Ronald Reagan: Still a Bad President

I am reprinting an old post from 6 April 2007. This current Republican silliness suggesting Ronald Reagan was a great president needs to stop. They are either outright lying, delusional, or drugs are involved. This selection is one of my all-time favorites. Remember folks, Reagan was not a good president, and he never will be. The fact that McCain, Romney, Huckelberry, and those other sad-ass Republicans consider Reagan a hero really tells you something about their knowledge of history and their collective sanity levels.

---

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 like Iran-Contra, 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.

Obama's Immediate Problem

I don't know what is going to happen this Tuesday. My general prediction (if anyone cares) is that if Barack Obama survives--if Hillary Clinton does not pile up overwhelming delegate majorities in the big states--then Obama continues, and his campaign will find itself in a very good position. The whole early primary, front-loading strategy offered an advantage to the most organized, well-know, and wealthiest candidate, which was Senator Clinton. If she doesn't wrap the nomination up on Tuesday, or at least come very close, Obama gains a considerable advantage. I believe the chances are high (70-75%) that Obama will survive and he could be the actual front-runner in a few weeks.

But Obama has an immediate problem that could derail this entire scenario. If you have read anything about this campaign, you have viewed the exit polls and know how Democrats and Independents are voting. Obama appears to be getting the support of young voters, new voters, independents, African-Americans, and the wine-and-cheese liberal set (those Chardonnay drinkers that the Conservatives so despise). Senator Clinton, on the other hand, is polling better with women (especially those over 40), elderly voters, Hispanics, union voters, the traditional low and middle-income Democratic constituencies, and party regulars.

So what's my point? It's very simple--at this stage of the race, Clinton's constituencies are much more dependable. Her supporters are going to cast their ballots. Obama can depend on African Americans as well as those wine-drinking liberals. But his campaign needs to be extremely wary of these new, young voters and those so-called independents.

The media loves to tout the potential electoral power of young voters (the mainstream press actually want it to be 1968 again, things were fun). But that youth vote never materializes--they simply don't go to the polls. They disappoint time and time again. And I suppose an old coot like me can easily be called a cynic for even writing this, but it's true whether we like it or not. I hope I am proven wrong this time, but this is a recurring problem.

Barack Obama is placing a lot of faith in a group of voters who are consistently unreliable. I would be concerned. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton's supporters will turn out in huge numbers, and she can count on that. Her committed and dedicated base might be the critical ingredient on Super Tuesday.

I'm A Divider, Not a Uniter

I am still undecided on the Democratic presidential race--I would enthusiastically vote for Clinton or Obama in November. Either is preferable to a Republican.

But I am beginning to get annoyed at the Obama supporters suggesting that he has a better chance to "unite the country." What exactly does that mean? And a better question might be, do we really want to be united? I don't and I'll tell you why.

We have lived through 7+ years of total partisanship. The Republicans have never cared about uniting the country. They have ruined the economy, spent the surplus given to them by Clinton, taken money from the poor and given it to the rich, started an unnecessary war, ruined America's station in the world....and the list goes on and on. Have they ever cared about unity? Has Bush ever tried to "reach across then aisle" for support from the Democrats. Hell no he hasn't.

The Republicans do not give a damn about uniting the country. Yes, now that they are in danger of losing even more power, they are paying lip service to unity. But there is absolutley no evidence that they care about it--and we know when they are in power, they have no respect whatsoever for harmony or political compromise.

I don't want unity, I want to shove liberal and progressive programs down their fucking throats for the next decade or so. That's right--I am against cooperating with Republicans for 'the good of the country' because nonsense like that doesn't mean anything, and it isn't going to happen anyway. I want millions for the poor and homeless, steep tax hikes for the rich, troops immediately out of Iraq, single-payer health insurance, free and available contraception for teens, gay marriage.....and the list goes on and on. I want the Democrats to push for all of these issues and push hard. I don't want compromise.

Do you think Republicans are going to help us? I seriously doubt it--and I don't care. I want partisanship, I want to pay them back for the Bush years, I want some measure of revenge, and I want liberal and progressive measures passed and implemented.

Yes, I will vote for Obama, but here is what worries me about him. The first week in office, he will invite a group of Republicans to the White House for a cozy breakfast meeting. President Obama will say, "we need to find common ground, we need to unite the country." And they will proceed to pick his pocket clean: getting what they want and making a fool out of the new president. Because that's what the Republicans do--and if President Obama thinks he can negotiate or do business with these thugs, he will be making a serious mistake.

On Historical Names

As a history professor, something that annoys the hell out of me is when students refer to individuals from the past by their first names. I read essays that mention Franklin’s New Deal, Woodrow’s 14 Points, and Abraham being assinated by John at Ford’s Theater (yes, that’s how the murder of a famous person is generally spelled by students).

Why do they do this? My first inclination is to blame their lack of reading—for current students read very little. Since they rarely open a history book, they never see the regular use of last names.

But I also think some of it is cultural. Am I the only one who is utterly sick of reading about these media-anointed athletic superheroes like A-Rod, and T-Mac, and D-Wade? They are not our close personal friends. I sense that the cute little sobriquets somehow allow the unwashed masses to feel that they are connected to these celebrity millionaires. It makes us want to spend money and go see them, right?

This awkward need for celebrity kinship has unfortunately seeped into our history. I am sure it is only a matter of time before students start telling me how AJax (pictured above) kicked some ass at the Battle of New Orleans in 1814 (he defeated some terrorists--I see that one coming soon). AJax later became president, outpolling the ClayMan in the 1832 election.

And how about that inevitable research paper on that critical Election of 1800? That’s when G-Wash’s former vice-president lost a close election to TJ. The presidency almost went to that scoundrel A-Burr but for the machinations of his political enemy A-Ham. A-Burr later got back at A-Ham by assinating him somewhere in NJ.

We need to stop this crap soon.

Sean Wilentz on Hillary Clinton

What I really like about this post is that a respected historian is taking an unapologetic stand on presidential politics. When I was growing up, professors were not ashamed to comment and involve themselves in political affairs. But during the past few decades, the need to appear "neutral" has apparently driven academics from the public sphere. I assume the constant abuse by wingnut conservatives has something to do with that silliness.

It's about time historians and other academics reenter the civil realm. Neutrality is impossible anyway, and we desperately need to assert ourselves as citizens during these times of torture, empire, greed, and inequality.

While I don't necessarily agree with everything Wilentz has said, it's refreshing to see him get involved. Let's not allow the right-wingers to silence us.

It Isn't Free-Trade At All

I admit that I can swing wildly back-and-forth concerning my faith and confidence in the American political system. There are days when I consider all the ways we can attempt to bring about change—and that list is extensive. Our freedoms allow us access to the process through an impressive variety of methods. And when my students ask me if one, solitary individual can make a difference in this country—I most often say yes.

But then there are my dark and pessimistic days—and they are becoming more frequent. These are the times when I am convinced, based upon logic and evidence, that money and power provide the only means to political influence. Yes, we can vote, blog, pass out campaign literature, and write to our representatives…..but on the major economic and social issues, those with money will always pervert the system and get what they want. Think health care, Iraq, and a variety of issues where we know that corporate interests are able to impede the will of the majority.

These two demons battle constantly in the political section of my consciousness. But then once-in-while the fight momentarily ceases as something sends me over the edge. This week it was the egregious and criminal Peru Free Trade Agreement. If it isn’t obvious to the American public that corporate and Wall Street interests bought the passage of this legislation—then nothing is obvious in this corrupt political system.

There are two broad issues that particularly bother me. First, the opponents of the Peru FTA are from groups or interests that lack clear and immediate political power in the United States. Many of these organizations work for global change--environmental groups, unions, small manufacturers, the progressive religious community, and the poor. Yes, if these groups coordinated their efforts, they might be more successful. But for the most part, none of them register high in the political polls. And few of these organizations are swimming in money.

And the supporters of this legislation—take a guess: Wall Street; the globalization crowd, the capitalist classes, and big, big money campaign contributors. These interests are seeking to basically commandeer the Peruvian economy, institute austerity and free-market solutions, and make millions off the suffering of others. And they will get their way. Just to show you the kinds of people we are dealing with—read about one of the following perks these modern day Robber Barons will gain when the Peru FTA passes:

In 2006, the Bush administration negotiated a NAFTA expansion pact with the Latin American country of Peru containing obscure provisions that would chill efforts to reverse the failed privatization of Peru’s social security system. These “free trade agreement” (FTA) terms would seem to only benefit one U.S. firm, Citibank, which is the largest shareholder in ProFuturo AFP, one of the private retirement account providers authorized to compete against the Peruvian government’s public social security system as part of the privatization. Other U.S. firms could also gain rights to service the privatized social security system under the Peru FTA terms, as noted by the Bush administration’s Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Services and Finance Industries, who hope to use the Peru FTA as a precedent for expanding the reach of privatized social security systems internationally: “Negotiators for the United States and Peru are to be commended for the substantive and meaningful provisions included on pensions and asset management… U.S. portfolio managers will be able to provide asset management services… including funds that manage Peru’s privatized social security accounts”

In simplest terms, the problem involves provisions of the Peru FTA that empower foreign investors to demand compensation in United Nations (UN) and World Bank tribunals for government actions that undermine their expected future profits as an investor in Peru. Under these terms, if Peru reversed its privatization, Citibank could use the FTA to seek Peruvian government compensation for its loss of future revenue caused by the “nationalization” of its investment in providing private retirement accounts. The FTA has an exception that would forbid the U.S. government from suing in an FTA tribunal for the loss of financial service market access in private retirement accounts if the privatization were reversed. Thus, while the FTA has safeguards for Peru’s legal right to reverse the privatization, the FTA undermines Peru’s practical ability to exercise those legal rights. This is the case because if Peru acted to exercise its rights to terminate market access in private retirement accounts, it could be confronted with foreign investor demands for major compensation.

The amount that Citibank could demand could be considerable, as the right to provide the private accounts is not time-limited and, under the statute establishing the privatization, licenses can only be removed for cause. Peruvian labor and other civil society figures say that the Peru FTA provisions would severely chill their ability to win reversal of the privatization, because the government could not afford to pay a huge fine for the right to restore a public service.

It is clear that these agreements are not about trade, they are about forcing global capitalism on weak economies and then leaving the “people/voters” with few options.

The second point that saddens me is that American politicians are cynical enough to understand that what happens to the people of Peru will gain them no votes. The hell with the Peruvians: the poor, small farmers and businesses—that isn’t something that registers on Washington's sophisticated polling data. But so-called free trade, cheap imports, and corporate contributions…….those terms awaken the senses of our politicians. Will we ever do the right thing and start considering ourselves citizens of the world? Will we ever care for the people of Peru, or Iraq? I am not hopeful.

This agreement clearly will benefit the rich and powerful in both countries. And because they stand to gain so much—they have “legally” worked the system and purchased enough votes to get their way. Poverty will be exacerbated in Peru, farmers will lose their land and be forced to move into crowded cities, and unions will cede power and influence. But of course the wonderful and enchanting hand of the “free-market” will engulf Peru and make it a better place!

In the United States—the few small farmers who remain will be forced out of business, and we might be able to purchase few cheaper goods. But at what price? The agreements that the Bush administration claims to have made on the environment and labor issues will not be followed, and few will try to force it because it will bring no political gains.

The Democrats in the House voted against this measure—barely! Nancy Pelosi and other party leaders were afraid (they are always afraid of something aren’t they?) they would be labeled as the anti-trade party? But this is no reason to screw the people who are supposed to be the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. As the Nation wrote, the worry about being labeled anti-free trade is:

…the same simple-minded non sequitur the multinational establishment always invoke to scold Democrats. None of the Democratic dissenters are arguing for "no trade. They are trying to change the rules of trade so US workers are not the first victims of new agreements. Pelosi argued that the Peru agreement includes an important reform—stronger language in support of labor and environmental standards—and it does. But is there perhaps another reason why she pushed so hard against her own caucus?

Steven R.Weisman of the New York Times gently suggested one."Democrats from the prosperous areas of the East and West Coast have become especially responsive, many Democrats say, to the desire of Wall Street and the high technology, health, pharmaceutical and entertainment industries to expand their sales overseas," Weisman wrote. "These industries have also become major Democratic contributors."

She did it for the money. That is a more plausible explanation than insider arguments over the fine print in an inconsequential new trade bill. The big-money sectors are anxious to squelch the new critics of globalization in Democratic ranks before they can gain momentum in Congress. Looking toward financing the 2008 elections, Pelosi chose to stand with the money guys and dismiss the political backlash against globalization building across the country. She is probably betting people aren't paying attention to such trivial matters.

Many of us are paying attention, however. When the Peru FTA comes before the Senate this month, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will be voting yes. John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich have come out against the measure—Kucinich in especially strong terms.

I urge everyone to help renew my faith in the American political system by doing something to try and stop this from passing in the U.S. Senate—write, call, cajole your Senators—especially the Democrats. You can also write a letter to your local newspaper and explain to people who might not be following, what this is really about.

Call the U.S. Capitol at (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected to your Senator; tell them you think these NAFTA-style "free trade" agreements are a bad idea--tell them to vote against this legislation. And I bet Minnesota Democratic U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar is "on the fence" on this issue--contact her soon!

Here are some additional websites with "talking points" and even a link to email Washington.

http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=12561 (send an email message)

http://action.citizen.org/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2535 (some talking points)

http://www.equalexchange.com/media/actionalerts/OxfamPeruFTALetterToCongress9-17-07.pdf (Oxfam letter opposing the agreement)

http://www.equalexchange.com/vote-no-to-expand-the-nafta-into-peru

The Bogus "Gender Card"

Since at least 1980, the Republicans' primary constituency has been white males. To be more specific, it has been middle to lower income white men who have constantly complained and whined about losing power and influence to all those “diversity” groups.

And the Republicans have indeed pandered to these white males like there is no tomorrow--oh, how they have pandered. Think about it; nearly every Republican issue is heavily steeped in gender—guns, war and security, no taxes for social problems (women’s issues), gay marriage, environment/big-SUVs, immigration, and abortion (don’t give those uppity women control over any decisions). All of this extreme political demagoguery has helped the GOP gain electoral ground: in the South (a trend started by the racist Nixon campaign of 1968 and honed by the equally racist Reagan campaign of 1980); as well as inroads with Reagan Democrats—those traditional blue collar male voters that once voted with the liberals.

But, when is the last time you heard the lazy and irresponsible mainstream media in this country charge that the Republicans were playing the "gender card?” They have clearly been punching that infamous ticket for nearly 30 years now. But I never hear anyone make the charge, or even bring it up.

Yet this past week, Hillary Clinton gave a campaign speech at Wellesley College—her alma mater. She mentioned that her education at an all-women's college prepared her to "compete in the all-boy's club of presidential politics." Wow, really radial stuff! Immediately, the Republicans, the media, and even some Democrats insisted that she was utilizing the “Gender Card.”

Let me get this straight--white males can vote for their gender, Republicans can propose all sorts of so-called “manly” policy issues and insinuations to get that white male vote…..but that has never been labeled as gender pandering (although we all know it is).

What the hell is going on here? I suppose it is simply “accepted” behavior that men can pander to other men, and that men control the political system. But when women seek the votes of other women……holy shit we can’t have that. It’s unnatural of course. That’s different……blah, blah, blah.

This blatant hypocrisy really aggravates me. And as usual, only the liberal bloggers have even mentioned this problem. Digby (one of the absolute best writers of all the leftist bloggers) said it best:

Indeed, the entire Republican campaign strategy can be said to be one big gender card-- the only people they believe matter in this country are delicate, insecure creatures who are so sensitive that they have to be pampered and pandered to like a bunch of overfed princes who like to play cowboy and don't want to share their favorite binky.

Every presidential candidate, and most other politicians, since 1980, have been bowing and scraping before this constituency. But for some reason, the hunting trips and codpieces and brush clearing and all that metaphorical crotch measuring isn't considered playing "the gender card." It's just considered the normal political pander to an aggrieved minority vote: the poor white males who've been treated terribly by all those powerful women and minorities and gays. What could be wrong with that?

I'm sorry, but this is truly sexist crap. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are out there one upping each other on who will be the most macho sadists among the crowd of warring GOP thugs. Hillary goes to her alma mater and says that her education at the women's college prepared her to do battle with the political boys club and the gasbags' eyes roll back in their heads and they start drooling and whining that she's 'broken the rules'.

All these squirming little fools who talk about how they have to "cross their legs" whenever they hear her voice, or hallucinate that she's "acting like a little girl" or any of a dozen other ridiculous, sexist responses to Clinton are revealing far more about themselves than they are about her. If anyone's playing the gender card it's them--and it's a picture of a quivering little boy crying in the corner because he doesn't want to share his toys with a girl. Tough. Eat some pork rinds and shut the fuck up.

Thanks Digby-- things are indeed changing and the angry white boys need to deal with it.

A Bush-League History Lesson

Mr. 25% in the polls attempted to give the Democrats a history lesson today. Why does he do this? He has proven time and time again that he knows little or nothing about history. Yes, he knows how to clean and carry brush at the ranch—but he doesn’t know dick about history.

I believe it was several months ago that he tried to analyze Graham Greene’s novel, The Quiet American. He might have seen the movie, but it was clear that he didn’t intellectually grasp the book or the film. You would think that after he made an ass of himself with that earlier historical/literary analogy, maybe he would stick to something he actually understands.

But no……today he decided to again leap into twentieth-century global history with some baffling comparisons between Iraq and past historical crisis.

Bush suggested that the current Iraq dissenters and naysayers reminded him of earlier appeasers, like those who allowed Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin to launch the communist revolution; those who didn't stop Hitler when he moved to establish an ``Aryan superstate'' in Germany; and the liberals individuals in the early days of the Cold War who advocated accommodation of the Soviet Union.

``Now we're at the start of a new century, and the same debate is once again unfolding, this time regarding my policy in the Middle East,'' Bush said. ``Once again, voices in Washington are arguing that the watchword of the policy should be stability.''

Bush said any denial of war is dangerous and added that "History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake." The president added that "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is, will we listen?"

Oh my God…..what the fuck is this man talking about? He has dredged up the Nazi-appeasers argument. I thought that one was in mothballs. Using Bush’s logic, Iraq becomes a stand in for every disastrous event that has taken place in the entire course of human history. There were always people like him giving warnings, but liberals others just didn’t listen.

It’s not just Lenin, Hitler, and the Communists that made their "intentions clear"—hell Democrats and liberals have always been on the wrong side haven’t we? Indian attacks, Napoleon, slave rebellions, British troops burning the White House, union anarchists, uppity suffragettes, Castro, dirty naked hippies at Woodstock…….Bush and his ilk always knew the real motivations of these troublemakers and their allies. It’s us soft and pansy-ass liberals who have allowed this crap to flourish.

Let me respond to this moron with a more serious critique. He is absolutely wrong about the Cold War—wrong in so many ways. I cringe to think where we would be if Bush and his minions had been in charge during those critical years. I guess many of us would be small cinders or pieces of chard still smoldering in the nuclear fucking dust.

Even with all the hubris and the mistakes that were made during the Cold War, cooler heads generally prevailed and we averted a major meltdown. Isn’t that what we were aiming for? No, maybe I have it wrong. Maybe we should have let the nukes fly and showed the world what men we were.

Yes, both nations spent too much money and manufactured lots of unnecessary misery around the world……but we did avoid a nuclear catastrophe, we did end up with some stability (not a bad word in my lexicon), and a generation of diplomats steered this nation fairly well considering the circumstances.

As you nod off tonight, think about the following Cold War scenarios:
--Bush instead of JFK as president during the Cuban Missile Crisis (goodbye Cuba!)
--Not Eisenhower, but Bush negotiating with the Soviets during the U2 incident (nukes a flyin’)
--Bush, Cheney, and Wolfowitz dealing with the Berlin blockade instead of Truman, Marshall, and Acheson (Germany split into at least 15 sections)

Things could have always been worse my friends—Bush and his kind might have been in charge. His comments on the Cold War are an embarrassment. He is an embarrassment.

A New Steve Earle Fan

While I don't plan to start writing music reviews, I do want to take this opportunity to mention the latest CD from Steve Earle, Washington Square Serenade.

Not only do I know little about music (aside from whether I like something or not), but there are several clear indications that my musical ignorance is actually profound. First, I don't even know what name to use when referring to an artists most recent release. Is it a CD, album, disk? I'm simply too old to know the terminology. Second, in the first paragraph of this post, I had no idea what kind of grammar to use when mentioning Earle's CD/disk/album. I guess the answer is buried somewhere in the Chicago Manual of Style, but I'm much too lazy to look it up.

Anyway, let me get on with this. I don't know much about Steve Earle. My Lovely Partner is a big fan--I think she has all of his albums (or whatever they are). I bought his latest several weeks ago when wondering around near the record-store. I listened.....and I do like some of the songs, especially "City of Immigrants" which is a tribute to the diversity of New York city where Earle now resides. It is refreshing to hear an artist sing about immigrants and what they have brought, and still bring, to this country.

But here is why I highly recommend the album. In the liner notes (yes they still exist, although hard to read), Earle includes a few paragraphs about the city which he loves. He even mentions Horace Greeley in those notes--a name probably familiar to few people. Then at the bottom of the liner notes comes this: P.S. Fuck Lou Dobbs

If I was indifferent to Steve Earle before, I don't have that same feeling now! Anybody who would write "Fuck Lou Dobbs" on his liner notes deserves respect as an artist and as a human-being. I now even plan to go back and listen to some of his earlier works. He has made a fan out of me.

Bill Clinton

Last week during the SCHIP debate in Congress, a few Republicans took the opportunity to link that "socialistic" children's health care legislation with Hillary and Bill Clinton. One conservative gave a floor speech connecting SCHIP with what he called the "Hillary-Care" health care plan of the early 1990s. He went on to mention other evils like Bill Clinton, the Clinton presidency, and the big-government programs of those years.

I can understand the need to take shots at Senator Clinton--she is running for president. And the Republicans still view her as a lightning-rod and a polarizing figure. Just mention Hillary's name, they believe, and conservatives all over the country start foaming at the mouth.

comment: You know.....this Hillary as a polarizing figure theory is nothing but a myth. There appears to be no evidence to back it up--it is simply crap which is advanced by the right-wingnuts and then mindlessly repeated by the lazy mainstream media. But this is a subject for another blog entry. I am going somewhere else with today's post.

Anyway, Hillary can take care of herself, and I am sure she will. But what makes me snicker with amusement is that these stupid-ass conservatives think they will gain votes by trashing Bill Clinton and his presidency. Do we want to go back to the Clinton years, they ask? I know my answer.

Bill Clinton is popular, charismatic, intelligent, inspiring, and the absolute best campaigner of this generation. I don't remember anyone since Robert Kennedy who gets crowds fired-up like he does. And please, don't tell me how great a campaigner Ronald Reagan was--that doddering old fool wasn't in the same league with RFK and Clinton. If Republicans want to make Bill Clinton a campaign issue--one might say "bring 'em on."

The former president will do nothing but help the New York senator in her quest for the oval office. George Stephanopoulos once said Clinton was the most amazing campaigner he ever met--he would campaign nonstop for 20 hours straight and still be fresh and ready to keep going. The Republicans will get sick of seeing this guy. He is the energizer bunny.....he is the little engine that could.....and next to Hillary, he is their worst nightmare.

And one of these days, maybe soon--historians will begin judging the Clinton presidency. And I am sure conservatives will be incensed when those evaluations turn out to be positive. Historians will suggest that Clinton did a pretty good job (especially compared to what followed). Hell, I'm a historian and I have been saying this for several years now--so I guess we can conclude that the favorable pronouncements have already begun.

In the latest New York magazine (22 October), Joel Heilemann writes about the contrasting college experiences of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. He focuses on Bill and Hillary's courtship at Yale where many of her friends "could never figure out what Hillary saw in him." So many of their classmates viewed Bill as shallow; a nice guy who would "just tell stories and try to entertain them." Even those people underestimated the man. They saw the folksy, story-telling Southern politician, but never grasped the intelligent person beneath that facade.

I know that many of my own friends on the far-left still have mixed feelings about Bill Clinton because he didn't do enough for liberals during his two terms. Yes, he did triangulate, and he also moved the party to the middle (a party that couldn't win otherwise). I respectfully disagree with them. Politics is about incremental change--and we do what we can with our mostly moderate officeholders. Tell me we are better off now. Tell me we wouldn't all welcome even a moderate Democrat who generally agrees with our views over the quasi-fascistic brownshirts that now occupy the White House and other high positions of our government.

I think that historians will also see that Bill Clinton understood the 21st century and what was in store for America. He knew that the United States couldn't go it alone. He also grasped the changes taking place in the global economy. It seems so long ago doesn't it. A president that understood the changing nature of the world.....a president that understood America's role in the community of nations....and a president that even read books. Then came the dark ages.

If the Republicans want to focus on the Clinton years--they should go right ahead. They can have the legacy of Mr. 25% in the polls, and we will take the Clinton presidency--or should I say the first Clinton presidency.

Eulogy for the Proprietor

While DEW is the chief blogger, the actual proprietor of Buddy’s Books and Bait has been a 14-pound, stubby-tailed, wonderful, loving character of the feline persuasion named Buddy. Buddy passed away on August 8, 2007.

Buddy came to live with DEW and me, DEW’s Lovely Partner, when he was about 4 years old. We lived in Northeast Minneapolis at the time, and there were a number of cats that roamed our neighborhood. We referred to them by their distinguishing characteristics—Flop-Eared Kitty, Brown Kitty, etc. It was apparent from their colors or general health that they had homes. It became clear over time, however, that Blue-Eyed Kitty had been abandoned, so we began putting food out for him. When he came to eat, we would say “There’s our pal” or “There’s our little buddy.” Eventually, as these things usually go, we decided to take him in.

We hatched our plot. I would hold the “cat-cart” at the ready, DEW would pick him up and plop him in the cart, and off to the vet we would go for shots and a check-up. Blue-Eyed Kitty, however, was not amenable to plopping. DEW picked him up, but he fought out of DEW’s grasp. Blue-Eyed Kitty was young, wiry, and very fast. DEW is now, and was then, many wonderful things. He was not, however, young, wiry, or fast. So the reader will understand that when Blue-Eyed Kitty went streaking across the street, through the neighbors’ yard and into the bushes and DEW, in a momentary delusion of grandeur, went chugging after him, the sight was, well, quite a sight.

This episode was the first indication of the great humor that “our little buddy” would bring to our lives when he did eventually submit to adoption and officially become Buddy. “Funny like a Bud” became a catch-phrase in our household. Whether going from the table to the stove to the top of the refrigerator to sleep in the roasting pan, riding all the way to Nebraska upside-down in his cat-cart with his paw over his eyes, or trying to open doors (he knew how they worked and would try to reach up and turn the knob with both paws), it seemed like he was always making us laugh.

If he wasn’t doing something amusing, Buddy could usually be found snuggling with one of us. Snuggling may actually have competed with eating as his favorite pastime. He loved to have DEW cradle him in his arms like a baby; if DEW tried to put him down before he was ready, Buddy would grab him around the neck and hold on. He slept with us every night. Depending on his mood and how warm or cold it was, he might be draped across the top of a pillow (which was know as “sleeping on our heads”) or spooning with his head tucked under my chin, or under the covers, curled up in the crook of DEW’s legs. We always knew when he was particularly relaxed and content—at those times, he drooled.

At the end of July, we noticed some mild indications that he was not quite up to par. Nothing to be overly concerned about we thought, but given that he was 17 we decided to have him checked out. We were devastated to learn that he had lymphoma and that it was very aggressive. Equally aggressive interventions were possible, but would only prolong his life for a few months. We agreed to try one moderate intervention. It didn’t work. We watched as, over the course of one short week, he lost substantial weight and became rapidly weaker, to the point of staggering when he walked. He was barely eating, and spending almost all of his time hidden away at the very back of a closet. We knew that the kindest thing we could do was end his suffering. On August 8^th we had him put to sleep.

I would like to close this eulogy with words that I spoke to him many times during his life with us. These were also the last words that I said to him as I held him on my lap at the vet’s office while he received his final injection. “Mr. Buddy. We love you very much. You are the best boy in the history of boys."

WWJD (What Would Johnson Do?)

Whenever I see the congressional Democrats once again pissing all over themselves and turning potential legislative victories into defeats, I think to myself, WWJD? That's right, what would Lyndon Baines Johnson have done when he ran the senate and the congressional Democrats from 1953 to 1961?

While I would like to forget most of his presidential years, I truly admire LBJ's legislative qualities. Outside of Henry Clay, Johnson has been the most masterful congressional strategist in American history.

So what would Johnson have done in this current Turkish-Armenian situation that the Democrats have once again fumbled? Not only can I guess how LBJ would have diffused the situation--but I sense he is laughing his Texas ass off every time he sees this current group of amateurs get thrashed by a president with a 24% approval rating. Senator Johnson would have been running all over this half-witted moron in the White House.

Here is what LBJ would have done. First, he would not have allowed a vote on genocide. Why risk defeat on something that offered few gains for the party? Instead, LBJ would have drawn up a resolution saying nothing about genocide, and nothing about Turkey. His vague proposal would have, however, contained glowing praise for the Armenians, their culture, their history, and all they have endured. It would have been a resolution that even the Republicans would have been forced to support--how could they vote against bill celebrating Armenia?

Granted, the Armenians would have been in LBJ's office complaining that his legislation didn't go far enough, that it didn't even mention what the Turks did to their ancestors. To pacify them, Johnson probably would have invited them all down to his Texas ranch. After treating them to a feast, he would have mentioned again what a great people they were and how in six months they would be receiving a $4-5 million check for a national project they desperately needed. That last perk would have come on a whisper--nothing guaranteed, but the Armenians could be sure that the money would show up in the not so distant future.

LBJ would then have sent one of his aids (Jack Valenti probably) to meet with the Turks. Valenti would have calmly informed the Turks that they owed Johnson for this one--he let them slide out of an uncomfortable international situation. They could expect to repay him soon on a defense bill, or a foreign aid appropriation.

Not only would the Democrats NOT have suffered a defeat--but they would have actually gained a victory. And LBJ would have been bragging to reporters the very next day about what great friends the Democrats had been to the Armenians. The Republicans, initially sensing a victory--had gained nothing. They had been co-opted by the Machiavellian Democrats. A sticky situation had been diffused and the party lost nothing.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi seem incapable of figuring out how to do this. They turn everything into a defeat. They do not appear to understand what is worth fighting for, and what is worth sacrificing. I suggest they stay up late some evening reading about LBJ or Henry Clay (or even Old Joe Cannon)--it might do them some good. Since I trust they read Books and Bait, I will even offer them the following suggestions:

Robert Remini, Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union
Merrill Peterson, The Great Triumvirate: Webster, Clay, and Calhoun
Robert Caro, The Path to Power: The Years of Lyndon Johnson
Robert Caro, Means of Ascent: The Years of Lyndon Johnson
Robert Caro, Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson

Back in Business

Greetings to Buddy's Books and Bait aficionados. Yes, I have been away for awhile--busy, lazy, uninspired, I have all sorts of excuses. But I realized after a few months of inactivity that I did truly enjoy voicing my political opinions. And even though my readership remains small, I think it is important to attempt to build progressive/liberal communities through blogs and other assorted media efforts.

As of now, I am still the solitary writer of this blog--which means that if any of my friends and supporters wish to contribute, I would be grateful (articles, book/movie/record reviews.....anything as long as it follows the obvious political leanings of the primary author).

Thanks for reading. Keep the comments coming and tell your friends about Books and Bait. Let's try to keep pissing off those conservatives.

A Vote Remembered

No better way to reenter the blogosphere than by writing about Paul Wellstone.

I was reminded in a recent Wellstone Action! newsletter that it is the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War vote. Wellstone was one of 23 senators who voted against that resolution (3 October 2002). But even more important--Wellstone was the only one of the 23 senators facing the voters in just a few weeks. As Jeff Blodgett writes in the newsletter, "The vote was considered by many political observers to be the death knell for his reelection."

Paul Wellstone was an inspiration on many levels. Not only did he vote against this bogus war, but he probably risked his political career. That whole "risked his political career" quip sounds dire--but maybe we would like to see some of our current progressive/liberal politicians inch just a little closer to that position. We aren't asking for outright political suicide, we just want to see some backbone.....a little courage.....show us that you fucking care!

Wellstone also voted against the 1991 Gulf War--the one started by Bush's daddy. And incidentally, he voted against the so-called Welfare Reform bill in 1996--another vote cast during a rough reelection campaign.

As you all know, Paul Wellstone died three weeks after his Iraq War vote. I think the consensus in Minnesota is that Wellstone would have been reelected in spite of his vote on the War. I trust that he would have been a strong voice for the antiwar left. And I get a sick feeling in my stomach each and every time I see Norm Coleman occupying the senate seat that Wellstone once held.

I miss Paul Wellstone. And I lament the fact that there so are few politicians today that are so resolute and fearless.

The other 22 senators who votes against the Iraq War resolution: Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Chaffee, Conrad, Corzine, Dayton, Durbin, Feingold, Graham, Inouye, Jeffords, Kennedy, Leahy, Levin, Mikulski, Murray, Reed, Sarbanes, Stabenow, Wyden.

Film Review: Joyeux Noel

This past semester, I had the good fortune to teach a U.S. “History on Film class. In planning the course, I had every intention of devoting several periods to antiwar films. While I am aware of some quality antiwar movies—I had to confront a curious problem. I have found that a number of these films—especially those about the Vietnam War—are interpreted by today’s students as very much pro-war in nature. Yes, the messages from Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, and Apocalypse Now are often missed and/or ignored by many of my students. Instead, they see exciting battles, shiny weapons, and heroic soldiers and come away thinking that war is glamorous—or at least valiant and courageous.

So in teaching this class for the first time, I decided to skip the antiwar section, not wishing to make these young conservatives any more enamored with blood and guts than they already are. I still feel somewhat guilty about that, but I will continue to advance my subversive, leftist agenda in other ways.

After the class ended, however, I did discover an excellent antiwar movie. The 2005 French film Joyeux Noel (Merry Christmas) is an engrossing look at a 1914 holiday cease fire. I enjoyed it so much that I would have seriously considered showing this foreign film in my American history course.

The film chronicles a short but spontaneous Christmas Eve truce declared by French, German, and Scottish troops during WW I. There is a battle scene at the start of Joyeux Noel, but after that, this film concerns what might happen if soldiers could act like individuals instead of being forced to follow the orders of hypocritical and out-of-touch politicians.

The outbreak of temporary peace in the trenches starts when Christmas trees are shipped to German troops. The troops then begin decorating and displaying the trees—singing commences, and the soldiers lay down their weapons and come out of the trenches to celebrate the holidays. What takes place then is magical—troops begin showing each other pictures of their wives and children, they share food and drink, converse, and even play soccer. These young men act like you would expect them to—they aren’t angry with the enemy, they simply wish to live. They leave the obnoxious nationalism and patriotic fervor to others. And director Christian Carion also minimizes nationalistic stereotypes—the film does not depict these individuals as German, French, or Scottish; they are simply men who are afraid and want to return home. This war (like all wars) is not about heroism. It’s terribly violent and people are killed for absolutely no reason.

There are several plot lines and situations that some critics have called unrealistic. Stephen Holden of the New York Times says the film feels “as squishy and vague as a handsome greeting card declaring peace on earth.” There are critics who have questioned the historical accuracy of this particular event. While I will not vouch for or comment on the historical details, there was a book published in 2001 on this topic. Stanley Weintraub’s, Silent Night informs readers of the history and background of the Christmas Truce. After viewing the film, many of you will probably wish to read this extremely informative book.

I do believe the director takes some liberties with the exact details of the event—even though we know that this moment of sanity did take place. But what actually disturbs me is that it is too often deemed “unrealistic” to discuss or show peace. Why is it so hard to believe that soldiers might actually choose to drop their weapons and greet their so-called enemies with open arms? In too many films (especially in the United States) it has become natural to glamorize war and violence, but once a director attempts to illustrate pacifist behaviors—then it becomes time to scoff and use criticisms like naive and idealistic. I never hear these “unrealistic” arguments used in war films—both critics and the bloodthirsty public too often simply accept that type of history without question.

I urge you to rent and watch Joyeux Noel. It is a quality film, as well as one of best antiwar movies ever made (it was nominated for Best Foreign Language film at the British and American Academy Awards as well as the Golden Globe Awards). The stellar cast includes Diane Kruger, Guillaume Canet, Daniel Bruhl, and Benno Furmann. You’ll get misty-eyed thinking about what is possible. And more importantly, this film will force you to reflect upon the futility of war itself and why we fight.

U.S. Violence Is Nothing New

Whenever the lazy and historically oblivious mainstream media reports that an event is the best, worst, smallest, tallest, or biggest in American history, I become skeptical. For the most part, it probably doesn’t make a difference—but that's the point. If it doesn’t make a difference, why do the media always use those excessive superlatives? Ratings I guess.

I wondered about this after the Virginia Tech shootings. Was it really the worse massacre in U.S. history? It was one of those questions that float around in my mind and give me something to ponder when I am riding the city bus.

But even before I read anything to the contrary, I was concerned that this was just one of the media’s fabricated statistics. See the problem is this, even when the media prints something that might technically be accurate—they offer the reading public no historical context. They fail to mention or discuss other massacres in American history—and more importantly, they never take the time to even define what their terms mean.

Let me explain what I mean by historical context and definition—because it makes a great difference here. At VTU, one student shot and killed over 30 individuals. If you believe the mainstream media, a massacre of this proportion has never taken place before. But wait…..let’s think about that for just a minute. My thoughts immediately turned to several critical historical issues: race and Indian removal. Even without doing any research, I had a gut-feeling that there has been larger numbers of African Americans or Indians killed at some time in America's past. Wouldn't you agree?

But without any historical context, and without an explanation of what a massacre even means—the media is able to make up its own definition. In this case, what we really have is the worst massacre in U.S. history by a single gun-toting individual against other middle-class, mostly white individuals.

Lo and behold, I soon found out I wasn’t the only person concerned about these ambiguous distinctions. CommonDreams posted an article by Carla Blank entitled, “Worst U.S. Massacre?” Unlike yours truly, Ms Blank actually did some research and wrote a wonderful piece about this very subject.

I urge you to read her short expose and seriously think about America’s extremely violent past. In addition, it seemed hypocritical to me that the media harped about this recent violence while we continued to kill Iraqi citizens each and very day—but I guess that doesn’t really count now does it?

Let me just quote two of Blank’s examples, and then add one of my own.

-In 1913, during another nationally publicized action known as the Ludlow Massacre, more than 66 people were killed, including 11 children, and two women who were burned alive. Sparked by a strike against the Rockefeller family-owned Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation by the mostly foreign born Serb, Greek and Italian coal miners after one of their union organizers was murdered, it eventually involved the Colorado National Guard, imported strikebreakers and sympathetic walkouts by union miners throughout the state. The union never was recognized by the company, and a U.S. congressional committee investigation failed to result in indictments of any militiaman or mine guard.

-In 1860, Bret Harte, a well-known California writer, had just begun his writing career, working as a newspaper reporter in Arcata (known then as Union). Harte was expelled from Humboldt County because he recorded the Gunther Island Massacre of Wiyot Indians, committed on Feb. 26, 1860, when a small group of white men murdered between 60 and 200 Wiyot men, women and children. The massacre was encouraged by a local newspaper. Extermination was once the official policy of the California government toward Native Americans, as Gov. Peter H. Burnett stated in 1851: “That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct, must be expected…”

One more example—and I know there are many others. Here in my own home state of Minnesota, 38 Dakota Indians were killed in a mass hanging/execution in 1862. Many still see that as a massacre as these 38 were singled out (with little specific evidence) and blamed for violence that erupted in central Minnesota earlier that summer.

There are those who will say I am quibbling—that it doesn’t matter, Virginia Tech was a tragedy. It was. But why is the U.S. media so god-damned stupid when it comes America’s violent past? Could it be because most of that violence has been carried out against Africa Americans, Indians, immigrant laborers and other groups that have often been written out of the history books?

All American citizens should know about these other massacres and atrocities—starting with Columbus’ genocide, extending through slavery and Jim Crowism. We need students to know about this bloodshed and carnage—it’s an uncomfortable but critical part of this "great nation's" legacy.

On Student Debt

I attended a small soiree last week at my University (I suppose the proper word is a picnic—but that sounds so Midwestern). At one point, there were 5-6 of us (faculty and students) talking, and the delicate subject of student debt was introduced. A very charming women, wife of a faculty member, mentioned several local organizations that teach and advise college kids how to live within their means. One student added that he visits several websites daily that offer advice on spending habits. The conversation soon turned to how students get into debt as well as the use and abuse of credit cards.

After listening to this interesting conversation, I immediately inhaled 4-5 hot dogs and pondered the discussion (no actual connection between the conversation and my gluttony though).

Anyway, here is my problem with the entire student debt issue. While it isn’t a bad idea to help young people with money management, maybe we need to inch a little closer to the real problem—the source. Maybe we should teach about capitalism first—about the absolute desire and need of the capitalist classes to exploit these kids, and why the American system works that way. Maybe if my naive students knew more about the system they are about to become part of, they would have a better understanding of why college costs are so high, why salaries are so low, why the job market looks so bleak, and why they are getting unsolicited credit cards in the mail every day!

But what we tend to do in this country is blame the "undisciplined spender" even though the entire structure is organized to get money from these students and saddle them with lifelong debts. Let's not fool ourselves, it's planned that way! Many of my students are spending $20-25,000 a year for their college degree. And that price rises each and every year. What kind of job should they expect? You all know the answer to that—the pay will not be very good. In fact, most of my students are going to be burdened with heavy debts for years and years.

And while they are building up these debts, they still get credit cards in the mail—what a great country this is! These kids are also bombarded with capitalist cues to buy…buy…and buy even more. They all have cars and all the electrical gadgets one can imagine. But I guess that is the point of capitalism, they keep making products we don’t need, and we keep buying those products—while slipping further and further into debt.

Yet our Puritanical society too often views debt as a personal flaw. And then when I say negative things about capitalism (which happens often), my students generally take offense. They have been taught by their conservative parents that the system is just fine—individuals screw up. But of course they can get help—they can learn how to control their spending at some seminar. We continually hide our heads in the sand and support this corrupt economic system that only benefits the rich.

Maybe we should start telling our young people about capitalism and how flawed it really is. Let’s go to source of the debt problem instead of expecting them to feel shame. American capitalism is putting these kids in a real bind—and they still refuse to acknowledge the culprit. They still blindly accept the system and spout ridiculous crap about our freedoms and what a great country we live in.

Teaching them about the evils of capitalism will do two important things—it will help them understand exploitation and how they are a necessary part of it. And second, maybe they will be able to understand the primary systemic problem—that capitalism needs to keep forcing people into debt, and it needs a blind obedience from a generation of young spenders to stay alive.

Maybe we can kill it someday—but we must get these young spenders to understand how they are aiding and abetting the monster.

Climate Change

Mission Accomplished Day!

Hey folks, it's "Mission Accomplished Day" in America. Yes, George W. Bush has given us a new holiday to celebrate, a day of commemoration.

As you probably all know, it was on 1 May 2003 that our fearless leader went on that aircraft carrier and declared victory in Iraq--or mission accomplished.

Since that wonderful declaration of victory, thousands of American and Iraqis have been killed, and the war itself has become a unmitigated disaster for the United States. Our "great" nation is hated abroad, the public has finally turned against the war, the Republican political majority has vanished, and Bush has proven himself to be a fucking idiot--something we all knew from the beginning.

But the Mission Accomplished faux pax needs to be "celebrated" each and every year. When that cocky bastard stood on that aircraft carrier he thought he had actually pulled it off. All the lies and falsehoods in order to take us into that illegal war--Bush thought a quick victory would stifle any dissent. The troops would be home before anyone had a chance to look into the lies.

Well, he was clearly mistaken and we need to make him pay this year......and every year thereafter. Mission Accomplished Day has two purposes. First, to remind us what an incompetent leader and prick that Bush really is. The picture with the thumb in the air says it all doesn't it?

But there can be a more practical and fun celebration for this day. It's the one day of the year when, thanks to our president, we can tell grandiose, bald-face lies and smile about the whole situation. That's right, on May 1, we now have the right.....no, the duty to simply make things up. We need to all find a bad situation in our life and declare that everything is okay!

How might this work--let's look at some examples.

-You have been working on that new deck for over a year, but it remains unfinished. There is lumber strewn all over the yard and the kids cannot even use the back door because the "new deck" project has been a disaster. You should never have promised your wife that you would build it; you are in over your head. But wait.....it's May 1st. That means the deck is actually finished. On Mission Accomplished Day you take the family out on the deck and declare the project completed! That's all it takes.....mission fucking accomplished.

-You are a professor and that stack of ungraded papers is now at least 5' high. There is no way you can finish--students are clamoring for their grades, they want their papers returned. What are you going to do? Its May 1st--those papers are done, they are all graded. Go to class and tell them mission accomplished you little shits!

-You've been working on a written project for the boss now for months, and your have made no progress. You know this report will never be finished but you don't know how to tell the boss. No need to--it's Mission Accomplished Day.....the god-damned report is done.

You get the point, what a great holiday! Now the negative side of all this is that the joy will not last long; sooner or later your family, your students, and your boss are all going to find out what a fuck-up you really are. But on this one day, on Mission Accomplished Day--you can hold your head up high and be proud of what you have done (although it's all a fucking lie).

Even when they find out and you are proven to be a worthless piece of crap, you can look back with pride on that one day when everyone chose to believe you were actually competent. They all know different now, but you will always have Mission Accomplished Day. The liberal media and the dirty hippies can never take that one away from you.

Nice Hair

The long-haired, disheveled gentleman to the left is Nick Swisher, first-baseman/outfielder for the Oakland Athletics. Swisher is a very good baseball player who is too-often criticized by obnoxious fans because of his hair. Here are a few random comments from an AOL sports website (the quotes and grammer are exact):

"This guy like all the other so called hero's should all cut their hair so as to like a male."

"While watching the recent series oakland played against the Yankees, I couldn't help but notice the difference in how each team looked. Oakland looked like a bunch of bums."

"Still a dirty hippie."

I have always wondered why anyone gives a shit how a baseball player looks anyway. What business is it of the fans if a guy has long hair?

Anyway, here is the kicker to this story. It seems as though Swisher (whose hair currently looks even wilder than in the picture) is growing his hair out in order to donate it to help make wigs for women suffering from hair loss caused by cancer treatment.

That's right.....Swisher's cause, and tribute to his grandmother (who raised him and died of cancer in 2005) is to work with the Entertainment Industry Foundation and the Women's Cancer Research Fund. He is encouraging others to donate real hair to be made into wigs.


P.S. Just so you all know I do have a sense of humor, and am not serious about everything, I will add several pictures of other great baseball "hair-moments" of the past. If Books and Bait readers have other hair pictures to contribute, please send.

Oscar Gamble, circa 1976 (below)

(right) Mike Piazza goes bleached blond, summer of 2001.....Mets remain in last place.