David's blog

Political update for January, 2012

2012-01-22T19:15:00.000-08:00

It is here, a year of ugliness and hysteria, where reason is replaced by sneers, an itch scratched becomes a character flaw exposed, a tired cracked voice is a howl and every actual flaw is either an unbearable offense or a poorly orchestrated hit job by the opposition, depending on whose ox . . . .

Whatever scandals erupt or are created by the media or opposition research, partisans of both sides deserve each other. The things we should remember this year is that allegiance to party means non-allegiance to country and that partisanship makes everyone a little crazy. Here’s my new year commentary on the whole slop:

Perry

Perry can blame no one but himself for his poor performance. It was one of the worst run campaigns, rotting from the top, that has been seen in a long time. Those advisers and campaign workers who fled from Gingrich en masse to Perry must have actually regretted it and that is hard to believe.

Perry teaches us several things though, that are well worth remembering. First, fanfare about someone entering the race is just media hype. It may be accompanied by big numbers at first, but it is meaningless. Rudy, Giuliani and Fred Thompson in 2008 and Huntsman, Cain, Bachmann and Perry this time all attracted lots of attention. So what?

Next, it reminds us that though the United States is a religious nation, in general, few have a taste for inviting even more religion in the door. Almost everyone believes in God,and last survey I read something over 40% attended services weekly.But, other than a small group of people, we don’t want our politicians to try and be religious leaders or to drag religion into the White House.

Gingrich

Partisanship is like watching sausage being made. Very ugly. Can you imagine if the same report was made about Obama asking his wife for an open marriage, how many conservatives would find that forgivable? Imagine how many liberals would believe it was true? To both the answer is not very many. The bottom line should be that adultery - wrong, but a human failing which does not make someone untrustworthy in other arenas - should not be a weapon in a political contest. But, liberals and cons are identical in tactics, should drop crowing and heehawing when it is the other guy, and snarling and disbelieving it when it is their own. But, because they don't, they get what they deserve.

My personal loathing for Gingrich is well known for the millions of people (if you count individual cells) who read this blog. His victory in South Carolina is distressing to me, but it is hard to say what it means.

The conventional wisdom is that South Carolina picks the Republican nominee, and historical, it is true. But, every election brings new and surprising things that make a mockery of conventional wisdom. There being a President Barack Obama is enough to tell us that. And, this time there is a twist on the usual facts.

Different situation no. 1: The tea party. 64% of the voters were tea partiers in South Carolina. They largely voted for Gingrich, not Romney or the others. But, the rest of the country has to some degree become disenchanted with the tea party. That doesn’t mean, of course, that it will not be very influential in Republican politics and primaries, but it is especially heavy in South Carolina. Additionally, Gingrich did best by far among the evangelicals who also make up an unusually large percentage of South Carolinian Republican primary voters (65%). The Carolinas have more than half as many again evangelicals as say, Florida, the next state to come up in primaries and it has very high church attendance. This may make a big difference there as opposed to non-southern states (or, Utah, which will vote for Romney).

On the other hand, the media does have power, and they make a big deal out of South Carolina as kingmaker, and many people just like to follow along. I am hopeful that an independent strain prevails.

It amazes me that Gingrich was able to sway so many evangelicals, but much of it has to be his demagoguery with respect to American Muslims, atheists and gays as well as the well known antipathy by some to Mormons, which swung them, because, really, considering his Catholicism, his three marriages, serial adultery and his not so ultra-conservative views on things like global warming and immigration, you have to wonder. Even Ann Coulter has been a Romney man, and has written some excellent articles tearing down Gingrich. If Ann Coulter is for Romney, it is hard to understand how other evangelicals are not.

I’ve said for a long time, I missed big time with my Gingrich predictions. I didn’t think he would get in and then I thought he would stumble out. He is bright, ambitious, glib and passionate. It is possible he could be the man. But, I sure hope not.

Paul

Since the beginning, I have wanted a libertarian in there. Gary Johnson was preferable to me, but, he had no shot at all (his third party run will create, no doubt, much excitement among his family and friends. So, I'm left with Paul. But, if he cannot prevail, I cannot see another possibility to not only undo the excesses of the Bush/Obama years, but to fundamentally change our system.

Sure, it would be difficult for any president to get congress to do what Paul wants done, and he has acknowledged that, but I do not think he is an extremist like some people do. With the sole exception that he seems to think there is no threat to us from radical Islam without our being overseas and that we started it (I’m not impressed by his going back to the 1953 Iranian cult to prove we’ve intervened too much).

Yet, if the Republicans control congress (short of being filibuster proof), and especially if the Tea Party Caucus retains heavy influence in congressional politics, then yes, I think is possible that the following might, I said might, be accomplished to a far greater extent than if any other candidate or the incumbent wins:

-The fed will become more transparent (but will not end).

-We will scale down our military, particularly our overseas military (but we will not retreat from the world militarily), but not our defensive capacity. Paul makes much of the difference between military and defense in his speeches. Not many listen. And, it can be argued, that since no one would attack us here except in a terrorist attack, but will attack us overseas (we have business everywhere), that he does not understand it is not as severable as he might think.

-We will slowly undo TARP control of banks, put an end to the bailout mentality, the picking of winners and too big to fail in favor of a do or die market economy.

-Welfare and entitlements will drastically changes so that there is no culture of welfare, but it becomes closer to the safety net for which it was intended. This will be replaced by an insurance program on a competitive basis with provisions made for the poor.

-Obstacles for markets to perform outside of the dictates of the government will be pared back, but hardly done away with.

-Foreign aid will be scaled back, but also hardly done away with, particularly to

Israel

and other countries with a special relationship with us.

-The federal budget will be slashed.

-Tax rates will be lowered to correspond to the smaller budget (but the income tax will not disappear).

- Rule by presidential fiat will be lessened. Both Bush, whose defenders promoted the idea of the unitary executive and Obama, who seems to think presidential order is a good way to rule, have seriously diluted constitutional protections against a tyrannical president. Both sides would point to the other as an excuse to continue the practice. It is merely one more excuse. But, I believe Paul would not operate in that fashion – at least not to the same degree. Of course, politicians tend to disappoint, don’t they?

Despite all this, and other possible changes, the nanny state will not disappear, as people like not having lead paint on their walls, sucking down cigarette smoke in restaurants or having drunk drivers ruling the roads. Our military alliances will stay intact although some apparatus, like NATO, may greatly change and someone else will be paying for it. Federal Civil Rights laws will not be changed, at least, not more than if he wasn’t president.

I listen to all these guys (the remaining four) make speeches all the time. Romney talks about business and tweaking the status quo. Santorum talks about morality and tweaking the status quo. Gingrich talks about everything in terms of bold and fundamental changes, which is really tweaking the status quo, and Ron Paul talks about freedom. I like that better.

If I am rating them on speaking ability, I rate Paul after Gingrich, because Paul does not his subject, and his followers love his hobbit like appearance and style.

Paul's chances as a Republican, and he is not going third party no matter what in my opinion, are very small despite his ability to stick with around. His candidacy is mostly a pipe dream and a prod to whoever wins.

Romney

Here is what it comes down to. Rush Limbaugh has decreed that independents don’t matter. Republicans must DEFEAT the Democrats. He even declared that Romney was done fairly early in the process for one heresy or another (I think it was something about immigration). Of course, ironically, he has reluctantly come to Romney’s aid by bashing Gingrich over his attacks on Bain Capital.

But, independents do matter. They will in fact likely pick the next president, by the weight of the majority of their votes one way or the other. It is the reason that Romney is roughly tied with Obama in head to head polls and Gingrich gets trounced.

Romney and Gingrich’s styles and strategy are basically, the tortoise and hare. Gingrich is the hare, all flash and frivolity, look at me, look at me, look at me. Romney did best when he managed to shrug his shoulders, tortoise-like, and look like the adult up there (but not so adult that he comes off like Herman Munster scolding Eddie as he did after he lost South Carolina). Romney is bland. Not Dukakis bland. But bland. And any new face coming up in the polls looked exciting to him. But, slowly, or sometimes quickly, they faded and he stayed about where he is – slightly better nationally than his 27.8% finish in South Carolina.

Santorum

I really have little to say about him because I don’t think he is going to be around very long, whatever he says. Bachmann and Cain and Perry and Huntsman all said they weren't leaving. My only question for him is – does he endorse Romney or Gingrich (I think we all know that Paul is out of the question)? Endorsements really mean next to nothing, but it will be a news cycle.

Santorum is actually the most personally likeable of the four left, if you ask me. That’s subjective, of course. Though like all politicians (people), he is flawed, I would still likely vote for him if it were – however unlikely – Santorum v. Obama. That's not saying much as I would vote for Paul and Romney too (not Gingrich - I'd vote 3d party or stay home). I don’t like the whole anti-gay rights thingee he’s got going, but I disagree with most conservatives on that point. I’ve seen him interviewed on C-Span, which lets famous people present themselves in a non-antagonistic way and I like him. I think he would endorse Gingrich, as they seem to be friends. But, again, so what? The majority of his followers would gravitate their anyway.

Iran

Who is killing Iranian scientists? I don’t know, but if it is us, it is a bad idea. We are not at war with them. Not yet, anyway. You can’t just say, well, had someone killed Hitler . . . because that legitimizes murder by any country or ideology of any other. Iran has not shown itself to be Nazi Germany although I despise their government and almost no one in the West would consider them a free country. Part of me wishes they would attack one of our ships (unsuccessfully) but I am reminded of the warning to be careful of what you wish for – you might get it. I expect in ten years that many more countries have the bomb anyway.

If it is Israel doing it – and it looks like it is either them or someone trying to look like them - that is a harder question. I sure don’t speak Farsi and I am just not convinced about the translations of certain quotations attributed to their spokesmen I've read. It seems to me, from the little research I could do, that quotes from Ahmadinejad about wiping Israel off the face of the earth are not correct (I have even analyses by Israelis or Jews who read Farsi claim it is a mistranslation), though obviously, he is extremely antagonistic to Israel. However, it appears that their Supreme Leader, Khamenei has made it clear that Iran and Israel are on a "collision course." We are continuously told that Iran is funding Hizbollah and Hamas and whether I can personally verify it myself, it seems highly likely. If that is true, then it is as good as war for Israel and I can see why they would not want even the remote possibility of an Iranian bomb.

But, please, no war for us with Iran, outside of completely repulsing and punishing any attack on us. And if that happens, we should not put troops on the ground other than what is needed other than to secure Iraqi borders (and that only if it can be done relatively safely). We should go into the straights of Hormuz full naval force and take "as a prize" any Iranian vessel which is aggressive with our ships based on the principles of freedom of navigation. If that is met with bombs or terrorist attacks, then we do have to step it up to make the government of

Iran

loathsome to its own people. It is possible in today's world to get the word out to them, despite their tyranny. But I see no need for ground troops, save, potentially, a strong special forces attack on a so-called nuclear site to see if there is any truth to it. But, these hit jobs are wrong.

MLK

Martin Luther King Day has passed and once again I am struck by the number of conservatives who seem bothered by it being celebrated. They insist it is not racism, and maybe it is not. But, I think for some it is. While I do not believe most conservatives are racist, I am often saddened by the continued bigotry of some, particularly older conservatives I know, who actually detest the civil rights hero (and loathe Obama on a very personal level). MLK is a great American in my book, and to accentuate his flaws - mostly that he wasn't faithful to his wife – and ignore his accomplishments is to make a mockery of some of their own elected leaders. I'm glad to see some other conservatives pulling the other way. Before someone mentions that it was Democrats who opposed civil rights, the southern Democrats were conservatives, and many fled their party after Johnson pushed it through. The 60s was the source of some left wing problems and excesses we still struggle with but the civil rights aspect greatly improved this country and King, with courage and creativity, helped changed our little corner of the universe for the better. It is hard to think of any political/moral leader who deserves it more. I’ll take suggestions. If the fact that Washington and Lincoln each don’t have their own day like King bothers enough people, then fine, fix the supposed slight. Most people want more holidays.

And, none of the three could care less.

A case of the stubborns

2012-01-15T20:09:00.000-08:00

I have to wonder - did he really think he had a chance? The media, because they just chase stories and could care about reality, made it seem like a big deal that he might and then did enter the race, as if it would make a difference. Huntsman seemed dead on arrival to me. The only mistake I made was thinking he wouldn't even make it to Iowa. He did, but only because he didn't compete there, and then New Hampshire, which he camped out in for months, and briefly made crazy people think he looked like he was a contender by finishing third. He had said that Iowa didn't matter after it was over, and he was right, but it is true of New Hampshire too. South Carolina is more important but probably everyone who was thinking of voting for him there was named or married to a Huntsman too.

It is reported that he is going to endorse Romney, which is the second biggest endorsement any candidate has gotten so far since Ashley Madison, the dating site for adulters, endorsed Gingrich. These endorsements by candidates who just got finished criticizing the person they are now endorsing make me uncomfortable. But, that's what politicians do, isn't it? Be endlessly hypocritical with a smile.

By endorsing Romney, you may have gotten yourself another gig in China, but didn't you criticize them a little bit too during your campaign? That might not go over so well. He can't make you VP (as, you are both Mormons, and God forbid), but he'll find something for you. Frankly, if I were you, I'd write a book and hang out with your large family skiing and doing other fun stuff. You can run again in four or eight years when everyone forgets that you won the Michael Dukakis award for scintilating performances at a debate. We know - Utah was the number one job producer. Tells us something we don't know.

Actually, I like the guy. But, as I said the first time I mentioned him in these evalovin' pages - he had a slightly better chance of winning than I did.

Nomenclature

2012-01-15T14:56:00.000-08:00

I love nomenclature and etymology. I didn’t even know the word nomenclature until a few years ago when I read that Tolkien, who I’ve argued here is the most important English speaking author of the 20^th century - okay, possibly a tie with Hemingway, but maybe I’m just trying to sound reasonable, because other than the short novel The Old Man and the Sea, the short story The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber, and one of my all time favorite novels, For Whom the Bell Tolls, I couldn’t finish anything else he wrote - loved nomenclature. I can’t Tolkien’s letter to his son, but after his son had described some historical fact to him, the master replied that he just couldn’t get interested in history unless there was some nomenclature involved – that is, either lists of names or something about how names got their meaning. I thought – Me too, but not so much as, as I do love history for its own sake too. But, a name meaning makes it special.

This post is dedicated to nomenclature – Of course, people have written books on this, and I’m not going to, but just select some nomenclature, mostly that has always interested me.

1) Nomenclature – I’ll start with the name for the thing itself. There are actually all kinds of nomenclature, including what must be the most well known – etymology (a word, which, of course, has its own etymology), which is generally speaking, about the origin of names. Take the word – “nomenclature,” for example, the roots for which can be dated back at least to Homer (I am not the least familiar with earlier Greek languages, so, maybe earlier.

In Ancient Greek, the word for “name” is – transliterated – onoma. The –a is an ending, so take it off and you are pretty close to our word. The word for “to call” is kalein. The “ein” at the end just means it is an infinitive, so dropping it, you realize how much it is also like the modern word. Putting the two words together with a few changes, you get something close to - onomakledev (caller of names). The Romans dropped the initial o, played around with it a bit according to their own rules and came up with nomenclatura. From Latin it went into the romance languages, such as French – nomenclature, from which we got our own identical word, although I suppose they pronounced “ture” as a nasal “toor” (rhyming with poor) instead of our “chure.” See. Simple.

If you don’t find that fascinating, you just aren’t someone who loves etymology or nomenclature. I find most people are interested though, if it is a word they use themselves and there is a cool origin for it. So, I’ll give you one.

2) Wednesday. When I taught a class in Constitutional law I started one session by asking why Wednesday was spelled so strange. There were roughly 75 students there and not one knew, although they used the word all the time, so don’t feel bad if you don’t. Obviously, I’m not talking about the “day” part, which has its own etymology, but the “Wednes-” part, which is a strange spelling for an English word. The answer is, it comes from the Old Norse or Scandinavian father of the gods – Woden (really the “d” was the Old Norse and English Þ, þ, which was pronounced like our “th.” Over time, we changed “th” sounds to “d,” according to Grimm’s law (the same amazing Jacob Grimm who was the older of the Brothers Grimm). It’s not the only day of the week we get from the Norse gods. We much more often derive words from Greek and Roman for (planets, months, etc.) things like this, but for some reason the god we now usually called Odin and his kin got to stand in. Like –

Tuesday – Tiu’s day (Tiu was a Norse god of war), and

Thursday – Thor’s day (Thor was the god of thunder, made more famous today by Marvel Comics), and

Friday – Frigg’s or Frigga’s day (Frigg was the goddess of marital love), and, of course, as described, Wednesday.

3) Dwarves. While we are talking about the Norse and Tolkien, I’ll give an example using the other meaning of nomenclature – a list of names. The “Bible” of the Norse gods is called The Elder or Poetic Edda (a word which, of course, has its own interesting etymology), compiled in the 13^th century, has a list in it, which, if you love The Hobbit, you will instantly recognize some of these names (which I highlighted in case you don’t):

“There was Motsognir | the mightiest made
Of all the dwarfs, | and Durin next;
Many a likeness | of men they made,
The dwarfs in the earth, | as Durin said.

Nyi and Nithi, | Northri and Suthri,
Austri and Vestri, | Althjof, Dvalin,
Nar and Nain, | Niping, Dain,
Bifur, Bofur, | Bombur, Nori,
An and Onar, | Ai, Mjothvitnir.

Vigg and Gandalf) | Vindalf, Thrain,
Thekk and Thorin, | Thror, Vit and Lit,
Nyr and Nyrath,-- | now have I told--
Regin and Rathsvith-- | the list aright.

Fili, Kili, | Fundin, Nali,
Heptifili, | Hannar, Sviur,
Frar, Hornbori, | Fræg and Loni,
Aurvang, Jari, | Eikinskjaldi.”

If the last one threw you – it means “oaken shield,” (just look closely) as in, Thorin Oakenshield, leader of The Hobbit’s dwarves. Of course, you also recognized Gandalf in there, which means magic elf or maybe wand elf. Regin is also an important character in Norse mythology and if you look again, you will also see the Old Norse words for North, South, East and West.

4) Bosporos (or Bosphoros) Straights. This is the world’s narrowest internationally navigated straight, which cuts Turkey into two parts and is also a dividing line between Europe and Asia. I’ve been there once in 1990. Foreign travel is always wonderful for me, but this was all more exciting because I knew that both Darius and Xerxes, Persian emperors who tried and failed to conquer Greece, also crossed there. Its name comes from the Greek - Bos-poros, means cow-crossing (or ferry or ford). The Roman poet Ovid, whose Metamorphises I read sometime in the 1970s tells us why, and I’ve like the story ever since. But, Aeschylus, the first of the great Greek playwrights, told it centuries earlier in Prometheus Bound and it seems obvious it was already known in the time of Homer, who (if he existed) may be from the 7^th or 8^th century, B.C., as he referred to the god Hermes (Mercury to the Romans) as Argus-Slayer, which will make more sense in the next paragraph. Anyway, that’s the thing with words. I can’t even explain to you why having the story surrounding a word being at least 1700 years old is exciting, but if it is for you, then you are a lexophile too, and I mean that in a good way.

Generally, the story goes like this. Zeus, who just could not keep it in his pants, seduced the nymph Io. Hera, Zeus’ wife, seeks her out and Zeus changes her into a cow, which Hera asks for, and Zeus, a jerk if there ever was one, gives up. She chains her up and has the 100 eyed Argus watch her. Zeus sent Hermes (remember – called Argus-Slayer) to kill Argus, which he does after lulling him to sleep with a boring story. Hera, unforgiving, has Io pursued by gadflies and eventually she, a cow, crossed a body of water which we still call – cow crossing, or, in Greek, Bosporos. By the way, gadfly in Greek was “estrus,” now used for estrus cycle. If I have to explain that, you need to take high school health again (actually, I failed that course, but that is a tale best told on another day).

5) Gamecock. Right after New Year’s Day I noticed that the South Carolina Gamecocks were playing in some bowl game or another. I could care about the game (although I went to a Virginia Tech football game this year and it was a lot more fun than I thought it would be) but it made me think of their nickname Gamecock, which was originally the nickname of a Revolutionary War hero most people strangely associate with the Civil War instead, for reasons I will explain. Actually, our hero, Thomas Sumpter, was originally not from South Carolina, but Virginia. He moved further south though and became a colonel in the South Carolinan militia, resigning his commission though, early in the war. But, when the boisterous British calvary led by “Bloody” Banastre Tarleton burned his home to the ground, he reconstituted the militia and was made their general. On a recruiting trip, he stopped at the home of the Gillispie brothers who were well known for their fighting cocks, including one known as Old Tuck. They were impressed with General Sumpter and pronounced him a second Old Tuck, who was, of course, a “game cock.”

At least, that is one etymology, and they are often confused and conflicting. Other versions have him being so tagged by one British general or another, including Cornwallis. But, whichever version is true, it became his nickname. Oddly, Sumpter, later a congressman, is hardly a household name from the revolution, although Cornwallis deemed him his greatest “plague.” But, his name is preserved for us in other ways such s most famously, Fort Sumpter, the fort whose defense set off the Civil War. And, he was at least one model for the fictional hero of the movie, The Patriot, and, of course, the inspiration for the University of South Carolina’s teams.

6) California. No, not an Indian name. It most likely comes from a Spanish novel, Las sergas de Esplandian (1510), itself a sequel to a series of books about a fictional knight, Amadis de Gaul, which novels were also the inspiration for the more famous Don Quixote. Good luck finding a translation in English of Amadis de Gaul. I found one printed in the 19^th century – one of my few treasures, though I expect it is not worth very much. In Las sergas, California was the name of a mythical island where Amazon like women resided. This land was somewhat legendary in Mexico and its environs. Both Colombus and Cortez had written about these women and island. Cortez actually sent out explorers in search of them. Either those guys or another Spanish explorer (not really clear) soon after referred to the Baja Peninsula, which they thought was an island, gave it the name of California from the still recent novel. There are some other stabs at the origination of the name, one of which sounds at least plausible (an Indian word for high mountains), but this one seems pretty evident to me from the historical record.

7) Consider the following words:

Terrific, pandemonium padlock, sensuous, earthshaking, moon-struck, lovelorn, jubilant, impassive, didactic, unprincipled, stunning, liturgical, unaccountable, self-delusion, dismissive, irresponsible, arch-fiend, debauchery, fragrance, gloom, embellishing, literalism, chastening, civilising, satanic, divorceable, ecstatic, endearing, depravity, extravagance, flutter, cooking, hurried, well-balanced, well-stocked, economise, half-starved, unhealthily, untack, unfurl, acclaim, ungenerous, criticise, disregard, awe-struck, jubilant, enjoyable, exhilarating, complacency, attacks, airborne, exploding, far-sighted, vested, undesirable, persuasively, unconvincing, hamstring, chastening, unintended, unenviable, defensively, beleaguered, embittered, enlightening, civilizing, hot-headed, cherubic, loquacious, impassive, adjustments, idol-worship, frameworks, helpfulness, pettifoggery, full-grown, incompleteness, belatedness, circumscribing, expanses, reforming, slow-moving, surrounding, unoriginal, echoing, awaited and discontinuous.

They all have sought of a common etymology, or really, creator. And it’s not Shakespeare, who also invented hundreds if not thousands of words. No, they are the creation of another poet, John Milton who lived later in the 17^th century. Many of them are derived from other words or the Lation or Greek of other words, but according to the Oxford Dictionary, he was the first. I just want to look closer at one of them (the only one I knew was his when I started researching this) – pandemonium, which might have my favorite etymology.

We usually use pandemonium to the noise occuring when people are going crazy with some wild emotion (I’ve read the definition – a very noisy place, but we really mean more). It could be used to describe fans when there team scores a touchdown or in China when the Apple store doesn’t sell iphone 4s on the day they promised. Pan is another ancient Greek, not just the word for the half goat, half man god who played the pipes, but the word always meant “all” or some synonym of that. Demon come from daimonos, which in Homeric times meant a friend or a divinity, but at least by the time of Christ, and maybe earlier, demon. So, adding the -ium ending, Milton used it to mean, all-demon home or land. If you think about what a land filled with demons would sound like, our modern usage makes perfect sense.

8) Boondocks. As in – I live in the boondocks. Who hasn’t used that expression without knowing where it comes from? I sure did. We mean a really wild place away from civilization (which I mean a population center containing at least one McDonald’s restaurant or two iphones). It sounds vaguely British, like maybe a place in London near the main port, but actually the word is Tagalog, a language spoken in the Phillipines. It is hard to believe it is only since 1946 that America gave the Phillipines its independence (after all, we did make the Brits give up theirs), having won her almost a half century earlier in our battles with Spain (which included our taking Cuba and Puerto Rico too). The Phillipine-American War is probably the least well known war in our history and I don’t pretend to know much about it either, never having bothered to study it. It started in 1899, officially ended in 1902, but went on in some respects until 1913, that is, almost up to the start of World War I. Many Americans were against our occupation, most famously, Mark Twain, who started an Anti-Imperialist League. Ironically, today, it is one of the places in the world where the United States is most popular (not counting, of course, the Islamic rebels).

Where was I? Oh, right, boondocks. Boondocks was a word brought back to America by soldiers. It meant “mountain” there, and mountains are usually wild places, which gave it its English meaning.

9) Spain. This is a weird one and maybe not true, although no one really knows. Still, I like it, so I’m going with it anyway. Spain means (supposedly) land of hyraxes. Don’t feel bad if you don’t know what a hyrax is, as almost no one does. I actually learned about them in the very first book I read, Born Free, about a lion returned to the wilderness. The author, Joy Adamson, also had a pet hyrax, which is best described as a rodent-like creature that lives among the rocks or in the trees in Africa. There were giant hyraxes once upon a time and for various reasons, they appear not only to be the ancestors of the little tiny hyraxes, but also elephants and water mammals like manatees. Even now the tiny hyrax shares with the elephant a number of traits including small tusks and rather advanced intelligence for its size (you can train a hyrax to use a toilet, making it a great pet in my book).

So, how do we get from hyrax to Spain, which has none? Apparently, Phoenician sailors, who colonized Spain, thought that’s what the rabbits were, and used their name for it. Apparently, the problem worked both ways, as English Bible tranlators used rabbit for Hyrax, as they had no idea what they were either. But, the Phoenician word for hyrax went through Latin and then Norman French (espagna) and then English before we got to the word Spain. There are a number of theories about the name Spain, actually (I studied this before I traveled there in I think, 1996, but, ) but none of them grabs me as a – aha, that has to be it – so I’m sticking with hyraxes until someone makes a strong argument for something else.

10. Cincinnati. That’s a weird name for an American city, sounding more like it should be in Italy. And, there’s a good reason why. We actually know this derivation for sure. The city was named for the Society of the Cincinnati, which is still in existence and begun in 1783 at the end of the Revolutionary War. It was comprised of soldiers who wanted to preserve their comraderie and became a hereditary society of their descendents, with branches here and in France. Washington, the first president of the Society, as well as the United States, was known as the Cincinnati of America or Cincinnati of the West. He, and the Society after him, were both named for a fifth/sixth century Roman hero, Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, who was twice given temprorary dictatorship over the Romans for military purposes and twice gave it up as soon as he was done with his work to go back to his farm. Apparently, the Romans were just as struck by this noble behavior as Americans were with Washington when he too went back to his farm. Actually, cincinnus itself has a meaning – curly or curly hair.

Not everybody was thrilled with the society. Jefferson was appalled by its hereditary nature and Franklin, at first, was suspicious (later becoming an honorary member) both fearing a hereditary military organization in the infant country. Apparently, it was no big deal though.

What we now call Cincinnati, Ohio was founded a few years after the society and called by the even stranger name Losantiville, which was an amalgamation of four words from different languages meaning city opposite the mouth of the Licking River. But, a few years later the governor of the territory, who was a member of the society, changed it to Cincinnati.

Last two - David is Hebrew for Beloved and Eisenberg German for Iron Mountain.

What's the matter with Ron Paul?

2012-01-07T16:27:00.000-08:00

First, what is right about Ron Paul? Of those running, he is the at least the second most interesting; Newt Gingrich – who I do not favor – is probably more so. But Paul’s being interesting is part of the reason that independents are so excited by him. It is the reason young people are so interested in him. He is more dedicated to the text of the Constitution as written than any other candidate. He is more dedicated to the idea of individual liberty than any other candidate. It would be hard to believe that a strong majority of people would not, at least in the abstract, view these positions positively. Even in 2008 he was getting the loudest cheers in debate audiences for saying things that made the experts cringe. Words like liberty and freedom, the Constitution and the founder’s vision resonate with many people.

So, what is so wrong with him so that virtually every “expert” on tv says he is unelectable and his opponents go so far as to call him dangerous? On the other hand, when they start thinking about what it means, it scares them. That’s because the world has changed much more than the Constitution has and they don’t want to go back. Thinking about that leads to questions I’m not going into here very deeply (I predict a deep sigh of relief from any reader). They include – How have we moved away from the Constitution? Why did we move away – changing values, changing policies, something inherent in the Constitution? Is doing so dangerous to our liberty interests? Is it indicative of a rule by mob or an aristocracy? What should we do about it?

The aforesaid are issues I have studied almost every day at least for two to three years and less consistently before. I personally find them really interesting and therefore I’m afraid you’ll have to bear with at least a short answer – The Constitution has never really worked in many details because no written document can by itself live up to that heady title. Life is too complicated and values change too quickly and are too diverse for any primary law such as a Constitution to keep up. In my own family I recognized that my mother encouraged me (and I suppose my siblings) to be an individual and then was disappointed in some ways when I did just that. That reaction is not a surprise with any parent, if you think about it. You want your kids to think for themselves, but you also really don’t want them to be that different from you. I raise this because I think our political system does the same thing. It – and predominantly the first (free speech and religion) and fourteenth amendment (prohibiting the states from violating due process and equal protection of the law) - allows each of us to be individuals. It is not surprising that in some ways each of us deviates in what we believe the law should be and what we can expect from it. This idea is rarely expressed and is not said or written about frequently near enough. People think in terms of being right in their beliefs and those who disagree with them wrong, rather than about having different interests and values which might lead to different conclusions. And a little thing like the Constitution should not get in the way. It can either be interpreted out of the way or ignored.

All that brings me to the first thing wrong with Ron Paul – the Constitution scares the heck out of many people. They listen to him and they think – are we all supposed to walk around with a pocketful of gold coins and how do you pay for a movie with gold? When the Constitution says congress may legislate to “coin” money – does it mean no paper? Believe it or not, this was a big issue that has been resolved with a yes. Right now, I do not want to discuss it in detail, just point out that most people are not applauding at this line, but thinking – “What? How would I pay my credit card bill? With a strong box filled with metal?” Ron Paul asks where the Constitution has allowed for many of the departments and laws we have. Where, for example, is the right to create an EPA? Nowhere, of course. But, though libertarians and many conservatives like this idea, most people are very fond of clean air and water and would be horrified if they found out that industry will no longer be regulated by the federal government. They do not want each state bordering the Mississippi to decide what chemical waste can be dumped into it. And, no, they do not trust the states or the people to make or enforce their own laws, if they even could. You can decide this is wrong thinking, but I seriously doubt most people would agree with you. For example, the American Lung Association released a survey about a year ago conducted by one Democratic and one Republican polling firm that showed a very strong majority were in favor of the EPA and enforcement (even increased enforcement) of the Clean Air Act. A similar result this past summer was found with respect to voters in Appalachia with respect to the Clean Water Act. Most people see the environment as a national (if not international) issue. This is different, of course, from things like the department of education or housing, whose power I think most citizens would be happy to return to the states.

Ron Paul’s second problem is other libertarians. Libertarians are a diverse group, in some ways, more so than any other large political group. Some are rich, others poor. Some are religious and some atheists. And so on. As for myself, I claim to be only a moderate independent (don’t hate me) who leans libertarian. By independent I mean that I am not for any political party, whose primary interest almost always seems to be their own power and my political beliefs do not tend to be very strongly in agreement by either party or ideology. By moderate I mean that I tend not to like or dislike or intuit politicians personal values based on their political predilections, although there are exceptions (Nazis, for example). By leans libertarian I mean that preserving or not limiting individual liberty should be the default position with respect to every law, and any inroad on it should be for a very good reason – the more important the liberty interest – say, free speech and privacy in your home as opposed to when you water your lawn – the better a reason it has to be to suppress it. The Bill of Rights is a good guide for what’s really important, but it is not exclusive. However, none of the above means that I do not believe in laws or regulations where they are not anti-competitive or create inequalities under the law, so long as they do not target people or groups as winners or losers and do not give everyone an opportunity (it's easier to say than to do). This is a deep subject – what legislation should be lawful or not – and a subject for a future day.

Liberty, of course, is a little like truth. People have different ideas of what it means? We have a copy of a speech Lincoln gave during the Civil War (so, not my spelling) –

“The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatable things, called by the same name———liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatable names———liberty and tyranny.

That’s one reason I never call myself a “libertarian,” but say I lean that way. It is just that hard to define. Another reason is personal to me – I just don’t like to join groups. But, a third reason I don’t like to call myself a libertarian is that I’ve watched some gatherings of Libertarians and a good number of them scare me a little. Some a lot. There is sometimes a thin line between those who call themselves libertarians and people who call themselves anarchists or nihilists and I, and I think most Americans, don’t want anything to do with that. It is not a secret that having some type of ordered society increases your liberty. One Supreme Court Justice put it this way –

“The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”

I actually do not like that particular justice’s opinion in the case for which he wrote his dissent, but I do agree with his larger point. The libertarianism that attracts me does not rule out order and certainly not all regulations. Americans do not want to be overregulated, but they also do not want lead paint on their children’s toys or a bank to open its doors without sufficient assets. They do want to know the tires they buy meet a safe standard and that their doctor had to pass a stringent test. Whether the federal government or the state should regulate something is too long a discussion for this article. And whether pure libertarians like it or not, almost no one has a problem with required seat belts or smoke free restaurants anymore.

A third thing wrong with Ron Paul is that while our own personal notions of what freedom or liberty means is easy for each of us to know, the ramifications of libertarianism immersed in a complicated culture and constitutional system is not so easy to learn as one might think. I read Thoreau and De Tocqueville when young, been re-reading Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom and his other works for about a quarter century, increasingly the last few years, and other authors. When I read Spinoza or Kant or Locke or Hume, which I do sporadically, but not comprehensively, one of the two issues I’m most interested in is their perspective on liberty. All of them were to some degree inspirations for our system of freedom. I’m still learning and still occasionally changing my mind. In fact, I only added the “lean libertarian” to independent moderate a few years ago when it finally dawned on me that this was the closest I would probably come to describing what I have probably always been to some degree, especially as an adult.

Libertarianism simply has not been defined for people the way liberalism or conservatism has been defined for most voters who have minimal or even moderate interest in political theory. When people don’t understand something, they tend to fear the things they don’t grasp. When they hear that everyone should be free to choose who they contract with and how they use their own property, they expect or fear a return to Jim Crow. Paul has acknowledged he has a problem expressing these sentiments well and wishes he could do better. Because of this, he seems to spend a lot of time explaining what he doesn’t believe or want, and when he doesn’t, it is easy for the public to believe in the worst version of him. I have visited his campaign website and he really doesn’t try at all to increase interest or explain libertarianism very well. Maybe you can’t do that during a political campaign because you will scare people away.

Sometimes, when Paul does explain things right, he just makes it worse, because when you run for president, you do not do so in an abstract vacuum, but in a culture with its own myths, legends and, particularly, fears. In one of the debates, discussing the possible death of a theoretical person who chose not to have health insurance, he explained that freedom was about taking risks that you want to take. Libertarians in the audience understood and cheered. I think most people cringed. It’s not 1930 anymore. There’s been well over a half century of varying degrees of the nanny state. We now fight wars half hoping and half expecting that no one will get killed except for some designated bad guys. Even the collateral damage that has always existed in war is now seen as totally unacceptable by many people, at least if it can in any way be avoided. Certainly Americans in their own country aren’t supposed to die when they can be saved by even extraordinary means – and even when their peril is their own fault. Maybe this is self destructive to a culture, but it is the culture now.

Essentially saying about someone - if he dies he dies - is honest, and that is another Paul strong point. But, let’s face it, honesty wins elections like nicotine cures cancer. When Walter Mondale said – “Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did," he was being honest too. Some partisan might use a loaded word like “stupid” for it also, but if that’s true of Mondale, it is true of Paul. Because he just doesn’t seem stupid by any stretch of the imagination it leads me to wonder if he cares.

And that brings us to yet another Paul problem. Unlike all those other candidates going through bottle after bottle of Purex, smiling at people asking them rude or offensive questions, Paul seems above it all, suspicious of even conservative media and cantankerous if you cross a line with him. He doesn’t seem to want to ask people for their votes, but I expect it is because he would believe, as I would, that it was demeaning to them and to him. Yet, there can be no doubt that people like to be asked for their vote and there is an expectation that they will along with all the kowtowing that accompanies it. I’m glad he doesn’t do it, at least not much relative to other candidates, but there can be no doubt it hurts him.

But, the last thing wrong with Ron Paul is obviously his foreign policy, which is his biggest problem. Sure, peace is a great idea and we are a country that can take a lot of aggression and deal it back when we need to in whatever measure we need. And, if you listen to him, he actually is not talking about curbing our defensive abilities, but our interventionist nature. Again, Ron Paul is much more like a founder here, in particular Adams, Jefferson and Madison. But, in my view – and this is yet one more subject there is not room to get into here – Jefferson and Madison’s foreign policies were ruinous for the most part, particularly with respect to Britain and France, the two most important powers in the world. Everything today is a topic for another day except Paul.

Ironically, his biggest problem is the one he actually explains best and he ties it to our financial problems exceedingly well. It does make some sense except for one thing which I would like to present with loose analogies. Suppose you are playing checkers with a friend. Every once in a while when you take a piece of his off the board, he just puts it back on it. It is even a worse analogy if you imagine that he does it while you are not looking. Worse still, if, when he is losing, he upsets the board. And worst of all, while you are sitting down to play, he hits you over the head and takes the money in your pocket. No matter what your personal values or morality, no matter how much you stick to your principles or mind your own business, you are not going to have a good game of checkers and you certainly can’t win except by resorting to violence or coercion yourself.

But that was a vague and general comparison. We do not see foreign affairs in general terms. We see them in terms of specific other countries and movements. We care about Iran, Russia and China. We care about

Israel

. While there is never unanimity in how Americans feel about foreign affairs, there is at least a general agreement about these countries. We want to deter the first, compete on a level playing field with the second and third and encourage and protect the fourth. Paul has counter arguments.

Take Israel. He says that Israel wants not to have to rely on the United States; that we give more to Israel’s enemies collectively than we give to her and that we have never solved her problems but only increased our problems with other countries and groups by intervening. All that may be true, but does he not realize that our weighing in on Israel’s side has kept them from being involved in more violent attacks from their neighbors and perhaps has also protected her enemies from them?

With respect to Iran, he argues that there is no proof they are building a nuke, though he suspects they want one; that we were wrong about Iraq building a nuke and that we engaged in a long war because of it; and, that we intervened wrongfully in their country in the 1950s. But, others don’t care about that. The fact that Iran is developing a nuclear program in a way that might enable them to eventually have the bomb, that they are a nation openly hostile to us and the west that has alienated most of the countries of the world, and a totalitarian dedicated to religious tyranny.

With respect to al Qaeda though, Paul seems to not only go off the tracks, but to really hurt himself. He didn’t like bin Laden and isn’t shedding tears for him, but it is almost impossible for Americans who celebrated his death to understand someone wanting to be president who feels it was illegal. And while he may get more sympathy with respect to al Qaeda members who actually are Americans, most Americans don’t really care about that either, seeing in their acts enough aiding and abetting a terrorist group to be deemed a military target. You can argue these points legally and morally, but it is very hard to argue that they are not unpopular and almost incongruous for any Republican candidate, particularly as it is opposed to most Republican’s views and that his prospective opponent, Barack Obama, can crow about their deaths. Paul's view that they hate us because of what we have done clangs just as badly.

While my views on Iran and Israel are probably more mixed than most Americans, there can be no doubt that the overwhelming number of Americans, not to mention Republicans, would see his wanting to take financial support away from Israel as a deal breaker and his not vociferously calling Iran to account as crazy. I could actually see some Republicans voting for Obama rather than Paul and more than that staying home or voting for a third party.

Personally, I would vote for Paul and he is my favorite of the eight who originally made the debating stage, though I would prefer Gary Johnson, a former New Mexico governor, if he had the slightest chance of even beating out Huntsman. I do not believe Paul, if we pretend he could be elected short of some existential American crisis while he was running, would accomplish most of his goals, because he could not get even a Republican controlled congress to go along with many of them. In fact, even winning as a Republican (and I think he would be clobbered for all the reasons I stated above), he would have to govern like an independent, and it is unknown how that can work very well at all. He would be relugated to governing by presidential order, vetoing bills, to sometimes having to suffer the indignity of having the congress override his veto and possibly even arousing Constitutional crises from time to time when he refuses to comply with what he sees as unconstitutional. But, that's okay with me. Just not almost everyone else.

It comes down to - he can't win. And, as my beloved and faithful readers know, I think Romney can.

And then there were six

2012-01-04T18:36:00.000-08:00

Going to try not to use the word "wobbly" this post.

Iowa is over and Michele Bachmann made the courageous, but only realistic decision. She quit. It was a move she should have made months ago, as despite her one time surge, she never had a chance. I've said before I like her personally. I've listened to a half dozen speeches or public interviews with her. At least in public, she comes across sweet, happy and motherly. None of those are qualifications for president. She indicated a number of times that despite a predilection to sprinkle speeches with American history, she doesn't know very much about it. Not a problem, as I rarely ever come across a politician who does. But, most of them try not to be so obvious about it.

Governor Perry has decided to stay in after one day of soul searching. That's a mistake, I think. One thing we learned from his and Bachmann's poor performances is that even in relatively evangelistic states, it doesn't really sell unless you have something else religious voters want. But, religion was, at least hypothetically, a selling point for Perry. He held a public prayer meeting before joining the fray and has run commercials advertising his Christianity and that he intends to bring it into the White House with him. That's enough to scrub him for me, but he's not a bad guy, from what I can tell, at least. But, he peaked early and could not even begin to hold onto it. Could he improve his debating skills? Sure. Spend his money better? Of course. Improve his policy arguments and make people believe he understands it? Maybe next time. But, you still are who you are. I'm not saying at some point he might not do all of those things. Romney sure did over the course of the last 3 years. But, I don't see Perry doing it this time around, even with his many years in politics.

Gingrich did not disappoint me. He lashed out on the last day at Romney, obviously thrown by the negative attacks on him. Where Romney was cool, said he liked Gingrich and his wife, who he referred to by her first name, Gingrich was not. He called Romney a liar (which, if accurate, come on - how many times has Gingrich lied?) And then he has called Romney unelectable. In other words, now that he has been crushed, out the window does the whole do no harm to other Republicans. It also, was typical Gingrich stupidity. No one thinks Romney is unelectable; even those who don't like him. But, when did not making sense ever stop Gingrich?

Ron Paul looks like he couldn't be happier after his third place finish. It is hard to tell what he is thinking, but it may very well be that he just keeps telling the truth. It is liberating. Whereas everyone else has to pretend to be someone they may not quite be, he seems to go against the usual rule. Maybe he has other reasons to be happy. Santorum probably does not have legs, though he will do well in the south. Paul might end up being Romney's only real competition and he could take it all the way to the convention if he wants. Most states divvy up the votes according to the votes your received and Paul might be able to pull it off that far. Is there any chance he could be nominated? Well, if Romney pulls a Cain and turns out to have done missionary work in France than we know of, maybe. But, that's too much to hope for by all but the loopiest libertarian. But, look at some of the stats below and they too might indicate a reason he feels happy, and I will return to it when later.

And Romney? I am really impressed. Iowa was by no means a lock for him. He had a very small staff there and only really put an effort into it in the last week. I do not particularly admire him for any quality he possesses other than the remarkable poise he has maintained, even when being pummeled by both Gingrich and the media (who all seem to find him guilty, guilty, guilty when it comes to being involved in targeting Gingrich through a Super-Pac). But, he knows his policy issues; he never stumbled in the debates even when taking heat from almost everyone else, and he does look like a president out of central casting. You can never say anything is inevitable, but I don't think he has far to go. Right now, I'm glad I stuck with him all the while the Queens for the day took their turns.

One last thing. There was a pretty interesting chart on The New York Times website (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/iowa/exit-polls) detailing the results of a poll of voters entering the caucuses. Here are some of the results:

Ron Paul got more votes from men (marginal) than either Romney or Santorum (24%, 23%, 23%, respectively) but the reason he did worse than them in total was that women did not like him as much, where as the other two slightly improved (19%, 25%, 27%). Being a woman did not help Michele Bachmann at all. She received only 5% of their vote.

Rick Santorum received the lion's share of the evangelical vote, 32%, with Paul the next best at only 19%. Perry and Gingrich, for all their praying, did no better than the Mormon Romney with them - 14% each. Michele Bachmann, poor soul, could only manage 6%. It is interesting though that of non-evangelicals, Romney did better even better than Santorum did with evangelicals - 38%. But Paul again came in second in this category - 26% - far better than anyone else.

Santorum also did the best with tea partiers - 29%, ten percent better than Paul's and Romney, but Romney did substantially better than anyone else with those who said they were opposed to the tea party (43%) and that bodes well for him; the tea party is now, according to at least one poll, the most unpopular political group in the country. His 32% was also by far the tops with neutrals. Paul again was second in both those categories.

Santorum did by far the best with those who considered themselves "very conservative" (35%; Paul next at 15% - ironically, in response to the question of whether the candidate was a "true conservative," Paul beat out Santorum 37% to 36%)). Yet, with those who considered themselves "somewhat conservative," Romney did even better (38%; Paul next at 21%) and with "moderates" (38%; Paul next at 34%). Not surprisingly, Paul did by far the best with independents at 43%. The only one who topped that in any category was whether they thought the candidate could win the general election, in which case, Romney scored 48%.

Which brings me back to Paul. Of course he is happy. If Santorum turns out to be a flash in the pan and Romney has enough momentum in New Hampshire to actually do well in South Carolina (the downfall of many a candidate and the king maker of some), it is not unlikely every one else will drop out after it. Too soon to tell, of course. But, even if Santorum stayed in, it might bode well for Paul, who does well, if not best (except with independents), in almost all categories except, arguably, women. That's not bad. Romney's weaknesses will appear greatest if he is one on one with someone who can focus all the attention on his former liberal views. Of course, Paul would be equally, if not more vulnerable with respect to foreign affairs questions, not to mention those that make people scrunch up their faces when listening to libertarians.

If Santorum wins the nomination - and I just don't see it, then the Republicans will have done what the Democrats did in 2004, nominated someone they wanted for cultural reasons, but who wasn't going to win. If they nominated Paul, also very unlikely, they have done the same.

What if Paul went third party, as he has hinted he might? That's an interesting possibility. I am not a believer that a third party cannot win. I think Ross Perot could have won in the 90s if he hadn't self destructed. And, I think Paul could by pulling all of the independents and some liberals and conservatives. But, it might require another economic disaster to inspire him and voters. There are always intangibles in politics and there is only so much you can speculate on without knowing all the facts (which is pretty much impossible).

For their own sake, they better push the tea partiers to the side and nominate Romney.

Iowa and whatnot

2012-01-03T16:47:00.000-08:00

Some brief thoughts on the caucus. As I said the other day, I predict Romney to win, but I’m wobbly. I forget if I said, but I expect Paul to be second and then Santorum. All I’m really saying by this is that I agree with the conventional wisdom, as most professionals are going with those three in some order, even though I usually say they don’t know what they are talking about. But, I don’t have any information myself from an unlikely source or any insight which might make me think they are wrong. Romney and Paul have the best machines there, reaching back to their last run for 2008. No one would be surprised, of course, if Paul come in first, as he has the most enthusiastic supporters and is polling right behind Romney. Caucus’s are very hard to read though as they talk and make speeches at their meetings first and try to sway each other, and nearly half who are likely to attend have said they are undecided right up to today. Polling Iowans isn’t the same thing as polling the caucuses. But, I think we will all be shocked if Perry or Bachmann or Gingrich crack the top 3.

It has been an interesting process, highlighted by the theme of “Anyone but Romney” as one after another candidate has been thrust into the spotlight briefly, only for everyone to realize that they are just not acceptable either because of scandal – Cain; snafus and deer caught in the headlights moments – Perry; just not being up to snuff – Bachmann; baggage and wobbly personality – Gingrich (he may have been ready to explode in anger today calling Romney a liar, but kept his cool). I don’t even know how to describe Trump, who, in my opinion, embarrassed himself and his party with his birther nonsense, even if some conservatives still believe it. Last, of course, Santorum is thrown forward, though no one, not even the most religious pro-life Iowan seemed to think he had any possible chance until a few days ago when Gingrich – not surprisingly in my opinion – self destructed (though the Super Pac supporting Romney is given the credit by politicos). It would be interesting as Santorum has been to South Carolina, where there isn’t a recent enough poll, more than any of the others. If he wins South Carolina, he could actually win this thing – as strange as it seems. Romney would not go quietly as this is probably his last shot and he would probably take it right to the convention. Republicans divvy up the vote, unlike the Democrats, where it is winner take all. I personally like Santorum, though I am put off by his anti-homosexual rhetoric; I don’t care about his pro-life position (no one else seems to care much either), and he is certainly as qualified as anyone in terms of knowledge and policy education.

What I don’t think he could do, though, is win a general election. In fact, I think he would get smushed. But, I really think any of them would get smushed other than Romney, and, he will of course have a tough time of it, like even the best candidate.

Romney is so interesting. I did not like him four years ago. He is probably the same person, but he now comes across as unflappable and friendly and presidential in a way none of the others do. He is the only one who might win tonight and not have the White House smile. Last time I likened him to a used car salesman. He is too smooth for that now, but he reminds me as someone who would keep driving if he ran you down, but phone 911 while he attended to his affairs.

You know what I like? Gingrich and Perry have both gotten a little choked up on the campaign trail and no one seems to mind. Having gotten choked up speaking publicly myself more than once (even on trial once – but, fortunately, it worked), I like the development. Our leaders cry, even icons for manliness like Churchill and Patton and Hillary Clinton (okay, cheap joke, but she would laugh herself at it). And the media has finally gotten used to it, unlike say, when Edmund Muskie’s career ended in 1972 when he teared up while defending his wife.

Will Iowa, which has more often than not proved itself irrelevant to the actual nomination of a candidate, continue to be important? It does play a role in winnowing the field and it is fun the way they do it there, making the candidates play the game because the media wants them there shaking hands and serving food. Even Ron Paul, no hand shaker or food server, made frequent visits and competes too. I think it will be as big in 2016.

One media point tonight before they start counting votes. I put on MSNBC, which rendered itself important to watch in the 2008 election thanks to Olbermann – now gone – and Fox, to watch the pre-caucus show. You can’t help but notice how good looking the Fox women are, even the ones in their 40s. These women are also very accomplished for the most part, but you have to wonder how many of them got where they are at least in part because of their looks, not to mention having famous or connected parents. Just concentrating on looks, I made this short list, which might be an understatement.”

Shannon Bream, Miss Virginia, 1990; Miss Florida, 1995 and competed in Miss America and Miss USA.

Gretchen Carlson, Miss

America

, 1990
Jenna Lee – Wikipedia – According to Wikipedia, Lee had a photo spread in Cosmo in 2009 and was ranked number 75 “on the Ask Men list of Top 99 Women of the World which came out in October 2009.”
Arthel Neville, Days of our Lives actress
Kimberly Guilfoyle, Macy’s catalogue model
Lauren Green, Miss Minnesota, 1984; Miss America, third runner up, 1985
Courtney Friel, television show hostess
and, even if they don’t have the technical creds -
Megyn Kelly and Heather Nauert are just gorgeous

Call me a male chauvinist pig, and forget politics for the moment, but given the opportunity to watch Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC or Megyn Kelly on Fox – yeah, I think I know who most men would pick. No wonder Fox runs over CNN and MSNBC on ratings every single month, every year.

Last -

Is there any Sherlock Holmes fan who is not secretly tickled that a dead body was found on a royal estate and is not hoping there is some mystery about it?

In the same vein, my American compatriots, can you admit you would not be gratified if an Iranian vessel took a shot at one of our naval ships in the Straights of Hormuz and we blew it out of the water? No? Sure, and you probably want us to believe you don’t like watching the women on Fox either.

My thoughts

2012-01-01T19:29:00.000-08:00

I’m back from nearly a month in NY and then a weekend in Baltimore. It was hard to write about the stuff I really wanted to while away from my oh so precious library. I'm going to get back to that next week. In the meantime, these are my thoughts for the end of the year and the beginning of the new.

Please don't try this at home

While in New York I spent about 3 ½ weeks being a witness and giving support on a sad family (not mine) trial that really broke my heart. Having just written a long paragraph about it here, I erased it all and will just say that those who read this who have children and who think they can leave assets in the name of one or more children expecting them to distribute to others, just because they love and trust their child, should think hard about it. Your pollyannish vision of your child/children may not survive your death, and you may very well not be aware of family dynamics that will lead to disaster. Of course, it does happen as planned sometimes; it did in my family. But in any number of other families, it does not. Even where it does not result in litigation, it may result in an eternal lack of trust and the end of peaceful family relations. Every family is different and how it will play out is usually not predictable.

Dieting

I just wrote about my dieting a few weeks ago and won’t repeat what I wrote there (a frigging long article but a couple of people have told me it is their favorite of my efforts). But, having lost over 75% of the weight I intend to and hoping to lose the next 20-25% in the next few months, I have turned my intention to maintaining weight loss. Without mentioning studies or articles, my research so far tells me the following.

It is natural to regain all or more of your weight back within a year of your maximum loss. In fact, statistically, it is almost inevitable. If you do not want ir to be inevitable, you must not only continue doing what you did to lose weight, but you might very well have to increase your efforts as your body/brain makes changes to fight against what it feels as starvation. This does not sound like fun. It is my intent to do it, but, one of my mottos is – failure is always an option. Let’s hope not.

Politics

I have predicted Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination. He has always been the most consistent top performer, so picking him wasn’t hard. Sticking with him through every challenger has been harder. But, so far he has withstood every serious challenge by Bachmann, Trump, Perry, Cain and Gingrich. I still think he will succeed even if Ron Paul wins Iowa. I really don’t know if Paul, who I prefer to Romney, will have a shot outside of Iowa and maybe Texas and a few other states. A victory by him in Iowa may make it more difficult for him in contrary New Hampshire, but Romney has that state all but sewed up. I will make a further prediction. Romney will win Iowa. Right now he is caught up in a close contest with Paul and Gingrich, according to the polls, but I believe he will prevail. Maybe it is not that important a prediction because I feel New Hampshire is more important and South Carolina more important still. However, if Romney wins Iowa, with few expecting him to do so, and his making a very lukewarm effort until recently, would generate more excitement about him – and he needs that for the general election. Ironically, I am not crazy about Romney, and have as much trouble trusting him as others do. He is an opportunist, though no more than Gingrich and much less than Trump. He just is acceptable and has a better chance of winning the general election than Paul or the others.

If Romney prevails, it could be asked, why this strange pattern of one challenger after another passing him in the polls only to fall by the wayside? We all know that the challenge arises because cultural conservatives want “anyone but Romney.” But, as they put up each candidate, there are enough of them who are rational enough to recognize the faults of the contender, even if they prefer him, in a general election, and they try someone else. Those are the ones whose desire to beat Obama is stronger than their desire to nominate a dream candidate.

Of all of them, I will be happiest if Gingrich loses for reasons I’ve stated here a number of times (but too arrogant, narcissistic and partisan sum it up pretty well – it is a rare time I am disqualifying someone based on their character rather than their policies). But, I will also be happy that Perry gets smushed. I was very open minded about him, waited to see how he would do and to learn his views. I don’t even care that he was awful at debating. It has little if anything to do with being a good president. But, I am getting more and more fed up with candidates who pander to a religious base. I could care even less that someone’s morality is “informed” (a weasely word, if there ever was one) by their religion, or even that they are very religious, but don’t want to hear about how they are going to bring their religion into the White House, as Perry has announced in a commercial in Iowa. Who said you needed to be ashamed about being a Christian, so that you have to say you aren’t? Give me a name. And, the shot he took at gay service men or women for purely political purposes was revolting. But, he is not alone. Most of the main contenders have similar views. Although Republicans have better policies right now (not that they would necessarily follow through if given the opportunity), in my view, I am just done with their unrelenting attacks on gays, atheists and American Muslims for political purposes and will not, absolutely not, vote for a candidate who makes that part of their campaign even if I have to vote for a third party candidates that gets less than 1% of the vote.

No, no, neutrinos

For some time it has been almost a parlor game for physicists to discover that something can travel faster than light. This is impossible according to Einstein’s theory. It is the impossible part that makes it so much fun for them, but the stories inevitably fade away. The latest culprit are neutrinos, a very strange (to us) and malleable particle (presuming they exist; what do I know?) which can easily travel right through the earth. This was done by measuring neutrinos which were created in one of those giant particle colliders and whose arrival was measured a few hundred miles away. Most stories neglect to mention that they arrived 3/1000s of one percent faster than expected. Not surprisingly, many scientists are expecting some kind of human or mechanical error. Me too.

Not another war on Christmas?

Every year we must wallow through (at least those who read political literature) the ultimate right wing fantasy that there is a war on Christmas/Christianity in America. It is perhaps their greatest canard. We live in a country nearly 80% Christian, with atheists making up only 1.6% of the population (Pew). Yet, some few conservatives act like the sky is falling and there is actually a plot against Christmas in this Christmas obsessed country whose season starts the second Halloween ends (and earlier at shopping malls). Out of the couple of hundred million celebrating Christmas (Pew), if any one person – even one - dare suggest that they have a different opinion about the constitutionality of some public religious display – it is seen by these few as a massive attack on Christianity. I’ve even read comments by those who claim using “Xmas” is a slur. That’s not politically correct?

Lifeways Research, which is a Christian research group, found in 2010 that:
“. . . . nine in 10 Americans (91 percent) personally celebrate Christmas and those aren’t all self-identified Christians. A majority of agnostics or those claiming no preference (89 percent), individuals claiming other religions (62 percent), and even atheists (55 percent) celebrate Christmas along with 97 percent of Christians.”

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/12/prweb8031687.htm

There are, of course, parts of the world where it is not safe to be Christian. But, that’s not here. Christmas is the single most observed cultural event in America – even greater than the Super Bowl. I’m glad. I love Christmas and celebrate it more than most (it still saddens me when someone doesn’t love Christmas – even Jews). My answer to the Christian warriors sure that the citadel is being besieged – go to a mall starting in November (although earlier some places) and wallow in the season. Take a walk in your neighborhood and look at the beautiful lights, decorations and trees. Turn on your radio and listen to the Christmas music or watch Miracle on 34^th Street or Elf.

iphone you

My older brother calls me a luddite, and to some degree, he is right. No, I’m not going around smashing machinery and I have, obviously, a computer, use the internet and even have a cell phone which, to my chagrin, becomes more and more a bigger part of my life. Last month, while in NY, I accidentally left my cell phone at my home away from home while out and for the first time ever, felt a loss, like I was cut off. I do not like this, Sam-I-Am. So, to get back to where I was, now that I returned home, I am leaving it off or home more often.

But, I always say that technology is inevitable, there is no stopping it, and it is only a matter of time before even naysayers adopt it, because, realistically, what else are you going to do?

The newest toy out there, at least for the general non-technical population, is the iphone – particularly the 4 gigobyte models, or its cousins, the Android phones. My friends, my age or older, who own them, are in love with them. They gaze at them tenderly. They delight in showing you how they can talk to them, although this is almost hype. But, they can take instruction, and, of course, it will only get better in time. They are amazing devices and would have seemed magical or science fiction 20-30 years ago.

In my little world, a piece of technology is only as good as its value to you. I do not need technology that makes it harder or me less happy. There is no doubt that these devices are superior to their non-digital predecessors in almost every way, and that, inevitably, they will completely replace them (and then be replaced themselves). But, it is the cultural aspects that disturb me, as it does many people. But, these are random thoughts, so I’m not going into detail. I will just mention my one friend who had – had – to have the newest and best model of iphone. 3 months later his wife was mad at him because he didn’t answer when she called. His reason – he didn’t know how. I probably wouldn’t either. Every time someone has showed me something on one of them I accidentally turn it off and they had to start from scratch. The same friend has several high tech, extremely expensive televisions. He was not happy with even a similar television which he had bought two years earlier and that was almost indistinguishable from the new one he bought. But, I can turn my crummy little portable set (do they make portables anymore?) in my living room on with one button. Neither I nor his wife can work any of the televisions he owns and neither can his wife. Is he happier because of these devices? He thinks he is and probably he wouldn’t be happy without them, knowing there were “better” out there. He’d be happier, in my mind, if he’d let go of the need for top of the line models. Another friend of mine, a relative, is so hooked on social networking, he cannot bear to be without a device, or two, in his hand. You cannot really talk to him anymore, at least, most of us. Is he happy? I know the answer is no.

Open letter to Kim Jong-un

Dear Mr. Kim,

You have an opportunity few have had in their lifetimes. You can save your country by opening it up to the world, freeing your people. To do so, you will have to give up your power and much that comes with it (not the girls or being rich and famous, but the ability to have people kill or intimidate on your behalf at your whim). I don’t know if you are so brainwashed in your family’s way, or so grateful for the power you can not give it up. That seems likely. But, let Juan Carlos I of Spain be your model instead of whoever you have admired from China or Russia. As the great international man of mystery, Austin Powers, once said, “It’s freedom, baby. Yeah.”

Open letter to Barack Obama

Dear Mr. President,

I hope you lose in 2012. I want to get that out of the way because it is awkward to say that to someone. Domestically, you have traveled the path of your predecessors and tried to improve our economy by not allowing failure (and thereby ensuring it), by putting into effect a supposedly Keynesian policy that has never worked, by insisting, by pressing for unprecedented spending, by mistaking equal outcomes for equality under the law, etc. You are not the first to do these things, but you have done all of them and done them the most. It is not that you were dragged along by the Democratic congress (before 1/11), but you yourself were for these things. Failure and correction are necessary for a long term healthy economy as forest fires are to healthy woods. But, in foreign affairs, you have done much better. I respect your position on Israel. You’ve backed them but showed displeasure when they acted against our and their interests. It is not necessary to support allies in everything. Don’t worry about the nonsense from the right about you hating Israel or any cockeyed thing like that. Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 all quarreled with her at times. Reagan even had us condemn them in the U.N., something no Reaganite will acknowledge. They just want to smear you to win the election. You know what I mean. It’s what you will do to their nominee. And, it was time to get out of Iraq. Good for you. They may end up in a civil war. I care, but ultimately, we didn’t belong their once Saddam and his power base was destroyed. If enough of them want civil war no power on earth can save them. They either will learn to share power and have a peaceful transition of power or they won’t. You can’t save everyone. I am not happy with Libya, as I’m sure you know. You overstepped your authority and made it easier for future presidents to do so too. I would have voted with Dennis Kucinich to impeach. I know he’s kooky, but have you seen his wife? Then you know what I’m talking about. I’m also praising you for pushing congress to get rid of don’t ask, don’t tell. It’s about time. I’m embarrassed for our country that we had that in place. I wonder where the violence and bad effects are that we heard so much about. I haven’t heard of one incident yet. There will be some, of course. But, there are rapes in the service too. It doesn’t mean that having women serve is a bad idea.

Bigger is better? Really?

I just don’t get it. What is the big deal about big televisions? Someone just offered me what looks like a 48 incher to me (you measure diagonally, right?), replacing my 12 incher. I wasn’t going to do it, but my daughter and my evalovin’ gf both insisted that the one I had was just too small for when they visit. So, I took it. And now that I have it in place and have watched it a bit, I understand. I understand that I was absolutely right. Who cares how big your tv is, so long as it is big enough to see? And why do people want ipads and iphones, which are much smaller than computers, if big screens are so important? One of the many things I don’t get.

The things I’m not very good at

This is a long list and if I try and be anything like comprehensive, it will not only be the longest post I ever wrote, but it will take too long. But, please feel free to add your own if you don’t see your favorite here:

Sleeping

Small talk
Funerals (you know, what do you say? “I’m sorry” seems so lame)
Poetry (My best efforts usually begin with "There once was a man . . . " or "Roses are red . . . ")
Career choices
Working out
Drawing
Cooking
Dishes (you wash one and two new ones appear in the sink)
Ironing (how do people get all of those wrinkles out? One shirt is an endless project to me)
Washing the floor (I can’t explain it, but it just gets dirtier)
Dressing (I mean, I know how to dress myself, but my choices are not, ummm . . . considered fashionable)
Shaving (you have no idea how often I cut myself, even with today’s super razors)
Dancing (not that I do anything but avoid it – I once ran out of a wedding when the bride asked me to dance)
Singing (not that I try, but, I don’t think I need to explore this much to know)
Driving (well, avoiding fender benders and tickets, anyway)
Dreaming (I know this is unconscious, but I never have sex dreams; maybe I shouldn’t say I am bad at it; it’s just unfair)
Remembering where I put my wallet, keys, etc.
Taxes (I hate doing my taxes and always pay someone to do it for me but I’m sure I’d be really bad at it if I tried)
Keep things (you want to lose something; let me hold it for you a while; actually, despite my poor reputation in this area, I much more likely misplace things than lose them completely)

Like I said, I could go on. But this should satisfy.

Reality shows

I have never watched American Idol. I have never watched Survivor or Big Brother. I have watched The Biggest Loser when sitting in a room where it was being watched by my hostess, but I don’t like it. I did watch the finale of the original season of The Bachelor while I was packing to go on a trip. It was like watching a train wreck and I didn’t believe it when he picked one of the contestants and she accepted his proposal. I understood they broke up without ever seeing each other again once it ended. I hate reality shows. I can't stand that so many people want to watch them.

But . . . the only time I have ever regularly watched one of these shows was in 2005 when there was a show called Beauty and the Geek, which paired up good looking women with nerds. I was talking to my daughter in her room and the first episode was on. One of the characters was a very Woody Allenish contestant named Josh who actually slept in the bathroom rather than share a room with a good looking woman. There was just something about him that made you root for him. I ended up, to my shame, watching the entire season. And, in the last episode, he and partner, “Cher,” (no, not that Cher) won. But, she was the only woman who hooked up with one of the nerds – and it wasn’t Josh – it was another one who was much better looking and more normal (if you possibly care, I read they broke up later on). Why do I mention this? I suppose I am exorcising a demon and admitting I once regularly watched a reality show, at least for a season.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Holiday spectacular for 2011

2011-12-24T14:38:00.000-08:00

It’s the most wonderful time of the year – when I struggle like a madman trying to get his head unstuck from the revolving door before that big guy on the other side tries to come through - to think of something both holidayish and spectacular for my – holiday spectacular. After my last year’s effort, Don did put on some pressure for me with his Christmas Day comment: “If you're gonna top this one next year you better start working now.” I’m not sure I can do that off the top of my head, as I don’t even remember last year’s.

Comments

Every holiday season I like to set down the best comments I got during the year, the sole criteria being, I guess, that they insult or make fun of me. Bear has always dominated and now that Don has all but dropped out of the insult-comment field, Bear strives uncontested upon the field. In fact, two people who actually read my blog regularly (and I’m still shocked anyone reads it) but rarely if ever comment told me they actually only read a little bit and then scroll down to see how Bear insults me. Just great.

Here are Bear’s finest comments for this year, made with all the ardor of a ten year old knocking down his friend’s blocks. I don’t rank them, but put them in reverse chronological order. My present comments are put in italics:

Here Bear weighs in on my Christmas movie list.

She's Got Mail", "Love, Actually" great movies????? Who is the Mary writing this stuff? "... the effervescent Jeremy Pivin.." How GAY is that? Next time I see you and have the urge to whack you in the head, I'm going to blame it on an "EPIC attack". What a ma-roon.

* * *

What scares me the most is that you think these quotes sound normal. Put down the books and go outside, Webblefester. Now.

Webblefester?

* * *

Bear analyzes me.

Hmm, I'm talking sexual deviance and you start talking rape and murder. This is deep psychological quicksand, Frodo. Worrisome indeed.

* * *

Here he goes on a rant that makes me chuckle out loud every time I read it.

AAARRRGGGGHHHHH! First, a'quick hop through history" that goes on FOREVER, then, finally, diarhhea mouth gets to the point. And what a grand point it is: Liberty, you're darn tootin'. It's good. REALLY? Was it necessary to quote 4,000 friggin' philosophers and historical figures to come around to "America is bitchin'"? Write about growing up,or books, or living in the country... PLEASE, I AM BEGGING YOU. How about a list? Top Ten ANYTHING....

* * *

But, there is that line between artistry and craziness, and here my friend goes a little over it.

O I wish I were an Oscar Mayer Weiner, that is what I truly want to be-ee-e. For if I were an Oscar Mayer Weiner, everyone would be in love with me. Join the Weiner Party for a better America in 2012. Vote with your Weiner, for a Weiner, and we wll a be shiny happy people, forever and ever, thus spake Zarausthra. * * *

But here, he’s just mean.

It takes balls to write 700 paragraphs on ths crappy idea and then call someone else's work on the same thing pretentious babble. Rock on, Hippocrites.

* * *

I think this one made me laugh the loudest.

I’m reading along: Glenn Beck, Olbermann, Tunisia,

Egypt

; and I’m thinking for once his political commentary isn’t boring. This is pretty good stuff. Should have known it was a set up. Health care: “I see a liberty interest here… more pressing than the commerce clause…I would have to put in a lot more time…perhaps I will in another post.” NOT IF THERE IS A GOD IN HEAVEN. ‘Nuff said.

* * *

But, his first one of the year was a pretty good shot too.

more at http://pewstinko.snoozefest/longwinded blowhard/faith-in-shut-the-hell-up-before-I-slash-my-own-throat

- to which I responded, “Now you are just trying to write a contender for the top ten best comments at the end of the year, aren't you?”

Thanks, Bear, for all the hard work you put in knocking down my blocks.

I just had a Christmas epiphany. This holiday spectacular is going to be all about my two most frequent commenters, and good friends, Don and the Bear, who I’ve known for a total of about 66 years.

Bear

I met Bear 41 years ago as 7^th graders. We didn’t become friends until a few years later, but we played basketball together once at the caddy house, a magical place it would take too long to explain in the new world where children have play dates instead of just playing and where they play video sport games instead of actually hitting, kicking and shooting balls together, and I went to his house and met his mother. He wrote a newspaper article for the school about the alleged ghost in my basement. In 11^th grade, we became good friends, realizing that we had a tremendous amount of interests in common, including history, mythology, science and literature and that we were both ridiculous underachievers lucky that we didn’t flunk out of high school. He’s introduced me to the authors Robert Howard and James Lee Burke and books I still have like The Dun Cow and Red Eye. There was a time he nearly went off the deep end when a young man, though doing his best to hide the worst of it from me and I’ve seen him nearly sink into oblivion and rise like a phoenix to being a school president in a major city. He chased skirts like a dog after a bone when he was young, but now has one of the most loving and stable marriages that I know and he has a man-cave in his house that looks like it could be the parlor in a Hollywood manor in which he houses my second favorite private library. He makes Maryland home with his wife, M, the only talented home designer I know (the ones on tv appall me). He knows more about sports and higher education than anyone you are likely to meet and in 41 years, I can remember only a very few times in our entire life he was not in a good mood. He is an excellent poet (an activity in which I excel in sucking) and should have done more of it. Unaccountably, he actually looks good in hats. He has a booming laugh that is impossible to stop and is a world class mocker and ranter when he wants to be.

Don

Don came to work in a law firm I was at when we were both young lawyers back in the days when you could open the door to a law firm and there might not be one computer inside. We became friends, working, skiing, going out at night and on one laughable occasion, even going dancing, an event I’d rather forget. Jesuit educated in high school, he was a wild man nonetheless and claimed he couldn’t be an alcoholic no matter how much he drank because he didn’t go to meetings. Around 7-8 years ago (he can correct me if I'm off), he moved to Montana to escape being a lawyer and, initially, to chase some crazy chick who was out of his life before he got there. The home he bought on the banks of a small river in the mountains is so remote, that it makes the 1300 pop. town I live in surrounded by national parks seem like a metropolis. He can recite lines from movies he saw decades ago like he was holding the script in his hand and is still an athlete in his young 50s. He lives again on the east coast, longing for the west, running a law office in Long Island and living on the Jersey Shore. He is a bachelor and please lock up your daughters when he is in the room. He is a fierce debater, who talks faster and more assuredly than almost anyone else can, even when he is defending the indefensible, but is one of the few people you can call at 3 in the morning, say, I need you to help me right now, and know he will come without needing an explanation. If he is on your side, there is no other side.

Don and Bear

Though they sometimes argue about politics in comments here, they actually have a lot in common. They both are insatiably curious and read as much as possible, share many high falutin’ interests, and both know far more about sports and entertainment than I ever will. They met when we were in our young 30s through me, when Bear managed a bar that Sam Spade would have hesitated to go into and Don liked to hang out in such places. Don is a long time conservative who has become more of a libertarian, more so than me, and we have both influenced one another’s political thinking as much as it is possible with two very opinionated people. Bear is not as interested in politics as Don and I are and will argues with me when I say he is a liberal (at least a cultural one), but that is true of almost every liberal I know. I see signs in the last year that he is moderating some but we don’t discuss politics that much and it is hard to tell. The two will probably never agree on global warming or climate change or whatever it is being called these days. Both are raconteurs, more so Bear, but neither lets the actual facts damper a good story. I’ve always said that there are two kinds of people in the world. Those who are unhappy absent some immediate gratification and those who are happy unless they have a good reason not to be. Fortunately, both of my friends fall into the latter category. However, each have had their demons and conquered them. And, they are both good people with consciences and I’m lucky to have them as friends. They mostly ignore my faults even if Bear likes to pierce my delicate pride every week or so and enjoy a hearty laugh at my expense. And when Bear is laughing, there is nothing you can do but sit down and weather it, because no force known to man can stop it until he is done.

They will both have to live with my descriptions, now immortalized in the most important blog on my block, but I don’t think they will argue that much with them. Everyone has faults – even, and this may shock you, dear readers, me – but they have been great friends for most of my life, and that is no small thing. Here now are some tales from the lives of Bear and Don, performed in my presence. Their more sordid tales, for which I was absent, will have to await their memoirs.

Don

Don was going stag along with me, my insignificant other and another couple in New Hampshire on a New Years’ Eve ski trip in the early 90s. The first night, we went to the hotel bar, where Don flirted with the waitress. Don flirts with a blowtorch, not a feather. We didn’t notice that the bartender was her boyfriend. It got a little hot in there, but not overtly hostile at all. We went out to dinner for New Year’s and Don, not imbibing particularly moderately, decided to lift a drink off the tray a waitress was carrying on her upraised hand to the next table and in doing so, broke the delicate balance you need to do that and caused her to upend all the other drinks onto her other customers. We left very quickly. When we got back to the hotel, the manager informed Don that he was not welcome in the hotel bar. We all defended him that he had done nothing wrong and he really had not. We argued it was not a good idea to have a waitress and a bartender who are dating. Don went to his room and called his credit card which - and I don’t know how he accomplished this, determined not to accept the hotel charges, and had a very nice three days for free.

Bear

We went to the local ice cream place, Friendly’s, where we had had more than a few adventures. We went up to a group of kids we knew from school. One of them, a big blowhard who thought he was much cooler and tougher than he was, suddenly turned to us with plastic ketchup bottles in both hands and squeezed, catching Bear in the chest with both of them. Bear did not yell, fight or whine. He walked away and up to the counter and ordered an ice cream cone. We went outside with him happily lapping it. Then, we went over to get our bikes in the rack. He located the bike of the idiot who had sprayed him and turned the cone upside down on his seat. It was pretty hot out and in 5 minutes that cone had to melt all over, by which time, we were long gone. Now, that was cool.

Don

Don and I were working in a firm in the mid 90s. We debated constantly. Don was much more demonstrative than I, would raise his voice a lot and talk very fast. We weren’t fighting. It was just his style and it intimidated a lot of people. But, I knew he wasn’t violent (well, not to his friends) and it didn’t bother me at all. In fact, it usually amused me. One day we were in my office with the door closed. I was sitting in my chair with my hands behind my head and my feet up on the desk. Don was standing in front of the desk pacing back and forth and arguing very loudly and forcefully. I am sure the people outside the door could not hear me, although I was talking as much as he was. Suddenly, on one of his swings to the door, Don stooped, picked up a piece of paper, unfolded it, read it and cracked up. If was from my secretary and it said, “David, should I go for help.”

Bear

Also back in high school, Bear, who I then often called Lars Wonderchild, and I would hang out at a local Baskin & Robbins where a friend worked. One day when we were there Bear wandered near the open freezer door. Our friend and I pushed him in from behind and shut the door, locking it. Why did we do this? Because we were teenage boys and he was momentarily vulnerable. Any two of us would have done the same to the third. But, you need to be a teenage boy, or remember being one to understand – so ladies, don’t strain yourself. But, of course, we had no intention of harming him. So after about ten minutes, we opened the door. There was Bear, his pockets stuffed with ice cream sandwiches, calmly munching on one and smiling, as calm as could be.

Don

Don and I were going to a local pizzeria. I parked in the little lot behind and got out of my car to see Don pull into the lot across the street. Just before he pulls into the spot, another car pulls in front of him and gets it. Two guys get out of the car and Don gets out of his. Don demands that they move their car and they pretty much laugh at him and one says “What are you going to do? There are two of us and one of you.” I am thinking, great, now I have to get in a fight for my crazy friend over a stupid parking space. But, Don doesn’t even look at me, but says, “Fine.” He goes to his car while they watch him like deer in headlights and he comes back with a baseball bat and the same guy says, “I’ll move the car.” When Don comes over after parking in his spot, I say, “You know you are out of your mind, right?” He says he does, but can’t help himself sometimes, and he suggests we go to a different pizzeria a few doors away to avoid a further confrontation. Actually, he was trying to be nice, because they were terrified of him.

Bear

I am at a pizzeria in Queens, NY, a great restaurant by the train station in Kew Gardens, near where Bear and M are living. I am thinking this has to be about 15 years ago. Some nice teenage boy, skinny and acne-faced, is our waiter. We were finishing up our meals and the nice young man comes by and scoops up the plate in front of Bear’s wife on which there is a little food left. You know how you don’t want to come in between a real Bear and her cubs. Similar, if less lethal, reaction here. Bear snarls “MY WIFE ISN’T DONE WITH HER MEAL YET!” and the little kid is practically shaking. After he scuttles away practically bowing, M and I both look at Bear and say something like, “What are you doing?” “Well,” he says, “she wasn’t done.”

Don

Don and I are in Pennsylvania to ski at a little mountain where his parents have a trailer. It is freezing inside it and there are no sheets or blankets. We drive up to a hotel and Don goes in to inquire if they will be kind enough to lend us a few blankets for the weekend. I am out there in the car for about 5 minutes when Don comes sprinting out to the car screaming “Go, go, go.” He jumps in and I speed off asking him what the hell happened. “I couldn’t find anyone to ask, so I figured we’d just borrow them for a few days.”

“And?” I ask.

“Apparently, someone saw me and started chasing me. So, I dropped them and ran.”

“Oh, God,” I said, and looked in the rear view mirror for the whirling red siren that fortuitously never came.

Bear

We went to a local, family owned movie theatre in the village near where we lived. The couple who owned it were very friendly but a little odd in that really nice way. Few people went there as it was old, not so clean and ran old movies. We were going to see Field of Dreams. Before it started, Bear warned me. His father had died earlier in the decade and when the end of the movie came, and the ghost of the lead character’s father asked his son if he wanted to play catch, Bear was going to cry. We watched the movie and then the scene came. Suddenly Bear gets up and hustles out of the theatre. It’s the end of the movie, so I go out into the lobby too. There is Bear, glasses off, wiping his eyes and being accosted by the owner of the theatre who is talking to him, but shouting to his wife across the lobby, “Honey, look. This man is crying.”

Bear does his best to explain and then we go out to the alley beside the theatre where immediately Bear goes into a rant about what just happened and how the man buttonholed him when he came out with tears in his eyes and instead of letting him hurry away, insisted on knowing what had happened. No one rants like Bear and I laughed so hard my ribs hurt and I seriously thought I might break one. But, I couldn’t stop. I am trying not to laugh now. As for the owner, I imagine him sitting in a rocker this Christmas, smiling to himself as he remembers the time his wife and he touched someone’s life with film.

Don

One day Don calls me up and asks me for a favor. Back in those days, when Don asked you a favor, you went into a panic, because you never knew what was going to happen. If you covered a court case for him he described as “in and out,” you might find that it was the 37^th time on and the judge threatened to hold him in contempt if he didn’t show or something worse. But, he had always helped me when I needed it and I said okay without asking what it was. It had nothing to do with the practice of law. He wanted me to come to his girlfriend’s house and keep the old man who used to be her stepfather from coming in the house when he came to pick up his furniture. Don liked the old fellow, who was probably 75, and didn’t want to do it. So, when he showed up, I was standing in the doorway, trying to smile pleasantly and said that I was sorry, that he couldn’t come in, but I would get anything he wanted for him.

Like a jack rabbit he jumped in my face, cocked his fists as if in a movie, and said that he could kick my ass.

“I’m sure you can, Sir,” I said, seriously doubting it – he was 75, after all, “but I have to stand here anyway.”

“What are you? The hired muscle?”

I laughed to myself, careful not to smirk. I was raised to be a pacifist and not the hired muscle type. I had never had a real fight in my life, always preferring persuasion or just backing off in bad situations. I sometimes regretted that when older, at least in a few instances, but this was not a possibility. “No, Sir, I’m just a family friend. I’m sorry about this, but it was requested by your ex-wife that I help you, but not let you in and I promised.” That much was true. His ex had been nice to me and Don said that was what she wanted. Don, whose girlfriend was cowering upstairs, was, of course, just standing to one side, and shaking his head sympathetically for the old guy, like I’m some kind of jerk he found standing in the doorway when he got here.

Fortunately, the fellow’s older brother, who Don said was 85 years old, was also there and he pulled his brother back before he whacked me in the face and there was a problem. He shouldn’t have worried. I had no intention of hitting a 75 year old man no matter what he did to me, and had already told Don that. But, I really didn’t want my ass kicked either, did I?

There wasn’t much furniture, actually, and it soon ended, but, I noted in my mental notebook - do not do favors for Don without checking first exactly what it is.

I’ll leave off with Don as I started off with Bear’s merciless commentary.

Merry Christmas/Happy Hanukah, y’all.

Cherchez la femme.

2011-12-17T12:34:00.000-08:00

Good G-d almighty, I am still in New York suffering through an interminable trial in which I am a witness and can’t leave until it’s over. So, for the three or so people in the world who actually like the equally interminable posts on history and politics I post here, sorry, not until I get back. Instead, I will quickly tear off another autobiographical post – this one about my former dating life, although, as usual, before I start, I am not sure I have enough material. But, sometimes I think that and find I have too much. We’ll see.

Whatever I write below – because it is more fun to write about things that were embarrassing or humiliating to me - I am not complaining about my dating life before SHE (aka here as the New Miss Malaprop and my Insignificant Other) took over my life close to 20 or so years ago. I actually really enjoyed dating, even the blind dates. On the whole, the good dates dramatically outweighed the bad ones, even if I wasn’t interested in them or visa versa. I had one rule that I still urge other people to follow when they are nervous about dates and I think it’s a good one:

The only thing you owe the other person is to try and have a good time.

Some people, particularly women, are too nervous for even that. I admit, the older I get, the harder it was to ask out women during my “breaks” with my Insignificant Other and I don’t think I’d get very used to the computer dating very easily now anyway. It is also very hard for me to be callous with someone I go out with, even if I don’t know them well, and callousness has become institutionalized in computer dating to the degree that it is really just considered normal. By callous, I mean things like just walking away in the middle of a date; getting up after a few minutes and saying “thanks, but no thanks,” ignoring them if you aren’t interested, etc. You can say these things have always existed with dating, but I believe the level of it has gone dramatically up. I had difficulty not calling some women again even if I wasn't really interested because I felt it would be rude or hurt their feelings. Maybe I was wrong about that as it probably was puzzling to them.

I’m using fake names for the women I mention below. Nothing sexual is mentioned at all, if you were preparing yourself to gag. Some of these were failures or in some way embarrassing to me anyway, so I'm not bragging either. The order is neither chronological or by category, but mentioned as they occur to me while I write this. And, the dialogue, of course, is all paraphrased as I can’t remember exactly what I or they said all those years ago.

And, to my dear Insignificant Other, let me say now, I’m sorry. I don’t know for what yet, but I’m sure you are going to make me sorry I wrote this one way or the other. But, all these stories are from a long time ago (I swear), and only one or two after you and I started dating.

Why you can’t get too cocky - Bailey – My early 30s. Something brought her to mind recently, but I forget what already. I doubt I had thought of her in 20 years or so. I was walking through my friend’s office building one day with him at my side when I saw a dazzling young woman, very Brenda Starrish, if that means anything to you, with long red/auburn hair, hurrying into the building. I was trying to think of someway to talk to her when she and my friend say hello to each other. I ask, very insistently, if he will make an introduction. He basically asked her out for me later in the day and I called her.

Like many people, I hate that first cold call, because when you are together, even if you don’t know each other, you can find things to talk about easily all around you. But, when you are on a phone, it is much harder. However, my experience has been when I finally got the nerve to dial the phone number, they almost always made it very pleasant, as she did. I had a very good feeling about our date and didn’t have any nerves about it (sometimes I would).

I took her to dinner in Roslyn, New York, a very old quaint village, but I didn’t get to take her to the duck pond there, which I had found almost irresistible to women in letting you steal a kiss. She had to get up early the next day, so after a long dinner, I just took her home. I rarely tried for a goodnight kiss on the first date unless the woman made it plain or jumps me, and didn’t then. But, we had laughed the whole night and I was very confident she would go out with me again when I asked and she did. The second time was also great.

Again, we couldn’t stop laughing the whole night. At the time I did not have a steady girlfriend (although, gulp, I had started seeing my Insignificant Other), but I thought I might even date Bailey for a while before doing my usual thing and letting her know in casual conversation that I was not into long term commitment. But, when I took her home, she asked me in and I admit I was figuring on things going well that night. I asked her if she’d like to do something the next day.

She said, “Oh, why bother?” with a pained expression on her face.

“Really? Aren’t you having a good time?” I said.

She said “I had a great time, but you are not who I am looking for in my life. I’m anxious all day long and work and go to school. You work but you just seem not to take anything too seriously. I need someone who is going to worry with me. Why go further if it isn’t going to work out.” I think she may have also said that she was an ant and I was a grasshopper, but maybe that is just what I got from it. I don’t think she mentioned the fact that I was already a father, but it is possible that was a reason too. Or, of course, maybe I wasn’t good looking enough for her or not her “type,” which are always possibilities. But, taking her at her word, she was right. I was looking for fun and a notch on the bed post. And I tried not to take life too seriously. That does irritate some people. But, I was kind of disappointed that we had gotten along so well and I didn’t even get the all important third date.

The worst – Maisie – my middle 20s. When I was a very young attorney I used to flirt with one of my secretary’s friends on the phone, particularly Maisie, who I had never met. One day I asked the secretary if she was good looking, and she assured me she was beautiful, and if I could ask her out next time we spoke. Maisie had made inquiries too and soon after I was on my way to her house to get her. I met her father at the door and then Maisie came out. She was very attractive but completely smashed. We got in my car and headed for the city.

Not only was she word slurring drunk and talking nonsense, but she really freaked me out when she mentioned that her mother was her best friend. I knew from my secretary that Maisie’s mother was dead. That was creepy. But, what really got tedious was that she kept referring to other anonymous women who got ahead in business by sleeping around. One, she just wouldn’t shut up about it, but, two, it was kind of putting a damper on any plans I might have had.

She wanted to go to the top of the sixes in the city and I took her there. We sat at a table and ordered drinks. I didn’t really drink then either, but would have one if it meant getting a young woman in the mood.

Next to us was a table with another young couple. I really was planning on how to get rid of this drunk obnoxious girl early when she stands up, points at the young woman next to her and starts saying how she knows what she is up to – she’s going to sleep with the guy to get ahead at her job. I literally had to drag her into the next room and begged her to please shut up while I paid and left.

When we got into the car to take her home she put her feet up on the dashboard and alternatively slept (a blessing) and ranted how she hated her father, how she knew I wasn’t going to call her again (exactly) and asking me to take her to my house, which was only a few blocks away from hers. I did take her to my house because she was so pitiful and I am a big softie, and that night and we even called our mutual friend at 3 a.m.

The next workday, I told my secretary that her friend was crazy. She insisted she wasn’t and that she was just kidding about her mother and about gold diggers. I never called Maisie, again, of course. However, a few weeks later a friend of mine met her in a bar and called me that night to tell me how she flipped out on him. Soon after my secretary mentioned that I was right, she was crazy and she would not hang out with her any more.

Then, sometime in the next year, she said to me, “Remember, Maisie. Her aunt left her over a million dollars. She’s completely fine now.”

Good for her, but she wins worst date of my life.

Who knew? – Darby – my middle 20s. I had known Darby while still in school and asked her out once then, but it turned out she was dating someone else with whom I was slightly acquainted. Some years later we both became lawyers and we ran into each other. I tried again and she said yes. We went out three times and when she didn’t jump me on the third date or give me the high sign, I stopped calling her. She obviously – in my world – wasn’t into me.

Flash forward about 10-12 years and I am with a young intern, Mary Ellen, in court showing her the ropes when we run into Darby, who says she is now married with children. I introduced them and said
“You know, Mary Ellen, Darby and I actually used to date a long time ago.” Darby fixed me with a look and said, “Yeah, what ever happened with that?”

I said “Well, you didn’t seem to like me too much, so I stopped calling.”

She said “I liked you a lot (I forget if she added, “you idiot,” of if her look said it). My kids could be your kids.”

“Oh.” What do you say to that? It didn’t appear she was kidding at all although she wasn’t hostile either. But, the next time I saw her she was just a little bit cold to me. But, maybe I’m reading too much into it.

Dizzy – Monica – my late 20s. One of my best friends was going out with his girl to an amusement park and wanted to fix me up with her friend. I said sure and we all met. I wasn’t really into her from the beginning, but she was a very sweet kid. When we got to the park we all went on some whirling ride. It made both Monica and me sick to our stomachs and for the next few hours, while our friends went on ride after ride, we sat on a bench and could barely talk – only enough to say every little while, “how are you doing?” Not the fault either of us, but a disaster. My second worst date.

Color Blind – Petra – my 20s. She was introduced to me by a friend who grew up with her. She was pretty, so I asked her out, even though I had my doubts. We went to NYC. While we were working down the street together, I was a few inches ahead of her and looking forward, and I mentioned I really hated the color purple (not the movie - the color). I heard a little gasp.

As I turned around I saw a purple hair band, purple eye shadow, purple nail polish, purple top, purple bottom and purple shoes.

Damn. My apologies were sincere and she accepted them gracefully. A week or so later I thought I should call even though I wasn't crazy about her. In the middle of the conversation I decided neither of us was really into it and didn't even ask her out. But, the purple thing. Boy, was that dumb.

Ah choo - Charisse - my late 20s. I met this girl at a friends’ Halloween party and we hit it off and started dating. She was also a red head and just a terrific person. But, she made it all too clear that she wanted to get married soon. After a month or so I started to feel bad. She was coming to my apartment and I decided to just tell her. Normally, I let the girl figure it out for themselves, but I felt that was wrong in this case. When she came over she said she had a surprise for me. She had two front row seats to see Dracula on Broadway.

Feeling not so good about my decision and her gift, I told her the truth anyway and said maybe it wasn’t too late to ask a friend. But, she took the break up very well and said I was right to tell her and if I wasn’t interested in marriage now, she was glad I told her. More, she wanted me to come to the play anyway. So, off we went. We sat in the front row and watched Frank Langella play the title roll. Once during the play, Dracula even paused to look at me in the front row. The reason he did this is since the first act I was having a sneezing fit. After breaking up with her, I felt like I couldn’t make her leave the play early and just suffered, as I’m sure she did and all those around me including the leading actor.

About a month after we broke up I learned she had gotten married to the next guy. About a month after that she called me to ask if I would do their divorce. I took care of it for her. I saw her about ten years later at a party. She was still single, but now in her early 40s. I wisely declined her invitation to get together. Too bad for someone because she’d probably be a fantastic wife. Maybe she is now. I hope she found what she was looking for.

Getting cocky II – Becca – my middle 30s. This wasn’t really a date, but close enough and it’s a good story. I and my Insignificant Other were taking our first long break and I went to the city with a female friend to get dinner one night. We found a place not far from the 59^th Street Bridge. It was a Russian restaurant called The White House. Our waitresses were twin sisters, beautiful girls and daughters of the owner. For all they knew I was there with my girlfriend and I was a little taken aback at how flirtatious they were with me. Admittedly, I had the sort of fantasy playing in my head that most men would in that situation.

When we were leaving Becca went to the ladies room and I waited near the front door after paying the bill.

I looked back towards my table which had been up one or two steps with a railing around it. The two waitresses were practically posing in front of it, each sort of lying across the railing and looking at me.

One beckoned me with her index finger – you know what I mean - and suddenly I was on fire. I thought – Oh, yes, this is going to happen. But, how am I going to get rid of Becca? I quickly decided to just tell her the truth, tell her to take my car and beg her not to be mad at me. I did not want to ruin a long and solid friendship, and this kind of thing might, but I was still stunned at the audacity of these two sisters to act so brazenly with her in the restaurant and I couldn’t pass up this opportunity.

I went over to them and one of them leaned forward and said in a low and sultry voice – “Don’t you teep?” All of sudden I realized why they had called me over and the money came flying out of my pocket as I stuttered “Oh my God,” “I’m so sorry,” and the like. I had just forgotten to do it after I paid. Damn. And it was such a good fantasy. Naturally, I told Becca the whole story as soon as we left. I don't know why, but she was a little focused on the part about my leaving her in the middle of the city.

Now that’s a coincidence – Lola – my early 20s. I was in law school and I met a girl at a bar. I am not a bar person for the most part as I rarely ever drink anything and I rarely ever met a girl there. But, one night I met Lola, a pretty blond, blue eyed girl. I called her the next week and it took two weeks before I could remember her name, and I doubt I would have except she mentioned it in a story. We started dating but promised to keep it casual and if one person lost interest, they’d just be honest and say thanks.

Finally, one night, after I took her to a strip club (this worked even better than the Roslyn Duck Pond), things became intimate between us. I went home early in the morning.

I called her the next day and she was not very happy. She lived with her brother in the house they grew up in and had warned me about him. She never introduced us but he knew what had gone on. He also hadn’t had a date in a long time. Next day he had screamed out the window for a while to their neighbors that she was a whore, slut, etc.

She said maybe we should wait a week to see each other and I said fine. But, the next week, when I called she said her mother was coming in and she couldn’t go out. I said, Lola, we said if we lost interest we’d just be honest and move on. She said that wasn’t the case but didn’t sound sincere to me (I can hear Bear snickering from here – “D’uh.”). I called two buddies and said let’s go to a movie. So, we went to the closest theatre to them which also was not too far from Lola’s house. I told them that I was a little bummed out because I was sure I was getting dumped and I wish she had just been honest instead of leading me on. I had a two week rule to let myself whine before I felt better and I thought it couldn’t start until we ended it.

As we walk up to the end of the line at the theatre, I’m thinking that I have to get a grip because the girl at the end of the line looked too much like her. But, when we got there I realized it was her and she was not with her mother. If she was, her mother had an unbelievable resemblance to a young man. I pantomimed for my friends what was happening and we slowly backed away. That was the last time I saw her except a glance at her at a nightclub the next. Year. She had gained a lot of weight and I can’t say I didn’t smile to myself.

But, I learned a valuable lesson. I was a little upset about what had happened but knew it was not serious enough to get me down for long. In school I was talking to a female friend about it and said I needed two weeks to get over it, but that if she had been honest with me, it would take less time.

My friend asked me if I thought she was a good person. I said absolutely. She was great (let me skip a semester once and gave me all her notes). She said, “I would have done exactly what she did. I know you shouldn’t, but I wouldn’t have been able to bear it otherwise.”

I got it. Some people, maybe most people, were not going to behave well in situations like this. But, it didn’t mean they were bad people. People do what they can and sometimes we are weak. It’s not an

excuse for bad or selfish behavior, but it is an explanation.

The fun of dating me - Malista – my early 30s. Malista was a friend’s secretary and we liked each other. So, I hit on her one Thanksgiving week and we started dating. She was another terrific person and we were later friends for years, but she was very insecure and emotional and I didn't do well with that. She was also about ten years younger than me and had a little trouble understanding why I didn’t get upset and yell at her when her friends were late or why I didn’t seem to be stressed out about our dating. At first she thought maybe it was because I didn't like her enough, but then she started to like me a lot. No one she had dated had ever been as nice to her before or really nice at all to her (I found that hard to believe, but she later told me this long after we were long done). She also decided she was my girlfriend and that I was her boyfriend for as long as a year after we stopped dating. Go figure.

One night we had a date and she came over all decked out. When she saw me in jeans and sneakers her face went ashen. Hadn’t I remembered that we were going to go somewhere fancy for dinner? No, I didn’t remember that at all. I thought we were just going to hang out and I had eaten dinner already. I could tell she was really upset. For her, this was how she was used to being treated. I said I was sorry and that I would make it up to her next week. For now, I suggested, let’s just go to the mall for a movie and get something to eat there.

So, I drove her to the mall, walked into the South entrance and took her to Burger King. Unbeknownst to me, taking her to BK was another insult to this young girl’s fragile self esteem. She was all dolled up and I was acting like it was nothing. Well, I was.

But, it got worse for poor Malista. We ordered out food and I reached into my pocket. “Uh, I forgot my money. Do you mind paying?” She didn’t tell me that night but she cried over this for days. I stopped dating her a few weeks or maybe a month or so later, because I couldn’t take the drama and told her so (on the phone, naturally).

She cried and I scolded her, telling her that she only thought she like me so much and wouldn’t even care in a week. She should stop crying. She did stop and when we spoke a week later, she did feel much better, even told me, without reference to what I had said to her the week before, that she realized we hadn’t dated that long and she wasn’t in love with me. Good enough for me. I took it.

That should do it for now. Another successful post which will make you wonder if anything ever happened in my life that wasn’t embarrassing, dangerous or bad. But I just find this kind of stuff more fun than telling you how I threw 4 touchdown passes in a single game while playing for the Polk High School Panthers (Al Bundy) or that I tried the Penge-Bungalow murder case alone and without a leader (Rumpole of the Bailey).

Next week is my annual holiday spectacular and as usual, I have no idea what I am going to write about.

I survived.

2011-12-11T09:34:00.000-08:00

I’m still back in New York (which I still call “home” when I am in Virginia) and away from my beloved old, over-handled, poorly maintained, bindings broken paper library from which I gather most of my inspiration for this evalovin’ blog. I’m a witness in a trial, which I won’t really talk about except to say it is sad to see a family disintegrate, but it is all too common over a parent’s estate, even when it is the last thing the parent would have wanted. Yccchh. I say again, yccchh.

A political update is due (my own self-imposed monthly schedule) but I don’t much feel like it. So, I’ll just say, as follows about politics:

Though I do not buy the Trumpian or tea partyish view of the president that he is not a patriot, that he is crooked and at the same time a Muslim and a bad Christian born in another country, I do think he is ill suited for the presidency in most respects and that he shares at least enough with socialists to believe that more spending, taxation and government are the answers, that our money is really on loan from the government and that the equality due us is not of opportunity but in assets and income. Leaving aside that Republicans are almost as bad as Democrats when it comes to these misapprehensions, I do want to see him lose the next election. But, I don't want Newt Gingrich to win one either.

Newt Gingrich has surged the last few weeks, for the most part based upon the fall of Herman Cain from the lead, of which now only the most die hard partisan or supporter can deny is likely true. But, Gingrich was already gaining a little bit when that happened. Cain supporters who need a new home will most likely look to Gingrich and that may give him what he needs to win Iowa and possibly New Hampshire and South Carolina. As has been pointed out many times by others, we pay the most attention to Iowa and New Hampshire because they come first, but South Carolina determines the nominee. However, the past is the past and every election something new seems to happen.

But, while my predictions for who would run and who won’t have been very good, I was wrong about Gingrich running and wrong about how he would do. That’s one self-aggrandizing reason for wishing him to fail. My second reason is because he is, in my view, a religious bigot and no believer in the first amendment, which, also in my view, is the number one reason we have become a great country. My third reason is that he is way to partisan and narcissistic, even for a politician, to be president, and last, I think if nominated, Obama will be president for four more years. Conservatives, led by Rush Limbaugh have insisted they want a real conservative and only a real one can win. This is not only ironic, because Gingrich is hardly a conservative in the mold of Rush Limbaugh – he has more in common with liberals than Romney – but he will also lose the general election, because he will turn off a lot of independents more than Obama will. I still am calling Romney to win, because you can't credibly switch every time someone new takes the lead.

But, none of this is what I am writing about today. Instead, I want to go autobiographical (which some of my few regular readers seem to prefer) and write about something about as personal as you can get – the number of times I have almost offed myself. I mean accidentally, as, leaving aside a whimsical notion of blowing a cooling hole in my head with a shotgun when I had a bad migraine headache on a few occasion, I have never had a suicidal thought in my life. But, sometimes when driving along and having nothing to read I do think about how many times I have come close and for a long time have thought about a post recollecting them for posterity. For otherwise, when I go to the big buffet in the sky (my secret hope), this crucial information will be lost forever. Some of these you may have read here before, but this is the first complete coverage.

1. Once upon a time, when a mere youth, sometimes in the 60s, I was climbing a willow tree in my backyard. We had two willows, both of which were beautiful. Eventually, perhaps as proof how sayings are just sayings (the willow bends in the wind but does not break), both of them broke in the wind. But, the one furthest away from my house was a frequent destination for me when I was young and imaginative, and I loved to climb it and imagine. One day, alone in my backyard, I began, slothlike, to inch my way upside down along a big branch, away from the main trunk. I can’t say how high it was – it’s just too long ago – but I doubt it was less than 6 feet or more than 10 feet off the ground. Suddenly, the branch clean snapped off and I plummeted to the ground head first with the branch over me. I landed square on my head and felt my neck bridge under me. I didn’t break my neck. It just hurt a lot. But, however old I was, it was old enough to realize that if I had hit a little harder, or my neck was a little more extended, I would have killed myself or paralyzed myself for life. I don’t think I’ve ever told anyone this before. But, I survived.

2. There have been several biking accidents from which I mysteriously walked away from without injury as if providence was intervening. Once when I was in my young teens I was riding my stingray bike (I include a picture here as it is possible, you have no idea what that is, as I don’t believe they make them anymore). I was coming from a small stationary store and reading a comic book (some habits die hard, although I am more attentive now when I read and drive). I rode my bike right into the back of a standing car, flew off the bike into the car at quite a high rate of speed. It really, really hurt. But, I survived.

3. Later as a teenager I was with some friends returning from Oyster Bay where Teddy Roosevelt’s home was located. There are some very big hills there. We were coming down one (I now owned a ten speed bike) and due to gravity, were going almost as fast as the cars. I estimate about 35 miles per hour. I had a bike lock wrapped around the post for the seat and somehow it slid down and lodged itself between my rear brake pads. It stopped the back tire, causing me and the bike to flip rear tire over front. I came off the bike and began rolling down the hill much as you’d expect. When I stopped rolling, I immediately stood up, expecting a bloody mess. But, I did not have a scratch. Nor, if I recall, did my bike. Odd, that one. But, I survived.

4. I am in my late teens and at dinner with my fiancée and some other couple (I think a couple who I haven’t spoken to in at least 30 years and have no idea what happened to as she got them in the future divorce) at Red Lobster. I was eating a salad and got it into my Neanderthal head to try and swallow a cherry tomato whole. Sometimes I get confused between grape tomatoes and cherry tomatoes, so let me make it clear, this was the larger of the two. I did not know at this time that I had a very small opening for food (I learned that when I was about 50) but I had a long history of choking on food, even when I wasn’t being almost preternaturally stupid. So, of course, it got stuck in my throat. While my friends chatted on I quietly sat there, tried to relax, and waited for it to go down, trying to breathe through my nose, which didn’t work so well either. I did not use the international sign for choking, for whatever good it would have done me. Instead, after a while, I took a sip of water. I expected to pass out any moment, when all of a sudden it went down. I think of that every single time I pass a Red Lobster. But, I survived.

5. Somewhere around the same time, my fiancée and I were at a local community pool. She told me that her brother, who was my age, had done 10 somersaults underwater. So, being a boy, I determined to do 11. And, I did. I also succeeded in making myself so dizzy that I literally could not find the surface. Finally, just about of air, I decided to just dead float and my fiancée, who was right there, would certainly rescue me. She did not, but when I relaxed, my head floated to the surface. I was not happy and asked her why she didn’t help me when I was flailing about. She said she thought I was trying to do one more. Well, that was fair. Anyway, I survived.

6. I was 25 and in London in 1985. It was my very first day out of the country. I was happily crossing Trafalgar Square, walking from Whitehall and crossing the big traffic circle towards the statue of Lord Nelson looking down upon us, if you are familiar with it. I was the only one in the street and no, I did not look the wrong way. I heard a motorcycle coming around the curve towards me and as it did not look like it was going to stop, turned to face it so that he could go around me. He did not look like he was going so I moved slightly to one side just as he began to turn in the same direction. Then I went the other way and so did he. This happened a few times as he approached – STILL NOT STOPPING – and I realized I might die. I let my arms fall to the side, tried to become loose (I remembered that from somewhere) and he hit me square on. I know I went in the air and that I landed on my backpack. I know I closed my eyes but I do not believe became unconscious. When I looked up there were a group of punkers (if you are too young to know what that is, I have attached an example) around me and I remember joking to myself that I hoped this wasn’t heaven.

What I would call a brownie, that is, a women traffic cop, helped me to my feet and began talking to me. She was Scottish. I was deliriously happy to be alive. But, after a few seconds I said something like – I feel great, but I can’t understand a word you are saying. She helped me to the curb where I was approached by a number of American tourists who had taken pictures. A couple sent them to me, but I can only find one I had digitalized and it is from after the crash. You’ll notice I am covering something with my hand. It is my smashed camera. I don’t know why I thought that necessary, but, after all, I had been run over. I still felt great at this time, but later the pain, and a gigantic bruise that ran my entire lower left leg set in. It eventually turned black and then green and I thought I might have gangrene, but refused to give up my vacation and see a doctor. It turned out it was just a terrible bruise. However, there are some doctors who believe it was the genesis of my chronic leg pain/dysfunction, which began hurting the next year. Who knows? But, I survived.

7.           Later that same trip I was in Amsterdam and waiting for a tram, which are virtually silent. While waiting, I decided to cross the tracks. As I did, I felt a hand grab my lapel and pull me backwards just before the near silent train crushed me. I never knew who do it, but if you are religious, you might start believing I had a guardian angel watching over me. But, I survived.

8.           A few years later (1990) I went to Greece and Turkey with a friend. We rented motor bikes. We decided to see what was at the top of the island and rode up. We found out what was there. A garbage dump. So, we turned around and headed down. Fortunately going fairly slowly still, my rear tire hit an oil patch and I was thrown off. I was able to avoid hitting my head or face, but tore up my right elbow and left knee fairly badly. I didn’t want to go to the hospital or doctor, so we just continued to the beach where I submerged my wounds in salt water. It hurt. Let me demonstrate about how much. Owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! But, I survived.

9.           On the way back to our hotel, my friend was ahead of me as I was now a little timid about riding the motorbike. I crossed a small bridge just as a large bus turned into it on the other side. There was no avoiding it and we passed each other with inches to spare. If I had been hit it would have slammed me into the wall to my right. I did not get hurt at all, and, more important, I survived.

10.           A few minutes later I suddenly felt a terrible pain in my throat near or on top of my Adam’s Apple. I still remember it as one of the most painful few minutes in my life until my throat surgery in December, 2009. I did not want to stop as my friend was way ahead of me. When I finally caught up to him and pulled alongside, I asked him to see if my throat was bleeding. I was actually worried he would think I was imagining things. He reached over and pulled a long thistle out of my throat. It must have been blown along and just lodged in there. I don’t know how close to death this was, but, it is too weird a story to pass up. But, I survived.

11. A few years later I was with the same friend and his girlfriend in Portugal (I think around 1996, but I could be wrong). We were at a castle on the Atlantic shore. While they wandered off I decided to get a picture of the pounding surf at the foot of the castle. I slowly extended my body over a rampart by hooking my insteps on the inside. I took the picture but then realized I was too far out. My friends were too far away too help. Slowly, like a worm I inched my way back, realizing the whole time that it would be really hard for them to explain to my daughter how I fell off a castle to my death. But, I survived.

That’s all I can think of right now. I have had more lives than the proverbial cat. I have had many car accidents, but none have been serious at all. I have had two surgeries, but both were without complications. I have climbed small mountains and found myself in precarious positions, but always without incident. I have screwed up a zillion times, leaving myself at the mercy of the elements. I have been hospitalized a few times, once for a mysterious disease no doctor could figure out. But, all of these without mishap. My near misses have all been through stupidity or bad luck and not from the run of the mill accident or illness. I notice a couple of times that relaxing when things looked bad was the best thing I could do and I'm grateful for whatever experiences taught me that. I have found that many times in my life doing nothing saves you, and not just in near death situations. Here's a little from Lao Tze:

"Do you have the patience to wait
till your mud settles and the water is clear?
Can you remain unmoving
till the right action arises by itself?

The Master doesn't seek fulfillment.
Not seeking, not expecting,
she is present, and can welcome all things."

From the Tao Te Ching, 15:13-19 (1988 Stephen Mitchell translation). Or maybe it was Master Po from Kung Fu.

Do I have a guardian angel? Well, I don’t believe in things like that. All I know is, I survived.

Postscript: I forgot about this one. It is 1978. I am just married or about to get married and have my first apartment. There is a gas stove. Neither of us has ever turned one on. So, I say (I'm not kidding about this either) something like "I think we have to let the gas build up for a while." So, after letting it do so, I light a match and literally blow myself across the room and into the wall. But, that's not the funny part. I straighten up and say something like "Well, it probably hasn't been lit in a while." And I did the same thing again. After my second meeting with the wall, we called her mother, who said that we really shouldn't be allowed to live by ourselves. Too true. But, I survived.

Political update - early report

2011-11-30T09:53:00.000-08:00

My political update for December is due at the publisher later this week, and I may or may not get to it. But, while I'm sitting in front of the computer, let me make a couple of quick comments (how unlike me).

First, one of the best thing going for Newt Gingrich, which makes me worry, is that the so-called pundits and experts keep saying he doesn't really have a chance. That makes it much more likely he will get nominated. Those guys are so wrong so often they are poison. I'm still calling Romney, but something may get in the way. Here's what.

Herman Cain is going to - it was inevitable and now is doubly so - get out of the race. When he does - where do you think his supporters are going? Not Romney. His best buddy up there so far has been Gingrich. And, they attract the same kind of religious following (which, of course, is ironic in both cases given their personal histories, at least as reported). If Cain goes out, expect Gingrich to take big leads in Iowa and S. Carolina and some kind of lead, or at least a statistical tie in New Hampshire.

As for Cain, I have two remarks. First, what is the delusion these men have that this stuff will not come out in a presidential run. Second, does anyone now doubt any of the reports about Cain except his most ardent followers or conservatives who are just positive someone with their political philosophy could never behave that way?

Let this be a lesson to you pols (I'm laughing because they never will listen to anyone about this. If you have bad skeletons in the closet. Bring them right out before you start and say it is no one's business any further than this - and then be as expansive as is decent. Or don't run and ruin your family's lives? How do you think Mrs. Cain and their children and grandchildren feel right now?

Why don't we have a Franklin day?

2011-11-27T17:31:00.000-08:00

I have delayed and delayed writing about my favorite founder, Ben Franklin, for a long time now, but not just because the amount of material out there is overwhelming. Unlike with Thomas Jefferson, whose character I loathe, I have nothing really original or bad to say about Franklin and the subtitle to this blog says – My thoughts, what else? However, now that I decided to write about him anyway, his having been on my mind for a couple of weeks, I’m not sure how I will keep it from growing like a stalk out of a magic bean, given how verbose I am even on limited topics.

I have lost track of the biographies I have read about Franklin, but I usually recommend his own brilliant, but short autobiography on the first part of his life and H.W. Brands’ The First American (although I am not the biggest Brand fan otherwise). I’ll also expand below on Tom Tucker’s Bolt of Fate, which is a sensational book on a limited topic. But, I’m not going to scare you away from Carl Van Doren’s classic, Benjamin Franklin (my first after his autobiography when I was a kid), the always readable Catherine Drinker Bowen’s The Most Dangerous Man in America, the equally fun Thomas Fleming’s The Man Who Dared the Lightning or Stacy Schiff’s recent award winning retelling of his years in Paris, A Brilliant Improvisation, which was much better than I had thought it would be. Less interesting to me were both Walter Isaacson’s somewhat prosaic Benjamin Franklin: An American Life and Edmund S. Morgan’s Benjamin Franklin, though he might be the best historian of the group (if not the best writer).

I’ve decided what I’ll do is talk about a few things about Franklin that make him my favorite founder and why we should have a Franklin day. Although I think with Washington, he was the only other indispensible Revolutionary, I will not try to convince you about that here. It’s enough for me that other than the ever cranky John Adams and a few other contemporaneous critics, almost everyone else thought so too. Maybe another time. As always, this is not Wikipedia, and if you love Franklin or find any of the following interesting, try one of the books I recommended above. The information I give here is derived from them, among others, original research not being in the cards for me.

A really, really brief and completely inadequate overview

I heard Walter Isaacson say once that Franklin was not a genius. I don’t know what he is talking about. If he was not, I’m not sure we ever had any. Franklin's list of inventions, not least his revolutionary discoveries in electricity, his ability to re-invent himself and be immensely successful at whatever he tried, his unparalleled diplomacy in France (against all odds), his civic work and writings among other achievements, cannot be compared levelly with any other American's, at least in sheer talent and diversity of talent. He was the American Leonardo DaVinci. He showed his genius in his writings and even in his playfulness. I understand Isaacson doesn’t want to be a hagiographer, but, really?

Franklin was endless fun

Long after Ole Ben was dead, Jefferson recalled his own torture while congress tore apart his draft of the Declaration of Independence (Franklin had been on the committee and helped a little) and his conversation with Franklin about it while he was listening. Someone else less inventive than Franklin might have just said, “Don’t worry so much, Tom,” or "It will be okay," but according to Jefferson, Franklin said:

"I have made a rule, whenever in my power, to avoid becoming the draughtsman of papers to be reviewed by a public body. I took my lesson from an incident which I will relate to you. When I was a journeyman printer, one of my companions, an apprentice hatter, having served out his time, was about to open shop for himself. His first concern was to have a handsome signboard, with a proper inscription. He composed it in these words, 'John Thompson, Hatter, makes and sells hats for ready money,' with a figure of a hat subjoined. But thought he would submit it to his friends for their amendments. The first he showed it to thought the word 'Hatter' tautologous, because followed by the words 'makes hats,' which showed he was a hatter. It was struck out. The next observed that the word 'makes' might as well be omitted, because his customers would not care who made the hats. If good and to their mind, they would buy them, by whomsoever made. He struck it out. A third said he thought the words 'for ready money' were useless, as it was not the custom of the place to sell on credit. Every one who purchased expected to pay. They were parted with, and the inscription now stood, 'John Thompson sells hats.' 'Sells hats!' says the next friend. 'Why, nobody will expect you to give them away. What then is the use of that word?' It was stricken out, and 'hats' followed it, the rather as there was one painted on the board. So the inscription was reduced ultimately to 'John Thompson,' with the figure of a hat subjoined."

The Great Speech

Franklin was a very old man approaching death when the Constitutional Convention was held, and if it were not in his home town, he would not have been there. He contributed little to it. But, what contributions they were. If Franklin did nothing in his life but write his last great speech which was read for him by James Wilson at the convention, he would deserve the title – great man (excerpt follows):

“Mr. President:

I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present, but Sir, I am not sure I shall never approve it: For having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig'd, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment, and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others. Most Men indeed as well as most Sects in Religion, think themselves in Possession of all Truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far Error. Steele, a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only Difference between our two Churches in their Opinions of the Certainty of their Doctrine, is, the Romish Church is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the Wrong. But tho' many private Persons think almost as highly of their own Infallibility, as of that of their Sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French Lady, who in a little Dispute with her Sister, said, I don't know how it happens, Sister, but I meet with no body but myself that's always in the right. Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison.

In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our Enemies, who are waiting with Confidence to hear that our Councils are confounded, like those of the Builders of Babel, and that our States are on the Point of Separation, only to meet hereafter for the Purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best.

The Opinions I have had of its Errors, I sacrifice to the Public Good. I have never whispered a Syllable of them abroad. Within these Walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the Objections he has had to it, and use his Influence to gain Partisan in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary Effects and great Advantages resulting naturally in our favour among foreign Nations, as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent Unanimity. Much of the Strength and Efficiency of any Government, in procuring and securing Happiness to the People depends on Opinion, on the general Opinion of the Goodness of that Government as well as of the Wisdom and Integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own Sakes, as a Part of the People, and for the sake of our Posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution, wherever our Influence may extend, and turn our future Thoughts and Endeavours to the Means of having it well administered. . . .

His brilliance still shown there, even after the great speech.

While others were just milling about during the signing of the constitution, Madison recorded Franklin saying as follows:

“Whilst the last members were signing it Doct FRANKLIN looking towards the Presidents Chair, at the back of which a rising sun happened to be painted, observed to a few members near him, that Painters had found it difficult to distinguish in their art a rising from a setting sun. I have said he, often and often in the course of the Session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting: But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting Sun.”

Come on, who says things like that spontaneously? Pretty much no one but Franklin:

The Inventions, improvements and innovations

If he had invented or played a role in only a handful of these, it would have been remarkable. I include those social innovations attributed to him as well as improvements or introductions of institutions to

America

Electricity – I’ll cover this later. But, it was the hallmark of his great fame which led to his great success as a diplomat. Aside from that, he was one of the first proponents of the theory that light traveled in waves.

Flexible catheter: he didn’t invent it, but it is probably the first ever made in America.

The lightning rod: He invented it. How many lives and how much property did this one invention save?

The first volunteer fire company in America.

The first fire insurance company in America (at the least, he was one of the founding members and the inspiration)

Bifocals (which he called “double spectacles.”)

Refrigeration. No, that wasn’t until the 20^th century. But, he and one John Hadley made early experiments with ether demonstrating it almost two decades before the revolution.

Copperplate printing press (first in

America

). He made this himself after observing them in England.

First political cartoon (you’ve seen this – the segmented snake representing the colonies and the words “Join, or Die”.)

The Franklin Stove (more heat, less smoke)

The Gulf Stream (not that others didn’t know about it – sailor’s did, but by taking temperatures with ingenious methods, he discovered how to map it).

First secular subscription library (at least in America)

First use of matching funds to raise money.

The glass armonica (a musical instrument – Franklin’s was not the first instrument to work by touching whirling glass, but was a remarkable improvement – Handel, Beethoven, Mozart and Richard Strauss all composed for it and Tchaikovsky almost used it in The Nutcracker, settling instead on another recent innovation).

Hospital – he didn’t invent this, naturally, but in connection with a doctor, he started the first one in America.

I’m not going to try to be comprehensive here. But, please don’t tell me the man was not a genius. By the way, the invention by him of the rocking chair, is most likely just apocryphal.

Scientific skepticism

While Franklin was in France during the Revolution Mesmerism, that is, hypnotism, then called “animal magnetism, was foisted upon the public by Friedrich Anton Mesmer. Ironically, he initially tried to use (inspired by Franklin’s electrical experiments) electricity as a conduit from the stars to humans, then turned to magnets and finally a Mesmerizing personality. When the French medical establishment denied him a license, Mesmer created a public company and raised a lot of money from citizens. The government intervened and created a committee to investigate it. It’s three most famous members were Joseph Ignace Guillotin, who later became famous for something obvious if you read his name again, Antoine Lavoisier, father of Chemistry and one of

France

’s greatest scientists who happened to end his life at the wrong end of a guillotine, and the world’s most famous scientist, Benjamin Franklin.

Franklin and his co-committee men did scientific experiments with one of Mesmer’s followers and determined that at best, Mesmerism was unproven, but also dangerous (but, because it might excite women to you-know-what).

Franklin did not, however, doubt that Mesmer got results - psychological ones - just that his explanation - that some kind of magnetism was responsible, was correct. Despite the report condeming it, he did not believe that they could stem the popularity of what we now call hypnotism. As he wrote later, “[s]ome think it will put an end to Mesmerism. But there is a wonderful deal of credulity in the world, and deceptions as absurd have supported themselves for ages.” And, he was right, as hypnotism is still quite popular and believed by many people. Even America’s crusading skeptic, Michael Shermer, who has worked on debunking many magical and superstitious beliefs, accepts it as true (I still don’t understand why). But, I know many credible people who tell me they have been hypnotized. I don’t believe that, though I believe they think they have been hypnotized, much as I believe many people who are sure they have seen a UFO, have seen something else. Of course, all they need to say is, you just haven’t experienced it, and how do you argue with that. Yet, whatever you have read or heard, there is no credible scientific evidence of a “hypnotic” state. And, please, no jokes about using my blog to put people to sleep. Anyway, this topic is for another day.

I just like that Franklin was involved in debunking Mesmer.

The great electrical hoax

I don’t like to do book reports here, but I don’t mind turning you onto a book. Tom Tucker’s Bolt of Fate: Benjamin Franklin and his Electric Kite Hoax, was published in 2003 and I came across a library copy up for sale a year or two later. I am always skeptical of historians who come up with radical ideas for which there seems little but speculation in support, like - X (Jesus, Homer, etc.) was a woman, or, that Dead Sea Scrolls are really evidence of an desert drug cult or there is a code in the Bible, and so on. Sometimes though, scholars or even journalists convince me of something I didn’t think true before. Like Lionel M. Jensen’s Manufacturing Confucianism, which I recently browsed at an afternoon at a library (yes, I didn’t say I read it completely – Will Durant pointed out in one of his books that you can’t read everything, and I no longer even try after reading that; if he couldn’t, I certainly can’t) which very ably argues that Confucius is a creation of 17^th century Italian missionaries to China, for one example. Donald Foster's research showing that Henry Livingston, Jr., not Clement Moore, wrote A Night Before Christmas, is another.

Tucker goes after an American legend that we all grow up on and believe. Franklin flew a home made kite to which was tied a thread and a key, to demonstrate that electricity and lightning were one and the same. I can’t believe it after reading Tucker’s book. Instead, it seems more likely that it was one of Franklin’s many hoaxes. His career is filled with them, beginning from when he was a child. Certainly many other historical figures have engaged in hoaxes, but I doubt any with Franklin’s regularity or success.

You can read the book if you are interested, but he shows how, for example, there was no key in Philadelphia that would have been light enough to float on a kite. Moreover, the wet thread Franklin described would have likely ruined, not helped, the experiment. If it hadn't, the experiment might have killed him (and, in one instance, apparently did prove fatal to another scientist). Also, he laboriously goes through various correspondence from Franklin and others further showing the likelihood of the hoax. Tucker’s book is a great piece of detective work and it includes a lot of material on Franklin’s literary battles with the Royal Society (which later made him an honorary member) that I had not seen elsewhere. Franklin won. He almost always did since he was little.

Don’t go away thinking that most of Franklin’s scientific experiments were a fraud or hoax. He was correct that lightning and electricity were the same, but was certainly not the first to suspect that and he certainly did not completely prove it even if his experiment was real. He coined the terms plus and minus, conductor, armature, positive/negative, battery, condenser, to explain his single fluid theory of electricity, which was also correct.

Franklin's electical experiments are his greatest achievements other than his political one's. Tucker's book does put a little hole in this claim, but, though he has persuaded me of it, not too much of one.

Franklin and Slavery

I have always been a critic of the founders when it came to slavery, not just because they owned slaves or tolerated them among others, but because they absolutely knew better and emphatically said so. Some like Washington, Jefferson and Madison kept many slaves and John Adams, the only early president not to own one himself, would make no argument to Southerners of their deserving freedom, thinking it not his business. One of Patrick Henry’s letters, which I’ve posted before, stated it most accurately, admitting that however much of an abomination it was, it was to convenient to give up.

Franklin was a slave owner. He did not own very many (I think 3, but maybe it was more – too tired to research it - you do it), but numbers don’t matter. Is there perdition for slave owners? I hope so or Franklin is sunk. But, like Hamilton (whose wife owned them and he also bought some at least once for a relative) and Burr (who also owned slaves during his life), Franklin became an abolitionist. With only a few years to live he took up the presidency of the old Quaker Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery . . . and really tried to make it a force. There had to be a solution to what to do with newly freed slaves who were incapable of living on their own, and he proposed that

America

had a duty not just to free them, but to educate them. Good luck on that, of course, and in this, he failed.

Also, in the year of his death, Franklin wrote another hoax, which he never published, likely because he died soon after, in which he created a historical character to lampoon our own slavery, a supposed African Muslim arguing against a petition by a group known as "Erika" against the enslavement of Christian slaves.” I give you only a small part of it:

“Have these Erika considered the consequences of granting their petition? If we cease our cruises against the christians, how shall we be furnished with the commodities their countries produce, and which are so necessary for us? . . . Who are to perform the common labours of our city, and in our families? Must we not then be our own slaves? And is there not more campassion and more favour due to us Mussulmen, than to these christian dogs? . . . But who is to indemnify their masters for the loss? Will the state do it? Is our treasury sufficient? Will the Erika do it? Can they do it? Or would they, to do what they think justice to the slaves, do a greater injustice to the owners? And if we set our slaves free, what is to be done with them? Few of them will return to their countries, they know too well the greater hardships they must there be subject to: they will not embrace our holy religion: they will not adopt our manners: our people will not pollute themselves by intermarying with them: must we maintain them as beggars in our streets; or suffer our properties to be the prey of their pillage; for men accostomed to slavery, will not work for a livelihood when not compelled. And what is there so pitiable in their present condition? . . . While serving us, we take care to provide them with every thing; and they are treated with humanity. The labourers in their own countries, are, as I am well informed, worse fed, lodged and cloathed. The condition of most of them is therefore already mended, and requires no farther improvement. Here their lives are in safety. . . Let us then hear no more of this detestable proposition, the manumission of christian slaves, the adoption of which would, by depreciating our lands and houses, and thereby depriving so many good citizens of their properties, create universal discontent, and provoke insurrections, to the endangering of government, and producing general confusion. I have therefore no doubt, but this wise Council will prefer the comfort and happiness of a whole nation of true believers, to the whim of a few Erika, and dismiss their petition.”

And . . . I just love

- that when someone at a gathering suggested that all of the great animal fables had been written, he was able to make up a pretty good one on the spot.

- that he developed a new phonetic alphabet in which he removed letters he thought redundant but added others (it went nowhere, as have so many other attempts).

- that he seemed so unlike other politicians then and particularly now, truly interested in doing public good for no reward, and was all but indefatiguable in it.

- that he so often met his greatest critics and defeats with silence, except when absolutely necessary, and that his fame still greatly exceeded their own (excepting, I guess, Adams, who is in our pantheon).

- that he avoided public argument, instead pnly asking questions of those he disagreed with.

- that when he went to France he did so without his wig on, which was fairly shocking at the time.

- that he appeared at the peace treaty signing with England in the same gown he had worn when he was humiliated in front the Privy Council 9 years earlier.

- that he swam long before it became popular.

- that he loved to play chess. In fact, there is no one else in America known by name who played before him - but he had to learn from and play with someone, didn't he?

- that he wrote his epitath (it wasn't used) that stated:

“The Body of B. Franklin Printer; Like the Cover of an old Book, Its Contents torn out, And stript of its Lettering and Gilding, Lies here, Food for Worms. But the Work shall not be wholly lost: For it will, as he believ'd, appear once more, In a new & more perfect Edition, Corrected and Amended By the Author”

- that though he believed in God and frequently referred to him, he was non-denominational and wrote some memorable lines about “Him”. At the Constitutional Convention, in suggesting a prayer – he argued: “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?”

- that shortly before he died, when asked about his beliefs about Christianity, he wrote with his customary humor: As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble.” (Italics added).

Jefferson, the other great founder-writer, was never so funny.

The virtues

At the very last, having long exceeded your patience, I give you his 13 virtues, and, in blue, my own comments upon them:

"1. Temperance. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation." Yeah, yeah, yeah. Good advice, of course, but did he look skinny to you in all those illustrations?

2. "Silence. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation." Please, Ben, that is half the fun in life.

3. "Order. Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time." I suppose. But, I’d add – but first read number 9.

4. "Resolution. Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve." I try, I try, but he didn’t have NCIS or the internet to take up his time.

5. "Frugality. Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing." Probably great advice. Some people actually follow it and we call them cheap or boring.

6. "Industry. Lose no time; be always employ'd in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions." Isn’t this the same as 4?

7. "Sincerity. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly." This from a man who would do anything to win a contract or job.

8. "Justice. Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty." No complaints.

9. "Moderation. Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve."

10. "Cleanliness. Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloaths, or habitation." He clearly had no idea of how a real bachelor lives and of the pleasures of messiness.

11. "Tranquility. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable." If I could, I’d put this before the eyes of almost everyone I know, every second of the day.

12. "Chastity. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation." Chastity? He (like me, but the similarities end there) had a child out of wedlock. By venery, he must be referring to sexual desire (and not hunting, the other possible meaning). And, of course, screw him when it comes to that.

13. "Humility. Imitate Jesus and Socrates." Sure, try, but not when it comes to accepting death meekly. Then listen to Clint Eastwood’s in The Outlaw Josey Wales:

"Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is."

How is it possible to write about Benjamin Franklin and not mention his almanac, his printing business, any many great writings I couldn't get to here? I'll tell you. It's because there is just too much to talk about with him.

Peace out, fellow Franklinphiles. I have a busy week coming, so I may or may not skip a post next week. Try and live through it.

Potpourri II

2011-11-20T15:58:00.000-08:00

It’s one of those weeks when I’ve had a few things on my mind to talk about. So, it’s a potpourri week (did I steal using potpourri for this purpose from Jeopardy or did we both steal it from somewhere else?)

No, Grandpa, you graduated school in 1976, not 1977

In the last couple of years I’ve been discussing with people my belief that in two generations, that is – at the worst, my great grandchildren, will have a computer right in their heads. They will be cyborgs in a real sense. My only doubt about it is that it might be much sooner than that. Naturally, over time, the cyber part will greatly increase, just as computers in my lifetime have gone from room filling monstrosities owned only by the largest companies that could perform a task or so, to desktops that could run games or a maybe a word processing program to little phones you can hold in your hand which seem almost magical to the older generations.

The power of these cyborgs may become so superior to ordinary humans that no ordinary parent would want their own child not to have all of the advantages. The genie, or shadow, or whatever it will be called, will cure deceases, increase all performances, eradicate normal learning time or limits, bad habits and obsessions, sharpen every sense and make what is fantasy no less real than anything else in your brain.

Just to take one example, because the possibilites are endless, at some point, it may just seem ridiculous to continue with things like sex since you will be able to realistically dream any fantasy you want for pleasure while conceiving babies without physical contact (they can already do that). To give other example, when you can someone the image of anyone you want to talk to, alive or dead, real or imagined, why would you need to even leave your house? You could go anywhere or have anything come to you without moving. Of course, we can take this all the way to the premises of The Matrix or the Terminator movies, but, you’ve seen those and know the risks.

Sometimes I add that I hope I am dead before my grandchild says to me something like the title to this section, because age will lose its last advantage - experience. But, who knows how I will feel if I'm alive when it happens (and if they can hook up an already grown person)? It took me a while to get used to cell phones and email, but now they are completely integrated in my life. I have even considered the possibility of getting – don’t be freaked out now – some ipad like device, now that the prices are crashing. On the other hand, I still resist getting my emails outside of my home, but really – what is the practical difference between that and getting cell phone calls and text messages on the fly? Hard to see any but the most technical difference, although the junk and work email I receive at home makes me want to continue my practice. Later on the ipad and Kindle.

Of course, I’m no expert or even well informed about computers or cyborgs or anything related. I just learned what SEO means (if you don’t know, you are more of a Luddite than I am and that is sad). But, when I pontificate about the likelihood of computer chips being implanted in humans upon birth (for whatever reason, I imagine at the juncture of the spinal cord and the brain), I notice that other people seem to like it and sometimes later restate the same thoughts to me, sometimes just weeks later, usually in the form of “they say that . . . .” That’s okay, as I haven’t invented or even conceived of anything that many other people haven’t thought or written about before me. It’s been a science fiction plot pretty much forever. All I really say is my conviction that I think this will happen before most people do (if they have ever thought about it) and believe that we already have the rudimentary technology for most of it.

What do we need for this futuristic process?

Computer hardware and software. This already exists, of course, and if you are reading this, you use it, probably every day. And, it has already made its way into humans. A working robotic arm complete with a nerve graft has been operated. Scientists have made brain computer interfaces that allows quadriplegics to move a computer cursor, though it is external right now. This is, of course, just the beginning.

Miniaturization. The capability to have a superchip the size of a pea or as thin as a sheet of paper does not seem far away, does it? As I stated above, the earliest marketable computers filled a room, and now we're down to tiny little phones that even poor people can own. That’s just marketable computers. The University of Michigan has developed what it claims is the first complete millimeter size computer. Take a penny out of your pocket and look at it. That’s way, way bigger than this computer. Look closely at the word “ONE” on the penny. That also is way too big. Now take a look at just the letter “N.” That’s the size of this little computer. How soon before a commercially viable one is made? A few years? How soon before it is the size needed to put in a human? I say 10 years, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was 5 either. How small? Already they have made chips a few atoms – I said atoms – thick. That means millions in the dot on the letter "i" in the words "millions." Do we need it smaller than that?

Safety. I see two minor issues here. You can’t just put stuff in human bodies willy nilly, because your body may reject it as an immune response – typically, this is done by covering it in a collagen fibers as a type of scar tissue (yes, I looked that up). When these fibers thicken it can compress the enclosed object causing pain or malfunction. However, we know that they put all kinds of things in people's bodies already – organs, metal, balloons filled with silicon, etc. – and have mostly mastered this problem. They have also placed chips in animals with gps locaters surrounded by bio-compatible material (I’ve read glass is the most useful material), but without batteries, and which are only activated by being scanned from the outside. If it has gone beyond that, I am not aware of it. The other safety aspect is damage caused by radiation from the device. I don’t believe this will be much of a problem either, but more of a fear. Frankly, though radiation poisoning can be real, I don’t think any of the radiation fears we read about electro-magnetic radiation from power lines or cell phones are much of a concern. In any event, if a mini-computer or chip presents more of a problem, it will be solved by shielding.

Problems – The more we use technology to solve our problems, the less we are capable of surviving without it. Already this is true in the high tech world we live in. It is believed right now that an attack from a high altitude nuclear bomb would create an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) that will throw us back to the stone age. And, I don’t just mean it will be a year without street lights and the internet. Pretty much everything electronic – and these days, what isn’t? - will stop working and possibly hundreds of millions of Americans, at least, will be dead in a year. One year. Doubt it? The first shielding for an EMP was used back at Trinity when we exploded the first nuclear device in 1945. Still doubt it? Watch http://www.c-span.org/Events/Heritage-Foundation-Discussion-on-Electromagnetic-Pulse-Threat/10737423521/ and then ask yourself why we don’t actually do something about this very real thread? And there is so little we really need to do - relatively inexpensive shielding.

The other big problem with be extra-personal involuntary control ("EPIC attack," I just made the name up, but I like it). It refers to control of cyborgs by external computers either from the government or private persons. Imagine if the government could convince you of any fact they wanted simply by downloading it into your brain. Imagine if you could be given a computer virus. I expect that will be an ongoing battle, just like internet security is now.

This is all very real. I would find it incredible if we do not have cyborgs in my lifetime, absent unfortunate accident or illness leading to an early death. Of course, like most technology, they will just get better and better. The science fiction of today is really about to be overtaken by science. Whether this is good or bad is up to us, not the technology. But, I really don’t think I want to be around for it.

Natalie Wood

We’re not done with this? Are you kidding me?

Why are they opening up the Natalie Wood case? She drowned in 1981, 30 years ago later this month. Every one on the boat has by now long spoken their mind - the Captain, her husband, actor Robert Wagner, and Christopher Walken, then a young actor co-starring with her, and now a famous one, who may or may not have had a thing with Natalie. Not for the first time the Captain has made some provocative statements to the media and the L.A. Sheriff’s department is opening the case up once again, supposedly because of tips from multiple sources, but also admittedly because of the media pressure. Ridiculous.
The Captain has made statements before and nothing came of it. Both he and Wagner have published accounts in books. There was no sign of foul play that I have ever read before, but apparently, there was a witness on a nearby boat who says she heard screams from a woman that she was drowning and a male voice saying help was coming. If so, the Captain didn’t hear it (though, admittedly drunk) or Walken (who was supposedly asleep by all accounts). Were they all in it together? No one jumped in to save her? Come on. Additionally, an EMT who saw the body said that rigor mortis had not set in six hours later, indicating she was not dead all that long. If there was any credibility to these reports, why wouldn’t Wagner be a suspect? If he’s not a suspect, why didn’t he hear cries for help?

There definitely was a very heated argument that night between Wagner and Walken over Wood’s commitment to acting (Walken's position) as opposed to her caring for her and Wagner's children (Wagner's position), and she disappeared sometime later after things cooled down between the two men and was later still found drowned after a search. The boat’s dinghy was found on the shore, but the paddles were tied down. She had only recently gotten over her terrible fear of water but it did seem unlikely to me that she would have tried to take a dinghy in the dark over open water by herself. One theory is that she heard the dinghy banging on the side of the boat, tried to retie it, and fell in. That does not sound far fetched to me at all.

Now the Captain says he lied 30 years ago about what happened, and he blames the argument over her for her death. Obviously, that is an opinion, not an accusation. But, he has also claimed he saw bruises on her when he identified the body. If so, why didn’t the police see them? And why would Wagner not be a suspect? The sheriff’s office has unmistakably said that Wagner, who now occasionally appears on NCIS as the parent of a lead character, is not. Who does that leave? The Captain? That doesn’t make sense, since he’s the one who brought it all up. Christopher Walken? Again, everyone says he was asleep at the time.

I could have sworn that I had written on this in the past, but, I can't find it in my archives, so I guess I imagined it, or maybe I wrote it and then posted something else (I do that and forget a lot). I admit, as celebrityish and gossipy as it is, I do find it fascinating. I’m not a cyborg yet, you know.

Wood was a beautiful woman, of course (very much my type too, although she was grown before I was born), but I was not a big fan of hers and didn’t even like West Side Story very much. I saw the movie when young and then saw the play on a secondary run on Broadway, during which I fell asleep. That may be heresy to say, as the show is considered a classic, but I think America is the only good song in the whole show.

Then again, Wood did have an important role in one of my favorite movies, Miracle on 34^th Street when she was a little girl, and that is really how I think of her still, not as the sex symbol she grew into.

Do I think this new investigation is going anywhere? No. Just in the media. Could I be wrong? Sure I could. But only if there is a smoking gun and it doesn’t look like there is.

You can’t make enough lists like this
Speaking of Miracle on 34^th Street, it is not only one of my favorite films (maybe THE favorite) but the original was also the greatest Christmas movie of all time (I always warn - do NOT see the remakes). I’ve written too much about it in the past (12/22/08) to spend a lot of time on it here, but there is no limit to the amount of times I can give a list of my favorite Christmas movies, which, like all my lists, is subject to change.

10. It’s a Wonderful Life. Jimmy Stewart classic that flopped at first, but became for many the ultimate classic of the genre.

9. Miracle at Morgan Creek. Nowadays, it is a virtually unknown movie, but it was ground breaking at the time, and very funny.

8. Bad Santa.

7. When Harry Met Sally. Like the next one, there are a few holidays scenes, particularly at New Years. Billy Crystal’s best. Meg Ryan’s second best.

6. You’ve Got Mail. You could argue that this is not a Christmas movie, but there were a few Xmas scenes, and I love this movie so much, I’m including it. Its predecessor, Little Shop Around the Corner, a Jimmy Stewart vehicle was terrible in my opinion, but was definately considered a Christmas flick. So, going with it.

5. Babes in Toyland. Laurel and Hardy. The print I’ve seen on tv the last few times is damaged but still viable. There was a time this movie was in my top two or three movies period, but little boys grow up, a little anyway, maybe just enough to knock it down to no. 5.

4. Elf. Will Ferrell playing a human raised by elves. It could have been horrible, but I’ve probably watched it twenty times and planning twenty more.

3. Serendipity. John Cusack back in the days when he played charming characters with the irresistible Kate Beckinsale and an effervescent Jeremy Piven at his best.

2. Love, Actually. A movie I never would have seen if my daughter didn’t insist. Great music and I think nine interwoven stories, one better than the other.

1. Miracle on 34^th Street.

Runner ups: Scrooge, Home Alone, A Christmas Story, A Muppet Christmas Carol. I am not a fan of Holiday Inn and White Christmas, as much as I love Kaye, Astaire and Crosby. I feel the same way about a sullen David Niven and too charming Cary Grant in The Bishop’s Wife. But, see them at least once.

Mrs. Malaprop redux
On 4/26/07 I introduced the New Miss Malaprop, who is also known as my Insignificant Other (Are your reading this, honey? Gulp.) She has the incredible tendency to merge different words and sayings together and make other word puzzles that defy description. I’ve been trying to keep a record, but, I am really bad at it. If more than a few minutes go by and I don't write it down, I can’t remember them, no matter how funny. However, I have recorded a few more that I post here. Some of these you have to think about:

I refuse to answer upon the grounds I may be discriminated.

* * *

She finally saw the light at the end of the tunnel.

* * *

Mrs. Malaprop: You don’t even know Jesus.

David: I know more about him than you do.
MM: No you don’t.
D: Okay, name the four gospels.
MM: Old or New Testament?
D: (laughing)
MM: I don’t know. 1, 2, 3 and 4?

* * *

It’s not worthwild.

* * *

MM: [Telling me about speaking to someone who was about to wake a dog] I said to him, don’t you know the expression - let sleeping babies lie?
Me: MM, the expression is actually about dogs – let sleeping dogs lie.
MM: Whatever.

* * *

Me: Don’t be so intransigent.
MM: I am not in transit!

* * *

Me: I don’t need more than three plates.
MM: What if you have a big shin ding?

* * *

How little they forget.

Can our leaders please learn just a little history

I have a feeling I’ll be talking to myself on this one. History is my passion, but, of course, I don’t pretend to know everything about it. There are many whole areas that I know nothing or next to it about. And I sometimes have to look things up because my brain just goes – uhhh, even if it is something I, and everyone, should know. And, once in a while I say something dumb that I should know better, because we are human and make mistakes (at least, we are for a while). I mention this because I don't expect anyone to be perfect. But, nevertheless, when someone is supposed to be an expert and makes some historical reference, usually something about the founding fathers, often with great certainty, and it is wrong, it that just annoys me.

For example, one day I was watching C-Span and the author of a book on the Constitution and the Constitutional Convention made a comment that Alexander Hamilton could not have been president because he wasn’t born in this country and the Constitution prevents it. I was a little surprised because the very same short provision in the constitution he cited for his opinion also says that anyone who was a citizen at the time the Constitution was ratified could in fact be president. And though Hamilton had pretty much ruined his chances of getting elected by outing himself on a sexual scandal (and then, of course, dying), he had been, of course, a citizen at the time of the Constitution for many years, having served in the Revolutionary War (although many non-citizen foreigners did), then serving as a representative at the Constitutional Convention himself, later as the first Secretary of Treasury and he was even appointed by Washington as the Major General of the Army. To suggest he was not a citizen would have been absurd. But, this author, who had just had finished his book, wasn't suggesting it, didn’t even seem to have actually read this provision. What made it worse was that later that day I heard two so-called pundits on television smugly re-state this proposition about Hamilton, as if they thought of it themselves that day. Of course, they were just as wrong, but this is why I get peeved about it. They should all know better.

Now, for what set me off about this, this week. I was listening to an oral argument in the Supreme Court that took place earlier this week. C-Span, tv's greatest gift to mankind, replays them. Very complicated stuff, as usual, about whether the president had a right to control what a passport says if the way he does it also violates a federal law passed by congress and signed into law. I am not sure what the outcome of the case will be, though I side with the plaintiff who submits that the congressional act is superior in this case. But, when the Solicitor General of the United States, who should be an expert on early American history, as it plays a major role in so many cases, made an important point about the Washington administration, he gratuitously stated that his cabinet had included Thomas Jefferson (right), Alexander Hamilton (right), James Madison (whattttt????) and John Jay (double whattttt????), I was floored. I was hoping one of the Justices, some of whom had to know (I hope), say – “What are you talking about?” No one did. For the record, Madison was in congress during Washington's two terms and then Secretary of State years later under Jefferson and then president himself. Jay was the first Chief Justice, Governor of New York (where he was instrumental in freeing the slaves), and a critical ambassador (minister). But, neither was in Washington’s cabinet, and anyone even remotely familiar with it, as the Solicitor General must be, should know that.
Senators, congressmen and other run of the mill politicians, of course, quote the forefather’s so freely and inaccurately, I can't keep up.

Okay, now that you’ve said to yourself – Okay, soooooo? – I’ll move on.

Eye of Newt
Speaking of history, the present rise of Newt Gingrich, who has a doctorate and taught history before entering politics, as he determinately eyes the presidency, annoys me. Not because of anything he says about history, but because I affirmatively don’t want him to win the nomination.

I should mention that I predicted he would not run because I thought he was smart enough to know he would do badly, but he has not only proved me wrong by running, but, after embarrassing himself several times early on (like, when he was caught repeatedly contradicting himself about Libya or when his entire staff quit after he went on a two week Greek Island cruise with his wife and now claims that he gained valuable knowledge about the problems of Greece), he has actually started to do quite well in the polls, even topping some of them.

Of course, I think he and everyone realizes he may be Queen for the Day. The cultural right has sent Bachmann, Perry and Cain to the top in succession, and now that one after another has shown themselves not up to snuff, and is now, at least (I imagine) promoting a professional, Gingrich. He is a pro. He was Speaker of the House in the 90s, unofficially advised the Bush administration and deeply immersed himself in policy so that he can probably easily out argue anyone on the stage with him, except maybe on some issues Ron Paul.

So, if he is so professional, why don’t I want him to win the nomination? Starting with the fact that I presume, like I do with every candidate and president, that he has good intentions and is patriotic, and despite my dislike of attacking candidate's characters, I am going to talk about his personality, because that is actually what I have against him - not really most of his general policies. In my humble opinion, he

- is too arrogant and narcissistic to be president – and remember I am comparing him to other politicians! His feelings of superiority are self evident to me every time I hear him speak. This is, of course, very subjective, but conservatives who find Obama to have these characteristics are going to just love Gingrich when he turns his charm on them.

- is one of the most partisan politicians around. Politically, he is a flamethrower, a non-violent version of the ante-bellum Southern crowd that wanted war, and he does not know compromise. He seems to worship Reagan (at least, the semi-legendary version), but Reagan was capable of compromise – Gingrich is often not, unless he is absolutely defeated.

- cannot bear making mistakes and makes ridiculous excuses for himself. His excuse for his serially contradictory comments on our involvement in Libya was that Obama made him do it – he was reacting to him. His excuse for taking at least $1.6 million from Freddie Mac was that he was acting as their historian – a hysterically funny excuse, except that it is so obviously a complete lie. His excuse for making a commercial with Nancy Pelosi about the importance of dealing with global warming is that he just felt that conservatives should have a voice in the conversation about the environment (who says they shouldn't? He still still didn't need to make the commercial.)

- is a hypocrite and untruthful when in trouble (yes, much worse than Obama or Romney or many, many others). He suggested Barney Frank and Chris Dodd should go to jail for their dealings with Freddie Mac, while his company made millions off representing them. He lambasted President Clinton for his adultery while he was himself cheating on his wife (now, unable to make excuses, he admits it – big deal).

- is religiously bigoted to an extent that exceeds conventional conservative religious concerns, demonizing gays, American-Muslims and those who don’t pray (who, he said in debate, could not be moral). He believes, and I don’t know how this could be constitutional, that mosques should not be allowed to be built in America while churches cannot be built in

Saudi Arabia

(which, makes sense how? – do we now base the first amendment on what foreign countries do? That doesn’t sound like a conservative position.)

- too in love with a younger wife. His Greek adventure with her in the midst of campaigning, leading to the bolting of his entire staff made me doubt his judgment even more than I would otherwise. This is, not surprisingly, the least of my reasons.

Besides all that, I would like someone who can beat President Obama, and it’s not him. He is way too vulnerable. Whether guilty or not, he also pleaded guilty to an ethics violation while in congress, and his attempts to explain it away have always sounded weak and defensive.

Despite these concerns of mine, right now some conservatives I personally know think he’s just nifty, despite earlier being disdainful of his marital dishonesty.

Yet, ironically, he has taken positions far to the left of other conservatives which have sunk other politicians, and are the reasons that conservatives don’t want Romney - including on immigration (pro-guest worker), health care, global warming, flex-fuel engine mandates for auto makers and even disparaged Paul Ryan’s budget plan. What gives? Why don't they look at him like they look at Romney. It may be that he just makes the right religious noise, now that he has found religion. He is the cultural right's last hope to defeat Romney before they have to get on board. And they just don’t trust him (you can understand why), and that is all there is to it.

That's all folks.

Who said it VI?

2011-11-13T20:28:00.000-08:00

I enjoy playing Who said it? more than watching yet one more endless Republican Party debate. This one focuses on just one person, unlike my usual schtick, one of the many great 20th century men who moved civilization one way or another from Gandhi to Einstein. Are there great men of the 21st century? If you took a poll today, some people would say Steve Jobs. Not me. Anyway, without googling (do you capitalize Googling?), see if you can guess who he is? I'll try and present him in various guises:

1. Here is is on automobile safety, of all things.

It is truly not an art to drive fast and to endanger the lives of others. Rather it is a great art to drive safely, i.e., carefully. Lack of caution coupled with high speed is the most common cause of automobile crashes. And it is discouraging to realize that the majority of those driving could easily spare the extra ten, twenty, or even thirty minutes that, at best, they can hope to save by their insane reckless driving, even on long stretches.

2. A man of his word.

I shall never, as a statesman, put my signature on a treaty that I would never sign as a man of honor in private life, even if it were to mean my ruin! For I would also never want to put my signature on a document knowing the back of my mind that I would never abide by it! I abide by what I sign. What I cannot abide by, I will never sign.

3. Everybody is conceited about something, aren't they?

I have been a prophet so often in my lifetime, and you have not believed but instead ridiculed and mocked me. Once again I will be a prophet and say to you: you will never return!

4. Scholarly discusses Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West and speaking of leadership.

Is this then really the end of our history and hence of our peoples? No! We cannot believe or accept it! It must be call not the “Decline of the West,” but “Resurrection of the Peoples of the Western World”! Only what has become old, rotten, and bad dies. And it should die! But new life will generate. The will shall find the faith. This will lies in leadership, and faith lies in the people!

. . .

It is mankind’s misfortune that its leaders forget all too often that ultimate strength does not lie anchored in divisions and regiments or in cannons and tanks; rather, the greatest strength of any leadership lies in the people themselves, in their unanimity, in their inner unity, and in their idealistic faith. That is the power that, in the end, can move the mountains of resistance.

5. Heroes, history and the immortal future.

Power and the brutal use of force can accomplish much, but in the long run no state of affairs is secure unless it appears logical in and of itself and intellectually irrefutable. Above all: [our movement] must profess its faith in the heroism that prefers any degree of opposition and hardship to even once denying the principles it has recognized as right. It may be filled only by a single fear, namely that one day a time might come when we are accused of insincerity or thoughtlessness. The heroic idea must, however, be constantly willing to renounce the approval of the present if sincerity and truth so require. Just as the hero has renounced his life to live on in the Pantheon of history, so must a truly great movement perceive in the rightness of its concept, in the sincerity of its actions the talisman which will safely lead it from a transient present to an immortal future.

6. A man for all seasons.

May this feeling of solidarity between city and country, between peasants, manual laborers, and intellectual workers continue to sell to become the proud consciousness of a tremendous unity.

7. Sounds like one of the forefathers, for crying out loud.

And I can tell those doubters something else, too, namely, that I am well aware of what a human being can accomplish and where his limits lie, but it is my conviction that the human beings God created also wish to lead their lives modeled after the will of the Almighty. God did not create the peoples so that they might deliver themselves up to foolishness and be pulped soft and ruined by it, but that they might preserve themselves as He created them! Because we support their preservation in their original, God-given form, we believe our actions correspond to the will of the Almighty.

8. God helps him who helps himself.

If we adhere to this path, decent, industrious, and honest, if we do our duty so bravely and loyally, it is my belief that the Lord will help us again and again in the future. He does not abandon decent people for any length of time! While He may sometimes put them to the test or send them trials, in the long run He will always allow His sun to shine upon them and ultimately give them His blessing.

If we all sick together in the city and the country, if each and every person decently does his duty in the place he occupies and thinks not only of himself but of his fellow humans as well, then you can trust that there is nothing that could break us asunder. We shall prevail! In the year to come, and in the decades to come!

We have a magnificent sun today. A year ago, we had pouring rain. What next year will bring is something I do not know. But that we will be standing here over and over again, that is something I do know, no matter what the weather! When we meet here again after a year has passed, we will once more be able to pledge anew: the year is over, and once again everything has gone will. Everything has become even more splendid.

9. Thank goodness for little girls . . . and Jesus, of course.

Sometimes when I see shabbily dressed girls, shivering with cold themselves, collecting with infinite patience for others who are cold, then I have the feeling that they are all apostles of a certain Christianity! This is a Christianity that can claim for itself as no other other can: this is the Christianity of a sincere profession of faith, because behind it stands not the word, but the deed!

10. Freedom of the spirit.

In this period of the most inward orientation, Christian mysticism demanded an approach to the solution of structural problems and hence to an architecture whose design not only ran contrary to the spirit of the time but also helped produce these material dark forces that made the people increasingly willing to submit themselves to cosmopolitism. The germinating resistance to this violation of the freedom of the spirit and the will of man that lasted for centuries immediately found an outlet in the foreceful expression of a new form of artistic design. The cathedrals’ mystical narrowness and somberness gave way to more generous room and light, reflecting the increasingly free spirit of the time. More and more the mystical twilight gave way to light. The uncertain and probing transition to the twentieth century finally led to the crisis we face today and that will find its resolution in one way or another.

11. He sure sounds like a founder.

Besides that, I believe one thing: there is a Lord God! And this Lord God creates the peoples. And, as a matter of principles, He accords all these peoples the same fundamental rights.

12. Leadership.

Leadership is always based upon the free will and good intentions of those being led.

13. Now, he sounds like a libertarian, for crying out loud.

This is an iron-clad, yet also a just, principle. The earth is not there for cowardly peoples, not for weak ones, not for lazy ones. The earth is there for whim who takes it and who industriously labors upon it and thereby fashions his life. That is the will of Providence. That is why it has placed man upon this earth, along with the other beings, and has paved the way for him, has freed him to make his own decisions, to lead his own struggle for survival.

. . .

On this earth, no Englishman has more rights than a Frenchman, no Frenchman has more tights than a Russion, no Russian has more rights than a German, no German has more rights than an Italian, and so on.

14. Burdens of leadership.

It is one of the most uplifting tasks of leadership to allow one’s followers to mark only the victory, and to take upon oneself the entire responsibility at critical moments, to step in front of one’s followers to shield them against this responsibility.

15. Responsibility and why we live.

In the end, we do not live for ourselves alone; rather, we are responsible for everything that those who lived before us have left behind, and we are responsible for that which we shall one day leave behind to those who must come after us.

16. Don't you hate it when they call you crazy?

The fact is, however, that every act of human progress, seen from a mental and objective point of view, originates with a very few individuals; from a mental viewpoint, because the invention is born only of the imagination of individual s and not of the cross-section of a collective endeavor; objectively because each himan invention, regardless of whether its value is recognized or underestimated, always appears initially to be an additional pleasure in everyday life and thus a luxury article for a more or less limited circle. It is not an isolated incident, but rather unfortunately quite often the case, that this circle is regarded by the amiable collective of fellow mankind as being crazy . . . .

17. And, Mr. Nice Guy.

Please accept my sincere sympathies on the grievous loss with which you have been afflicted as a result of the cowardly assassination of your son.

18. Such a comedian, I tell you.

This appears to me as though chicken and geese will one day make a solemn declaration to the foxes that they no longer intend to attack them, in the hope that the foxes will then become vegetarians.

19. Mars and Venus.

The more masculine a man is, the more he is undisputed in his sphere of influence from the very start; and the more feminine a woman is, the more her own work and thus her own position is conversely uncontested and undisputed. And the mutual respect of the sexes for each other will ultimately not be achieved by the rules set up by two different communities, i.e., the community of men and the community fo women; instead, it must be acquired day by day in real life. The more a man is faced with a woman who is truly female, the more his arrogance will be disarmed from the very beginning –idneed at times too much so; and conversely, the more a man is a whole man and carries out his work and his life-task in the highest sense of the word, the more the woman will find her natural and self-evident place beside him.

20. And, last, as the art critic.

The fact that something has never existed before is no proof of the quality of an accomplishment; it can just as easily be evidence for an inferiority that has never existed prior thereto. Thus if a so-called artist perceives his sole purpose in life as presenting the most confusing and incomprehensible portrayals of the accomplishment s of the past or the present, the actual accomplishments of the past will nevertheless remain accomplishments, while the artistic stammerings of the painting, music, sculpture, and architecture produced by these types of charlatans will one day be nothing but proof of the magnitude of a nation’s downfall.

And the answer is . . .

I can't help myself. I love to quote Hitler sounding normal. Of course, in culling this out of his speeches, I had to leave out all the references to the Volk and the Reich, the Jews and a bunch of other crazy talk. Whenever I do quote him like this, I notice I also make myself a little sick, as if I'm committing a crime of the soul to make a game of it. Go back and read these brief quotes knowing who it is. It will make you a little sick too. But, last year I started revisiting WWII history, and I keep finding these little quotes by him.

Political update for November, 2011

2011-11-08T02:45:00.000-08:00

Oh, Herman.

One thing about being a political independent is that you don’t get absolute knowledge about whether accusations about political figures are true or not. Yesterday, I watched Chris Matthews on his show, almost giddy about the press conference held by someone accusing Herman Cain of unwanted sexual advances, while feigning impartiality, and listened to Mark Levin on the radio dissect every sentence she uttered at her press conference, while feigning . . . impartiality. Well, there’s a shocker. Partisans taking their own team’s side.

I can’t know for sure if she is telling the truth, but, unlike the accuser of the Duke Lacrosse players, or Tawana Brawley, this one feels true. And though conservatives are arguing for Cain in the media, privately, some pretty conservative people have told me that it looks like it may be true to them too. I’ve always laughed at the common phrase – “Well, if he’s faking it, he’s the best actor in the world.” That’s just wrong, in my view. People are often good liars, and we learn from our infancy how to do it effectively by trial and error. Of course, most little kids are terrible at it, but, then again, they still believe in Santa Claus. But, very quickly, some people become exceptionally good at it, just as some don’t. I’ve known many people who lied as easily as they breathed, with complete confidence, and others who just goofed up every time, stuttering and stepping on their own confabulations. Maybe it’s a talent like anything else, partly nature and partly nurture.

Before this came out, I was enjoying my early prediction that Cain might just have a shot, particularly if it came down to him and Romney. He has personality. He can be charming. He is running a different type of campaign, and I do appreciate that, because it does make it interesting. But, now he blew it for the both of us. His big chance and my big chance for bragging rights until 2016.

I read an article by Michael Barone, in my opinion one of the most sane political commentators, just this morning about Cain. But, he was confused how Cain could be running a campaign that violated every rule, and still be at the top. He even wrote about going to Cain’s Iowa headquarters one day recently and no one was there. That is astonishing. Some other candidates practically live in Iowa now. Not Cain. It doesn’t seem to matter much either, according to the polls. I don’t think the so-called pundits really understand what he is doing. He’s marketing like a businessman, not running like a politician. 9-9-9 is no different than Charmin being “squeezably soft” or “Where’s the beef.” It’s not even important if it makes sense or not. What’s important is that we remember the schtick and associate it with him. And, we do. Can you think of another economic plan that has a name? I do. Reaganomics aka supply side economics, or as George H. W. Bush called it, voodoo economics. But, Reagan won twice. He was so well marketed to us, that he lives on in political memories in a half-mythological state, even among liberals to some degree.

On a panel of pundits earlier this week, I saw an all-star team predicting that Cain wasn’t even serious about running. That he knew he couldn’t win. They just don’t get it. People are sick of the usual rot and they are enjoying something just a little different. They affirmatively like that he is breaking the “rules.”

I was watching a presentation he was giving the day after the story broke last week. He ended it by singing an old Negro spiritual to the audience. It’s not that he sings so well, but, I’d like to hear any of the other candidates try that. Yes, Bill Clinton played the sax and we’ve had to suffer through seeing Obama and Bush dancing, but this was different. It was a news event.

Actually, I was and am still predicting that Romney would win the nomination eventually, when this story broke, but obviously, the better Cain polled, the more experience he got at presidential campaigning, the better he was likely to do. I did believe that if he could get into a one on one with Romney after the initial primaries (and it wouldn’t matter if Ron Paul was still around too), he might just win everything. But, running for president takes practice, and it is different than running for any lesser position. Some politicians only get one shot, and it is often not enough. Obama mastered it in one effort, but, he was helped by circumstances in no way in his control (the economy, Bush fatigue and McCain’s inordinately bad campaigning – he was a candidate who actually got worse the second time around). As has been pointed out by many writers, conservatives were looking hard for an alternative to Romney, who they will settle for only if they have to (which, amusingly, he has to count in order to win). Cain has come to the top, only after conservatives tried out Bachmann and Perry, and others wouldn’t even try (Christie, Daniels, Jeb Bush, Palin, Trump, for example).

Of course, Romney has to be the happiest guy in America right now. Because, yesterday’s press conference sunk Cain, in my opinion. Short of the accuser suddenly saying that she made it up, I think his Christmas goose is cooked. I’ve been wrong before on what scandal will take off or not. I thought the Joe Sestak scandal was going to matter, but, you might be reading this saying to yourself – what’s a Sestak? And I thought Jeremiah Wright might sink him too. Wrong again. But, this scandal is about sex, and sex sells, for better or worse. Is there a sex scandal out there about Romney or Perry or Paul? I doubt it, but, no one exactly saw this coming about Cain either. You can’t tell with sex.

When Anthony Weiner got in trouble earlier this year, I allowed a very small percentage of chance that he was telling the truth, but, it was almost certain he was lying right from the start, based on the peculiar way he handled it. He tried refusing to speak about it, but, eventually, when, he answered questions, it just came out weird (like, not being sure if a photograph of a man’s equipment encased in underwear was of him).

If Cain is innocent of any hanky panky, he has handled it in the worst possible way. Like Weiner, he initially refused to talk about it, then finally denied it and made inconsistent statements about the facts, and now refuses to talk again, except for a broad denial. He has even snapped at reporters in the usual ridiculous way that politicians sometimes do when they refuse to talk about the only thing that reporters care about when sex rears its sexy little head (no pun intended) - sex.

What does he think is going to happen? Are reporters going to start a new policy and violate human nature just for him? Say, okay, Mr. Cain, what would you like to talk about – 9-9-9? Of course not. When the media gets a whiff of a sex scandal, they pursue it relentlessly. And, despite claims of bias, liberal and conservative media both eat their own when it comes to a sex scandal. Fox News, for example, was on top of this story from the beginning and MSNBC did wall to wall Weiner jokes until it was over. Ratings über alles.

Cain has little choice now but to talk about it. Sure, he can stick to forums where he can write the rules and forbid questions about sex, and not speak to undomesticated reporters anymore, or he can face this head on. His grandfatherly scolding is not going to work. In fact, it is pretty much convincing everyone that he is guilty! Not for nothing, but if it was me being accused of sexual harassment, and particularly if I was a married man, with kids and grandkids, and supporters who spent oodles of money for me, I’d do what John McCain did when an apparently untrue rumor was floated by The New York Times concerning him and a female friend. He came out like a tiger the next morning in a press conference he called himself, and completely snuffed out the story. It took less than a day.

Of course, the key words there were “untrue rumor.” Despite the fact that most of the claims are still anonymous in Cain’s case, my Spidey Sense is tingling like crazy.

Well, for us news junkies at home, this will continue to be interesting for a while as another benefit of stories involving sex is, they don’t get old very fast. But, I do feel sorry for Cain’s family. When the media is hot on the trail of a story, they just don’t care about your family at all. They are like prosecutors who threaten to arrest your wife or kid on trumped up charges unless you plead guilty. I feel sorry for his wife, of course. Cain might even be saying to himself, now I know how Bill Clinton felt when he had to tell Hillary.

And, I feel sorry for Cain’s kids and their kids. I’m sure it was fun for a while to have Grandpa run for office, but it can’t be fun for any of them anymore. Even if it blows over with us, they still have to deal with it. Oh, he’s going to have to answer some questions, all right, and unless Mrs. Cain is just one of those women who'd rather not know, I'd pay to watch.

I admit that I am rushing to judgment a bit here. I am going not by facts, for the most part, but on the way Cain has been acting and the way things seem to go in these familiar circumstances. This is a bias and unlike the libs and cons I hear on the radio and tv, I’m content to watch the train wreck before I am ready to pronounce final judgment. Maybe I’ll end up with my patented waffling – who knows? But, still . . . .

Even before yesterday’s press conference, I presumed that there was some truth to the claims that were filed with the National Restaurant Association, which were hypothetically being kept from us by virtue of a confidentiality agreement. But, I wasn’t sure at all that it was anything to be worked up about. Perhaps Cain was or still is a flirt. Suppose he even cheated on his wife. Would it stop me from voting for him for president? No, not if I intended to in the first place.

Character does count to some degree in voting for a president, although it is often overstated. But, I don’t necessarily consider personal fidelity to a spouse as indicative of dishonesty in any other way or evidence of a general lack of character, unless there is some other element of it that is particularly vicious or unsavory. It is just its own category. I have friends who have cheated on their spouses and I haven’t noticed that they were any more dishonest than those who never cheated (far as I know, anyway). And, unlike many people, I don’t always think it is wrong. Most of the time, sure. Even people who cheat on their spouses often think it’s wrong. But, it is a human weakness like so many others, and some people succumb to it. Obviously, it is a reason to get mad at someone, or be disappointed in them, and, of course, divorce them, but I would no more think it disqualifies someone for president any more than I would think it disqualifies them to run a major corporation or be on the New York Jets. I expect that given enough temptation and time, many more people would cheat than already do, particularly men.

We don’t expect a president to never have told a lie. We don’t expect them to have never lost their temper. And, we even expect most of them to break the commitments made to us that they made when they were campaigning. Sometimes we hope they do if we don’t like the promise they made.

And, if he did cheat on his wife, or try to cheat on her, would that have been anything different than what Newt Gingrich did or Rudy Giuliani in their prior marriages? Only a few decades ago you couldn’t even run for president if you had been divorced. Today, thanks to Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, it is no longer a bar. It shouldn’t be. Even conservatives, who like to think they don’t change, don’t care anymore about that. Now, apparently, even adultery is no bar to election, even if it was done in a kind of tawdry or humiliating way (as with Clinton, Gingrich and Giuliani). Then again, there are limits to what people will accept. I don’t think Arnold Schwarzenegger could get elected now because by hiding a child from his family and the world, he crossed a line, at least for many people, including me. It is not a litmus test, but a factor.

Cain may have crossed a line too. The story told by the Sharon Bialeck yesterday (with, unfortunately for her, with Gloria Allred by her side, which doesn’t really help her credibility with me) was disturbing, if true. If he, in fact, barely knowing her at all, actually put his hand on her leg and reached under her skirt, and pulled her head towards his lap – that is not only creepy, it’s reprehensible. Wait to the second date, guy. I’m not going to pretend that I didn’t, when young, come on to some women in work related situations in a way, had I misjudged them, that would have been considered harassment, particularly by today’s standards. But, never in my wildest days would I have touched someone in a work situation who I didn’t know really well or made a sexual advance that wasn’t invited or I wasn’t really sure about. And, Cain wasn’t even a young man when this happened. The description we got today – if it is true – was of a very sordid, narcissistic and even coercive man. If it turns out this is true, and perhaps we’ll never know for sure (unless you are a partisan), I certainly would not vote for him. But, if it turns out to be true, we won’t have to worry about making a choice, because he wouldn’t be running at that point. Are we at it?

Possibly there are other shoes to drop. Others might come forward, if they exist. People tend to repeat behaviors over and over, particularly stupid ones. Maybe the other claimants we already know about will remain anonymous for their own reasons, particularly not wanting to be exposed to the anger of enraged Cain supporters or the inquisitiveness of a frenzied media. Maybe they have their own skeletons. But, the spotlight is hard to ignore, and I have a feeling others will want their 15 minutes. Now, the National Restaurant Association has waived its rights under their confidentiality agreement for at least one of the complainants. At this time, she apparently still doesn’t want to come forward and it is hard to blame her. She knows what happens when people make claims against powerful people. We all know that Sharon Bialeck might soon regret doing what she is doing too, if Cain chooses to fight this. The accused and his/her supporters do everything they can to make your life a misery. Kobe Bryant’s attorneys, for example, trashed his accuser until she gave up, and then he all but admitted the truth of her claims (for which he was only punished by his wife – but, nothing a huge diamond couldn’t fix). Bill O’Reilly and his attorneys made it very clear they were going to try to destroy his accuser. Of course, there are enough crazy people in the world, that they might all be fakes coming forward. But, undoubtedly, with numbers comes credibility.

So, what happens next, if Cain can’t go forward, or is severely damaged by this scandal. The early predictions are that Newt Gingrich, who continues to improve in the polls, will become the next anti-Romney, and that could be right.

Gingrich is a fascinating guy. He is truly interested in policy and obviously knows more about more presidential issues than anyone on the stage, perhaps excepting Ron Paul in certain areas. Gingrich is certainly my favorite politician to listen to when he has the mike, because he talks about interesting stuff.

But, I don’t like him for president. I had enough problems with Cain, who I liked personally. His anti-Muslim rhetoric and fear mongering is ignorant and calls for unconstitutional policies. He seems to have little political knowledge, which is stunning for a guy running for president and who had a political radio show for five years. He contradicts himself in a most illogical way and then blames the media and the person who asked him the question. His fantasy about bringing clarity to foreign policy smacks of a pollyannish fantasy not so different from Bush’s “You are either with us or you are against us,” or Obama’s belief that kowtowing to other country’s leaders would gain the United States’ international respect. Would I like Cain more than Obama? Yes. But, that’s because the economy is the number one issue by a long shot and Obama has it completely backwards from my perspective. Would I vote for Cain then? Probably not. I’d probably vote for a third party, if Cain was the nominee, if I could find one. But, I vote for third parties a lot these days, as the Republican and Democratic parties are both the kind of self-interested factions that kept James Madison up at night.

Gingrich though, surpasses even Cain in playing to his base in demonizing others. I still remember his political assassination of Jim Wright (not that he didn’t deserve it), his arrogant partisanship while Speaker of the House, his calling for the impeachment of Bill Clinton while he was cheating on his own wife, and his present demonization of atheists, American-Muslims and gays under the guise of his new found religiosity that smacks of insincerity to me, not to mention his smug narcissism that comes out in every sentence he utters (even if interesting). It is almost as if he were prefacing each sentence with – “Another way I’m smarter than the other candidates is this . . . .”

No, Gingrich is not for me, and, I suspect if he does make his way towards the top, he will find a way to shoot himself in the foot as he did in the beginning of his campaign.

This story has drowned out almost everything else in the news except the manslaughter conviction of Michael Jackson’s doctor, which has the Michael factor. We still face an economic crisis that seems to have no happy resolution. The super-committee that congress dreamed up to handle it seems paralyzed. I watched a committee meeting they held last week, and it was just pathetic. Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, who chaired an unofficial previous commission, came down to Washington to scold them, but it didn’t seem to matter. As entertaining and folksy as Alan Simpson can be, politics will continue to trump economic disasters until we are clinging to the rocks overlooking the cataract. We might be there and just can’t see it. Israel/Palestine continues to fester. I won’t do my usual rant here about it except to say that for her own sake, Israel needs to get ahead of the facts on the ground, recognize Palestine’s sovereignty and remove the settlements, while making it clear that she will not hesitate to destroy Palestine (and/or Lebanon), if attacked.

But, sex sells, and unless Cain cries “Uncle,” or it turns out that Obama has been having trysts with Kim Kardashian, it’s going to be groin-groin-groin instead of 9-9-9, for a while.

They didn't say it.

2011-10-31T19:51:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I get to thinking that nobody ever really said anything. I’ve learned that every time I quote someone I better check really hard about whether they actually said it or not, because so many of these things we are sure someone said, weren’t. Or, someone said it before they did. Or, if it is in an ancient text, you might find out it was added much later.

For example, one of my favorite scenes from The New Testament is the one where Jesus says, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” I like it because of the whole stoning thing, which, is horrific, but historically interesting, because of the idea expressed that we who have our own sins should not to judge others so quick (or, arguably, at all), because Jesus does not condemn the adulterer himself, but, most of all, because it is the only example in the Bible where Jesus shows he can write.

It’s not just one of my favorite scenes, but it is one of the most famous in the Bible period. In fact, I bet everyone I know has either said or heard someone say in a discussion, Let he who is without sin . . . .

But, just in case you are one of the seven people in the world who is saying, what are you talking about?:

Jesus was teaching in the temple on the Mount of Olives when some scribes and Pharisees brought to him an adulterer, and they intended to stone her according to the law of Moses. They are testing Jesus, to see what he would say, so they could accuse him themselves. But, he just writes in the dirt with his finger, ignoring them. But when they persisted he rose and gave the he who is without sin line. He sat down again and continued to write. And, he got to them, so that they left one at a time. When Jesus was alone with the woman, he looked up and asked where her accusers were and if no one had condemned her. She said no. He replied that he would not either and that she should go and sin no more.

Despite the universal familiarity of this story in the Western world, it probably shouldn’t even be in the Bible, according to many scholars. That is, it wasn’t in the earliest versions they can find. Now, forget about whether you believe that the entire Bible is fiction or not, because I’m not discussing that here, just whether what you thought was in it really wasn’t. This Biblical scene, known in Latin as the Pericope Adulterae, or Adulterer Passage, has been in almost every standard English Bible since the 1500s. It was even in the very first Greek text published by the famous humanist, Erasmus, in 1516, compiled from a few incomplete texts made as early as the 12^th century, and continuing in new editions for the next 300 years. It is the King James Version (1611), my personal favorite, despite many errors. It is in most modern versions and the Catholic Church considers the Latin vulgate from the 4^th century A.D., authoritative, and that included it.

As best as can be figured out, it was placed at some point in Hebrew texts made two or three hundred years after John was first written (best guesses, at the end of the 1^st century or beginning of the 2^nd century A.D., although some say earlier). Eventually it was put into a Latin version. Yet some of the early church fathers, like Origen, make no mention of it either. More, it turns out when they compare the various versions of this story in John, there are many different ones, some very different from the standard version. It was in some later Latin texts, but not in what is known as the Syriac Edition (likely made in the 2^nd century A.D. and very popular then). The earliest it can be traced back to is from the 4^th century A.D. It is certain that church fathers in that time period like Jerome and Augustine included it. It is thought that some scribe or another decided that he had a good answer to the taunt of some Jews earlier in John that Jesus couldn’t write and plopped it in. Whether it was actually from an unknown tradition can only be speculated.

This isn’t a new theory either. It has been quite well known since at least the early 1800s. Of course, nothing is ever simple in Biblical exegesis (what normal people call interpretation). There are some scholars who claim that it was written by the original author (John, or someone using that name) despite it being absent from the earliest manuscripts. Some scholars believe that passage is much more similar to the other three gospels than it is to John, but a few disagree.

So, while most Bibles continue to keep it in John where it is expected, since the late 1800s some print it after John but before Acts, almost as its own book, and others in footnotes, the margin or as an appendix. Few translators seem to want to leave it out completely. After all, it is a great story.

And this seems to be the reason that apocryphal stories get circulated and deemed authentic. They make for good stories or sayings. The Kings James Version of the Bible has included this gem since its being published in 1611. And though it was known it was a mistake, they have never fixed it, though many other mistakes in it have been corrected: "Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel" should really be, "Strain out a gnat and swallow a camel." This isn't even disputed. But, the first version, even if incorrect, is so evocative, it was just left as it was.

But, let's get out of the Bible. I have used the Mark Twain saying about the weather in San Francisco on many occasions. You know, “The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco.” Turns out, he never said or wrote it as far as is known. In Roughing It, he actually said it was very temperate there. Where did it come from? Who knows?

He’s also known for “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” But, actually, he was quoting Benjamin Disraeli (who probably didn’t say it first either).

I like to picture Harry Truman saying “The buck stops here.” But, apparently not. According to Fred R. Shapiro, editor of The Yale Book of Quotation, it comes from a newspaper article with a picture of an officer at a desk bearing the sign 3 years before Truman supposedly said it first.

I got a few others from Shapiro. How many times have I heard some politician or pundit quote Senator Everett Dirksen saying “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it begins to add up to real money.” But, there’s no record of him saying it. Apparently it came from a 1938 New York Times article.

Also, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch” is often attributed to the famous economist Milton Friedman in 1975. But, it can not only be found in my favorite Robert Heinlein novel (and the funniest SF novel I’ve ever read), The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, published in 1966, but can be traced back to a 1942 newspaper article.

I once read a book on the important German protestant Martin Luther because I loved his facing down the Catholic authorities over a theological dispute, when it could have cost him his life, and saying (in German), “Here I stand. I could do no other.” Maybe he said it, but, if he had, nobody who was there seemed to know it, and it appeared in publication decades later for the first time.

I thought that Benjamin Franklin said, “Nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes,” but he was a little boy when it was coined in a book in 1716. Franklin didn’t say a lot of things he supposedly said. One of them is his most famous, and is much misattributed lately, – “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” He wrote it in 1775, but he put it in quotes. Someone else said or wrote it first. Franklin, who was an expert plagiarist, at least showed us that much.

When they were leaving Constitution Hall after the signing of the Declaration, a woman waiting outside asked Franklin what kind of government they gave them. He answered - “A republic, if you can keep it.” Except, of course, no one knows if he really said that at all. There's no good evidence of it.

When I was growing up as a typical war loving little boy, I learned that Blackjack Pershing arrived in France in World War I to say, “Lafayette. We are here,” at the tomb of the French nobleman who fought for us in our Revolution (well, my ancestors were digging up roots in Russia or something, but you know what I mean). Except, it was really his aide, Col. Charles E. Stanton.

Richard Henry Lee is given credit for his eulogy of Washington that included the words “First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen,” but it was written by John Marshall, the first great Supreme Court Chief Justice (excepting those who think he ruined the country).

Alexander Hamilton’s famous written words are few, though he was incredibly verbose, orally and graphically, a "word machine," as his most recent major biographer called him. This one is beautiful:

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”

But the most memorable words are so obviously lifted from his mentor, Hugh Knox - “Our duty is written, as it were, with sunbeams” – that it belongs in this list.

There are so many Thomas Jefferson misattributions, it isn’t funny. Conservatives, in particular, seem to love to misquote him these days:

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

“Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.”

“Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. . . The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases” (actually Pres. Gerry Ford in 1975).

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

These are just examples. There are many more.

I personally love this passionate and painful speech by the Indian Nez Pierce tribe chief, known as Joseph, which moves me enough that I will quote it in full here, and not for the first time:

I am tired of fighting.
Our chiefs are killed.
Looking Glass is dead.
Toohulhulsote is dead.
The old men are all dead.
It is the young men who say no and yes.
He who led the young men is dead.
It is cold and we have no blankets.
The little children are freezing to death.
My people, some of them,
Have run away to the hills
And have no blankets, no food.
No one know where they are-
Perhaps they are freezing to death.
I want to have time to look for my children
And see how many of them I can find.
Maybe I shall find them among the dead.
Hear me, my chiefs, I am tired.
My heart is sad and sick.
From where the sun now stands
I will fight no more forever.

It is the last line that is really famous, but the whole speech makes me want to cry. But, apparently, it was written later by a journalist and the chief never uttered it.

Shakespeare may even have more attributions than Jefferson, Franklin and Twain, the American champs, but my favorite is “Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive,” actually written by Sir Walter Scott.

I've been making this list since 2008 and every little while add another one. I'm not stopping, but enough for today. Happy Halloween.

Travelogue

2011-10-23T14:23:00.000-07:00

When I was in my twenties I decided that I did not want to wait until I was middle aged or older to travel and I tried to get to a few places. My list pales, is probably embarrassing, in comparison to some other people, but I still consider myself very lucky. Although I still love to travel, I managed to satisfy the real itch long ago and if I get to go somewhere every few years now, or even not, that’s fine. I can go on to the Great Adventure* without a pang of regret about what I might have missed.

*I stole that description of the afterlife from the opening scene of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

A few months ago I wrote about my first trip abroad (11/18/10 - Knockdown, drag out vacation) and want to pick up the topic again, if not in such painstaking detail. I am not much of a memoirist, I’m afraid, as I can’t even remember what year I went to all of these places. My initial thought was to cover some 20 countries I’ve been to, but after the last post, I know that this is a laughable goal, as I’m way too verbose. But, I’ll cram in what I can. As usual, I note that this isn’t Wikipedia and you can go there for the Baedeker treatment.

Mexico – I can’t remember what year I went exactly, but it had to be sometime between 1993 and 1996. In case they quiz me in the afterlife, I’m going with 1995. It amazed me that, in an effort to promote Cancun, it was actually cheaper to fly there and stay in a hotel there for a week than it was to just fly there. Perhaps it is still the same. I had no intention of staying in Cancun if I could help it. My belief was that it was more for kids than adults and too crowded for my blood (though many other people prefer the action) and my brief visit confirmed that for me. I’m not saying that it wasn’t beautiful and the hotels weren’t great, but it's definitely not for me. I am informed that a Cancun like sprawl now travels far down the Yucatan Peninsula. But, I did use it as a base to travel to two islands and then to an inland archaeological site before I left.

The Island of Women (Isla Mujeres) was small and quite poor. I didn’t notice a lot of women either, but, from the little I know, it was given this name from the fact that the island was a center of a Mayan fertility cult and they found many female figures there. The woman I refer to sometimes in this blog as my Insignificant Other (“IO”) and I stayed in a great little hotel on a peninsula with water views on three sides. The water was brilliant blue (as is true many places) and we could walk out into it for about a half mile and it was still not up to our waists. It was also the warmest water I have ever been in my life outside of a hot tub. Actually, in the heat of the day, that wasn't always refreshing. We had dinner one night with a sunset I still remember (and have a so so picture of – mostly clouds that doesn’t do justice to the actual view). IO wasn’t too happy with the iguanas that had the run of the island. I thought they were cool. There may be a little Mars/Venus going on there.

After a night stay in Cancun where I believe I picked up Montezuma’s Revenge we went to Cozumel and stayed in a condo with 4 guest rooms but only we inhabited. There was a net hammock stretched across the living room. A large patio stretched to the water, but there was no beach there. You climbed down a ladder at the edge of the limestone shelf that the island is made of into the ocean. It feels like you are in a giant aquarium. I saw exotic fish (they are all goldfish to me) twice the size of a basketball. A large eel, maybe a foot long in my memory, lived under the ladder. The waves at the beaches on Cozumel were too rough to wade, but I took an excursion miles offshore to snorkel and they took us to the place they filmed the opening scene to the movie Splash, a coral garden good enough for a Disney film. While snorkeling there, with hundreds of square miles of water around me, I managed to bang my head on the underside of the boat. It hurt enough that I fed the fish on the way back, if you get my meaning. I also saw a barracuda while down there, which did not please me much. Getting sick on that little adventure was not my first stomach problem there. Our first night there IO and I went into a restaurant in we which were the only customers. After ordering, IO casually stirred the tomato and onion salsa with a spoon, the aroma of which traveled to my nose, and triggered a reaction which this blog is too effete to describe. But, let’s just say I felt it necessary to profusely apologize to the non-plussed manager about his bathroom and then waited outside while IO finished her dinner. The nauseau lasted until morning after which it was like it never happened.

I also saw a coatimundi there. It’s a strange if attractive animal in the raccoon family, but with a prehensile tail. Have a picture of it somewhere.

Before returning home we went to see Chichen Itza on the mainland, probably the best Mayan ruin. At that time you could still climb the incredibly steep steps of the Temple of Kukulcan, the Mayan Indian feathered serpent God. Chichen Itza is one of those places where, if not for the thousands of tourists, you would really feel as if you were transported back in time. Even looking down from the top of the steps was an eerie and exciting experience. Climbing down, you are aided by a metal chain due to the steepness, but I saw little old ladies doing it. Nevertheless, IO panicked a few feet from the bottom, to my great amusement, and was stuck there. She literally couldn’t move. I said, “Look, I can touch your ankle. Even if you fell, you wouldn't be all that injured.” At some point an impatient but ancient woman climbed around her to the ground and she soon got her nerve back. When we were leaving, I had an arm full of handicrafts that locals make right there and sell. My favorite was a miniature Chac Mool, reclining temple guards which reminded me a bit of myself. As we were exiting the area, one of the artisans followed me, ridiculously lowering his price as I walked away. I started to feel guilty, but IO kept saying that we couldn’t afford it. Finally, I stopped and did a quick calculation from pesos to dollars. It would cost something like another 30 cents. I caved.

Austria – I went there alone during my second trip to Europe in 1997. I wanted to avoid meeting anyone this trip, as they slowed you down, and I really just wanted to see stuff. That meant no more staying in hostels, although some were quite nice. I was just too old for the commotion there anyway. I also decided not to take public transportation in favor of a car until I got to Serbia, where it was just too difficult to arrange for one. My boss at the time, who was about the same age that I am now a quarter century later, was tickled at my travel stories from the first trip and gave me an extended vacation this time so I could cover a lot of ground. I started off in Germany and entered Austria, the home of Mozart and Hitler, intending to see three cities, and also spend some time in the mountains. I started with Salzburg and Innsbruck, two fairy tale like towns marred only by ubiquitous electric trolley lines.

While there, it started to rain heavily, and I spent a day in a condo/hotel where I looked out the window at the mountains and read Will Durant. It was actually not a bad vacation day, as I was exhausted from my week's travel thus far and it was a welcome break. But the next day, with no relief in sight, I took off for Italy for four days, before returning through a mountain pass and heading to Vienna.

On my way there I passed the Abbey at Melk, but did not stop there. However, I could see it for a long time high up on a hill and it gave me a profound feeling. For centuries, the folk who lived around there would never see a bigger or more prominent building and it must have been even more awe inspiring than it was to me. The actual abbey there now is only a little over three centuries old though, which, in Europe time, is practically infantile.

A little later I passed a tiny road that seemed like it went on for ever with tall vegetation on both sides. I pulled into it and headed down. I was just really into the adventure. After quite a while I could see that the fields of grain on both sides of me ended in the distance at what looked like a wood. I kept on going and finally could make out what looked like a metal gate that you could easily climb over or through. When I got there, I saw the sign on it. I don’t speak or read more than a few German words which I picked up, like most people my age, from WWII movies and Hogan’s Heroes. But, I recognized two words on the small sign:

Wehrmacht, which are the armed forces (Wikipedia says it technically means “defensive might") and Verboten, meaning forbidden.

I like adventure, but I’m not crazy. I made a ten or twelve point turn on that tight little roadway, and headed back the way I had come. A few minutes later I saw in the distance what looked like a little jeep heading my way. There was not room for two vehicles on this road, which was my main concern. As I approached the jeep (I bet it was built in America from the look of it), we both came to a stop. There were two young men in it, probably around my age, but possibly younger. One had flaming red hair and reminded me of the great German tennis player, Boris Becker. They both got out of the car. In those days, if not still, European military carried around very big guns with them and they both had one slung around their shoulders. I’ve seen enough movies and it was disquieting, to say the least. Boris approached me and I tried to speak with him, showing him my passport. He didn’t speak English very well, but we could communicate a little.

I tried to explain that I was a tourist. I did this by picking up my camera and mimicking taking pictures.

“Oh,” he said, “James Bond. A spy,” or something like that (it’s been a long time, folks). I didn’t like it, and realized a little later when I was on my way that he was just having fun with me. It didn’t feel like fun at the moment, but it was exhilarating. I headed into Vienna.

Vienna is a magnificent city and the four days I spent there were nowhere near enough. I did see the great Opera house, but not enough of it as I had not registered for a tour. I saw a performance of the Lippizaner Stallions, magnificent show horses descended from a breed brought to Spain by the Moors. Even if you think it might not be your thing (and that would describe me), you would probably enjoy it. I did. And there were extraordinary museums and castles. I'm pretty sure I went to Sigmund Freud's home, but I just can't pull it out of my memory (uh oh - what if that's a Freudian memory lapse?)

I also saw the opening of an American play by the playwright Edward Albee, whose first effort, The Zoo Story, was so funny, that when a friend and I had to read it to a class in high school, we laughed so hard that we literally could not speak for a long time (another one of my great triumphs in high school). His biggest success though was Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, which I did not see. The play I saw was Marriage Play, which made it to Broadway eventually, but was not a big success. I thought it was pretty good, even if it was just a middle aged couple contemplating divorce and their history.

I also went to a concert of Johann Strauss music (you know - The Blue Danube, Tales from the Vienna Wood, Die Fledermaus). I don’t play an instrument, but my musical tastes are fairly eclectic and include some classical. I like Strauss and despite the fact that I had nothing with me but shorts and sleeveless tee shirts, I asked if that would be okay, and was told it was. Still I had front row seats, and to tell the truth, I was kind of underdressed. Okay, really underdressed. Normally, I'd say, who really cares, but just this year, almost a quarter century later, a relatively uptight friend scolded me for it. Now I'll say who cares? It was a great concert.

There is another memory I have of Vienna which is a little different than the previous. Other than Scandinavians, I was a little disappointed with the looks of the European women I had seen so far in my two trips. One day I was heading up one of Vienna’s incredibly deep subway escalators. There were people above and below me all in a line. In between the two sets of escalators was a conventional staircase. Coming bouncing down the stairs was a beautiful blond girl. She was probably around 20 year old or so.

As I traveled up the escalator and she was flying down it, I could see the head of every male in front of me turn to watch her pass, and she definately knew it. Maybe that’s why she took the stairs. Big smile on her face the whole way. As she got closer to me, all the men right in front of me were looking too. And as she passed, someone leaned back. . .

. . . a little too far. Boomboomboomboom, down we went all in a row like hormonal dominoes, all men fortunately, because a woman might not have found it as funny as we all did. I’m not saying it was me who fell first. I’m not saying it wasn’t me. I really don’t think I ever knew, and I can’t tell you how many of us fell down backwards, but I think it was around 6 or 7 of us. No one got hurt and everyone laughed. I didn't see her after, of course, but I’m sure she is still laughing about it somewhere, now in her mid-40s, remembering the days when all the boys couldn’t help but look. Ah, memories.

Turkey – One more for today. My friend Fred and I went to Turkey and Greece in 1990. It was the first time I traveled with anyone else. Our first stop was in the ancient city of Istanbul, once Constantinople.

Turkey

is, of course, a Muslim country, still the most secular of them all (though that may be slowly changing). It is also spectacular, filled with exotic mosques, and an underground water filled cistern that was featured in my favorite James Bond film, From Russia with Love.

We checked into an old looking, if respectable looking hotel. We tried the water. It was cold. Fred went down to ask if anything could be done about it. No, the concierge explained. The delivery of hot water would not be until tomorrow. Wow.

I don’t know how to explain what happened next, but, I think it is best if I just keep it short and say – the toilet seat bit me on the ass. You see, there was a big crack in the seat and . . . It really hurt though. A lot. I hurt myself quite a bit this trip, actually much worse than on the toilet seat, but, that was in Greece, and to be told another day.

We went out that night. First, we stopped in on the concierge and asked him if he had a recommendation for where we should go to eat. He in turn had a question – “Do you like dog meat?”

I can’t remember exactly the order of which days we did what, but like Vienna, it is a very hard city to do everything in four days. One night we took a tour. Of course, we stopped at the tour guide's relative’s carpet store, and his relative’s restaurant and I’m pretty sure it was a relative’s bus too. At the restaurant, I had some dish or another, but didn’t enjoy the meat in it so much. It tasted kind of funny and I’m fairly certain it was – yeah. The next day was the first of many with stomach trouble.

But, that night my stomach was still fine. At the restaurant, everyone on the tour had to get up with their countrymen and women and sing some song from home, and we would vote for the winner. This is the only time in my life that I ever really sang in public. The problem was that neither Fred nor I thought we knew the words of any songs other than Happy Birthday. But, perhaps a miracle happened because suddenly I remembered Barbara Ann, the Beach Boys' classic. How easy was that? Ba-ba-ba, baba baran. So, we sang it together badly while everyone else looked on blankly, wondering what bizarre song the Americans were singing (we called it singing). Every group sang for their country – that is, except the French. I hate to badmouth the French (no I don’t) but they just wouldn’t sing – except for one of them, a nice guy who did his best alone. Anyway, we didn’t win. They didn't vote for a loser, but I'm pretty sure we would have won that. Two cute little sisters from Indonesia sang their national anthem in beautiful harmony and with great passion. Everyone voted for them. They reminded me of the two little girls in the Mothra movies - but, I'm dating myself.

After dinner, we were left off to fend for ourselves and Fred and I walked through the city. We found ourselves going downhill and eventually, down by the water we came to what I thought was a fair, with a police guard at the bottom. It wasn’t a fair, but, in fact an outdoor brothel, with little ramshackle buildings set up for the girls. Did I say girls? I mean women. I mean middle aged, haggard, homely women. One of them looked like a grandmother. I was horrified. Of course, you couldn’t tell by the looks on the faces of the men, who seemed very taken with them. They cheered whenever someone went into the little rooms.

Needless to say, we didn’t participate in the festivities. Ycccch.

When we were leaving the hotel after four days to travel down the coast, I went outside a minute before Fred. Seeing the bellhop, I gave him a tip, an amount I thought reasonable and he seemed to appreciate. Tipping – baksheesh – is a very big thing there. I was waiting on the sidewalk when Fred came out, about 50 feet away. He walked up to the same bellhop and with a big smile on his face gave him a tip. Fred walked towards me grinning ear to ear, pleased at his generosity. The bellhop looked at Fred’s back and sneered. Maybe sneer is too generous. When Fred got to me I had an even bigger smile on my face. I said “How much did you give him?” It turned out it was a fraction of what I had given. I gleefully told Fred about the glare he had just gotten. And, naturally, Fred blamed me – I had given too much. Maybe I had. But, it was so worth it to see the contrast of Fred's smile and the bellhop's snarl.

I always feel when I tell tales from my life like this that I should add I’m not making stuff up. Some of them sound a little unbelievable to me too. I just have a strange life. More tales from my trips in the future.

Political update for October, 2011 - II

2011-10-19T17:32:00.000-07:00

Read yesterday's post first.

So, after I mocked the debates yesterday for being boring, this last one turned out to be the most enjoyable one yet when I got around to watching it on my dvr. Partially, it was because there was lots of drama with a few of the participants bickering or trying to poke holes in each other, and, occasionally, there was even some substance (not much, of course).

As I wrote yesterday in my post-note, I thought Romney cleaned Perry's clock, actually embarrassed him. At one point Perry looked like he was ready to spit or hit Romney. Romney actually scolded him - told him he had a problem letting other people speak. And though some commenters today were saying that it hurt Romney too because he lost his cool a little ("Are you just going to keep on talking?" he asked Perry) and because he gently put his hand on Perry's shoulder at one point, I don't see it. Let's face it, when most people watch a debate, they think the people they like did better than they objectively (if there is such a thing) did and visa versa for those they don't like. And, I heard some of that today while the cable networks were playing the clips to death. But, most of those who prefer Perry to Romney have admitted their guy is just not very good at this, and that Romney won their battles, just not for any reason that would be to Romney's credit.

My Romney feelings are complicated. I did not like him personally in '08. I don't particularly trust him in that he appeared to me more likely to say what he thought the Republican base wanted to here. Many conservatives don't like him much for a similar reason - they believe he is a secret liberal, and for good reason. He campaigned like one when he was running for Senator in Massachusetts. I don't believe he's a liberal - although his transformation to a more conservative candidate 4 years ago may be somewhat manipulative. But, I give him the benefit of the doubt that at least he believes he is a conservative now. However, that doesn't mean I believe he is genuine either. I just doubt him. And, I don't really like the shots he gives people while playing the ingenue, such as when he (while smiling) mentioned that Rick Perry had a rough couple of debates so, of course, he was cranky.

Perry came into the debate wounded from the flap about a speaker who introduced him at a rally and then called Mormons a cult and suggested it was better to vote for a Christian than a good person. Conservatives are sensitive about being seen as bigots and many conservative commentators have rejected what Reverend Jeffress said. Honestly, I don't see what is wrong with what he said. Why can't a religious person say that this is my religion and if you don't agree with it exactly, then you are not part of the religion? Of course, someone else might disagree. I do. Perry does. Romney does. In fact, almost everybody does. But that doesn't change the fact that it should be okay to say it. The truth is - religion in America is, in some ways, becoming slowly secularized. That might not be to the liking of many, but I honestly think that is what people want - for candidates to believe in God and have a religion - but maybe not to be too serious about it.

Whatever my reservations about Romney, I would prefer him to Obama, while believing (along with many conservatives) that once in office, he will be relatively moderate, particularly about the culture wars, at least compared to Perry, Bachman, Gingrich and Santorum. And, unless there is some third party candidate I really want to vote for, I will likely vote for him if he wins the nomination. Unlike conservatives who think Obama is wrong about everything, I just think his economic policies are not only bad, but dangerous in the long run. Short of John Kerry, there are few people who have ever run for president I would not choose over him (even George Bush, bad as he was).

While I think those who are complaining about Romney touching Perry on the shoulder are just looking for something to criticize, and I thought some of his zingers were a little nasty, the most cringe producing moment of the debate came for me when Rick Santorum interrupted Romney repeatedly and then complained Romney was out of time to respond. Please. The closest competition for the moment was the Romney/Gingrich argument about where Romney got the idea for the health care mandate in Massachusetts - from a think tank, or, a think tank and Gingrich. And, taking third place, was when Romney was questioning Herman Cain about 9-9-9 and argued that citizens under Cain's plan would have to pay a state sales tax and a federal sales tax. Romney is a bright guy. No one denies that. And he certainly understands that the state tax would be there whether there was a federal sales tax or a federal income tax. It was a cheap shot and one hopeful of fooling the audience (who, though, seemed to easily fooled).

My favorite parts of the debate were a number of remarks made by Ron Paul, where he gave answers that seemed counter-intuitive if you actually want to win the nomination, but were honest expressions of his political philosophy, and not geared to win him popularity. Once, the moderator (though he did little moderating) asked him if his suggestion that all foreign aid be done away with would include Israel. He said yes, and didn't really get boos (or applause) from an audience which was ready to applaud for any pro-Israeli remark. Although what he said was not what they, in general, might want from their president, they seemed to respect that it was a genuine reflection of his philosophy. Speaking about whether the candidates would negotiate for hostages, Paul also asked the panel if they condemned Ronald Reagan for doing just that. Other than a weak defense of Reagan by Gingrich, the other candidates all remained silent. None of them want to talk about the real Ronald Reagan, who was a mixed bag like almost everyone else. My point is, Paul risked getting booed again just by bringing it up.

Ironically, as opposed to the '08 campaign, when all the Republican candidates (including Romney) ganged up and sometimes mocked Paul, this time they seem to both respect and fear him. Of course, Paul's courage of his convictions will not help him win the nomination. And, I do believe that his eccentricies would lose him the general election were he nominated, particularly his foreign policy, not to mention that he refuses to try to be charming or beg favor with the media (he actually called Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity secret statists recently - that takes cojones if you want to win the Republican nomination).

My least favorite moment of the debate - when Gingrich pretty much called me and all other atheists immoral because we don't pray. Poor Newt. Still trying to rally the base. Probably didn't help that he called congress ignorant, but, while he might be smart compared to a lot of them in terms of reciting odd historical facts, they may be smarter in other ways - as with not running for offices they can't win and not pissing everyone off if you do.

Okay, now I got it all out of my system. Peace.

Political update for October, 2011

2011-10-18T19:33:00.000-07:00

Not another debate tonight. What's left to say? 9-9-9. Yeaahh. Romneycare. Booo. Make Obama a one term president. Yeaahh. Utah, no Texas, no Massachusetts. Reagan, Reagan, Reagan. And, seriously, no more mentioning your wives and kids. Oh, and stop saying you are "job creators." Really, I just can't take it anymore.

I don't think I'm watching. No, who am I kidding? I'm recording it. I'm going to watch later.

There are 13 months to go until the election and already I am so bored of these guys, I can't tell you. It's not that the issues aren't important or interesting. It's just - we know, we know already. All we have to look forward to is that Newt Gingrich will recite some obscure historical fact for us at some point, while referring to his time as Speaker of the House (ignoring his ignoble demise and taking credit for whatever was accomplished during that time).

Oh, I know what's new. Huntsman is boycotting this debate because it's in Nevada and he's supposedly protesting that that state moved its caucus up. Never has there been such a successful presidential campaign boycott since John McCain suspended his campaign to deal (in a futile and unimpressive fashion) with the financial crisis of 2008. It actually reminds me about a joke about himself Rodney Dangerfield used to tell: "To give you an idea of how well I was doing at the time I quit, I was the only one who knew I quit." If anyone notices Huntsman wasn't there, that will be the most attention he's gotten so far. Maybe he's just bored too and needs a break.

Of course, I have to mention Herman Cain, the rising star. First, let me (quoting Bear) self-reference myself from May of this year, when I first brought up the contestants. With respect to Cain I wrote that I didn't think he had a chance "unless everyone else clears out except him and Mitt Romney" and that though "he might do well in debate," not so much with several other contestants with similar views. I didn't like his views on Muslims, as, they are idiotic not to mention unconstitutional. But, ultimately I wrote:

"Leaving that issue aside, I get the feeling that he could do better in the nomination process than many of the other maybes. . . Cain . . . He is my dark horse surprise." And no, for the few of you who think that that was some racial remark, oh shut up.

Pretty good call if I say so myself (sorry Bear). Herman Cain has gone from a name almost no one knew to the front runner in some polls. But, already he stumbled in a couple of weeks, insisting on Meet the Press - his first really big public opportunity, that he wasn't familiar with neocons. Seriously? I wouldn't have expected him to be an expert on them, and frankly, political ideologies are always difficult to define, but how about pro-democracy, militarily agressive and free traders, which are pretty easy identifying characteristics. After his somewhat ignorant remarks about Muslims a few months ago, this also strikes me as a little ignorant for anyone who wants to run for president. I mean, Neocons were in the news the whole Bush administration.

I'm also not so cracked up about the 9-9-9, the mere mention of which makes me cringe. From the description of it I've read so far, it doesn't make all that much sense to me either. Not that the present tax code makes sense, or is especially fair, but when you are loudly proclaiming that you have the solution to something as big as taxation, it should be good, not some cool sounding plan that doesn't really measure up.

The first problem I see with 9-9-9 is will greatly increase taxes for people who just can't afford it. People who don't pay taxes now and make very little money would soon find themselves not paying a few percentage points, but close to 18% (a 9% income tax and 9% federal sales tax). Those who make millions of dollars investing might find themselves paying a few percentage points.

More, take a man who makes $15,000. He will probably spend most if not all of that money, so they will pay 18% of that, leaving only $12,300. If he happens to have made that money through his own business - that's another 9% of whatever profit he made.

Of course, those who are unemployed and making no money now, will still pay the new 9% federal sales tax in addition to their state tax, if they have one.

Now, to make matters worse, suppose he has $5000 in medical bills - which is hardly ourtageous. I personally have spent much more than that in the last two years each. But, this poor snook will not be able to deduct it under 9-9-9. The guy who gave $5000 to charity gets the deduction, but not the guy who was saving his life. Fair?

Another aspect is that business can deduct costs but not its payroll. Cain claims it is more than set off by the reduction in corporate tax from 35% to 9%. I'm not sure it will really work that way, because we know many corporations now pay no taxes. How does a new business manage this, if it has a high payroll as its main costs, but not a lot of revenue yet?

There are other problems with it, but, the internet tells me that it has already, predictively, come under strong attack in the debate tonight, and, of course, they are Republicans, not Democrats.

Besides - Herman? That's not a president's name, is it?

Ten best Herman's in history:

10) Herman Cain
9) Herman Brooks (fictional main character of the short lived tv show, Herman's Head)
8) Jerry Herman (composer - Hello, Dolly! and La Cage aux Folles)
7) Herman Melville (Moby Dick)
6) Woody Herman (musician)
5) Herman (from the early rock group, Herman's Hermits - actually, Herman was a nickname for lead singer Peter Noone)
4) Hermann Goring (a Nazi who committed suicide at his trial for war crimes, he makes the list because of notoriety - don't hate me. I left out the umlaut over the "o" to punish him)
3) Pee Wee Herman
2) Herman Munster
1) George Herman "Babe" Ruth

OWS

This abbreviation is short for Occupy Wall Street, the only thing to challenge Herman Cain in political news these days (President Obama's job bill isn't even close).

What is it? I'm not sure. From the little I can tell (most of the coverage is either mockery or sensationalism) it sounds a lot like the Greek protesters who have to take less from the government or the anarchists who show up at WTO meetings to disrupt and with no clear ideological perspective except sort of down with capitalism. Marxists? I'm sure some. Crazy? Some. Anti-semites? Some.

But, the one major idea underlying the protests is that Wall Street screwed up and led us into a financial decline. There's some truth to that, of course, but I find more fault with government policies that led to and even caused the mortgage crisis and has essentially bailed out Wall Street to the tune of possibly 60 trillion dollars over the years, at least according to some estimates. Even if that is high, it makes you wonder whether Wall Street has really made any money at all, or has really been the biggest stimulus package in history. Ironically, since wealthy people pay most of the taxes in the country, it has been rich people bailing out and supplementing other rich people.

What will OWS accomplish? Nothing. I do not believe it has either the staying power or the organization of the various tea parties which led to a Republican sweep of congress in 2010. Right now, OWS seems like a bad movie with no plot or great writing.

This is the easiest prediction of the year.

Short post this week, you lucky dogs.

Post note: I am watching the debate. It is more fun than I thought. I have to say, Rick Perry went after Romney on an unfair charge (Romney had landscapers who apparently hired some illegals). Romney not only smoothly body slammed Perry twice, but Perry looked foolish. Even the crowd seemed to be down on him. He looked to me like he wanted to punch Romney in his mouth.

No doubt, Romney is simply the best debater on the floor. It would be hard even for his critics (unless they are working for one of the others) to deny that, even if they don't trust him or disagree with him on policy. No one has succeeded yet, though they beat up Perry and beat up Herman Cain tonight. They can't land a glove on him (as I write this, he got booed lightly by the crowd for taking a shot at Perry, and then cheered when Perry took a shot back at him). After tonight, I even more strongly believe he will be the nominee.

Top ten lists - books

2011-10-07T20:00:00.000-07:00

If you haven't read my profile for this blog (to tell the truth, I wouldn't even know where to tell you to look for it, but I know I wrote one), I love books. When I moved from New York to Virginia I brought 32 cartons of them with me and had added substantially since. When I go on trips and lock up my house, it is with the idea in my head that the almost the only thing I am leaving that I really care about in it if the house burns down while I'm gone (Why do I expect this, you ask? Probably my habit of forgetting if I turned the stove off) are my books.

At first, I was intending to just list all my books in this post. Don't think that's crazy. There are actually websites where people do just that. Instead, I decided to do another version of top ten lists, based on books I own or read. As I have also spent a lot of time in libraries reading, and I'm including that as well. As with all top ten lists, of course you are going to disagree. You will be wrong (almost certainly), but that is the point of top ten lists. And, if I already did any of these lists already, seriously, you expect me to remember everything I write here? I treat multi-volume works as either single or multiple, depending on my needs of the moment because, again, seriously, how much does it really matter?

Top Ten WWII histories

This one is really rough for me. So many to choose from.

1) The Second World War, Winston Churchill, particulary the first two volumes, The Gathering Storm and Their Finest Hour.
2) The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Richard Rhodes. I've said here a number of times I think this is the best single volume history I've ever read. I might reverse it with Churchill here, but give the P.M. the nod as a matter of respect. I do warn people, it is not light reading, but it never lagged in interest for me. Science, adventure, spies, escapes, geniuses, and so on ad infinitum.
3) The Ultra Secret, F. W. Wintherbotham. The story of how we broke the secret German Enigma machine codes, long kept a secret after the war.
4) An Army at Dawn, Rick Atkinson. The story of the American invasion of North Africa in 1942 and 1943, or, how the Americans learned to fight. Part of Atkinson's The Liberation Trilogy. The second volume, The Day of Battle, which covers the invasion of Italy and Sicily, was great too. Some might say even better. Atkinson is a great writer who knows his history and how to tell a story.
5) The Rising Sun, John Toland. The story of Japan before during and after the war, told mostly from their point of view.
6) Hitler and Stalin, Alan Bullock. A dual biography which has led me to masses of new material.
7) The Desert Fox, John Irving. Irving's career has been essentially destroyed, and I maybe unfairly. This book is about Irwin Rommel, the great tank commander. I've never gotten around to reading the libel trial transcript and doubt I will. But, as great a historian as John Keegan still ranks him highly. I also loved Irving's Churchill's War and Hitler's War.
8) How War Came - speaking of Keegan, I read this one on his recommendation. You can figure out its subject from the title, and it is about as comprehensive as you can get for a single volume without being too thick to carry. Of all the books I've mentioned so far, this is the first I would say you have to be seriously, seriously interested in the subject before you try it. Otherwise, you can get the gist from Churchill.
9) Inside the Third Reich, Albert Speer. Speer was Hitler's architect and the Minister of Armaments and War Production. His memoirs are most remarkable for understanding what made a Germans fall in love with Hitler. I'll cheat here and say after you read the Speer trilogy (Spandau and Infiltration) you should read Gitta Sereny's Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth, which doesn't really prove that Speer lied any more than anyone else would who participated in using slave labor and worked for a megalomaniac monster, but explores the why Hitler stuff that fascinates me.
10) The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, William L. Shirer. Shirer was an American journalist who was there for the whole rise of the Nazis. Groundbreaking work, if a little hyperbolic at times. It was one of my first.
11) A Man Called Intrepid. William Stevenson. Oddly, this book about William Stephenson, the British Intelligence representative to America, is written by William Stevenson, no relation. According to Ian Fleming, this was the real James Bond. Other historians find him much less important. I tend to stand closer to Fleming and Stevenson, as he was knighted by Britain (he was Canadien) right after the war. The following year he became the first non-American to receive our Presidential Medal for Merit, the highest U.S. civilian medal and much later on, a Companion of the Order of Canada. The CIA has publicly acknowledged he played a key role in its creation. Only 2 years ago, he became only the third non-American to be made an honorary member of the U.S. Army Intelligence Corp. Somehow, I don't think that would all be done for a creation of one author.
Runner ups: Two short books. A Thread of Deceit, Nigel West and Piercing the Reich, Joseph E. Persico, both on intelligence aspects of the war.

Top ten fantasy novels

I can't explain why I do not really like the fantasy genre very much. I can barely read anything in it. But, for some reason, my favorite fantasy books are among my favorite books period. Go figure.

1) The Lord of the Rings, J. R. R. Tolkien. No explanation necessary.
2) The Hobbit, J. R. R. Tolkien.
3) The Once and Future King, T. H. White. The first book of the Arthurian cycle, but the next two are wonderful as well. Read TOandFK in a single volume and then the next two in the collection, as for some reason the single volume leaves out a great chapter in the first book. But, do NOT read The Book of Merlin, published posthumously. It was horrible.
4) The Worm Ouroboros, E. R. Eddison. This is a great fantasy novel in the sword and sorcery vein, but incredibly lyrical and well plotted at the same time. The first thirty pages or so are really boring, as it is just the way we get to the planet Mercury where the action takes place. A good editor would have just cut it out.
5) The Face in the Frost, John Bellairs. A small story about magic and two kingdoms. I can't even tell you what I liked so much about it, but in a nutshell, it brought you into a magical little world.
6) Silverthorn. John Myers Myers was a historian and novelist who wrote some of my favorite books. This is a rollicking, incredibly fast paced fantasy which flits through innumerable literary characters Myers weaved into his story, usually only hinting at who they are. The ending didn't really satisfy me, but is consistent with the nature of the book.
7) The Arthurian Saga, Mary Stewart. Another King Arthur story, but originally and wonderfully told. How many times can it be redone?
8) People of the Mist, Henry Rider Haggard. This is merely my favorite Rider Haggard novel. She, King Solomon's Mines, Allan Quartermain and many others are also as much fun as a sword fight between Basil Rathbone and anyone else.
9) Damiano trilogy, R. A. MacAvoy. Three slender fantasies by an otherwise ordinary writer about a young wizard tutored by the Archangel Raphael on the lute were wonderfully original.
10) Glory Road, Robert A. Heinlein. This king of sci-fi writers also wrote this fun sword and sorcery bit.
Runner up: The entire Conan corpus. Robert Howard died young, but created an ancient world almost as rich as Tolkien's without a tenth of his learning. I also love Howard's Road to Azrael.

Top Ten Civil War histories

Another topic that is almost too hard. But, like the rebels, I shall perservere:

1) Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings , I & II, Everyman's Library. This great collection includes everything of importance. Bear bought me the entire 11 volume collection and I thumb through that too, but, if you aren't a compulsive history reader, you'll do better with the 2 volumes, which include all of the Lincoln Douglas debates.
2) The Eloquent President, Ronald C. White. A simply ground breaking scholarly analysis of Lincoln's writing. I've read so much on Lincoln it is hard for me to find something I haven't read before, but he taught me a lot. I was very excited to read, but in the end, not as impressed by his one volume biography, A. Lincoln.
3) The Civil War, A History, Harry Hansen. This one volume history of the war may not be the most famous, but it is my favorite.
4) Army of the Potomac trilogy, Bruce Catton. Maybe the best multi-volume work on the subject although Shelby Foote fans will argue the case. A Stillness at Appomattox is my and probably everyone else's favorite.
5) With Malice Towards None, Stephen B. Oates. I am not sure why, but this was my favorite Lincoln biography, although some criticize it, I think unfairly.
6) Lincoln at Gettysburg, Garry Wills. Wills is simply one of the greatest living historians. I've learned more from him than probably any other author. Talk about groundbreaking - this book startled everyone with his analysis of the greatest speech in American history. I could see this as high as no. 3.
7) Lincoln's Herndon, David Donald. One of the great Lincoln scholars, this little book went into the life of Lincoln's enigmatic law partner, who was not a great man, but knew one real well. Still, deciphering fact from fiction was Donald's mission, and perhaps you couldn't do it better.
8) Fighting for the Confederacy, Edward Porter Alexander. General Alexander was just all over the Civil War, including playing a major role at Gettysburg. His memoirs make it sound like he really enjoyed it. I've written about his memoirs in depth before if you look in the archives. It is, in my opinon, the best Civil War memoir period, putting Grant's more famous work to shame.
9) American Brutus, Michael W. Kauffman. Kauffman is one of those guys, not a professional at all, but obsessed with a topic, who took up Booth and set the Civil War author's world on fire. He might not be right about everything, although it is not too radical, but he is very worth writing.
10) The Real Lincoln, Thomas J. DiLorenzo. DiLorenzo just despises Lincoln. I don't. I revere him. But, you can't dispute the evidence DiLorenzo marshalls and he does it well. Other historians would rather dismiss him than deal with his arguments.
Runner up: Grant by Jean Edward Smith. Smith was a leader in literally re-writing Grant's history, and shows how his successful presidency (two terms), was undercut by generations of southern authors.
Notes: I am not as big a fan of Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals as many others are. It was a terrific book in a lot of ways, and I am not knocking it, but it was not really original and I didn't learn much. Still, very readable and perhaps a good introduction for those who haven't read a zillion Lincoln or Civil War books already. Obviously, from this list, I admit I like reading about Lincoln and that leaves out a whole lot of great books that don't focus on him. Still, he was the key.
Afternote: Some will complain I left out James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. I know I read it once, right at the beginning of my American history phase starting in the late 80s, but I just can't remember anything about it, so it doesn't make the list.

Top ten books on the founding generation

1) The Adams-Jefferson Letter. For at least two years I slowly hand copied excerpts from the two junior lions of the revolution (Washington and Franklin being the seniors). Friends, then enemies, then pen pals at last, their last 14 years of letters, really more Adams than Jefferson, was just wonderful as their topics ranged everywhere and were revealing, interesting and written for us.
2) The Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison and Jay. Really newspaper articles supporting ratification of the Constitution, they are must reads if you are serious about this stuff. But, don't read them unless that describes you. However, it is the great constitutional reference book. Just ask the Supreme Court.
3) Bolt of Fate, Tom Tucker. I have read almost every recent (20 years?) biography of Franklin, but I think I like this very focused specialty work on whether Franklin really sailed the kite with the key. Read it and it is very hard not to conclude that Tucker is right on the mark. Never happened.
4) The First American, H. W. Brands. I haven't found anything else by Brands I really love, but this is my favorite of all the modern Franklin bios.
5) Alexander Hamilton and Alexander Hamilton. I'm cheating again. One is by Williard Sterne Randall, who has written some great books on the founders, including this one on Hamilton, but can't really crack the top ranks of historians, and the other by Ron Chernow, whose more recent and comprehensive work, was better in some ways, but probably overkill. Randall may have sensationalized some things, but maybe not.
6) The Origins of the American Party System, Joseph Charles. Loved and learned a lot from this hard to find but terrific review of - read the title.
7) The Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Fleming. Fleming is another writer who is not quite in the top ranks, but probably should be. His works are fun, interesting and creative. This was my favorite so far.
8) The First Emancipator, Andrew Levy. Kudos to Mr. Levy for bringing out this founding generation gazillionaire, peer of Washington and Jefferson, who was far richer, had more slaves than the other two put together and was even more dependent on his slaves - but who freed them all.
9) The Negro President and Inventing America, both by Garry Wills on Jefferson. Wills loves Jefferson, but tells the truth about him.
10) The History of the American Revolution, David Ramsay. This book is incomplete and sometimes in error. But, Ramsay had an excuse. This was published in 1789. Let me say it once more. 1789. A magnificent achievement for an early American historian. I admit, it makes my lists for those reasons, rather than what I learned from it or the writing.

Top Ten Noir/Pulp Novels

1) The Glass Key, Dashiell Hammett. Why did I love this one more than all the others of the Hammett, Chandler group? I can't say. But, it was my favorite.
2) Killer in the Rain, Raymond Chandler. I never read a word of Chandler that did not transport me into an earlier, darker, seedier and haunting world.
3) Anything by Jim Thompson. No book here. I love Thompson. He is the godfather of them all. After Dark my Sweet, The Criminal, The Killer Inside Me. All great. Don't miss his short stories either.
4) The Maltese Falcon, Hammet. You've seen the movie (maybe). The book is just as good or better.
5) The Doorbell Rang, Rex Stout. I have read (long ago) every Rex Stout Nero Wolfe novel and have a few favorites. This, where Archie and Nero take on the FBI, Some Buried Caesar (the first), A Family Affair, which really feels like your own family has been affected and The Black Mountain, where we get hints of Nero's past. But, not one I didn't love.
6) Anything by Damon Runyon. I don't think I can like you personally if you can read any Damon Runyon short story and not find it charming. The man who wrote the story that was made into Guys and Dolls had a fascinating life too. Is it really pulp or noir? No. I'm cheating again.
7) Flood, Andrew Vachss. Vachss' Burke series is about as pulpish as you can get, but they are fairly recent. Vachss is really a fascinating guy and I admire him a lot. The first five or six books of this series were great. After that it got a little too sad and painful for me. But they were great.
8) The Buddha Book, Abraham Rodriguez. I've written about this remarkable and virtually unknown book too. What promise this guy had. Unlike anything else I ever read.
9) Devil in a Blue Dress, Walter Mosley. Mosley's Easy Rawlin's novels were to the modern detective novel what adrenalin is to a good workout. Dark, colorful (no pun intended). It is almost impossible to not like and root for Easy (Ezekiel) and even his crazy friend Mouse.
10) Out on the Cutting Edge, Lawrence Block. One of the many Matthew Scudder novels. Is he original? No. Scudder is a reformed alcoholic, an unlicensed private eye and his girlfriend is a prostitute. So . . . ? It's just that Block is a great writer. I'm pretty sure I've read everything he has ever written and there was only one book I didn't like. Too much icky sex in it (A Small Town). Scudder is the dark New York City version of Robert Parker's Spencer. This one introduces Mick Ballou, a great character - one of those bad/good guys.

As usual, this has gotten way too long, and I'll have to continue this theme another day.

Dieting - The great adventure

2011-10-02T18:56:00.000-07:00

I started off with a post on the death penalty and on cyborgs. Really. But, then I started writing about dieting and I shelved the other stuff for another day. The following is purely autobiographical. Those who can’t tolerate autobiographical blog posts, please turn away now.

It is remarkable, on reflection, how much time and effort dieting has taken up in my life. Then again, it is remarkable how much time eating and just thinking about food has taken up in my life too. Sometimes I think if I added up all the time I have spent thinking about food, women and the pain in my left leg, it is hard to see how I've had time to think about anything else.

I was a skinny kid. At some point early on there was actually concern about how little I ate. When a teenager, my appetite became voracious (not unusual for a teenager), but my metabolism burned through as much as I could eat and then some. I graduated high school full grown at 155 pounds. College at 165. I steadily gained weight after then until at age 32, weighing just 195, and feeling enormous, I starved myself for 11 weeks until I weighed 169 pounds again. I knew I couldn’t maintain that low weight as I thought about food every few seconds. My entire family was fat. There was no way around it. I steadily gained again, up and down over the years, and at my high point, weighed 255 – 100 pounds more than when I graduated high school. Knowing I could trim down to under 170 and look relatively small let me know that when people said I or others were just big boned, they had no clue at all what they were talking about.

I put on all that weight despite the fact that I spend the large part of most years dieting. For many years, up until the present one, I was on the Atkins Diet. You hear all kinds of criticism about it from people, but the studies seem to show it is the fastest way to lose weight, and, as it allowed me to eat a lot, it is the only thing that really worked for me. And, it worked fairly well for a long time. That is, if I was dedicated to it, and there is no point to being on it if you aren’t, I would lose weight, and quickly at first. After a few years though, I noticed that the weight loss was slowing down and when I went off it for a vacation, or a mental health break, I would quickly gain the weight back and that would become my new plateau. That isn’t unusual and despite what some people think, has nothing to do with Atkins. I’ve read that nearly everyone who goes on a diet ends up heavier after a year is past.

In 2008 I moved to Virginia and didn’t diet for a year, which was why I went up to 255. But, something else happened soon after I moved which much more important to my eventual weight loss. My brother, 4 years older than I was and very obese, died of a heart attack while sleeping, his hands tucked together comfortably under his head. It had all the appearances of death by apnea.

You probably know what apnea is, but if you don’t, google it. I’ll just say it is when you stop breathing when you sleep, or don’t breathe enough. I was a snorer and my evalovin’ gf had long told me I would often stop breathing when I slept. I knew that I barely slept my whole life. I knew I had been chronically exhausted my whole life. I thought it was just me - who I was. Naturally I put the exhaustion and lack of sleep together early in my life, but not really to the extent I did later. I also knew that I had never breathed normally through my nose in my life. My gf laughed at me for pulling on the end of my nose while I drove, but that was the only way I could breathe through both nostrils at once.

Sleep clinics had been sprouting up in the last few years, and I decided I might as well check it out. So, I did. To make a long story short, I took the sleep test. What I learned blew my mind. It wasn’t just that I would only sleep a few hours a night. It wasn’t just that I woke up frequently. It turned out I woke up somewhere between every one and two minutes. That seems impossible, but it was true. I would hold my breath until my self-preservation instinct would wake me up suddenly so I could take a breath and then go back to asleep for another minute or so. I knew that I would often wake up frequently, but I had no idea how frequently.

The doctor at the clinic recommended I try the CPAP machine. This is a small machine which basically shoots air in your mouth so you can breathe normally all night. I had heard about it from my sister, who was one among a few people who told me it had changed their life, and I expected the recommendation. I tried it one night at the clinic. I warned them that I literally had slept zero hours the night before and it probably wouldn’t be an accurate result, as I would pass out for a few hours no matter what, but they didn’t seem to hear me or care. I slept about 4 hours and they told me it worked great. But, I protested that when I had woken up during the night I felt like I was suffocating. Go get a CPAP machine they said. So I did.

I made an appointment with one of the companies on a list they showed me that leased the machines. I was embarrassed to even put the mask on in front of the respiratory therapist, but took it home and tried – for 3 months. Because the therapist had become a good friend, she gave me different masks to try, but nothing worked. I couldn’t sleep. I felt like air was rushing down my throat and though it was supposed to keep my throat moist as well, it didn’t. I now woke every few minutes to take a drink or to stop from choking. Plus the head strap really hurt my head. I doubt I ever wore it for more than an hour and eventually, I think it was for just a few minutes. I really tried. I wanted it to succeed, because I saw no other options.

Finally, when I couldn’t do it anymore, they sent me to a surgeon to see if he had a solution. He did. He told me that there was no way I was breathing through my nose more than a little, but, obviously, I knew that already. Then he drew me a life sized picture of the space I had in my throat to breathe right next to a picture of what it should look like. I was shocked. My entire life I had been breathing through a little half dime sized opening in my throat instead of a much larger figure 8.

You know the expression that your life passes before your eyes. In a sense, that is precisely what happened to me right in the doctor’s office. All of a sudden the mysteries of my life were explained to me. When I was a baby they thought I had childhood asthma. I think they were wrong. I think I just couldn’t breathe because my nose didn’t work and the opening in my throat was so small. It explained why I choked so often when I ate my entire life. And, mostly it explained why for my whole life I didn't sleep and was so tired. I had been so sleepy as a kid that my mother asked me once if I thought I had chronic mononucleosis. When I young and a runner I mused about the fact that while I could seem to run endlessly without much effort, yet I was sleepy the whole time, and I still remember thinking how strange it was while I on a run thinking if there had been a couch conveniently on the side of the road, I would have gladly sit down on it. I did not seem to experience the runner’s high people told me about. More, I had very little ambition, little drive and just wanted to sleep all day long. When I went to school I would immediately try and go to sleep and it got worse the older I got. In high school I wrote a mystical sounding poem in a creative writing class about a “sleeper,” and I was the only one who knew what it meant. I often fell asleep when sitting down or doing anything which required mental energy, like, say, studying. I barely got through high school (helped by the fact that they didn’t really want to fail anyone). I remember vividly one day another student ask the teacher why it seemed like I was snapped out of a stupor when called on. She thought I was faking. I remember thinking, some day you will all see that I had some weird disease. I didn't know what, but I knew something was wrong.

I did well enough in college to go to law school, and did okay there (until I just hated school too much the last year and completely stopped going to class or trying to learn anything) but, really, I could have slept the whole way through. When I raised my daughter as a young attorney I would sometimes regret how little energy I had to play with her although I mostly blamed this on the terrible pain I was suffering in my leg by then. Sure, I knew being so tired wasn’t normal, but, never did it occur to me that it was curable. I thought it was just me. And, still, I did everything I wanted to do, work, play, read, travel, date and so on, because what else was I going to do? Sleep? I was even fair workaholicish for a long time and, no real complaints - I've had a very lucky and happy life. I just tried not to complain about it too much.

Now, a middle aged man, my doctor told me that if I didn’t have the surgery, which was uncertain, or use the CPAP which I couldn’t deal with, within 7 years, in his experience, I would probably start having heart attacks. He wanted to do surgery on my nose to repair my deviated septum and remove other blockages from my nose and then consider throat surgery, if necessary. Still sitting there, I started to look back at my life and wonder how different it would have been had I had surgery when I was young, even though this never seemed to occur to anyone, least of all me. At the same time I thought about the physicist, Stephen Hawking, who has accomplished so much while suffering incomparably more than me with ALS, or other people who had far greater handicaps than I do and yet accomplished great things, and I felt like a whining baby. Everyone has an excuse. Still, I couldn’t help wondering. . . .

He performed the surgery on my nose in May, 2009. It wasn’t so bad. I took pain killers for only one day while still in recovery and my nose was packed with cotton and some plastic funnel like device for less than a week, if I remember right. It was uncomfortable, but manageable. When the packing came out, I was still uncomfortable, and my nose was a little swollen. But, very soon I did something I had never done in my entire life without pulling on my nose. I breathed through both my nostrils at the same time. And I could do it all the time. I am doing it now, and though this may seem normal to you, it is still wonderful to me. I could even work out or sit down without seeing black spots. Why this had never alarmed me I can’t tell you. The surgery also improved my apnea, but not enough. It was throat surgery time.

I had a choice. He could use a technique where radiowaves burned my upper palate, shrinking it, or he could do traditional surgery, removing my tonsils and my apparently giant sized uvula. That’s right, a giant uvula. No man minds a giant organ, but it’s not the uvula you are thinking about. Oh, I also had a high placed tongue, whatever that meant. No, not so anyone would ever notice but an ENT, but there it was. The first technique he described was relatively new, it would not be covered by insurance, and was a little uncomfortable for a while. The second, the surgery, was permanent, covered by insurance, and incredibly painful, he said, producing the worst pain of any surgery ENTs perform. Apparently, having your tonsils removed becomes a lot more painful as you age. I chose the second method, despite his subtle hint I should go the other way. But, I laughed at pain. Hah hah. I lived with pain. Snort. It would be a trifle.

So, in December, 2009 I went under the knife again. Apparently, as much as I had suffered for nearly half my life from chronic leg pain, there could be a lot worse. True to my doctor’s word, I had not experienced pain like this before. Swallowing water or even ice cream, just plain swallowing, in fact – and how do you stop that – was like swallowing sharp glass. It was horrifying.

But, the pain was only part of the problem. I was on all kinds of painkillers including Oxycodone. I have never taken any casual drugs or any major painkillers in my life other than after my nasal surgery for a day. I did not react well to it. I started having obsessive compulsive conversations with two other people in my head, and they were not pleasant people. All I remember was that one was a man and one was a woman. I knew that there were not actually other people in my head, but I couldn’t stop talking to them either. It was dark and restless and very uncomfortable. Between the horrible pain and the incessant OCD conversations I could not sleep. The first night, and I’m not making this up, I tried to convince myself that I was a Nazi torturer and I was happy because I could torture myself. I think I slept a half hour until I gave up and just got up to begin my day suffering.

I called my doctor in the morning. An assistant took the call. I explained that there was something wrong with my pain medicine. They told me it was just a painful recovery and to hang in there. Somewhere in that period my daughter came down from NY to help me. At one point she patted my hair and it was like she was driving a knife into my head. I repeated the conversation with my doctor’s office the next morning, begging them to switch my meds. My daughter left that night to go home. She had put up a Christmas tree for me, completely decorated with ornaments and lights. After she left, I was sitting in misery on the couch, staring blankly and imagined that the entire tree tipped over and crashed to the floor. Unfortunately, I soon realized that what I had imagined was that I had imagined it. I had to go out to the shed, return with a hammer and a nail, and then fasten a hanger to the wall with which I tethered the tree after I righted it. It is funny in retrospect, but it was miserable then.

The next morning, after three days of virtually no sleep and intense pain the whole time, I told the poor resident who answered at my doctor’s office that either they put me back in the hospital and fixed the problem, or I would begin taking pills until I felt better. I meant it when I said it and I don’t know if I would have done it. But, it worked. She told me go to the emergency room and a friend gave me a ride. They gave me a shot of something to kill the worst of the pain. I slept an hour. Given how used I am in my life to not sleeping at all, an hour was actually refreshing and I felt marginally better. They didn’t change the type of my medications but spaced them out differently and, more important, gave me a throat lubricator of which I could take as much as I wanted! That helped a lot. I have no idea why they hadn’t given me it to me before, but based on the repeated apologies from the residents, I got the feeling they had screwed up and knew it. I would see my doctor in 4 days and thought I could handle the pain until then. I would say the pain had gone from 99 (100 on my scale actually kills you) to a 90, but that was okay. A few days later the doctor, after also apologizing repeatedly, gave me three new medications. I filled the prescription, but then put them away, deciding to take only the over the Alleve. The pain was still horrible, but with the drug induced people gone in my head, and my throat lubrication, I didn’t think I needed it anymore. I actually am good with pain (okay, maybe not dental pain, but we all have our weaknesses). After another week, I was over a big hump, although it really took about two months to recover maybe 90%. And, for another six to eight months my throat would not feel quite right every time I swallowed.

But, in the meantime, something else wonderful happened. My apnea went from a 40 on the scale before my first surgery to a 2, meaning I no longer had apnea. Even my surgeon was really surprised. My oxygen levels at night were normal. And though you don’t change the habit of not sleeping for nearly 50 years, when I slept - I slept, if only 4 to 6 hours a night. I wasn’t waking up every minute or so or suffocating all night long. After a while, I felt much stronger, much healthier than I ever have as an adult and I could really breathe for the first time in my life. I'm sitting here right now doing it and I can't tell you how amazing it still is to me.

I realize that I probably can’t explain the difference to me to someone who hasn’t lived with something like this, but imagine that from the time you are a baby, you are kept on a narcotic, and one day when you are 49, they wean you off it. You think you might appreciate the difference? Those with their own issues, and I’m not claiming mine are special or especially horrible, will understand better.

I know that all of this seems like a big detour from talking about dieting, but it’s not at all. Over the course of the next year I started working out a little harder. And, I started thinking more about really dieting and losing weight. But, over a year passed since the last surgery while I recovered and slowly got in better shape. Finally, right after New Years, 2011, I went to my doctor and had a talk with the Physician’s Assistant. I told her that I gave up. I was surrendering. Atkins was just not helping me lose weight anymore and I knew I wasn’t capable of a regular calorie based diet no matter how they dressed it up. I wanted to cheat. I wanted a drug. You might be thinking, so what, you take a pill? What’s the big deal? But for me, it was a tremendous admission of defeat, that I wasn’t able to deal with the problem on my own.

Possibly, this admission was a long time coming. I had long realized that I had an eating disorder, one I shared with my entire family. In fact, even though I was not all that overweight, I had always been the “skinny” one in my family.

When I used the phrase eating disorder, some people, especially those who had no problem dieting or just not eating, looked at me like I was crazy. Just don’t eat so much, they sneered. But, I couldn’t stop. I loved food. I had no trouble being disciplined at other things, but I couldn’t stop eating. The only things that would stop me from constantly eating or thinking about it was being on trial, having a broken heart, or a high fever or headache, all of which were fairly rare events.

How bad was this? Here's an example. I once explained to a puzzled co-worker who just couldn’t understand the problem, that when I drove home for a half hour, if I didn’t have a little snack with me, some part of me, unseen and unsuspected by others, was wondering if I would starve to death during the drive home, even though I knew that was ridiculous. Even an upset stomach could not stop me or one of my siblings from eating. I could have a huge meal, feel full to the point of sickness, yet be thinking about when my next meal would be. One day I called my brother up and I told him I had a really difficult day, so guess what I did? He knew instantly. I went out and had a huge Chinese dinner, breaking my diet, comforting and punishing myself at the same time. He did the same thing all the time. We all did.

And, I hated hearing people who didn’t feel this addiction to food – an addiction from which I could not go cold turkey – tell me that all I had to do was stop eating or stop thinking about it. Just say no, is that it? And, what could I say? Silently, to myself – F’ you.

So there I was asking my doctor for pharmaceutical help and feeling weak and a quitter, but also finally feeling awake enough to tackle the problem head on – if I just had a little help. I told her I didn’t want three things – something that would hurt me internally, something that would make me incontinent or speed. She said – pick one. So, I picked speed. The drug was called Phentermine and was part of the drugs that made up Phen Phen, which was incredibly effective, but had been ripped off the market when people started having heart attacks on it. Phentermine is not technically an amphetamine, but closely related so that it is a controlled substance. It affects your brain so that you don’t care about eating. She told me that all of her patients on it lost 40 to as much as 80 pounds over three months, the maximum time she’d let me on it. Yes, when it was over, I’d have to learn how not to eat so much myself, but this could be a big break for me. And, now that I could actually breathe, I thought maybe I could do it.

Oh, one thing to watch out for, she added. It was possible my blood pressure would spike, but it had never happened with any of her patients and it was very unlikely to do so with me. So, I started on Phentermine. Four days later, I had barely eaten and lost ten pounds, really forcing myself to eat a little each day. It was incredible. I wasn’t hungry at all. I told everyone I knew with weight problems about it. I did notice that my blood pressure had been too high when I checked it every few hours, but expected that it would even out in a few days. Right?

So, there I was on the 4^th night in the emergency room with my blood pressure spiking well into the stroke zone. I had called 911 late, probably a little before midnight, thinking better then than at 3 a.m., or dying during the night from a stroke. Of course, having high blood pressure doesn’t necessarily make you feel bad at all. It's the silent killer. I felt great. A crew of senior citizens showed up at my house in an ambulance. They were a cheerful bunch and took my blood pressure. In fact, they each took my blood pressure for practice. My own reading was accurate. You’d better go to the hospital my elderly friends said. They strapped me to a gurney, although by all appearances, I was by far the healthiest person there. One of them started telling me her physical problems on the way to the hospital. I offered to let her lay on the gurney, but she didn’t think that would look right.

My blood pressure eventually went down in the hospital, but was still dangerously high, and I was told to give up the Phentermine immediately, as if there was any doubt about it. I didn’t mind so much what happened to me as I did that I would have to give up the drug and the amazing weight loss.

Or did I? Four months later I was talking to my physician. Want to try again, he asked, almost conspiratorially? This time, we will start you off at one quarter the normal dosage and see if that works. So, I got another prescription and started again. My blood pressure was not affected at the low dosage. But, unfortunately, it also didn’t have any affect on me. Sure, I told myself I wasn’t hungry for a week, but soon realized I was as hungry as ever. Still, I had been forcing myself to go down to 1500-2000 calories a day. My guess is I had been doing 4-6000 normally and sometimes much more.

After a month of this, I renewed my prescription and paid for a new month’s worth of pills. But, I never took another one - or maybe it was one more. Who cares? I realized exactly what I was doing. In fact, I realized that even while sitting in the doctor’s office a little part of me knew I was probably going to just take the pills as a placebo. I don’t mind placebos at all. I’m happy to take a placebo if it helps me. But, I was happier now that I was doing it on my own.

Now, a half year having past after I started again, I have lost a fair amount of weight – possibly 35 pounds. It is not as much as I would have had lost if I tolerated the Phentermine, but I also know that I did it myself, which is a good feeling. And, I would have been long done with the Phentermine at this point and don’t know if I would have kept the dieting up or floundered again once I was off it. Who can say? My first goal was 205, which I passed recently and the next goal is 185. Unlike my usual dieting, I feel pretty confident that I can make it. After 185, I can’t say for sure. But, I definitely feel much better physically.

Don’t get me wrong. I still think about food constantly. I still open the refrigerator door constantly. I just don’t eat much. At the end of the day, all I’m doing is just saying no, just like all those annoying naysayers told me to do. But, I also realize that there are reason I can do now what I couldn’t manage to do before. It’s my nature to analyze things and I’ve sought of ranked what helped me get here, strange as it sounds. Whether it is right or not I’ll never know.

First are the surgeries. Being able to breathe normally has changed my life more than any other factor. Being much more awake, no matter what I’m doing, is still magical for me, and almost a surprise every day, even if I still rarely sleep more than 6 hours.

Second, is having a great workout partner – ironically, the respiratory therapist who helped me with the CPAP machine. It is true that I have had difficulty getting into workouts and having someone there to distract me, and for me to pathetically try to keep up with (it’s no comparison really), helps a great deal. This is true even if exercise is the least important part of losing weight (at least, that’s what a lot of studies show). I always say that I hate every second of every minute of every hour of it, but she makes it bearable for me.

Third, is the Phentermine. Sure, it could have killed me, and then when I went down in dosage it did nothing for me other than be a temporary crutch. But, I will give that crutch some credit. It helped me get started.

Okay, I will give myself a little credit. Because ultimately, it is me winning the mental struggle to not eat even though I want to all the time, and to exercise as much as I can, even though I’d rather not. And, I’ve just made up my mind to accept the minor but relentless suffering as best I can. But, that’s no different than almost everyone else struggling through it. So, shut up, I say to myself, and stop looking longingly at the refrigerator. It will be there tomorrow.

Political update for September, 2011

2011-09-25T18:54:00.000-07:00

I wrote the following sentence on September 15th, having started it a week before that: "The good news for everyone is that I'm off on vacation (ironic, as there is little difference between my life on and not on vacation) at 5 a.m. tomorrow morning."

Unfortunately, I never finished the post that night, so this had to wait over a week while I visited Arizona, in particular, Phoenix, literally hot as hell; the Canyon de Chelly National Monument, a little known group of serpentine red rocked canyons flush with juniper trees, sagebrush and short grasses, including the almost impossibly beautiful Spider Rock; and, Sedona, which is perhaps quite literally, the most beautiful city on earth - at least as far as I've seen. But, enough of that. Missing a week blogging is a cruddy feeling, as if I somehow let down the entire political world - conservatives, liberals, libertarians, communists, socialists, anarchists, nihilists and even moderates, all who regularly come here to get the monthly update. Please forgive me. But, it will probably happen again someday.

Debating us to death
Let me start with the Republican nomination process. I have now watched four debates. As usual, the hosts seemed to focus on the big guns – Perry and Romney. It’s not fair, but expected, and even the other debators don't complain much. Frankly, I think what the other debaters have to say is often much more interesting. But, even that is not that interesting. They have all settled into their themes and personas and will probably carry them to the bitter end.

My view, and of course it is subjective, is that Romney has done marginally better than Perry, but his debating superiority increases a little each time. That's not all that suprising. First, he may just be better at it, but also, he went through the whole process in 2007 and 2008. Both seemed “presidential,” whatever that really means (and it may mean nothing), but Romney seemed more poised, and whether or not any of them knows what they were talking about, handled himself very well. I also thought that Huntsman did very well, in the objective sense, but it is not surprising that I am going to like the guy who is fiscally conservative, but much more moderate culturally than his cop-debators. If the three - Perry, Romney and Huntsman, were on the stage alone, I might have said he won the MSNBC debate. It will not, of course, improve his position much, if at all. He is simply too liberal in collateral matters for many conservatives.

I have waited to hear Perry speak a few times before coming to even a preliminary opinion about him. It is obvious that Romney was long the front runner and now has been surpassed. But, I am going to predict, absent some breaking news or new entrants, that eventually Romney will creep up on Perry and eventually take the nomination. I am cautiously convinced that Chris Christie is not entering the race, despite the recent rumors, but would be pleased to be wrong.

Soon after the debate, Herman Cain won a Florida straw poll, sending some pundits into a frenzy. They should calm down because it probably won't win much. I stick with my opinion that Cain would do well if he was one of two (maybe three) contestants, but as it is, his mellifluous tones are lost in the throng. I like him for the most part, and he is only marred right now for me from his absurd fear of Shariah Law in America and his somewhat ignorant pronouncement that any Muslim in his cabinet would have to take an oath (any one in his cabinet will have to take an oath and one specially directed at a particular religion would certainly be unconstitutional). But, all candidates eventually say stupid things and he has a chance to take some of it back. But, I doubt he is going anywhere.
Here are my ideas to make these repetitive and often pedantic debates more interesting. First, break them up and make it more of a contest. Put the eight lowest candidates on the stage, but 4 or 5 in one debate and 4 in another. Do an American Idol type of competition and put up the two who do best in the next round with the big boys. If they want they can give Perry and Romney free passes into the second round. This process would give everyone more of a chance to talk and give the viewers a better idea of who they want to see debate. It would also prevent the hosts from channeling the questions or topics to the leaders.

Or, they could do a round robin series of one on one, or three way debates as preliminaries. I’d enjoy this much more and I think others would too.

I'd also change up the questions a little bit. First, they could ask more philosophical questions that they normally do and that way avoid these scripted answers. I don't ever want to hear Cain talk about his 9/9/9 plan, or Huntsman brag about Utah being the number one state for job creation while he was governor, or the word Romneycare, or Perry claim he errs on the side of life (ironically, of course, except when he has convicted murderers executed) or Romney tell us again the Obama doesn't have a clue (but is a nice guy), Bachmann say that Obama will be a one term preisent or Gingrich pop off an irreverent sounding one liner. I watch hoping they will ask Paul (or in the last debate, Gary Johnson) a question, because it's a loit mor einteresting when someone tells the truth.

Last, I'd get rid of these cable news hosts who have no clue how to question someone (O'Reilly is almost the only one on television who has the least talent in it) and replace them with attorneys, but only ones I've vetted to make sure they actually know how to cross examine someone.

Recent blogs that resonated with me:

This first is more about the media than politics, but I'm putting it in anyway.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/28/george_will_on_hurricane_hype_media_created_synthetic_hysteria.html

“George Will, ABC NEWS: "I have a home on South Carolina’s Atlantic Coast. I know that the Atlantic Ocean generates hurricanes and they can be dangerous and unpredictable. That said, this too must be said. Florence Nightingale said 'Whatever else you can say about hospitals they shouldn’t make their patients sicker.' And whatever else you want to say about journalism, it shouldn’t subtract from the nation’' understanding and it certainly shouldn’t contribute to the manufacture of synthetic hysteria that is so much a part of modern life. And I think we may have done so with regard to this tropical storm as it now seems to be."

What was all that nonsense about this storm? Hurricanes and tropical storms are dangerous. They cause flooding and property damage and even take lives; almost 50 people died as a result of this one. But really, this was so blown out of proportion, it seemed like we were being invaded by the Martians (which everyone knows won't happen until 2012).

Someone wrote me a little after the hurricane passed that NYC was lucky - "Hurricane Irene will most likely prove to be one of the 10 costliest catastrophes in the nation’s history."

I wrote back:

"It wasn't just lucky. The top ten list is meaningless. The media (except George Will) and the gov't grossly hyped this hurricane and everyone bought into it. All hurricanes are dangerous and costly if they arrive in populated areas. But, you have to look at it over time. The first link here is to Wikipedia's costliest hurricanes. Look at both lists. It changes dramatically once you adjust for inflation, Katrina was unusual because it hit New Orleans and much of the city is below sea level, so it was extremely costly, but even it is still only the 3rd highest after you adjust for inflation.

hurricane costs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_costliest_Atlantic_hurricanes
But, deaths are deaths and don't need to be adjusted. Look at this list and you will see that Irene was nothing - a piker. Yes, a few people died, but, realistically, this hurricane was not severe and would have been not much worse if they had merely told people it was coming and to take normal precautions.
http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/usdeadly.asp . . . ."
Why does the media so exaggerate? Ignorance? Part, but part also because they are selling and that takes precedence over everything.

* * *

The next is from an interview of Ron Paul. I'm cutting out the questions and just putting in his answers. He is the only one of the regular debaters who prefers to tell what he sees as the truth unadorned rather than try to please everyone. He doesn't like boos, but he accepts them. He wants the Republican Party to come to him, not visa versa.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/28/ron_paul_let_the_people_who_have_lived_beyond_their_means_go_bankrupt_let_the_liquidation_occur.html

Ron Paul was interviewed by Chris Wallace of FoxNews:

"We are out of money. This country is bankrupt."

. . .

"It's a system of bureaucratic central economic planning, which is a fallacy that is deeply flawed. FEMA has been around since 1978. It has one of the worst reputations for a bureaucracy ever. I want to transition out of this dependency on the federal government."

Challenged that his views are unconventional, Paul replied,
"Well because it's a good idea and it's the American ideal. But I'm fascinated with your word unconventional. Isn't it strange that we can apply that word to freedom, and liberty, and the Constitution, limited government and a balanced budget? You're proposing this unconventional idea of government!' Well, I think you're right about it. Under today's circumstances it has been unconventional for probably 50 years. But right now, the Tea Party movement and the Independents in this country and the people who are caring about our bankruptcy, they think what we had is unconventional with regards to our Constitution and the principles of liberty.

So, yes, people are waking up and they're saying 'Yeah, Ron Paul's right. Why are we fighting all these undeclared wars? Why do we have a Federal Reserve that bails out the rich and dumps on the poor? And why is it that deficits don't really matter and politicians just stand around and talk that they're going to nibble away at a budget deficit that is 10 years out.' So, no, this is a very popular philosophy.

It is not my philosophy, it is the philosophy of the Constitution. It's the philosophy of liberty, property rights and not dependency on government. That's the big thing. People are supposed to assume the responsibility for themselves in a free society.'"

Asked why he wants to be president if he hates government so much:

"Yes, I am in it to win it. … I want a new approach, at least from current standards for the presidency. I want to obey the Constitution and follow its very great restrictions on the government. The Constitution was written to restrict the government, not to restrict the people. Now its turned around: We use government to restrict the people in all matters. So, I would like to reverse that."

Regarding the federal reserve, Paul's special bugaboo:
"Take your hands off of it. Let the people take care of it. Let the people who have lived beyond their means let them go bankrupt. Let the liquidation occur. Get rid of the malinvestment (artificially low interest rates and printing of money) like we did in 1921. We recovered. It's not, it's hardly even in our textbooks about the Depression of 1921 which was a natural consequence of the inflation for World War I.

So, we want our hands off. The depression lasted 17 years because we wouldn't do that. Japan, has had 'hands on.' They've been in the doldrums for 20 years and so, we're now into this one. It's a lot more than 5 years, we've basically been in it over 10 years that our economy has been slipping. So, they would say 'hands off, give us a sound currency, free up the markets, property rights, enforce contracts. And make sure people go bankrupt when they're bankrupt. And don't bail out their buddies. Don't let the Federal Reserve create money out of thin air and bail out their buddies."

I certainly don't agree with everything Ron Paul believes, but with Gary Johnson not even a respectable contestant, he is still my favorite of those in it. But, I also think he is a grumpy old man without much charm who would have a very hard time winning the election if he selected (unlikely, anyway), even against an unpopular Obama. Some of his views, particularly those that involve our becoming less involved in the world militarily or which would involve getting rid of very popular federal programs like social security and medicare, would make it almost impossible. Despite the fact that he has done in this election and the last a good job of popularizing his views, it is not as popular as he might hope. I think it would still be rejected by most independents.

The Times' angry columnist
I am not a fan of the NY Times columnist Paul Krugman. I do, however, still occasionally read him. It's not like I've never changed my mind before. He is a leading exponent of Keynesian economics, or, at least the modern interpretation of it, and believes that our economic problems are caused by government not being big enough and it is not spending enough. I never see him commenting on the fact that the government has no money to spend except what is taken from taxpayers or created by the government, reducing the value of the currency. But, we debated that here a bit not that long ago, and it is not my point today. The NY Times is a very urbane and civilized place. The writers are, agree with them or not, polite to political adversaries. But, Krugman is more of the Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann school. Recently, I checked on his blog. He wrote
on August 27, 2011, 3:00 pm

"Trolls

Guys, you are still banned, no matter what new names you’re using. Same lies, same rhetoric, no place for it here. Find something else to do."

That was the whole post. I submitted a comment:

"I guess I will be banned as a 'Troll,' because I frequently disagree with Professor Krugman. I have never been banned anywhere before (well, Wikipedia, but that was for technical software reasons - I had a Google toolbar which caused trouble). I suppose it would be an honor of sorts, sort of a purple heart for blogs. I have been called a troll before by ideologues both of the right and the left, regardless of how moderate my tone. I wish I could say the same for the professor, and I don't mean this personally, but professionally - doesn't he know how this comes across? Do you really ban people for rhetoric and 'lies' (facts with which you disagree). This sounds more like an angry commenter than a columnist or professor.
I can only suggest to Professor Krugman that he take some time to read Karl Popper on rational criticism, the 'criticism' part of the name being key. When you are so convinced of your position, that you must denounce others who question you, you neither have the courage of your convictions nor any room to learn something new or change your mind. I frequently read commenters in The Times and on Townhall.com, both sites on which I comment, with whom I severely disagree with the facts they present or opinions they argue. Many of them seeming Trollish to me as they call names and assassinate characters (all while calling their victims 'haters,' etc. Personally, I have yet to find it necessary to call anyone a liar (even those who lie or have called me a lot worse).
If you don't open yourself up to criticism, Professor Krugman, even uncharitable criticism as you yourself sometimes dish out, you may have to change the name of this blog to the Dogma of a Liberal."

I was not surprised at all that my comment was not published (and there were no other comments at the time, but you could leave one), but it’s a shame. While Townhall.com is much, much worse in terms of name calling, the commenters get to say what they like politically. Most of it is partisan garbage in my view, but I have learned many things from other commenters. When a blog insulates itself from criticism, it defeats the interactive promise of the internet. I take plenty of criticism here, and though I do weed out the rare sexually explicit language as do most sites, I’d rather argue the merits with someone than hide, like Prof. Krugman does. This also may explain why I find comments on the Times so much of one persuasion (liberal, if you didn't know). I can't say for sure that all of their columns are "protected" the way Krugman's blog is. But, it is an indication and not a good one. The Times is still by far my favorite and I think the best paper in the world, despite its admitted partisan politics.

Last

This post is long enough. I have too much to say about the Middle East right now to include it here. But, just a little. The Palestinians requested the U.N. the other day to be recognized as a sovereign country. It will of course be vetoed by us (despite the claim of conservatives that Obama is not on Israel's side). But, it is a mistake for Israel to handle it this way. As I've said many times before Israel should itself recognize Palestinian independence and Abbas as its leader. It should unilaterally evacuate, by force if necessary, the settlements. And then it should defend itself with all its might in the event of attack, far more than it does so now. This is not appeasement, but shedding itself of its own moral impediments. I am less interested that Palestine does not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. That fact will change nothing. Even if it did it would not make Israel's enemies any less so. Sadly, if Israel cannot make a political settlement, it may face extinction in time, even if it takes other countries with it. We will support Israel, but it will garner much more support from the world if it does so with the moral high ground. It is easy to say - who cares? But, Israel does care and it does make a difference.

More another day.