To Thine Own Self Be True

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

A lot of literary critics like to skewer Shakespeare's character Polonius, but some of the advice Polonius dished out in Hamlet was good. How can you NOT be true to your "own self"? You are who you are. I suppose you can try to deny your "own self," an endeavor normally doomed to failure, as I realized last night while watching Nebraska Public Television.

I saw part of the American Masters installment about Willa Cather. I was struck by two things: (1) the driving force of her entire life was to get away from Nebraska; (2) she is the quintessential Nebraskan. It is said her desperation to get away was because she did not want to be buried in a farm field . . . yet no other writer limned the experience of rural Nebraska farm life, especially for immigrant families, as well as she did. My Antonia seared my soul when I first read it, and its frequently hopeless and bleak depiction of nineteenth-century life on the Great Plains haunts me to this day. [Yes, I remember the tragic aspects of the book more than the happy ones.--Ed.]

I understand why Cather felt she had to get out or suffocate. And yet, for myself, I also love that fierce attachment to the land that permeates her work, almost despite herself. The irony is that the more Cather tried to escape, the more she revealed her unbreakable connections to the place she grew up.

That got me to thinking about the varieties of experience humans can have. I know many who, like Cather, grew up in one place, got as far away as possible as fast as possible, and who never looked back. I rejoice in their energy, their drive, their curiosity. I mourn for their rejection of what made them. For, also like Cather, the harder they try to get away, the more they reveal the childhood-shaped aspects of their character.

There are also some who stay close to the place they were born for their entire lives. I rejoice in their serenity. I mourn their insularity. They are happy; they are safe; they are mostly incapable of coping with the larger world.

There are those who grew up as vagabonds (all military "brats," myself included, fall into this category) and who have been unable to settle ever since. I rejoice in their breadth of experience. I mourn their lack of stability.

There are those who grew up as vagabonds but who found a home later in life and settled there (my own exact circumstances). I rejoice again in their breadth of experience, for surely that knowledge imparts wisdom. [If you let it, that is.--Ed.] I also rejoice that they have found a home, a place to be grounded. However, I mourn their shrinking horizons, especially when financial or health difficulties contribute to those limitations.

Happiest must be those who can balance their needs for both a real home and mind-expanding travel. I rejoice in their good fortune for finding the best of all possible worlds. [Candide, are you listening?--Ed.]

I confess that I do not at all miss having to move, despite its several benefits: it makes one clean out one's possessions on a regular basis; it, by giving long-term exposure to different parts of the world, offers deeper understanding of those whose attitudes differ from one's own; likewise, it offers a greater appreciation of and desire for preserving diversity in the world.

Luckily, travel offers the same benefits without the many headaches of an actual move. You get the same experiences, even if not quite to the same depth. And you don't have to pack and unpack all your worldly goods every other year. Alfred, Lord Tennyson, in Ozymandius, noted the egotist's perceived benefits of travel: "I am a part of all I have met." That line always struck me as more than arrogant. In my own case, "all I have met is a part of me." Thank goodness for the Internet, which lets me continue to travel, even if only in virtual space and time.

No matter what one's experiences have been, the trick in any life is to find balance. The values learned as a child can shape the interpretation of later experiences, but they should not be allowed to negate or overwhelm those experiences. For instance, if your family was intolerant of other religions, your experiences can teach you that such intolerance is wrong--as long as you are open to the lessons experiences offer. Yes, new experiences can teach you a great deal. If you constantly crave new experiences (mostly because you feel your childhood was totally drab and awful), on the other hand, you are not grounded. ADHD is no way to live a life.

As with diet, as with exercise, as with every other aspect of life, moderation in all things seems to be the most effective approach. No matter how anyone tries to trick it out or glam it up, the oldest, simplest advice is the best. Moderation and balance. However, the best balance is not struck by parking square in the middle of everything. Sometimes that's just not possible. So it is OK to compensate for a lack of physical health with an excessive sense of humor. It is OK to compensate for a lack of material wealth with an excess of, say, library usage. Mental travel on the cheap is far superior to no travel at all.

But never, ever try to run away from or deny who you are. You can change and improve who you are, but your roots are your roots. Acknowledging them will at once ground you and give you the knowledge to rise above their limitations. Only in trying to deny them do you risk losing your real self. Why else do you think the standard advice to writers (like Cather) is to "write what you know"?

A Creepy Commercial--And It's Nowhere Near Halloweentime

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

A local cardiac center is running an ad ostensibly encouraging people to get their hearts checked "before it's too late." The tag line is "Call Or Be Called," and the ad consists of the Voice of God talking to a woman in a grocery store produce section. God tells the woman it's time for her to go, now. She protests, demonstrating that she eats broccoli--which is why she's in the produce section. God tells her it doesn't matter because her condition is genetic. God then gently berates her for not calling to get her heart tested, because now it's too late. The ad then cuts to the tag line, written in Gothic script, floating in front of a blue sky, and then cuts again to the cardiac center's (and other sponsors') logos.

My first question is: who thought up this thing? It's positively creepy! I doubt it will have its intended effect. It certainly isn't funny in the least. Believe me. My sense of humor is as broad as anyone's, and broader than most everyone's. I recognize the attempt at dark humor in the ad. It fails miserably. It's on the wrong end of absurdity to be effective--let alone funny.

My second question is: if the woman's condition is genetic and it doesn't matter that she eats healthy food, why would getting "the test" make one whit of difference? This ad is spectacularly bad at selling what it says it's trying to sell. It's own internal logic contradicts its putative point.

OK. I realize the central point is really that eating right isn't enough: the test will give people additional information they can use to protect themselves better against genetic heart disease than they could do without having taken the test. This ad does not make that point at all effectively, however.

I am hoping against hope that this was a national ad agency's product, and the local cardiac center bought it, as opposed the center's hiring a local agency and having had active input into the ad's contents. I don't know why that matters except as a point of pride that I wouldn't willingly be caught dead [pun intended--Ed.] living next door to people with such tin ears.

And why is it that the truly funny ads never run enough, and the bad/creepy/offensive ones seem to be on the air ubiquitously?

Economic And Environmental Idiocy

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

On today's Marketplace Morning Report (aired on NPR), Cato Institute fellow Will Wilkinson trashed the Obama Administration's efforts to implement a cap and trade system for carbon emissions. Wilkinson pointed out that Energy Secretary Stephen Chu's proposal to slap tariffs on products from countries who won't "cap and trade" will start a trade war--and everybody will lose as a result, due to higher prices, decreased availability of goods and services, and overall economic misery.

Wilkinson's primary focus is China--as the largest holder of US debt and one of the largest polluters on the planet, China has a lot of muscle, true. As Wilkinson also noted, no global governmental organization exists that could enforce a genuine world-wide cap and trade policy. [The reasons none of the current international bodies can do much about it is a topic for another day, but the blame lays rightly at the feet of people like Wilkinson.--Ed.] And unless every country participates in "cap and trade," we won't reduce collective emissions enough to stop the runaway train that is global warming.

It's difficult to pick a starting point to refute Wilkinson's claptrap. The Cato Institute is a right-wing "think tank," and nothing ever comes from it that doesn't skew both facts and their interpretation to suit the right-wing's agenda.

Where to begin? First, the gist of Wilkinson's observations is the conclusion that we should do NOTHING about implementing a "cap and trade" policy now. But if not now, when? After we've warmed the Earth to the point where everyone is charbroiled? It is a typical right-wing tactic to wave the bloody shirt of short-term economic pain (for the masses) to delay necessary long-term reforms that will force business owners suffer even a minute reduction in their profits. But in the case of global warming, if we delay too long, no matter what we do when we finally do it, it will be too late. We're all going to die. So Wilkinson's priorities are backwards.

Second, he makes it sound as though China is all-powerful and we are helpless before the sleeping dragon that we've now provoked. During the Dubya Administration, that was probably true, mostly because of the enmity of the rest of the world to the interventionist bully he made of America. But with the Obama Administration in place, America is regaining its stature as the moral and ethical leader in the world, and even the Chinese government is not immune to united and concerted international pressure. Besides, he never even acknowledges the probability that the people of the world may be willing to suffer the results of punitive tariffs until everyone implements "cap and trade" because most people have higher priorities than maximizing their profit margins. Priorities like restoring the health of the entire planet for the benefit of all of us.

Third, Wilkinson offers no other solution to the problem as he described it. Reminded me of William F. Buckley's oft-quoted observation that conservatives stand "athwart history yelling 'Stop!'" Wilkinson's point seems to be that maintaining the status quo is the only option open to us. I say "phooey." Mister Wilkinson, you can lead, you can follow, or you can get out of the way. If all you do is raise objections without proposing solutions, you aren't doing anyone any good. So move aside.

Give the Obama Administration a chance to implement its proposals. If they work, we'll all be alive, even if not necessarily better off in our pocketbooks in the short run. If they don't work, we'll either have to come up with something else or we'll already be cooked. But the only possible outcome of doing nothing is making us all crispy critters, so doing nothing is no solution.

I suppose I shouldn't be carping so much. At least the right wing is finally acknowledging the reality of the threat global warming poses to us all. Let's just hope the right wing comes to its senses about the solution before we've all fried.

Oh, Laura!

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Three rules for dealing with one's attitudes about any particular actor: (1) never idolize; (2) never idealize; (3) never mistake an actor's attitudes for those of the characters s/he portrays.

I was dismayed to read in Sunday's Parade that Mary Tyler Moore watches Fox News, likes Bill O'Reilly, and would have campaigned for John McCain had she been asked.

I am mystified as to how someone who built a career on playing smart, forward-thinking, independent-minded women could be so effective in such roles when her own beliefs are the antithesis to everything she has portrayed on the small screen in terms of both Laura Petrie and Mary Richards.

She must be an even better actress than I recognized. Or her attitudes have grown more conservative over time. Or she just doesn't think deeply about the contradictions between the implications of her stated political beliefs and the characters she so vividly inhabited in the 60s and 70s. Or all of the above. Or something completely different.

Help me out here! I feel I am truly floundering. The one thing I do know is that it's silly of me to expect everyone to behave rationally--history teaches us that most people do not--yet I cannot help but wish [and thus tend to expect--Ed.] they would.

I am therefore fighting my own internal demons: I want the world to be understandable, categorizable, orderly . . . yet I love the process of discovery, the messiness of reality, and the challenge of making sense of the non-sensible and nonsensical. It all comes down once again to my compulsion to repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Entropy increases despite my efforts to make orderly interpretation of events and people. Yet without order, structure, some rational way to consider the world, there is no way to function within it. The chaos would drown out everything else.

Kurt Vonnegut knew this. "So it goes."

The "Somebody Wasn't Thinking Clearly" Department

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

I just saw an ad for a new "as seen on TV" product [which, thankfully, I've not yet actually seen on TV--Ed.]. It's for a product designed to make a woman's hair look fuller, and must be ordered according to the woman's hair color. So far, so good.

It's called Bumpits.

So far, not so good. Even with the product in the accompanying illustration I just saw, my first reading of the name was "Bum-pits," not the intended "Bump-its."

I do not want "bum pits" of any sort, matching my head hair color or not, thank you very much. Why do you think I use an anti-perspirant deodorant every day?

Somebody ought to tell the genius [and I use the term very loosely--Ed.] who thought of the product's name that an en-dash (you know, the printer's measure for a single dash, like this one: "-") would have been in order, just to clarify matters.

Bum pits. Now there's a mental image I do NOT want to conjure. Eeeuuwwww! Too late!

Two Little Words--Thrice

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Whatever happened to "you're welcome" as the proper response to "thank you"? On the now rare occasions when I hear it, I nearly jump with surprise and joy. I am sick of hearing "Thank YOU" as a response to "thank you." It sounds like a Gaston and Alphonse routine: an ever-downward spiraling do-loop of "After you," "No, after YOU," "Please, I insist: after YOU" . . .

Yet another example of how we Baby Boomers collectively have failed our children and our children's children by not teaching them proper manners.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Call the Grammar Police, Part II. The next time I hear or see someone using the words "from whence," I am going to scream, pull out my hair, and run around frothing at the mouth. (Not really, but it's a definitive image of the intensity of my feelings about this bit of grammatical atrociousness, don't you think?)

Since "whence" literally means "from where," to say "from whence" is to say "from from where," which is--unless one stutters [and possibly even then--Ed.]--redundant. "Whence" all by its little lonesome is enough, people! Where's a decent copy editor when you need one, anyway?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

And now, the question originally prompting my title for this post. I have listened to and read the reporting about the AIG bonuses and resulting outrage with a mixture of resignation and astonishment.

Resignation, because at some deep level I know the "geniuses" [think "Wile E. Coyote"--Ed.] in the financial industry who took the bonuses under AIG's circumstances, along with the idiots who defend them [again, think "Wile E. Coyote"--Ed.], honestly believe that they deserved those payments and that they did nothing wrong, so they have no reason to give the money back. We talk about people "inside the Beltway" in Washington DC as being out-of-touch, but the Wall Streeters and their publicity toadies are just as much in their own little worlds, divorced from any sense of reality.

Astonishment, because two words fundamental to ANY such discussions and reports and analyses have been entirely absent from the playing field. Those two little words? "Fiduciary duty." This one is axiomatic. It's a "taught in the very first day of law or business school" principle. Anyone who takes responsibility for handling someone else's money kas the fiduciary duty to care for it with more diligence than that person would with even his own funds.

The reckless trading behavior of those in AIG's derivatives division didn't just breach their fiduciary duty to AIG's investors--they demolished it. Therefore, they breached their contracts first; thus, requiring them to forego their bonuses would not breach any contracts; therefore, they should not have received the money; thus, the taxpayers should have no trouble getting it--all of it--back.

Why is no one talking about "fiduciary duty"? Or has that, too, like responding to "thank you" with "you're welcome," gone completely out of style?

I Want Answers, Mister!

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

If Bernie Madoff were really as sorry as he claims to be for bilking thousands of people out of billions of dollars, wouldn't he be doing everything he could to provide restitution to his victims, instead of what he is doing, which is not saying a word about where all the money went?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If we really do believe in "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," why are all politicians who pay attention to polls automatically considered to be bad, evil, craven, or otherwise unprincipled?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Does anyone out there know where I left my keys?

"Real" IRA? Give Me A Break!

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

I have listened with dismay to the news reports since Sunday of renewed violence in Northern Ireland. These acts of terrorism--let's call them what they are--are being claimed by the self-styled "Real IRA," an offshoot of the Irish Republican Army that refuses to recognize the peace accords that have been in place for a decade now.

I submit that the "IRA" in "Real IRA" actually stands for "Idiotic Republican Army." What is WRONG with these people? There is peace in Ulster for the first time in my memory, progress is being made on the political front, and these bozos are trying to muck it up.

I know. They are like spoiled 3-year-old boys who are mad that they are not the center of everyone's attention. Not unlike Kim Jung Il in North Korea. Nor any number of other idiots and petty despots all over the globe.

I hope the spokesmen in Northern Ireland and Britain who have said the peace process is too far along for these spasms of violence to derail them are correct. The last thing the world needs is more trouble.

Calling All Luddites!

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Count me among those appalled by the plethora of "social networking" and instant communication sites like Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter. It's not that I am uncomfortable with the technology per se--after all, I do post to this blog on an increasingly regular basis. I am uncomfortable with the implications "resources" like Facebook et al. have for the most fundamental American values.

It took decades and decades and decades for the US Supreme Court to recognize that the Bill of Rights enumerates specific instances of what is every American's most fundamental right: the right to privacy. The reason the Founding Fathers didn't just call it that is because such terminology was not part of the governmental vocabulary of the time. Just because they didn't call it "the right to privacy" doesn't mean they didn't intend to define or describe that right. It's not unlike an indigenous society calling a railroad an "iron horse" or an airplane "a metal bird." Things are described as accurately as possible within the limited framework of the existing vocabulary.

[I still say Justice Scalia missed the biggest implication of his majority opinion in last term's gun rights case--by hanging his interpretation of the Second Amendment on an American's unfettered right to have guns in his own home, he relied on the right to privacy, whether he called it that or not, and despite his oft-stated opposition to any such "right to privacy."--Ed.]

But how in the world are we to preserve the right to privacy and to call on it to defend ourselves from unwarranted governmental intrusion into our lives if all our behavior abrogates it? Whether it's because people posting to Facebook et al. are giddy from the relative anonymity they have, if they are just so desperate for contact with others that they'll say anything, or if it's for some other reason--analysis after analysis has found that people who participate regularly on such sites reveal a lot more than they perhaps intend. So much so that the line between what is public and what is private has become quite blurred.

If our collective behavior demonstrates that we no longer consider anything private, it becomes impossible for the government to violate our right to privacy. No matter how unwarranted the wiretap, the search of the house, the confiscation of papers, the government can do whatever it wants and take whatever it wants . . . and we have no legal grounds to complain. By our own behavior, we've already given up our rights.

In my more paranoid moments, I wonder whether this hasn't been the intended outcome all along. A poorly educated populace doesn't know what its rights AND responsibilities really are; therefore, it can neither define nor defend them. It doesn't matter a whit what the Constitution commands if there exist no means to enforce same. So we continue to base school funding on property taxes, guaranteeing that the residents of the poorer districts will never climb out of the traps of poverty and poor education.

Worse, that those residents will become the objects of ridicule and scorn. Look at the general reaction to the woman who called 911 three times because her local McDonald's was out of Chicken McNuggets yet took her money and wouldn't give it back. The scorn and outrage were directed at her, not at the McDonald's staff who wouldn't give her the refund she was totally entitled to get. Yes, she was wrong to use 911 to register her complaint--but she didn't seem to know better. She kept telling the 911 operators that it WAS an emergency. [Poor education, remember?--Ed.] But what the McDonald's employees did approached extortion--they wouldn't give her back her money when they couldn't fill her order. They tried to make her take and eat something she did not want. I am as much offended by the cruel stupidity of that as I am by the woman's repeated calls to 911.

The richest of the rich thus keep their riches and preserve a poorly educated (thus mostly complaint) laboring class. Once we lose enough of a sense of "self" to give up any sense of individual decorum or restraint, there will be no valid legal argument to keep the government out of our homes and even our thoughts--no matter what we say on paper about the limits on our government's power over us.

The most dire threat to any free society is in fact its freedoms. Within them they hold the seeds of their own destruction. More personal freedom is nonetheless preferable to any other system. But with rights DO come responsibilities. We must be diligent in protecting our freedoms. We cannot let them atrophy by apathy, ignorance, or carelessness.

Random Observations On The Passing Scene

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

[With my thanks to whomever coined the title phrase . . . and my apologies for not remembering who that was . . .--Ed.]

Some Democrats want to put up a billboard in Rush Limbaugh's Florida home town to demonstrate how limited his popularity really is. My first thought upon hearing this was the simple, stylish, even poetic "Flush Rush!" Thinking better of it, I have settled upon this: "Eliminate Global Warming! Shut The Rush Up!"

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

A dear friend and I recently discussed why the ideas of the right wing are in general so very, very wrong. For one thing, the right wing's "ideas" have been on the wrong side of history every time, from not wanting to end slavery to giving non-landowners the vote, to ending child labor, to giving women the vote, to instituting a minimum wage, to allowing labor unions, to enforcing equal civil rights for all . . . you name it.

As one particular instance, I cite Calvin Coolidge's oft-quoted observation that "the business of America is business." He was wrong--what's good for business is not necessarily good for the people, and America is both (1) a government of laws and not of men, and (2) a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Coolidge did not see the distinction, of course, because in his day the laws and the courts claimed that corporations were people too, and that John Q. Public, lone individual, had equal bargaining power to all the resources any corporation could marshal against him.

That was a legal fiction of which we did well to rid ourselves. But those who stand to gain from it (at the expense of those of us with more modest means) keep proclaiming it. Will the right wing ever figure out that no matter how loudly and for how long they shout it, it isn't true?

I doubt it. For the other major reason the right wing is and has been on the wrong side of history is that most of its adherents are shockingly indifferent to matters of FACT. Rush Limbaugh has already tried to call the present economic meltdown "the Obama recession," even though it started long before he won the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, let alone was elected President.

More than one right-winger has claimed that FDR started the Great Depression, even though a cursory examination of the calendar proves it was in full swing for nearly 4 years before he was inaugurated President. Many right-wingers have claimed the New Deal didn't work, because it was World War II that got us out of the Great Depression and not anything FDR did . . . but federal spending is federal spending, whether it's on roads and rural electrification projects or on military armament. So even it we didn't get out of the Great Depression till we entered WWII, it was still federal SPENDING [read that "economic stimulus"--Ed.] that saved us. If the New Deal informs us of anything, it informs us that the federal government's spending was not big enough until after Pearl Harbor. Hence the arguments of eminent economists like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich that Obama's plan isn't big enough.

It's impossible to respect anyone who defends his views by lying or distorting documented historical facts. It's impossible to give such views credibility when all that supports them is quicksand. Until the GOP learns how to argue for its positions based on truth, its positions are more bankrupt than Lehman Brothers.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In case you're thinking I just exhibited left-leaning bias, let me note that I have no use for Michael Moore, either. Of late, he's been called the Democratic equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, and in some respects, that's true. Moore lies. Several incidents from many of his films, including those from Bowling for Columbine to Sicko, have been misreconstructed or otherwise misrepresented. He also states "facts" incorrectly. In that regard, he's no better than Limbaugh. He should not be calling his films "documentaries" and he should not be excused for his excesses . . . even if he is largely correct as far as goes the substance of his arguments on the issues. As he is, however, I have no use for him, and no other "liberals" should, either.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I hope Frank DeFord was kidding on Wednesday when he said on NPR that he could not understand why the clock was stopped in a football game after an incomplete pass but not after a run or a completed pass. After a run (whether it loses or gains yardage) or a completed pass, there's no reason to stop the clock: the ball is already at the spot whence the next play will be run. After an incomplete pass, however, the ball could be 99 yards away from the line of scrimmage. Not to stop the clock while the ball is returned to the next play's starting point would waste too much time. We want game time to be filled by playing the game (as much as possible), not by "administrative" tasks like returning the ball to the line of scrimmage. C'mon, Frank! You know better! I hope . . .

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Why Reaganomics is dead, though those few who benefited from it will keep trying to resurrect it: in 1980, the richest 1% of the population held 9% of the total wealth of this country. After a quarter century of generally right-wing economics in action unfettered by the federal government, however, the richest 1% of the population held 22% of the total wealth of this country. That's obscene, and it gives the ultimate lie to "trickle down" economics. The richest do not use their increased wealth to help the rest of us become wealthier; they hoard it and want more and more and more for themselves alone. Under trickle down economics, the only thing that ever trickled down was the rich peeing on the rest of us.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I used to say that if most of the people on Wall Street had been alive 350-400 years ago, they'd have been pirates. After repeated viewings of Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World's End, however, I find I must modify that observation. Three-hundred-fifty to four hundred years ago, most people now on Wall Street would have been working for the East India Company: all's fair in war and business. The ones who wouldn't have been working for the East India Company would have been the pirates who cast their lot WITH the East India Company. The pirates fighting the East India Company and its allies and minions today would be union organizers.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I laugh every time I see a commercial telling women that this miracle makeup or that miracle medical procedure will eliminate lines and wrinkles. For one thing, I feel as though those of us with lines and wrinkles have earned them. For another, most women who are so concerned about lines and wrinkles also buy into the ideas that a woman cannot be attractive until she (1) is tanned to the color of bronze, and (2) is underweight to the point of anorexia.

You want to lose the lines and wrinkles? Stay out of the sun and gain 10 pounds already!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I saw my first two robins of the spring this morning. There are still a few isolated patches of snow on the ground, but after we get the thunderstorms predicted to start late tonight, they should melt away. People are already playing golf and running around in t-shirts and shorts. Ah, spring in Nebraska. Nothing else like it! Let's just hope it lasts a while this year and that we don't go from breezy, cool but sunny 65° highs to oppressively humid sun-beating-down mercilessly 100°+ in the shade the way we did last year. I like spring a lot more when it hangs around a while than I do when it comes and goes in 24 hours.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Cats know how to push people's buttons. I had to take my two heathens to the vet for their annual checkups and distemper booster shots yesterday. When we all got home, they made it perfectly plain that I was in their bad graces. They both sat in plain sight with their backs to me for the entire evening. Things are back to normal [as normal as they ever are around here, that is--Ed.] today, but I guess I was taught my lesson.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Daylight Savings Time starts again at 2 a.m. Sunday morning. BLEAH! All I can say is this: the ONLY good thing about DST is going off it in the fall.

The Defense Attorney Is Wrong

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

An Omaha woman was convicted Tuesday of abuse of a vulnerable adult in connection with the death of her disabled 23-year-old daughter. The woman had used a bed sheet to tie the door to her daughter's bedroom shut from the outside. The daughter died over a week after injuries she sustained in a fire while her mother was out of the house.

The mother had no intent to kill her daughter. The mother's goal was to keep her daughter from getting out of the house and wandering around the neighborhood in a motorized wheelchair (to which the daughter had been confined after being injured in a 2003 auto accident). The mother told her sixteen-year-old son she was going to be gone for about 20 minutes, but she did not return till more than 8 hours later. The teenager said he'd checked on his sister a couple of times but left the house for dinner just before 7 p.m.

The defense attorney claimed (1) that the statute in question didn't even apply in this case; (2) that since the mother's motive was to protect her daughter, not harm her daughter, there was no intent to abuse, therefore no abuse; (3) that the daughter could have escaped from another door in the room; (4) that the daughter probably started the fire herself to get attention.

It was a bench trial. The judge rejected the defense attorney's first and second arguments, agreed with the prosecution that the other door was no escape route, as it had had its knobs removed, so the only way to get it open was to jimmy it, which the daughter from her wheelchair could not do, and ignored the claim that the daughter started the fire herself.

The mother was thus convicted but is out on bail. Her attorney is still claiming all 4 of the claims he made at trial and has vowed to appeal the judge's verdict.

Here's the real skinny: EVERYTHING THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY SAID IS IMMATERIAL. It's all irrelevant. The fact that the mother locked her daughter in by tying the main door shut and then left her alone for more than 8 hours in itself is sufficient to convict her of the crime for which she committed. Telling a teenager she was going to be gone for only 20 minutes but not coming back till more than eight hours later was irresponsible and unreasonable on its face. Leaving the care of someone unable to care for herself in the hands of a sixteen-year-old boy, even if it had been for only 20 minutes, is simply irresponsible. The law doesn't say the defendant had to intend to hurt the victim; the law says the defendant had to do an act that abused a vulnerable adult. That there was another door was immaterial, as for all practical purposes it, too, was locked--which the mother knew. Finally, saying the daughter probably started the fire herself is simply blaming the victim and is no valid argument against the mother's conviction.

I am perfectly well aware that all criminal defendants are entitled to make the state prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I am perfectly well aware that the defense attorney in this case is just doing his job to the best of his ability. None of that changes the fact that some of the things he alleged are contemptible and the rest are outright lies. It's no wonder people are losing faith in the legal system. The attorney's ethical charge is to do what's in his client's best interests, not to get his client acquitted at any cost. Sometimes serving the client's best interests should be accomplished by giving the client a reality check.

Alphabet Soup, N-Z

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

"N" is for "no," as in "No Child Left Behind." Apparently the name of the Dubya administration education legislation has proven to be a rich source of humor. Many people want to change the name of the law to something more serious, to give it more credibility--or to something more humorous, to reflect its ineptitude. Suggestions are welcomed and are being accepted on a blog at www.eduwonk.com, according to an article published in Sunday's Omaha World-Herald. Send one in!

"O" is for "Oscars," as in the Academy Awards ceremonies Sunday night. Some random observations: (1) Either too many women went to the same designer, or the variety of ideas among designers this year was especially paltry. At least three women were dressed in variations of a one-shoulder blue dress with a black sash/scarf/belt thing. Appalling! (2) I don't know why Will Smith didn't come up in discussions for best-dressed male in the post-Oscar fashion reviews. His tux was exceedingly well-tailored. He looked plenty sharp to me. (3) I greatly enjoyed Hugh Jackman's big production number, with top hat and tails . . . I'm just glad he didn't include a snippet of "Puttin' On The Ritz." If he had, I would have snorted my hot cocoa out my nose. [Remember Young Frankenstein? 'Nuff said.--Ed.]

"P" is for "penny," as in the new series of Lincoln cents, to be released throughout this year to honor the bicentennial anniversary of Lincoln's birth. I hope the US Mint doesn't get rid of the penny. As a purely practical matter, I know they are more of a pain to deal with than they are worth, but I like them, and I think I'm not alone in that. Besides, when I lived in Germany, none of the US facilities used pennies--they were too expensive to ship overseas and back--everything was rounded to the nearest nickel. It probably came out about even in the end, but most of the Americans I knew over there could not escape a vague suspicion that we all were being ripped off.

"Q" is for "quarters," as in this year's release of 6 quarters to recognize US Territories and other unique geo-political entities, such as Washington, D.C. It's a supplement to the 10-year program (that ended in 2008) of quarters honoring each of the 50 states. I just wish there were a way to display the new ones with the first 50. I have yet to see a display rack, frame, or folder for the 50-state series that provided spaces for the extra six 2009 mintings. Bummer!

"R" is for "reality," as in "soap operas need a real reality check sometimes." The way soaps present legal proceedings is beyond ludicrous. Hearsay and irrelevant testimony are routinely allowed, rules of evidence are ignored, rulings are arbitrary and capricious, and legitimate legal points are stricken--I suppose all for the sake of dramatic impact. But I worry about the wrong impressions of the legal system that they present to the general public. When will soap writers learn from shows like Law and Order that you can be just as dramatic while being mostly accurate?

And the soaps' presentation of medical procedures and their aftermaths is just as bad. On one soap [which shall remain nameless because I do like to watch it nonetheless--Ed.], a character who's been in a coma for three months and who needed--and got--a heart transplant during her coma has now awoken, was released from the hospital less than a week after the surgery, is not wearing a face mask or taking any other normal steps to avoid post-transplant infections, and is walking around normally even though her character's entire chest had to be cut open to do the transplant. I know we must suspend our disbelief, and I do like watching certain soaps [they are, after all, the modern incarnation of a Dickens serial novel--Ed.], but how hard can it be to pay a modicum of attention to reality when dramatizing real medical procedures? Especially when the same soaps are overtly supporting Women's Heart Health Month--even if most of the support consists of including Campbell's products by name in the dialog?

"S" is for "satellites" and "submarines," as in "Oops! We collided nuclear ones!" Talk about taking atom-smashing to a whole new level!

"T" is for "tax credits," as in will they really work as economic stimulus? Doubtful. What about all the people who do not qualify for them but who nevertheless are teetering on the brink of financial ruin? What if you qualify for enough of them so that you should get a refund, but since the rules tend to say you cannot reduce your taxes owed below "0.00," you get nothing back? And will the reduction in payroll withholding that's going to give the average person $8.00 a week more per pay period make a real difference in how people spend?

"U" is for "Upton," as in Upton Sinclair. His muckraking masterwork, The Jungle, is as relevant to food safety issues today as it was about a century ago when he gruesomely detailed abuses in the meat-packing industry. The Jungle helped spur creation of the FDA. Maybe the salmonella deaths engendered by the deliberate behavior of executives at the Peanut Corporation of America will encourage strengthening or even reorganizing and streamlining, thus improving, enforcement of food safety laws and regulations we already have. One can only hope.

"V" is for "violets," as in the delicate purple flowers of spring. I love their scent. Spring IS coming, despite local forecasts for snow later this week. Bring on the warmer weather! [I just wish we could skip summer altogether. It's too hot and humid for me.--Ed.]

"W" is for "what," as in "What's wrong with this picture?" A recent local TV news item reported that a man accused of two crimes got bail set at a total of $100,000 . . . thus even with a bail bondsman's services, the accused would have to pony up $10,000 to get out of jail. But the breakdown of the bail by crime is what distresses me. For the charge of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl, bail was set at $25,000. For stealing a painting, bail was set at $75,000. Tain't right, Magee. To suggest that a girl is worth only 1/3 of what a piece of property is worth is beyond offensive. Why aren't the pro-life activists protesting THAT?

"X" is for "X-rated," as in my reaction to the reasons given on NPR yesterday by South Carolina's Republican governor for his reluctance to take any of the federal economic stimulus money allocated to his state. For one thing, he out-and-out lied about facts. He claimed that we've already spent too much on stimulus that didn't work, conveniently forgetting that the first $700 billion--for the banks--was pressed and passed by the Dubya administration with no strings attached. Considering that the banks are what got us into this mess, the lack of strings is the problem, not the stimulus. Second, he claimed that the billions requested by GM didn't work because GM came back "a week" later asking for more . . . forgetting that (1) GM received only part of the total initial allocation and was required to come back to show its plans to justify receiving more, and (2) that the total allocation itself was far lower than what economists of all political stripes estimated GM would need to survive.

For another thing, by refusing the stimulus funds, he's hurting the people of his own state. Playing politics should NEVER come before doing the public good. At least Florida Gov. Crist (also a Republican) understands that. He campaigned for John McCain last year, but recognizing the economic meltdown's disastrous consequences for his constituents, he's welcoming the stimulus money and correctly proclaiming that some things are bigger than politics. For which he's being excoriated by yet another member of the Bush family, who called Crist a "D-light," as in "Democrat, lite." Boy, irrelevant insults just totally out-argue the facts, don't they--NOT!

"Y" is for "yammering," as what the talking heads of all political stripes are doing to excess. The current and omnipresent 24/7 news cycle requires all these people to talk about something, but hashing and rehashing and rerehashing a few facts and filling the rest of the time with endless speculation is not productive. I for one am tired of hearing 2 minutes of news and 28 minutes of speculating about what the news during the next broadcast will be. SHADDUP, already, all of you! By limiting yourselves to reporting news when there is news, you could actually report additional facts about stories on other topics--topics that now are being largely ignored--and give your audience both broader and more in-depth coverage instead of the continual yelping and endless speculating about a few narrow topics that you do now.

"Z" is for "Zambrano, Carlos," as in the Chicago Cubs' number one pitcher. Spring training has started, and Opening Day is now only a few short weeks away! Hooray, baseball! Hooray, spring! Hooray for the eternal promise of "next year is here!"

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.