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!

At The Nexus Of Science And Religion

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

I confess to being one of those people who sees no real conflict between the concepts of science and of religion. For me, science is designed to answer the question "How?" and religion, the question "Why?"

There may seem to be overlap, but that's only because people are all-too often imprecise in how they use language. Science can tell us the Universe began in the Big Bang--but it cannot tell us why the Big Bang happened beyond a physical description of the conditions, which equals "how." Only religion can answer the larger philosophical question of Who prompted that "how" in the first place.

I was paying not enough attention to a program on the Science Channel HD this afternoon when I heard a cosmologist express an idea that was one of the most creative and yet simple observations I've heard in years. I regret that I wasn't paying closer attention. I have no idea what his name is or at what university he works--but I think his idea is well worth exploring. He himself admitted he may be wrong, but as he also rightly noted, this is how science and knowledge advance. People observe things; they formulate theories (in the scientific sense); they then test the theories by making more observations which will confirm, modify, or obliterate those theories. They then make further observations to test the "new" theories.

[Note that Darwin's "theory" of evolution is a "theory" only in that scientific sense; so far, no evidence has been repeatedly observed which contradicts it; at most, additional observations have caused minor modifications to the "theory's" details. Only the ignorant still deny that Darwin's general "theory" is correct.--Ed.]

Anyway, this cosmologist's idea came from his observation that, based on what we now know, the Universe cannot be as big as it is when considering how old it is. For when we "run the cosmic clock backwards," certain parts of the Universe that must at some point have been in mutual physical contact have not had enough time to come back together. He called this "the horizon problem."

So in a flash of insight, he postulated that at some point in the past, the speed of light must have been faster than it is now. He calls this "VSL," or "varying speed of light." Other scientists have called is idea the "very silly speed of light." If he is correct, however, we must retool Einstein's general theory of relativity . . . and I can no longer display my bumper sticker that says "186,000 miles per second. It's not just a good idea. It's the law."

But it makes sense to me, based on yet another fundamental law of science (and one against which I've been fighting most of my life): the second law of thermodynamics, which says in its most concise form that "entropy increases."

We all know that things change over time--hot things cool off, orbits decay (anyone remember SkyLab and Mir?), wind-up toys slow down. Entropy increases. Things get messier, often seemingly of their own accord. But the changes are due partly to loss of energy sources, partly due to the action of friction, and partly due to the effects of gravity. We all know gravity bends light waves. That's one of the major predictions of Einstein's theory which has been proved only recently. Only recently did we get the technological sophistication to make the measurements/observations in a way that can be confirmed independently. Remember, the sine qua non of the scientific method is independent corroboration, by observation or by duplicating experimental results. That's the main reason that those who claimed to have produced "cold fusion" failed. No one could repeat their results when performing their same experiments under rigorous, scientifically-controlled conditions.

The other thing I like about this cosmologist's idea is that it embodies Occam's Razor: when you have more then one possible explanation for something, the simplest one normally is correct.

He may well be proven wrong someday. Still, it doesn't matter to him or to me. What matters is that his idea will engender further scientific inquiry. With additional facts come additional knowledge, and that is never bad . . . despite what many claim happened in the Garden of Eden.

Rachel Maddow Missed The Point

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

On her eponymous MSNBC show last night, Rachel Maddow called President-elect Barack Obama's choice of fundamentalist pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration a "lose-lose" proposition. Warren used his California church to campaign vigorously in favor of Proposition 8, which revoked the legality of same-sex marriage in that state; he has equated same-sex relationships with pedophilia and incest.

Obama, for his part, has a strong record promoting equal rights for gays, but himself is opposed to same-sex "marriage."

Warren and Obama do seem to agree on certain other issues, such as the need for caring human stewards to protect the environment and to look after the less fortunate and homeless among us.

Maddow thinks Obama's choice is a "lose-lose" proposition because it has offended a great number of Obama's erstwhile supporters yet will not gain Obama any measurable support among fundamentalist Christians.

Maddow missed the point. Obama himself acknowledged that he and Warren disagree vehemently on many issues, but that doesn't mean they must be disagreeable about doing so. In this regard, Obama is implementing two of his most important stands during the campaign: (1) it's never wrong to have dialog with those with whom you disagree; and (2) it's important to "reach across the aisle" and to take actions proving that he's the president of all Americans, not just those who voted for him.

Furthermore, Obama is accomplishing two other goals that Maddow [and all the other talking heads I've heard complaining about this decision so far--Ed.] has forgotten: (1) "Hold your friends close, but hold your enemies closer." (2) He's not so beholden to anyone or any group for his election that he's going to adopt 100% of any group's agenda just because that group voted for him.

This man is incredibly secure in his own skin. I already know I'm not going to agree with him about everything--indeed, we've already disagreed on at least one issue of great importance to me [he voted for giving immunity to the telecoms who illegally eavesdropped on US citizens because enacting other provisions in the legislation mattered more to him than opposing telecom immunity did--Ed.]. Still, I have great respect for his sense of his internal integrity and his confidence in his own judgments. He thinks through his decisions before he makes them. He knows it's impossible to please all of the people all of the time. He's the embodiment of Harry Truman's Oval Office desk sign: The Buck Stops Here.

So while I find Rick Warren's stand on same-sex marriage odious, I am not as upset about Obama's choosing him to give the inaugural invocation as are Maddow and the other talking heads with public pulpits [yes, a lot of conservatives are not happy about it, either--they disagree with Warren's stand on environmental issues or they think Obama is trying to co-opt their cause--Ed.]. Unlike them, I get the point.

What Will We Call The Past Eight Years?

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Arianna Huffington says we should call the past eight years the "How Could We Know?" era--because it's the excuse everyone from those who were supposed to be regulating Wall Street Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff to Dubya himself cited in denying responsibility for the atrocities (fiscal and otherwise) inflicted during their watch.

She makes an excellent argument. In today's Huffington Post, every case she cites (from Iraq to Fannie Mae to Citibank to Madoff) reveals the identical pattern. Those responsible create a plan; they then diminish, dispute, and destroy anyone (in a position to know) who questions said plan; they then carry out said plan with no regard for reality nor any transparency or accountability; they then look askance and say "how could we know?" when it all falls apart . . . as it inevitably does. The ambiguities deliberately created by the planners themselves become the planners' refuge from their responsibilities for making and carrying out those plans in the first place.

She's correct. But after watching clips of two interviews, one with Dubya and one with Darth Cheney, both of which aired Monday night, I have another nominee: let's call it the "So?" or "So What?" era.

For the very first time, as far as I can tell, the president acknowledged that Al Qaida was not a presence in Iraq until AFTER we invaded. He was oblivious to the consequences of his admission, however. He didn't seem to grasp that Al Qaida wouldn't have gone into Iraq at all if we had not already have been there. Dubya was indifferent to the fact that the US invasion caused the problem in the first place. His understanding was limited to the idea that "we" are fighting the "war on terror" where Al Qaida "chose to fight." It is irrelevant to him that Al Qaida made that choice solely in response to what it saw as US provocation. His exact words to the interviewer were "So what?"

Cheney's response to a similar question which focused on the terrible loss of American lives was ever shorter: "So?"

This is beyond appalling. Its callousness and willful disregard for the sacrifices ordinary Americans have been forced to make are almost incomprehensible to me.

I am willing in Dubya's case to chalk it up to his willful indifference to learning anything or even acknowledging anything that contradicts his pre-conceived world view. But Cheney? He simply doesn't care, so long as Halliburton gets its millions and billions of profits at OUR expense. In response to a question I have long and often raised in this blog is this: being stupid is bad, but being evil is worse.

What worries me the most, however, is that President-elect Obama doesn't think that bringing the malefactors to justice should be one of his highest priorities. He seems to be leaning to the Gerald Ford approach: in pardoning Richard Nixon before any charges were officially brought against him, Ford said "Our long national nightmare is over." I hope I am wrong about that. Not only is justice delayed "justice denied." Justice denied sets extremely dangerous precedents for the future--indeed, they mean the end of our entire system of checks and balances.

Consider this: the most frightening thing about Richard Nixon's take on executive power, as is so ably exploited in commercials currently airing for the film Frost/Nixon, is his assertion that "when the President does it, it's not illegal."

That statement is so wrong on its face that I scarcely know where to begin pointing out its flaws. First, it says the president is above everything, even the US Constitution. Second, and as a direct result, it says there's no such thing as a "government of laws and not of men." Third, it says that the president never can be held accountable for anything done under his ægis. Fourth, it's just as stupid a doctrine when someone more liberal is in power as it is when someone more conservative is in power. It's equal-opportunity absolute monarchy masquerading as representative democracy.

It's just flat-out wrong. It's the essence of un-American. And it makes me want to puke. America deserves so much better!

Step Right Up! The Long Knives Are Out!

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Let the sacrifice begin. What's left of the American economy is about to be slaughtered on the altar of Republican ideology. Last night, enough Republicans in the US Senate voted against the already-shrunken Big Three auto bridge loans to scuttle them. Why? Union-busting, plain and simple. GOP senators, mostly the ones from Southern states filled with foreign auto non-union manufacturing plants, insisted the United Auto Workers accept wage cuts before the end of 2009 that the union was willing to accept by 2011 (the end of its current contracts). Wage cuts that amounted to only a few dollars an hour according to the figures I saw on the news last night--and after the UAW had already conceded more on other issues, such as health care and pensions.

Oh, the GOP senators had lots of "justifications" for their actions. Some claimed the bridge loans were just too expensive. Like giving $15 billion IN LOANS to American auto makers--with a whole slew of conditions--is going to break the budget after giving $700 billion to the banks with no strings attached . . . even when the banks still aren't using the money to loosen up the economy.

[Which leads me to an another observation: all the news reports I heard this morning said the upside of the present situation is that it's a very, very good time to buy a car. I say "Sure it is. IF you can get the credit to do so." And that's the rub, isn't it? We're back to the banks hoarding--or spending on their CEOs and their perks--the money the government shoveled at them supposedly to help us. All the banks are interested in doing is helping themselves. When are we collectively going to realize that the only thing that trickles down when you employ "trickle-down" economics is pee?--Ed.]

Some of the GOP senators claimed the Big Three had no one to blame but themselves. They got themselves into their present mess; the US Senate had nothing to do with it; let the Big Three get themselves out, or go under. I say: if that is such a sound bit of reasoning, why didn't they apply it to the $700 billion banking giveaway?

Some things are just too big for political ideology. The Senate GOP members who voted against the already-severely-reduced-bridge-loans bill are going to find they've won only a Pyrrhic victory if something isn't done to salvage even part of this mess. The fallout from their irresponsibility is going to hit their states' people just as hard as it hits everyone else in the USA once the ripple effects of failing to prop up the Big Three swamp the 2.5 million US workers in related industries . . . and then the rest of us whose livelihoods are connected to theirs.

It will make The Great Depression look like a cake walk. I just hope that enough of the country can hang on until President-elect Obama is inaugurated and effective measures will be taken. Heaven knows Dubya won't do anything. Keith Olbermann asked in all seriousness last night on MSNBC's Countdown With Keith Olbermann whether anyone besides him has wondered if Dubya's whole purpose in getting elected was to screw up the government as much as possible. Heck! I've been saying that for years. GOP right-wing ideologues are so determined to go back to the Gilded Age, when there was no income tax, the federal government was small, and they held all the money and all the power, that they are willing to run the whole country into the ground to get what they think they want. If they succeed, they are going to find themselves presiding only over the ashes of what once was America.

Keep Mike Duncan As GOP National Committee Chairman!

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

This is my week for writing about NPR's Morning Edition, isn't it? In an interview this morning with Steve Inskeep, Mr. Duncan explained why he wants to keep his job as the chairman of the Republican National Committee, and explained steps he and the committee are taking to make sure the GOP "stays" relevant and viable on the national political stage.

The body of the interview consisted of Inskeep reading comments posted by Republicans at the GOP National Committee's "Republican for a Reason" web site and letting Duncan address them. Duncan repeatedly asserted that the GOP is a "big tent" party that welcomes all people with varying beliefs (religious and otherwise) and best reflects the timeless values of the American people.

But he rejected the substance of every comment Inskeep read. When Inskeep asked him whether the GOP is out-of-touch because people who are worried about their jobs and health care are not too worried about tax cuts, Duncan's only answer was that the GOP needed to do a better job of communicating its ideas.

Duncan's answer to a GOP member who expressed the desire that the GOP distance itself at least a bit from the religious right was to say that the GOP attracts people of all views due to its timeless values.

Duncan also trotted out the canard that all the Democrats want to do is irresponsible--because they want to "spend us out of recession." First, that simply isn't what the Democrats want. What the Democrats [and an awful lot of Republicans, if the presidential election returns are any indication . . . which they are--Ed.] want is a return to fiscal sanity. The Republicans during their past 8 years of being in power have spent us into such a deep hole we may never get out--while cutting taxes for the richest Americans at just as dizzying a pace. The facts show who's been irresponsible, and about what.

Duncan, however, remains clueless. In another part of the interview, he claims the GOP had in insurmountable lead in the presidential election until the economy went south. He goes on to claim that the electorate was voting to punish the GOP because of the perception that the GOP had been in charge for the past 8 years. First, it was no "perception." The GOP was in power during the past 8 years, and GOP fiscal policies, no matter how much they try to spin the facts otherwise, are the direct cause of our present economic woes. Second, even before the economy tanked, Obama was gaining steady ground on McCain, and had already put several states that used to be GOP strongholds into play. All the economic meltdown did was help a lot of people make up their minds about how to vote sooner than they might have decided otherwise.

Duncan also claimed that this "spending [our way] out of recession" has been rejected by every president since Jack Kennedy. For the sake of argument, even assuming that statement is true, look how carefully Duncan cherry-picked his administrations. Kennedy presided over the beginnings of a large economic expansion (the "Go-Go Sixties"); Johnson was the last president till Clinton to submit balanced budgets to Congress. Nixon's carrying on the Vietnam War 5 years longer than he needed to produced record (at the time) deficits, forcing Ford and Carter to deal with inflation and stagflation. Reagan started the modern trend of massively transferring wealth to the already wealthy at the expense of the middle class--but since he was such a nice grandfatherly figure to so many, it was OK by them. Bush Senior said "read my lips--no new taxes" and then had to pay for Reagan's excesses by raising taxes . . . thus cutting off his re-election chances. Clinton worked hard to improve the country's fiscal status, and it was working, too, until Dubya used Florida to steal the election in 2000 and wipe out all the gains Clinton had made.

If Duncan had intellectual honesty, he'd have made his list of presidents longer . . . but that would have forced him to admit that FDR DID, indeed, spend us out of the Great Depression, thus torpedoing Duncan's entire argument. As economist and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich has cogently noted more than once, "government is the spender of last resort." When the banks won't lend, businesses and consumers can't spend, and until spending goes up, the economy won't grow--so the government then becomes responsible for restoring economic health to the nation.

And President-elect Obama's plans to improve our infrastructure as a massive part of that spending will give us back more than ten times their costs in the benefits they'll confer on the entire country.

So I say leave Duncan in his post. As long as he's just mouthing the same tired old canards for which the GOP is known, and of which everyone is presently sick, Obama's plans will have more chance for success than they would otherwise. The vitality of the US depends on it.

A Bold Fresh Piece Of @#$#$)&#

Shocked! I am shocked, I say! Yesterday, in an interview with Renee Montaigne on NPR's Morning Edition, Fox News blowhard Bill O'Reilly actually said something with which I agree 100%. He called himself a "bloviator." Amen! He's the biggest spewer of hot air I've ever heard. Of course, he didn't meant it about himself that way, but then again, he's not exactly the pointiest stick in the pile, is he?

He also kept his streak of saying the most incredibly stupid, jaw-dropping things alive by claiming to be the child of a working class family. He supports this by noting (1) that he grew up in Levittown, New York; and (2) that when his family took their vacations, they travelled by bus. "I never took a plane ride until I was 17," he boasted.

Alas for him, his evidence absolutely contradicts his claims. First, anyone who knows anything about 20th century US history knows that Levittown was the first modern subdivision in the USA. Yes, the houses were on the small side by contemporary standards, but by the standards of the World War II generation, they were a massive step up from living in apartments in the city. Second, just because Levittown has become a working class neighborhood does not at all mean it started that way. O'Reilly noted in the interview that his father had a college degree. That alone takes him out of the "working class," as far as I'm concerned.

Now if his father had been a fisherman, living and working at the docks on Long Island, then I'd have cut O'Reilly some slack. Working on a fishing boat is a classic blue collar, working class job. But living the life of O'Reilly's childhood [pun intended--Ed.] most assuredly was and is not a blue collar life. Not on Long Island, which is (except for the docks) where the prosperous live.

Besides, "vacations"?!? I don't care that his family rode the bus. That his family got a vacation every year at all means his family was not working class. Puh-lease! My dad was a career NCO in the Air Force, and my mother was a career civil servant, who had to change jobs every time Dad got reassigned. Neither one of them had a college education, though they both worked towards it in their later years. The only "vacations" we ever got were when we travelled from one end of the US to the other to visit all the relatives on both sides of the family every time my dad's Air Force career required us to move. We had about a week to accomplish it each time, too. So it's not like we got to stop and see the Grand Canyon or anything. It was 10-12 hours a day in the car, stopping to sleep at what even I, at grade-school age, could see was a cheap motel [it was all we could afford, you know--Ed.], and then driving on for another 10-12 hours the next day. That isn't exactly a "vacation," now, is it?

O'Reilly even claims he knows why the Dubya Administration went so horribly wrong [this after spending the past eight years loudly defending it against all reason--Ed.]: it suffered from "Rich Guy Syndrome," which O'Reilly defines as the notion that somehow everything will always work out, because, due to Daddy's money, it always has. I do not quarrel with O'Reilly's definition of "Rich Guy Syndrome." Indeed, I tend to agree with it. But my mother puts it best and more colorfully: "He started the game on third base and thinks he hit a home run." But it's not as if Dubya didn't get his money until last week--so why hasn't O'Reilly bothered to say this before now?

Still, I shouldn't be surprised that Bill O'Reilly doesn't want to hear the facts--he's already made up his mind. He likes his version of reality better than the actual facts. So he's just doing what all the other people of his political ilk do. He thinks he's a "bold fresh piece of humanity," but he's really just full of bold fresh crap.

Fresh-Squeezed Juice

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Orenthal James Simpson was convicted of kidnapping and other crimes in relation to his attempts to "retrieve" memorabilia from some dealers in Las Vegas--items he says belonged to him and were stolen. He's going to serve up to 33 years in prison, though at his present age of 61, I doubt he'll be incarcerated that long.

He seemed somewhat bewildered and expressed tearful sorrow to the judge at his sentencing hearing, according to the clips I saw on TV yesterday. The judge was not impressed. Neither, for that matter, was I. For the source of his bewilderment was that he was being convicted at all. The judge explained it in copious and coherent detail, again according to the clips I saw. I was especially impressed by her forthright statement that this conviction had nothing to do with the fact that he was not convicted of the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman back in 1991 . . . though to an awful lot of us, he should have been.

What struck me about Simpson's confusion was the irony of it. I saw the same reaction among males when they first learned of the murder charges against "the Juice." The consensus was "he wouldn't do that! He's a Heisman Trophy winner!"

Like that had anything to do with it.

When are people going to learn that sports prowess does NOT equal moral decency? I regret to predict that most males are not going to master this learning curve any time soon, given the universality of their confusion resulting from a Heisman winner's being charged with, let alone be tried for, murder. For whatever it's worth, most of these same males had the same reaction to the entire Pete Rose gambling on baseball mess.

The real moral of the story is that none of us should make the mistake of thinking that our heroes, athletes or otherwise, are perfect.

For whatever it's worth, I actually felt a pang of sorrow for OJ. His confusion was genuine. Still, my pang didn't last long. My ultimate hope is that his time in prison will let him reflect on all the things he's done wrong in his life--he is, as the facts plainly show, a physical abuser, and thus carries all the erroneous thinking and emotional baggage that goes with that--and maybe he'll finally be able to confront honestly the beast in his mirror.

Either that, or he can resume his hunt for "the real killer." After all, people who murder others at random are more likely to have committed other crimes, too. Simpson is much more likely to find "the real killer" in prison than he ever was on the golf course.

Pardon--Your Myopia Is Still Showing

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Joe Scarborough of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show today asserted that President George W. Bush would be evaluated better by historians than he is being evaluated today by his fellows. In support, he cited recent events in Iraq, starting with Dubya's putting General Petreaus in charge.

Things have settled down a bit in Iraq of late, true. But Scarborough's myopia is showing: we wouldn't be in a position to have to laud recent improvements had we not invaded in the first place! C'mon, Joe! Get a grip, get real, and get a clue--better yet, take two: they're small.

Extracting us (even a bit) from a mess he put us into in the first place is no great feat warranting the vindication of history. It's just an acknowledgement that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Correctly Defining The Problem Is The Key To Finding The Real Solution

A report on NPR's "Morning Edition" Monday began a series exploring the explosion in federal government contracting since Ronald Reagan infamously said "Government isn't the solution. Government is the problem." Contracting out government services has increased every year since that 1981 pronouncement, and has certifiably exploded during the Dubya administration. Did you know that there actually are more contractors in Iraq right now than there are US military personnel?

But Reagan mis-defined the problem, and we are now suffering the long-term effects of his error. The reason he mis-defined the problem is that he forgot (if he ever knew) to whom employees, be they federal or be they contractors', are required to answer for their work.

Contractors are answerable to their company's owners, and their first duty is to maximize profit for their owners. Federal employees, on the other hand, are answerable to ALL of us, and their obligation is to do their jobs to the best of their ability for the good of the people of this country.

This is why contracting out government services is a bad idea. Those whose first duty is to make a profit do not care whether they make it by gouging the public. [Indeed, they are the real pigs at the public trough.--Ed.] Case in point: the IRS has been forced to contract out collection services. People who owe back taxes are being harassed by collection agencies--who have a strong motive to make people pay because they get to keep 25% of everything they collect. As the second report in the NPR series (this morning) noted, however, the contractors are hassling even people who do not owe back taxes--nor are those contractors required to tell people why they are calling--resorting in terrible abuses, as demonstrated starkly by the recordings played of several phone calls between a contractor and an individual allegedly owing the IRS money. Furthermore, and inexcusably in my book, the contractors do not have as much success in collecting as do regular IRS employees!

But the money the collection agencies keep doesn't come out of the IRS budget [remember, it comes directly from what they collect--Ed.], so the IRS can cut the part of its budget that used to pay for its own collectors. Everyone can claim that efficiency has been increased and costs reduced, thus trimming "fat" from the budget and giving people the illusion that waste has been eliminated. In fact, we have lesser quality service at greater expense--for if IRS employees made the collections, 100% of what they collected would go into the public coffers.

If all the contractors were required by the terms of their contracts to comply with the same laws and regulations that IRS employees must obey, I'd be less upset with the situation. But all the contracts are set up to benefit the contractors, ultimately at our expense, whether it be monetary or otherwise. This situation repeats itself in nearly every contracted-out situation of which I've heard.

Consider: virtually all of the contracts awarded in connection with the war in Iraq were awarded without competitive bidding. We've seen the terrible results of that in terms of the shoddy work that was done, let alone the work that was supposed to be done that was not. All of it was paid for with your money at exorbitant rates that far exceeded the value given for the price paid. And we collectively have no recourse to get the money back. The entire contracting situation has been set up in fact to legalize looting the public coffers--so where does that save us anything?

Another case in point: as reported widely (I've seen it on several news shows and in several newspapers during the past two weeks), companies who have been contracted to handle Medicare claims have managed to increase the complexity of the paperwork involved, increase the costs of processing the paperwork (hence increasing their own profit), and reduce the amount of services provided by measurable factors averaging 10%. So the contractors are making more money, the government is spending more money, and the public who receives the services is getting measurably less than it did before the services were contracted out to private companies.

I for one would rather spend a bit more to ensure the people providing services we demand are dedicated public servants whose goal is to do the best for the country than I would to pay people to line their own pockets at our collective expense. "Frugal" is NOT synonymous with "cheap." Businesses are in business to make money. Public servants are here to serve the public. Taxes ARE the price we pay for civilization. Let us spend our money more wisely so that we can keep on being "a government of laws and not of men." President-elect Obama's pledge to make the federal government run "smarter" seems in line with that goal. As such, it correctly defines the problem and is an excellent first step in undoing the damage that Reaganomics has done to this country over the past 20+ years.