During the 1850's, the white population of the southern United States suffered a collective psychotic break with reality. A faction of northern white men, known by their political sentiments as Copperheads, shared this emotional, intellectual, and psychic collapse. These people, led by racist incendiaries known as Fire Eaters, convinced themselves that a Republican victory at the polls would mean the forced miscegenation of the races. (Never mind that the institution of slavery, with its institutionalized rape of slave property, had already produced a vast population of mulattoes, quadroons, and octoroons throughout the South.)
These psychotics wanted - insisted! - that the North adjust its laws to define slaves as property, the subject of Torts, never Equity, in court. They worked themselves up to a fever pitch of insanity over this issue. These Lords of Creation loudly asserted their victim status as second class citizens. Unless the North secured them in their slave property throughout the Union, northern concepts of equal rights were gross hypocrisy, they insisted. They seduced themselves with the notion that mob violence was simply a collective expression of their First Amendment right to free speech.
Mark Twain ably captured this collective descent into unreality in LIFE ON THE MISSISSIPPI: "... Sir Walter Scott... sets the world in love with dreams and phantoms; with decayed and swinish forms of religion; with decayed and degraded systems of government; with the sillinesses and emptinesses, sham grandeurs, sham gauds, and sham chivalries of a brainless and worthless long-vanished society. He did measureless harm... Most of the world has now outlived a good part of these harms... but in our South they flourish pretty forcefully still... There the genuine and wholesome civilization of the 19th Century is curiously confused and commingled with the Walter Scott Middle-Age sham civilization; and so you have practical, common-sense progressive ideas and progressive works mixed up with the duel, the inflated speech, and the jejune romanticism of an absurd past that is dead, and out of charity ought to be buried."
This jejune romanticism, mixed with racism, idealized mob rule.
In St. Louis, in April 1837, two free black riverboat sailors were stopped by police and asked for their identification papers. They did not have any such papers. A mulatto shipmate, Francis McIntosh, knowing they would be sold into slavery, intervened. The two men escaped, but McIntosh was captured. The two policemen cracked a few jokes about the lynching awaiting their prisoner, inciting McIntosh. He killed one of his captors and badly wounded the other. A white mob joined the sheriff to capture McIntosh. The sheriff took the prisoner to jail. Soon, another white mob showed up at the jail, assaulted the sheriff and liberated his keys. They hauled McIntosh out of his cell, took him outdoors and tied him to a tree at 10th and Chestnut Streets. A pyre was promptly constructed. As the flames lapped higher, McIntosh, his facial features altering in the heat, begged someone to shoot him and end his agony. One man, moved by pity, raised his gun. The mob, enjoying this roasting of human flesh, prevented the mercy killing. McIntosh suffered to the utmost extremity.
A Grand Jury was convened to look into the matter. A judge, appropriately surnamed Lawless, informed the jurors that he considered it his duty to state his opinion that they should not act at all unless they could determine whether the roasting of McIntosh was the act of the few or the act of the many. If the jurors could pin the crime on a small number of individuals separated from the mass, they should indict them all without exception. On the other hand, if the roasting of McIntosh had been the work of "congregated thousands, seized upon and impelled by that mysterious, metaphysical, and almost electric phrenzy... then, I say, act not at all in the matter. The case then transcends your jurisdiction. It is beyond the reach of human law." In other words, mob violence is the highest form of justice, beyond Appeal.
A newspaper publisher, Elijah P. Lovejoy, condemned this barbarism in St. Louis. Soon, the mob showed up and destroyed his printing press. He got a new press, which they promptly destroyed again. And, again. Lovejoy moved across the river to Alton, Illinois, where he continued his anti-slavery crusade. Three more times his press was destroyed. Finally, a mob (including many of the leading citizens of Alton) murdered Lovejoy after burning down his business.
At a memorial service for Lovejoy at Western Reserve College, Laurens P. Hickok succinctly stated the moral predicament for enlightened Northerners: "The crisis has come. The question now before the American citizen is no longer alone, 'Can the slaves be made free?' but, are we free, or are we slaves under Southern mob law?"
In 1853, an ambitious young man named George G. Vest graduated from Transylvania College in Lexington, Kentucky, well read in the Law. With the local bar oversupplied with attorneys, he decided to strike out for California. Along the way, he stopped for awhile in the hemp-growing, slave-owning region of central Missouri. The local judge appointed him to defend a black man accused of murder. He succeeded in getting the man acquitted. A mob formed, seized the black man, and, burned him at the stake. They very nearly applied the torch to young Mr. Vest.
A decade later, Missouri cast its ballots for Stephan A. Douglas in the 1860 election. In a somber mood after the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, a convention gathered to consider an ordinance of secession. Mr. Vest, now a respected member of his central Missouri community, urged secession:
"I stand here today. come weal, come woe, sink or swim, survive or perish, to cast my political fortunes for all time, to give all that I have, and all that I am, to that people which is mine by lineage, by birth, and by institutions - the people of the South. The God who protected our forefathers, will protect the Southern people. We who live on the broad prairies of Missouri, with but few slaves around us, cannot appreciate the dangers that environ the men of the South, their wives and children... The horrors of a servile insurrection; their fear, and their hatred of a party which has elected to power a man who declares that slavery must be confined to the slave States, so that it may, like a scorpion, sting itself to death. How? In the blood and carnage of African lust and African rage."
Mr. Vest had never faced an African mob. After a decade of reflection, he blamed primitive Africans, the victims, for the violence of his own people. Clearly, the man had suffered a psychotic break with reality. And those who voted for secession suffered from the same delusions.
Again today, a significant percentage of the white population of the United States has suffered a collective psychotic break with reality. Led by the fire eaters of right wing talk radio, they nurse ridiculous grievances. Like the privileged slavemasters of the Old South, they argue that they are the victims of racism. Like the mob which formed to roast McIntosh, today's right wing nuts refused to exercise any self-restaint during the Professor Gates fracas. Like George G. Vest, they blame the victims for the evils of institutionalized racism. Like the Copperheads of Lincoln's day, they paint a wild, hate-filled caricature of the President and insist the office was obtained by illegitimate means. Collectively, they have gone berserk.
If the 1860's provide any guide for the rest of us, we should make preparations. Our mentally ill countrymen live in a world of dreams and phantoms, a subjective world they prefer, insulated from facts and reason. We outnumber them 7-3, but they are well-acclimated to violence. They own far more guns. Like the Secessionist rush to seize the arsenals in early 1861, they are hoarding as many guns as possible. Sales have skyrocketed since Obama was elected.
A psychopath can only be restrained by superior power. The raucous town hall meetings of August have filled them with delusions of grandeur. They must be reminded that we outnumber them. We must remain visible. It would be wise to spend some time at the shooting range, in groups, sporting t-shirts and bumper stickers identifying ourselves as supporters of progressive ideas. Hopefully, our visibility will sober them, enabling them to heed rational advice - such advice as Sam Houston gave his fellow Southerners as the storm gathered:
"... let me tell you what is coming. Your fathers and husbands, your sons and brothers, will be herded at the point of the bayonet... You may, after the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, as a bare possibility, win Southern independence... but I doubt it. I tell you that, while I believe in the doctrine of state rights, the North is determined to preserve this Union. They are not a fiery, impulsive people as you are, for they live in colder climates. But when they begin to move in a given direction, they move with the steady momentum and perseverance of a mighty avalanche..."
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Monday, September 7, 2009
Friday, November 7, 2008
Our Moment of Zen
How would you have answered the final question at the Nashville Presidential Debate? Do you remember the question? "What don't you know and how will you learn it?"
Senator Obama seized upon it as a moment to praise his wife. Then, he skillfully weaved around the question. I don't remember how Senator McCain dealt with the question.
That question reminded me of an Ashleigh Brilliant cartoon, which read, "If you wait until you are completely, absolutely, totally ready, you never will be." Though I am certain that Senator Obama could plumb the depths of that question, he chose not to provide the McCain campaign with grist for the mill. It was politically imperative for Senator Obama to parry all vollies casting doubt on his experience.
Yet, it would have been instructive to be reminded of the day William Tecumseh Sherman met President Lincoln shortly after the inauguration in March 1861. Senator John Sherman, of Ohio, introduced his brother by telling the President about William's trip from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Upon secession, Colonel (later, General) Sherman had resigned his position as Commandant of the Louisiana Military Academy and traveled by rail across the South. He had witnessed feverish preparations for war. Sherman tried hard to convey his alarm. Lincoln shrugged it off, remarking, "Well, I reckon we'll find a way to keep house." Sherman left that meeting thoroughly disgusted with the ignorant huckster in the White House.
Yet, we all know that President Lincoln rose to the challenge. The President, himself, could not foresee the immensity of the burden he was doomed to carry. He may not have known his shoulders could bear it. Only by bearing it did he learn he could bear it.
Senator Obama seized upon it as a moment to praise his wife. Then, he skillfully weaved around the question. I don't remember how Senator McCain dealt with the question.
That question reminded me of an Ashleigh Brilliant cartoon, which read, "If you wait until you are completely, absolutely, totally ready, you never will be." Though I am certain that Senator Obama could plumb the depths of that question, he chose not to provide the McCain campaign with grist for the mill. It was politically imperative for Senator Obama to parry all vollies casting doubt on his experience.
Yet, it would have been instructive to be reminded of the day William Tecumseh Sherman met President Lincoln shortly after the inauguration in March 1861. Senator John Sherman, of Ohio, introduced his brother by telling the President about William's trip from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Upon secession, Colonel (later, General) Sherman had resigned his position as Commandant of the Louisiana Military Academy and traveled by rail across the South. He had witnessed feverish preparations for war. Sherman tried hard to convey his alarm. Lincoln shrugged it off, remarking, "Well, I reckon we'll find a way to keep house." Sherman left that meeting thoroughly disgusted with the ignorant huckster in the White House.
Yet, we all know that President Lincoln rose to the challenge. The President, himself, could not foresee the immensity of the burden he was doomed to carry. He may not have known his shoulders could bear it. Only by bearing it did he learn he could bear it.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Immorality, High and Low
The financial crisis is man-made. It exposes the peculiar collective evils of the two major political parties. The foundation lies in the widespread, low-level immorality of the American public. Everyone wants to leverage themselves into the biggest possible home. To achieve this, they sought to rig (subprime) the entire housing market. And they empowered the Democratic party to deliver this rigged, highly combustible market for the American people. How overvalued is the real estate market? Lord only knows!
The immorality of Main Street congeals on Wall Street. There one finds the concentrated, high-level, egregious immorality which provides the accelerant for the IED constructed by the Democrats. There you will find people who quickly realized they could skim billions for themselves out of the rigged market. To cash in, they needed an emasculated regulatory regime. They wanted the Wild West, and the Republican Party gave it to them... complete with a brain-dead cowboy in the White House.
The immorality of Main Street congeals on Wall Street. There one finds the concentrated, high-level, egregious immorality which provides the accelerant for the IED constructed by the Democrats. There you will find people who quickly realized they could skim billions for themselves out of the rigged market. To cash in, they needed an emasculated regulatory regime. They wanted the Wild West, and the Republican Party gave it to them... complete with a brain-dead cowboy in the White House.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
A Crime Far Worse than Murder
Reflecting upon the widespread misery of the Great Depression, precipitated by the rampant greed of speculators, Herbert Hoover concluded that, "There are crimes far worse than murder for which men should be reviled and punished."
This week, the Wall Street pirates are begging to dump their toxic, fetid waste into the taxpayers' collective lap. Some of our Congressmen, echoing our disgust and contempt, are demanding a morale-boosting quid pro quo. Through them, we want to cut the strings of the golden parachutes, quash the bonuses, and bring the salaries down from the stratosphere. Executive compensation is an issue!
And all week we have heard the mealy-mouthed pundits and Wall Street analysts warn us that, if we rein in executive compensation, the big wigs may not participate in the bail out plan.
Well, if they won't participate, we should do as President Hoover suggested. Line them all up on Wall Street and execute them. A few hundred corpses might serve as a salutary example incentiving the rest to play ball.
This week, the Wall Street pirates are begging to dump their toxic, fetid waste into the taxpayers' collective lap. Some of our Congressmen, echoing our disgust and contempt, are demanding a morale-boosting quid pro quo. Through them, we want to cut the strings of the golden parachutes, quash the bonuses, and bring the salaries down from the stratosphere. Executive compensation is an issue!
And all week we have heard the mealy-mouthed pundits and Wall Street analysts warn us that, if we rein in executive compensation, the big wigs may not participate in the bail out plan.
Well, if they won't participate, we should do as President Hoover suggested. Line them all up on Wall Street and execute them. A few hundred corpses might serve as a salutary example incentiving the rest to play ball.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Girlie Men?
I just received an e-mail attachment from a dear friend, a likable fellow (though a bit of a Limbaugh dittohead). Fortunately, he is wed to a charming, warm-hearted, centrist Democrat who rubs the keen edge from his more extreme right wing opinions.
Nonetheless, he just forwarded a scurrilous bit of typical right wing nut job nonsense. Therein, it is urged, the conservatives are the he-men who build things, make them work, and provide for their women. Liberals are girlie men, whose women are blessed (or cursed, perhaps?) with a higher level of testosterone. These girlie men spend most of their time eating camembert, drinking chablis, and aping French fashions. The rest of the time they devote to dreaming up ways to steal from heroic, hard-working conservatives.
This e-mail was entitled HISTORY 101. So, let's test it against historical facts. How about recent history?
The conservative, George W. Bush, used family influence to evade service in Vietnam. He spent the war muttering into his beer that LBJ should nuke the gooks. Meanwhile, the liberal, John Kerry, though opposing the war, volunteered to serve. His family connections were just as well-placed as those of big-mouthed young Bush, yet he served. That other heroic conservative, Richard Cheney, of course, used the college deferment program six times to evade service.
Let's compare the service of Anthony Zinni and Paul Wolfowitz, antagonists during the run-up to the brain-dead invasion of Iraq. Zinni served in Vietnam with the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines. Seriously wounded in battle, with his guts spilling out on a hillside, he vowed to prevent our country from making such a bonehead mistake again. Wolfowitz, like that other hero, Cheney, made use of the college deferment program to evade service. Perhaps, had he experienced Zinni's painful Vietnamese adventure, he might not have urged on the misadventure in Iraq. He might have have gained experience in counter-insurgency, enabling him to appreciate General Shinseki's sober assessment of troop requirements for post-war Iraq. Instead, he made the following asinine statement.
"It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself."
Naturally, it was hard for him to "conceive that it would take more forces." He evaded the experience which would have enabled him to so conceive.
Shall we move on to another comparison? How about the two journalists, William Kristol and James Webb?
Webb, of course, wrote eloquently against Kristol's steady drumbeat for war. Kristol opined that an occupation would require 75,000 troops, costing about $16 billion per year. Webb warned that the entire venture risked the squandering of our primary strategic asset - Mobility - on a static occupation. The cost would be much higher. It has turned out to be 150,000 troops (which is still thin, according to counter-insurgency theory), costing about $12 billion per month.
Kristol took advantage of the college deferment program to study at Harvard. Webb, far more gifted intellectually than Kristol, served with the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, earning the Navy Cross, the Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars, and 2 Purple Hearts. Perhaps, had Kristol gained the sort of experience Webb gained, he might not have made the following utterly dense pre-war remark.
"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America that the Shi'a cannot get along with the Sunni and the Shi'a in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that. Iraq's always been very secular."
Consider the breathtaking scope of this kind determined ignorance. With a casual wave of the hand, Mr. Kristol dismissed 14 centuries of Islamic history. This is willful ignorance. Inspired imbecility.
I can draw more portraits of girlie men if you like. This historical pattern is evident when one compares the World War II biographies of the victims and victimizers of the McCarthy witch hunts. It shows up in the World War I biographies of KKK enrollment during the Twenties. It shows up when one compares the biographies of antebellum Southern moderates with the fire eaters. It shows up during the American Revolution.
The average right wing nut is all mouth, seduced by his own mythomania. In other words, he is a chap whose head is buried so deep up his alimentary canal that he needs a sphincterectomy to pull it out. Without the help of warm-hearted centrist Democrats, Lord knows what contortions they might put themselves through.. and the country!
Nonetheless, he just forwarded a scurrilous bit of typical right wing nut job nonsense. Therein, it is urged, the conservatives are the he-men who build things, make them work, and provide for their women. Liberals are girlie men, whose women are blessed (or cursed, perhaps?) with a higher level of testosterone. These girlie men spend most of their time eating camembert, drinking chablis, and aping French fashions. The rest of the time they devote to dreaming up ways to steal from heroic, hard-working conservatives.
This e-mail was entitled HISTORY 101. So, let's test it against historical facts. How about recent history?
The conservative, George W. Bush, used family influence to evade service in Vietnam. He spent the war muttering into his beer that LBJ should nuke the gooks. Meanwhile, the liberal, John Kerry, though opposing the war, volunteered to serve. His family connections were just as well-placed as those of big-mouthed young Bush, yet he served. That other heroic conservative, Richard Cheney, of course, used the college deferment program six times to evade service.
Let's compare the service of Anthony Zinni and Paul Wolfowitz, antagonists during the run-up to the brain-dead invasion of Iraq. Zinni served in Vietnam with the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines. Seriously wounded in battle, with his guts spilling out on a hillside, he vowed to prevent our country from making such a bonehead mistake again. Wolfowitz, like that other hero, Cheney, made use of the college deferment program to evade service. Perhaps, had he experienced Zinni's painful Vietnamese adventure, he might not have urged on the misadventure in Iraq. He might have have gained experience in counter-insurgency, enabling him to appreciate General Shinseki's sober assessment of troop requirements for post-war Iraq. Instead, he made the following asinine statement.
"It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself."
Naturally, it was hard for him to "conceive that it would take more forces." He evaded the experience which would have enabled him to so conceive.
Shall we move on to another comparison? How about the two journalists, William Kristol and James Webb?
Webb, of course, wrote eloquently against Kristol's steady drumbeat for war. Kristol opined that an occupation would require 75,000 troops, costing about $16 billion per year. Webb warned that the entire venture risked the squandering of our primary strategic asset - Mobility - on a static occupation. The cost would be much higher. It has turned out to be 150,000 troops (which is still thin, according to counter-insurgency theory), costing about $12 billion per month.
Kristol took advantage of the college deferment program to study at Harvard. Webb, far more gifted intellectually than Kristol, served with the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, earning the Navy Cross, the Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars, and 2 Purple Hearts. Perhaps, had Kristol gained the sort of experience Webb gained, he might not have made the following utterly dense pre-war remark.
"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America that the Shi'a cannot get along with the Sunni and the Shi'a in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that. Iraq's always been very secular."
Consider the breathtaking scope of this kind determined ignorance. With a casual wave of the hand, Mr. Kristol dismissed 14 centuries of Islamic history. This is willful ignorance. Inspired imbecility.
I can draw more portraits of girlie men if you like. This historical pattern is evident when one compares the World War II biographies of the victims and victimizers of the McCarthy witch hunts. It shows up in the World War I biographies of KKK enrollment during the Twenties. It shows up when one compares the biographies of antebellum Southern moderates with the fire eaters. It shows up during the American Revolution.
The average right wing nut is all mouth, seduced by his own mythomania. In other words, he is a chap whose head is buried so deep up his alimentary canal that he needs a sphincterectomy to pull it out. Without the help of warm-hearted centrist Democrats, Lord knows what contortions they might put themselves through.. and the country!
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
The Bible and the United Nations
A few years ago, I read the Bible from cover to cover.. something I had not done in the previous half-century. I took 41 pages of notes. Several themes stood out in sharp relief.. issues seldom, if ever, discussed in the mass media echo chamber. For example, throughout the Old Testament there is a vigorous debate over these primitive questions: 1) Is God our special tribal god, or is He a Univeral God?, and 2) Does God eat meat?
The Old Testament, to my astonishment, did not settle these questions. In fact, those who doubted that God was a voracious carnivore, like King David, found themselves at odds with the Temple Elders.. and forced to recant. One cannot help but suspect that the Cohens and the Levites, the priestly castes, worked overtime to preserve their meatpacking monopoly. I also suspect that Jesus' condemnation of the moneychangers at the Temple was a renewal of King David's challenge to animal sacrifice.. a much more determined challenge. Jesus never backed down, not even on the cross.
The condemnation of Nationalism is another major Biblical theme which never pierces the echo chamber. Verse after verse equates Nationalism with polytheism and idolatry.
"All the gods of the nations are idols." (Psalms 96:5)
"I will praise thee, O Lord, among the people: I will sing unto thee among the nations." (Psalms 57:9)
"Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the nations, The Lord reigneth." (Chronicles I 16:31)
"O let the nations be glad and sing for joy: for thou shalt judge the people righteously, and govern the nations upon the earth." (Psalms 67:4)
"The Lord hath a controversy with the nations." (Jeremiah 25:31)
"Put them in fear, O Lord: that the nations may know themselves to be but men." (Pslams 9:20)
"All the nations compassed me about: but in the name of the Lord will I destroy them." (Psalms 118:10)
"Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations." (Psalms 82:8)
"And nation was destroyed of nation, and city of city: for God did vex them all with adversity." (Chronicles II 15:6)
These very verses, so plain in meaning, are often turned upside down by National fetishists to condemn the United Nations.. the very institution which must unite all of God's children.
P.S. The capitol will be at Jerusalem.
"At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it." (Jeremiah 3:17)
The Old Testament, to my astonishment, did not settle these questions. In fact, those who doubted that God was a voracious carnivore, like King David, found themselves at odds with the Temple Elders.. and forced to recant. One cannot help but suspect that the Cohens and the Levites, the priestly castes, worked overtime to preserve their meatpacking monopoly. I also suspect that Jesus' condemnation of the moneychangers at the Temple was a renewal of King David's challenge to animal sacrifice.. a much more determined challenge. Jesus never backed down, not even on the cross.
The condemnation of Nationalism is another major Biblical theme which never pierces the echo chamber. Verse after verse equates Nationalism with polytheism and idolatry.
"All the gods of the nations are idols." (Psalms 96:5)
"I will praise thee, O Lord, among the people: I will sing unto thee among the nations." (Psalms 57:9)
"Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the nations, The Lord reigneth." (Chronicles I 16:31)
"O let the nations be glad and sing for joy: for thou shalt judge the people righteously, and govern the nations upon the earth." (Psalms 67:4)
"The Lord hath a controversy with the nations." (Jeremiah 25:31)
"Put them in fear, O Lord: that the nations may know themselves to be but men." (Pslams 9:20)
"All the nations compassed me about: but in the name of the Lord will I destroy them." (Psalms 118:10)
"Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations." (Psalms 82:8)
"And nation was destroyed of nation, and city of city: for God did vex them all with adversity." (Chronicles II 15:6)
These very verses, so plain in meaning, are often turned upside down by National fetishists to condemn the United Nations.. the very institution which must unite all of God's children.
P.S. The capitol will be at Jerusalem.
"At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it." (Jeremiah 3:17)
Friday, July 4, 2008
The Seven Sisters try to Rope a Dope
I am not unalterably opposed to drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. I am willing to accept the oil gurus' argument that they can drill cleaner and smarter. (Though I must admit that, if I owned beach front property in Florida or California, I would not be such a soft touch for that argument.) Nonetheless, I am skeptical that more drilling will lower the price at the pump. And I bitterly resent how the oil gurus have pulled out the same rope a dope strategy that was used to drive us into the dead end of Iraq. I see another dead end ahead.
Once the oil companies obtain the oil (from land and continental shelf leased from the United States government), it is their property, not the American people's. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to sell that product in the most remunerative market. That oil, on the world commodity market, would be just a drop in the barrel. If we were to succeed in pumping enough to affect the Equilibrium Price of that commodity, oilfields with higher fixed costs, like the Alberta tar sands, will fall out of production. Thus, the price would start rising again.
In other words, the impact on the Equilibrium Price of American petroleum in the global marketplace is subject to such a multitude of offsetting factors as to be negligible. On the world market, the Saudis hold the trump card. Saudi petroleum, still rising to the surface under Artesian pressure, will always be the cheapest. That geologic fact gives them enormous leverage upon the Equilibrium Price of oil. If they want to offset the (hoped for) price impact of American production upon the global market, all they have to do is cut production to the point where the price rises. Drilling our way out of this problem only keeps us in the same humiliating position - with our collective tongues buried deep in the collective Saudi rectum osculating the collective Saudi sphincter.
If we wish to reduce our exposure to external forces operating upon the Equilibrium Price of petroleum, we must insure that every drop of oil produced in America is consumed in America. To do that, we must either nationalize the oilfields; or, place a protective tariff upon foreign oil: or, impose an export fee on American oil shipped overseas. Do you see any other measures we could take to achieve that goal?
Under such a policy, the price of gas at the pump would be determined by the production cost of the American oilfield with the highest fixed costs. That price would still be quite high, if not higher than what we already pay - given our absurd rate of consumption.
Under NAFTA, of course (assuming we, wisely, don't breach the treaty), Canadian and Mexican petroleum greatly augment supply. Though we cannot force the Canadians or the Mexicans to sell their entire supply solely to us, it is in our interest to keep our market open to all producers in North America.
This course of action, naturally, would infuriate the Seven Sisters. After all, their self-interest closely mirrors that of the Saudis. We should remain mindful, always, that the oil companies have a huge stake in keeping us dependent on petroleum. That stake, in fact, is so huge that I strongly suspect them of actively sabotaging alternative technologies.
I am put in mind of the Rock Island Bridge case. In the mid-1850's, the state of Illinois encouraged the establishment of the Bridge Company, intent on spanning the Mississippi. Steamboaters - and the mercantile interests in St. Louis - were enraged. On May 6, 1856, two weeks after the completion of the bridge, a steamboat, the Effie Afton struck one of the piers, spun out of control, caught fire and burned down a section of the bridge. Fortunately, there were no human fatalities. All of the nearby vessels started blowing whistles and ringing bells. The news spread up and down the river like wildfire. The steamboaters were ecstatic.
Jacob S. Hurd, the owner of the Effie Afton sued for damages, $200,000, a huge sum in those days. He and his fellow steamboat operators hoped to raise the legal costs of maintaining bridges so high that the railroads would have to come home to Jesus; go back to the old system of offloading freight on one side of the river, ferrying it across on steamboats, and re-loading onto trains on the opposite shore.
Norman B. Judd, general counsel for the Rock Island Railroad, selected an attorney from Springfield, Abraham Lincoln, to join in the defense. Mr. Lincoln prepared thoroughly. In Federal District Court, Associate Supreme Court Justice John McLean presiding, Mr. Lincoln systematically destroyed Mr. Hurd's case. The steamboat companies failed in their attempt to sabotage east-west communication across the United States. The vast resources of the trans-Mississippi region could now flow cheaply to the most rewarding markets.
Today, the oil companies and utility companies are the steamboat companies. Battery makers, windmill fabricators, etc. are the railroads. Two cases highlight my point. Iowa and many windy midwestern states have given tax breaks encouraging farmers to build windmills. An Iowa farmer, Greg Swecker, whose farm sits on the highest point in the state, took the people at their word, and invested $45,000 in a windmill. Soon, the windmill was producing a huge surplus of power. He wanted to sell that surplus onto the grid of his local utility, the Midland Power Co-operative. The utility balked worried, no doubt, that other farmers would make the same investment. Would they be cutting checks rather than cashing them? So, they fought like hell. Eventually, the utility lost - but consider how far that fight set back investment in windpower. Consider how such de-centralization of power production would benefit rural incomes. But the utilities want to keep us on our knees, cutting checks.
The second case is best illuminated by watching the entertaining documentary Who Killed the Electric Car, telling the tragic story of the EV 1. I strongly urge every American to watch the film, then go online and expose themselves to the passionate debate. In 2002, the Bush Administration joined the suit of auto dealers, General Motors, and the oil companies, forcing the California Air Resources Board to back down from its Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate. That decision set back the development of the electric car by a decade. (I wonder whether that was one of the little decisions taken by Dick Cheney's energy task force?)
Management and Labor at General Motors celebrated that decision. No doubt, they sought to protect their Parts Division. Despite the beckoning of a world market, they refused to cross that bridge. They refused to re-tool. And now, they're in dire straits.
Stop, for a moment, to consider the impact of windmills and the EV1 would have made upon the Equilibrium Price of petroleum in the last decade. Imagine modern windmills driving turbines on every farm and ranch across the Great Plains. Imagine every farmer and rancher, not only energy self-sufficient, but producing a surplus. And none of that happened because the utilities want to hang onto centralized collection and distribution of power.
Imagine the full impact of the EV1. How many millions of commuters would have been perfectly satisfied with the 65 mile range between charges. Not a bad trade-off to free oneself of the pump! Imagine the impact upon the Equilibrium Price of petroleum of those millions commuter vehicles bypassing the pump day after day, week after week, month after month. It would have freed up billions of gallons for all the Hummers to waste. But, no! We fell for the childish notion that "real men burn fossil fuels!"
We are our own worst enemies. And now, abject slaves to our oil addiction, turning our backs on our astonishing history of innovating our way out of problems, we are willing and eager to despoil our coastlines in our frantic search for a non-renewable resource. And all under the dreamy delusion that the price at the pump will drop. Rubbish!
Once the oil companies obtain the oil (from land and continental shelf leased from the United States government), it is their property, not the American people's. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to sell that product in the most remunerative market. That oil, on the world commodity market, would be just a drop in the barrel. If we were to succeed in pumping enough to affect the Equilibrium Price of that commodity, oilfields with higher fixed costs, like the Alberta tar sands, will fall out of production. Thus, the price would start rising again.
In other words, the impact on the Equilibrium Price of American petroleum in the global marketplace is subject to such a multitude of offsetting factors as to be negligible. On the world market, the Saudis hold the trump card. Saudi petroleum, still rising to the surface under Artesian pressure, will always be the cheapest. That geologic fact gives them enormous leverage upon the Equilibrium Price of oil. If they want to offset the (hoped for) price impact of American production upon the global market, all they have to do is cut production to the point where the price rises. Drilling our way out of this problem only keeps us in the same humiliating position - with our collective tongues buried deep in the collective Saudi rectum osculating the collective Saudi sphincter.
If we wish to reduce our exposure to external forces operating upon the Equilibrium Price of petroleum, we must insure that every drop of oil produced in America is consumed in America. To do that, we must either nationalize the oilfields; or, place a protective tariff upon foreign oil: or, impose an export fee on American oil shipped overseas. Do you see any other measures we could take to achieve that goal?
Under such a policy, the price of gas at the pump would be determined by the production cost of the American oilfield with the highest fixed costs. That price would still be quite high, if not higher than what we already pay - given our absurd rate of consumption.
Under NAFTA, of course (assuming we, wisely, don't breach the treaty), Canadian and Mexican petroleum greatly augment supply. Though we cannot force the Canadians or the Mexicans to sell their entire supply solely to us, it is in our interest to keep our market open to all producers in North America.
This course of action, naturally, would infuriate the Seven Sisters. After all, their self-interest closely mirrors that of the Saudis. We should remain mindful, always, that the oil companies have a huge stake in keeping us dependent on petroleum. That stake, in fact, is so huge that I strongly suspect them of actively sabotaging alternative technologies.
I am put in mind of the Rock Island Bridge case. In the mid-1850's, the state of Illinois encouraged the establishment of the Bridge Company, intent on spanning the Mississippi. Steamboaters - and the mercantile interests in St. Louis - were enraged. On May 6, 1856, two weeks after the completion of the bridge, a steamboat, the Effie Afton struck one of the piers, spun out of control, caught fire and burned down a section of the bridge. Fortunately, there were no human fatalities. All of the nearby vessels started blowing whistles and ringing bells. The news spread up and down the river like wildfire. The steamboaters were ecstatic.
Jacob S. Hurd, the owner of the Effie Afton sued for damages, $200,000, a huge sum in those days. He and his fellow steamboat operators hoped to raise the legal costs of maintaining bridges so high that the railroads would have to come home to Jesus; go back to the old system of offloading freight on one side of the river, ferrying it across on steamboats, and re-loading onto trains on the opposite shore.
Norman B. Judd, general counsel for the Rock Island Railroad, selected an attorney from Springfield, Abraham Lincoln, to join in the defense. Mr. Lincoln prepared thoroughly. In Federal District Court, Associate Supreme Court Justice John McLean presiding, Mr. Lincoln systematically destroyed Mr. Hurd's case. The steamboat companies failed in their attempt to sabotage east-west communication across the United States. The vast resources of the trans-Mississippi region could now flow cheaply to the most rewarding markets.
Today, the oil companies and utility companies are the steamboat companies. Battery makers, windmill fabricators, etc. are the railroads. Two cases highlight my point. Iowa and many windy midwestern states have given tax breaks encouraging farmers to build windmills. An Iowa farmer, Greg Swecker, whose farm sits on the highest point in the state, took the people at their word, and invested $45,000 in a windmill. Soon, the windmill was producing a huge surplus of power. He wanted to sell that surplus onto the grid of his local utility, the Midland Power Co-operative. The utility balked worried, no doubt, that other farmers would make the same investment. Would they be cutting checks rather than cashing them? So, they fought like hell. Eventually, the utility lost - but consider how far that fight set back investment in windpower. Consider how such de-centralization of power production would benefit rural incomes. But the utilities want to keep us on our knees, cutting checks.
The second case is best illuminated by watching the entertaining documentary Who Killed the Electric Car, telling the tragic story of the EV 1. I strongly urge every American to watch the film, then go online and expose themselves to the passionate debate. In 2002, the Bush Administration joined the suit of auto dealers, General Motors, and the oil companies, forcing the California Air Resources Board to back down from its Zero Emissions Vehicle mandate. That decision set back the development of the electric car by a decade. (I wonder whether that was one of the little decisions taken by Dick Cheney's energy task force?)
Management and Labor at General Motors celebrated that decision. No doubt, they sought to protect their Parts Division. Despite the beckoning of a world market, they refused to cross that bridge. They refused to re-tool. And now, they're in dire straits.
Stop, for a moment, to consider the impact of windmills and the EV1 would have made upon the Equilibrium Price of petroleum in the last decade. Imagine modern windmills driving turbines on every farm and ranch across the Great Plains. Imagine every farmer and rancher, not only energy self-sufficient, but producing a surplus. And none of that happened because the utilities want to hang onto centralized collection and distribution of power.
Imagine the full impact of the EV1. How many millions of commuters would have been perfectly satisfied with the 65 mile range between charges. Not a bad trade-off to free oneself of the pump! Imagine the impact upon the Equilibrium Price of petroleum of those millions commuter vehicles bypassing the pump day after day, week after week, month after month. It would have freed up billions of gallons for all the Hummers to waste. But, no! We fell for the childish notion that "real men burn fossil fuels!"
We are our own worst enemies. And now, abject slaves to our oil addiction, turning our backs on our astonishing history of innovating our way out of problems, we are willing and eager to despoil our coastlines in our frantic search for a non-renewable resource. And all under the dreamy delusion that the price at the pump will drop. Rubbish!
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Bleating for Corey
The local talk radio anti-immigration loonie, Peter Boyles, labors day and night to stir up some sympathy for Corey Voorhis, a Border Patrol agent who provided sensitive information to the Bob Beauprez campaign during the recent contest for Governor in Colorado. He uses this to trash a very good man, Bill Ritter, the winner of that election.
In 2004, the Republicans tossed a gigantic stink bomb into the Presidential campaign when the Vietnam draft dodgers, Bush and Cheney, trashed the patriot, John Kerry, with their swift boat ads. Kerry, by not defending himself against these outrageous lies, demoralized the Democratic party. He had a duty to his supporters, and himself, to attack his slanderers. Bill Ritter did not make the same mistake in 2006 in Colorado. When the Trailhead Group tossed their stink bomb into Colorado politics, the Ritter campaign threw it right back at them. Bill did his duty.
Corey Voorhis broke the law. Whenever the anti-immigration loonies wax poetical about the Mexicans, they always seal their argument by saying, "They broke the law, therefore they are criminals." By that very logic, Corey Voorhis is a criminal. He broke the law. Case closed.
Lastly, the time has come for Peter Boyles, Tom Tancredo, Lou Dobbs, and the whole pack of demagogues to put up or shut up. They will, capriciously, turn the Arkansas Valley into a wasteland if they get their way. Mr. Boyles should use his program to obtain pledges from his devoted listeners to bring in the harvest next year. They can all traipse down to Alamosa and put their deltoids where their mouths are.
In 2004, the Republicans tossed a gigantic stink bomb into the Presidential campaign when the Vietnam draft dodgers, Bush and Cheney, trashed the patriot, John Kerry, with their swift boat ads. Kerry, by not defending himself against these outrageous lies, demoralized the Democratic party. He had a duty to his supporters, and himself, to attack his slanderers. Bill Ritter did not make the same mistake in 2006 in Colorado. When the Trailhead Group tossed their stink bomb into Colorado politics, the Ritter campaign threw it right back at them. Bill did his duty.
Corey Voorhis broke the law. Whenever the anti-immigration loonies wax poetical about the Mexicans, they always seal their argument by saying, "They broke the law, therefore they are criminals." By that very logic, Corey Voorhis is a criminal. He broke the law. Case closed.
Lastly, the time has come for Peter Boyles, Tom Tancredo, Lou Dobbs, and the whole pack of demagogues to put up or shut up. They will, capriciously, turn the Arkansas Valley into a wasteland if they get their way. Mr. Boyles should use his program to obtain pledges from his devoted listeners to bring in the harvest next year. They can all traipse down to Alamosa and put their deltoids where their mouths are.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Trashing Obama
In the decades leading up to the Civil War, the Fire Eaters down South - to inflame their white trash acolytes - excoriated the abolitionists up North, accusing them of implementing a plot to "miscegenate the races." This strategy worked like a charm. Nothing inflamed white trash, north and south of the Mason-Dixon line, like the fear of mixing their pure white blood with primitive African blood. Abolitionists were persecuted, even murdered, at the instigation of such oratory.
Meanwhile, Down South, in the shadows, slave masters were performing the dark acts they accused the abolitionists of perpetrating. Some historical demographers estimate that 1/3 of all births in the United States between 1840 and 1860 were mulattoes. The slave masters were extremely eager miscegenators.
Today, the spiritual descendants of the Fire Eaters - the right wing loonies - are mobilizing against Barack Obama. I received an e-mail condemning Obama for attending an all black, racist church. The sender, no doubt, attends one of those all white suburban mega-churches. The most segregated hour in America is the Sunday morning sermon. If that fact exposes some hypocrisy in American spiritual life, the sender herself is a participant. Yet, she feels patriotically compelled to trash Obama for something which she excuses in herself. The reservoir of poison slaking the thirst of the right wing loonies is bottomless.
Meanwhile, Down South, in the shadows, slave masters were performing the dark acts they accused the abolitionists of perpetrating. Some historical demographers estimate that 1/3 of all births in the United States between 1840 and 1860 were mulattoes. The slave masters were extremely eager miscegenators.
Today, the spiritual descendants of the Fire Eaters - the right wing loonies - are mobilizing against Barack Obama. I received an e-mail condemning Obama for attending an all black, racist church. The sender, no doubt, attends one of those all white suburban mega-churches. The most segregated hour in America is the Sunday morning sermon. If that fact exposes some hypocrisy in American spiritual life, the sender herself is a participant. Yet, she feels patriotically compelled to trash Obama for something which she excuses in herself. The reservoir of poison slaking the thirst of the right wing loonies is bottomless.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Dr. Paul second guesses President Lincoln
I am a registered Libertarian. If Ron Paul gets his name on the Presidential ballot, I will vote for him - despite two stunningly ill-informed statements on Meet the Press.
Mr. Paul had the temerity to second-guess Abraham Lincoln's inability to head off the Civil War - the irrepressible conflict. Dr. Paul criticized President Lincoln's failure to compromise with the secessionists. The truth is, of course, that President Lincoln was willing to compromise on every issue, save one. He would not budge on the extension of slavery into the Federal Territories. His party had pledged itself on that issue. The Southern political elite insisted they must have the right to take "this species of property" wherever they wanted. They insisted on this despite the fact that the plantation system could never pay west of the 97th Parallel. Essentially, they insisted that the Northern people bless Slavery as a positive good, not just tolerate it as a necessary evil.
Dr. Paul went on to say that slavery would have withered away. Perhaps. But, I doubt it. Slavery had already reached the point where it made scant sense economically. Yet, Southerners grew more attached to the peculiar institution as the 19th Century wore on. Perhaps this was due to its peculiarites? The Northern male, feeling a bit randy, had to comfort himself with self-abuse - or go out on the open market to purchase relief. The slavemaster, prompted by the same urge, could instruct his property to spread her legs and submit. And nine months later, of course, his net worth might increase with the birth of a slave child - a child which he could sell at the most opportune moment. A child he could exploit for himself - economically or sexually. A system like that, so riddled with the deepest, darkest vices, is hard to give up. Especially when the local divines bless it all as virtuous Christianity. Such peculiarities might not conveniently wither away.
In fact, Slavery was replaced with a pseudo-slavery - Jim Crow and the sharecropper system. Dr. Paul blandly asserts that the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 were not necessary. He correctly points out that Barry Goldwater, hardly a racist, opposed it because it imposed on property rights. This, of course, is true. But the Civil Rights Acts, relying upon the commerce clause, were constitutional. And such construction of the commerce clause was no expedient innovation of the Johnson Administration. The precedent was set in an 1821 decision by a South Carolina judge in Elkison v. Deliesseline.
As wrong as Dr. Paul is on these historical questions of Civil Rights, he is dead right on the biggest issue before us today - the state of the Empire. We have created a monster which is consuming us. The question Dr. Paul asks, we should all ask ourselves. Why wait for a financial crisis to take the necessary actions to tame the Imperial Beast?
Mr. Paul had the temerity to second-guess Abraham Lincoln's inability to head off the Civil War - the irrepressible conflict. Dr. Paul criticized President Lincoln's failure to compromise with the secessionists. The truth is, of course, that President Lincoln was willing to compromise on every issue, save one. He would not budge on the extension of slavery into the Federal Territories. His party had pledged itself on that issue. The Southern political elite insisted they must have the right to take "this species of property" wherever they wanted. They insisted on this despite the fact that the plantation system could never pay west of the 97th Parallel. Essentially, they insisted that the Northern people bless Slavery as a positive good, not just tolerate it as a necessary evil.
Dr. Paul went on to say that slavery would have withered away. Perhaps. But, I doubt it. Slavery had already reached the point where it made scant sense economically. Yet, Southerners grew more attached to the peculiar institution as the 19th Century wore on. Perhaps this was due to its peculiarites? The Northern male, feeling a bit randy, had to comfort himself with self-abuse - or go out on the open market to purchase relief. The slavemaster, prompted by the same urge, could instruct his property to spread her legs and submit. And nine months later, of course, his net worth might increase with the birth of a slave child - a child which he could sell at the most opportune moment. A child he could exploit for himself - economically or sexually. A system like that, so riddled with the deepest, darkest vices, is hard to give up. Especially when the local divines bless it all as virtuous Christianity. Such peculiarities might not conveniently wither away.
In fact, Slavery was replaced with a pseudo-slavery - Jim Crow and the sharecropper system. Dr. Paul blandly asserts that the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 were not necessary. He correctly points out that Barry Goldwater, hardly a racist, opposed it because it imposed on property rights. This, of course, is true. But the Civil Rights Acts, relying upon the commerce clause, were constitutional. And such construction of the commerce clause was no expedient innovation of the Johnson Administration. The precedent was set in an 1821 decision by a South Carolina judge in Elkison v. Deliesseline.
As wrong as Dr. Paul is on these historical questions of Civil Rights, he is dead right on the biggest issue before us today - the state of the Empire. We have created a monster which is consuming us. The question Dr. Paul asks, we should all ask ourselves. Why wait for a financial crisis to take the necessary actions to tame the Imperial Beast?
Friday, November 2, 2007
Bumper Stickers
I have adorned the bumper of my Saturn LS with three stickers: 1) "We are making enemies faster than we can kill them"; 2) "Jesus is a Liberal" and; 3) I'm already against the next war."
After work one day, I found a 3X5 note card in my passenger seat which read, "You're a jerk for your bumper sticker." One of Limbaugh's Loonies just had to share his thoughts with me. I don't know which bumper sticker offended him, but I am prepared to defend them all.
Before stating my three cases, it is worth noting that my opponent did not damage my car. Right wing loonies are morally superior to left wing loonies because they respect property rights. Left wing loonies love Humanity... in the abstract. They just hate people. Right wing loonies like people - and respect the property of others. But Humanity gives them the creeps, conjuring an image of hordes of little brown people who must be kept in line with The Whip.
Now, about my bumper stickers.
1) "We are making enemies faster than we can kill them."
That should be painfully obvious to everyone. A friend just returned from New Zealand. Everywhere she went, people expressed their contempt for our President. How could you put such a moronic warmonger in the White House,? they often asked. Imagine! Hated in New Zealand.
The neo-con clowns, so fond of Churchill, should have considered this valuable observation: "The only thing worse than fighting a war with allies, is fighting one without them."
2) "Jesus is a liberal."
The centerpiece of liberal thought is the Separation of Church and State. That thought never crossed the collective Mind of ancient Athens. The Romans never conjured it. The first utterance conveying the notion of separating Church and State was, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Render unto God that which is God's." When Jesus disappeared from this earth, all the push to implement that idea departed with Him. The Catholic Church became the primary obstacle.
Eighteen centuries after the Resurrection, the Founding Fathers, working collectively, managed to implement the idea - into our Bill of Rights - which Jesus had conceived working alone.
How ironic that today's Christians are our greatest threat to the Separation of Church and State.
3) "I'm already against the next war."
The neo-con screwballs are trotting out the same old reductionist logic that plunged us into the Inferno of Iraq. After dismantling the Reagan policy of using Iraq to contain Iran and Hezbollah, they argue that deterrence has failed. In other words, they created this Crisis and now argue that only they can resolve it.
These people are a curse. It's time to send them off to combat in Iraq. Or let the Marines use them for bayonet practice!
After work one day, I found a 3X5 note card in my passenger seat which read, "You're a jerk for your bumper sticker." One of Limbaugh's Loonies just had to share his thoughts with me. I don't know which bumper sticker offended him, but I am prepared to defend them all.
Before stating my three cases, it is worth noting that my opponent did not damage my car. Right wing loonies are morally superior to left wing loonies because they respect property rights. Left wing loonies love Humanity... in the abstract. They just hate people. Right wing loonies like people - and respect the property of others. But Humanity gives them the creeps, conjuring an image of hordes of little brown people who must be kept in line with The Whip.
Now, about my bumper stickers.
1) "We are making enemies faster than we can kill them."
That should be painfully obvious to everyone. A friend just returned from New Zealand. Everywhere she went, people expressed their contempt for our President. How could you put such a moronic warmonger in the White House,? they often asked. Imagine! Hated in New Zealand.
The neo-con clowns, so fond of Churchill, should have considered this valuable observation: "The only thing worse than fighting a war with allies, is fighting one without them."
2) "Jesus is a liberal."
The centerpiece of liberal thought is the Separation of Church and State. That thought never crossed the collective Mind of ancient Athens. The Romans never conjured it. The first utterance conveying the notion of separating Church and State was, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Render unto God that which is God's." When Jesus disappeared from this earth, all the push to implement that idea departed with Him. The Catholic Church became the primary obstacle.
Eighteen centuries after the Resurrection, the Founding Fathers, working collectively, managed to implement the idea - into our Bill of Rights - which Jesus had conceived working alone.
How ironic that today's Christians are our greatest threat to the Separation of Church and State.
3) "I'm already against the next war."
The neo-con screwballs are trotting out the same old reductionist logic that plunged us into the Inferno of Iraq. After dismantling the Reagan policy of using Iraq to contain Iran and Hezbollah, they argue that deterrence has failed. In other words, they created this Crisis and now argue that only they can resolve it.
These people are a curse. It's time to send them off to combat in Iraq. Or let the Marines use them for bayonet practice!
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Let the Professionals Nominate
I have become a Bill Clinton fan. His return to the White House, as First Spouse, would signal a welcome revival of competence to the Executive Branch. However, like President Reagan, another competent Chief Executive, President Clinton made several grievous errors. Unlike Reagan, whose mistakes were fueled by Ideology, Clinton's mistakes were driven by Expediency.
I will focus on two tragic expedient decisions: 1) the cruise missile attack on Sudan, and 2) signing the Iraq Liberation Act.
In 1997, the Sudanese were tiring of their political and economic isolation. They had gone about as far as they could on alms from Osama bin Laden. They were looking for a bigger alms-giver and began working back channels to the Clinton Administration. They were willing to turn Osama over to us. These diplomatic feelers were rebuffed. We can never know whether the Sudanese were serious. President Clinton chose cruise missiles over diplomacy. One suspects he needed a pyro-technic display to divert attention away from the sex scandal.
(This, in no way, excuses the Republican Congress for the lurid pursuit of impeachment as al Qaeda strengthened. At least President Clinton had his eye on the ball. Meawhile, the Republicans could not take their eyes off his balls.)
General Anthony Zinni urged President Clinton to veto the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. General Zinni clearly foresaw that the neo-Conservative warmongers would later cite that Act as evidence of bi-partisan commitment to topple Saddam. For the warmongers, Clinton's signature was the keystone in their propaganda war, justifying their sick doctrine of pre-emption. President Clinton listened patiently to General Zinni, then disregarded the advice. He chose to kick that can down the road rather than face down the neo-con lunatics.
Senator Clinton's vote to authorize the war is just one more instance of Clinton-style political expediency. Cold analysis of strategic reality fell victim to political triangulation. She must appear tough at all costs, no matter how foolish the policy. Or tragic the consequences. We can expect more of this sort of Expediency if Mrs. Clinton achieves the Presidency.
All of these concerns pale in comparison to the opportunity cost of nominating Senator Clinton. If the nomination were in the hands of the professionals, as in the good ol' days, the ticket would be Gore/Obama. Though I am not terribly enthusiastic about Al Gore, the simple fact is that such a ticket might get 60% of the vote against any Republican ticket. Such a landslide would marginalize the right wing loonies for two or three decades. They are a pestilence. We must innoculate ourselves from them if we want to reverse ourselves in the War on Terror and start winning. (Jim Webb as Secretary of Defense, Anthony Zinni as head of the National Security Council, and Richard Holbrooke as Secretary of State would be huge strides in the right direction.)
If the Democrats fail to seize this opportunity, they must be accounted part of the disease and not the cure.
I will focus on two tragic expedient decisions: 1) the cruise missile attack on Sudan, and 2) signing the Iraq Liberation Act.
In 1997, the Sudanese were tiring of their political and economic isolation. They had gone about as far as they could on alms from Osama bin Laden. They were looking for a bigger alms-giver and began working back channels to the Clinton Administration. They were willing to turn Osama over to us. These diplomatic feelers were rebuffed. We can never know whether the Sudanese were serious. President Clinton chose cruise missiles over diplomacy. One suspects he needed a pyro-technic display to divert attention away from the sex scandal.
(This, in no way, excuses the Republican Congress for the lurid pursuit of impeachment as al Qaeda strengthened. At least President Clinton had his eye on the ball. Meawhile, the Republicans could not take their eyes off his balls.)
General Anthony Zinni urged President Clinton to veto the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. General Zinni clearly foresaw that the neo-Conservative warmongers would later cite that Act as evidence of bi-partisan commitment to topple Saddam. For the warmongers, Clinton's signature was the keystone in their propaganda war, justifying their sick doctrine of pre-emption. President Clinton listened patiently to General Zinni, then disregarded the advice. He chose to kick that can down the road rather than face down the neo-con lunatics.
Senator Clinton's vote to authorize the war is just one more instance of Clinton-style political expediency. Cold analysis of strategic reality fell victim to political triangulation. She must appear tough at all costs, no matter how foolish the policy. Or tragic the consequences. We can expect more of this sort of Expediency if Mrs. Clinton achieves the Presidency.
All of these concerns pale in comparison to the opportunity cost of nominating Senator Clinton. If the nomination were in the hands of the professionals, as in the good ol' days, the ticket would be Gore/Obama. Though I am not terribly enthusiastic about Al Gore, the simple fact is that such a ticket might get 60% of the vote against any Republican ticket. Such a landslide would marginalize the right wing loonies for two or three decades. They are a pestilence. We must innoculate ourselves from them if we want to reverse ourselves in the War on Terror and start winning. (Jim Webb as Secretary of Defense, Anthony Zinni as head of the National Security Council, and Richard Holbrooke as Secretary of State would be huge strides in the right direction.)
If the Democrats fail to seize this opportunity, they must be accounted part of the disease and not the cure.
Monday, August 20, 2007
A Paean to Republicans
Years ago, I wrote a play about Thomas B. Reed, Republican of Maine, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives in the 1890's. One of Reed's associates once described him by saying he had the "strongest intellect crossed on the best courage of any man in public life." Another associate, describing that powerful intellect, wrote: "Sometimes he rubs the skin off, sometimes he cuts to the bone, and sometimes he crushes in a skull as though it were an eggshell." All in all, a colorful figure.
Reed once remarked that, "Incorporated man has the courage sublime to put Unincorporated man to shame. Unincorporated man is satisfied to be paid once. How many payments would satisfy incorporated man, human experience has yet to decide."
Life and the marketplace have afforded many opportunities to observe the wisdom of this aphorism. Most recently, the Service Department at my Saturn dealer instructed me on corporate greed.
Over the last two years, I have spent about $3500 on car repairs. Given that I had bought the Saturn for reasons of economy, I was growing impatient with the steady assault on my pocketbook.
At the beginning of August, I took the car in because the air conditioner was working only on the freeway. After an hour, the service specialist gave me a list of things the car needed done - new struts, new coolant hoses, a windshield washer motor, etc. totalling at least $1200. The air conditioner, awaiting diagnosis, would be more, of course. Perhaps a lot more.
Fortunately, it was too late in the day to get on with all that, so I drove home. They expected me on the following morning.
The following morning, I went over to Strickly Ray's, the neighborhood mechanic. At the end of the day, Ray told me that the hoses have tens of thousands of miles more life left - and that there is no problem with the struts.
No charge. (He didn't have time to diagnose the air conditioner.)
Incorporated man has numbers to reach and quotas to fill. Unincorporated man is a free agent. Incorporated man looks upon customers as a means to an end. Unincorporated man looks upon the customer as a fellow free agent - an end in him/herself.
Democrats may be as forthright as Republicans in their social relationships. But can those who believe in a closed shop bring the same integrity to the marketplace? Is it not true that their many schemes to engineer a perfectly just society require the incorporation of us all? What happens to Ray Strick in that perfect world?
Reed once remarked that, "Incorporated man has the courage sublime to put Unincorporated man to shame. Unincorporated man is satisfied to be paid once. How many payments would satisfy incorporated man, human experience has yet to decide."
Life and the marketplace have afforded many opportunities to observe the wisdom of this aphorism. Most recently, the Service Department at my Saturn dealer instructed me on corporate greed.
Over the last two years, I have spent about $3500 on car repairs. Given that I had bought the Saturn for reasons of economy, I was growing impatient with the steady assault on my pocketbook.
At the beginning of August, I took the car in because the air conditioner was working only on the freeway. After an hour, the service specialist gave me a list of things the car needed done - new struts, new coolant hoses, a windshield washer motor, etc. totalling at least $1200. The air conditioner, awaiting diagnosis, would be more, of course. Perhaps a lot more.
Fortunately, it was too late in the day to get on with all that, so I drove home. They expected me on the following morning.
The following morning, I went over to Strickly Ray's, the neighborhood mechanic. At the end of the day, Ray told me that the hoses have tens of thousands of miles more life left - and that there is no problem with the struts.
No charge. (He didn't have time to diagnose the air conditioner.)
Incorporated man has numbers to reach and quotas to fill. Unincorporated man is a free agent. Incorporated man looks upon customers as a means to an end. Unincorporated man looks upon the customer as a fellow free agent - an end in him/herself.
Democrats may be as forthright as Republicans in their social relationships. But can those who believe in a closed shop bring the same integrity to the marketplace? Is it not true that their many schemes to engineer a perfectly just society require the incorporation of us all? What happens to Ray Strick in that perfect world?
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Luddites at General Motors
Dear Mr. Titus,
I applaud your movie, Who Killed the Electric Car. Naturally, the visual image which stuck was of those perfectly useful, technologically advanced EV1s crushed in the Arizona desert. I was especially incensed with the GM spokesman assuring everyone that the components would be recycled. As I drove home, I tried to recall his name so I could send him a real nasty letter ('a hot bundle of paprika' as one of my heroes, General Stilwell, would say).
Soon after, I read Kurt Vonnegut's, A Man Without a Country. That diatribe against contemporary American society, coupled with your movie, urged me on toward Revolution as the only solution to this appalling decay of our Civilization. I lay in bed wondering how many vicious, warmongering plutocrats must be publicly executed to set the necessary salutary example for the others. I settled on 2500 as a sensible number, then fell asleep.
The next day, my Libertarian instinct asserted itself over Vonnegut's Socialism. My thoughts centered on his kind remarks for the Luddites:
Over the course of that day, the image of Luddites smashing looms merged with that of those smashed EV1s in Arizona. Suddenly, I realized that Luddites have taken over GM's Board of Directors. (And study the inutility of their decision to destroy the EV1. They hoped to protect their Parts Division, yet, it has since slipped into bankruptcy.)
In 1813, smashing machines was a capital offense. His Majesty's Government tried and executed 17 Luddites. Today, I think it would be fascinating to root out the 17 individuals most responsible for the decision to smash the EV1. Then, conduct a mock trial - with prosecutors and defense counsel. How about that for a sequel to your marvelous documentary?
I applaud your movie, Who Killed the Electric Car. Naturally, the visual image which stuck was of those perfectly useful, technologically advanced EV1s crushed in the Arizona desert. I was especially incensed with the GM spokesman assuring everyone that the components would be recycled. As I drove home, I tried to recall his name so I could send him a real nasty letter ('a hot bundle of paprika' as one of my heroes, General Stilwell, would say).
Soon after, I read Kurt Vonnegut's, A Man Without a Country. That diatribe against contemporary American society, coupled with your movie, urged me on toward Revolution as the only solution to this appalling decay of our Civilization. I lay in bed wondering how many vicious, warmongering plutocrats must be publicly executed to set the necessary salutary example for the others. I settled on 2500 as a sensible number, then fell asleep.
The next day, my Libertarian instinct asserted itself over Vonnegut's Socialism. My thoughts centered on his kind remarks for the Luddites:
"I have been called a Luddite. I welcome it. Do you know what a Luddite is? A person who hates newfangled contraptions... Today, we have contraptions like nuclear submarines armed with Poseidon missiles that have H-bombs in their warheads. And we have contraptions like computers that cheat you out of becoming... Progress has beat the heck out of me. It took away from me what a loom must have been to Ned Ludd two hundred years ago. I mean a typewriter. There is no such thing anywhere."
Over the course of that day, the image of Luddites smashing looms merged with that of those smashed EV1s in Arizona. Suddenly, I realized that Luddites have taken over GM's Board of Directors. (And study the inutility of their decision to destroy the EV1. They hoped to protect their Parts Division, yet, it has since slipped into bankruptcy.)
In 1813, smashing machines was a capital offense. His Majesty's Government tried and executed 17 Luddites. Today, I think it would be fascinating to root out the 17 individuals most responsible for the decision to smash the EV1. Then, conduct a mock trial - with prosecutors and defense counsel. How about that for a sequel to your marvelous documentary?
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Freedom Fries re-gurgitated
Dear Congressman Jones,
I watched you lecture Richard Perle, pleading for an apology for this misadventure in Iraq. While we're at it, how about an apology for Hans Blix? This Administration besmirched the integrity of Mr. Blix, suggesting he was a toady for Saddam. In the early 90's, this "toady of Saddam" uncovered evidence that Saddam was planning to produce lithium 6, which can only be used in H-bombs. This stimulated pressure to insert weapons inspectors into Iraq. Some toady! If we had listened to him, you would not be going to military funerals so often. You would not have had to write those 1300 letters. How about an apology for him? Blix was right!
Come to think of it, perhaps you should begin the apologies. You berated the French, setting in motion a wave of Francophobia. Have you apologized to them? Just because we jump off a cliff, sans parachute, into Iraq, does not mean the French must follow. Maybe if you apologize for your ignorant remarks, Mr. Perle and the other architects of this fiasco will follow your lead? How can you urge Mr. Perle to muster the decency to apologize, if you won't muster the decency to apologize for your error in judgment?
When you write that speech, keep this image in mind. When Charles Lindbergh landed in Paris, he was mobbed by Frenchmen inspired with his achievement. His two chief competitors were both French. Now that is Nobility of Spirit!
I watched you lecture Richard Perle, pleading for an apology for this misadventure in Iraq. While we're at it, how about an apology for Hans Blix? This Administration besmirched the integrity of Mr. Blix, suggesting he was a toady for Saddam. In the early 90's, this "toady of Saddam" uncovered evidence that Saddam was planning to produce lithium 6, which can only be used in H-bombs. This stimulated pressure to insert weapons inspectors into Iraq. Some toady! If we had listened to him, you would not be going to military funerals so often. You would not have had to write those 1300 letters. How about an apology for him? Blix was right!
Come to think of it, perhaps you should begin the apologies. You berated the French, setting in motion a wave of Francophobia. Have you apologized to them? Just because we jump off a cliff, sans parachute, into Iraq, does not mean the French must follow. Maybe if you apologize for your ignorant remarks, Mr. Perle and the other architects of this fiasco will follow your lead? How can you urge Mr. Perle to muster the decency to apologize, if you won't muster the decency to apologize for your error in judgment?
When you write that speech, keep this image in mind. When Charles Lindbergh landed in Paris, he was mobbed by Frenchmen inspired with his achievement. His two chief competitors were both French. Now that is Nobility of Spirit!
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Children's Advocates
Several months ago, I filled out an online questionnaire expressing my principled indifference to gay marriage. Then, the American Family Association provided a link for sending a message to the President expressing, what I foolishly thought would be, my opinion.
I wrote a brief paragraph, best summarized as a "people should mind their own business" theme and sent it along to the White House. AFA thanked me for my participation and sent an auto-reply with the text of my message. Lo and behold, my simple paragraph was sandwiched between two paragraphs urging a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. So, I was manipulated into throwing my name in with millions of AFA sheep bleating for Government meddling into the private lives of American citizens. I resent it.
I bet those liars at the AFA are getting a good belly laugh at my expense. That's a pretty rotten thing to do to a poor school bus driver. The bedrock of my success with kids is my credibility. They know down to the bones that I tell the truth (which they reciprocate by telling me the truth). Too bad I can't say the same thing about the AFA. Too bad we have serial liars claiming they stand up for children. I wonder how the children will reciprocate their lies?
I wrote a brief paragraph, best summarized as a "people should mind their own business" theme and sent it along to the White House. AFA thanked me for my participation and sent an auto-reply with the text of my message. Lo and behold, my simple paragraph was sandwiched between two paragraphs urging a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. So, I was manipulated into throwing my name in with millions of AFA sheep bleating for Government meddling into the private lives of American citizens. I resent it.
I bet those liars at the AFA are getting a good belly laugh at my expense. That's a pretty rotten thing to do to a poor school bus driver. The bedrock of my success with kids is my credibility. They know down to the bones that I tell the truth (which they reciprocate by telling me the truth). Too bad I can't say the same thing about the AFA. Too bad we have serial liars claiming they stand up for children. I wonder how the children will reciprocate their lies?
Thursday, May 24, 2007
A Question for each Candidate
SENATOR BIDEN
Clear- headed strategic thinkers, like Jim Webb, warned that the invasion of Iraq was an excursion into the stratosphere of wishful thinking. Why did you ignore those warnings and vote to authorize?
SENATOR CLINTON
President Reagan compensated for his cut and run from Beirut by crafting a policy of using Iraq to contain Iran and Hezbollah. Succeeding Presidents, including your husband, adhered to that policy. Why did you vote to reverse it?
SENATOR McCAIN
Counter-insurgency theory tells us that a high-level insurgency takes 30 years to defeat. Isn't the present surge - attempting to secure Baghdad - just the first belated move in a very long term struggle?
SENATOR EDWARDS
Given that so much of the Administration's case for war was dependent on the self-interested assertions of the embezzler Ahmad Chalabi and a defector code-named "Curveball," why did you discredit the countering assertions of Hans Blix?
SENATOR DODD
In the light of Enron and various other gigantic frauds, President Clinton's veto of the Securities Tort Reform Bill has proven very wise. Why did you lead the fight to override?
GOVERNOR GILMORE
Have you made a careful enough study of counter-insurgency theory (as Jim Webbs has done) to give your plans for victory in Iraq any credibility?
MAYOR GIULIANI
During the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, first responders were handicapped by the lack of inter-operability of radios. Why were they hampered with the same problem during the second attack 8 years later?
GOVERNOR HUCKABEE
How can you square a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 with the 4th verse of the 90th Psalm and the Second Book of Peter?
SENATOR BROWNBACK
Secular people view the Evangelical interpretation of the Book of Revelations as a gigantic death wish. Evangelical support of the war in Iraq looks like wish fulfillment to us. How can any of this be peddled as the Culture of Life?
CONGRESSMAN KUCINICH
How much spending on social programs can the economy absorb without destroying the dynamism of the free enterprise system?
CONGRESSMAN PAUL
How can huge corporations be prevented from using institutional power to pursue a Luddite policy of sabotaging advanced technologies, i.e. General Motors destruction of the electric car?
CONGRESSMAN TANCREDO
Are you truly counting on my white trash neighbor to pick the lettuce?
CONGRESSMAN HUNTER
A great American once described the Great Wall of China as "a monument in brick, stone and mud to a usually static point of view." Why should we invest in a monstrousity deeply offensive to President Reagan?
GOVERNOR RICHARDSON
The next President will inherit a pig's breakfast of a policy for the Korean peninsula. How can we counter the successful brinksmanship of Kim Il Jung?
SENATOR OBAMA
The next President will inherit a catastrophe in Iraq, something you warned us about. What's the use of being right when everyone else is wrong?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY
Given that the most activist Supreme Court Justice is Clarence Thomas and the least activist is Stephen Breyer, a Clinton appointee, will you appoint sensible moderates to the Court?
SENATOR GRAVEL
The Alaska delegation has proven the most gluttonous hogs at the trough. What will you do about pork barrel spending?
GOVERNOR THOMPSON
Is the compassionate Conservative extinct?
SENATOR THOMPSON
Would it be correct to assume that, since you think the policy President Bush has pursued in Iraq is "just about right," that we can look forward to more surges and neo-con adventures in the future?
Clear- headed strategic thinkers, like Jim Webb, warned that the invasion of Iraq was an excursion into the stratosphere of wishful thinking. Why did you ignore those warnings and vote to authorize?
SENATOR CLINTON
President Reagan compensated for his cut and run from Beirut by crafting a policy of using Iraq to contain Iran and Hezbollah. Succeeding Presidents, including your husband, adhered to that policy. Why did you vote to reverse it?
SENATOR McCAIN
Counter-insurgency theory tells us that a high-level insurgency takes 30 years to defeat. Isn't the present surge - attempting to secure Baghdad - just the first belated move in a very long term struggle?
SENATOR EDWARDS
Given that so much of the Administration's case for war was dependent on the self-interested assertions of the embezzler Ahmad Chalabi and a defector code-named "Curveball," why did you discredit the countering assertions of Hans Blix?
SENATOR DODD
In the light of Enron and various other gigantic frauds, President Clinton's veto of the Securities Tort Reform Bill has proven very wise. Why did you lead the fight to override?
GOVERNOR GILMORE
Have you made a careful enough study of counter-insurgency theory (as Jim Webbs has done) to give your plans for victory in Iraq any credibility?
MAYOR GIULIANI
During the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, first responders were handicapped by the lack of inter-operability of radios. Why were they hampered with the same problem during the second attack 8 years later?
GOVERNOR HUCKABEE
How can you square a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 with the 4th verse of the 90th Psalm and the Second Book of Peter?
SENATOR BROWNBACK
Secular people view the Evangelical interpretation of the Book of Revelations as a gigantic death wish. Evangelical support of the war in Iraq looks like wish fulfillment to us. How can any of this be peddled as the Culture of Life?
CONGRESSMAN KUCINICH
How much spending on social programs can the economy absorb without destroying the dynamism of the free enterprise system?
CONGRESSMAN PAUL
How can huge corporations be prevented from using institutional power to pursue a Luddite policy of sabotaging advanced technologies, i.e. General Motors destruction of the electric car?
CONGRESSMAN TANCREDO
Are you truly counting on my white trash neighbor to pick the lettuce?
CONGRESSMAN HUNTER
A great American once described the Great Wall of China as "a monument in brick, stone and mud to a usually static point of view." Why should we invest in a monstrousity deeply offensive to President Reagan?
GOVERNOR RICHARDSON
The next President will inherit a pig's breakfast of a policy for the Korean peninsula. How can we counter the successful brinksmanship of Kim Il Jung?
SENATOR OBAMA
The next President will inherit a catastrophe in Iraq, something you warned us about. What's the use of being right when everyone else is wrong?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY
Given that the most activist Supreme Court Justice is Clarence Thomas and the least activist is Stephen Breyer, a Clinton appointee, will you appoint sensible moderates to the Court?
SENATOR GRAVEL
The Alaska delegation has proven the most gluttonous hogs at the trough. What will you do about pork barrel spending?
GOVERNOR THOMPSON
Is the compassionate Conservative extinct?
SENATOR THOMPSON
Would it be correct to assume that, since you think the policy President Bush has pursued in Iraq is "just about right," that we can look forward to more surges and neo-con adventures in the future?
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
A Lesson in Civic Virtue
Don't you just admire the disinterested civic virtue of the non-partisan Trailhead Group, totally "unaffiliated with any political campaign?" They just, quite innocently, want the public to know the objective, unvarnished truth about Bill Ritter. They don't even know Bob Beauprez. They don't know that Bob Beauprez got Hammered into voting for every rancid slice of pork in Washington. Bob Beauprez is, in no way, responsible for the $250,000,000 bridge to nowhere. The Trailhead Group does not know - or care - that Bob Beauprez is all in for the brain-dead, blood for oil foreign policy of the Bush Administration (reversing the Reagan policy of containing theocratic, Hezbollah-sponsoring Iran).
The Trailhead Group wants us to know that Bill Ritter is responsible for Denver's murder rate - higher than New York City. They, quite innocently, just don't know that almost every American city has a higher murder rate than New York, the largest city in the country. (In 1999, the murder rate in the quiet Republican hamlet of Littleton dwarfed the murder rate in New York.)
Why is the Trailhead Group so ignorant/hostile toward New York? Could it be that they want to excuse Bob Beauprez (my Congressman, by the way) for getting Hammered into turning Homeland Security into a pork barrel fiasco? While the Federal Government - controlled by rural and suburban Republicans - plows Homeland Security funds into petting zoos in Alabama, New York City has invested $2,000,000,000 of municipal funds into Counter-Terrorism.
Nonetheless, the civic virtue of the Trailhead Group inspires me. Just like them, I shall fully disclose. I have known Bill and Jeannie Ritter since college days. Jeannie was one of the gang (we called ourselves Nerf International) on the 11th floor of Turner Hall at UNC. Jeannie was the one who got all of us to take in physically and mentally handicapped people when the Special Olympics came to Greeley. Jeannie was the one who got the girls on the floor organized into springing a surprise breakfast for all the guys one Saturday morning. Jeannie was always the one with a stress-busting joke at mid-terms. And when the gang got together last summer for a reunion, Bill and Jeannie were the ones who remembered that one of us, since college, has been stricken with MS. Bill and Jeannie were the ones who brought Denise to the party. That was perfectly normal. Bill and Jeannie have always done our remembering for us.
So, I guess the Trailhead people are just better than me. I'm partisan.
The Trailhead Group wants us to know that Bill Ritter is responsible for Denver's murder rate - higher than New York City. They, quite innocently, just don't know that almost every American city has a higher murder rate than New York, the largest city in the country. (In 1999, the murder rate in the quiet Republican hamlet of Littleton dwarfed the murder rate in New York.)
Why is the Trailhead Group so ignorant/hostile toward New York? Could it be that they want to excuse Bob Beauprez (my Congressman, by the way) for getting Hammered into turning Homeland Security into a pork barrel fiasco? While the Federal Government - controlled by rural and suburban Republicans - plows Homeland Security funds into petting zoos in Alabama, New York City has invested $2,000,000,000 of municipal funds into Counter-Terrorism.
Nonetheless, the civic virtue of the Trailhead Group inspires me. Just like them, I shall fully disclose. I have known Bill and Jeannie Ritter since college days. Jeannie was one of the gang (we called ourselves Nerf International) on the 11th floor of Turner Hall at UNC. Jeannie was the one who got all of us to take in physically and mentally handicapped people when the Special Olympics came to Greeley. Jeannie was the one who got the girls on the floor organized into springing a surprise breakfast for all the guys one Saturday morning. Jeannie was always the one with a stress-busting joke at mid-terms. And when the gang got together last summer for a reunion, Bill and Jeannie were the ones who remembered that one of us, since college, has been stricken with MS. Bill and Jeannie were the ones who brought Denise to the party. That was perfectly normal. Bill and Jeannie have always done our remembering for us.
So, I guess the Trailhead people are just better than me. I'm partisan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
