David Halberstam, 1934-2007

Journalist and prolific author David Halberstam died in a car accident on Monday. Halberstam may have been the greatest journalist of the last half-century. And that is not simply my opinion. Anthony Lewis made that determination--and Lewis has been a damned good journalist himself.

Halberstam had such an impact on many facets of American politics and intellectual life. Not only was he a superb journalist--but he was a gifted writer. You can pick up any of his books at random and quickly appreciate his knowledge, wit, and excellent storytelling skills.

You can read the obituaries that have been published during the past few days--but I would like to briefly mention three things about David Halberstam that I will always think about.

1. He set the standard in honest war reporting during Vietnam. Halberstam wasn't "embedded" with some military unit, he reported on what was actually happening in that country. And as you might expect, the politicians despised him--President Kennedy wanted the New York Times to remove him from Saigon. Along with other great, young reporters like Neil Sheehan and Malcolm Browne, Halberstam didn't accept the lies and coverups coming from official sources in Washington. As Dexter Filkins writes in the New York Times (26 April 2007), Halberstam was one of the first skeptics--one of the first reporters who questioned the government version of international events. We need more Halberstam's today. Since the Bush administration has clearly lied its way through the Iraq War, those skeptics are needed now more than ever.

2. David Halberstam wrote many excellent books--but his Vietnam masterpiece, The Best and the Brightest, is something everyone should read. While it is about America's tragic descent into the Vietnam quagmire, it's really about much more than that--our flawed system, American hubris, the lack of understand about the world and its people. You can learn about Vietnam, but you also learn about Iraq and other blunders. The book is as relevant today as it was when it was published in 1972. Please read it, you will not regret it.

3. Finally, a societal comment (and I might sound like an old coot here). We are inundated in this culture with news and information about politicians, sports and rock/rap star, media personalities (Imus, Stern, Springer, etc.). Have you ever stopped and reflected on how truly interesting those people are? The answer is easy--they are not very interesting at all! Generally, they are not very bright, or imaginative, or remarkable in any way. Yet we continue to worship Anna Nicole Smith, Paris Hilton, and the latest winner in the American Idol competition. It's low-culture at its worst.

David Halberstam was an tremendously interesting and fascinating individual.....as was Kurt Vonnegut who passed away last week.....as was historian Arthur Schlesinger who died in February....not to mention journalist Molly Ivins who died earlier this year. Yet the media continues to worship celebrities--and most Americans simply accept it.

Several weeks ago, someone did an clever experiment by placing a classical violinist near a subway entrance in Washington D.C. to see if anyone noticed, or even cared. Over 1000 people walked past Joshua Bell, and only seven paid any attention--or gave him any loose change. Granted, people were in a hurry and had to get to work; but I bet if Paris Hilton was standing there, people would have stopped. David Halberstam will be sorely missed.

Another Travel Destination Off My List

I didn’t figure to discuss religion much on this blog. Religion doesn’t interest me—I don’t really understand what the fuss is all about, and I don’t care to learn. I wouldn’t pay attention to religion at all if it weren’t for the right-wing fundamentalists who are currently attempting to hijack the American political system. That does piss me off. So what interest I do have in religion concerns these machinations of the political-Jesus crowd.

Now I haven’t always been disinterested in religion…..well, actually yes I have. I recall my very first youthful thoughts about religion, it seemed to be a crock of shit. Lots of old white guys making threats—and even as a little kid of 8-9, I never did have lots of respect for authority. My mom always thought I was going to hell, and she told me that continually….. which actually makes me feel pretty good now because she was never right about a fucking thing in her life.

While I don’t buy into the whole heaven/hell dichotomy, I was a Catholic altar boy for a few years. I always wondered if that secured me any chits in case there actually is a heaven. I doubt it, because even when I was up at the altar ringing the bell and serving wine to the priest, I wasn’t paying any attention to the service. I’m still not a detail guy, but during mass then I was thinking about other important life questions: what was I going to do that particular day, lunch, and various baseball quandries. I went through the motions during the service—always wondering if God could actually tell what I was thinking about. But since I never received any signs that this so-called Creator cared about my thought-process, I figured I would continue to ponder the Mets pitching rotation (Jackson or Fischer tonight?) instead of reflecting upon the gospels. It worked fine for me.

Why I am babbling about my altar boy days? Because the Catholics just got rid of Limbo. I really never knew exactly what Limbo was, or where it was. I do know that my Mom and Grandma mentioned that I would be going to some of these places if I didn’t shape up. Obviously, Hell was the leading destination for me and other smart-asses like me. But there were other Catholic eternal travel destinations that were supposed to scare youngsters. Purgatory was somewhere above Hell on the pecking order. I never got a clear explanation for Purgatory either—even though I kept asking. And that really pissed my Grandma off because she didn’t believe you were supposed to ask about these religious matters. It seems Purgatory was a sort of dull way-station where you went if you weren’t quite evil enough for Hell, but really didn’t deserve Heaven on the first-ballot. I always figured I could live with that.

Limbo was something else—it had something to do with babies who weren’t baptized or confirmed or some kind of nonsense. And even though I was baptized, I still got threatened with Limbo on occasion. I was told that it was kind of like Purgatory—except you might have to hang around Limbo even longer. I never knew if the Limboites were actually going to Heaven; whereas the Purgatorians seemed assured of getting admitted at some point. Is it any wonder why I never took this shit seriously?

Anyway, that new German Pope and some other Catholic bureaucrats have now dropped Limbo—it doesn’t exist anymore I guess. Can they do that? Does this mean all the other Popes were mistaken? What happens to the people who were waiting in Limbo—where do they go? I have a few other questions about Limbo:

-If you have Limbo T-Shirt, is it now worth more money?
-Is Limbo near Oz?
-Is there rent control in Limbo?
-Does this mean Purgatory will now be overcrowded?

I will spend some time in the next few days thinking about these questions!


Oh, and speaking of Catholics—these five really deserve our attention. Yes, they are all Catholic, wealthy, and male--and all of them seem to think women are too fucking stupid to make their own medical and reproductive decisions.

Beware of a Phony Gun Debate

There wasn't much that could have been done to stop the VTU shootings on Monday. So I don't think the massacre will open a new debate on gun control. What I do think will happen, however, is that conservatives will soon begin to accuse liberals of using the murders to initiate a gun control debate--even though that isn't the case. Let me demonstrate how this is done.

At this point, even with the Virginia tragedy, I don't believe liberals are ready to reopen the gun control fight. There are several reasons. First, liberals have a number of other domestic issues of higher priority, like health care, the wage gap, and other poverty-related, economic concerns that must be addressed. Second, liberals clearly need to deal with the wasted and worthless deaths and other disgusting events taking place in Iraq. Third, with possibility of gaining states in the West, liberals and Democrats must think about some tradeoffs to make that a reality. As Machiavellian as it might seem, if 3-4 Western states could be brought into the Democratic electoral vote column, we should think about what would be necessary to bring that about. And it seems as though gun control would not be helpful in that electoral quest. Overall, it doesn't appear to be the right time to push this issue.

Personally, I would like to see this debate reopened. I think every one of those rabid, NRA-types ought to have a handgun shoved up their ass (it doesn't have to be loaded, just shoved). But I still possess a slither of political realism, and I am willing to wait on this issue.

But here is what the conservatives are already doing--and they have the mainstream media helping them. They are going to use the VTU murders to fire up their base.....by warning their mindless minions that liberals are now out to take away their firearms. Liberals are not pressing this issue--but the right-wingers have made the charge anyway. And once the wingnuts have made the charge, the media picks it up (they need something to report) and begins reporting on this new gun control debate.

The conservatives then throw up their hands, act surprised, and then blame liberals for exploiting the situation. They have been doing this for years--liberals understand it, it's their own conservative voters who are too damned stupid to have figured it out yet.

In graduate school we used to call this a "straw-man" argument: when someone falsely manufactures a case just so they can shoot it down. There must be a better word for it. If anyone has a better term for what Rove and his right-wingers do on a consistent basis--please leave it in the comments section.

Let's not fall for this. Spread the word, write, blog--do whatever you have to do to let the public know that while liberals are concerned about gun violence, we aren't reopening this gun debate just now. It's simply conservatives trying to use fear (as usual) to scare their own terrified constituents and wrangle some additional money out of them.

To Those Defending Poor Don Imus

Yesterday (Sunday) I received a email post from my friend and frequent Books and Bait contributor Chet Brinkley (see that full post below). Mr. Brinkley wrote that as a civil libertarian and strong advocate of the first amendment, he finds himself "torn" over what to think about the Imus firing. After mulling over Chet Brinkley's sentiments, I opened the Sunday New York Times to see that Frank Rich was at least partially defending Imus in his Sunday column. And then today in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, columnist Syl Jones added some incisive anti-Imus commentary--some of which I will quote in this post.

Since this issue hasn't dissipated yet, I thought I would offer my own perspectives here today. I can find absolutely no sympathy for Imus on any grounds whatsoever. Chet Brinkley was impressed that even after CBS fired Imus, "he and his wife still wanted to apologize to the Rutgers team." Here are my answers to some of the extremely lame Imus defending that has gone on during the past few days.

#1: on the general topic of free speech--Imus did not lose his free speech privileges! This is very important to remember. Don Imus is sitting in his fancy New York apartment right now, or walking the streets of Manhattan (and he's probably wearing that dumbass cowboy hat too). He is not in jail, he is in no legal trouble, and his employment opportunities are, frankly, pretty good. Don Imus is not Eugene Debs, or Emma Goldman, or Margaret Sanger (all paid the price for their speech and actions). He got fired from his job because he's a fucking racist idiot. After cleaning out his desk, and picking up his inflated paycheck, Imus can still say anything he wants. He can go on TV, write an editorial, give a speech, publish a blog.....he remains totally free to be the bigoted and chauvinistic bastard that he was on the radio. He hasn't lost his free-speech rights at all.

#2: it's about the government--The critical part of the free speech issue is when it is imposed by the government. It's the government that can take away free speech rights--not CBS news. What we need to be concerned about is government censorship--the right to speak out against the Bush war-machine, the right to protest, online freedoms, and absolute music, art, and literature freedoms.

#3: Jackson and Sharpton--Bringing up these guys is nothing but a red-herring. Mr. Brinkley quotes Kansas City Star sportswriter Jason Whitlock who manages to get in a short quip against Jackson and Sharpton. The fact that the national media marches out Jackson and Sharpton every time there is race issues really tells us more about the national media than anything else. These two gentlemen don't speak for all African Americans. And if I was one of those conspiracy buffs (like my good friend Ratso Rizzo), I would say that the national media only uses Jackson and Sharpton to turn public opinion against African American issues. But I won't say that. In fact, it doesn't matter what Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton say--if you dislike these gentleman, it has nothing to do with the issues at hand.

#4: the weak-ass rap argument--Mr. Brinkley writes in his post, "As a white guy, I'm out of touch with the black experience. But I don't think it serves anyone well to condemn whites for using hateful and bigoted language while "rewarding" artists in the black community for using it with impunity." I think this is simply silly! There are many black organizations and individuals trying to deal with these rap/hip-hop race and gender issues. In the meantime, what should white America do? Are we allowed to all perform our best Strom Thurmond impersonations just because black rap artists use racial slurs in their music. The connection makes no sense. As Syl Jones writes in his editorial, " If you can't understand what's wrong with a white man piggybacking on the problems of an African American subculture of disrespect and blithely importing it into a nationally syndicated radio and television broadcast, what do you understand?"

#5: the even weaker-ass "chilling effect" argument--Frank Rich wrote in the Sunday Times that firing Imus will have a "chilling effect on comics who push the line" as well as on political talking-heads like Bill Maher and Ann Colter. Again, this is simply silly. Chilling is such a severe word when Imus didn't lose his free speech rights. Furthermore, Frank Rich is demonstrating his insider status here. Maybe there will be a slight effect on some of the inside-the-beltway types, but who else will be influenced......my guess is no one.

#6: this is also about women and gender--Some have forgotten during the past week that Imus not only made a racial slur, but he also showed his true chauvinistic colors. At the same time he made his now infamous statement on the Rutgers women's team, he said something about the Tennessee players being "cute." I think his clear disrespect for women should have earned him the ax.

#7: and don't use the term PC around here-- What does "politically correct" really mean? Let me tell you using a wonderful quote from Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon, "PC is a term that is used to declare insults aimed at the less powerful groups protected, while doubling up the social punishments for even legitimate (if humorous) criticisms of the powerful." PC is an excuse for the white, male frat-boy types to criticize anyone they please and laugh about it--it also "allows" them to label themselves the victims of an oversensitive society. What assholes!

#8: Imus only apologized because he finally went too far/he got caught--Did I even have to mention this one? Isn't it obvious?

#9: finally....and most importantly--free speech is here so "we the people" can criticize the government--I agree with Brinkley, Rich, and others that absolute free speech is important. But we need to reflect upon what it is for--free speech was not originally intended to allow the majority (white males) to say anything they want against minorities. They can do that already--and they have always had the political power to do that. Imus is just piling it on. Let's not forget that black female college athletes aren't the enemy; and rap singers aren't the enemy. No hip-hop artist is going to take away my habeas corpus rights.....but I know someone else who will. The enemies, the people we need to fear, are in the government (specifically the Bush administration). They can take away our rights.

I understand that even though Imus is a small-fish, we still don't want to go down that first amendment slippery slope. But Imus didn't lose any rights and he's not worth defending.

On That Imus Moron, Part II

post submitted by Chet Brinkley

In the wake of CBS’ firing of that moron Don Imus, I find myself torn. I’m an advocate of the first amendment as well as affirmative action and other efforts to uphold the civil rights of all people. I’ve never listened to Imus or Howard Stern or any other of the so-called “shock jocks,” though I have a pretty good idea of the kind of verbal swill they spew.

Imus’ comments about the Rutgers team were disgusting, to be sure. And in targeting young women who came one game away from the national championship rather than some politician or celebrity whose job description in the 21^st century (unfortunately) includes being maligned or “satirized,” Imus clearly crossed a line that should not have been crossed. But then again, he and his ilk make a living stomping all over that line on a regular basis. So why now? Why this? Part of it is that African Americans enjoy far more economic clout than sixty years ago when Jackie Robinson broke through the color barrier in Major League Baseball. Their collective outrage hits advertisers where they live, so networks have to respond differently. In addition, tens of millions of parents with daughters took his comment very personally.

Kansas City Star sportswriter Jason Whitlock offered another perspective:

Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem…While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant…shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.

It’s embarrassing. Dave Chappelle was offered $50 million to make racially insensitive jokes about black and white people on TV. He was hailed as a genius. Black comedians routinely crack jokes about white and black people, and we all laugh out loud.

I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had…

We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.

I’m in no position to make the kind of statement Mr. Whitlock did, but the civil libertarian in me has a problem with Imus being fired for saying some stupid and offensive thing, no matter how stupid and offensive. When University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill compared World Trade Center victims to Nazis, colleagues came to his defense—not because they agreed with him, but because they didn’t want to make any concessions to the right of free speech. Churchill resigned as chair of the university’s ethnic studies department, but remained a professor.

While Imus is not an academic and his audience doesn’t exactly break the brain bank, this country has created a market for (and the Supreme Court has defended as free speech) this kind of scurrilous, scatological, crap (and I’m talking about hip-hop as well as shock jocks). And the outrage that follows in the wake of a particularly offensive salvo can indeed come off as opportunistic. Are we truly so weak and so fragile that we cannot defend ourselves or simply ridicule weak-ass comments such as those drooled by Don Imus?

As a white guy, clearly I’m out of touch with the black experience. But I don’t think it serves anyone well to condemn whites for using hateful and bigoted language while rewarding “artists” in the black community for using it with impunity. I’m not saying that black athletes today should suffer in silence the way Jackie Robinson was forced to 60 years ago. But I think all of us could seek to emulate some of the dignity and class he displayed. We at least got a glimpse of that when, after CBS fired Imus, he and his wife still wanted to apologize to the Rutgers team, and they still wanted to meet him, and chose to forgive him. That forgiveness doesn’t give Imus his job back, but just might give him a chance to earn some self-respect—or at least some self-restraint.

Who Would Have Guessed?

The Bush war-criminals quietly released a 164-page report today evaluating the administration's abstinence-only education initiative of the past few years. These morons have spent over $87 million per year and about $1.5 billion overall for this abstinence wet-dream of theirs.

What do you think this report concluded? How about a few choice quotes? And if you are a visual-learner, go here for some charts.

Findings: indicate that youth in the program group were no more likely than control group youth to have abstained from sex and, among those who reported having had sex they had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same mean age.

Sexual Abstinence: Program and control group youth were equally likely to have remained abstinent.

Unprotected Sex: Program and control group youth did not differ in their rates unprotected sex, either at first intercourse or over the last 12 months. Over the last 12 months, 23 percent of both groups reported having had sex and always using a condom; 17 percent of both groups reported having had sex and only sometimes using a condom; and 4 percent of both groups reported having had sex and never using a condom.

Age at First Intercourse: For both the program and control group youth, the reported mean age at first intercourse was identical, 14.9 years.

Sexual Partners: Program and control group youth also did not differ in the number of partners with whom they had sex. Comparing the program and control groups overall, the distributions on the number of reported sex partners are nearly identical. About one-quarter of all youth in both groups had sex with three or more partners, and about one in six had sex with four or more partners.

Wow, what a fucking surprise! No differences at all between the program participants and the control group. That would be $87 million dollars a year, and over $1.5 billion to prove what we already knew.

Here is what we really know--the Bush war-criminals simply wanted to give millions and millions of dollars to their religious fanatic friends. And even though this report proves their idiocy, they kept that money away from American who really needed it. They could have actually used it to help curb teen pregnancy. What a novel idea.

On That Imus Moron

Please take a look at this link concerning the Imus controversy. I have read some excellent writing on what a fucked-up bigot he is. But I think this post is particularily worth viewing.....and thinking about.

Throw Out the Tofu Ma....It's Making Us Queer

Sometimes these right-wingnuts publish articles that are so bizarre and outrageous that I start to think maybe they are all just comedians. Yes, maybe instead of being obnoxious religious zealots, they are trying to be funny......and we just don't get it. Their humor is so sophisticated that the bandwidth in our liberal brains hasn't been able to process it all. Right!

So I just had to make this "humor" available to all of you. I first saw it on Pandagon and then Pam's House Blend did fine work describing it as "today's batshittery article of the day."

This is from some guy named Jim Rutz at the World Net Daily. And as you will read for yourself, his article(s) are entitled, "Soy Is Making Kids Gay." Yes, that's right, soy--as in tofu and all that other stuff they sell at Whole Foods and Mississippi Market--it's making our kids gay (as in homosexual).

Here is a quote from Jim Rutz that I'm sure will make you want to read all of his "scientific" information about soy products.

"Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion, and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say they can't remember a time when excess estrogen (in the soy products) wasn't influencing them."

Wow! I didn't know all this--especially those facts about penis size and sexual confusion. I don't want to start carrying a purse like this guy! I'm going back to being a serious meat-eater. My heart and arteries might not like it, but my penis will undoubtedly "stand up" and say thanks!

Another Tragic Wisconsin Hunting Incident

An important and sad story submitted by our friend Chet Brinkley.

On Saturday 6 January 2007, Green Bay, Wisconsin resident Cha Vang (left), a 40-year-old man who had been living in the United States for less than two years, was hunting, separated from the rest of his friends, when he encountered Peshtigo, Wisconsin resident James Nichols, 28. According to Nichols, arrested after showing up at a local hospital with a single, non-life-threatening gunshot wound, the two began arguing after Nichols complained Vang was interfering with his hunting. Vang shot him, he claimed, without provocation, so Nichols defended himself. In the process of questioning, he told several contradictory versions of this tale.

The facts bring the story together in stark, disturbing detail. Convicted felon Nichols, rather than reporting the incident to the police, tried to camouflage Vang’s body under leaves and debris. During questioning Nichols said Hmong people were mean and "kill everything, and that they go for anything that moves…[the] Hmong group are bad." Finally, the attorney general reported that Vang was shot from a much closer distance than Nichols claimed—and while walking AWAY from his killer. Vang was also stabbed six times, including a wound that severed his jugular vein, and was found with a 3-4 inch wooden stick protruding from his clenched teeth. Nichols claimed Vang screamed, “I'm going to kill you! I’m going to kill you!’ but Vang knew no English. Dacia James, Nichols’ fiancée who helped him hide the murder weapon, said she had never heard Nichols say anything negative about Hmong people. “He has never been racist or derogatory against someone who didn't deserve it."

Reports in January set Nichols’ first court date for 14 February but no public reports regarding this case have been seen since then. As the Washington Post reported, prejudice is not hard to find in this region (this article is no longer available online):

Bob Kovar, a retired cranberry grower, left his job to head his own initiative to talk with middle and high school students in the Minocqua (Wisconsin) area about their racial views. "At first, I didn't think my community was racist -- then I saw when I had kids in the schools that this community is pretty open about its prejudiced views and has had generations of violence over that," Kovar said. His program focuses on introducing tribal and white students to each other's cultures -- many characteristics of which they find are similar -- and educating them on diversity. On Tuesday, Kovar plans to hold a town hall meeting with students and families from the area schools to discuss racial tensions. But he has heard from many white parents that they will not attend because the meeting will be held on the reservation that feeds Indian students to Lakeland Union, the one high school in the region.

Where the hell do any of us get off acting like we own a bigger share or have a greater right to this country just because our ancestors showed up here before somebody else’s—or because those ancestors may have killed or robbed or bullied or enslaved those who were here before them? Cha Vang, his wife of 13 years Pang Vue, and their five children, and all Hmong people are in the United States because our government selected, trained, equipped, and mobilized their people to fight against Lao and Vietnamese communists. They lost 10% of their population in that conflict. It is because of America's pull-out from Southeast Asia that the communists overran Vietnam and Laos, and that the Hmong people who sided with us were compelled to flee the country.

In coming to the United States, the Hmong people's biggest obstacle is not the language, the strange, sometimes intimidating culture and technology, the pain of watching their children abandoning ages-old customs and traditions so they can be more acceptable to their classmates, or anything else as much as it is people like James Nichols—or any ignoramus who looks at one man like Chai Soua Vang and confers his misdeeds on all Hmong people—or is so stupid as to think that Chai Soua Vang (another tragic Wisconsin Hmong-white hunting incident) and Cha Vang must be related. (There are only 18 last names in Hmong culture.) Chai Soua Vang’s actions cannot be defended, but it’s quite clear that the story told by the survivors of that horrible incident omitted a few details that might have cast the dead in a less complimentary light. They weren’t as interested in telling the truth as they were putting him away. An all-white jury sentenced him without batting an eye. Chai Soua Vang got the right sentence, but it’s hard to argue that he got justice. What will a likely all-white jury decide in the case of Cha Vang’s murderer? And how closely will the non-Hmong community be watching? (Nichols has recently pleaded not guilty).

He Wasn't Very Good Either

The unpleasant side-effects of the abysmal and failed Bush presidency are many—too many to be analyzed here. But one that specifically intrigues me is the effort being made by conservatives to shift the historical focus from their current incompetent leader to their past inept leader…..Ronald Reagan.

Granted, conservatives do have an argument—compared to Bush, any past chief executives looks stellar. Hell, William Howard Taft seems like a veritable statesman compared to Bush. This is an opportune time to drag any pariah out of the historical ashes for rehabilitation.

But Ronald Reagan is the one that conservatives place on their political pedestal. While the right has always looked up to Reagan, Bush is now making him look much, much better to conservatives and even to moderate Republicans (if they actually exist).

Two things strike me as paradoxical here. First, if Reagan was a great president (and he wasn’t), conservatives wouldn’t need George W. Bush to draw that distinction. Reagan’s presidency should be able to stand on its own—which it can’t. And second, when Bush was riding high in the polls, the wing-nuts were calling him Reagan’s heir. What happened? It seems Bush is actually the one who has attempted to carry out the radical conservative agenda—why now separate him from their conservative hero when Bush has been doing what the wingers wanted all along?

Well, I won’t try to get into the mind of one of those right-wingers, that would be entirely too difficult and might give me some sort of brain damage. But what is going on is this—Bush’s dismal failures are forcing conservatives to find another champion by which to rally their supporters. I suppose it is a logical move for them—they need their idols and frankly, they don’t have many. Which brings up an interesting question—except for that fellow Jesus, who do the right-wingers look to for inspiration? DeLay……Cheney.....Scalia…..Newt……Mel Gibson????? It is sad isn’t it?

I digress. The point is this—Reagan was not a very good president in spite of the spin that you are going to hear from the GOP for the next few years. He was average at best, and probably a better fit in the below average category.

First, he spent the taxpayer's money like a drunken sailor and incurred huge debts that did not dissolve until Bill Clinton and those big-spending liberals took over. I know the AM talk-show crowd blames Congress for all this—but that just isn't accurate. Reagan showed no inclination to actually cut spending. All he did was talk about it.

Second, please don’t accept the simplistic crap about how Reagan single-handedly ended the Cold War. That is the kind of anti-intellectual drivel that conservatives like to propagate because their constituents need one-dimensional answers. The Cold War must be examined in its entirety, it was never simple. There were numerous factors that contributed to its demise. Americans should know that already—but unfortunately, in the “intelligent design” environment of today, they don’t.

Third—and conservatives should know this but they chose to overlook it—Reagan actually never tried to institute the radical right-wing agenda. He cared about taxes and big government, but seemed uncomfortable with some of the other hot button issues. Yes, he talked about abortion and prayer in school, but never attempted to legislate those issues. They were used basically to fire up the conservative base.

Fourth, and I think this is one of the most important issues…..Reagan made it accepted for conservatives--especially angry white males--to blame the poor and the disadvantaged for the nation's problems. He gave terribly unsophisticated speeches about a welfare queen (always a woman) driving a Cadillac and making $50,000.00 from illegal welfare checks. No one every located that “welfare mom” and it’s clear she was fabricated. But Reagan’s words and encouragement made it fashionable in the 1980s to blame the poor for everything.

Reagan also set race relation back for years. Remember that he launched his 1980 campaign with a states rights speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi—the place where three civil rights workers were murdered in the 1960s. He and his staff knew what they were doing—they didn’t just accidentally stop in that little town. They were sending a message to the racists on the right. Again, making it okay for conservatives to use race to divide the nation.

And his reaction to AIDS was criminal. Why worry about homosexuals—it’s their own fault anyway isn’t it? God is punishing them for their lifestyle. Besides, his constituents didn’t care. This issue alone should have shamed the administration. But once again, those blue-collar, working class “Reagan Democrats" didn’t much care for urban gays anyway—so why do anything? Disgusting.

Scandals (Iran-Contra, that's the criminal Oliver North at below right), massive budget deficits, racism, tax cuts for the rich, blame-the-poor rhetoric, homophobic public policies…..this is what the Reagan administration was all about–and don’t forget it. Just because George Bush is worse doesn’t mean Reagan should climb in the eyes of history. He was who he was—and he was a mediocre president who did great damage to many people on the margins of society. And he didn’t seem to care.

But for the pathetic Republican party, he is about the only national figure they have had in the past 60 years that holds any historical legitimacy (Ike was really the last one!). Isn't it sad being a Republican--at times, I almost feel sorry for them.

What the Hell is This?

Have you folks seen this picture? The village idiot Bush is saying something inane about Iraq--but what the hell is Cheney doing lurking around in the weeds? This guy is scary isn't he? You think Bush knows he's there? I don't see his hands, maybe he's taking a piss.

In Praise of Dogs

submitted by our friend Chet Brinkley--and we all sincerely hope Danny gets well very soon!

Meaning no disrespect to Buddy, Queen Lexie, and their generous hosts, but in the interest of pet bipartisanship I think it’s about time we gave a little glory to our canine friends.

I grew up in a household with no pets other than occasional goldfish. My parents—good-hearted, practical people—had no intention of taking over the feeding and care of a pet after their children’s two days of excitement and dedication wore off. My lovely partner, however, grew up with a menagerie of cats, dogs, and horses, and so it was clear that if we were ever to wed, I was going to have to pass the “sniff test” with her pets—which fortunately I did.

When we changed domiciles eleven years ago, our cat freaked out and began turning our entire basement into a litterbox, so alas, we had to bid her a sad farewell, and haven’t had one since. So dogs rule the roost in our home.

Some of our biggest laughs and most serene moments have been brought to us by our dogs. And the amount of comfort a dog can provide in times of sorrow in many ways outstrips any human feat of word or deed—mostly because dogs know how to shut up and just be there for you.

Unfortunately, getting pets (unless you make the dubious choice of buying a bird that will live a hundred years) is a devil’s bargain. You know they’ll worm their way into your heart, you know they’ll become a part of the family, and you know the chances are extremely good that they’ll depart this mortal coil well before you do, leaving you in a crumpled, weeping mass with vet bills resembling a payment on a Mercedes Benz.

Our pal Danny (pictured above) is 12 years old. The vet says he has the constitution of a seven-year-old, but out of the blue he started having seizures. We haven’t given up just yet. We’re not going to take out a second mortgage, and we certainly don’t want our friend to suffer unnecessarily, but we hope we get some more quality time with him before that wordless communication and those soulful eyes finally make it clear to us that the devil must be given his due. And after tears are shed and precious memories are tucked away for safekeeping, we’ll enter into that bargain again, and see some of the grief assuaged by a new introduction and courtship that turns into another enchanting though all-too brief love affair with another best friend.

And I Thought We Were Winning!

Okay folks, it’s now official…..the Iraq War is lost….it’s over. How do we know, because Henry Kissinger said so. But before I talk about Kissinger and Iraq, get a load of this opening paragraph from the AP article in the International Herald Tribune:

“Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who helped engineer the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, said Sunday the problems in Iraq are more complex than that conflict, and military victory is no longer possible.”

Does anyone else see some irony in this sentence? Henry Kissinger “who helped engineer the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam” Withdrawal? Withdrawal? What the hell are they talking about? It took Kissinger and Nixon five fucking years to withdraw from that quagmire. And we know that not one god-damned thing was gained from 1969 to the war's official end in 1975. Just more and more deaths—lives wasted to be exact. Nixon and Kissinger could have ended that war in 1969, but I guess they were too busy “engineering a withdrawal.”

Anyway, Kissinger is now telling us what we already know. The former Secretary of State said that:

"A 'military victory' in the sense of total control over the whole territory, imposed on the entire population, is not possible,” adding that the, “faceless, ubiquitous nature of Iraq's insurgency, as well as the religious divide between Shiite and Sunni rivals, makes negotiating peace more complex."

"It is a more complicated problem," Kissinger said. "The Vietnam War involved states, and you could negotiate with leaders who controlled a defined area."

But Dr. Kissinger couldn’t be content with a simple analysis of the dire situation in Iraq. You see, Kissinger very much likes to cavort with people in power. He fears no further calls from the White House. What if policymakers stopped seeking him out for his opinions on global affairs? What if they stopped inviting him to parties? What if Charlie Rose quit having on his talk show?

So even though Kissinger flatly stated that the war in Iraq was lost—he had to mitigate those negative sentiments with something nice for the incompetent Bush administration. Kissinger claimed that he sympathized with the troubles that Bush is facing and “warned that a sudden pullout of U.S. troops or loss of influence could unleash chaos.”

Tell me, how much more chaos can we have in Iraq? If we leave, there will be chaos????? What the fuck is happening now?

And then, in words that his hero Metternich would have enjoyed, Kissinger suggested an international conference to get the United States off the hook. Yes, that will surely work!

“Kissinger said the best way forward is to reconcile the differences between Iraq's warring sects with help from other countries. He applauded efforts to host an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq's neighbors — including Iran, Washington's longtime rival in the region.”

Then, in one final shot at those dirty fucking hippies that have been dogging him for nearly 40 years—Kissinger called for an end to the partisan bickering.

"The role of America in the world cannot be defined by our internal partisan quarrels," he said. "All the leaders, both Republican and Democratic, have to remember that it will go on for several more years and find some basis for common action."

No way asshole. The partisan bickering will continue as long as the partisan pricks in the Bush administration stay in Iraq.....As long as Bush and his war criminal pals keep wasting American lives.....And as long as the administration continues spending money in Iraq instead of spending it on health care, education, poverty, or New Orleans

Thanks for telling us what we already knew Henry--we are losing in Iraq and have no chance. We appreciate your honesty. But I for one will remain a partisan bickerer, just like I was in 1972 when you were managing your own immoral war.

I Shall Not Seek, and I Will Not Accept......

This past weekend (March 31 to be exact) marked the anniversary of an extremely important political event. Thirty-nine years ago, on a normal Sunday evening, millions of American sat in front of their grainy black-and-white TV screens to hear what President Lyndon B. Johnson would say about Vietnam War. The president did talk about Vietnam, but he dropped a bombshell at the end of the speech:

"I have concluded that I shall not permit the Presidency to become involved in the partisan divisions that are developing in this political year."

"I do not believe I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office--the Presidency of your country."

"Therefore, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President."

This ambitious and powerful man, who had won a tremendous landslide just four years earlier, had become so troubled by an unpopular war—that he was ostensibly ending his long and brilliant political career.

So many things happened in 1968 that it’s difficult to select any one as critical. Many younger political junkies might not see Johnson’s decision as all that important. But if you go back and look at the political situation, this was tremendously significant event that has ramification not only in 1968—but actually sent shock-waves throughout the system for years. Let me explain.

By January 1968, Lyndon Johnson was embattled, but he remained a dominant figure. Had he sought the nomination, it would have been his. He still could have made policy adjustments in Vietnam. And while major changes were not forthcoming, short cease-fires and more peace talks were still possible.

Granted, things had been getting worse in Vietnam. In January came the Tet offensive--North Vietnamese troops attacked numerous provincial capitals and major cities in the south, including an attack on the U.S. embassy in Saigon and the presidential palace. Tet showed that the U.S. was not winning the war. And remember, this war was not censored by the government. Americans saw the body bags every evening on TV.

But even with these extreme difficulties, the Democratic Party and its leaders would have lined up behind LBJ. In 1968, the party structure was not as decentralized as it is today. The Democratic hierarchy was ruled by the president and it would have been nearly impossible to defeat him. Yes, an insurgent candidate could embarrass LBJ, or damage him for the November run…..but the way the convention votes were gathered and tallied, Johnson would have had few problems taking the nomination.

But what we were starting to see by 1968 was the deterioration of that old system. At the time, many still did not see its imminent downfall. Maybe Johnson saw it crumbling…..maybe Eugene McCarthy did too. But things were taking place that would have ramification for the future of American politics—Johnson served to exacerbate those changes when he gave that March 31 speech.

By the start of the year, most assumed the Johnson-Humphrey ticket would stand for reelection. But some of the antiwar left went looking for a challenger. At the time, this seemed more symbolic that substantive. Most saw New York senator Robert Kennedy as the clear first-choice—but he was not willing to challenge Johnson or the war….yet. Minnesota senator Eugene McCarthy finally agreed to face the president. No one gave him a chance.

Then in the March 12 New Hampshire primary, Johnson beat McCarthy 49% to 42%. This shook the political world. How could this soft-spoken, antiwar senator get such support? People started to wonder a little more about the war, maybe it was time to question the politicians on this.

But the old political “machines” were also starting to collapse. If McCarthy could do it......maybe these primaries would allow the “people” to select the candidates. At the time, the primaries weren’t worth much at the convention (pols like mayor Daley still ruled), but if the grass-roots spoke, the leaders would have to listen wouldn’t they?

McCarthy had opened some eyes and people were just wondering what all of this meant. Then two days later, Robert Kennedy entered the race. RFK was the star of the party and the realistic hope of the left. He is still be criticized for waiting too long—for not being as courageous as McCarthy—but when he entered, the dynamics of the campaign changed even more.

So by the end of March, President Johnson was being challenged by two Democrats, and he still seemed flustered by the war—which was going badly. And while he controlled the party and could have garnered the nomination, he called it quits.

What were the implications here? By abandoning the race, I think that Johnson set in motion tremendous political changes. Yes, these changes would have taken place sooner or later, but without the 1968 political turmoil—probably later. By dropping out of the race, the antiwar left and the student movement saw that they could possibly change the system. If they could do this, maybe they could end the war…..maybe they could change the corrupt system itself.

LBJ had opened the door and the activist took advantage. While the 1968 election didn’t turn out the way the left wanted (Nixon v. Humphrey; Kennedy dead; the party in ruins), there was hope that manifested itself during the next 4 years.

I still believe Johnson hoped the party might still draft him at the summer convention. He was an ambitious man—and he still might have won the election. But there are times when I also think maybe Johnson knew something—maybe he had begun to understand that he was on the wrong side of history. Maybe he saw that the nation and its institutions were changing rather quickly.

Lyndon Johnson shocked the nation that Sunday evening and set in motion some important electoral changes in this nation. It now seems like it couldn't have been any other way--for 1968 turned out to be a great social, cultural, and political divide. Johnson was on the other side of that divide, he was a man of the past.

A Sad and Pathetic Figure

“One thing that is fascinating about George Bush is how little he has grown in office. No, that's not right. It's not that he hasn't grown, he has gotten smaller; less Presidential, more sad little man watching his paper boat circle the drain. After six years of playing The Decider he should at least have a thin candy shell of gravitas as opposed to coming across like one of those guys on Peoples Court who not only has an unshakable belief that people won't see through his bullshit, but that no one will notice his artful comb-over either.”

I found this quote on a blog several weeks ago and have been thinking about it since. I totally agree with the opinions of the author. The more interesting question, in my mind, concerns patterns. Have most presidents grown and/or matured while in office? Or have others acted more like Bush and regressed during their White House stay?

I think it's fair to say that George W. Bush has morphed into nothing but a sad and pathetic figure. He will always have that 20-25% of the electorate who, it seems, would remain loyal even if he murdered someone on national TV. But it’s clear that most of the nation is embarrassed by our current chief executive.

The simple answer to presidents “growing” in office is that most actually do. History demonstrates that two things tend to happen to presidents. First, at some point in their term, event(s) humble them—driving them to rethink much of their boisterous, and ideologically rigid campaign rhetoric. This is when many mature and transform themselves from politician to statesman. Second, most also find that maturity and growth force them into seeking a historical legacy; which means leaving something substantive (not partisan) to the nation and its citizens.

There are some examples in the past half-century of presidents who have grown in office—examples from both parties.

When the boyish John F. Kennedy entered the White House in 1961, some saw him as an inexperienced playboy whose daddy had bought him the election. While I will not compare Bush with JFK (W is no Jack Kennedy, shall we say), Kennedy did have a certain detached manner that made many think that he didn’t take issues seriously enough.

Yes, JFK had been a war hero and had plenty of medical problems, but he did come from a wealthy family that had greased the political wheels for him when he had nothing else to do in after WW II.

But Kennedy’s on-the-job training changed him immensely. The Bay of Pigs fiasco forced him to restructure his internal decision-making aparatus—and it caused him to question military/CIA advice. And then the Cuban Missile Crisis brought Kennnedy face-to-face with nuclear war. After October 1962, his speeches became more measured, his tone much more peaceful and conciliatory—if nothing else, Cuba taught Kennedy that he had the power to destroy the world—and it had almost happened.

What did we get from this 45 year-old man after Cuba? Not smirks and snide comments, not frat-boy giggles and statements from an ideologue. During his next twelve months in office, President Kennedy uttered some of his most memorable and lasting words— marvelous speeches about peace, disarmament, the arts, poetry, and his vision for a safer world.

Maybe JFK had this in him from the start—but like most politicians, he came to office a little cocky and too sure of himself. But by November 1963, he was a different person—he had clearly grown as a person and as a president.

Ronald Reagan also proved that one could develop while in office. While I am not a huge fan of Reagan, I have always been intrigued by his efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons when he met with Gorbachev in 1986. Some say Reagan didn’t know what he was doing—but I disagree. Reagan was trying to use the office to do something grand, and that’s what the presidency is all about.

Reagan, by 1986, knew that legacy was important—and legacy is leaving something to history. It’s acting in the best interests of future generations—it’s doing those things that you couldn’t do when political interests dominated. Reagan knew this, and tried something big.

Finally, while Lyndon Johnson’s last year in office was tragic—he even matured. LBJ abandoning the office that he so loved and actually wrecked his legacy--but it might have been the apex of his maturation. Johnson was a schemer and still hoped the Democrats would turn to him in the fall. But even LBJ had learned there was something bigger and more important than his ambition.

I think that two of the three individuals I mentioned in this post were mediocre presidents at best (I will let you guess which ones), but all three were much more impressive than the current occupant of the White House. All three left office with some gravitas, and all three knew that was an important part of the presidency.

As we all know, Bush had his opportunity didn’t he? And what did he tell the American people to do after 9/11….to go shopping. What a fucking moron. He has done nothing domestically—except appoint fascists to the court system. And his foreign policy, to say the least, has been a disaster.

George Bush, in my view, has been the worst president in American history. Overturning his mistakes will take years. He has become a small figure—immature and clearly not suited or qualified for the job. Luckily, we have had presidents in the past that did grow in the office, but not this adolescent clown.

Novel Ideas

Mark Twain remarked that “A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read.” I don’t know if that is still the case—but I think Twain has been generally correct about this.

Personally, I have had a terribly schizophrenic relationship with the classics (and novels in general for that matter) for the past 20-25 years. The primary reason, I believe, has been my study of History. You see, after reading traditional nonfiction History: textbooks, journals, short articles, and primary source materials—it becomes difficult to read word-for-word books. When you read academic nonfiction, you can often skim—searching for main ideas and key points, while quickly glancing over the language and style.

I do enjoy nonfiction very much—but I grew up reading classics and lament the fact that I continue to have trouble reading the great works. I can zip through a 500 page biography in a few days—but when I try to pick up one of the classics, I stick with it for awhile, and then…….my thoughts wander to some American history topic.

I could simply give up. I read enough good nonfiction…..I need not be so hard on myself, right?

But I still believe that fiction in general, and these classics specifically, are well worth the effort. I want to take my time and read each and every word, meet interesting characters, and understand their human emotions and dilemmas. The beautiful sentence structures, the perfect word choice, and the unfolding plots. I do get some of that in good history book—but I want more. Besides, the classics are so civilizing.

I grew up reading Dickens—Oliver Twist was the first real, adult novel I remember reading. Then I read David Copperfield and was “hooked on the classics.” But once I went to graduate school, the nonfiction took over.

I was assigned The Sun Also Rises in a graduate school History class once—and I loved that novel. I still read it several times a year. After reading it in Dr. Allen’s U.S. History seminar at Southern Illinois University—several of my classmates and I got drunk for about 4-5 days straight! We each bought one of those wine skins that Jake and the others drink from in the novel . Those were the days!

Well, I am here to say that I haven’t given up yet…..I am trying once again. I have a stack of classics that I keep on hand so when I get the urge, I have something to grab. A few days ago, I spotted the fat little Bantam Classic edition of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina (Tolstoy pictured above). Thus far…..wonderful. I don’t want to say too much, I have completed 191 of 868 pages. But I sense that this might be the start of something.

I will keep you posted on my progress! Wish me luck.

Friday Cat Blogging

I give you Buddy--master of, and the inspiration behind this blog. Buddy was a scruffy neighborhood stray who showed up at our apartment in the early 1990s. We were hesitant to feed him but he was persistent. I tried catching him several times, but he always got away.

My lovely domestic partner finally trapped him one day, took him to the vet for a checkup, and even had him fixed (I don't know if he was too thrilled about that). Buddy has been part of the family ever since. The vet wasn't sure how old he was, so currently Buddy might be anywhere from 14 to 17 years old. He is a wonderful cat!

On a Few of the Evils of Capitalism

Twice during the past week, I have been at academic discussions where a “radical” market capitalist has been the primary speaker. The frustrating thing about these market missionaries is they realize there is no real political opposition to their ideology. So what you hear from these self-righteous zealots are “lectures” about how free markets must be expanded; how people worldwide are doing so well under globalization; and how there are no economic options anyway.

As Andrew Murray wrote in the Guardian, these market advocates continually utilize the argument that “there is no alternative” to the uber-capitalism that we now see running rampant in America and throughout the world. And it is true in the United States at least, that the majority of the left has eschewed any efforts to seriously confront the market system.

But shouldn’t we be more vocal in critiquing capitalism? Should I accept the crap that was given to me at the meetings I attended? From my perspectives the clear answer is no.

Let’s look at just a few of the problems and ask some basic questions about market capitalism. Now I’m sure the conservative right-wingers have “answers” to all of these issues—I doubt however, that the answers are at all valid.

-The rich-poor gap has widened in the United States and appears to be continuing on that course. This is happening in most of the western nations.

-Women’s wages remain well below the wages of men—and the free market has yet to alleviate any of the work/family issues that women are constantly dealing with.

-The health care crisis in the United States is not being solved by the marvelous free market. In fact, it’s clear that the market isn’t working at all regarding this issue.

-Business can move whenever they want, devastating communities and workers—while employees have had trouble even unionizing in their own country.

-Business get huge subsidies from the government—even though the market is supported to be an invisible hand. But governments only retreat when the poor ask for something.

-Globalization was supposed to at least help end wars (remember, capitalist nations don’t fight each other), but we know that the military-industrial complex is now getting more money than ever. The military will always find some way to hog the budget.

-People are working longer and longer hours for less and less money.

-Corporations are canceling or not offering benefits.

-This hyper-capitalism has no moral compass and has done nothing for social justice in this country or around the world.

And in one of the best current critiques of capitalism, Satish Kumar wrote the following in the online journal Resurgence:

"Even where money and material goods are plentiful, selfishness, greed, competition, crime, violence and frustration prevail. Capitalist societies are left with increasing rates of cancer, obesity, depression and stress. Capitalism has failed in human terms. But even more drastically capitalism has failed in terms of the natural environment. Capitalism is rapidly destroying soil fertility, biodiversity and the atmosphere. Capitalism founded on the ideology of unlimited economic growth and industrialised mass production is not only unsustainable – it is blatantly harmful."

Let’s face it, globalization/rabid market capitalism is good…..for a small group of people. The multinational corporations, the weapons and arms-manufacturers, and the global bankers are all doing very well. For the majority—the masses, the poor, the underprivileged……I don’t see this economic system as a panacea at all. It is destroying the earth, its beauty, and its people!

Will we be able to alter the system? Probably not in my lifetime—but why can’t we at least begin to fight back? Why can’t we make sure to critique this system when we have the opportunity?

Capitalism wasn’t handed down by god (and even if it was, that would just give me another excuse to dislike it). Capitalism was set up to benefit certain people, and keep them in power—and that is exactly what it does.

And we must remember, there are socialist alternatives, Marxist theories that explain how capitalism works, and other critiques that are valid and useful. Let’s not give up on this issue—let’s not cede this to the market folks so easily.

And to once again quote Satish Kumar: "We need . . . a system for the age of ecology, a system which is embedded in the care of people, all people and also in the care of the earth and all life upon it, human life as well as animal life, plant life, earth life, air life and water life. We need a system which replaces our capitalist world view with a naturalist world view, and shifts our society from capitalism to “naturalism”.

Feminism 101

There is a new blog that I urge all of you to view. It's called Finally, a Feminism 101 blog. What is it? Well, feminist bloggers have found themselves spending an inordinate amount of discussion time answering some of the same old questions about women's rights, gender roles, and feminism. Many of those questions, no doubt, are obnoxious queries from men who may never understand these concepts.

In order to spend more time on serious discussions, and less time answering the same old questions--this blog was started to answer some of those questions like:
-What do feminists want?
-Why do feminists hate men?
-What is male privilege?
-What's wrong with the suggestion that women take precautions to prevent being raped? Short answer to this one: Because it puts the onus on women not to get themselves raped, rather than on men not to do the raping; in short, it blames the victim.

There is more to that last answer, and some great discussion threads and links. Please check it out!

Winter in Minnesota: From "E Pluribus Unum" to "It's All About Me"

posted by Chet Brinkley.....

We were out to supper with friends not that long ago. Bill, who drives a snow plow in the winter, was commenting on his latest misadventures. As usual, getting buried recently under several inches of heavy, wet snow did not bring out the best in our fellow citizens. One shrieking harpy called up Bill's station and screamed, “I don’t care about anyone else! You get a plow over to my house right now and get me out of here.” Bill’s boss, of course, laughed uproariously before hanging up on the hysterical wench.

When the storms are as bad as they got a couple of weeks ago, Bill drives twelve hours at a shot. As anyone who’s lived in Minnesota for any period of time knows, snow plow drivers are some of the most despised people in the state this time of year. Cleaning the streets also means clogging people’s driveways with massive piles of back-breaking, compacted snow. The force of the propelled precipitation can smash or at least deform mailboxes. In order to accomplish the greater good, all of us who own homes have to pay a little extra for our privilege and dig ourselves out. It’s the only way all of us can get to our jobs and pay our bills. But this doesn’t stop morons from trying to pass these behemoths on the road, and from flipping them off for having the temerity to slow them down. Of course, a lot of these bozos end up in a ditch or slammed into a light pole a little further down the road.

Bill was doing what had to be done, driving a truck that, fully loaded, weighs about 15 tons, when a crazed citizen jumped in front of him, forcing him to slam desperately on the brakes. The man screamed, ‘You left a big pile of snow in my driveway! You come back and clean that up!” He demanded that Bill come around a second time, drive on the wrong side of the road so that the snow would pile up in the middle of the street, and then come through a third time and push it all into the yards and driveways of his neighbors across the way. In other words, screw everybody else, just take care of me. As this fractious discussion continued, the rabid fellow jumped up onto Bill’s truck, so Bill grabbed for his hammer and put it on the dash, just to make sure it was there if he needed it. As the tensions escalated and Bill remained resolute in his sanity, the fellow finally adopted a thin veneer of sanity, read my friend’s name tag, and intoned, “Well Bill, I guess I’m going to be calling your manager.” Bill laughed uproariously and said, “You go right ahead.” No doubt this fellow became the story/psycho of the week back at the shop.

It’s easy to think of Bill’s experiences as silly stories about a couple of wack jobs who freaked out during a recent snowstorm, but I’m not sure any of us can let ourselves off the hook that easily. Maybe Barack Obama is doing more than establishing a niche issue for himself when he speaks of an “empathy gap”. All of us have raced down the interstate—or even a small local road—and cursed at anyone who impeded our progress in the slightest way. More and more of us stare transfixed into our computer or television or cell phone screen or plug ourselves into our MP3 players and eschew meaningful interactions with the world around us. We shop on line, we drive through the bank and the fast food place—we probably have more fondness for our cars than for our neighbors or even members of our extended family. Where does it end? How long is it going to be before we’re all so myopic and unjustifiably self-righteous that we’re lying in wait for the newspaper deliverer because he left the paper lying in the middle of the driveway—where it was buried by the snow plow?