Alphabet Soup, A to M

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

"A" is for "A-Roid." [Kudos to whomever coined that phrase!--Ed.] Count me among the people who were not surprised this week when Alex Rodriguez's story/apology for his steroid use fell apart almost as soon as he made it. While I respect his prodigious baseball talent, I've never cared much for him as a person. Everything with him always seemed to be studied, calculated, posed. No spontaneity, no genuine warmth. He's gonna get what he deserves.

"B" is for "Burris," as in "Bye-Bye!" So now that he got appointed to what had been Barack Obama's US Senate seat, Roland Burris says (contrary to his testimony under oath at now ex-governor Rod Blagojevich's impeachment trial) he did actually talk about and attempt fund-raising for B-Rod. His defense (and thus justification for not resigning due to his lies) is that his fund-raising efforts were not successful. Current Illinois Governor Pat Quinn as said flat out that Burris should consider resigning. Even President Obama has said Burris ought to take some serious time and "reflect." Sounds like the kiss of death to me.

"C" is for "chimp cartoon," as in "not funny." Almost everything that can be said has been said about the offensive cartoon run in one of this week's New York Post issues, except this: the people, including the cartoonist himself, who still deny that the cartoon is racist or that it meant anything bad (like encouraging people to shoot President Obama) are so entrenched in their racism that they can't see it even when it's put right under their noses. That is beyond sad. It's frightening.

"D" is for "Darwin," whose bicentennial birthday anniversary most of us celebrate. For those who still claim Darwin is wrong: in every way that his "theory" of evolution can be tested by the scientific method, it has never been found wrong. Maybe its details need to be tweaked a bit; that's only natural, and that's what happens to every scientific theory. Reproducible results are what's wanted, and in every instance, Darwin's idea has been vindicated. Disagree with it all you want on religious grounds--your objections are irrelevant, for Darwin never claimed to explain WHY the world evolved as it has. "Why" is the question for religion--it's the question answered by "intelligent design." By definition, it is not scientific. All Darwin tried to do was answer the question "how." And at that, he succeeded. You cannot deny evolution--you see one example of it in action all around you every year in the annual mutation of the flu virus.

"E" is for "energy, green." And what's up with the people who oppose wind power because they don't want the windmills to "spoil the view"? Don't they realize that smog and other carbon-based pollution spoils not just the view but that which is in the view far more than a line of modern windmills ever could?

"F" is for "foreclosures." Fie on those who say we shouldn't help people who are drowning in the middle of the housing crisis--letting them just go down the drain will have the effect of lowering everyone else's property values. Are you sure that's what you really want? I don't think so, especially when your property taxes are not going to go down either as much or as quickly. Besides, we already bailed out the "losers" amongst the banking system, largely because they were "too big to fail." Collectively, letting homeowners continue to go bankrupt with no effort to restructure their mortgages will be just as big a drag on the overall economy. If not bigger.

"G" is for "Gonzo," as in Alberto Gonzales. The disgraced (but to date unindicted) former US Attorney General has said he'll be glad to "cooperate" with congressional investigators so long as their focus is not "political." Note that he didn't define "political." He claims that he has always cooperated in the past. Note that this "cooperation" consisted of answering all questions with variations of "I don't know" or "I can't recall."

"H" is for "hypocrites." Many GOP members of the US House of Representatives and US Senate, who to a person voted AGAINST President Obama's economic stimulus package, sure haven't been shy about taking credit for the money the package will bring into their home districts and states. To quote from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, "You're not fooling anyone, you know."

"I" is for "Indiana Jones Monopoly." Monopoly is my favorite board game, I think because I have always loved playing with the tokens the players use to track their progress around the board. The tokens in this specialty edition are especially wonderful. They are well-made, good-sized, heavy, and like the board and the "fortune" and "glory" cards, reference all four movies. You can choose Indy's fedora, Dr. Jones Senior's Grail diary, Indy's bullwhip, the Grail cup itself, an alien skull, or a mine car. How fun is that?

"J" is for "Japanese (former) finance minister." Did you see the tapes of his appearance at the recent G8 meetings? I agree with Rachel Maddow--I don't care what the man claims about merely having taken too much cold medicine. He was hammered. Totally. In public. He got off easy with his resignation. In the old days, he'd have had to commit seppoku for the loss of face he created for the entire country.

"K" is for "kooky," as in several remarks made by GOP members this week. Michelle Backman [if that's the wrong name or misspelled, please let me know--Ed.], US House of Representatives member from Minnesota, not only erroneously claimed ACORN was getting $5 billion-with-a-B dollars in the stimulus plan (ACORN is getting exactly zero dollars, thank you very much), but complained in a talk-radio interview that "America is running out of rich people" due to Obama's tax policies. Alan Keyes, token black GOP member, perpetual GOP also-ran, and loser to Barack Obama in the US Senate race, claimed that Obama was an out-and-out Communist who had to be stopped--and tried again to raise the thoroughly discredited notion that Obama isn't REALLY the president because we don't know whether he was REALLY born in the USA.

On one hand, these continued outrages irritate me because of their sheer stupidity. [The "he must be stopped" comment also frightens me because I can see someone using that as an excuse to shoot Obama.--Ed.] On the other, I love to see them because they signify that the GOP is becoming so marginalized and so desperate it no longer cares whether it's getting credible attention. Any attention at all seems to be enough. I hope we are well on the way to seeing the end of this perversion of what used to be a noble political franchise.

"M" is for "minor league baseball franchise," which may not be in Omaha much longer. The Omaha Royals have to date refused to sign a contract to play in Mayor Fahey's new downtown stadium [I don't care who gets corporate naming rights. It will always be "Fahey's Folly" to me.--Ed.], and are actively looking elsewhere since the venerable Rosenblatt Stadium will be torn down after the 2010 College World Series. Plans for the downtown stadium have already been cut way back--the retail shopping area that was supposed to help draw the crowds have been scrapped, allegedly because of the current economic situation . . . but really because with only Creighton University games and the College World Series guaranteed to be played there, there's not enough draw and retailers are not interested. The plans were scrapped long before the true scope of the economic meltdown became apparent.

Yet people are dreaming: Sarpy County, south of Omaha's Douglas County, is pushing hard to get the Royals to commit to playing here, and the county will build a stadium to suit. Omahans are dreaming of the Iowa Cubs moving to Omaha, now that the local Ricketts family owns the Chicago Cubs. I think neither of these things will happen. Sarpy County cannot afford to build a suitable stadium, and as far as I know, the Iowa Cubs are perfectly happy in Des Moines. Well, spring is coming, and hope springs eternal, and all that jazz . . .

Equal-Opportunity Duplicity Is Disgusting Just The Same

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

The new junior US senator from Illinois, Roland Burris, just "fine-tuned" the statements he made under oath at the impeachment trial of now former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. At the trial, Burris admitted that he had talked to "some friends" about wanting the appointment to the seat vacated by now President Obama. Yesterday, Burris revealed he had in fact talked to Blagojevich's brother, who indicated interest in getting campaign contributions for the governor in return.

Burris insisted that what he revealed yesterday does not contradict what he said at the trial and asserted that the media are making an issue out of a non-issue. All I can say is that Burris learned his spinning lessons well . . . just not well enough. The Illinois state senators who questioned Burris at Blagojevich's impeachment trial asked him specifically if Burris had had any contact or conversations with Blagojevich's relatives. Burris's answer left the clear impression that the answer to that question was "no," because he again referred only to "some friends."

This is a fine kettle of three-day-old fish you've gotten us into, Sen. Burris. It stinks. It is just as wrong and just as disgusting as the GOP members who claim that the economic stimulus bill was passed without any Republican input, that Obama was nowhere to be found during the negotiation process, and that FDR caused the Great Depression. Bald-faced lies, every one.

I hope the Illinois legislature decides to call Burris on his load of crap, so that he can be removed from the US Senate and somebody clean can be appointed by new governor Pat Quinn in Burris's stead. I also hope that the good half of the economic stimulus bill works well enough to silence the liars and the nay-sayers in the GOP--though that's a fool's wish, I know.

Let's face it: the reason statesmen are so rare is because politicians are so common. And common politicians are incapable of rising to the occasion when the occasion demands. More's the pity for the fate of the country. The losers, whose policies have been discredited over and over and over throughout American history, are still trying to run the game when what we need is some true statesmanship.

An Open Letter To President Obama

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Dear Mr. President:

Your reliance on the inspiration and example of Abraham Lincoln is commendable, but in at least one case, it is leading you astray.

I am sure your reluctance to investigate and prosecute the criminal acts of the preceding administration comes straight out of Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address: "with malice toward none, with charity for all." It does denote a nobility of spirit on your part--and normally, I am all for pursuing kindness over retribution when it's a viable alternative.

But what was done during the George W. Bush [henceforth "Dubya"--Ed.] administration cannot be compared to the US Civil War. Had Lincoln pursued retribution starting in 1865, fully half the country would have wound up in jail--and for no good reason. Many, if not most, of the Confederate foot soldiers fought because they considered the Union to have invaded their territory. They had no slaves, no economic stake in perpetuating slavery, and no great philosophical quarrel about the concept of "states' rights" vs. the federal government's authority. They were merely defending their homes.

In the Dubya administration, however, specific people at the head of government pursued policies and authorized actions that clearly violated both the US Constitution and international law. You have sworn to uphold, protect, and defend the US Constitution. Part of upholding and defending it is bringing to justice those who violate it, especially when they committed crimes under the ægis of being Constitutional officeholders. Besides, under treaties we have signed, the US is obligated to prosecute war crimes committed by Americans . . . not merely Americans who did not formerly hold high office.

Nor can you compare your inaction to Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon. In that case, the crimes were investigated and revealed. Most of the perpetrators were held accountable for their criminal actions. Your apparent intent to give everyone from the Dubya administration a walk does not provide even the partial sense of justice having been done that the American people attained through the post-Watergate trials, however.

The thing that makes America unique is not that we are, or even claim to be perfect, for surely we are not and do not. But when we know of grievous, criminal official activity, we show it to the world--and for that which we cannot undo, we enforce retribution. Besides, the latest polls show that over 65% of the American public wants the criminals in the Dubya administration to be held accountable for their crimes. You simply cannot ignore such a sizable percentage of the population, not if you truly believe (as I think you do) in government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Please, please, please reconsider your intent just to let this matter slide. For not only would your administration's inaction be a disservice to the American people, it would set a dangerous precedent for the future. I don't care whether the president is a Democrat, a Republican, or from any other party affiliation: I don't want ANY president to think s/he can get away with the abuses of power that happened between 2000 and 2008. To let future presidents think they could would obliterate our concept of "the rule of law and not of men." It would mean the death of the very Constitution you swore to uphold, protect, and defend. Don't let that be your ultimate legacy.

Sincerely,

One who cares a great deal about Lincoln and the Constitution, and who has extensively studied--and taught--both

A Smell Worse Than Three-Day-Old Fish

Yes, I am about to address the saga of Nadya Suleman, already a single mother of 6 who just gave birth to 8 more via in vitro fertilization. The initial news reports said the mother of octuplets wanted her rest and privacy, yet suddenly she's all over the media. She says she's never even considered her [obvious--Ed.] resemblance to Angelina Jolie, but within hours, the news is full of stories of the several emails she's sent to the actress. [She's also obviously had a lot of plastic surgery done to increase the resemblance, but until she learns how to sit up straight instead of hunched over in a pile, she'll never even begin to fake carrying it off.--Ed]

She claims to be able to support all her 14 children on her own, but is getting disability payments for 3 of the older ones, and Medicaid is taking care of the expenses engendered by the 8 preemies in the NICU, which according to news reports are over $2,300 per day. She says the same man is the biological father of all 14 but that by her choice, he's no longer in her life in any meaningful way . . . but later news reports suggested he bolted upon learning she was going to have 8 more on top of the 6 she already had. Some reports also suggested that there was more than one father involved.

She says that only one doctor did all the procedures to give her all 14 of her children, but reporters discovered that the doctor who helped her with the first 6 refused to help her have any more. [I am also very glad to know that the doctor who did do the in vitro that resulted in the octuplets is being investigated by medical authorities. I don't know of a single ethical doctor who'd do such a thing for an unwed, unemployed mother of 6. I bet the doctor who did is hoping to jump on the publicity gravy train, too. What has been reported about him to date is rather unsavory.--Ed.]

Her own mother called her decision to have the octuplets "unconscionable," though she's doing what she can to help.

What offends and scares me most about the entire mess, however, is how Nadya talks about her children. She says she will be there for them, will love them and will hug them. This is not how a mother talks about her children. This is how a child talks about her pets.

It stinks, especially for the children. She can't even keep their names straight as it is. The ultimate effect of her sick need to be the ultimate mother is that none of her children are going to grow up feeling loved and secure. They're going to feel as though they've all been lost in the crowd.

Gimme Your Hat--I'm Gonna Puke In It

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Hearing about the filthy, rat-infested conditions in the Peanut Corporation of America plants, first in Georgia and now also in Texas, has turned my stomach big time. I am on the verge of swearing off peanut-related products, which will be a major blow to the sales of Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. Where in the world were the regulators and inspectors?

Nowhere, that's where. Under the Dubya administration, the attitude about both business and banking was "we trust you to do the right thing." ["We don't trust everyday working citizens at all," but that's another story.--Ed.] The result? A nationwide salmonella scare that's more than just a scare--it has already caused nine deaths we know about.

Didn't anyone in the Dubya administration ever read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle? Apparently not. Either that, or they didn't take it seriously. Or they drew the wrong lesson from it. The lesson was not that there will always be isolated aberrant business owners and managers. The lesson was that absent sensible AND ENFORCED regulations, the general public was at risk from those whose only concern was making as much money as possible for themselves.

Yet the GOP is still pushing the same tired old agendas. I wonder whether any of the GOP's members listened openly and honestly to President Obama's speech last night at the annual Illinois Lincoln Day Dinner. It was a masterful essay, reminding us that nationwide problems require nationwide solutions, which Lincoln--the first Republican president--knew well. After all, he signed the Homestead Act, the Land Grant College Act, and the Act creating the transcontinental railroad . . . all while other matters threatened to suck up all his time and energy.

I guess it's too much to expect GOP die-hards to shift their attitudes even an iota, and that's a real shame. It is not too much to expect, however, that they get their facts straight. How anyone can claim, as some GOP members have, that FDR caused the Great Depression is inexcusable. The Great Depression started in October, 1929. FDR didn't take office until March, 1933. What made the Great Depression so horrible is that the president in office when it started, the Republican Herbert Hoover, insisted that economic downturns were normal and that the system would eventually right itself on its own. He did precisely NOTHING to help that process along. The upshot? An ever-worsening downward spiral of layoffs, lower sales, more layoffs and business closings, still lower sales, and so on, until eating even The Jungle's hot dogs containing human remains seemed preferable to starving.

Yet some GOP members in Congress now are claiming the current economic meltdown will right itself and we don't have to do anything.

Those who don't know--or who deny--history are doomed to repeat it. But why should those of us who know better be forced to be dragged down with and by them?

* * * * * * * * * *

On a related note: for anyone who still claims financial markets are rational, I have the ultimate proof that even those who say so know better. Marketplace, a very pro-business program aired on NPR, has on its web site an examination of how the Dow Jones and other markets have behaved over time on Friday the 13th.

If markets were truly rational, whether the day was Friday the 13th would not matter. Not one whit. So to recognize that superstitions affect the behavior of market traders is to recognize that markets are NOT, at some fundamental level, rational.

Yet in the next breath, the Marketplace toadies are extolling the virtues of Adam Smith's "invisible hand."

Puh-leez!

Lincoln's Lasting Legacy

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

The Abraham Lincoln who is my hero is not the Great Emancipator of myth. Abraham Lincoln the man, with all his faults and flaws, is my hero. And not necessarily for anything specific that he did, but for what the course of his life demonstrated: the infinite human capacity to learn, to grow, to change, and to improve--whether by birth, by conscious decision, or by confluence of circumstances.

[That last is a reference to Churchill's observation that "some men are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them."--Ed.]

I am as impatient with the people who sanctify Lincoln as I am with the people who excoriate him. To this day, I am amazed at how little even declared students of American history really know about the man. As a junior in college, I once took a 400/800 level seminar on the politics of the US Civil War. To this day I remain shocked by the shock of some of the graduate students in the class who did not know, not until the day we discussed it in 1978, that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not actually free a single slave. When I search my memories of learning about Lincoln, this seems to be an unremarkable political fact I've always known. Then again, I started studying Lincoln in earnest when I was in the 4th grade--a personal quest beginning after my 4th grade teacher Mr. Arnold made my class memorize the Gettysburg Address.

I also have no truck with those who call Lincoln a white supremacist and who do everything they can to tear the man's reputation apart. Yes, Lincoln started out as a horrible, if typical, example of typical white, male, mid-19th century thinking about the races. He freely tossed around the "N" word, a word that even in a single usage makes me cringe. In his pre-presidential political career, he asserted over and over that while blacks had equal rights to freedom, they did not have equal rights with whites to participate in the civil and political process. For years, his solution to the "race problem" was to encourage blacks to (voluntarily) emigrate back to Africa.

But what makes Lincoln special is that he went from echoing the sentiments of the crowd [for how else is a politician to be elected?--Ed.] to dragging the entire country along with him as his personal enlightenment happened. By the last days of his presidency, he talked openly about giving educated black men the vote, and thus equal citizenship in the preserved Union. And it's what got him killed.

[Please don't sell him short for restricting which blacks would get the vote. Voting limitations on whites were also so limited in the mid-1860s.--Ed.]

A historian on NPR this morning said John Wilkes Booth got the idea in 1865 to kill Lincoln when he discovered on April 13th Lincoln was going to attend a performance of "Our American Cousin" at Ford's Theater the next night. That is not strictly true. Booth may have gotten the idea about where and how to kill Lincoln from that bit of information--but he'd decided on killing Lincoln days before that, when Lincoln made what turned out to be his last public statement on April 9th. Speaking from a balcony at the White House, Lincoln gave official voice to extending the franchise [that's "the vote" nowadays--Ed.] to certain blacks and to soldiers who'd fought in the Civil War.

Booth's reaction to that, according to testimony of his fellow conspirators, was to say that "that meant equal citizenship," and for that, Lincoln must die. For Booth was the real, unrepentant racist in this drama. Indeed, Booth's plan had been to kidnap Lincoln until he realized that Lincoln was serious about extending civil rights to blacks. That realization, plus his knowledge that the War was essentially over after Lee surrendered to Grant, plus his overwhelming ego and desire to be "the American Brutus" are what drove Booth to kill instead of kidnap. Booth thought he'd be welcomed everywhere as the man who struck down tyranny. He totally miscalculated the South's reaction to his heinous act. He was genuinely surprised when he learned that he was virtually universally condemned.

For Booth had forgotten the one thing that North and South had always shared: adherence to the process of the rule of law. It's why the South "came back" after Lee surrendered. It's why the Union was preserved. It vindicated Lincoln's faith in the fundamental sensibility of all Americans, mo matter the region of their birth. Heck, he himself had been born in Kentucky. Americans of every stripe officially adhere to the rule of law above all else [they just aren't always good at spotting when the rule of law has been violated--witness the entire Dubya administration--Ed.], as did Lincoln himself. His arguments against the expansion of slavery into the territories was based on law; his Cooper Union speech in February, 1860, setting forth his reasons for same, is what got him elected president.

Assassination was clearly "out-of-bounds" to the vast majority of Americans. It stunned their collective consciousness and started the transforming of Lincoln into America's secular saint. Despite all the half-truths and misconceptions that have been spewed out as "history" ever since, Lincoln's standing is undiminished. He is America's greatest president. No, he was not perfect--far from it--but he ensured that America could live up to its aspirations as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Me and (not Leon Russell) Dr. John

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

"I was in the right place, but it must have been the wrong time . . ."

Talk about your déjà vu all over again. I saw an article in this morning's New York Times that gave me a great deal of gratification while at the same time giving me serious regrets.

I refer to the proposal by one Mr. Shai Agassi, former software mogul, to build a worldwide network of car battery-changing stations to accommodate the coming influx of electric cars. I had this idea at least as early as 1990, but I did not have the funds nor the fame to do anything with it, like register it, so once again, I make precisely zip for being ahead of the power curve.

Nonetheless, I am gratified that the feasibility of my idea has been recognized by someone who has the money and the connections to make it work. Mr. Agassi's company is called "Better Place," in tribute to his inspiration for the battery-changing stations. He came up with the idea after asking himself "What can I do to make the world a better place?"

He's already done some studies on what the start-up costs per station would be. He's also signed agreements in Canada and Denmark to being mapping out systems for those countries. He is also working with auto manufacturers to encourage standardization in battery size, power source, shape, and location within the car's engine. His concept is that his company would own the batteries and that people would buy a charge the same way they buy cell phone minutes now.

His vision for how the battery-changing operation would work is similar to that of an automated car wash--the car goes in one end, and is transported through each step of the changing process on a conveyor belt.

I think it's brilliant, and I am all for it. I wish him all the success in the world, for the sake of the world. I just wish I'd been smart enough to copyright the darned idea back when I first had it.

Where Have You Gone, Paddy Chaevsky?

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!

I applaud President Obama's attempts to move beyond partisanship in Washington. However, if no one else will play, that goal is unreachable, period. And the GOP, like a spoiled 5-year-old, has threatened to go home and take its ball with it if the Democrats don't cave on the Economic Recovery Act. So far, the Dems are caving. That's what makes me mad.

Have Democrats been out of power for so long that they've forgotten how to wield it? Obama is not blameless in this, either. He should have been making the speech he made today from Day One and using his bully pulpit to pressure the GOP into doing what's best for the country, not what's best for its members.

You cannot reason with fundamentally unreasonable people. I think the Democrats, who won big in November, should not just remind the GOP that the country wants a new direction--they should ACT on it. If the GOP won't vote for the Economic Recovery Act until it's so watered down that it cannot succeed, fine. Take out ALL the GOP's insisted-on tax cuts, restore the true stimulus provisions that the GOP wanted out, and pass it over their heads.

If the bill passes in its presently watered-down fashion, and it doesn't work, it just gives the GOP more ammo for its political agenda. This bill is too important to not just the country, but to the whole world. It must pass, and it must be big enough to be successful in kick-starting the economy. Pass it as you originally proposed it. Pass it despite the GOP. If it fails anyway, then the ammo they get is justified, at least. But if it works, the GOP's influence will be even more marginalized than it is now.

I shouldn't be so upset. I make the same mistake all the time, of expecting to be able to reason with unreasonable people. But I just can't stand this. I keep looking at US history, and I keep wondering how anyone can say with a straight face that (1) the New Deal was a failure; and (2) "spending" is NOT "stimulus." Did no one in GOP even pay attention in Economics 101? Did no one in the GOP even take Economics 101?

I sure hope the House-Senate conference committee charged with reconciling the differing versions of the Economic Recovery Act will restore it or make it even bigger. It really is time to stop playing politics, people.

Then again, if the ancient Mayan calendar is right, and the world is going to end on December 21, 2012, maybe we shouldn't even care.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Arguments--

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

A QUESTION I WISH SOMEONE WOULD ASK--AND SOMEONE WOULD ANSWER

I watched a PBS "Frontline" program last night about Parkinson's disease. It was at once a family history and a recap of the research history, including the arguments for and against the use of human embryonic stem cells in the context of whether federal funding for same was appropriate. Under the Dubya administration, of course, it was not. President Obama may change that.

During one of the Senate hearings (chaired by Sen. Arlen Spector, R-Pennsylvania), a priest argued that respect for human life should preclude the use of human embryonic stem cells in all such research, even though the embryos from which the stem cells would come would otherwise be destroyed and utterly wasted. He drew the analogy to prisoners on death row: they are going to be killed, so why not use them in the meantime? His answer was that it was wrong, plain and simple. Just as respect for human dignity forbids so using prisoners, so should it forbid using embryos.

The question I wanted to ask him is this: isn't the life that's already here worthy of equal, if not more, respect than is a microscopic collection of cells that represent only the potential for life? Note that framing the issue this way puts the lie to the priest's analogy to prisoners on death row, too. Those prisoners are also "life that's already here," so using them for research just because they've already been convicted to death is still wrong.

What phrasing the question the way I have does is acknowledge the human dignity of the life that's already here, the life suffering from diseases [not just Parkinson's, but Alzheimer's and any number of other illnesses, from MS to cystic fibrosis--Ed.] for which cures may be had, and soon. The only embryonic stem cells that would be used are those about to be discarded as medical waste. Where is the human dignity in being thrown away? Far better that they be put to noble purpose rather than just being literally trashed.

I propose a solution: have the donors sign agreements authorizing the use in research of any embryonic stem cells they do not themselves use. That would be no different from someone signing an organ donation card in the case of his/her death. People who do not wish to sign the agreements do not have to do so. Any of their unused embryonic stem cells can be discarded as they are at present. But the stem cells from other embryos, ones pre-authorized for research, can do unmeasurable good in the service of lives already here on this Earth.

Talk About Your Errors In Logic!

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

One of the GOP's pet ideas for economic stimulus is to offer individuals tax incentives (i.e., credits) for spending money. Such tax incentives won't work, and here's why: you have to have money to spend before you can spend any money.

If people are out of work, I don't care what kind of tax incentives are out there--people are not going to be buying new cars, newly-constructed houses, or much of anything else beyond the bare minimums they need for food, clothing, and shelter. No tax incentive in the world is going to encourage you to spend when you don't earn enough money even to pay taxes, let alone need to get your taxes reduced.

An astute reader's letter to the editor published in last night's Omaha World-Herald revealed the reason for the flaw in the GOP's collective thinking [and I use the term "thinking" loosely--Ed.]: the GOP doesn't recognize that workers and consumers are the same people. They want to reduce not just workers' benefits, but the number of workers at the same time they want consumers to spend more. Let's face it: that's impossible when workers and consumers are one and the same.

But the GOP doesn't get it, for the GOP's concept of "workers" is "beings beneath our notice and subject to our contempt." They honestly think that every penny given to workers is a penny taken from the pockets of their "consumers," who seem to be limited to being the owners, operators, or anyone else in business who makes an annual income of at least six figures.

The tax incentives the GOP pushes are not for people like you and me. They are for the acceptably well-off. The rest of us can go hang as far as the GOP is concerned.

And lest you doubt me, remember: during last summer's presidential campaigning, John McCain himself said he thought middle class people were making $500,000 a year.

The reason this blindness didn't stir outrage amongst those who are relatively poor but who support the GOP nonetheless is that the GOP has convinced them that it is the protector of proper social values, like being anti-reproductive choice, anti-gay rights, anti-immigration (illegal or not), and so on.

The GOP is becoming increasingly marginalized yet its leaders think it needs to move even farther to the right. As far as I am concerned, let it. It's driving itself over a cliff and doesn't even realize it. But President Obama's rightful desire to move Washington away from partisanship may actually be giving the rightest of the right wing a lifeline . . . when what it really needs is a Do Not Resuscitate order.

Bye, Bye, Birde!

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Along with most of the rest of the country, I was rooting for the Arizona Cardinals [that still doesn't sound right--it'll always be instinctive for me to say "St. Louis"--Ed.] to beat the Pittsburgh Steelers in yesterday's Super Bowl, while at the same time thinking the Steelers were going to win the game. And that's how it turned out . . . but it wound up being a much more fun game to watch than I expected. The Cardinals scored a touchdown on a long pass and run play to take a 5-point lead with over 2½ minutes left. I confess to thinking at that point that they scored too soon, that they left too much time on the clock for Pittsburgh to come back and retake the lead--which is exactly what happened.

I just hope the Cardinals don't go away feeling bad. They played a great game, but trying to beat Pittsburgh in the Super Bowl is akin to trying to beat the New York Yankees in the World Series. Ain't normally gonna happen.

I'm going to rank this game among my all-time favorites. My own #1 favorite will always [until they get back in and win it again, that is--Ed.] be the Kansas City Chiefs' win over the Minnesota Vikings in Super Bowl IV. My dad raised me to be a Chiefs fan (I told you I have lots of bad habits), and I'm not going to apologize for that no matter how badly they've stunk since Len Dawson and Joe Montana retired.

My second favorite is the San Francisco 49ers' win over the Cincinnati Bengals in Super Bowl XVI, not only because it was the start of the Niners' brilliant run as the team of the 80s, but because it, too, was a fun game to watch, what with the Niners coming from behind at the end of the game to win 26-21.

My third favorite is last year's win by the New York Giants over the New England Patriots, because that game played out more like a college bowl game than pro game ever could, right down to the underdog beating the previously undefeated and presumptive champion on a virtually last-minute improbable play.

But yesterday's game is right up there in my own Top 5.

* * * * * * * * * *

The commercials were, in general, less obnoxious yesterday than many in prior years have been, too. The main exception was the GoDaddy.com series, which was incredibly sexist and trashy. I don't care that Danica Patrick is GoDaddy's spokesperson--she's doing a disservice to her "sisters in arms" everywhere. When are GoDaddy's owners going to realize that women watch these games, too, and that they aren't helping their market share by offending a large part of their audience?

I liked all the Budweiser Clydesdale ads I saw this year. The Clydesdale's love affair with the circus horse was the best, though the Clydesdale playing fetch was laugh-out-loud funny. And the one about the grandson of the Clydesdale which emigrated from Scotland was equally humorous, though on a higher level--you have to know about both US history and the geographical origins of the Clydesdale breed to appreciate it fully. I confess to having missed the first five minutes of the game because I was under the impression that kickoff was set for 6 p.m. Central Time, not Eastern Time. So I do not know if there were any other Clydesdale ads which I missed.I did see the Miller High Life one-second commercial and found it amusing, but that's mostly because I like the delivery guy character who's become Miller's spokesman.

The Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head driving in the mountains commercial was funny--though sexist [not as blatantly exploitative as the GoDaddy ones. It was more like a Borscht Belt comic's routine: "Take my wife, please!"--Ed.]--but I have forgotten which product it was advertising, so how effective could it have been? (Was it also a Bridgestone ad? If so, I applaud Bridgestone for its focus on humor--if not, I don't know what to say. Remembering the ad but not the product advertised isn't exactly the point, now, is it?)

The Bridgestone ad with the space aliens stripping the astronauts' planetary excursion vehicle (especially for its tires) was also laugh-out-loud funny. Bravo, Bridgestone!

But Hulu had the best ad of the night, hands down. It made no bones about what Hulu does--by letting you access your favorite videos (TV episodes, ads, whatever)--whenever and wherever you wish, Hulu turns your brains to mush. Self-deprecating honesty is funny, but the Hulu ad had an additional twist that took it to the top: Hulu is run by space aliens who like to eat mushy human brains--and Alec Baldwin is not just Hulu's spokesman, but one of aliens. Bravo, Hulu! It was far and away the best commercial of the night.

Theater Of The Absurd

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone Really Underestimated The Creepiness

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

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

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

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

* * * * * * * * * *

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

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

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

* * * * * * * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I won't hold my breath.

* * * * * * * * * *

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

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

* * * * * * * * * *

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

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

* * * * * * * * * *

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

AAARRRRGGHHHHH!

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

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

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

The More Things Change . . .

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

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

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

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

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

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

The Problem With Trying To Use "Original Intent"

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vanity, Vanity, It's All Insanity

(with apologies to Ecclesiastes)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

W W J(osiah) D?

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Do I Loathe Thee? Let Me Count The Ways

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Within the past week, Vice President Dick "Darth" Cheney has said he has no idea why his popularity is so low. Furthermore, he implied he didn't care, as he feels polls are irrelevant and that he will be redeemed by history, just as Gerald Ford was regarding Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon. He's not reading the same history books I am. The books I read imply there's no parallel. Ford's pardon of Nixon was to save the nation from the torture of a trial. Cheney, by admitting he approved waterboarding, approved of torture. Ford's act, by letting us put Watergate behind us, made the nation feel more secure. Cheney's acts, no matter how much he denies their effects, have put the nation more at risk. US waterboarding of Islamic terror "suspects" is one of the best recruiting tools Al Qaida ever had.

First Lady Laura Bush asserted that her husband has not been a failure as President of the United States. She's not reading the same history books I am. Despite what Mr. and Mrs. Bush both seem to think, there is no way history will call him "another Harry Truman." For Truman, "the buck stop[ped] here." Dubya has spent most of the past 4 weeks trying to convince people none of the bad things that happened during his administration are either his fault OR his responsibility. Further, Truman knew HE was the Commander-In-Chief, and he fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur's butt when MacArthur wouldn't obey Truman's orders. Had Dubya been in office during the Korean War, however, he'd have agreed to whatever MacArthur wanted--and nuked China. Then where would any of us have been?

Candidate for the GOP National Committee chairmanship Chip Saltsman (as part of his nomination presentation, I think) sent GOP members a CD with his "parody" of Puff, the Magic Dragon, which Saltsman called Barack, the Magic Negro. He's not reading the same history books I am. He's not even remembering the same past 40 years of history I do. His kind of offensive race-baiting went out back in the 1960s, but he is oblivious to that. He's mad that other GOP members aren't defending him and his crap.

I am astonished that Saltsman thought he could ever get away with such a disgusting and offensive thing. I am astonished that Laura Bush seems to have abrogated her ability to think for herself. I am amazed at Cheney's arrogance and utter lack of logic.

What they all have in common, however, is this: they are all breathtakingly out of touch with reality. Only one question remains: are they really that dumb and deluded, or are they that calculating and calloused that they just don't care? [In Cheney's case, at least, I vote for "don't care." See my earlier post on what we should call the Dubya era. As I noted there, when asked about the number of American, let alone Iraqi, lives lost in pursuit of this folly called the Iraq War, all Cheney said was "So?"--Ed]

Intelligent evil is worse than mere stupidity or ignorance, even if the person remaining ignorant made a conscious decision to do so. Those who choose to do evil are always more culpable than the merely inept. The biggest mistake made by those who deliberately do evil is that they believe that what's in their own best interests is exactly the same as what's best for the whole country--even after palpable demonstration (such as the current economic meltdown) that they are wrong.

A soupçon of French Revolution, anyone? In 1789, ninety-seven percent of France's population had no more than 1/3 of the votes in the national government, lived for the most part in grinding poverty, and was expected to carry 99% of the costs of government on its back. The aristocracy and the clergy (the first and second estates, you may recall) held 2/3 of the votes, and thus always made sure THEY were not taxed . . . and shamelessly flaunted their luxurious living conditions in front of the poor. Marie Antoinette never said "Let them eat cake," but that myth has such traction because it is in essence true. Mel Brooks wasn't far wrong when, in History of the World, Part I, he had the French king say "These are my people! I love them! Pull!" as he (playing said king) used the peasantry as skeet-shooting targets.

One tangible example of the Dubya administration's arrogance is its insistence on ramming through as much of its agenda (by every underhanded regulation and executive order and staffing decision it can) in these waning days of its power. Who cares that the present administration was totally repudiated by the November election returns? As one Dubya staffer said, "We're in charge until 11:59 on January 20, and we are going to run the government right until that last minute." People who believe that--and worse, who aren't ashamed to say it out loud--care not for the welfare or the desires of the nation as a whole. They care only for their own use of power.

It is the height of blind arrogance. Then again, why am I complaining? The more dumb things the Republicans do, the less likely they are to regain any meaningful grip on power . . . and that may well be a very good thing for the country as a whole.

Yoda Pegged It

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Remember the scene in The Empire Strikes Back where Jedi Master Yoda tells Luke Skywalker that Luke's problem is that his mind is always looking away, always somewhere else, and not focused on whatever business is at hand?

When I watched It's A Wonderful Life, again [how many years in a row has that been, now?--Ed.], on Christmas Eve, I suddenly realized that George Bailey is the spiritual father of Luke Skywalker. His mind was always somewhere else, not on what was going on around him. His resentment of the circumstances that kept him in Bedford Falls, away from his dreams of college, of seeing the world, and apart from the larger life he thought he wanted, all would have made him an ideal candidate for being turned to the Dark Side of the Force.

Thank God for Clarence the Angel! Clarence was no Yoda--nor even an Obi-Wan--but he had enough practical intelligence to get through to George before it was too late. Clarence showed George that the world was a much meaner place without him; Yoda showed Luke that Luke was in literal danger of making the world a meaner place by becoming his father. Both mentors succeeded in convincing their students that living in the moment, being contented with what they had, was all that mattered. And they both ultimately achieved their happy endings.

[A quick aside: I read a review of It's A Wonderful Life which claimed it didn't matter that George, through the generosity of friends and family, repaid the $8,000 shortage in the savings and loan's accounts. The reviewer claimed the crime had still been committed and George would still have to pay the price. The reviewer obviously was no lawyer. Not only did George NOT steal the money, neither George nor his uncle had any intent to defraud the savings and loan. No intent, no crime. Yes, charges may have been filed, and investigations would be done, and sooner or later, it would be seen that the evil Mr. Potter wrongly kept the money once he realized George's uncle had unwittingly given it to him. Ultimately, Potter, in trying to engineer George's final downfall, merely hastened his own.--Ed.}

The ending of It's A Wonderful Life always used to irritate me. I thought it would have had more impact if no one had come through with the replacement money, but had shown up to give George moral support. After this year's viewing, however, I'm not so sure. Maybe I need a little "happy ending" fantasy of my own . . . maybe it's the downward drag of current nationwide economic circumstances . . . maybe it's just that I'm a little older, a little wiser, and a lot sadder and more disillusioned about humanity in general . . . for whatever reasons, I found myself sobbing by the end of the movie, grieving for the suffering its plot revealed and wishing desperately that such an ending were a real possibility in this world.

I haven't felt that much visceral pain in a long time. I hope I don't have to experience any more any time soon.

New Holiday Music

As much as I must listen to my eternal favorites, I also enjoy listening to new holiday music every year. This year produced several CDs of note [pun intended--Ed.], and even a few disappointments.

Bela Fleck and The Flecktones' Jingle All The Way is remarkably eclectic. It got off to a somewhat slow start, with an almost tribal rendition of Jingle Bells which struck me as being on the edge of bizarre. On the other hand, Fleck's bluegrass take on Leroy Anderson's Sleigh Ride was downright inspired. But what can you say about someone who can and does play Bach on the banjo? The rest of the CD is much closer to inspired than to bizarre. I recommend it. Its final cut is yet another cover of Joni Mitchell's River, which has in its relatively short life become a massive "must do" piece. I think I alone have CDs by seven or eight different artists which include covers of River. They are all excellent and heartbreaking, all at once.

Truly great music withstands any treatment it is given. I've heard disco versions of several Beethoven works, and by golly, they ALL sound great. Mitchell's River likewise touches the heart no matter in which genre it is performed, no matter by whom it is performed. Joni's a genius. And that song is achingly, poignantly, beautiful. [Sometimes, however, it is possible to have too much of a good thing. I love Tchaikovsky's The Nutcracker, but find I cannot listen to parts of it without hearing the words to an Alpha-Bits commercial from the last 1960s: "It's the one and only cereal that comes in the shape of animals . . ." Let's face it: I'm hopeless.--Ed.]

Another CD worth your time and your ears is Enya's And Winter Came. Ever since I heard her CD single of Silent Night (Oíche Chúin in Irish Gaelic), I wondered when she was going to do an entire album. This one has been worth the wait. Her frequently dreamy, nearly meditative wall of sound perfectly accompanies a cold, snowy winter's day. I listen to her music, and I feel totally comforted and at home. Enya transcends the "New Age" pigeonhole she most frequently is assigned.

Another fun CD is Harry Connick, Jr.'s, latest, What A Night! A Christmas Album. I like Harry's singing very much--when Memphis Belle came out and I heard the soundtrack, the first thing I thought of was the old Looney Tunes wartime cartoon wherein Farmer Porky's hens start laying ridiculous quantities of eggs after they hear that scrawny rooster version of Frank Sinatra croon--their bobby socks roll up and down, they cry out "Oh, Frankie!" and faint . . . and suddenly lay entire pyramids of eggs. I had the exact same "Oh, Frankie!" response the first time I heard Harry Connick, Jr., sing. Crying out "Oh, Frankie!" in a female falsetto has become a bit of SOP whenever I hear anything by Connick, in a public place or not. I'm sure it embarrasses those who don't get the reference. I don't care.

The thing I like about his latest CD, however, is that he's included a few purely instrumental tracks. He's a superb piano player. It's about time he showed it off, even a little bit. His vocals on Zat You, Santa Claus?, are the wittiest I've heard since Louis Armstrong's, though, so I'm glad it's primarily a vocal performance CD.

On the other hand, I found one major disappointment with new holiday music this year. Spyro Gyra's A Night Before Christmas is entirely pedestrian. I am so underwhelmed! Spyro Gyra's first hit, the monster Morning Dance was such a marvelous work, and such a unique and happy sound, that I expected something similar from this CD. If I hadn't known which group performed it, however, I'd never have guessed it was Spyro Gyra. What happened? I have no idea. I will listen to it again, after a long break, to make sure my initial impression wasn't too hastily formed. But I'm going to have to wait until way past St. Patrick's Day to be able to give it a fresh ear.

Still, the old classics are the best. I don't think anyone will ever top the Vince Guaraldi Trio's A Charlie Brown Christmas. No one has to, either. I may have more CDs with covers of tunes from that album than from any other Christmas recording I own. Every one of them is quite good if not brilliant. As with Joni Mitchell's River, the ability of superior music to improve whatever treatment it's given makes itself manifest. That's to every listener's benefit. Merry Christmas and Happy Listening!