The best rant of 2010

I meant to include this link in my earlier post. Keith Olberman unloads on the President for his angry remarks about Progressive Democrats.

Mr. Obama attacks his base

What a terrible time for Progressive Democrats, as we watch America's twin Republican Parties seek to protect the interests of the top 2% of Americans. I refer, of course, to the GOP itself, and the Obama wing of the Democratic party. A president who can tolerate all sorts of right wing abuse heaped upon him, his campaign ideals, and even his family, reacts in rage to the criticism sent his way by the very people who elected him. He makes a terrible deal with the GOP, agreeing to save the rich their tax breaks in return for a modest extension of jobless benefits, merely postponing the issue to the depths of his re-election campaign.

This is not the first time I and other Progressives have felt the sting of his words. He must think that he can win re-election in 2012 with a coalition of Moderate Democrats, and Independents. Given that his White House seems to be the epitome of political naivete I wouldn't be surprised if he believes that Moderate Republicans will vote for him too, as he tracks ever right-ward. But I have news for you, Mr. President: there are NO moderate Republicans left in this nation. Even if they existed, they would want you to fail. Doesn't he listen to what the Senate Minority leader had to say in the aftermath of the voter rebuke that was the Mid-Term Election? Mitch McConnell had this to say to his pals at the Heritage Foundation, the right wing think tank that gave us the Bush Administration: "Over the past week, some have said it was indelicate of me to suggest that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office...But the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut spending; and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things. We can hope the President will start listening to the electorate after Tuesday's election. But we can't plan on it."


Come on, Barry: how about saving some of your invective and scorn for your real enemies? If you don't, you risk a reprise of the inglorious end of the Carter Administration. If someone like Senator Sanders of Vermont decided to challenge you in the primaries you will see disaffected Progressives abandon you in droves. Given the largely-unrealized promise of your campaign rhetoric, that would be a great tragedy for the nation.

I want to hear more Progressives speak out in support of Senator Sanders of Vermont.

picture source: The AtlanticWire; McConnell quote: CNN.com
video source: CSPAN

And I am guilty, too

I was referred to this funny blog via a FB friend. This is too true: guess I better get cracking.

The depressing politics of climate change

If the great Bill McKibben loses hope, is there any chance of the world's leaders coming to grips with the threats facing the planet? The idiocracy that is the climate change deniers has now strengthened its grip on American politics. Next year, the raving lunatics of the right wing will take control of the House. Meanwhile, the Wealth Club, otherwise known as the Senate, will be even more in the thrall of Big Coal and Big Oil.

What can one person do? I invested in highly efficient replacement windows in my house, replaced an aging oil heating system with an efficient gas furnace, replaced every light bulb with compact fluorescents, set the thermostat as low as possible in the winter and as high as possible in the summer. We both drive small cars, and I'll be replacing one next year with a hybrid, perhaps even one made my Ford. I walk to errands rather drive. And all these individual efforts make negligible planetary difference. What can one person do, if even Bill McKibben is losing hope.

a perfect opportunity to take pleasure in the misery of others

The news of the near-bankruptcy of the group that opposed the Cape Wind project brings me joy. How rare it is that one of the plutocrat Koch brothers is on the losing side of a political battle. In this case, joining the late Sen. Kennedy, Bill Koch opposed a much needed technology because it might interfere with his yachting pleasures. Of course, the fact that he makes his billions in the oil business has nothing to do with his opposition to clean energy.

It is comical to listen to the opposition to this project. One of my students told me that he is against it because the electricity to be produced will be more expensive that what coal or nuclear plants can produce. Of course, he (like many of his ilk) are ignorant of the concept of externalities: that is, if polluters had to factor environmental or social costs into the equation, their artificially cheaper electricity would not survive the comparison. But I guess Koch et. al. see that 130 windmills in their ocean pose a threat to their navigation skill, thus imposing a social cost on the rest of us? Hmmm, perhaps he could invest in a nice Garmin GPS unit so that he can chart a course around Nantucket Shoals. As for the rest of us, I hope this project represents a chance to chart a course away from the dangerous 19th Century technologies that have enriched people like Koch while endangering the whole planet.

Pity the rich: they really are different from the rest of us.

Bob Dylan in Lowell, Massachusetts

You have to give the man credit. Nearing 70 years of age, he is still working, writing and performing. As an event, I give it a grade of A+. Dressed like a cross between one of Custer's 7th Cavalry footsoldiers and an Argentinean cowboy, he sure looked the part of consummate stage performer. His band is really strong, and as the set commenced the sound mix toned down the guitars a bit, as the acoustics weren't great the Tsongas Arena. He even spoke to the audience before the encore, as he introduced the band.

Dylan croaks rather than sings, so the concert was more of a celebrity extravaganza than a tour down memory lane. (I don't mind "croakers", as I really like Tom Waits, and I grew up on Louis Armstrong). He took many old favorites and gave them new arrangements, some so outlandish that the band sounded like Canned Heat at Woodstock. Especially odd was the treatment of "Highway 61". I didn't recognize what I was hearing until he bleated "61".

I can understand why the great performer might want some relief from 40+ years of singing what his fans want, but some of the arrangements were extraordinarily self-indulgent. "Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again", one his greatest songs ever, was unrecognizable.

However, on two occasions he strode to the microphone with just a harmonica, and the band backed it down a bit so that we could actually understand him. As for his rock-out numbers, I really liked "Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum". His arrangement of the great "Tangled Up In Blue" was a major disappointment. And to conclude, he gave us the short, Top 40 radio version of "Like A Rolling Stone". All in all, a solid B grade, Bob.

The set list:

1.	Gonna Change My Way Of Thinking
2.	It Ain't Me, Babe
3.	Stuck Inside Of Mobile With The Memphis Blues Again
4.	Love Sick
5.	Rollin' And Tumblin'
6.	Simple Twist Of Fate
7.	Honest With Me
8.	Visions Of Johanna
9.	Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum
10.	Tangled Up In Blue
11.	Highway 61 Revisited
12.	Not Dark Yet
13.	Thunder On The Mountain
14.	Ballad Of A Thin Man
	(encore)
15.	Jolene
16.	Like A Rolling Stone

What I'd rather be thinking about

Eighteen years in the making, tomorrow I am going to complete the goal of climbing all 48 4000 foot mountains in the Granite State. As goals go, it is not all that meaningful an objective, except that the older I grow the harder these mountains are to hike. My 47th climb, last month, was especially brutal, taking me nearly 12 hours to bag Mt. Isolation. Fittingly, I did the hike alone. A half a day hiking alone in the woods gives one plenty of time to think.

Now this kind of hiking is not like an Everest Expedition, but it still requires a fair amount of planning. Weather plays a huge part, of course, as it dictates what clothing and other gear is necessary. Can I find potable water, or must I carry enough for my needs? Is my map up-to-date? Is there a current trail report available to assist in my preparations? Am I fit enough to enjoy the hike, or should I postpone until I can get a few more sessions in the gym? How much food to bring, what safety equipment to bring in the event that I am benighted? Batteries? First Aid kit? Having done 47 of these hikes, I learned that rational planning enhances the chances for success. Because I plan, I've never had any serious difficulties, save for a couple of exposed above tree-line hikes in terrible thunderstorms. I am honest about my abilities, and have even turned back just short of a summit when the weather suddenly turned dangerous. Of course this required trying for those peaks again.

Instead of continuing my preparations for my Mount Cabot hike, I logged into the New York Times this morning. My favorite prize-winning economist opines about the latest GOP folly, its new published agenda to be enacted if it should return to power. It is the very antithesis of careful planning, a fantasy document more attuned with magical thinking than rational policy making. Replete with Reagan era wishful thinking about the evil of Big Government it seeks to return America to the age of Herbert Hoover. Newt Gingrich pulled this trick in 1994, and his successors hope to fool the voting public again. I would never trust these cats to plan one of my hikes, let alone plan for my country.

Empty premium seating and tax cuts for the rich

News that neither the Giants nor the Jets sold all the available seats for their respective opening games of the season reminds us that even the affluent are feeling the effects of the recession. Shall we thus extend the Bush tax cuts, as the GOP (otherwise known as "the party of the rich") would prefer? After all, public dollars were used to build this massive sports palace (just as in the case of the new Yankees' stadium). So why shouldn't we use the same logic to help the teams full the stadium?

How to kill Big Government - libertarian - style

Since the rise of Ronald Reagan, the GOP has been the party of fantasy. It has pushed for smaller government, arguing that this will free Americans from tyranny. Extolling the virtues of the Founding Fathers, Reagan and his successors (including the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney) have sold Americans on the myth that you can have everything: tax cuts and public services, guns and butter. Libertarians now own the GOP, and while they cannot win elections under their own banner (see Ed Clark - David H. Koch of Koch Industries ticket, 1980; Ron Paul for President, 2008) they have managed a complete take-over of the Grand Old Party.

Reagan and his acolytes pushed a program that has come to be known as "starving the beast". In the words of the anti-tax conservative zealot Grover Norquist, the goal is to make government small enough that it can be "drowned in a bath tub". Norquist, forever tainted by his association with the felon Jack Abramoff, continues to hold his weekly meetings for conservative players in D.C., where they hatch their plans to "take back America". (more on Norquist in a future post). Somehow they have convinced many Americans to ignore the folly of 96 months of Bush-Cheney policies. All that is wrong with America is the result of 18 months of Obama-Biden.

So what about those 96 months of "starving the beast". The surplus is long gone, the rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and the military became the most successful jobs program in the nation. I like Frank Rich's take on this, as published in the New York Times today.

Conservatives on the attack

Republicans have been trying to kill Social Security since its birth. The program's success undermines their ideological belief that government by definition can do nothing right. Today Paul Krugman examines the math behind their claim that the program faces financial deficit unless something is done to trim benefits. Let us hope that Congress reads The New York Times.

Raising the retirement age or cutting the benefit pay-out are the reforms favored by the Right. Of course, another way to react to a supposed looming deficit would be to lift the cap on earnings from its current level of $106, 800. Or, we could reduce our bloated defense budget and re-direct the savings to Social Security.

Unfortunate timing

Just as Congress leaves for its summer recess, two government reports have been issued concerning global warming. In the year of the great Gulf of Mexico Oil Well Catastrophe, in a decade that continues to be much warmer than normal, in a time when the planet's atmosphere is perhaps at the tipping point toward a larger catastrophe, Congress was unable to pass a modest carbon tax. Conservatives - Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats - simply cannot summon the will to address this issue. As any student of the American legislative process knows, the Congress will always take the path of least resistance. With campaign donations from the carbon industry in play, legislators seem unwilling to address our larger needs in this mid-term election year. Until the public opinion is marshaled to do battle with the deniers and their corporate sponsors, the planet will continue to bake.

How did the climate change deniers come to dominate the discourse? No doubt economic insecurity is a factor: with unemployment numbers still rising, public sentiment can easily be marshaled to oppose anything that might cost coal miners and oil rig drillers some jobs. But the famed "paranoid style of American politics" phenomenon may also be at work. As Richard Hofstadter famously articulated in his seminal work, Americans have a long history of courting the irrational in our politics. It is so much easier to give in to the paranoia than to reason together. No wonder Congress was so hot to get out of town.

Let the market place decide

Today Paul Krugman identifies who is to blame for the failed cap and trade legislation. In his New York Times op-ed piece he skewers the usual suspects, delightfully eviscerating the maverick, John McCain. But his comments about the culpability of the energy industry are especially interesting. He points out that EM actively supports climate change deniers. This is evidently a well-known fact about the company - witness this article from the U.K. Guardian last year. But it was news to me.

The only way to change such corporate misbehavior is to affect the company's bottom line. I will no longer purchase its products: I estimate that I buy about $1800 worth of its gasoline a year. Driving less and walking and biking more more have failed to impress EM. Contributing money to environmental groups hasn't moved the company either. Today I will cut this credit card in half and mail it to the company to protest its hypocrisy.

Imagine what a market-place solution to climate change might look like. I imagine that Nike and Adidas are already working on wearable air-conditioned suits for comfort in the coming dystopia (picture a lighter weight version of the outfit Neil Armstrong wore as he stepped onto the moon). But what if we could change corporate behavior before things get much worse?

I wish I could cut the deniers in half, too. Don't they have children (and grandchildren?)

Faux News

Today I reported as spam an opinion expressed about an editorial in The Boston Globe. I did so because the writer suggested a link to the Wall Street Journal to back up the claim that there is no such thing as global warming. You might think my reaction extreme, but it is has been some time now since the WSJ could be considered a reputable news source. Purchased by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation a couple of years ago, it can no longer be seen as a serious source for reputable journalism. You see, it is tainted by association with another holding of the company, Fox News.

Journalists are not supposed to have an agenda. Journalists who twist the facts to fit that agenda should be fired. As that is par-for the course at Fox, however, no one is ever removed for violating the journalistic canon. Witness the contretemps over the Shirley Sherrod story. Fox News is an infotainment outlet. It's employees are masters of the procrustean argument. The company, owned by an extremely wealthy Australian conservative has an ax to grind, an agenda to push. It is a willing servant of the Republican party, of the tea-baggers and the right wing of the American political spectrum. It is to journalism what BP is to environmentalism.

Climate Change and Dystopia

(picture credit www.beanos.com)

If you read The Road (or cheated and only saw the film) you know what dystopia looks like. In fact, our current cinema and published fiction assaults us with such images (consider The Book of Eli or Children of Men as cases in point). Although much of the American public wishes to deny this possible future, serious thinkers Bill McKibben have been contemplating the worst case scenarios for over 20 years.

Were it not for Hollywood we might find it near impossible to imagine what life on a hot, dry Earth might look like. I think I'll sponsor a Dystopian film Festival at my workplace to spread the bad news. This looks like as good a list as any from which to make my selections.

oh..Netherlands!

( photo is from a Reuters report)
An all-European World Cup Final, played in South Africa, was one for the ages. Spain played a lovely game, and the Dutch looked more like a team at the bottom of the EPL table, fighting relegation. Setting a record for yellow cards, and finally losing a player to a red card, the Dutch determined that their only chance at victory was to play an ugly, physical game. Too bad, as they have some brilliant players, most especially Arjen Robben.

I rooted for the Dutch. Nearly two decades ago I read a book about Dutch soccer tactics and strategy, and taught the approach to my youth soccer teams. I had this weird nostalgia for those long-ago days, I guess.

In the "silver-lining" department, the U.S. National team beat the Spanish side in last year's Confederation Cup. So I guess this means that we have arrived as a soccer nation?

Ok, I admit it, I am partisan!

Financial Reform legislation is on the brink of passage. As one might expect, the bill is less than perfect, as some of the worst practices permitted during the Bush "market-based" years have survived the push for new regulatory powers for the people of this nation. I haven't read the bill, but only press reports, and I can't pretend that I would have understood much of it anyway. However, I do think I understand the partisan politics associated with the negotiations.

The Boston Globe reported today that our junior Senator, Scott Brown, is withholding support, "citing $19 billion in new bank taxes inserted at the last minute". As far as I knew, the bill always included some kind of attention to revenue, but I suppose it was a surprise to him. With this in mind, I fired off the following missive to him this morning:

I am displeased with your opposition to taxing big banks and hedge funds. Do you recall that taxpayers bailed out the former? Is it possible that your ties to Mitt Romney, and by extension to Bain Capital, might have something to do with your desire to protect hedge funds? Were I to run against you in 2012 I would certainly make that charge.
I know that you and your party are deficit hawks. But how can we reduce the deficit to pay for your party's 2 wars and 8 years of lax regulation unless revenue is raised? With this opposition you once again confirm what I have believed about you all along: you are a doctrinaire, conventional Republican. I am not disappointed, however, as this is what I expected from you.

Let's see: a tax on hedge funds - does the average middle-class voter care about a tax imposed on an industry that serves the interests of the richest of the rich, the group who most benefitted from the Bush tax cuts? I doubt it, but nice try, Sen. Brown.

Welcome Walmart shoppers

As we are addicted to oil, so too do we have a monkey on our back in our lust for Chinese manufactured goods. And despite lead in the toys and toxic chemicals in their foodstuffs, nothing slows the rising tide of Sino-goods. But 99cent mops and other such cheap folderol comes at a very high price, as China does not play fair. Through currency manipulation it manages to effectively maintain high tariffs on imports while at the same time subsidizing its own exports. My favorite economist explains how this policy works in the New York Times today.

I've worried about this issue for a long time. Just as manufacturing jobs disappeared from New England to move to the South, they have now left the South to low-wage nations around the world. It is impossible to end recessions without an abundance of such jobs, and they of course require markets, both domestic and foreign. China, the world's biggest market, is an old-fashioned mercantilist society. And we don't care?

So I proudly display my 1990, Hand Made in Somerville, Massachusetts, Fat City Cycle Monster Fat mountainbike. However, you can't buy one. The company went out of business in the 90's -seems bike customers preferred to save a few bucks by buying imported bikes from.....you guessed it.... China.

My deficit reduction plan

Comparative defense spending (courtesy of a Wolfram/Alpha search)


The news that General McChrystal has been called home to Washington for his recent intemperate remarks is certain to generate some chauvinistic fervor among America's right-wing. Republicans and Blue-dog Democratic politicians will shower us with platitudes about respecting the flag, supporting the troops, and listening to the Generals. In this highly-militerized society of ours, patriotism is often associated with complete support for whatever the military and defense contracors desire. But just as President Truman needed to remind Douglas MacArthur that the Constitution makes an elected official the Commander-in-Chief so too must President Obama take McChrystal to task.

In this atmosphere it is useful to revisit President Eisenhower's prescient remarks about military spending. He extolled us to be wary of the power of the military-industrial complex, and he was not wrong. At a time when we are running huge deficits, American taxpayers are supporting the largest defense structure in the world. No other nation comes close, as the map above demonstrates. And this offers our best hope for deficit reduction.

A recent bi-partisan study demonstrates with great clarity that this can be accomplished. We have a military desgned to defeat the Soviet Union. We have weapon systems that are little more than pork-barrel earmarks, un-needed and un-loved by the Defense Department but favored by Congress. We have too many generals, admirals and other officers. We do not defend our borders bu we protect Europe from..... (exactly what threat?). We chose a military response to 9/11 rahter than treating it as police matter. And in an act fdefying logic, we truned that into an invasion of Iraq. Enough is enough: if we are serious about taming the budget deficits we must tame the Defense Department. Perhaps McChrystal trip to the wood shed can be the beginning.

Will we ever do the right thing?

Forty years ago, when I was a senior in high school, the two great issues we faced were Vietnam and the environmental crisis. The first Earth Day neatly juxtaposed environmental activism with anti-war sentiment. Five years later, the war was over, and the great pro-envirnoment legislative agenda of the day had been enacted. Clean Water, Clean Air, Endangered Species... the future looked bright. But in retrospect, our optimism should have been tempered by our failure to learn anything from the great energy crisis of 1973-74.

President Carter tried, of course, but he was ridiculed for his efforts by the Republicans and their standard-bearer of the 80's, Ronal Reagan. And the GOP convinced a majority of voters, again and again, that there was no need to sacrifice for a better future. Just keep on drilling, became their mantra, to be replaced with the execrable "drill, baby, drill" chant of McCain-Palin.

The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico will be repeated, as the age of Easy Oil has clearly come to an end. To satisfy the world's demand for the precious stuff, more dangerous and difficult sites must be developed, as the easy ones are now depleted. Conserve? Drive smaller vehicles? Walk or ride a bicycle? Be serious - this country is not prepared to give an inch on this 19th century energy economy.

As proof, here are the new car sales for May 2010, as compared to last May. Luxury SUV's lead the way, as the recession is showing signs of abating. Until we see hybrids leading the pack, I think it is clear that we have yet to understand the depths of our troubles.

We need to increase the price of gasoline at the pump. The best way to do this is with a significant tax increase: at least a $1 a gallon. In other words, we need to move closer to the world price for gasoline. The revenue should be dedicated to energy research. It should not be diverted to deficit-reduction. That is a worthy objective, perhaps, but that can best be accomplished by bringing the troops home from the Bush-era wars.

The Great Dog Fight

It is now well over a month after the BP-Halliburton disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and oil is still spewing into the water. We have learned that these companies are very good at finding oil, drilling for it, and making obscene amounts of money for their investors (full disclosure: I buy shares in index mutual funds every month,so I am sure that somewhere in my portfolio there are energy company shares). This disaster reminds us of a story about the waning days of the Bush Administration, when it was learned that the MMS was literally in bed with the oil industry, trading sexual favors for lax regulations. Unregulated capitalism might mean more profits for the shareholders, but is that socially responsible? Of course not.

And speaking of the Bush Administration, who can forget Dick Cheney's secret meeting with oil executives at the beginning of the Bush years? We now reap whatever they sowed.

What a month it has been. New phrases have entered the public lexicon: "top kill" being my new favorite. The right wing has tried to equate the great leak in the Gulf as "Obama's Katrina". Meanwhile, a libertarian-Tea Party senatorial candidate from the old Confederacy has scolded the President for being too tough on BP. The President has been curiously detached, although lately there have been some high-profile firings of "regulators". Each day, it seems, we are treated to new revelations about the un-holy alliance between Big Oil and Big Government.

But the American people bear some responsibility here as well. We like to drive our cars and heat and air-condition our homes. We have made NO HARD CHOICES regarding energy and climate change, and we allow the right-wing to dominate the conversation, convincing a nation that it is UN-AMERICAN to do anything other than continue our unsustainable ways.

So, as a progressive capitalist, I have a dog in this fight:I want my investments to be profitable. As an environmentalist I have another dog in there as well: I want a clean planet. As a teacher of American Government and Politics I guess I have a third dog in: I want a fair debate about policy.

On the misuses of History

As a teacher of history and politics, I take umbrage at politicians who misuse the past for personal political gain. This year it is the Governor of Virginia, last year the Governor of Texas, who draw my ire. Each has irresponsibly hijacked the past to serve up a helping of BS for their rabid wingnut supporters.

I was beginning to feel like I was the only one who felt this way until I read this Opinion piece in the New York Times. I wish I could require everyone in the Commonwealth of Virginia to read it. (Given the recent decision of Texas educators to downplay the contributions of Virginia's own Thomas Jefferson, I fear that soon there will be few Texans who will know how to read).

The Losers Celebrate

Last year Texas suggested that secession might be a useful plan for the Lone Star State, the year before we learned that Sarah Palin's husband belongs to an Alaskan political party that advocates the same for his state. And now we have the Governor of Virginia announcing that April is "Confederate History Month". Yes, the state that gave us George Washington, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson (but also Robert E. Lee) wants to remember the "War of Northern Aggression" as it is sometimes called below the Mason-Dixon Line. It is true: the South does still hear the guns.

This issue was settled in 1865, although a Southerner was so upset about it that he assassinated thePresident. Hey Virginia, do you want to celebrate that event, too? After all, Lincoln died in April.

Here is a terrific op-ed piece from the The New York Times today.

and now for something completely different.....

The influential books of my youth
From middle school to the first years of my professional life, these immediately came to mind.


One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch (Signet Classics) (Paperback)
~ Alexander Solzhenitsyn
I read this book in the 6th grade, probably because my Dad had just finished it and had left in on a table in the living room. It changed my reading habits forever, leading me to abandon my beloved Tom Swift Jr. series for more substantial fare.


All Quiet on the Western Front
~ Erich Maria Remarque

I read this during the summer prior to my senior year in high school while i was recovering in bed from a strange illness. With lots of time on my hands, I read several books, I know, but this is the one that stands out in my memory. With the possibility of being drafted in the coming months if I didn't go to college, I remember becoming more interested in matters of war and peace that summer.

The Sun Also Rises, Ernest Hemingway
Looking back, I wonder if my hostility to the war in Vietnam might have been shaped by this work, which I read during my sophomore year in high school.



The Catcher in the Rye
~ J.D. Salinger
I think my appreciation for wry, ironic humor was stimulated by this classic. It led me to books like A Separate Peace, but to The National Lampoon, too. The final book on this list is a selection probably stimulated by Salinger as well.



The Year Of Decision, 1846
~ Bernard DeVoto
I read this in a college course in the History of American Westward Expansion. I loved how he wove separate strands of events together to create this narrative history: the ill-fated Donner party, the Mexican War, the acquisition of Oregon. Great stuff!



Red Star over China: The Classic Account of the Birth of Chinese Communism
~ Edgar Snow
This was an assigned reading for a course in modern Chinese History, I think in my freshman year of college. It confirmed in my mind that I wanted to major in history.

The Boys of Summer, Roger Kahn
A friend from my dorm was assigned this book in his course in modern U.S. History. Kahn opened my eyes to racial injustice.

Stranger in a Strange Land
Robert A. Heinlein
This writer imagined a world without racial distinctions in this sci-fi classic.

Victors' Justice: The Tokyo War Crimes Trial
~ Richard R. Minear
I read this in a college course on Vietnam, taught by the author. It is not just the book that is so memorable, however. He influenced how I teach, as I do what he did, asking my students to become critical readers (asking, as he did of us, who is the author; what is his/her world view; what is his/her thesis; what arguments does the author provide in support of the thesis; were you persuaded?) Before he retired last year I contacted him to let him know how important he was to my career.


The Ginger Man
~ J.P. Donleavy
See The Catcher in the Rye

words for this blog

Given the meaning of "schadenfreude", I plan to work these words into future posts

splenetic bad-tempered, ill-tempered, angry, cross, peevish, petulant, pettish, irritable, irascible, choleric, dyspeptic, testy, tetchy, snappish, waspish, crotchety, crabby, querulous, resentful, rancorous, bilious; spiteful, malicious, ill-natured, hostile, acrimonious, sour, bitter, malevolent, malignant, malign; informal bitchy.



ANTONYMS good-humored.

The Sore Losers of American Politics

In the world of youth sport, we teach children that they should retain their dignity after a loss. In fact, after a youth soccer game it is common for the two teams to go through a hand-shake ritual, with the winners and losers congratulating each other. I thought about this as I watched the political theater the GOP engage in this past week in the aftermath of passage of the big health insurance reform bill. The cheerleaders for the losing team (Palin, everyone on Fox News, Cheney, Romney, Rove, et. al) shrieked that the winning team was unfair to their team. Their team leaders (the legislative MINORITY leaders and the 2008 GOP presidential candidate) wowed that they would never again play against the winning team. They even exhorted their fans to engage in violence against the winning team. It makes me wonder if any of these people know anything about sportsmanship.

Leave it my favorite economist to provide some clarity.

retired Bank of America chieftain loses his private jet

Yesterday it was announced that Bank of America director Chad Gifford will no longer be able to ride the company’s private jet for free. What is it about corporate fat cats that makes them worthy of private jets in the first place? It is all part of the fiction of their indispensability. They all serve on each other's boards of directors so they vote these perks for each other. Then they collectively spin the story that their perks are a response to market forces. Give me a break! Given their performance over the last few years, the leaders of the big banks have proven that ANYONE can do their job. And as for market forces, I don't see any international banks clamoring for the services of these corporate "stars". The time has come to reign in these foolish pay packages, and distribute the money to the investors and the work force.

What Coakley's Loss Means

The Democrats still enjoy a super-majority in Congress. The big question is, will they continue to be timid, or will they use that majority to pass the legislation promised in the 2008 election. It is amazing that Bush did whatever he wanted to do, with a smaller majority, whenever he wanted to do so (Iraq, for example).
So, for a party still in the majority, Coakley's sorry defeat should mean nothing.

Shared Sacrifice

One of the elements that identified the GREATEST GENERATION was its capacity to forfeit immediate gratification for a greater purpose. This carried over into great endeavors, such as the Space Race and staunch opposition to the Soviet Union. It had its low moments, too, such as the Vietnam War. But on balance, I admire the shared sense of sacrifice that animated its policy-making.

We lack that sense today, despite great opportunities for shared sacrifice. We send our treasure (in the form of deficit spending) and a small proportion of our youth to fight two stupid and unnecessary wars. Where is the sense of mission that characterized this political culture for much of our history, and where are the leaders who can articulate a unifying purpose? The GOP offers tax cuts as the great hope for the future, the very antithesis of shared sacrifice, as they prefer to reward those at the top. The Dems appear capable of offering nothing more than "GOP light" proposals (witness the broken campaign promises regarding health care).

A fault-line in the clash of cultures

A belief in free speech is a characteristic of modernity. With all its faults (environmental degradation, to name the worst), it trumps the pre-industrial world preferred by fundamentalist Islamic jihadists . This can be seen in the long-running saga of the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie, a book published in 1988. Because we so prize free speech and free inquiry, Westerners, especially secular westerners, view such a anti-modern view with contempt. However, this fault line between two worlds is not so neat a cleavage. I was thinking about the free speech angle the other day, when it occurred to me that an avowed terrorist somehow managed to smuggle an incendiary device onto a flight to Detroit. Despite his father's warnings to the State Department, the son's name was never registered in the "no fly" data base. Contrast this with the treatment of the singer formerly known as Cat Stevens, who was denied entry to the United States for his views on Salman Rushdie.

Consider the on-going tale of the Danish cartoonist who depicted the Prophet with a turban shaped like a bomb. It is depressing to realize that this probably will not be the last attempt on the artist's life. We applaud his courage, as we celebrate his right to free speech. But what of the rights of Yusuf Islam? In the clash of cultures, free speech for whom?