One day, while sitting for his portrait, President Lincoln chatted with the artist, Frank B. Carpenter. He described the Cabinet meeting of July 22, 1862, when he decided upon emancipating the slaves.
"Things had gone from bad to worse until I felt that we had reached the end of our rope on the plan of operations we had been pursuing, that we had about played our last card, and must change our tactics or lose the game. I now determined upon the adoption of the emancipation policy, and without consultation or knowlege of the Cabinet, I prepared the original draft of the proclamation, and after much anxious thought, called a Cabinet meeting upon the subject. I said to the Cabinet that I had resolved upon this step, and had not called them together to ask their advice, but to lay the subject matter of a proclamation before them, suggestions as to which would be in order, after they had heard it read. Secretary Chase wished the language stronger in reference to the arming of the blacks. Mr. Blair deprecated the policy, on the ground that it would cost the administration the fall elections.
"Nothing, however, was offered that I had not fully anticipated and settled in my own mind, until Secretary Seward spoke. He said, in substance, 'Mr. President, I approve of the proclamation, but I question the expediency of its issue at this juncture. The depression of the public mind, consequent upon our repeated reverses, is so great that I fear the effect of so important a step. It may be viewed as the last measure of an exhausted government; the government stretching forth its hands to Ethiopia, instead of Ethiopia stretching forth her hands to the government.'
"His idea was that it would be considered our last shriek, on the retreat.
'Now,' continued Seward. 'While I approve the measure, I suggest, sir, that you postpone its issue, until you can give it to the country supported by military success, instead of issuing it, as would be the case now, upon the greatest disasters of the war.'
"The wisdom of the view of the Secretary of State struck me with great force. It was an aspect of the case that, in all my thought upon the subject, I had entirely overlooked."
I am a playwright. I often attend public readings of new works. These readings are usually followed by an audience critique. I have seen wonderfully useful criticism utterly ignored by aspiring playwrights. So many of them - keenly aware that no member of the audience has thought as deeply upon the plot, theme, and characters of their play as they have - dismiss the criticism. They would do well to consider President Lincoln's close attention to the input of his Cabinet. No doubt, he was the moral and intellectual superior of his several Department Secretaries. He had thought much more deeply upon emancipation than any of them. Yet, in all that deep thought, he had missed a huge piece of the puzzle - picking the best time for publication. Had he gone forward full steam ahead, Emancipation would have failed.
A great playwright, determined to pen a masterpiece, must have both qualities possessed by President Lincoln - moral autonomy and purposive humility. And a finely tuned ear to the input of others.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
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?
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Boyles the Destroyer
One wonders whether the Swift radio ads might prompt the anti-immigration loonies - Tom Tancredo, Peter Boyles, Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, etc., etc., etc... - to finally sniff the coffee? Now that they've chased off the Mexicans, who will butcher the livestock, pick the lettuce, harvest the potatoes, etc., etc., etc...? In all their windy bloviations, Boyles, et al. failed to disclose their intent to drive American citizens down to a point of desperation where they'd be thankful to spend 40+ hours every week toiling in slaughterhouses.
When will we fine tune our hearing to the point of recognizing in Peter Boyles the dulcet tones of the Destroyer? He will, capriciously, turn the Arkansas Valley into a wasteland if he gets his way. If he is so sure that people like my bone idle Irish-American neighbor will gleefully pick the produce, he should start pledging his acolytes now for next year's harvest and take them down to Alamosa in September. That will be worth a few illuminating giggles.
When will we fine tune our hearing to the point of recognizing in Peter Boyles the dulcet tones of the Destroyer? He will, capriciously, turn the Arkansas Valley into a wasteland if he gets his way. If he is so sure that people like my bone idle Irish-American neighbor will gleefully pick the produce, he should start pledging his acolytes now for next year's harvest and take them down to Alamosa in September. That will be worth a few illuminating giggles.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Sports under Moral Hazard
Every March, my insurance agent runs a pool for the NCAA basketball tournament. I always submit two brackets. With the first, I submit a risk-averse "control" bracket, selecting favorites all the way through the tournament. With the second, I let fancy roam, picking several big upsets along the way. Last year, I was in the money with my "control" bracket. There weren't any real upsets. The sports pundits praised the omniscience of the Selection Committee. I should praise them, also. After all, craven obedience to their seedings put money in my pocket. Who cares if the tournament was less memorable than in years past?
The Selection Committee, last year, chose seventh and eight place schools from the big conferences over second and third place schools from the mid-majors. Thus, there were fewer chances that a little-known school might spring a shocking upset.
Hmmm! I wonder whether money played any part in that preference for number 7 from a major over a number 2 from a mid-major conference? How populous is the alumni base for the University of Illinois compared to Siena College? How widespread, geographically, are those two alumni bases? Which school is more likely to draw a crowd of partisans to Boise, Idaho in early March? Hmmm! Who do you suppose the merchants of Boise would rather see in the tournament - Illinois or Siena College? Far be it from me to suggest that the Selection Committee's pursuit of cold hard cash risks destroying the charm of the tournament with all those Davids beating Goliaths.
College football, of course, is an even bigger mess. In basketball, at least there is a tournament. The championship is earned over the course of a month. College football must revolutionize itself to produce a credible champion. Here is my suggestion:
First of all, the illustrious ones who precipitate this revolution must remember that colleges are supposed to educate young adults. Sometimes, providing an education is inconsistent with maximizing profits. The illustrious ones - the philosopher-kings of college football will have to settle for reasonable profits over maximum profits.
The Ivy League has it just about right. Nine regular season games is plenty for the regular season. These football players are supposed to be students first. The season should begin on the Saturday following Labor Day. All regular season games should be concluded the Saturday after Thanksgiving, the traditional day of the Army-Navy game. Conference champions should be decided that same Saturday. The following Saturday, a tournament of no more than 16 teams would commence. The 16 teams would be the nine conference champions (Big East, Big Ten, ACC, SEC, Big 12, Pac 10, WAC, MAC, and Mountain West) plus seven at-large bids. The at-large bids should be picked in order from the final poll rankings, skipping third place teams from conferences. Seedings in the tournament should be determined from the poll rankings. The national championship would be played on the first Saturday in January. The site for that game would alternate between Pasadena, New Orleans, Miami, and Glendale, Arizona. The teams in the Championship would wind up playing 13 games. That's plenty.
The Selection Committee, last year, chose seventh and eight place schools from the big conferences over second and third place schools from the mid-majors. Thus, there were fewer chances that a little-known school might spring a shocking upset.
Hmmm! I wonder whether money played any part in that preference for number 7 from a major over a number 2 from a mid-major conference? How populous is the alumni base for the University of Illinois compared to Siena College? How widespread, geographically, are those two alumni bases? Which school is more likely to draw a crowd of partisans to Boise, Idaho in early March? Hmmm! Who do you suppose the merchants of Boise would rather see in the tournament - Illinois or Siena College? Far be it from me to suggest that the Selection Committee's pursuit of cold hard cash risks destroying the charm of the tournament with all those Davids beating Goliaths.
College football, of course, is an even bigger mess. In basketball, at least there is a tournament. The championship is earned over the course of a month. College football must revolutionize itself to produce a credible champion. Here is my suggestion:
First of all, the illustrious ones who precipitate this revolution must remember that colleges are supposed to educate young adults. Sometimes, providing an education is inconsistent with maximizing profits. The illustrious ones - the philosopher-kings of college football will have to settle for reasonable profits over maximum profits.
The Ivy League has it just about right. Nine regular season games is plenty for the regular season. These football players are supposed to be students first. The season should begin on the Saturday following Labor Day. All regular season games should be concluded the Saturday after Thanksgiving, the traditional day of the Army-Navy game. Conference champions should be decided that same Saturday. The following Saturday, a tournament of no more than 16 teams would commence. The 16 teams would be the nine conference champions (Big East, Big Ten, ACC, SEC, Big 12, Pac 10, WAC, MAC, and Mountain West) plus seven at-large bids. The at-large bids should be picked in order from the final poll rankings, skipping third place teams from conferences. Seedings in the tournament should be determined from the poll rankings. The national championship would be played on the first Saturday in January. The site for that game would alternate between Pasadena, New Orleans, Miami, and Glendale, Arizona. The teams in the Championship would wind up playing 13 games. That's plenty.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
A Wise, Outspoken Marine
FIASCO, by Thomas Ricks, introduced me to Marine Corps General James Mattis, esteemed by his peers as the finest soldier our country has produced since the Korean War. The portrait of the politically incorrect General Mattis, drawn by Ricks, brought to mind one of my heroes, Joseph W. Stilwell, esteemed by his contemporaries as "the fightingest General in the United States Army."
General Stilwell often exasperated his civilian overlords with his caustic remarks. Frequently, he was cautioned to to stop referring to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, El Supremo in China, as "the Peanut." Finally, the G-mo wore out FDR's patience. A firm message (a "hot bundle of paprika," according to Stilwell) was dispatched to the G-mo insisting he implement reforms to "increase the combat efficiency of the Chinese Army." General Stilwell memorialized the event with a poem:
General Mattis looks like General Stilwell. And he sounds like him, too. The protocol boys had to do back flips trying to anesthecize these remarks in San Diego in February 2005.
About the fighting in Iraq, General Mattis said it is "almost embarrassing intellectually." Then, he warned,
Naturally, the press focused on the colorful bellicosity and political INcorrectness of the "fun to shoot people" part of this quote. The underlying wisdom and criticism of the Bush blood for oil policy went by unnoticed.
The only objective worth achieving in this confrontation with Islamic Fundamentalism is the end of purdah, getting women out into the sunshine. So far, that aspiration, dressed up as a War for Democracy, has been swallowed up in the pretext for an oil grab. Or, it has been lost sight of in a shallow game of opportunism.
During the Soviet regime in Afghanistan, 55% of government employees were women. Unfortunately, for those semi-emancipated women, we saw an opportunity to use the Islamic Fundamentalist rebels to get even with the Russians for their meddling in Vietnam. Our clients won - and the Berlin Wall came crashing down on the women of Afghanistan. They were pink-slipped, sent home and forced back behind the Veil. Those who persisted in modern ways were marched to the new soccer stadium and executed in front of 30,000 cheering men.
We had a chance to redeem ourselves for this crime against the women of Afghanistan. Instead, we left the job half-finished and rushed off to invade Iraq, perhaps the most secular country in the Middle East. Our Saudi masters were calling.
Iraq, like Afghanistan (and Ba'athist Syria) had made great strides bringing women out from behind the Veil. Our ally, Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, was still punishing the women, who, in 1990, had gone out for a drive unescorted.
(In addition, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Osama bin Laden, penniless after his alms-giving mission to the Sudan, relied on a network of Saudi and Gulf States donors to finance al Qaeda.)
We chose to back away from an unfinished mission of redemption in Afghanistan in order to bring down the most secular country in the Middle East, adding the women of Iraq and Saudi Arabia to the list of those betrayed. How pathetic!
The remarks of General Mattis bring into sharp relief the essence of this struggle. The enemy wants the Veil. We don't. That is a fight worth having.
(There is more along these lines in my essays A WINNABLE WAR, THE REAGAN LEGACY, THE FOUR BASIC STRATEGIC CHOICES, and RUMFOORD'S POCKET HISTORY OF IRAQ.)
General Stilwell often exasperated his civilian overlords with his caustic remarks. Frequently, he was cautioned to to stop referring to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, El Supremo in China, as "the Peanut." Finally, the G-mo wore out FDR's patience. A firm message (a "hot bundle of paprika," according to Stilwell) was dispatched to the G-mo insisting he implement reforms to "increase the combat efficiency of the Chinese Army." General Stilwell memorialized the event with a poem:
I've waited long for vengeance, at last I've had my chance.
I've looked the Peanut in the eye and kicked him in the pants.
The old harpoon was ready, with aim and timing true,
I sank it to the handle and stung him through and through.
The little bastard shivered and lost the power of speech.
His face turned green and quivered as he struggled not to screech.
For all my weary battles, for all my hours of woe,
At last I've had my innings and laid the Peanut low.
I know I've still to suffer and run a weary race,
But, Oh! The blessed pleasure, I've wrecked the Peanut's face.
General Mattis looks like General Stilwell. And he sounds like him, too. The protocol boys had to do back flips trying to anesthecize these remarks in San Diego in February 2005.
It's fun to shoot people. Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. I like brawling. You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they don't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.
About the fighting in Iraq, General Mattis said it is "almost embarrassing intellectually." Then, he warned,
Don't patronize this enemy. They mean business. They mean every word they say. Don't imagine an enemy somewhere in the future, and you're going to transform so you can fight him. They're killing us now. Their will is not broken. They mean it.
Naturally, the press focused on the colorful bellicosity and political INcorrectness of the "fun to shoot people" part of this quote. The underlying wisdom and criticism of the Bush blood for oil policy went by unnoticed.
The only objective worth achieving in this confrontation with Islamic Fundamentalism is the end of purdah, getting women out into the sunshine. So far, that aspiration, dressed up as a War for Democracy, has been swallowed up in the pretext for an oil grab. Or, it has been lost sight of in a shallow game of opportunism.
During the Soviet regime in Afghanistan, 55% of government employees were women. Unfortunately, for those semi-emancipated women, we saw an opportunity to use the Islamic Fundamentalist rebels to get even with the Russians for their meddling in Vietnam. Our clients won - and the Berlin Wall came crashing down on the women of Afghanistan. They were pink-slipped, sent home and forced back behind the Veil. Those who persisted in modern ways were marched to the new soccer stadium and executed in front of 30,000 cheering men.
We had a chance to redeem ourselves for this crime against the women of Afghanistan. Instead, we left the job half-finished and rushed off to invade Iraq, perhaps the most secular country in the Middle East. Our Saudi masters were calling.
Iraq, like Afghanistan (and Ba'athist Syria) had made great strides bringing women out from behind the Veil. Our ally, Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, was still punishing the women, who, in 1990, had gone out for a drive unescorted.
(In addition, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Osama bin Laden, penniless after his alms-giving mission to the Sudan, relied on a network of Saudi and Gulf States donors to finance al Qaeda.)
We chose to back away from an unfinished mission of redemption in Afghanistan in order to bring down the most secular country in the Middle East, adding the women of Iraq and Saudi Arabia to the list of those betrayed. How pathetic!
The remarks of General Mattis bring into sharp relief the essence of this struggle. The enemy wants the Veil. We don't. That is a fight worth having.
(There is more along these lines in my essays A WINNABLE WAR, THE REAGAN LEGACY, THE FOUR BASIC STRATEGIC CHOICES, and RUMFOORD'S POCKET HISTORY OF IRAQ.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
