on this one. It doesn't matter whether it was "an account" or merely "a Ponzi scheme." Mr. Simkin had the same opportunity to get out that his ex took at the time of their divorce settlement. He just didn't want to, and now, more than two-and-a-half years later, he wants her to pay for his greed.<br /><br />The New York <span style="font-style:italic;">Times</span> says the legal community is "divided" about Mr. Simkin's legal argument. It cited a professor at George Washington University who claims that "mutual mistake" is a valid argument in this case. I say BULL PUCKEY. Not only is this a blatant attempt by Mr. Simkin to escape the consequences of his own greedy actions, if his claim is allowed, it will inundate an already overburdened court system with dubious appeals by everyone else who thinks he/she got shafted in his/her original divorce. Mr. Simkin's unbridled greed may have an effect on our court systems not unlike the effects much of the country has experienced by the Mississippi and Missouri River floods of this year. That is truly unbridled greed--he wants "his" money back so badly that he's willing to drown the entire court system to get it.<br /><br />And if he gets his way, we will also be farther along the way than we are now to Stephen Colbert's "America Plus," where those with the real money will extract what little we have from the rest of us; to reap the benefits of being Americans without sharing any of the responsibilities of being Americans--which responsibilities they will dump onto the rest of us so that we can never even hope to catch up to their level of wealth, power, and influence. That is NOT what America was supposed to be. But it's what America is in danger of becoming. I'd be a lot less disturbed about this is the New York appellate court had agreed with the trial court and thrown Mr. Simkin's case out on its utter lack of merit. The fact that ANYONE is entertaining his legal "argument" seriously frightens the heck out of me. Doesn't anyone believe in John Kennedy's "ask not" anymore?Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-5549563511526133002011-04-23T12:42:00.009-05:002011-04-23T14:22:58.233-05:00An Immodest Proposal(with apologies to Dean Swift.)<br /><!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br />The power to tax may well be the power to destroy, but the power to tax unfairly is the power to do worse--it's the power to enslave. With the increasing concentration of the majority of the country's wealth into fewer and fewer hands (2% of the population of this country now holds over 50% of its total wealth, and is moving to amass ever more), America is being turned into a fundamentally unfair economic oligarchy, not the government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" which the Founders envisioned. <br /><br />Yet we seem paralyzed to do anything about it. Republicans want to keep cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, claiming that that's what will spur job creation and get the economy moving again, and that spending cuts will balance the budged. Democrats say that continuing to cut vital social programs will place the majority of the burden of government costs on the backs of those who can afford it the least, and that if we're going to cut spending, we must cut in areas like huge contracts to defense contractors, not areas like Head Start.<br /><br />It is axiomatic that spending cuts alone will not balance the budget. The cuts the GOP wants merely nibble around the edges and are not big enough monetarily to dent the burgeoning interest obligations we have on the debt we've already incurred. Those cuts will, however, cause a great deal of misery for a great number of Americans, who are not looking for a handout, but for a hand, given that while income for the richest 2% of Americans has increased at least 20-fold in the past 15 years or so, income for the other 98% of us has remained stagnant (or even declined, in real terms, once inflation has been adjusted for) for the past 40 years.<br /><br />Revenues must be considered. Revenues must be increased. But the current US tax code is a virtually impossible labyrinth of exemptions here and deductions there--in short, social engineering run amok. We seem to be at a stand-off. We've been at a stand-off for decades now, and positions are only hardening. People seem less and less willing to give a little to get a little. I include myself in that group, because, frankly, I do believe that "if you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk."<br /><br />I honor the notion of compromise. I do believe it is the genius of our system and that it is what has made America work for as long as it has. But the problem with compromise is that everyone has to play with the same understanding. If you define "compromise" as "getting 100% of my own way," well, that's not compromise. And alas for us, President Obama has been "compromising" with a GOP which does define "compromise" as "my way or the highway." Yet even he has his limits, and he has shown rather more backbone of late. The GOP, of course, calls that partisanship. Face it: it is impossible to reason with anyone who thinks they should have things 100% of their own way and the rest of us can go hang.<br /><br />Yet if we don't want the country to collapse into anarchy, we urgently need to move the discussion into productive channels instead of continuing to hash and rehash and re-rehash the same stale, non-productive rhetoric. Hence the following immodest proposal:<br /><br />Median annual income in this country is now $35,000 per person. Under the new system I propose, that first $35,000 will be entirely exempt from taxes. Every penny above that will be subject to tax at the rate of 1% <span style="font-style:italic;">[or 1/2% even--whatever will increase net revenue without being so high as to be seen by any rational observer as objectionable. Look: we have to have some taxes, just as we have to have some government. Justice Holmes was right. Taxes ARE the price we pay for civilization--Ed.]</span>. No exemptions. No deductions. No subsidies. No exceptions. Corporations would pay the same. They were so insistent on being treated as "people" for purposes of campaign financing, and a bare-bones majority of the US Supreme Court was so accommodating to them in its <span style="font-style:italic;">Citizens United</span> decision, that they have no valid grounds on which to complain. Fifteen to 20 percent of all such revenues will be set aside to fund Social Security and Medicare and will be untouchable by anybody in government for any other reason.<br /><br />The net result will ripple throughout the government. Without all the subsidy programs, the Dept. of Agriculture can shrink, thus greatly reducing its long-term operating costs. The Internal Revenue Service can shrink, too, as it will no longer need such an extensive enforcement arm as it now maintains. Even the Social Security Administration can reduce its size, as it will no longer need so many people to work in conjunction with the IRS to get and process its revenues in the first place. Individuals and corporations both would still have more than enough income to go about their daily "lives."<br /><br />There is no downside to this proposal. The only reason for opposition would be greed, plain and simple. But it has the proverbial snowball's chance of getting enacted. For every exemption, deduction, subsidy, or perk in the present system <span style="font-style:italic;">[except for those few still remaining for real, individual people of modest means--Ed.]</span>, there's an army of lobbyists in Congress ready and rich enough to defend it to eternity. That's sad, and more than a bit frightening. Why are people so willing to be against their own government but totally pro-big corporate power? With government, at least in our system, you have recourse if you are done wrong. But with a corporation, if it does you wrong, you are essentially SOL . . . unless you have access to a governmental entity with enough teeth to protect you. I surmise that greed rules here, too. Everyone seems to think he's going to become the owner bee and not be a worker bee. Ain't gonna happen, folks. The 2% of the people in this country who hold more than 50% of the total wealth of this country will make sure of that--but they'll dangle the hope of its happening in front of you until you are mesmerized by it and stop paying attention to what they're really up to, which is amassing ever more money and power unto themselves and taking it all away from you.<br /><br />I am inspired to this day by John F. Kennedy's call to "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." THAT is what America is, and should be, about. And by my "country," I mean my fellow citizens. And if that means "Social Security," great! I'm all for helping the vast majority of us, the 98% of us who wield increasing less power and influence as real money is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. I'm not alone, either. Tom Toles had an editorial cartoon in Friday's Washington <span style="font-style:italic;">Post</span> wherein a 6-lane interstate, under a highway sign saying "what you can do for your country" was totally devoid of cars--while a two-lane exit ramp, labelled "ask not," was jammed to a standstill with cars overfilling both lanes. I'm not the only one who "gets it," as it were. But we seem to be in an infinitesimal minority. Nonetheless, we have to keep trying. For unless we can change the terms of the debate and start offering new solutions, workable solutions--unless everyone is willing, for the sake of the country, to give a little--we are too soon going to be pledging allegiance to the Corporate States of America. And that will mean the end of the American Dream.Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-72469937727373086692011-04-23T10:36:00.009-05:002011-04-23T14:23:29.954-05:00Never Teach A Pig To Sing. It Wastes Your Time And Annoys The Pig.-----Mark Twain<br /><!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br />I have been reminded repeatedly of Mr. Twain's great wisdom of late. I've been perusing the posts of a group of people who have banded together on Facebook, allegedly to study the Federalist Papers and other writings by the Founding Fathers. I say "allegedly" because after reading these posts for several months, I have no choice but to come to the conclusion that their real purpose is to cherry-pick quotes, take them out of context (or otherwise misinterpret them), and to bludgeon them into unrecognizable form so that they can justify their own prejudices instead of really learning anything about America's history.<br /><br />Example the first. While I do not have the exact quote in front of me, one posting from Alexander Hamilton unequivocally stated that the system will work only when everyone realizes that if they are willing to give up a little in some areas, they can get a lot in others. In other words, that compromise is the heart and soul of the system. Yet people posting to this Facebook site deny that that's what Hamilton meant, because for them, "compromise" is a dirty word. This, even though they could not explain to me what Hamilton's words meant if they did not mean that the system was set up to function when everyone involved worked to compromise, or find solutions everyone could live with, even though those solutions may not give anyone 100% of what he wants. They insisted on their "interpretation" in utter contradiction to Hamilton's words, which were plain on their face. And then they denied that that's what they were doing. But they never could or did offer any explanations for their stand--and that's a textbook illustration of prejudice.<br /><br />Example he second. While they claim that the Founders didn't believe in compromise, they have no explanation for the existence, let alone the significance, of things such as the 3/5ths Clause in the Constitution. That's the clause that agrees, for purposes of determining how many Representatives each state could send to Congress, to count each slave as 3/5 of a person--for purposes of representation only. Southern states wanted to count slaves as entire persons, again for purposes of representation only, which would give them disproportionate representation (and thus power) in Congress; non-slave-holding states didn't want slaves to be counted at all, for purposes of representation or otherwise. The 3/5ths Clause was [oh, horrors!--Ed.] A COMPROMISE. Since the document itself got adopted only after including compromises such as this, it is impossible for the Founders to have been against compromise <span style="font-style:italic;">per se</span>. To claim anything else is to deny fact.<br /><br />Example the third. The most frequent posters to this Facebook page are all quite fond of quoting Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's admonition that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." They tend to use it to justify not taxing them, at all, for anything. Ever. Marshall may have been correct, but taking that quote by itself is to take it out of context and also to refuse to recognize that while it may be true as a generality, it does not and cannot justify their unwillingness to pay any taxes. If the Founders did not want taxes at all, they'd not have given Congress the power to tax in the first place. Taxes are necessary. Indeed, as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes noted about a hundred years after Marshall's dictum, "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." <br /><br />The people who ignore this are also fond of saying the federal government must be small, limited, and weak, and that that was the Founders' intent. They are forgetting or ignoring the Founders' collective experience under the Articles of Confederation, which was the Founders' first attempt at setting up America's national government. The Founders quickly realized that that government was too weak. It didn't succeed. Thus the impetus for creating the Constitution in the first place. Those same people also do not recognize that the same weaknesses, present in the Confederacy's Constitution, contributed mightily to the Confederacy's having lost the Civil War. Jefferson Davis's government could not compel the individual Confederate states to contribute specific funds to defray the costs of the war, to finance its own operations--in other words, to exist and to be able to defend its existence. Hence, Union victory; hence, "the Second American Revolution," designed to implement what the Founders wanted in the first place but which took a Civil War wherein over 600,000 Americans were killed, to realize. <br /><br />Also note that the Founders stated the goal of creating a "more perfect Union," which phrase suggests two things: (1) perfection had not been obtained yet; (2) maybe 100% perfection would not be obtainable, but the point was, and is, to keep moving toward that "more perfect" Union. The operative idea being "movement." The Founders plainly did not want some static, stultified, one-size-fits-all-forever structure for the federal government. If they had, they'd never have said "more perfect." They'd have said "perfect." If they had, they'd never have created the process by which the Constitution can be amended. Yet the Constitution may be, and often has been, amended. The notion of "original intent" is important, but it does not slam the door against change, for the provisions for amendment, plus the compromises that were enshrined in the original document (such as the 3/5ths Clause), plus the Founders' behavior in tossing the Articles of Confederation once that document proved ineffectual, all add up to the total that life is what happens, that history changes things, and that the Founders were wise enough to build flexibility into the system so that we could cope several hundred years later.<br /><br />Further, most of the people who claim they want to "restore" the federal government to what the Founders "intended" are not thinking through the consequences of doing that (allowing, hypothetically, that that presumption were correct, which we've already seen is not), which would be largely to destroy America's primacy and security in the world. It would turn the United States into the Balkans. Yet the people who insist that they want to "restore" America are always claiming America is the best, most powerful, most prosperous, most freedom-embracing place on Earth -- "rah-rah, we're Number One!" They always want America to be first in everything they think is good, but they won't recognize the fact that infant mortality rates in this nation are disgraceful, that high school graduation rates in this country are abysmal, that we are falling behind in the creation of new technology and in the education of our future generations . . . I could go on and on, but in short, that we are increasingly ill-prepared to meet the challenges of the future and thus are at grave risk of losing our presently privileged place on this planet. If they get their way, America will become the ultimate example of The Law of Unintended Consequences, because none of them seem to be able to see what the end result of what they say they want actually will be. <span style="font-style:italic;">[A perfect illustration of my contention that we have to stop trying to teach our children WHAT to think and that we must start teaching them HOW to think, but that topic deserves full exploration in its own post.--Ed.]</span><br /><br />The saddest thing of all is that the people who advocate these positions do not seem to realize that if they get their way, they're still going to pay. It may be paying into a different pot, and it may even be more than they are paying now. But they'll be paying, because one way or another, the services their taxes now support will still be in demand, will still be needed for the country to function. Consider this: President Reagan's budget "cuts" were not so much cuts as they were redirecting whence the tax money would come. Infrastructure maintenance comes immediately to mind. The federal government used to provide assistance to the states to maintain our roads, bridges, and other transportation channels. Once Reagan's budget eliminated that assistance, the needs didn't magically go away. Their burden shifted to the states, which varied widely in their ability to take on that burden unassisted. The long-term result? Our bridges and roads are now falling apart, and we're going to have to pay far more to fix them than we would have had we just kept maintaining them with small but regular infusions of federal assistance in the first place. Yet instead of recognizing this and implementing a simple, straightforward plan to do that fixing, we're all pointing fingers and laying blame . . . and the repairs and upgrades we desperately need are not getting done. Maybe the Second Law of Thermodynamics really does apply to human behavior and governmental systems as much as it does to gaseous bodies <span style="font-style:italic;">[you may thank me for that straight line as soon as you use it to make some editorial comment about the Congress.--Ed.]</span><br /><br />Unfortunately, recognizing all this does not solve the larger problem. If you consider what many Tea Partiers say about ending government hand-outs to Wall St. banks and protecting Medicare, you'd think those people would be making common cause with Democrats, not Republicans. But the GOP has managed to tie conservatism on social issues so tightly to its financial agenda that there's a knee-jerk reaction in the Tea Party: Democrats = liberalism, liberalism = bad. They are so locked into this way of thinking that they do not see the real facts, which contradict such presumptions. And as long as we're locked into that filtration of facts, we are living in a world much more like George Orwell's <span style="font-style:italic;">1984</span> than in the America the Founding Fathers envisioned.Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-66388712883972814832011-04-15T21:55:00.010-05:002011-04-15T22:35:58.275-05:00Say It Ain't So, Jo--er, Bob Costas!<!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br /><br />Bob Costas, whom I usually admire greatly and without reservation, is flat-out wrong in his stance on the issue of Barry Bonds going into baseball's Hall of Fame despite Bonds' being convicted earlier this week of obstruction of justice in connection with the Balco steroids scandal.<br /><br />Costas says neither Bonds nor Roger Clemens will get his vote on the first ballot on which they appear, but they will on later ballots because both had established a body of work that is HOF-worthy before they clearly started "juicing" <span style="font-style:italic;">[as the somewhat unfortunate description goes--Ed.]</span>.<br /><br />He then goes on to distinguish that status from players like Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmiero, and others whose careers were not particularly distinguished until, as the dramatic improvement in their baseball performance suggests, they started using steroids. Costas has wrongly excluded McGwire from his own nuanced HOF criteria. Mark McGwire set the rookie record for home runs, 49, if memory serves, well before he ever began using androstenedione, and he never kept that use a secret, either. It wasn't illegal or against the rules at the time, and he said it helped him heal faster, not hit the ball farther.<br /><br />Even if McGwire's defense is not 100% accurate <span style="font-style:italic;">[as Costas has also noted, healing faster means more time playing than otherwise, which is an indirect performance enhancement, at least in terms of career stats--Ed.]</span>, however, there is a valid point buried within it, to wit: steroids absolutely cannot make you hit a ball better than you could before. You still have to have the hand-eye coordination to make the fat part of the bat get enough of the ball at the proper angle to propel it on an upward (but not too far or even straight up) trajectory. Otherwise, no matter how strong you are, you're never going to hit the ball over the fences.<br /><br />This is a bit tangential to my ultimate point, however. Costas is wrong about its being OK to vote Bonds and Clemens in on subsequent ballots because of their well-demonstrated actions. In the interview I saw on MLBTV, Costas pooh-poohed the "morality" aspect of the Hall of Fame, saying that was an indistinct and undefinable standard which can be ignored as easily as it can be enforced. So what? It exists. It's what has kept "Shoeless" Joe Jackson out of the HOF for more than half a century now, and what Jackson did--or didn't do--pales in comparison to the behavior of Bonds and Clemens both. All that Jackson did was keep his mouth shut about the impending Black Sox scandal, and he did that because it was the first time in all the years he'd played for the Sox that anyone else on the team had treated him as if he belonged. His stats from the 1919 World Series prove he didn't do anything to help throw it. Heck, if the White Sox had won, he might well have been the MVP if they'd had such a category then.<br /><br />But Bonds has now been convicted of obstruction of justice. Even though that's a classic "white collar" crime, and first offenders normally get probation, it's still a criminal conviction. And it's not just a question of keeping one's mouth shut. Bonds has been convicted of actively impeding investigators and interfering with their ability to get to the truth of what they were investigating. This is not something to be taken lightly or to be pooh-poohed, even though it is not murder. It bespeaks of a fundamental lack of character on the order of Pete Rose's betting on baseball while he was a player and manager. It, too, brings disrepute to the game and sullies its unique standing as America's pastime. Hey--that isn't to be taken lightly--it's the legal justification for giving baseball an exemption from most anti-trust laws in this country.<br /><br />Granted, Clemens hasn't been convicted of anything yet, but the corroborated descriptions of his adventures in moral turpitude are well-established. Not to mention his arrogance and his belligerent behavior when testifying before Congress in connection with this whole steroids mess. He will eventually be convicted of lying to Congress, once the charges are brought. There is not a shred of doubt that he did lie to the Congressional panel which called for his testimony. Joe Jackson's worst sins against baseball pale in comparison.<br /><br />So, Mr. Costas, if you're going to vote to enshrine Bonds and Clemens in the Hall of Fame, do me one favor. Make sure Joe Jackson gets voted in first. Given that he has the third-highest all-time career batting average (.346, if memory serves), and given that his outfield play was described as so excellent that his glove was where triples went to die, he deserves to be in Cooperstown. <span style="font-style:italic;">[I will also concede that Mark McGwire was never so outstanding a defensive player, so if anything keeps him out of Cooperstown, it ought to be that lack of being the so-called "5-tool player," not his use of androstenedione--Ed.] </span><br /><br />Do keep Pete Rose out, however. After he finally admitted the truth about his betting habits, after vociferously denying it for at least a decade, he simply doesn't deserve it, no matter how marvelously he played the game. Actually, since what Bonds and Clemens did also largely comes down to lying, too, maybe you should rethink your intention "someday, eventually" to vote them into the Hall of Fame.Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-87029653858709152692011-03-06T09:42:00.007-06:002011-03-06T11:18:37.968-06:00Erin go BraghEveryone who knows me knows that St. Patrick's Day is MY holiday--in a traditional, cultural sense. <span style="font-style:italic;">[Green beer is an abomination.--Ed.]</span> It's a time to share great music, traditional and contemporary, good "craic" (sparkling, witty conversation), and great food.<br /><br />In the interests of spreading the gospel of traditional Irish cooking, and by popular demand, I am going in a different direction today from my usual diatribes. I'm posting some of my favorite Irish recipes, which I've been using for over 30 years now in connection with my St. Patrick's Day celebrations. <span style="font-style:italic;">[I can't believe it's been that long.--Ed.]</span> Enjoy!<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Corned Beef and Cabbage</span><br /><br />1 corned beef brisket including the pickling spices which come in the package<br />2 to 3 each carrots, celery stalks, and onions<br />cloves<br />1 head cabbage, cored and quartered<br />freshly ground black pepper to taste<br /><br />Lay the brisket in the bottom of a crock pot or slow cooker. Sprinkle the pickling spices over it. Cut the carrots and celery stalks into manageable pieces (about 3" long each) and strew over the brisket. Halve the onions and stud each cut side with cloves. Add to the pot. Cover with water and cook on high until the water begins to boil. Turn the heat down to low, skim any fat or other unpleasant substances rising to the surface. Cook on low, covered, for hours and hours. The longer, the better. You cannot overdo it. Add water as needed to keep the brisket covered; continue to skim the surface if necessary.<br /><br />30 minutes before serving, remove the brisket from the water and cover to keep warm (and let the juices settle back into the meat). Turn the temperature back to high and add the cabbage to the water. Boil for approximately 20 minutes or until the cabbage leaves are coming apart from each other and are just tender (if it were pasta, it would be al dente). Discard the carrots, celery stalks, and onions (they're much too salty at this point to be good for anything.) Pick the prettiest, most green leaves and drain them, then arrange them on a serving platter and liberally coat with fresh-ground black pepper. Slice the brisket and arrange the pieces atop the cabbage. Garnish with fresh parsley if you like. Eat until you explode. Note: the leftover beef makes great Reubens when served on light rye bread with stone-ground mustard.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Traditional Irish Stew</span><br /><br />I serve this dish for Easter, but some folks like lamb for St. Patrick's Day, so here's a classic:<br /><br />2-3 lb. leg of lamb, bone removed<br />2 white onions, thinly sliced.<br />2 medium to large baking potatoes, thinly sliced<br />6 new potatoes (red-skinned), scrubbed clean but left whole<br />1 tsp. thyme, divided<br />freshly ground black pepper <br /><br />Another crock pot/slow cooker classic, though this can be made on the stove top in a heavy pot (preferably cast iron).<br /><br />Put a layer of thinly sliced potatoes in the bottom of the pot. Add a layer of the sliced onions atop the potatoes. Add half the lamb, cut into bite-sized chunks, in as evenly distributed a layer as possible. Sprinkle half the thyme over this, then add liberal quantities of freshly ground black pepper. Repeat. End with one more layer of sliced potatoes, then add more black pepper, then arrange the whole potatoes on top. Pour in about 1 cup of water. Cover, tightly (I use aluminum foil and then the pot's lid), and cook at a medium temperature for at least 2 hours. The thinly sliced potatoes on the bottom should essentially disintegrate and become, with the water, a light sauce for the lamb. Use an immersion blender or a whisk to assist the process (after removing the other contents of the pot when preparing to serve), if needed.<br /><br />Serve a ladle or two of the stew and one whole potato per person.<br /><br />Note: <span style="font-weight:bold;">NO CARROTS</span> I have it on excellent authority that carrots are to be served as a side with the stew, not part of it. Here are two veggie sides which I use both for St. Patrick's Day and Easter feasting.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Glazed Carrots</span><br /><br />3-4 fresh carrots, scrubbed but not peeled<br />1 TBSP sugar<br />2 TBSP butter<br />freshly ground black pepper to taste<br />fresh parsley, chopped<br /><br />Cut the carrots into 3" lengths, then quarter the lengths, like a julienne or matchstick, but bigger. For large carrots, the pieces may have to be cut into 8ths to get the right size. In any event, make your pieces as uniformly sized as possible. Place in boiling water for 10 minutes or until just tender. Drain the water. Add the sugar and the butter, put a lid on the pot and shake until the butter melts and the carrots are coated with butter and sugar. Add black pepper and parsley just before serving.<br /><br />I have never yet tried it, but it occurs to me that you can steam the carrots instead of boiling them, if you prefer. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Garden-Fresh Peas</span><br /><br />To make a bag of frozen peas taste as if it just came out of the garden, put the contents of a whole bag into a 1.5 qt. pot. Add 3 TBSP butter; cover. Put the pot over the lowest possible heat, keeping covered, and shake the pot periodically until the butter is melted and evenly coats the peas, which should themselves be just warmed through at this point. Just before serving, add 1 TBSP sugar, 1/2 tsp salt, and liberal amounts of freshly ground black pepper; shake again, and serve. Garnish with more freshly chopped parsley if you have any left.<br /><br />Here's a potato dish for St. Patrick's Day (obviously not needed with the lamb stew, though some of us--who cannot get enough starchy carbs--cook it for Easter, too, anyway.)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Boiled New Potatoes</span><br /><br />1-2 lb. red-skinned new potatoes, bigger than a golf ball, but not so big as your fist (or a baseball)<br />Freshly chopped chives<br />Freshly ground black pepper<br />Butter<br /><br />Scrub the potatoes and peel a ring around the center of each one (this is purely for cosmetic reasons--the white showing amongst the red looks lovely upon presentation). Boil in LIGHTLY salted water until just tender. Drain and return to the pot. Cover the pot with a cloth dishtowel and set back on the burner, with the heat turned off. Let the potatoes dry out under this cover for at least 10 minutes. Add the chives, black pepper, and butter; stir gently until the butter is melted and the potatoes are lightly coated. Add additional chives just before serving.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Scones</span><br /><br />4 cups unsifted all-purpose flour<br />1 stick butter<br />1/2 tsp salt<br />1/3 cup sugar<br />1 tsp baking powder<br />1/2 tsp baking soda<br />2 eggs, plus enough milk to make 1 cup total liquid<br /><br />If you have a pastry blender, this is a lot easier--so if you don't have one, go get one! Cut the butter into the flour until you get an even mix of pea-sized flour-coated butter pieces distributed throughout the mix. Add the salt, sugar, baking powder, baking soda, and stir. Lightly beat the eggs, add the milk, and then pour this liquid over the dry ingredients. Knead with your hands until the dough coheres and sticks to itself and not to your hands. <span style="font-style:italic;">[Yes, it is messy--but fun!--Ed.]</span><br /><br />Roll the dough out to a thickness of approximately one inch. Cut into pleasing shapes, approximately 1.5-2" diameter. I have a shamrock cookie cutter which I use.<br /><br />Place on an ungreased baking sheet and bake at 325°F until lightly golden brown, approximately 20 minutes. You may want to check for doneness starting at the 15-minute mark. The ovens I've used over the decades have varied wildly and widely. The scones can go from being just right to being overdone in a flash, so taking extra care is worth it here.<br /><br />Serve warm with butter, Damson Plum jam, lemon curd, and/or clotted cream.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Irish Coffee</span><br /><br />This doesn't work well if you don't have real Irish Coffee glasses, so I strongly urge you to get some. Anything from inexpensive glass to the finest Waterford crystal works well--it's the shape and size of the glass that matters.<br /><br />Brew a pot of coffee. I use fresh-ground Irish-creme-flavored decaf, myself. Put 1.5 tsp sugar in the bottom of each glass. Pour in coffee until there's about 3/4" distance from the liquid to the top of the glass. Add 1 jigger Irish Whiskey (I use Jameson's). Stir once, to make sure the sugar is melted. Top with freshly whipped cream, and if you have them, green and orange sugar sprinkles. Sip the coffee through the cream. Slainte!Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-11967340346633164372011-02-12T08:39:00.007-06:002011-02-12T09:13:57.759-06:00Egypt and the Lessons of HistoryThe resignation on Friday of Egypt's President Hosni Mubarek confirms at least three of the great lessons of history--and human behavior. Lesson the first: the forces of reaction are often at their most virulent and loudest insistence immediately before they collapse in the face of true popular sentiment. Less than a day before Mubarek officially resigned, he said he wasn't going to go--at least, not before the scheduled elections in September.<br /><br />This leads directly to point the second: people in the know should keep their mouths shut. CIA Director Leon Panetta told a Congressional committee on Thursday that Mubarek would be leaving on Thursday night. In his speech Thursday night, as has been noted, Mubarek said he was not going. I suspect Mubarek's original plan was to announce his resignation on Thursday night, but once the word got out about Panetta's testimony, Mubarek decided he did not want to leave with even a whiff of a hint that he was going at the behest of the United States. I'm willing to bet (and I do not gamble) that Mubarek would confirm, if asked, that if Panetta had kept his mouth shut, Mubarek would in fact have announced his resignation on Thursday night, instead of denying it Thursday and waiting until Friday to make it. The man held a lot of power for a long time; he has his pride. I do not have to agree with him or with his policies to understand why he'd not want to be seen as jumping instantly on the heels of some American governmental official saying "jump."<br /><br />Point the third: supporting dictators who are friendly to American foreign policy objectives, just because they are friendly to American foreign policy objectives, is NOT a wise idea. That the "Egyptian Revolution" has so far been mostly peaceful is more a matter of luck than design, for we weren't so much supportive of Mubarek as we were of Egypt's peaceful coexistence with Israel. We've been giving Egypt a lot of foreign and military aid and training (as has much of western Europe) in exchange for Egypt's maintaining the peace treaty with Israel--which came in under Anwar Sadat. Mubarek, of course, took power upon Sadat's assassination, and it's lucky for us that he saw the wisdom in Sadat's having signed the peace treaty in the first place.<br /><br />To say that this change in Egypt is bad for America is to make many unwarranted assumptions, and even to fly in the face of America's long-term and oft-stated foreign policy goal of making real representative democracy the world-wide norm for governments. One of the things the radical right never seems to grasp is that genuine representative democracy is not ONLY for "people who think like we do and who agree with us." The radical right usually expresses itself on this score by telling capital-D Democrats to "love it or leave it" (or whatever the 21st century equivalent of that sentiment is). What the radial right doesn't seem to understand is that true representative democracy is risky--because it means that there's a real chance that people who DON'T think "just like us" can come to power. The beauty of real, American-style representative democracy is that EVERYBODY involved, even those who don't "think just like us" agrees that the system works, and that even when out of power, those who don't "think like us" still participate, that elections are held regularly, and that transitions of power are peaceful . . . and that the pendulum will swing in both directions as long as we all agree that the system works and that we ALL have a vital interest in maintaining the system. After all, "We the People" ARE the government in this system, and if a genuine majority says it wants something, it should have it.<br /><br />I wish Egypt well. Recent events there and in Tunisia may mark the beginning of something wonderful for the entire world.Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-35405034746097878732010-12-24T09:17:00.003-06:002010-12-24T09:41:49.455-06:00Welcome to the Corporate States of America<!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br />The Los Angeles school district, one of the largest and (overall) most cash-strapped in the country, has approved a proposal to allow corporate names to be posted on school buildings, school district vehicles, and other places, possibly including sports fields. Nothing is to be allowed in classrooms, and companies are to be thoroughly vetted so that no age-inappropriate or other unseemly (<em>e.g.</em>, alcohol and junk food manufacturers) companies will be approved for participation. The school district spokesperson said that this still would not end the district's financial woes, but it would make it possible to "avoid further cut-backs in services and programs." Nor is Los Angeles alone in this; Milwaukee's school district started a similar program in 2009.<br /><br />I'm not the only one who sees what's wrong with this picture. At least one of the parents of a Los Angeles school district fourth-grader noted on NPR's "Morning Edition" today that "there's no such thing as free." There will be a <em>quid pro quo</em>.<br /><br />What is wrong with Americans? We apparently have become so indoctrinated by corporate and right-wing double-talk that we think it's safer to have businesses, each of which has its own agenda, run our school systems than it is to make sure the government has the funds to do what it needs to fulfill one of its most basic missions, to provide high-quality, free, public education to our youth. The right-wing has succeeded in making "taxes" such a dirty word that we have forgotten Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's profound observation that "[t]axes are the price we pay for civilization."<br /><br />Yes, government can take our money and spend it in ways we do not like--but WE are the government in this country. We have the power to change what we do not like. Besides, government in this country has systems in place to appeal abuses of the system. If a corporation treats you unfairly and there is no law <em>[read that "government"--Ed.]</em> which provides you access to redress, you are SOL.<br /><br />I absolutely do NOT understand how so many Americans can mistrust their own government so much that they prefer to turn control over much of their lives to businesses whose sole purpose for existing is to maximize their own bottom line--even if that be at the expense of the rest of us.<br /><br />But at the rate we are abdicating our duty to each other to make sure we have the best government on Earth, it won't be long before our kids begin each school day pledging their allegiance to "The Corporate States of America."Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-31668331136640218542010-12-11T15:01:00.028-06:002010-12-11T17:19:52.245-06:00Yet Another Modest Proposal(and with still more apologies to Dean Jonathan Swift)<br /><!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br />Mr. Barack Obama<br />The White House<br />1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW<br />Washington, D.C. 20500<br /><br />Dear President Obama,<br /><br />You are correct in asserting both that compromise is the heart of our system and that your job as president is to do what's best for all the American people. However, this deal you brokered with Republican leaders in Congress is neither a compromise nor in the best interests of the American people.<br /><br />It may look like a compromise when people at both ends of the political spectrum in this country are angry about what's been done, but detailed analysis demonstrates that in this case, looks are deceiving. A compromise is typically defined as a "meeting in the middle," but this deal started out so far to the right of center that what in reality is the middle has been moved so far to the left as to seem dangerously radical. Look: the far right is going to be angry at you no matter how much you give, because they are not angry about the substance of the issues--they are angry that YOU, as a black man, are the president. Nothing you can do will change their anger, so you might as well stop trying to appease them. They deny that they are racists or bigots, but if what they say they want about fiscally responsible political leadership is true, they would have voted all the Republicans OUT off office this past November, not voted more of them in. The disconnect between their proclaimed beliefs and their behavior should be telling you something.<br /><br />Many on the left, however, are angry at you because you are starting to the right of center, which makes an agreement truly embodying the center, by definition, impossible. We all know that progress is slow, that we can't always get what we want, and that real progress in this country typically happens incrementally. Your behavior since you took office has been to start at the true center and move to the right, however, unlike your soaring rhetoric of hope and change promised during your 2008 campaign. By starting where you've been starting in every discussion so far with the GOP, you aren't giving even incremental progress a chance. I know you're in a tough position, and I know you have an eye to history, but as a fellow academician, I also know that your instinct is to expect people to respond to reasonable behavior by behaving reasonably themselves. In politics, however, that doesn't happen. <br /><br />Your assertion that you got the GOP to concede several benefits to ordinary Americans that the GOP wouldn't otherwise approve may be true, but is meaningless. A "compromise" that gives 13 months of bare-bones sustenance to the millions of Americans who are the long-term unemployed while bestowing additional billions on the already ultra-rich in this country for 24 months (if not longer--it seems clear that in 2012 we're going to have <span style="font-style:italic;">deja vu</span> all over again about what's happened during the past few months)--billions that will be added to the entire nation's fiscal deficit--is emphatically NOT in the best interests of the American people as a whole. Several analyses of the other terms of this "compromise" say that it will actually increase the burdens on the already-strained middle class instead of helping them. And adding nearly a trillion dollars to the long-term deficit by extending the tax cuts to the ultra-rich does not help the 98% of the American people who have seen their true earning power and purchasing power stagnate (if not downright erode) over the past 40 years.<br /><br />The ultra-rich seem to have forgotten (if they ever knew) that people without secure, well-paying jobs do not spend money, and since spending money is what drives our overall economic growth, you'd do better by giving no more than a pittance (at the most) to the ultra-rich and bestowing the bulk of your fiscal largesse on us "regular" people. When the economic crisis began, back in 2008, I said that a real economic stimulus plan would devote itself 100% to putting people to work on improving our infrastructure and putting money in our pockets, not to giving money to those who did not need it and who would not spend it. History has borne me out--the rich are even richer than they were when the crisis started, the big ("too big to fail") Wall Street firms are even bigger than they were before 2008, infrastructure improvements are not being done on a big enough or fast enough scale, and the rest of us have become in a real way invisible. Indeed, in 2008, if you simply would have handed a million dollars to every single American, you'd have done more to help the vast majority of us than the stimulus plan as passed ever could, while increasing the long-term deficit only about half as must as the actual stimulus plan did. But the GOP would never have stood for that. (Millionaires and billionaires must be kept a small, elite group. The vast majority of Americans need not apply.) And no, I am not saying by this that you should engage in a short-term, unwinnable political fight. I am calling on you to do in fact what you claim you were doing in the first place, to wit: looking out for the best interests of the American people as a whole.<br /><br />Listen to and study everything Sen. Bernie Sanders said in his most powerful and fact-laden oratory of December 10th. He is exactly right about it all, but the oligarchic few with most of the money have the power to thwart the will of the real majority of Americans at every turn. You said yourself, correctly, that the vast majority of the American people were aligned with you about not extending tax breaks to the millionaires and billionaires. Yet you still gave in to GOP intransigence and signed off on this "compromise" that gives way more to the ultra-rich 2% than it does to the 98% rest of us. The ultra-rich and their allies were playing a cosmic game of "chicken" with you, Mr. President. You blinked first. There is still time, however, to undo the damage this "compromise" has done.<br /><br />Before I make my "modest proposal," however, let me tell you a little bit about myself, so that you'll understand the strength of my conviction about my idea. I am a life-long non-smoker who got a lung disease; I now must have, around the clock, 6 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen just to function. At that rate, a portable oxygen tank lasts maybe 2-3 hours, so I am effectively prevented from working outside my home. My sole sources of income for the past several years have been approximately 1/3 of my ex-husband's military retirement pay and Social Security disability payments (note that my 3 highest years of earnings were when I lived outside the U.S. to be with my now ex-husband in connection with his military duties, and so my income from those years does not count toward my benefit, leaving me getting less than half the average disability payment). Because of the austerity measures you've already implemented, this will be the second year in a row that I have not had any COLA at all. However, my cost of living has increased measurably over that period, so in real terms, my income is declining, not staying steady.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I think you should scuttle this "compromise" you made with the GOP and let ALL the Bush era tax cuts expire at the end of the year. Not only will that fulfill the promises that were made at the time those tax cuts were first enacted, it will restore some modicum of fiscal responsibility to the ultra-rich in this country. The Reagan/Clinton era tax rates (which are the ones that will return once the Bush era cuts expire) did not demand from them a true "fair share" of the burdens all Americans bear for their country. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes himself noted that "taxes are the price we pay for civilization." Thus, letting the Bush era cuts expire would be better than extending them for another 2 years (or more). And if letting the tax cuts for the middle class expire at the same time is the price we must pay, so be it. The cuts never made a huge difference to most of us, anyway, so ending them isn't going to make a noticeable difference in the other direction, either. The only thing that this "compromise" has done is to let us stall getting our fiscal house in order--again. Letting all the cuts expire in 20 days will be the wake-up call we need to start dealing with our real problems now, instead of sniping at each other while the problem gets bigger and bigger and bigger.<br /><br />Extending unemployment benefits can be brought up as a stand-alone bill. House Speaker-elect John Boehner is on the record as having said--tellingly, <span style="font-style:italic;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">before</span></span> the deal you brokered with the GOP--that not even the GOP would fail to extend unemployment benefits at Christmastime. What would really do this nation good is to scuttle the "compromise," force a vote before the end of the lame-duck session on extending unemployment benefits alone, and talking to the American people about what the true costs to all of us will be of continuing to give in to the GOP's notion of "fiscal responsibility." If you don't, Dean Swift's "modest proposal" about solving the Irish problem may become applicable here.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />A Very Concerned CitizenEclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-14175657044714084592010-11-03T09:00:00.006-05:002010-11-03T09:33:04.987-05:00What's Wrong With This Picture?<!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br />Let me get this straight. Americans are very unhappy with the state of the economy, the level of federal debt, and fiscal irresponsibility in general. The GOP has spent much of the past two years doing 3 things: (1) blocking the Obama administration's attempts to address these issues: (2) diluting to virtual ineffectiveness that which it could not block; (3) lying about the results when the dilutions didn't work and administration initiatives actually did a lot of good. Yet voters yesterday overwhelmingly gave the reins back to the GOP, largely on the grounds that "the country was moving in the wrong direction." Huh?!?!<br /><br />I take no comfort in the fact that most of the craziest of the crazies (Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Carl Palladino, and Joe Miller--though that last is not yet official) went down to sound defeats. A full third of the voters yesterday still voted for those textbook examples of nuttiness.<br /><br />And the official pronouncements of those GOP members poised to take over say with one voice that their first goal is to repeal the health care bill, the one they derisively have named "Obamacare." A bill which, admittedly, most people hate when asked about it as a whole, but which, when asked about it feature by feature, an overwhelming majority of people like.<br /><br />The financial bailouts (which people say they hated and also cite as a reason for the way they voted yesterday) happened under President George W. Bush, REPUBLICAN, but voters yesterday also cited bailouts as one of the reasons they voted for the GOP to retake control of the US House of Representatives. Said voters also hated the alleged governmental take-overs of the US auto industry, but Ford didn't participate, and both GM and Chrysler have roared back to health, and the interest the government bought in those companies is already being sold, the companies having paid off their debts--ahead of schedule.<br /><br />The level of federal debt owes at least a trillion dollars of its total to President Bush's (and a GOP-controlled Congress's) war spending, which the GOP kept off the books. It pre-existed the Obama administration, but because President Obama kept one of his promises by putting that debt back on the books--where it belonged in the first place--Obama is being blamed for excessive spending.<br /><br />We are in the worst economic crisis we've seen since the days of the Great Depression, yet the stimulus package, as watered down and weak as the GOP could make it, has kept things from being much, much worse . . . and yet the perception is that the stimulus "failed." Or so the GOP keeps saying. If a lie is repeated long enough, it seems no longer to be a lie, I guess. So I say again, "Huh?!?!"<br /><br />Wherever H.L. Mencken is, he's laughing his head off. I'm not laughing, however. I'm crying. We've just given the car keys back to the idiots who drove us into the ditch in the first place. The late 19th century has been dubbed "The Gilded Age." I suspect our current time may go down in history as "The Stupid Age."Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-6846249592531988312010-11-01T09:07:00.002-05:002010-11-01T09:26:14.951-05:00Rest In PeaceTed Sorensen, Nebraskan, attorney, counselor and speechwriter for John F. Kennedy, witness to history, has died at the age of 82. May he rest in peace. He embodied the most famous line from JFK's inaugural address: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Indeed, it has long been the common understanding that he, not JFK, actually penned it. Modest and wise, however, when asked directly about that he never lied, but he never said "yes," either. He pointed out that Kennedy made the decisions about what his administration and its policies would be, and Kennedy authored the speech. So Sorensen admitted his role without actually admitting it.<br /><br />Such understatement is typical of the best Nebraska has to offer, and it's one of the main reasons I so like living here even though it's one of the reddest of the so-called "red states." I highly recommend Sorensen's biography, <span style="font-style:italic;">Counselor</span>, to anyone who wants to gain insight into not just American politics, but into the entire world, especially the world of the early 1960s. It was a vastly different place from the world of today. Yet people of good and noble character are as needed now as they ever have been.<br /><br />Mr. Sorensen, you will be missed. Requiescat in pace.Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-18938832020536747462010-10-23T11:47:00.004-05:002010-10-23T12:03:46.549-05:00Poetic Justice<!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br />Alex Rodriguez, third baseman for the New York Yankees, made the final out in last night's American League Championship Series Game Six, which gave the Texas Rangers a 4-2 series victory and its first ever trip to the World Series.<br /><br />Alex Rodriguez started his big league life as the starting shortstop for the Texas Rangers, but he left that club back in 2003 so that he could go play for "a winner" (said Yankees). He had played for the Rangers since 2000, and was, after only 3 seasons, not patient enough to stay and be the center around which the Rangers would build a championship team. He was so desperate to leave that he even deferred to Yankees' shortstop Derek Jeter, moving of his own volition to third base.<br /><br />Yes, it took another 7 years, during which time the Yankees have won it all (they are the defending World Series champions), but the Rangers have their championship at last . . . after they struck out the man who was slated to be their leader yet who'd bailed on them the first chance he had. That it was the final out of the ALCS was deliciously ironic.<br /><br />Such poetic justice would not be believable in a novel. It's too perfect. But in real life, it is a treat to be savored.<br /><br />Now if we could only get rid of artificial turf and the designated hitter rule . . .Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-90558434789205513422010-09-27T15:49:00.037-05:002010-10-23T12:03:24.434-05:00It All Depends On How You Look At It<!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br />One of the things that bugs me the most about the people yammering for us to get the country back in line with the Founding Fathers' original intent for the Constitution is this: their lack of perspective. They seem to believe that there was a brief, Golden Age in our American past wherein the Constitution was implemented 100% perfectly according to the Founders' intent, and that there also is NO question as to what the Founders' intent was. <span style="font-style:italic;">[The fact that their interpretation of the Founders' intent fits the failed Articles of Confederation more closely than the Constitution is a topic for another post.--Ed.]</span> <br /><br />I do not condemn them for wishing for "the good old days." All humans seem to have the tendency to think of the past as being a more idyllic, happier, easier time than the present day. <span style="font-style:italic;">[Though in my own defense, I will say that my "good old days" have to do with things that have happened in my own lifetime and thus are formed not just out of my own desires or even my own memories, but are measurable against objective records and facts as corroborated by other living people's memories.--Ed]</span><br /><br />I do condemn them for their vision of a "good old days" that can be proven never to have existed except in their own minds. I also condemn them for asking the wrong question to begin with and misusing the principles of logic in answering same. They hold that the Constitution according to the Founders' original intent had (and has) one and only one clear, specific, unambiguous meaning . . . and they point to assorted writings of the Founders to justify their saying so. They conclude that nowadays, the Founders' true original intent has been not just ignored, but positively stomped on . . . mostly by progressives and other evil liberals. They are unshakably rigid in these beliefs.<br /><br />The problem is, they are not asking the correct question. It's not the case that the Founders had a single, clear, unambiguous original intent, which we sinners have abandoned. The question is: What actually was the Founders' intent in the first place? The Founders' original intent could well have been to create a framework for the government that was strong enough to stand (unlike the already-proven worthless Articles of Confederation), yet flexible enough to let people of the future deal with the problems of the future, problems that not even the Founders could predict. That is, the Founders' original intent could well have been to create a strong yet flexible framework for government, not dictate some unchangeable, perfect, set-in-stone proclamation.<br /><br />Consider what objective evidence and untwisted logic reveal. First, the mere existence of the copious Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, and other articles, essays, correspondence, and publications by the Founders proves that the Founders were NOT of one rigid and united mind-set about the Constitution's meaning. In all these writings they frequently, often vehemently, disagreed with one another about what the Constitution meant and would do once ratified. The sheer physical quantity of the documents establishes that, even without reading all the competing claims those documents actually make.<br /><br />Second, these "originalists" cherry-pick from all these documents to support their point of view. The opinions of every one of the men considered the Founding Fathers is given equal weight <span style="font-style:italic;">[as long as they agree with it, that is--Ed.]</span>. James Madison, however, has long been recognized as the primary author of the actual Constitution. One would think that he'd have a better idea of what he meant when he wrote any particular phrase or clause than would anyone else. His words explaining what he wrote thus should be given more weight than the words of someone who, even though considered a Founder, did not have a large or even direct role in the Constitution's authorship. Yet Madison is ignored or even actively condemned by these same people when they don't like what he says he meant.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">[I have the same problem with the way a lot of people who claim to be Christians interpret the Bible. Excuse me, but not only should the New Testament be given precedence over the Old, Jesus' own words should matter more than anyone else's in either the Old OR New Testament. "Whatsoever you do unto the least of My brethren, you do unto Me" (Matthew 25:40) is the essence of God's New Covenant with humanity, and thus should guide our behavior a lot more than the fire and brimstone, Us against Them, tales of a vengeful Old Testament God.--Ed]</span><br /><br />Third, the Founders were no dummies, and they of all people knew the only constant throughout history has been change. Heck, the enormous changes they'd seen just during their own lifetimes at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution illustrate that. Their world was moving from a rural, agrarian social structure to an urban, industrialized one. Enormous improvements in the standard of living for an emerging middle economic class had been seen in just the length of one average lifetime--which was shorter in those days than it is now, remember. While the concept of government by the consent of the governed was not new <span style="font-style:italic;">[don't forget the</span> Magna Carta, <span style="font-style:italic;">dating back to the early 13th century--Ed.]</span>, the definition of which "people" were included was broadening, dramatically, as more and more people became economically better-off than their forebears had been. <span style="font-style:italic;">[It's most amusing that many of these "originalists" wouldn't have been considered qualified even to vote, let alone to take a turn at governing, by the standards of the 13th-16th (rich, white, male, titled nobility), 17th (rich, white, male owners of large pieces of real property) and 18th (white, male, property owners)--and 19th (black and other minority males), and even 20th (women)--centuries . . . even the more enlightened, dare I say "revolutionary," standards expressed by some of the Founders.--Ed.]</span> <br /><br />Individuals no longer had to spend every waking moment providing the bare necessities of food, shelter, and clothing for their families. They had the money, and thus the power, to begin to accumulate goods. They had the time to pay attention to "the larger issues of the day." They could take more control of their own lives than could have any generation before them. <span style="font-style:italic;"> [People like Abigail Adams (our first feminist) and the abolitionists just pushed the concept to its logical extremes. But someone has to be on the "far left," as it were, or else what is truly the "center" will appear to be the "far left" to those on the "far right." Again, a topic for detailed exploration on another day.--Ed.]</span> <br /><br />Fourth, the Founders knew full well that no one could predict the future. They knew that problems would arise; they had no way to anticipate exactly what those problems would be. That's why they were willing to scrap the Articles of Confederation when that framework for government proved impotent. If they could have predicted the future, they'd never have made the mistake of writing the Articles of Confederation--instead of the Constitution--in the first place. They'd have started with the Constitution to begin with. History happens; reality "is." The Founders' miserable experiences under the terms of the weak, states'-rights-oriented Articles of Confederation demonstrated for them that they needed to create something with more teeth. They weren't married to some rigid and unchanging concept of what the right formula for the government would be. Under the terms of the Articles of Confederation, they could not fix the problems of weak government created by those same Articles of Confederation, so they started over with the Constitution. I daresay their experiences with the Articles suggested to them that they needed to build not only teeth, but some measure of flexibility, into the Constitution. But one never hears any of these "originalists" talking about the Articles of Confederation and the actual history that happened while it was in effect . . . most likely because they recognize (at some level) that doing so would demolish their entire argument about the Constitution's meaning and scope.<br /><br />Fifth, as far as I know, at least, none of the Founders ever claimed to be perfect. And isn't it axiomatic that imperfect beings cannot create perfection? The Founders clearly knew this. Remember, the Preamble to the Constitution says "to create a more perfect Union" and not "to create a perfect Union."<br /><br />The logic is inescapable. The problem is, none of the people decrying our alleged lack of adherence to the Founders' presumed "original intent" care a whit about logic, though they'd like us to think they do. If they cared about logic, they'd not be so het up about the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero in New York City. They'd recognize that the First Amendment's protections for religious freedom and the Constitution's overall respect for the concept of private property trump any raw emotional reactions of individuals. They'd also be equally upset that there are many fundamentalist Christian churches close to the Alfred P. Murrah building site and memorial in Oklahoma City, but we've heard nary a peep from any of them about that. They'd also recognize that just as a putative Christian killed Christians in Oklahoma City, so did Muslims kill Muslims when the Twin Towers were attacked. There were two mosques at the World Trade Center, one in each of the towers, remember.<br /><br />I do hate to sound like a broken record, but this is the same reason I get mad when people claim Ronald Reagan was the greatest president the USA has ever had "because he ended the Cold War." That's not the right question. The right question is whether ending the Cold War was such a good idea in the first place. Admire the Soviet Union or despise it, you cannot deny that the USSR kept the lid on its allied Muslim states, and when it had problems, it was the USSR's money and precious manpower that were put in harm's way, not ours. Thus, ending the Cold War was not a bad idea just from the standpoint of what it did in ballooning our own budget deficits. It was a bad idea in terms of what it loosed on the rest of the world in the decades subsequent.<br /><br />I have the same reaction to people who won't accept blood transfusions or other modern medical procedures because "God will provide." Maybe the doctors and the modern technology ARE how God has provided. Consider this little morality tale: one March, a frail old man found himself trapped atop the roof of his house during extreme springtime floods. A neighbor came by in his rowboat and offered the old man a lift to the rescue shelter on higher ground, but the old man declined, saying "God will provide." Shortly thereafter, Coast Guard personnel came by in a motor boat and offered their assistance. Again, the old man declined. "God will provide." Still later, a National Guard helicopter crew flew by and prepared to lift the old man to safety, but again, he said no. "God will provide," he said, serenely.<br /><br />Well, the old man drowned that night. After his orientation tour of Heaven he raised his hand. "I have a question," he said. "I had faith. I was sure that God would provide, and I said that, repeatedly--so why am I here?" St. Peter answered, somewhat sadly, "God provided you a rowboat, a motor boat, and even a helicopter. What were you waiting for, the <span style="font-style:italic;">Titanic</span>?"<br /><br />If you don't ask the correct question, you'll never get the correct answer, even when it's under your nose or next to your flooded house.Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-54447228842548415772010-08-14T17:57:00.003-05:002010-08-15T09:43:05.436-05:00Which Would YOU Choose?I heard a most interesting segment on "This American Life" this morning (locally aired on KIOS, 91.5 FM). The theme of the show was superheroes and superpowers, and the specific segment to which I refer was one in which a gentleman <span style="font-style:italic;">[whose name escapes me--I obviously lack super memory--Ed.]</span> spent some time asking everyone whether they'd rather have the power of flying or of being invisible. His calculations and conclusions were fascinating. He says more women than men prefer the idea of being invisible; more men than women prefer the idea of flying. He goes on to say, with support from several of the people he queried on the subject, that this is because people with something to hide prefer invisibility, and people who "let it all hang out" in terms of who they are prefer the power of flight.<br /><br />Why I found this so fascinating was that, as usual, I don't fit in. When he first asked the question, I answered "flying." I was 100% certain; the rest of the segment did not change my mind; I said it promptly and out loud, which got quite a reaction from my cats Linus and Lucy, who were, after all, trying to have their morning nap (in the sunny spot in the dining room) in peace.<br /><br />The <span style="font-style:italic;">auteur</span> says there are 5 stages of decision, and while I don't have the exact titles he used, this is the rough equivalent of what they are: (1) initial choice; (2) justifications; (3) reconsideration; (4) bargaining; (5) final choice, which over 90% of the time wound up being the opposite of the initial choice. He also went on to say that almost everyone who chose invisibility admitted sooner or later that they'd use that power either to spy on family, co-workers, and friends, or to shoplift or watch naked people who thought they were in the privacy of their own showers and tubs.<br /><br />Ask me how glad I am that I chose flying, immediately and without going through all the stages he set forth. It's nice to get confirmation every now and again that one's own view of oneself is correct, that one is neither lying to oneself or fooling oneself, and that the way one thinks one presents herself to the world is, in fact, the way one presents herself to the world.<br /><br />Especially on the 28th anniversary of the day I made the most stupid mistake of all the stupid mistakes I've made in my life . . . yes, today, down to its being a Saturday, is the anniversary of the day I got married . . . to a man who doubtless would choose invisibility over flying every time. It took me 16 years (5 of knowing him, 11 of being married to him) to realize that he was not the open, frank, and above-board person I thought he was. In retrospect, I have come to realize that he was always hiding something. I don't think he could go even 24 hours without lying about something to someone. I think it gave him a sense of power, as in "I know something you don't know, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah." Yep, invisibility would have been right up his alley.<br /><br />Realizing that makes me even more glad I was not only so quick to choose flying, but that I was so sure of that choice.Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-19162414030132789242010-07-31T13:03:00.004-05:002010-07-31T13:19:32.227-05:00Another Modest Proposal, By MeI understand why everyone with a brain is in an uproar about the new Arizona anti-immigration law. It violates one of the oldest precepts of common law, since enshrined into our Constitution, to wit: people are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but this law requires people to be able to prove their "innocence," <em>i.e.</em>, that they are in this country legally.<br /><br />I wish someone besides me would frame the argument in such basic terms. Perhaps that would force people who favor the law to rethink their priorities--do they value their bigotry more than their alleged devotion to the Constitution? I know, it will never work, because asking someone who has taken an irrational position to think rationally is like tilting at windmills. So call me Don Quixote.<br /><br />In any event, I have a very modest proposal that as a practical matter will get around the most odious provision of the law, which is that the police are REQUIRED to confirm the immigration status of anyone they've stopped (for other reasons, if memory serves) when they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is not in this country legally. The answer? NEVER suspect anyone of being here illegally. That will restore the proper constitutional balance. People are presumed to be here legally, period. It will save the local and state police lots of time, money, and hassles; it will, <strong>as a matter of fact</strong>, preserve the federal government's power over immigration law and enforcement, and it will let the bigots think they won one.<br /><br />Then again, it's probably not a good idea to encourage the bigots. Besides, preserving the federal government's proper supremacy in this area as a matter of fact though not technically as a matter of law probably isn't good enough. Other states with bigots in office will still be tempted to pass similar legislation.<br /><br />Still, it's a perfectly good stopgap until the court system sorts it out once and for all. Unless the courts wind up saying the law as it stands is legal . . . in which case, America has stopped being the America I grew up knowing about, and I will have to throw my arms in the air in frustration and doom. And wish I were healthy enough to move.Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-80921482504287517802010-06-11T18:48:00.007-05:002010-06-16T09:46:29.135-05:00Final Score: Money, 11, er 12, uh 13 . . . Tradition, 0<!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br />Leave it to Nebraska. In this college football-crazy state, even the heat and storms typical of August but happening in June cannot keep the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers off the front page. The University's Board of Regents, in conjunction with some governing board for the entire Big Ten college athletic conference, has announced that Nebraska will be leaving its affiliation with the Big XII <span style="font-style:italic;">[pretentious, isn't it?--Ed.]</span> and joining the Big Ten by the end of 2011. <span style="font-style:italic;">[And if you think I am kidding, I assure you, I am not. Local TV stations took down their weather warning crawlers this afternoon to announce first, that the Regents were meeting to discuss the change in affiliation; second, that the Regents were voting on it; and third, that the affiliation was going to change.--Ed]</span><br /><br />The Regents have justified this by saying that several other members of the current Big XII will not commit to staying long-term in that conference, so it's in Nebraska's best interest to be proactive rather than wait until presented with a <span style="font-style:italic;">"fait accompli."</span> The Regents also touted certain academic affiliations and certifications which both Nebraska and every school in the Big Ten maintain, and apparently to which not every school in the Big XII ascribes or aspires.<br /><br />I don't care how they try to justify it. It's just wrong, on so many levels . . . let me count a few of the ways: (1) there are no natural rivals for Nebraska in the Big Ten; Iowa doesn't count. I don't care that Iowa is right next door; NU is used to chewing on Iowa State once a year. Cyclones go better with Cornhuskers than Hawkeyes do, and even that fit is not great. NU has always looked to its west and south for its main competition every year, clear back to the days of the Big Six. Looking east and north is not what we do--that's going backwards. We are natural affiliates of the other Plains States, not the Rust Belt.<br /><br />Besides, Ohio State and Michigan already have their own classic rivalry going. NU's most natural rival is and always has been Oklahoma, from the glory days of the Big Six through the Big Eight and even the Big XII. Yes, bad enough when the Big Eight turned into the Big XII and split into North and South divisions, thus forcing NU's annual "big game" rival to be Colorado and not Oklahoma. Colorado football does not have the same historic cachet as NU-OU. Colorado just hasn't been good enough, long enough. <span style="font-style:italic;"> [Not to mention that Colorado has already announced its plans to switch to the Pac 10 from the Big XII.--Ed.]</span> I'm sorry, but football on Thanksgiving weekend MUST include the NU-OU game. Traditions matter in college football more than in just about any American sporting endeavor other than baseball. Eating turkey sandwiches while watching NU play anyone but OU on the day after Thanksgiving has never felt or tasted quite right. Knowing it's never coming back will feel and taste even worse.<br /><br />OK, in the Big Ten, there <span style="font-weight:bold;">IS</span> Penn State, against whom Nebraska has played some memorable bowl games, but that just leads me to my second point. (2) The Big Ten cannot count. It already has eleven schools in its membership; what's it going to call itself after NU is officially embraced, too? "The Big Ten Plus Two"? Awkward. "The Big Twelve"? Allowing for the "XII," already taken . . . though who knows? If the Big XII really is falling apart the way the NU Board of Regents seems to think, maybe the name will become available. But will the conference still have only twelve members at that point? Rumors have been rife for years that Notre Dame has been recruited heavily by the Powers That Be in the Big Ten. Maybe the Fighting Irish will stop fighting assimilation. Whether ND stays independent or joins the conference, however, the conference's name still won't match its numbers. And that leads me to my third point: (3) despite the NU Board of Regents' touting of NU's and the Big Ten's high academic standards and qualifications, that inability to count has taken us back to the days where the "N" on the NU football helmet stands for "knowledge."Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-60162658323091330972010-06-08T09:02:00.006-05:002010-06-08T09:33:46.008-05:00Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics<!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br />US Representative Lee Terry (R-NE, 2nd District) just e-mailed the results of a poll of his constituents revealing their attitudes towards certain pressing issues of the day. Included was everything from whether we should continue offshore drilling in the wake of the BP disaster to whether we should repeal the recently passed health care reform bill.<br /><br />In results that should shock no one <em>[for reasons I am about to explain--Ed.]</em>, Terry reported results reflecting that an average of over 77% of his constituents think about these issues the same way he does--which, for those of you out there <em>[you ARE out there, aren't you?--Ed.]</em> who read my postings, are diametrically opposed to my views on the same issues. Terry also reported that while a minority of around 20% of his constituents held views similar to mine, as many as 6% of his constituents were undecided on specific issues.<br /><br />That's what gave me pause. For, you see, this poll's results were not the result of random, door-to-door canvassing of Nebraska 2nd Congressional District voters. These results came from 2nd District constituents ANSWERING an e-mail Terry himself had sent out to "ascertain" the public feeling. This "poll" was designed to elicit the answers it got, as you can be certain that at least 70% of the people who received it were Terry supporters because those voters make up the majority of his e-mail list.<br /><br />Doubtless several people like me, who've contacted Terry regularly to express our opposition to his stands on particular issues, also got the e-mails, but we are in a preselected minority for several reasons which have nothing to do with the actual makeup and mindset of 2nd District voters in general. It's axiomatic that people tend to respond to and be more involved in things they support than things they oppose. So not only are those of us who oppose Terry's politics a predetermined minority of his potential polling population, we are less likely than Terry supporters to respond to Terry's e-mail poll invitation than are those who agree with him. People want validation, not rejection. That was Terry's motive in creating and distributing his "poll," and that was the motivation of most of the people who responded to it by agreeing with him.<br /><br />The real problem with the numbers Terry reported, however, comes in the guise of the alleged "undecided" answers. In a "poll" such as this, where people participated by invitation, who is going to respond "undecided"? More likely, such folks just wouldn't respond at all. Terry said he got over 1,100 answers to his invitation to participate, but I do not recall seeing anywhere the total number of invitations he sent in the first place. Given that there are probably close to a million people living in the 2nd District as a whole, and that as many as half of them are not in the uber-urbanized metropolitan Omaha area, and given that many of them probably don't have computers or the time to respond to such e-mailed invitations as Terry's to begin with, it's impossible for Terry to claim that the 1,100 responses he received were any kind of valid scientific sampling.<br /><br />This "poll" was much less an effort to find out what his 2nd District constituents think than it was a self-congratulatory exercise whereby he and his supporters could pat themselves on the back in mutual admiration. Mark Twain, as usual, was right. There are 3 kinds of data: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Guess which Twain held in the deepest contempt.Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-700402412967368332010-06-02T08:42:00.005-05:002010-06-02T08:57:52.568-05:00Gut Reaction<!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br />I just heard an NPR report on the US Supreme Court's decision, 5-4, saying that to invoke one's Miranda rights, one has to speak up and inform the police that one is doing so. Silence alone is not enough. The newest associate justice, Sonja Sotomayor, dissented. Law professors across the country, be they politically to the right or to the left, also dissented. They are all correct.<br /><br />It's simple logic: if you have to speak up to invoke your right to remain silent, then you do not <strong><em>really</em></strong> have a right to remain silent. Bad enough that the police are allowed to question you for hours on end in the face of your silence, to, in essence, badger you until you crack (which is what happened in the case at hand), but to allow the police and prosecutors then to use what you say against you simply shocks the conscience.<br /><br />It's as if the razor-thin Supreme Court majority thinks nothing else matters because you are actually guilty. The hallmark of a truly civilized society is how it treats the most helpless of its members: the disabled, the elderly, the poor, those facing -- alone -- the full police power of the state weighing down on them. Today, we are officially less civilized than we were yesterday.Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-91220109468229203252010-05-26T17:21:00.014-05:002010-05-26T19:00:30.417-05:00The Two Most Basic Errors Of Libertarian Thought<!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br />US Senate candidate Rand Paul has been saying in public since at least 2002 that his Libertarian beliefs mean that while he personally would abhor anyone who ran his/her business by discriminating against others on the basis of race or skin color, the government should not be able to stop them from doing so, all for the sake of the sanctity of private property rights. So even though he says he supports the aims, goals, and passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if it had been up to him, the title in that act which ended the ability of businesses engaged in interstate commerce to discriminate would never even have come up for a vote, let alone get passed.<br /><br />And this perfectly illustrates the first basic error in Libertarian thinking <span style="font-style:italic;">[and I use the term "thinking" loosely--Ed.]</span>--for what it does is elevate the rights inherent in property ownership above and ahead of the rights of individuals. That is exactly backwards. Since the earliest days of the English common law, the rights of people have trumped the rights of property. While you are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself <span style="font-style:italic;">[or someone else--Ed.]</span> against the use or threat of deadly force against you, you most assuredly are NOT allowed to use deadly force to protect your property from someone posing a threat to it. And if you should choose to use deadly force to protect your property, you will be held responsible for the consequences of your actions, be it under criminal OR civil law. People matter the most under the law. Period.<br /><br />It is also tempting to go into a long diatribe about how that's in essence the same objection to the entirety of "states' rights" claims, but I'll leave those details for another post. And even if my assertion technically were not true, the outcome of the US Civil War decided it contrary to the Libertarian/states'-righters position anyway. I raise the same argument to those who cite carefully selected excerpts from the Federalist Papers to support such views, by the way. Maybe some of the Founders did intend such topsy-turvy interpretations to be the law of the land. Nonetheless, the outcome of the Civil War <span style="font-style:italic;">[including the passage and ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments--Ed.]</span> changed everything. We no longer live in an eighteenth-century, rural, locality-based world and economy. While the intent of the Founders is important to discern, it is literally impossible to implement 100% of that intent in the 21st century. I, for one, think the Founders would recognize that, were we able to ask them.<br /><br />Thus the second basic error in Libertarian thinking: they have taken the adage, "the government that governs best, governs least" as their own, but too often have used it to force the government not so much to "govern least" as to "govern not at all." If they were pressed, I think most Libertarians would admit that at least SOME government is necessary. But they seem to have an abiding faith in either the notion that individuals will do the right thing or the notion that whatever anyone does is no one else's affair. The whole of human history illustrates the folly of both those notions.<br /><br />I confess to having some sympathies favoring the Libertarians' position, at least in regard to an individual's right to privacy, but the absolutest stand most libertarians take against the role of government is impossible to implement in the real world. It would be anarchy. Let's face some facts: governments exist to do the things that people want or need to have done but which they cannot do by or for themselves. Setting out that framework is what the Founders intended in creating the Constitution in the first place. They had tried the much weaker Articles of Confederation, and scrapped that experiment as soon as practical experience with it showed that it was too weak to do what America needed to survive as an independent country.<br /><br />No one will be in 100% agreement with anyone else 100% of the time. But without some framework that's sturdy enough to say what is to be done when disagreements arise, and to enforce that procedure on those who disagree issue by issue, there is no government but chaos. And chaos is no government. If you doubt this, consider the essential IN-action of the US Senate during most of the past year-and-a-third. Yes, some things, some important things, have been accomplished, but at what cost? In the US Senate, a minority of ONE can hold the will of the vast majority of American voters hostage . . . and for what? To protect British Petroleum from having to pay for the immense damage its own reckless behavior has caused? T'ain't right, Magee.<br /><br />I confess to fearing I am on the losing, even though correct, side of this issue, the philosophy of governmental power. When I see US Supreme Court decisions such as the one in <span style="font-style:italic;">Citizens United</span>, the campaign financing case, and I see people on all bands of the political spectrum nodding seriously and giving more than due consideration to the concept of "states' rights," I marvel at how such things could have come to pass in America. Have we learned nothing from the Civil War, the Great Depression, the paroxysms of the Sixties, and the other traumas we have suffered throughout our history? America today, with all its emphasis on corporate welfare and the rights of artificial "persons," evokes the melody of "The World Turned Upside Down" and the sarcastic observation in <span style="font-style:italic;">Animal Farm</span> that "some are more equal than others." Yes, George Orwell was railing against communism, but his words are equally applicable to modern corporate power. Control and repression of the individual are the same whether the one doing the controlling is Stalin or Goldman Sachs.Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-39802781941292296422010-05-26T07:59:00.006-05:002010-05-26T08:26:35.616-05:00Tom Lehrer Would Have Loved This . . .. . . a/k/a Talk About Your Freudian Slip!<br /><!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br />US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton again spoke very strongly of the need for the world to unite in holding North Korea accountable for the unjustifiable act of sinking a South Korean warship and killing its crew of 46. In reporting this during the 7:00 a.m. CDT broadcast of NPR's "Morning Edition," NPR newsman Paul Brown at one point started to say "North Caro--" before correcting himself and saying "North Korea." <br /><br />I, of course, immediately thought of Tom Lehrer's "Who's Next?", his early Sixties' commentary on both nuclear proliferation and civil rights. Its tag line? "We'll try to stay serene and calm, when Alabama gets the bomb--Who's next?"<br /><br />Once I stopped laughing, I marveled at how what goes around, comes around. Who'd have thought, nearly half a century later, with Rand Paul's case of foot-in-mouth and North Korea's eternal petulance, that both civil rights and nuclear proliferation would still be in the headlines?Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-57242710528580833492010-05-25T09:19:00.004-05:002010-05-25T09:25:57.883-05:00One Quick Question<!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br />Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has raised a loud voice decrying the lack of federal involvement and initiative in cleaning up the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the oil spill that is now fouling Louisiana's precious and fragile coastal marshlands. Governor Jindal is a Republican. Governor Jindal delivered the GOP response to President Obama's first address to Congress after Obama's election (the non-State-of-the-Union State of the Union speech). Governor Jindal in that response decried the overreaching scope of federal government and said we need less government in our lives, not more.<br /><br />What's wrong with this picture?Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-29065573920447339532010-05-24T07:49:00.026-05:002010-05-24T10:35:57.408-05:00That's a Fifteen-Yard Penalty for Unnecessary Bias<!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br /><br />I renew my objections to the biased content of the History Channel's "America: The Story of Us" project, sponsored by the Bank of America, and indeed, make my objections even more strenuously than I have before. I admit that I have not watched every single second of every single segment that has aired so far, but I've watched more than enough to realize that the problems I had with what I'd seen as of a couple of weeks ago have not only not gone away, but have gotten worse.<br /><br />Objection the first: the B of A ads have been deliberately designed to be very difficult for a casual viewer to tell from the content of the actual program. Historical narrative (timed to coordinate with the period being discussed at that moment in the program itself) intercut with comments by various "experts" extolling the B of A . . . someone who didn't know much about American history or who wasn't paying really close attention would be left with the impression that the B of A has actually been THE central player in all of US History. One almost expects to see painted portraits of B of A executives at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitutional Convention, the Gettysburg Address, and so on.<br /><br />Give me a break!<br /><br />Objection the second: the program itself is designed to exalt the role of business and banking in US history at the expense of actual fact. For an example from what aired last night, one need consider only the segments "explaining" the Dust Bowl, Great Depression, and the lead-up to America's participation in World War II.<br /><br />(1) More time was given to explaining how the dust storms of 30s affected urban centers such as New York City and Washington, D.C., than was given to explaining how the farming practices of rural America contributed to their creation, and how the rural American economy had been in shambles for years before the technical start of the Great Depression, namely the stock market crash of October, 1929.<br /><br />(2) I never heard FDR mentioned by name regarding the bank holiday called after he was inaugurated in 1933, to stop the runs on all American banks that threatened to plunge the country into a crisis so deep there would be no digging out from under, ever. One sentence--<em><strong>ONE SENTENCE</strong></em>--was devoted to the fact that economic deregulation had produced excessively risky economic speculation which led to the crisis in the first place . . . while several verbal paragraphs were devoted to the admittedly anonymous single investor who entered a bank in 1933 and demanded ALL his deposited funds back, which triggered the nationwide run on all banks. The result? An impression that this one anonymous individual with his one self-preservative act was responsible for the downfall of our entire economic system, and not the decade-plus of irresponsible behavior by the baking industry that was the hallmark of the Roaring Twenties.<br /><br />(3) The assertion that FDR's <em>[again, he was never mentioned by name, which makes me wonder whether this was done to avoid a more direct protest against the program's contents by those who know what FDR did for this country--Ed.]</em> public works programs didn't end the Depression; it was our being dragged into World War II that ended the Depression. The writers and producers of this biased interpretation omitted or ignored several salient facts. <blockquote>--The Republicans, then as now, objected to spending directly to help the American people, and never gave FDR sufficient funding even for his programs that were put into law and effect.</blockquote><blockquote>--FDR himself erred in early 1937 when he listened to some of his more conservative economic advisers and pulled back on even the relatively paltry amount of money he had been given to use for his "great economic experiment." This had the effect of shutting down a proto-recovery that had, in fact, begun by 1936, once his public works programs had been in effect long enough to have had real effect on the overall economy.</blockquote><blockquote>--The assertion that it was WWII and not FDR's programs that ended the Depression is totally specious. What was it about the war that ended the Depression? Here's a clue: GOVERNMENT SPENDING. It's just that what the money was being spent on had changed <strong>from</strong> domestic programs designed to help people survive, <strong>to</strong> armaments production and the entire panoply of what has become the modern military-industrial complex. The source of the spending didn't change. The purpose of the spending did. The amount of the spending increased, dramatically. Had FDR been able to spend on domestic initiatives what he was given to spend on the war effort, the Great Depression would never have been so deep nor long-lasting is it actually proved to be.</blockquote>(4) The program's continued emphasis on recounting individual anecdotes and what amounts to winning info for the trivia-mad <em>[of which I confess to being one--Ed.]</em> as opposed to focusing on the greater significance of many of the events it describes. Indeed, some of the anecdotes chosen seem to contradict whatever larger point they are cited to "support." A traditional and valid sub-narrative of the Great Depression story is how people, desperate for work, gladly took on any jobs they could find no matter the working conditions, just to be able to bring home even the most paltry pay. The building of Hoover Dam and the sculpting of Mount Rushmore are two of the most commonly cited illustrations, and "America: the Story of Us" does not surprise by choosing them. <br /><br />However, its telling of the story of Hoover Dam has as its upshot that the money the men earned went to a nearby little, dusty, gambling town of Las Vegas. So the great work of constructing Hoover Dam ahead of schedule and under budget has by implication been reduced to the spark that ignited the boom of decadence in the desert. Talk about your damnation with faint praise!<br /><br />The story of Mount Rushmore's creation likewise has been trivialized by what the program's writers and producers chose to emphasize. They didn't explain that there was no incentive to implement real safety measures at the site because there were far more men willing to do the work than there were openings available, even allowing for the number of deaths and disfigurements that made new openings available on a regular basis. No, the program implicitly pooh-poohed the dangers by telling the story of one worker who was in the wrong place at the wrong time when a nearby lightning storm hit some power lines, thus ultimately igniting almost 100 dynamite charges 30 minutes early . . . only to suffer naught but a broken ear drum and the loss of his shoes, which had literally been blown off his feet.<br /><br />One is left with the impression that the work wasn't so much dangerous as quirkily amusing. Truth would have been better served had the actual death and disfigurement totals been cited . . . but oh, yeah! Numbers and statistics are so BORING! We can't have that, now, can we? Well, numbers and statistics may be boring, but they are facts. And it's facts, not anecdotes, which lead to truth.<br /><br />This entire program is insidious. It's dangerous. It's not the history of America; it's a paean to a right-wing, pro-business interpretation of American history which omits so many salient facts that it cannot be deemed substantively accurate. I cannot protest it strongly enough. It's another example of why certain things, like history programs, should never be put in the position of having to make a profit in order to justify their creation.<br /><br />Lest any of you think that I protest because of my own biases, let me remind you: my sole bias is <strong>for</strong> the truth. The truth based on facts. I was not a fan of FDR who thus interprets his response to the Great Depression based on any predisposition favorable to him. I was someone who learned about the Great Depression by studying what happened, and gained an admiration for FDR as a result of that study. Developing an opinion based on fact is not the same as shoe-horning selected facts to fit one's predispositions. I do the former. That's why I'm at heart a historian. "America: The Story of Us" does the latter. That's why it's a piece of pro-business propaganda.<br /><br />So my love-hate relationship with the History Channel continues. I love that more Americans are being exposed to history, in often interesting and frequently innovative ways designed to pique interest. I hate that this is coming at the behest of corporate sponsors who have their hands in production from Day One, and which call the shots about how that which is being presented will be interpreted. I hope that even such biased efforts will spur viewers to do some investigating of their own--and thinking of their own--about what they discover. I fear that that won't happen. I am left with this question: is exposure to some, albeit biased, history better than no exposure to history at all? 'Tis a puzzlement.Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-14098553109704580322010-05-05T10:30:00.005-05:002010-05-07T09:15:09.496-05:00I'd Take It With Several Grains of Salt, But I'm Supposed To Be On A Low Sodium Diet<!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br />I have been watching parts of the History Channel's current extravaganza explaining American history, "America: The Story of Us." I am not impressed with what I have seen so far. Rather than being a real recounting of American history, what I've seen has been a collection of anecdotes, designed at once to attract the more salacious of the viewers' tastes and to promote the pro free-market, pro <em>laissez-faire</em> agenda of its corporate sponsor, the Bank of America.<br /><br />No attempt has been made, that I've seen anyway, to provide a larger context for the events described beyond the notion that Americans were and are always moving forward, grasping and grappling with problems, all in the name of economic "freedom." The Lewis and Clark expedition has been reduced to a search for new sources of beaver pelts, the most luxurious and profitable furs of that long-gone trade. The tragedy of the Donner party has been reduced to a bad episode of "Unsolved Mysteries," emphasizing the bodies which were never found and the fact that one of the survivors was found next to a cauldron of human blood.<br /><br />Frankly, recent PBS examinations of both subjects were about a million times better, each.<br /><br />Nor am I impressed with another basic presumption of the History Channel's series, which is that Americans have always been reaching out for new problems to conquer, and our history moves from success to success, the heroic tale of a unique and heroic people. I'm not denigrating American history--I LOVE American history. But such a non-nuanced telling not only makes the American story two-dimensional, it cheapens it. The truth is more complex, and even more amazing. Just as many--if not more--Americans were trying to get away from oppression (real and perceived), boredom, or their own fiscal and familial woes as were moving forward with a dream of a new ideal in mind. They were running away, not consciously and deliberately moving toward anything. Important aspects of America's story are accidental, not part of some unseen, grand, even God-given, design.<br /><br />Perhaps worst of all, the sponsor's ads have been deliberately designed to make it difficult to tell the ads from the body of the program. I'm sure Bank of America will claim it was just tailoring the ad content to reflect the importance of the program. Given the usual excesses of unchecked commerce, however, I doubt that. The ads really were designed to make viewers who aren't paying close attention think that B of A is part and parcel of the entire panoply of American history. <em>[Here's where, in conversation, I'd insert one of the best bits from the movie</em> My Favorite Year<em>: "Captain from Tortuga? Captain from crap!"--Ed.]</em><br /><br />So watch the series, or even buy the DVDs so that you can watch it again, and again, and again. But watch with a skeptical eye and several grains of salt. I'll have to pass on the salt, however, as part of my new regimen is keeping my sodium intake to under 2 grams per day.Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-172196486771251322010-04-30T18:15:00.003-05:002010-04-30T18:25:58.761-05:00Le Roi est mort! Vive le roi!<!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br />I don't know about you, but I find the Burger King "King" with the oversized head creepy. However, I have to admit that ever since the ad agency handling Burger King's account dug him up, the "King" has on occasion provided some very clever commercial fodder, indeed.<br /><br />My own all-time favorite so far is the one from a few years ago, wherein the King and Darth Vader were standing nose-to-nose, and the only sound was Vader's breathing. What cemented its place in the firmament for me was when a very dear friend suggested it reminded him of the old Saturday Night Live sketch "Quien Es Mas Macho? Fernando Lamas, o Ricardo Montalban?"<br /><br />There have been any number of lame ads since, but one of the current ones is vying hard for a place in my "best of" list. The Burger King is seen breaking into a corporate headquarters building, stealing the secret recipe for the Egg McMuffin. What makes this ad so great is the voice-over, which says something to the effect that while the Burger King's breakfast sandwich may not be original, "it's only a buck." I snorted my hot tea through my nose, I was laughing so hard.<br /><br />So, creepy as you are, I salute you, Burger King. Anyone or anything that can poke fun at its own self is not all bad. I just have to remember not to drink anything when a commercial comes on.Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9426807.post-27744905309368761872010-04-24T09:42:00.006-05:002010-04-24T10:38:05.178-05:00So Much For The Belmont Stakes<!--Begin SiteStats Code Jul , 29--><STYLE>.ivanC12156181498167{position:absolute;visibility:hidden;}</STYLE><DIV CLASS=ivanC12156181498167 ID=ivanI12156181498167><A HREF=http://freestats.com CLASS=ivanL_FR TARGET=_blank>FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com</A></DIV><script language='JavaScript' src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/script/12156181498167'></script><noscript><a href='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/map'><img src='http://irishcubfan.freestats.com/cgi-bin/sitestats.gif/img' border=0></a></noscript><!--End SiteStats Code--><br />Every now and again, I need to be reminded that my lung disease is not the only thing running my life. I just had a "lovely" hospital stay, with tons of tests and lots of blood draws for labs, trouble getting an IV line started, new medicines and disagreements with techs about doctors' orders, all to be reminded that just because I have a chronic and ultimately terminal lung disease, it doesn't mean that some other health problem won't reach up and bite me on my butt.<br /><br />The upshot? I have been diagnosed with congestive heart failure, and am now taking Lasix and potassium chloride in addition to the pharmacopoeia of other meds I must ingest both for my lung disease and for the side effects of same.<br /><br />Several states allow race horses which are being given Lasix to race, but New York state is not one of them. I have just lost my chance to run in and win the Belmont Stakes. <br /><br />I am heartbroken.<br /><br />Overall, my time in the hospital wasn't bad, considering that I was mentally unprepared for the entire experience. Still, I do have a few standing complaints which may serve as warnings for anyone out there who finds him/herself in similar circumstances. First, be 100% aware of not only what the doctors have ordered, but why. My pulmonologist wanted to get readings of my breathing and oxygenation rates overnight while using my BiPap machine, to make sure my machine was working properly. The respiratory tech who was assigned to set up the test didn't want to use my BiPap, because of "liability issues." I had to explain it to her about 7 times that using the hospital's BiPap would defeat the entire purpose of the test. She STILL didn't want to do it, probably for fear she'd get in trouble somehow. I held my ground, and she eventually either checked with one of her higher-ups, or finally realized I was right. I mean, she had the doctor's order right in front of her, and it specifically said that MY BiPap machine was to be used. Good grief!<br /><br />If she hadn't done it according to the doctor's order, I'd have been forced to stay an additional overnight, which would not have done my mental health any good, and she probably would have gotten in trouble for not following the doctor's order in the first place. <br /><br />Second, don't let the nurses gouge you over and over in the attempt to start an IV line. I admit to not being steadfast enough here, mostly because I know I am what they call "a tough stick." I sympathize with the difficulties the RNs have in finding a good place to start an IV on me. But I am learning to say "not only 'NO,' but 'Hell, NO.'" to someone sticking me repeatedly and, upon missing the vein, keeping the needle in and digging around to try to find it. It didn't prevent me from winding up with both arms--and hands--black and blue. But what backbone I exhibited did keep my arms and hands from being abused even worse than they had been. Next time <em>[and there will be one, I know--Ed.]</em>, I'm not even going to give them two chances. One try, no digging, and if it fails, I'm going to insist that someone else be called upon to start the IV line.<br /><br />Third, there are some things that just are not worth getting upset about. Leads and wires and oxygen tubes and phone cords and TV remotes will get tangled up. Live with it, be patient (pun intended), and just untangle them as needed. Fourth, even teaching hospitals are overworked and understaffed, so learn to be proactive. If an alarm on something you're hooked up to goes off, and you know why, AND it's not for a true emergency, turn it off! When I finally did receive an IV, the pump monitoring the rate of infusion clanged horridly once the IV was empty. I waited about a minute, and then, realizing everyone was too busy to drop everything and come for such a minor thing, I just shut it off. The patient in the other bed was happy, I was happy, and the RN on duty was relieved that he had one fewer bit of drudgery to accomplish.<br /><br />Finally, remember that the hospital is no place to get any rest. Set things up so that you have at least 48 hours after you get home wherein you have to do nothing, so that you can catch up on your sleep and get your mind and attitude recalibrated. Your family will love you for it.Eclectic Iconoclasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13215788059818936339noreply@blogger.com0