Taking a humorous but analytical look at just about anything in the spirit of Groucho Marx: I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member!
I confess to being one of those people who sees no real conflict between the concepts of science and of religion. For me, science is designed to answer the question "How?" and religion, the question "Why?"
There may seem to be overlap, but that's only because people are all-too often imprecise in how they use language. Science can tell us the Universe began in the Big Bang--but it cannot tell us why the Big Bang happened beyond a physical description of the conditions, which equals "how." Only religion can answer the larger philosophical question of Who prompted that "how" in the first place.
I was paying not enough attention to a program on the Science Channel HD this afternoon when I heard a cosmologist express an idea that was one of the most creative and yet simple observations I've heard in years. I regret that I wasn't paying closer attention. I have no idea what his name is or at what university he works--but I think his idea is well worth exploring. He himself admitted he may be wrong, but as he also rightly noted, this is how science and knowledge advance. People observe things; they formulate theories (in the scientific sense); they then test the theories by making more observations which will confirm, modify, or obliterate those theories. They then make further observations to test the "new" theories.
[Note that Darwin's "theory" of evolution is a "theory" only in that scientific sense; so far, no evidence has been repeatedly observed which contradicts it; at most, additional observations have caused minor modifications to the "theory's" details. Only the ignorant still deny that Darwin's general "theory" is correct.--Ed.]
Anyway, this cosmologist's idea came from his observation that, based on what we now know, the Universe cannot be as big as it is when considering how old it is. For when we "run the cosmic clock backwards," certain parts of the Universe that must at some point have been in mutual physical contact have not had enough time to come back together. He called this "the horizon problem."
So in a flash of insight, he postulated that at some point in the past, the speed of light must have been faster than it is now. He calls this "VSL," or "varying speed of light." Other scientists have called is idea the "very silly speed of light." If he is correct, however, we must retool Einstein's general theory of relativity . . . and I can no longer display my bumper sticker that says "186,000 miles per second. It's not just a good idea. It's the law."
But it makes sense to me, based on yet another fundamental law of science (and one against which I've been fighting most of my life): the second law of thermodynamics, which says in its most concise form that "entropy increases."
We all know that things change over time--hot things cool off, orbits decay (anyone remember SkyLab and Mir?), wind-up toys slow down. Entropy increases. Things get messier, often seemingly of their own accord. But the changes are due partly to loss of energy sources, partly due to the action of friction, and partly due to the effects of gravity. We all know gravity bends light waves. That's one of the major predictions of Einstein's theory which has been proved only recently. Only recently did we get the technological sophistication to make the measurements/observations in a way that can be confirmed independently. Remember, the sine qua non of the scientific method is independent corroboration, by observation or by duplicating experimental results. That's the main reason that those who claimed to have produced "cold fusion" failed. No one could repeat their results when performing their same experiments under rigorous, scientifically-controlled conditions.
The other thing I like about this cosmologist's idea is that it embodies Occam's Razor: when you have more then one possible explanation for something, the simplest one normally is correct.
He may well be proven wrong someday. Still, it doesn't matter to him or to me. What matters is that his idea will engender further scientific inquiry. With additional facts come additional knowledge, and that is never bad . . . despite what many claim happened in the Garden of Eden.
On her eponymous MSNBC show last night, Rachel Maddow called President-elect Barack Obama's choice of fundamentalist pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration a "lose-lose" proposition. Warren used his California church to campaign vigorously in favor of Proposition 8, which revoked the legality of same-sex marriage in that state; he has equated same-sex relationships with pedophilia and incest.
Obama, for his part, has a strong record promoting equal rights for gays, but himself is opposed to same-sex "marriage."
Warren and Obama do seem to agree on certain other issues, such as the need for caring human stewards to protect the environment and to look after the less fortunate and homeless among us.
Maddow thinks Obama's choice is a "lose-lose" proposition because it has offended a great number of Obama's erstwhile supporters yet will not gain Obama any measurable support among fundamentalist Christians.
Maddow missed the point. Obama himself acknowledged that he and Warren disagree vehemently on many issues, but that doesn't mean they must be disagreeable about doing so. In this regard, Obama is implementing two of his most important stands during the campaign: (1) it's never wrong to have dialog with those with whom you disagree; and (2) it's important to "reach across the aisle" and to take actions proving that he's the president of all Americans, not just those who voted for him.
Furthermore, Obama is accomplishing two other goals that Maddow [and all the other talking heads I've heard complaining about this decision so far--Ed.] has forgotten: (1) "Hold your friends close, but hold your enemies closer." (2) He's not so beholden to anyone or any group for his election that he's going to adopt 100% of any group's agenda just because that group voted for him.
This man is incredibly secure in his own skin. I already know I'm not going to agree with him about everything--indeed, we've already disagreed on at least one issue of great importance to me [he voted for giving immunity to the telecoms who illegally eavesdropped on US citizens because enacting other provisions in the legislation mattered more to him than opposing telecom immunity did--Ed.]. Still, I have great respect for his sense of his internal integrity and his confidence in his own judgments. He thinks through his decisions before he makes them. He knows it's impossible to please all of the people all of the time. He's the embodiment of Harry Truman's Oval Office desk sign: The Buck Stops Here.
So while I find Rick Warren's stand on same-sex marriage odious, I am not as upset about Obama's choosing him to give the inaugural invocation as are Maddow and the other talking heads with public pulpits [yes, a lot of conservatives are not happy about it, either--they disagree with Warren's stand on environmental issues or they think Obama is trying to co-opt their cause--Ed.]. Unlike them, I get the point.
Arianna Huffington says we should call the past eight years the "How Could We Know?" era--because it's the excuse everyone from those who were supposed to be regulating Wall Street Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff to Dubya himself cited in denying responsibility for the atrocities (fiscal and otherwise) inflicted during their watch.
She makes an excellent argument. In today's Huffington Post, every case she cites (from Iraq to Fannie Mae to Citibank to Madoff) reveals the identical pattern. Those responsible create a plan; they then diminish, dispute, and destroy anyone (in a position to know) who questions said plan; they then carry out said plan with no regard for reality nor any transparency or accountability; they then look askance and say "how could we know?" when it all falls apart . . . as it inevitably does. The ambiguities deliberately created by the planners themselves become the planners' refuge from their responsibilities for making and carrying out those plans in the first place.
She's correct. But after watching clips of two interviews, one with Dubya and one with Darth Cheney, both of which aired Monday night, I have another nominee: let's call it the "So?" or "So What?" era.
For the very first time, as far as I can tell, the president acknowledged that Al Qaida was not a presence in Iraq until AFTER we invaded. He was oblivious to the consequences of his admission, however. He didn't seem to grasp that Al Qaida wouldn't have gone into Iraq at all if we had not already have been there. Dubya was indifferent to the fact that the US invasion caused the problem in the first place. His understanding was limited to the idea that "we" are fighting the "war on terror" where Al Qaida "chose to fight." It is irrelevant to him that Al Qaida made that choice solely in response to what it saw as US provocation. His exact words to the interviewer were "So what?"
Cheney's response to a similar question which focused on the terrible loss of American lives was ever shorter: "So?"
This is beyond appalling. Its callousness and willful disregard for the sacrifices ordinary Americans have been forced to make are almost incomprehensible to me.
I am willing in Dubya's case to chalk it up to his willful indifference to learning anything or even acknowledging anything that contradicts his pre-conceived world view. But Cheney? He simply doesn't care, so long as Halliburton gets its millions and billions of profits at OUR expense. In response to a question I have long and often raised in this blog is this: being stupid is bad, but being evil is worse.
What worries me the most, however, is that President-elect Obama doesn't think that bringing the malefactors to justice should be one of his highest priorities. He seems to be leaning to the Gerald Ford approach: in pardoning Richard Nixon before any charges were officially brought against him, Ford said "Our long national nightmare is over." I hope I am wrong about that. Not only is justice delayed "justice denied." Justice denied sets extremely dangerous precedents for the future--indeed, they mean the end of our entire system of checks and balances.
Consider this: the most frightening thing about Richard Nixon's take on executive power, as is so ably exploited in commercials currently airing for the film Frost/Nixon, is his assertion that "when the President does it, it's not illegal."
That statement is so wrong on its face that I scarcely know where to begin pointing out its flaws. First, it says the president is above everything, even the US Constitution. Second, and as a direct result, it says there's no such thing as a "government of laws and not of men." Third, it says that the president never can be held accountable for anything done under his ægis. Fourth, it's just as stupid a doctrine when someone more liberal is in power as it is when someone more conservative is in power. It's equal-opportunity absolute monarchy masquerading as representative democracy.
It's just flat-out wrong. It's the essence of un-American. And it makes me want to puke. America deserves so much better!
Let the sacrifice begin. What's left of the American economy is about to be slaughtered on the altar of Republican ideology. Last night, enough Republicans in the US Senate voted against the already-shrunken Big Three auto bridge loans to scuttle them. Why? Union-busting, plain and simple. GOP senators, mostly the ones from Southern states filled with foreign auto non-union manufacturing plants, insisted the United Auto Workers accept wage cuts before the end of 2009 that the union was willing to accept by 2011 (the end of its current contracts). Wage cuts that amounted to only a few dollars an hour according to the figures I saw on the news last night--and after the UAW had already conceded more on other issues, such as health care and pensions.
Oh, the GOP senators had lots of "justifications" for their actions. Some claimed the bridge loans were just too expensive. Like giving $15 billion IN LOANS to American auto makers--with a whole slew of conditions--is going to break the budget after giving $700 billion to the banks with no strings attached . . . even when the banks still aren't using the money to loosen up the economy.
[Which leads me to an another observation: all the news reports I heard this morning said the upside of the present situation is that it's a very, very good time to buy a car. I say "Sure it is. IF you can get the credit to do so." And that's the rub, isn't it? We're back to the banks hoarding--or spending on their CEOs and their perks--the money the government shoveled at them supposedly to help us. All the banks are interested in doing is helping themselves. When are we collectively going to realize that the only thing that trickles down when you employ "trickle-down" economics is pee?--Ed.]
Some of the GOP senators claimed the Big Three had no one to blame but themselves. They got themselves into their present mess; the US Senate had nothing to do with it; let the Big Three get themselves out, or go under. I say: if that is such a sound bit of reasoning, why didn't they apply it to the $700 billion banking giveaway?
Some things are just too big for political ideology. The Senate GOP members who voted against the already-severely-reduced-bridge-loans bill are going to find they've won only a Pyrrhic victory if something isn't done to salvage even part of this mess. The fallout from their irresponsibility is going to hit their states' people just as hard as it hits everyone else in the USA once the ripple effects of failing to prop up the Big Three swamp the 2.5 million US workers in related industries . . . and then the rest of us whose livelihoods are connected to theirs.
It will make The Great Depression look like a cake walk. I just hope that enough of the country can hang on until President-elect Obama is inaugurated and effective measures will be taken. Heaven knows Dubya won't do anything. Keith Olbermann asked in all seriousness last night on MSNBC's Countdown With Keith Olbermann whether anyone besides him has wondered if Dubya's whole purpose in getting elected was to screw up the government as much as possible. Heck! I've been saying that for years. GOP right-wing ideologues are so determined to go back to the Gilded Age, when there was no income tax, the federal government was small, and they held all the money and all the power, that they are willing to run the whole country into the ground to get what they think they want. If they succeed, they are going to find themselves presiding only over the ashes of what once was America.
This is my week for writing about NPR's Morning Edition, isn't it? In an interview this morning with Steve Inskeep, Mr. Duncan explained why he wants to keep his job as the chairman of the Republican National Committee, and explained steps he and the committee are taking to make sure the GOP "stays" relevant and viable on the national political stage.
The body of the interview consisted of Inskeep reading comments posted by Republicans at the GOP National Committee's "Republican for a Reason" web site and letting Duncan address them. Duncan repeatedly asserted that the GOP is a "big tent" party that welcomes all people with varying beliefs (religious and otherwise) and best reflects the timeless values of the American people.
But he rejected the substance of every comment Inskeep read. When Inskeep asked him whether the GOP is out-of-touch because people who are worried about their jobs and health care are not too worried about tax cuts, Duncan's only answer was that the GOP needed to do a better job of communicating its ideas.
Duncan's answer to a GOP member who expressed the desire that the GOP distance itself at least a bit from the religious right was to say that the GOP attracts people of all views due to its timeless values.
Duncan also trotted out the canard that all the Democrats want to do is irresponsible--because they want to "spend us out of recession." First, that simply isn't what the Democrats want. What the Democrats [and an awful lot of Republicans, if the presidential election returns are any indication . . . which they are--Ed.] want is a return to fiscal sanity. The Republicans during their past 8 years of being in power have spent us into such a deep hole we may never get out--while cutting taxes for the richest Americans at just as dizzying a pace. The facts show who's been irresponsible, and about what.
Duncan, however, remains clueless. In another part of the interview, he claims the GOP had in insurmountable lead in the presidential election until the economy went south. He goes on to claim that the electorate was voting to punish the GOP because of the perception that the GOP had been in charge for the past 8 years. First, it was no "perception." The GOP was in power during the past 8 years, and GOP fiscal policies, no matter how much they try to spin the facts otherwise, are the direct cause of our present economic woes. Second, even before the economy tanked, Obama was gaining steady ground on McCain, and had already put several states that used to be GOP strongholds into play. All the economic meltdown did was help a lot of people make up their minds about how to vote sooner than they might have decided otherwise.
Duncan also claimed that this "spending [our way] out of recession" has been rejected by every president since Jack Kennedy. For the sake of argument, even assuming that statement is true, look how carefully Duncan cherry-picked his administrations. Kennedy presided over the beginnings of a large economic expansion (the "Go-Go Sixties"); Johnson was the last president till Clinton to submit balanced budgets to Congress. Nixon's carrying on the Vietnam War 5 years longer than he needed to produced record (at the time) deficits, forcing Ford and Carter to deal with inflation and stagflation. Reagan started the modern trend of massively transferring wealth to the already wealthy at the expense of the middle class--but since he was such a nice grandfatherly figure to so many, it was OK by them. Bush Senior said "read my lips--no new taxes" and then had to pay for Reagan's excesses by raising taxes . . . thus cutting off his re-election chances. Clinton worked hard to improve the country's fiscal status, and it was working, too, until Dubya used Florida to steal the election in 2000 and wipe out all the gains Clinton had made.
If Duncan had intellectual honesty, he'd have made his list of presidents longer . . . but that would have forced him to admit that FDR DID, indeed, spend us out of the Great Depression, thus torpedoing Duncan's entire argument. As economist and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich has cogently noted more than once, "government is the spender of last resort." When the banks won't lend, businesses and consumers can't spend, and until spending goes up, the economy won't grow--so the government then becomes responsible for restoring economic health to the nation.
And President-elect Obama's plans to improve our infrastructure as a massive part of that spending will give us back more than ten times their costs in the benefits they'll confer on the entire country.
So I say leave Duncan in his post. As long as he's just mouthing the same tired old canards for which the GOP is known, and of which everyone is presently sick, Obama's plans will have more chance for success than they would otherwise. The vitality of the US depends on it.
Shocked! I am shocked, I say! Yesterday, in an interview with Renee Montaigne on NPR's Morning Edition, Fox News blowhard Bill O'Reilly actually said something with which I agree 100%. He called himself a "bloviator." Amen! He's the biggest spewer of hot air I've ever heard. Of course, he didn't meant it about himself that way, but then again, he's not exactly the pointiest stick in the pile, is he?
He also kept his streak of saying the most incredibly stupid, jaw-dropping things alive by claiming to be the child of a working class family. He supports this by noting (1) that he grew up in Levittown, New York; and (2) that when his family took their vacations, they travelled by bus. "I never took a plane ride until I was 17," he boasted.
Alas for him, his evidence absolutely contradicts his claims. First, anyone who knows anything about 20th century US history knows that Levittown was the first modern subdivision in the USA. Yes, the houses were on the small side by contemporary standards, but by the standards of the World War II generation, they were a massive step up from living in apartments in the city. Second, just because Levittown has become a working class neighborhood does not at all mean it started that way. O'Reilly noted in the interview that his father had a college degree. That alone takes him out of the "working class," as far as I'm concerned.
Now if his father had been a fisherman, living and working at the docks on Long Island, then I'd have cut O'Reilly some slack. Working on a fishing boat is a classic blue collar, working class job. But living the life of O'Reilly's childhood [pun intended--Ed.] most assuredly was and is not a blue collar life. Not on Long Island, which is (except for the docks) where the prosperous live.
Besides, "vacations"?!? I don't care that his family rode the bus. That his family got a vacation every year at all means his family was not working class. Puh-lease! My dad was a career NCO in the Air Force, and my mother was a career civil servant, who had to change jobs every time Dad got reassigned. Neither one of them had a college education, though they both worked towards it in their later years. The only "vacations" we ever got were when we travelled from one end of the US to the other to visit all the relatives on both sides of the family every time my dad's Air Force career required us to move. We had about a week to accomplish it each time, too. So it's not like we got to stop and see the Grand Canyon or anything. It was 10-12 hours a day in the car, stopping to sleep at what even I, at grade-school age, could see was a cheap motel [it was all we could afford, you know--Ed.], and then driving on for another 10-12 hours the next day. That isn't exactly a "vacation," now, is it?
O'Reilly even claims he knows why the Dubya Administration went so horribly wrong [this after spending the past eight years loudly defending it against all reason--Ed.]: it suffered from "Rich Guy Syndrome," which O'Reilly defines as the notion that somehow everything will always work out, because, due to Daddy's money, it always has. I do not quarrel with O'Reilly's definition of "Rich Guy Syndrome." Indeed, I tend to agree with it. But my mother puts it best and more colorfully: "He started the game on third base and thinks he hit a home run." But it's not as if Dubya didn't get his money until last week--so why hasn't O'Reilly bothered to say this before now?
Still, I shouldn't be surprised that Bill O'Reilly doesn't want to hear the facts--he's already made up his mind. He likes his version of reality better than the actual facts. So he's just doing what all the other people of his political ilk do. He thinks he's a "bold fresh piece of humanity," but he's really just full of bold fresh crap.
Orenthal James Simpson was convicted of kidnapping and other crimes in relation to his attempts to "retrieve" memorabilia from some dealers in Las Vegas--items he says belonged to him and were stolen. He's going to serve up to 33 years in prison, though at his present age of 61, I doubt he'll be incarcerated that long.
He seemed somewhat bewildered and expressed tearful sorrow to the judge at his sentencing hearing, according to the clips I saw on TV yesterday. The judge was not impressed. Neither, for that matter, was I. For the source of his bewilderment was that he was being convicted at all. The judge explained it in copious and coherent detail, again according to the clips I saw. I was especially impressed by her forthright statement that this conviction had nothing to do with the fact that he was not convicted of the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman back in 1991 . . . though to an awful lot of us, he should have been.
What struck me about Simpson's confusion was the irony of it. I saw the same reaction among males when they first learned of the murder charges against "the Juice." The consensus was "he wouldn't do that! He's a Heisman Trophy winner!"
Like that had anything to do with it.
When are people going to learn that sports prowess does NOT equal moral decency? I regret to predict that most males are not going to master this learning curve any time soon, given the universality of their confusion resulting from a Heisman winner's being charged with, let alone be tried for, murder. For whatever it's worth, most of these same males had the same reaction to the entire Pete Rose gambling on baseball mess.
The real moral of the story is that none of us should make the mistake of thinking that our heroes, athletes or otherwise, are perfect.
For whatever it's worth, I actually felt a pang of sorrow for OJ. His confusion was genuine. Still, my pang didn't last long. My ultimate hope is that his time in prison will let him reflect on all the things he's done wrong in his life--he is, as the facts plainly show, a physical abuser, and thus carries all the erroneous thinking and emotional baggage that goes with that--and maybe he'll finally be able to confront honestly the beast in his mirror.
Either that, or he can resume his hunt for "the real killer." After all, people who murder others at random are more likely to have committed other crimes, too. Simpson is much more likely to find "the real killer" in prison than he ever was on the golf course.
Joe Scarborough of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show today asserted that President George W. Bush would be evaluated better by historians than he is being evaluated today by his fellows. In support, he cited recent events in Iraq, starting with Dubya's putting General Petreaus in charge.
Things have settled down a bit in Iraq of late, true. But Scarborough's myopia is showing: we wouldn't be in a position to have to laud recent improvements had we not invaded in the first place! C'mon, Joe! Get a grip, get real, and get a clue--better yet, take two: they're small.
Extracting us (even a bit) from a mess he put us into in the first place is no great feat warranting the vindication of history. It's just an acknowledgement that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
A report on NPR's "Morning Edition" Monday began a series exploring the explosion in federal government contracting since Ronald Reagan infamously said "Government isn't the solution. Government is the problem." Contracting out government services has increased every year since that 1981 pronouncement, and has certifiably exploded during the Dubya administration. Did you know that there actually are more contractors in Iraq right now than there are US military personnel?
But Reagan mis-defined the problem, and we are now suffering the long-term effects of his error. The reason he mis-defined the problem is that he forgot (if he ever knew) to whom employees, be they federal or be they contractors', are required to answer for their work.
Contractors are answerable to their company's owners, and their first duty is to maximize profit for their owners. Federal employees, on the other hand, are answerable to ALL of us, and their obligation is to do their jobs to the best of their ability for the good of the people of this country.
This is why contracting out government services is a bad idea. Those whose first duty is to make a profit do not care whether they make it by gouging the public. [Indeed, they are the real pigs at the public trough.--Ed.] Case in point: the IRS has been forced to contract out collection services. People who owe back taxes are being harassed by collection agencies--who have a strong motive to make people pay because they get to keep 25% of everything they collect. As the second report in the NPR series (this morning) noted, however, the contractors are hassling even people who do not owe back taxes--nor are those contractors required to tell people why they are calling--resorting in terrible abuses, as demonstrated starkly by the recordings played of several phone calls between a contractor and an individual allegedly owing the IRS money. Furthermore, and inexcusably in my book, the contractors do not have as much success in collecting as do regular IRS employees!
But the money the collection agencies keep doesn't come out of the IRS budget [remember, it comes directly from what they collect--Ed.], so the IRS can cut the part of its budget that used to pay for its own collectors. Everyone can claim that efficiency has been increased and costs reduced, thus trimming "fat" from the budget and giving people the illusion that waste has been eliminated. In fact, we have lesser quality service at greater expense--for if IRS employees made the collections, 100% of what they collected would go into the public coffers.
If all the contractors were required by the terms of their contracts to comply with the same laws and regulations that IRS employees must obey, I'd be less upset with the situation. But all the contracts are set up to benefit the contractors, ultimately at our expense, whether it be monetary or otherwise. This situation repeats itself in nearly every contracted-out situation of which I've heard.
Consider: virtually all of the contracts awarded in connection with the war in Iraq were awarded without competitive bidding. We've seen the terrible results of that in terms of the shoddy work that was done, let alone the work that was supposed to be done that was not. All of it was paid for with your money at exorbitant rates that far exceeded the value given for the price paid. And we collectively have no recourse to get the money back. The entire contracting situation has been set up in fact to legalize looting the public coffers--so where does that save us anything?
Another case in point: as reported widely (I've seen it on several news shows and in several newspapers during the past two weeks), companies who have been contracted to handle Medicare claims have managed to increase the complexity of the paperwork involved, increase the costs of processing the paperwork (hence increasing their own profit), and reduce the amount of services provided by measurable factors averaging 10%. So the contractors are making more money, the government is spending more money, and the public who receives the services is getting measurably less than it did before the services were contracted out to private companies.
I for one would rather spend a bit more to ensure the people providing services we demand are dedicated public servants whose goal is to do the best for the country than I would to pay people to line their own pockets at our collective expense. "Frugal" is NOT synonymous with "cheap." Businesses are in business to make money. Public servants are here to serve the public. Taxes ARE the price we pay for civilization. Let us spend our money more wisely so that we can keep on being "a government of laws and not of men." President-elect Obama's pledge to make the federal government run "smarter" seems in line with that goal. As such, it correctly defines the problem and is an excellent first step in undoing the damage that Reaganomics has done to this country over the past 20+ years.
Forgive me for being a bit giddy. I am still recovering from watching one of the best college football games I've ever seen. Did you see the Colorado-Nebraska game yesterday? Nebraska came from behind with a school-record-breaking 57-yard field goal and a pass interception for a touchdown, both of which happened in the last two minutes, to smack Colorado 40-31. So Nebraska finishes its regular season at 8-4 and is in no way in the hunt for the national championship, let alone the Big XII title. It's a remarkable one-year turnaround from the debacle of the Bill Callahan era at NU. And the Huskers will be going to a bowl game, most probably the Gator Bowl as matters stand now. Thank you, Bo Pelini!
When I was in high school and even when I was a student at UNL, I was in no way a fan of Nebraska football. Football players at NU in those days regularly violated the law and got away with it, all for the sake of fielding teams that could win national championships. But seeing NU's precipitous "fall from grace" during Bill Callahan's tenure was shocking and hurtful. NU is, after all, my alma mater twice over, and I am no different from anyone else in wanting things to which I am connected to be seen favorably by those who know nothing else of me than of those things.
So yesterday was a lot of fun for me despite the fact that Nebraska began the game by giving up two quick touchdowns to Colorado and thus falling behind the Buffaloes 14-0. For some reason, I wasn't worried. Nebraska for decades now has had a tendency to give up long yardage to teams with great passing games, but I had a feeling that as the Husker offense found its rhythm, the game would turn around. I was (for once) rewarded for my patience.
This game epitomizes why I like college football better than pro football as a rule. Crazy things happen in the college game on a regular basis. In the pro game? Not so much--with one notable exception. This past Super Bowl was fun--the Giants played and won the game more like a college team than a pro team, and beat a previously unbeaten Patriots team to do it. That's a classic college scenario, not a pro one.
Nevertheless, I for one will never be totally satisfied with Nebraska football again until the Big XII comes to its senses and returns Oklahoma to its rightful status as Nebraska's foe during "Rivalry Week," the game played the day after Thanksgiving. What the powers that be haven't realized is that "Rivalry Week" has NOTHING to do with geography--if that were the case, Colorado would be a logical choice for Nebraska's opponent--it does have EVERYTHING to do with tradition. And the game rightfully called "The Game of the Century" was between Nebraska and Oklahoma. On the day after Thanksgiving.
I know. Nothing's going to change. The money isn't there, and everything is driven by money these days. But I can dream, can't I?
Holiday madness and all it entails are truly upon us. According to an NPR report I heard earlier this week [Thursday, I think, but no promises--Ed.], a gentleman in Germany is so distressed about the rampant commercialization of Christmas that he is producing and selling gold-foil-wrapped chocolate Jesuses. Spokesmen for all the churches in Germany are up in arms, claiming this is downright sacrilegious.
Put me on the side of the churches in this one. If the chocolatier had genuine concern for the true meaning of Christmas, he'd either be giving away his confections or requesting donations in exchange sufficient to cover their costs of production. But no! He's making them and selling them for resale at retail, which means he expects to turn a profit. That's totally hypocritical. It trades directly on the religious significance of Christmas. The purveyors of chocolate Santas and reindeer are not so blatantly flouting the religious reason for the season, and thus do not share our "hero's" culpability.
Besides, the idea of munching on a personal (even if it is made of the world's best chocolate) Jesus is viscerally gross.
Please do not add Depeche Mode to any holiday classics soundtracks.
How gullible are some people, anyway? I have seen a commercial of late that promises to give parents the ability to solve all their problems with their children in about a minute. I refuse to list the specific product name or the people hawking it on the grounds that I do not wish to (even inadvertently) increase sales of this claptrap.
I will say this: you've probably seen the ad, too. It's the one that starts with the teenage girl screaming "I hate you!" at her mother.
If this product did even half what it promised, we could eliminate Child Protective Services from all levels of government. Just hand out the book/DVD and pass a law saying whomever receives it is required to prove they are using it. All problems solved, and a way to cut a huge amount of government expenditures, to boot!
What's not to like?
Well, to start with, the promises this ad makes are thoroughly impossible. Unless, of course, the book/DVD consists of the advice to lock away your children until they are of legal age. The only sure way to stop disagreements is to give them no place to be expressed. So the book/DVD could suggest that you drug your kids into submission, too, I suppose.
Whatever it suggests, I am not going to spend what little money I still have to find out. You shouldn't, either. If you feel you must spend the money, however, make a donation directly to Child Protective Services, where it will at least do some good.
I know P.T. Barnum is proud of these snake oil salesmen, and I know that such claptrap and hype are part of a free market economy, but I don't have to like it. Truer words were never spoken: caveat emptor!
Forget about the War For the Union--what's going on these days is the War On the unions. Do not count me among those who are mystified by Washington's ability to throw endless streams of billions of dollars at banks and other white collar institutions but not to give even a few paltry billion to the auto industry--as a bridge loan, no less--to keep the last great bastion of American heavy manufacturing viable.
The people giving out the money come from the same white-collar backgrounds as those they are helping. Thus they are protecting their own best financial interests. They don't give a damn about blue collar workers, who are the real backbone of this country, and some of them actually desire to use our current economic crisis to bust the unions once and for all. After all, in the long run, that increases their profit margin. Who cares that it drives hundreds of thousands of people out of work and out of the lower rungs of the middle class?
I do, for one. There is a dignity to honest, hard, physical labor that certain "clever" people do not wish to acknowledge. They also cannot or will not admit that it is the ultimate source of the dollars they have to play their financial investing games. Since they don't recognize the connection, they don't have to see the consequences--the worst of which is that they are cutting their own throats in the long run. At some level, tangibles must be exchanged for other tangibles. "Cold, hard cash" for the physical results of production--an object. When it's just numbers on paper, it has no basis, no foundation, and ultimately will collapse.
I've been saying that for decades, but I'm not sure even I understood the implications completely. I am beginning to wonder whether our going off the gold standard during the Great Depression was such a good idea, though in the context of history, it was both good and necessary.
And I will say that any tangible production qualifies, even the production of ideas on paper. After all, that gives us books and pamphlets and magazines and newspapers--all things that exist, that can be touched and felt. The disconnect exists when we remove anything tangible from the equation. Think about it: even in the case of stocks, the certificates represent the tangible assets of the corporation issuing them. There is supposed to be some monetary equivalence between the value of the certificates and all the corporation owns and produces. This is one of the reasons a lot of people don't like stock splits. It makes them wealthier on paper, but does it really represent accurately the company's value? If everyone with shares were to demand all at the same time either cash or a literal piece of the company (a desk, say), would everyone get the total face value of his/her shares? If the answer is "yes," you have no problem. If the answer is "no" on the other hand, you are in deep, deep trouble.
For that's when you've disconnected the tangible from the tangible. Never forget, at some point somebody is going to want to reconnect and possess the tangible. If enough people get the same idea at the same time, it won't work when the on-paper value exceeds the actual tangible things the on-paper value is supposed to represent. So when you start trading the value of an adjustable rate mortgage based on its potential for profit (e.g., when the interest rate goes up), you've uncoupled the mortgage from the physical property it represents . . . and if you cannot sell the property for the inflated on-paper value of the mortgage, you lose money. If enough people lose money, we have a meltdown. Hence our current collective circumstances.
It is true that those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. What I want to know is why do all the people who don't know history have all the money, but the rest of us are the ones who suffer the consequences of the others' ignorance? Because they are willing to do anything to keep their "piece of the pie" at the expense of the larger good of the entire country, that's why. They've convinced themselves that they are one and the same, and the rest of us don't count.
It's not unlike that crap that Sarah Palin, for one, was spreading during the recently concluded campaign about "Real America"--with her implication being that those who are not "Real Americans" are lesser beings, somehow, and are not worth the blessings "Real America" has to offer. If the economic meltdown completely destroys our manufacturing sector, however, those "Real Americans" with all the money are going to have a rude awakening: their "money" isn't going to be worth spit, either, precisely because they trashed the value of labor and of what labor produces. I'm not sure I want to be around to try to live through the chaos that will create.
In his latest literary foray, Call Me Ted, Ted Turner, the infamous "Mouth of the South," defends his practice of colorizing old black and white movies. Excuse me while I cringe. Years ago, when he first bought the MGM film library, I feared trouble was afoot. But after watching the obvious care and affection with which movies are treated on his Turner Classic Movies cable channel, I decided that Robert Osborne and Ben Mankiewicz (hosts of some of the better TMC series) must have corrected Turner's thinking. My bad.
I am no Luddite. I do not disagree that colorizing some old movies is OK. It's fine to colorize old classics such as the Laurel and Hardy films and the Abbott and Costello films. Those movies would have been shot in color in the first place had the technology and the financing been available. If colorizing them now makes them more interesting to a new generation of film fans who otherwise would never bother to watch, so much the better. Familiarity with Stan and Ollie and with Bud and Lou is essential to any film fan's knowledge base. That colorization is flat and relatively lifeless does not harm one's ability to appreciate their movies. Their humor gives those films their real liveliness and reveals their comedic genius. No amount of colorization can kill that.
But it's flat-out wrong to colorize any film noir. And it would be sacrilege to colorize Citizen Kane. Noir films rely on black and white cinematography for their mood and effect. Orson Welles designedCitizen Kane to be shot in black and white. Colorizing it is intolerable. Period.
There may be other films that are on the border between "colorize" and "don't you dare!" Off the top of my head, I can't think of any specific titles. Suggestions are welcome, along with reasons why or why not the suggestions should be colorized. I suspect we're into a "case by case basis" analysis. [Not unlike the ballot-by-ballot recount in the Minnesota US Senate race.--Ed.] This would be a great topic for a dinner party discussion. Come on over--I'll cook!
It seems to be OK, according to the Dubya Administration, to give literal billions of dollars to financial institutions to keep them from total collapse, but not to give even 1/30 of that amount to help keep our troubled auto manufacturing industry from going under. What's wrong with this picture?
(1) The finance industry is white collar, generally conservative, and mostly GOP supporters--and not unionized, to boot. Besides, it's where the vast majority of the people in power have made their own fortunes. So they are in a real way protecting themselves and their own livelihoods.
(2) The auto industry has lots and lots of unionized blue-collar workers. Forcing it to go under will break the unions and thus help maintain the financial supremacy and security of those who already have the most money. The rich get richer, the rest of us get screwed . . .
(3) However: the fallout from the crash of the auto manufacturing industry will directly hurt a lot more people than would the crash of just some of our financial institutions. The auto industry crash fallout will ripple through the whole country, hurting car dealerships, automotive insurance providers, parts suppliers and retailers, body shops and mechanics, gasoline retailers, and even junk yards . . . not to mention consumers. But the fallout from the financial crash, while hurting many people on paper, has yet to directly affect everyone in the country--if for no other reason than that not all the banks crashed. The ones that survived are buying up the others' assets at fire sale prices. They'll be stronger in the end. If all three of the Big Three go down for good, however, we as a country will wind up even further in debt than we are now to other countries. Not a good way to maintain independence.
And yet there are those who insist the problem is that we don't "buy American." Well . . . even such American icons as the Mustang and the Corvette are not made 100% of US made parts these days. Besides, encouraging us to "buy American" is [in a very real way--Ed.] a total contradiction of the encouragers' stated preference for a truly "free market."
If we are to be the best possible consumers and are to make the "free market" work properly, we are supposed to buy the best products at the best prices. If that means buying a Honda instead of a Lincoln, so be it. Lincoln will either have to improve or go out of business. That's what a "free market" does.
If we are to look our for our own non-economic interests first, on the other hand, we should always "buy American" when we can. [Note: Defense spending is a special case. National security compels me to say that we must always "buy American" when it comes to things like military aircraft. Otherwise, some of America's enemies would find it much too easy to gain information about our security measures and abilities--thus the ways to beat them--that we really don't want made widely known.--Ed.]
I'm not keen on throwing good money after bad. Nonetheless, I think failing to help our American automakers is going to hurt more of us, and to a deeper degree in the long run, than will giving the banks a little less of the government's largesse. Besides, we can always put terms on the money we lend to the automakers that will help them (1) modernize their production facilities to let them produce alternative fuel cars sooner than they could otherwise; (2) limit the amounts of executive salaries and bonuses to a reasonable amount; (3) get some reasonable concessions from the unions--I don't know anyone who'd be so stupid as to say "no job with no benefits" is preferable to "a decent job with lesser benefits"--at least until the USS Economy gets herself re-righted. For that matter, we should have put similar (but appropriate to the industry) terms on the money we've already given and are yet to give to the banks.
The way things stand, however, I am forced to conclude that the only reason the financial industry is "worth" the 700 billion dollar bailout but the Big Three automakers are not "worth" 1/30 that amount is that the relatively few at the very tippy-top of the economic food chain as always want to protect themselves. If that's to the detriment of the rest of the country, so be it. Well, isn't that attitude why we "threw the bums" out in the just-completed elections? So let's work to get something going that will help the rest of us first, for a change!
I heard something on NPR yesterday that practically had me screaming at my radio. An otherwise bright and articulate college student urged President-Elect Obama to make "getting everyone who wants one a college education" the number one priority of his administration.
Now, anyone who knows me knows that I swear by the value of education. But this is ridiculous! The USA and the world have other issues that must be tended to first, as a purely practical matter--little things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economic meltdown at home and abroad, and global climate change, just to name a few.
What really fried me about what this college student said is that his family was having trouble (due to the economic meltdown) putting him and his two siblings through college--all in Ivy League schools, no less. He thereby proved my point about Obama's need to address the economic meltdown first, by the way.
Beyond the internal contradiction of the student's statements, however, I was [for lack of a better term--Ed.] totally POed by his attitude. Why the hell should his parents have to pay for his and his siblings' college educations anyway? Why do he and his siblings have to attend Ivy League schools? The quality of one's education depends almost entirely on what one is willing to put into it, so why can't he and his siblings attend a less expensive state university instead? And hasn't he ever heard of [gasp!--Ed.] getting a JOB?
Maybe I am reactionary about this. I don't particularly care. I was the first child of any of the branches of my family in my generation to go to (and finish) college, and I practically paid my own way. I earned an scholarship that covered four years of tuition and fees so long as I kept my grades up, which I did [I was on the Dean's List every semester, and I graduated "with honors"--my school didn't use the Latin "cum laude"--too elitist, I suppose--Ed.]. I earned several small, one-semester stipends (a total of 8 times) that covered the cost of most of my books (I had a double major in history and in English lit, so my book-related expenses were substantially higher than average). I worked both during school and in the summers to cover my personal expenses. My agreement with my parents was that as long as I did those things, they would cover my room and board in the dorms and keep me on their car insurance (which was cheaper than my having my own policy at that age). So I covered the vast majority of my expenses myself. The total amount my parents spent for four years of room and board (and car insurance) came to about 3 semesters' worth of my tuition bills.
I thus finished four years of undergraduate education with absolutely NO student loan debt. When I went on to law school, I won another tuition and fees scholarship that lasted as long as my grades were good, and I also continued to work to cover many of my other expenses. I finally did have to take out my own student loans to cover apartment rent, groceries, gas, and the like. Still, I got my J.D. "with distinction" [a little more classy than the undergrad designation, but still not truly elitist Latin--Ed.}. Indeed, I was in the top 10 [not top 10%, top 10--Ed.] in my class. I therefore got seven years of post-high-school education at a total loan cost to me of only about $15,000.
True, that was 26 years ago. Everything is much more expensive now than it was then. The principles don't change, however. Anything someone earns is worth a helluva lot more than everything that is handed to him/her. So I have NO sympathy for these whiners who are distressed that their Ivy League rides are no longer free to them.
I remember the very first time I heard from a co-worker that she and her husband worked to put their 8 children (yes, they were Catholic) through college. I was shocked. She was still working at the age of 70-something to pay off all the loans they took out over the decades it took to get all their kids through college. I could not for the life of me see then why the kids couldn't pay off their own damn loans, and today I still can't.
I guess the child psychologist John Rosemond was right. Our total approach to parenthood has gone upside down. Not that the kids should be catering to the parents, but the parents for sure should NOT be catering to the kids, especially once they are of college age. How are they ever going to grow up for real if they aren't forced to cope with making some tough choices for themselves?
Sometimes, I think the transition period between the election in November and the swearing-in of the President-elect in January is worse than the campaign season itself. At least during campaign season, the media have plenty of news to discuss. But during the transition phase, especially when the incoming President is keeping a lid on the decisions he's making about Cabinet posts and whatnot, the media have nothing to do but speculate, and this year they have descended quickly into a frenzy of speculation, gossip, and criticism of decisions that haven't even been announced yet.
It's getting old, people. Calm down, already!
The issue that's bugging me the most is the collective focus on "what to do about Joe Lieberman." Other members of the Senate, reporters, and commentators alike seem to be taking great umbrage that President-Elect Obama is said to favor letting Sen. Lieberman, who holds office as an Independent but who caucuses with the Democrats--but who campaigned more than vigorously for Sen. John McCain this year--keep his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. The collective attitude is that such a turncoat has no business holding such an important post.
In the next breath, everyone goes on to rabid speculation about this year's three Senate races that have yet to be concluded, in Minnesota, Alaska, and Georgia--without connecting the two stories.
Surely I'm not the only one [but I seem to be--Ed.] who has figured out that President-elect Obama is biding his time. His grasp of politics as "the art of the possible" is vast. He's simply not borrowing more trouble than he must at the moment. Keep the status quo until there's a need to change it. Wait until we all know how these last three Senate races end--wait until we know whether the Democrats in the Senate get their 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority, until announcing whether Lieberman will in fact keep his chairmanship. Don't jettison him until everyone knows for sure he's no longer needed.
What's so hard to grasp about that? And stop calling me Shirley!
Earlier this month, Chicago Cubs catcher Geovany Soto was named National League Rookie of the Year; yesterday, Cubs manager Lou Piniella was named NL Manager of the Year.
The recognition is well-deserved. I suspect, however, that should one inquire of either man, both would admit that the awards don't count until and unless the Cubs go on to get past the first round of the playoffs . . . and [dare I say it?--Ed/] win the World Series.
When, oh when, will "next year" finally be here for real?
As I perused the headlines this morning, one in particular caught my eye. What it said was "Palin Returns To Alaska." What I saw was "Pain Returns To Alaska." [Talk about your "things that make you go hmm . . ."--Ed.] I was particularly struck by the multiple interpretations my misreading indicated. (1) Now Alaskans are going to be stuck listening to her whiny earnestness again, causing them pain. (2) Pain is leaving the lower 48, thank goodness! (3) But Alaska's entire ecology is now more at risk, which is actually painful to all of us who care about such things.
Yes, I think Sarah Palin is a pain. But I'm not upset with her because she doesn't know much. [I am acutely aware of my own shortcomings all along the frontiers of knowledge.--Ed.] I AM upset with her comfort with her ignorance. She seems to be content to wallow in her ignorance--indeed, she even takes pride in it. I guess that's part of her identifying with the "more patriotic" parts of America? In any event, it is a totally undesirable trait in a leader.
I don't know how many times I must iterate this, but here I go again: the world is not going to shoehorn itself into some semblance of what "America" thinks of it. It is what it is. If we deal with our incorrect picture of the world instead of its reality, we're going to get more of the same results that such disastrous policies have brought us for the past 8 years.
I for one do not want anyone in or close to the seat of federal executive power to be someone with whom I'd "like to have a beer." I want someone up there who is smart enough to figure out what's really going on and to do what's best for America in the face of the realities of the world, not some pre-conceived notion of what the world ought to be. [Not that sitting down with the Prez and sharing conversation over a drink would be bad, but it cannot and should not be one's primary criterion for casting one's vote.--Ed.]
New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristoff touched on this today in his op-ed piece "Obama and the War on Brains." I wholeheartedly agree with everything he said about the need for intelligence in high places and about how Obama by his mere presence in the Oval Office will do a lot to encourage Americans to think that it's OK to have a brain AND to use it. It's positively Kennedyesque, and it's been too long in coming.
I must quibble with one of his side thoughts, however. He suggests that Obama in the White House may well put an end to the American love affair with ignorance. I beg to differ. "Know-Nothingism" has a long and well-entrenched history in this country. Indeed, our forebears, in coming here in the first place, self-selected for it. Most of them came to get away from the rigid class (intellectual, economic, social) stratifications of the "Old World." Once here, they used the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans as insulators. Not only had they escaped the stultified "Old World," their distance from it meant they were protected from it and could, indeed, ignore it.
When practiced to excess, this sense of insularity becomes "Know Nothingism." It's the downside of the notion that all it takes to be an American is to come to America and agree to American ideals. It's a nice way of saying, "Don't confuse me with the facts. I've made up my mind." It's appalling. But it still thrives in this country. McCain lost his campaign for President by counting on it, but if the local and state-wide Nebraska returns are any indication, it's still a "down-ticket" winner.
Nonetheless, Kristoff is right--real intellectuals are no elite--they are the best example of what being a true American is. But as long as the twin infections of our history of "Know Nothingism" and Nixon's "politics of resentment" infect large parts of this country, nothing will improve. It's impossible to get our educational system to focus on teaching our children HOW to think when all the parents care about is teaching them WHAT to think. It's impossible for us to be the world leader in science and technology when we insist that our schools NOT teach Darwin and DO teach Creationism. It's impossible to get our kids to be willing to learn when all the social pressures from their peers AND their parents tells them "being smart means you are an unpopular geek."
So here's one time I hope I have called it wrong and Kristoff has called it right. Is the mere presence of Barack Obama in the White House enough to help us rid ourselves of the influence of perky-but-empty-headed cheerleaders like Sarah Palin? If it isn't, we're all in deep doo-doo.
I would have loved to have been in Chicago for Sen. Barack Obama's victory celebration. Watching it on TV was amazing; experiencing it in person must have been truly mind-blowing.
As impressive as it was, however, just imagine what would happen if the Cubs ever did get into and win the World Series. The entire planet might implode! At the very least, Harry Caray and Mrs. O'Leary [and her cow--Hey! A Holy Cow!--Ed.] would rise from the dead . . .
I try hard to be fair and to give credit where credit is due, believe it or not. So I find I must eat my words and worries about my paranoia that some of the more hard line GOP members of the current administration would not leave peacefully when their term was up. But President Bush was enormously gracious yesterday in pledging a smooth and peaceful transition of power to the incoming Obama administration.
I do believe that the current President did this to salvage something positive for his historical legacy, not out of the goodness of his heart. But that's irrelevant. He did it. So I'm going to have to eat my words, and I will. Just let me make them palatable with a little salt and mustard, please.
[If you're reading this and are confused about the email I sent you yesterday, the post I wanted you to read is the one dated yesterday, November 6.--Ed.]
Gene Roddenberry, creator of Star Trek, built better than he knew. The original Star Trek and all its permutations have influenced not just popular culture, but our whole society, in innumerable ways. A few examples: the original Apple computers were designed to look like Star Trek's desktop monitors; your flip-top cell phone owes its look AND its existence to the Star Trek communicator; your iPhone or Blackberry is our generation's version of Star Trek's tricorder.
But Star Trek did more than influence the development of technology. It gave us hope for the future in a turbulent time. It showed humans of all races working together peacefully and harmoniously when the real world in 1968 seemed to be coming apart at the seams due to anti-war protests, racially-discriminatory-prompted violence, assassinations, and expanded easy availability and use of mind-bending drugs . . . to name just a few of the myriad crises overwhelming us in those deadly days.
For many of us who lived through 1968, the last eight years have been like a "déja vu all over again" experience. But Tuesday night was our breath of fresh hope. So I got to thinking. Did the late, great Gene Roddenberry somehow affect the outcome of this election?
Think about it. Is Barack Obama a real-life Mr. Spock? Spock, as you all well know, is the 1/2 Vulcan, 1/2 human Science Officer of the USS Enterprise. He is known for his impeccable logic, his coolness under fire, and his overall intelligence and knowledge. Barack Obama, the offspring of a black Kenyan father and a white Kansas mother, is one cool customer, as his steadiness in the face of the slimy campaign run against him demonstrated. He, a Harvard Law graduate, is obviously very smart, tremendously well-organized, and knowledgeable about politics and history, two of the broadest academic disciplines. If you know politics and history, you know (or know how to find out) about anything and everything.
Furthermore, Spock, the supposedly non-emotional alien being, had a deep understanding of human psychology and a great sense of humor. [The humor of Star Trek has always been under appreciated, but to my mind it's one of the show's greatest strengths and legacies. But that's a topic for another day.--Ed.] Obama's ability to connect with people demonstrates his grasp of human psychology. He has also regularly demonstrated his sense of humor, especially during some of the most grueling moments of the recently-concluded campaign.
But they are not clones. Spock was most content to be an advisor--to give his captain the information he needed but to let the captain make the final decision. Obama is a natural-born leader who is also smart enough to know when to follow the public will. He modified his stand against offshore oil drilling, for example, when the public mood indicated clearly that his position, no matter how correct (for the environment, for the country, and for the future), wasn't going to fly. Thus my oft-stated admiration for his grasp of politics being "the art of the possible."
My ultimate point, however, is that the existence of and admiration for the character Spock in the public consciousness for the past 40 years may well have played a roll in the public's acceptance of and votes for Obama in the just-concluded election. One of the greatest of human fears is fear of the unknown. That fear often expresses itself as a fear of change, even when the rational mind knows change is necessary. I am convinced that, consciously or not, Americans' familiarity with Spock made them less afraid of voting for the first African-American major party nominee for US President, thus contributing at least in a small way to Obama's large margin of victory. Remember: he didn't just win in a landslide in the Electoral College (more than a 2-votes-to-1-for-McCain margin); he won the overall popular vote by something on the order of five million votes (as I write this).
So wherever you are, Gene Roddenberry, thank you. You've helped us find our own way to improving our chances to live well and prosper well into this dangerous 21st century.
Not-so-random thoughts on yesterday's historic events: Sen. John McCain's concession speech was both gracious and graceful--where was that John McCain during most of the campaign? He'd have been a much tougher opponent to beat than the petty, petulant, snide, and snarky man we saw.
Yet the right-wing apologists are already out in force. Pat Buchanan, for one, claims that McCain would have won except for the "unexpected" and "unpredictable" economic meltdown that started in September. Right. The meltdown did not come out of nowhere, however. Eight years of Dubya Administration pro-deregulation policies and the fundamental greed of certain actors on our national stage produced it. It wasn't just some unfortunate random thing that swept over McCain like a tsunami. It was the direct result of policies McCain has supported for over 26 years. You reap what you sow.
Elizabeth Dole rightly got her butt kicked in North Carolina. Yet she showed absolutely no understanding of or remorse for her vile tactics (especially running an ad claiming her opponent Kay Hagen was an atheist). Indeed, in her "concession" speech, she acted like she was the victim, and that all she'd done was to respond to attacks that had been unleashed against her. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Dole is yet another example of what the lust for power will do to some people. It ain't pretty. You reap what you sow.
I have great hopes for Sen. Barack Obama's administration. He is clearly a student of history. He knows his Lincoln, his Roosevelts (both Teddy and Franklin Delano), his Kennedy, and his Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Nuggets from all those luminaries' speeches shimmered within Obama's victory speech last night. Even more importantly, he was honest. He said things were not going to be easy or simple or quick to fix. But they can be fixed. He also reached out to the people who are still intractably opposed to him, saying he would listen to them and be their president, too.
He's a better man than I am, Gunga Din. He doesn't just know that politics is "the art of the possible," he acts in accord with it. Some of the voter comments on the local ABC TV news web site against Obama (and the Democrats in general) were not only ignorant, but hateful. Scary, even. Obama has demonstrated that he can rise above such screed and will work for sound, plausible, sensible solutions to America's problems. I, no matter how smart I am, no matter how much I know Obama is right, have the gut reaction of responding to such hate with disgust. That's one of the major reasons I have no intention of ever running for any kind of political office. I know Obama's is the better way; I'm not sure I can rise to it. Kudos to him. I hope he reaps what he's sown.
Where do people get the idea that every single last Democrat is not only corrupt, but evil, and has the sole wish to do our country harm? Yes, that was a rhetorical question. I know whence it comes. The people who believe such inanity and who take every opportunity to spew it never got their emotional and intellectual development past second grade. It's an elementary school playground mentality. Strip away all its high-falutin' vocabulary, and it reveals itself to be name-calling of the lowest order . . . devolving quickly into "are too!"/ "am not!" mode.
Grow up, people! There's more than one way to solve our problems. Our diversity is America's real strength. Don't excoriate it--revel in it! You will reap what you sow.
I will be thrilled beyond measure if Nebraska's Second District Electoral College vote goes to Obama, even though it will not affect the outcome of the election. To see a tangible positive effect of one's vote is the best affirmation there is. But I'm not going to hold my breath. It's still "too close to call." This is, after all, just about the reddest of the red states. Our college football rallying cry is "Go Big Red!" for heaven's sake!
Unfortunately, even if the one-out-of-Nebraska's-five Electoral College votes goes to Obama, Obama's coattails weren't long enough to help other Nebraska Democrats. Perhaps the most toadying of all the Republican House of Representatives members, Lee Terry, has won another re-election to the House seat he's occupied for 10 years now . . . after assuring us when he first ran that no matter what, he'd serve no more than three terms. He ran some of the dirtiest ads of this election season--and his GOP "527" buddies ran ones that were even worse. To anyone who claims that Obama's win sounds the death knell for slimy negative advertising, I must say "WRONG!"
Even though the GOP also kept the US Senate seat from Nebraska that was up for grabs this year (with the bowing out of GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel), at least Mike Johanns ran a clean campaign, focusing his ads on what he was going to do for Nebraska, not lying about what his opponent had done and would try to do to Nebraska. Though Johanns has close ties to the Dubya Administration (he was Dubya's Secretary of Agriculture for a while), Johanns gets it. I've followed his career ever since he was the Mayor of Lincoln, NE, and I think he has the kind of political sensibility that bodes well for all of us. [Unlike Lee Terry, who's sole goal in life seems to be convincing Nebraskans that he single-handedly runs the House and is responsible for everything good it's done since he's been in office. His mailings are less informative than they are puff pieces for exaggerating his "accomplishments." In my not-so-humble opinion, he abuses his franking privileges more than any other politician I've ever seen.--Ed]
Overall, however, I think that what happened yesterday is going to be good for America in the long run. We lived up to our better ideals, and didn't fall for the lies of those hawking fear and divisiveness. We are on the way back to restoring America's moral standing in the world. And yes, I am a bit ashamed of myself for my paranoia in worrying that even if the GOP lost, it would refuse to leave, even to the degree of taking up arms. Thank God that the uniquely American tradition of the peaceful transition of power still holds. Let us all hope that America will reap what we collectively have sown here last night.
Election Day is finally here--and it looks as if, for the first time in a LONG time, turnout will be high. Hooray for America! My personal political choices are clear. Above and beyond anything else, however, whether people agree with me or not, I want them to participate. For whom you vote is not as important to me as it is that you vote.
[Of course I'm presuming you've paid attention and are casting an intelligent vote, but that still doesn't mean you must agree with me on the issues. Agree with me only that paying attention and casting your ballot are what matters. That's all I ask.--Ed.]
It seems appropriate, somehow, that today is also Walter Cronkite's ninety-second birthday. Happy Birthday, Most Trusted Newscaster In America! Many, many happy returns! Mr. Cronkite is the embodiment of responsible journalism. In all the years he anchored the CBS Evening News, no one who did not know him personally had any idea what his personal political proclivities were. After he stepped down [was it 1981? Has it really been a generation? Tempus Fugit.--Ed.], I for one was delighted to learn that his personal politics were more "liberal" than I has suspected. Even if that were not true, I'd still say he is a totally "class act," and deserves our collective approbation. Just don't put 92 candles on the cake, or there will be a fire hazard!
On a more personal (and sadder) note, today is also the 6th anniversary of the day I had to have my beloved calico cat Gewürzchen euthanized. She had a malignant tumor in her jaw that grew from nothing to the size of a golf ball in 10 days . . . she was in a lot of pain, and the vet told me even surgery would not guarantee a cure. She'd never be able to eat solid food again, and there was no way to know whether the tumor would return. I know I did the right thing, but I still miss her. She was a sweet if skittish kitty. I hope she is resting in peace and comfort.
I've been saying almost all season that the Tampa Bay Rays have that "Team of Destiny" aura about them. Well, the rains in Philadelphia must have washed it away, because last night the Philadelphia Phillies won the World Series four games to one. They beat the Rays 4-3 in a game suspended Monday night at 2-2 in the middle of the 6th inning.
I must admit I am not surprised the Rays lost, but only because the team's performance in the World Series did not reflect how they played for most of the regular season. Seems like they started every game (except the one they won) in the hole. I know they had a lot of come-from-behind victories throughout the year, but who could keep up that pace throughout the playoffs, realistically?
What surprises me most about this, however, is that I was kind of rooting for the Rays to win. And I usually have no use at all for AL teams. What was I thinking?
Then again, I rooted for the Cubs and they got swept in the first round. I rooted for the Dodgers and the Phillies kicked their collective butt. If you see a trend here, you are not alone. Maybe I should start a new career. I could go to Las Vegas and be paid by the house to stand next to people on hot streaks, just to cool them off. The official word is that such "coolers" don't exist, but I don't buy it. The house is going to take advantage of every single advantage it can get. After all, if the house doesn't win much more than it loses, it's not going to stay in business for long, is it?
As I get older [even if not wiser--Ed.], I find that I tolerate willful stupidity less and less. Disagree with me all you want--that's fine. Just have GOOD reasons for doing so. Don't just parrot mindless crap that is idiotic on its face. There's no room for discussion or finding genuine solutions to our problems in that approach.
For example, don't say you support the GOP because its members appoint judges who will "apply" the law, not "create" law (unlike those nasty Democrats). News flash: if all that judges did was apply law, we'd have no need for them. The entire judicial branch of government would serve no purpose and thus would not exist. The fact is, all judges interpret the law. It's what the judicial branch was designed to do. The ONLY time such interpretation becomes impermissible "judicial activism" is when you disagree with the judges' conclusion in a particular case. Say you support the GOP's judicial nominees because you like their brand of "activism," but don't pretend that they aren't activist. They are.
And don't say that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow "un-American." No one party has a monopoly on all the good people or ideas. Demonizing those who disagree with you is not a valid argument. It's a cheap shot, and a lie to boot. It is easier than trying to come up with facts and figures that support your position on any given issue, but this stuff isn't supposed to be easy. The Founders wanted us to use our brains and to make rational decisions about the issues of the day. That's why the Constitution set up our system the way it did.
Don't say that all Democrats want to do is take YOUR money and give it to people who don't deserve it. That is untrue on its face. No one likes taxes, but rational people understand that taxes are a necessary evil if we are to live in a civilized society. Government exists to do the things we cannot do for ourselves, like national defense, building and maintaining infrastructure, and yes, even certain social programs--because without them, the costs to everyone in society would be higher than they are with those programs. Think of it as preventive medicine. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes [no liberal, he--Ed.] so cogently noted, "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization."
Besides, the entire "redistribution of wealth" argument is specious on its face. Under the past eight years of the Dubya administration, we've seen the greatest redistribution of wealth from those who can least afford it TO those who least need it that has ever occurred in all of recorded history. The rich got much richer; the rest of us got screwed. The Democrats just want to return us to some sort of fiscal sanity. Besides, we need to pay down the record-shattering deficits that the Dubya administration has stuck us with. Even John McCain said that we can't keep putting off paying the bills till some future generation. The longer we wait, the more painful it's going to be. For the sake of our progeny and our country, we have to start paying down the deficit now. And if we ask a bit more from those who have the most, so what? They've received greater benefits than the rest of us; fairness dictates that they pay their fair share of the costs.
Remember: government is necessary. When you put people in charge of running the government who do not believe in government, you get lousy government. Hence the FEMA debacle in "responding" to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, amongst other ineptitudes. It's almost as if the Dubya administration deliberately screwed up as many things as possible to make us all give up on government--to force us back into a 19th century, pre-Civil War size federal government. Unfortunately, it's not the 19th century. It's the 21st century. The world has changed, drastically. Going backwards is impossible. You don't like it? Move somewhere else. That's what you tell people who disagree with you to do, isn't it?
Yes, the last three sentences violated my "make a rational argument" ground rule. But how better to get the point across that not making rational arguments serves no good purpose? My argument preceding those last three sentences was rational, which leads to the next lesson (and which is a riff on the "no one party holds a monopoly on all the good people or ideas"): don't reject something 100% when it's not 100% bad. One example: I know people who have decided that FactCheck.org is totally useless because they disagreed with one posting about one issue. That's a massive over-reaction. FactCheck.org is a non-profit, non-affiliated web site, and it trashes all lies from every side that it is asked to check. It is not a partisan site. So people who reject it out of hand are reacting in a knee-jerk fashion based on their own proclivities and prejudices. They are not addressing the subject rationally.
Riff #2: no matter how much you want to, you are not going to shoehorn the world into looking like something of which you approve. The world is what it is. Most of it couldn't give a rat's ass about what Americans want it to do or how Americans want it to behave. We cannot bully anybody. We can, by restoring America's moral authority, become a voice of reason and persuasion in the world. When we lead by example, the world (by and large) will follow. When we try to bully the world into doing as we say, especially when it's not as we ourselves do, we get precisely nowhere. The past eight years provide ample examples of the folly of trying to bully the world--or worse yet, of interpreting the world through the lenses of our own prejudices. Remember: the only people who were surprised that the Iraqis didn't 100% welcome us as liberators were the members of the Dubya administration and its "true believers" among the vox populi.
And stop calling people who disagree with you about abortion "baby killers." Despite what you would like to think, NO ONE likes abortion. But facts are facts. Abortion existed when it was illegal. Make it illegal again, it will still exist. Rich women will still be able to afford to go where they can have them done safely. But those without such material resources will be forced back into the filth of the back alleys, where the dangers are much higher. The social costs are enormous, and are not just fiscal. As Prohibition proved, you can't legislate morality. Outlawing abortion won't make abortion go away; it will just cause the most damage to those parts of society who can afford it and survive it the least. Far better to make abortion "safe, legal, and RARE." Oh, but that would also require comprehensive contraception education, and you don't want that, either, do you?
The world is often cruel that way. We don't get to choose exactly what we want. We must pick from an imperfect list of incomplete options. Please do not try to twist Sarah Palin's teen-aged daughter's pregnancy into support for your position. Yes, her family and the baby's father are doing the right thing--but they can afford to. The lesson is not that the girl should carry the pregnancy to term in any event. The lesson is that the pregnancy should not have happened. Unlike the "just say "No!" anti-drugs campaign, telling teens to just say "No!" to sex isn't going to work. No one has a biological imperative to do drugs; sex, on the other hand, is an almost overwhelming biological urge as youth mature into child-bearing physical (if not mental) maturity. Therefore, if saying "No!" doesn't work and abortions are unacceptable, contraception education becomes the only available choice. Outlawing abortion is not going to change anything for the better, not in the real world.
Besides, the GOP had innumerable chances to pass legislation overturning Roe v. Wade during the first six years of the Dubya administration, when it controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Note that the GOP did precisely NOTHING. The GOP doesn't want to overturn Roe v. Wade; it wants to keep it to use as a wedge issue to peel off certain Democrats from their own natural party affiliation--many conservative Catholics, for example, who otherwise would stand with Democrats on issues such as civil rights and social justice, have voted Republican in the past 30 years because of the abortion issue. Thank goodness, if the report I heard on NPR this morning is true, that they are finally learning that abortion alone is not the basis of a conscientious vote.
If you make a rational argument in support of your stand on an issue, I'll respect it, and listen to it, and I will consider it. I may even change my mind based on what you tell me. But give me the courtesy of the same care and attention to what I say in support of my stand on any particular issue. THAT's what our system is all about, and that's why the American Constitution is unique in the history of the world. Don't dumb down. Smarten up!
Then again, as the late, great, lamented Jeff MacNelly once noted, "If you're going to put up with freedom of speech, you have to put up with a lot of dumbness of speech." He was a wiser man with a cooler head than mine.
