David's blog

Holy Moley

2009-11-13T18:33:00.000-08:00

Today I’d like to look at two court cases, one which was recently argued in front of the Supreme Court of the United States and one which was recently decided in a high court in England.

The first amendment states in part – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The first part is called the establishment clause and the second part the free exercise clause. If you can’t figure out why, read it again.

That seems straightforward enough, and I’m pretty sure the founders thought that it would be easy to work with. After all, at the time, it applied solely to the federal government, and the states were free to establish and prohibit away, although they tended even by then towards the same principals in their own constitutions or laws. They just didn’t want an American version of the Church of England.

Of course, nothing is as simple as it looks. There were, actually, very few establishment or free exercise problems in America, and few Supreme Court cases too, until the 20th century (actually, the first Supreme Court opinion concerning religion and government finance was in 1899), when the federal government gained even greater powers and began to spend in such a manner that interaction with religion became unavoidable.

With spending came the problem of what happens when the government does so in a way that effects religious institutions or practices. This has been handled by the Supreme Court in such an inconsistent and juridically schizophrenic manner as to satisfy no one and offend practically everyone at one time or another. But, the way they handle financial issues is methodical and astute compared to the way they handle government use of religious symbols. The last major religious issue – prayer in school – has actually been handled somewhat more consistently – although this is probably the most controversial issue of all.

The question of the wall has been central to the dichotomy of interests in this subject. By wall, I mean the “wall of separation between church and State,” conceived by Jefferson as a metaphor for the first amendment religious clauses in a letter to a New England congregation. And, although his little buddy, Madison, probably thought deeper and wrote more about governmental religious interaction than Jefferson, it was the renowned Sage of Monticello (I will not take this opportunity to bash Jefferson, as usual) who has captured the public imagination on it as well as that of many judges thanks to his ability to turn a phrase.

The “Wall,” some protest, is not enshrined in the constitution, and inaccurate. However, the concept has come up in many constitutional cases and virtually always with approval, the first time in 1878 (I count 25 instances in Supreme Court cases). However, nothing in the law is ever so rigid as not to admit of exceptions or, at least, “fuzziness”. Thus, in the famous “Lemon” case (named after a person, not a fruit), the court opined:

“Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable. . . Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a ‘wall,’ is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.”

Two ideologies have developed concerning this issue that are somewhat coordinate with liberalism and conservatism. Separationists are those who tend to believe in a firmer higher wall and emphasize the establishment clause. Accomodationists tend to believe that the first amendment means only that the government can’t prefer one religion or sect to another, and, that the government can accommodate religion in general. They emphasize the free exercise clause. If I were so foolish as to label myself, I would say I tend to a separationist view, but with a wall that melts a little in the sun. There is room in my jurisprudence for accomodation as well, as long as the tail doesn’t wag the dog. Of course, the more extreme separationists or accomodationists would probably not believe I was wishy washy as all, but firmly committed to the wrong side.

Freedom of conscience is high among the most important of our rights, and religious belief is certainly a form of conscience, as that term is meant when used in this way. The founders seem to recognize that government involvement with religion hurt both institutions and they singled it out as being a special problem and therefore having a special status. Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance is the most famous writing on this topic although it reads like a lead balloon compared to Jefferson's flowing prose.

The problem in judging first amendment arises because quite often the two clauses are not mutually exclusive. There is a ying/yang thing to it which many judges recognize as problematic. Enforcing one clause often has a negative effect on the other clause. To come to a decision some seek a compromise position and recognize their inability to do otherwise. As Chief Justice Burger wrote in a case concerning the right of Wisconsin to require children to be educated until 16 as opposed to the rights of the Amish to continue to have their tradition of older children working at home:

“By preserving doctrinal flexibility and recognizing the need for a sensible and realistic application of the Religion Clauses,

‘we have been able to chart a course that preserved the autonomy and freedom of religious bodies while avoiding any semblance of established religion. This is a “tight rope,” and one we have successfully traversed.’”

Naturally, this doesn’t please everyone and like most cases in America, you can probably find something like a rough 50/50 split. But, let’s get to the cases.

Salazar v. Buono was just argued before our high court. It concerns an issue which has been well covered before, the use of religious symbols on government property, with a twist. In this case, a cross, obviously a Christian symbol, has sat in the vast 2500 square mile Mojave National Preserve in California, originally put there by the VFW in 1934. In a remote spot, it has been used as a site for religious services on Easter pretty much since then. In 1999 there was a request to put up a Buddhist Memorial. The national park service declined but also said it was taking the cross down. The next year, however, congress legislated that federal funds couldn’t be used to take it down.

The following year, Frank Buono, a former park superintendant who regularly visited, sued to have the cross removed, stating that he, a Catholic, was not offended by the cross or any religious displays on government land for that matter, but he was offended because other religious groups couldn’t put their monuments up. The lower court found that he had the right not to be subjected to an offensive religious display and thus standing to bring the case (“standing” essentially meaning sufficient injury to sue). It also found that the purpose of the cross was to advance religion and therefore violated the establishment clause. But while the appeal was pending, congress legislated that the land be sold to the VFW in exchange for a few similar acres owned by the VFW but that if it was not used as a war memorial, it should revert to congress.

The court of appeals affirmed the lower court’s order that he had the right to sue and that the cross violated the establishment clause. Buono went back to the district court which then held congress’s attempt to sell the property to the VFW unconstitutional, because congress was obviously controlling the land, by requiring the land to be used as a war memorial (for which they would use a cross, naturally, as it is a classic war memorial) and taking the property back if it wasn’t used for that purpose. Again the court of appeals affirmed.

The questions before the Supreme Court might disappoint court watchers. The issue is not whether the cross was unconstitutional. It seems that the U.S. Department of Interior (Commisioner Salazar) didn’t want to pick that fight. They instead chose two safer routes – that Buono’s beliefs were ideological, not religious, and that there was no injured plaintiff (the usual requirement to have standing in most cases). Additionally, the govenment claimed that the sale of the property to a private group cures any constitutional problem.

The matter was argued by the Supreme Court this past week. Justice Scalia, who I have sometimes defended for what I believe are unfair attacks against him, was quite inconsistent with his famous jurisprudence which, among other things, insists that the court only to determine the arguments before it (as its rules state). For example, when the most recent abortion case came before the court a few years ago, he and Thomas both wrote that they believed that congress was without power to make such a law concerning abortion, an issue which was within the sole province of the states. However, as no party raised the issue, they could not rule that way (naturally, had they, they would have to find a federal abortion law they liked unconstitutional). Here, the issue of whether the cross itself was unconstitutional was not raised by any party and the rest of the justices did restrict themselves to the questions before them during oral argument (except perhaps Thomas who remains silent during oral argument). Scalia, however, kept trying to bring the issue back to whether the cross itself was a violation of the constitution, despite the fact that it is not before the court.

We have to wait for the court to rule. As with most controversial cases, it would not be hard to suspect that the conservatives would go one way and the liberals the other, with the “soft” conservative, Kennedy, making the deciding vote one way or the other. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Kennedy will get this right and vote that congress’s purported sale was a see-throughable attempt to circumvent the first amendment establishment clause. Their refusal to allow the park department to use funds to remove the cross is a perfect example of what happens when there is religious-governmental entanglement – it snowballs. The further act of the purported sale to the VFW is precisely what the government claims it is not – a sham. In fact, it is such an obvious sham, that I cannot help imagining how the same lawyers arguing for the government here would howl if a defendant in a criminal case tried to claim it did not violate a crime by such an obvious ruse.

My guess is that Scalia and Thomas will argue that lower court was wrong about the cross being a violation of the first amendment in the first place even though this was not argued before the court. And they, and Roberts and Alito might argue that there is no standing as there really isn’t any injury to Buono. It certainly is hard to argue there really is. Obviously, anyone can be offended by anything. There would be a stronger argument for Buono if he had been refused to put up his own monument for religious reasons.

However, sometimes the court has extended standing to first amendment religion cases, without the requisite “injury” component, because it recognized that by holding citizens to this standard, there would be almost no curbing congress from violating the first amendment whenever it wanted, free of any check by the court. Although a couple of years ago a HORRIBLE decision by the court stepped back this judicial rule where the rule challenged was an executive order instead of a legislative act, but, it would probably require Kennedy to go there too. I view him as the equalizer on the court and I would be quite disappointed in him if he does.

The second case comes from Britain. There is no first amendment in Britain and although their unwritten constitution provides for religious freedom, it is not the same thing. Keep in mind, in Britain the Church of England still has some power and input into government. However, as I have no expertise at all in British religious freedom law, I will look at the case more from the policy point of view. That is, what should Britain do?

The case in question, decided this year, actually determined what a Jew is. I kid you not, the government of Britain, in the guise of avoiding discrimination, now determines what a Jew is. It wouldn’t matter to me whether they wanted to determine what a Muslim or a Christian or Buddhist is either. The fact is, the worst thing Britain could have done, even with its continued allowance of privilege to the Church of England, was to stick its governmental nose into religious beliefs. I imagine John Wyclif is rolling in his grave.

Here’s the case. An religious Jewish family applied for their 12 year son to go to the Jews’ Free School, which has been in since George Washington was born. Although the school may not always reject students because of religion, under the law it can give preference to Jews when it has more applicants than open spots. He was rejected because although his father was born a Jew, his mother is a convert. The Orthodox Jewish school believes that because she was not converted in an orthodox church, her son isn't Jewish.

It is amazing, in the country which inspired the notion of freedom in America and therefore throughout the world, it has been determined that a religion determining who is a member of its own group is discriminatory.

I cannot even comprehend the underlying ruling here. According to the court, the school did not determine admission based on the woman’s religion, since she practiced what she (and apparently the government) considered Judiasm, so that it must be based on her ethnicity – that is, she wasn’t born Jewish. This violated a national law known as the Race Relations Act, which, obviously concerns ethnic discrimination.

I do not argue, of course, that religious groups should be able to practice actual unlawful discrimination any more than any other group, but this ruling is not even internally consistent, as it cannot be contradicted that had she simply been converted in the Orthodox Jewish tradition, he would have been admitted. Thus, there clearly was no ethnic discrimination.

"If there is one thing that should be sacrosanct, it is who we “hang out with,” who we associate with, and who we deem, rationally or irrationally, to be a member of our own group.

The consequences of this are extraordinary. It means that one group of Jews may not distinguish itself from another by limiting its membership in a manner of which the government doesn’t approve. Once the principle is established, it means that not only are divisions within a religion safe, but in fact, no religious group, even the major religions, can be safe from evaporation by expansion of its membership by government decree. Although it is doubtful at this juncture in history, could it not be determined that all of the religions of which Abraham is the father figure, cannot distinguish itself from the members of another group. And, if that happens, won’t the most popular of the religions essentially be able to swallow the others? This is not as far fetched as it might seem. Despite Britain’s permissiveness to the Church of England, this is a serious blow to religious freedom. The trend towards government control of religion is one for which religious and other leaders in England and America, as well as other countries have long fought.

"There is an appeal pending to Britain’s high court, and I hope reason prevails. If not, in Britain, parliament is more powerful than any court. If it must, it should legislate an exception to its discrimination laws such that religious groups may set their own rules for admission. Likely that would forbid discrimination because of actual ethnicity. Although I would disapprove of any religion which discriminated on that basis, I would not be in favor of such a restriction. However, it would be better than the law which prevails now as interpreted by this court."

Despite our courts’ own wrestling with the first amendment, I do not believe a decision like this would have a prayer (pun intended) in the good ‘ole US of A.

The first amendment is certainly one way in which our government is superior to that of its parent. I will leave you with some words from Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance:

"Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves."

Cheerful news for the Brothers Grimm

2009-11-07T20:39:00.000-08:00

There once was a shoemaker, who, through no fault of his own, became so poor that at last he had nothing left but just enough leather to make one pair of shoes. He cut out the shoes at night, so as to set to work upon them next morning; and as he had a good conscience, he laid himself quietly down in his bed, committed himself to heaven, and fell asleep.

From the Elves and the Shoemaker

I thought that someone had sleighted two second tier heroes of mine in a comment on this blog, but, since my internal search came up empty for "Grimm," it was apparently either another blog I read or I imagined my heroes being sleighted so I can write about them. I'm betting on the first. But, the brothers, Jacob (some use Jakob) and Wilhelm were not some Hansel-come-latelies who penned or collected a few fairy tales in the way some hack editor might do if assigned it by a publisher. They were actually two of the most important literary figures from the early through middle 19th century and thereafter. Moreover, as far as I know, unlike say Hans Christian Anderson, they wrote no tales of their own. This post is dedicated to rounding out the picture of the two brothers, who are almost exclusively known for the fairy and folk tales, as the great scholars they were.

The boys were born a year apart in the 1780s in Germany, the second and third of eight brothers and one sister, six of whom survived infancy. Throughout their lives the two surviving oldest siblings worked together and lived together. Wilhelm often followed Jacob, and certainly Jacob was the greater of the two in all but his own reckoning, and he was probably just being humble out of affection for his brother. When Jacob went to law school, Wilhelm followed him. And when in law school Jacob was led by a professor to a deep interest in literature, Wilhelm followed him in that too. They never looked back on a legal career. Jacob became a librarian and then Wilhelm did. They moved to Gottingen to become librarians and professors there. Later, after they were dismissed for political reasons, Berlin finally called, and they went there together.

The brothers began to publish fairy and folk tales they had collected from word of mouth in the early 1800s, when their country was under the Napoleon’s control. The first two volumes were roughly coincident with the last few years of his reign - 1812-1815, and many editions followed over the years, with something over 200 tales collected. Nowadays, we mostly just refer to any of these collections as Tales from the Brothers Grimm or something similar. The family of Wilhelm’s wife (Jacob was always a bachelor), Dortchen, who cared for both men most of her life even though being frequently ill herself, provided a number of them.

It would be hard to say that the Germanic world has brought us many longer lived and popular books than these. They have been published all over the world. Disney built a company on the Brothers’ Grimm’s backs with his great triumvirate of damsels in distress – Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty. Children of my generation, at least, read many more – Rumpelstiltskin, Little Red Riding Hood, The Elves and the Shoemaker, Tom Thumb, Hansel and Gretel and Iron John are all familiar to those my age and prettified versions are probably told or read to kids today. Although the Grimms' tales as they wrote them still sell quite well, I’m guessing that they are most often given as gifts these days, almost like coffee table books, and I wonder if modern American parenting allows for the telling of these often violent tales to their little princes and princesses. I’d say not so much, but that’s a guess and, of course, a generalization. But, I stopped giving it as a gift years ago, when I realized it would not be read to the kiddies.

Here’s the end from one of my favorites of their tales, although really only because modern political correctness makes it so offensive – The Jew Among Thorns.

"At length the judge cried, quite out of breath, “I will give you your life if you will only stop fiddling.” The good servant thereupon had compassion, took his fiddle and hung it round his neck again, and stepped down the ladder. Then he went up to the Jew who was lying upon the ground panting for breath, and said, “You rascal, now confess, whence you got the money, or I will take my fiddle and begin to play again.” “I stole it. I stole it!” cried he; “but you have honestly earned it.” So the judge had the Jew taken to the gallows and hanged as a thief."

The whole idea for the Grimms was to explore and preserve their beloved German literature. They spent their entire lives revising and re-editing the tales. But, when they weren’t working on them, they were producing far more material spanning the entire German history. Other than Goethe and a few other great names, they virtually became German literature. And who reads Goethe anymore?

A few years after they started collecting and publishing folk and fairy tales they published a couple of volumes on German legends and this time there were hundreds of them. Besides, they didn’t just collect all of these tales; they analyzed and edited them, trying to whittle them down to their original form to the best it seemed possible (although Wilhelm was interested in poetic renderings too). Despite frequent sickness, the unrelated work they had to do for money to survive, family and social responsibilities, their corpus of work was astonishing.

While the tales are their most popular contributions to literature, other work was much more scholarly and at least as important. Together they wrote a number of works like Old German Forests aka Old German Miscellany, a collection of essays with which they began their literary dissection of old German mythology and language and a volume of lays from the Elder Edda, a collection itself whose origins are uncertain and which I sometimes loosely describe as the Germanic Bible. But the most important work they did together outside of collecting and editing the tales was the German Dictionary. Not surprising, they are little known for this outside of Germany as you have to read German to use it.

The work is important for several reasons. It was begun when the Grimms were already in their 50s and was, in some ways, a culmination of their work, particularly Jacob’s. It sought not just to define words, but to the extent possible, to try and find the first uses of the words in print. To acccomplish this, just as editors of the Oxford English Dictionary would later do, they used correspondents who would read and report to the Grimms on what they found. Not surprisingly, they could not complete this astonishing enterprise in the time they had left – Jacob died in 1863 when they were only up to "F". In fact, he was working on the entry “”frucht” (“fruit”) when he died. However, they began the German Dictionary many decades before the British began theirs, and the latter owed much to the former. The German Dictionary was not published until 1960, almost a full century after Jacob died. It may be virtually unknown in America, and, obviously, there is no rationale to have an English translation, but it is famous throughout the German speaking world and also in philological circles. Even if the Brothers Grimm had not published the fairy and folk tales, they should be just as famous for the dictionary, which they worked on for over two decades.

By the time they began the dictionary, they were already quite celebrated. Of the two, Jacob was the more revered, but not just because he was a little older. He was the more interested of the two in uncovering the roots of the German language and its history. Wilhelm was interested in that too, but, just as he was the more social of the two, and the one with a family (which Jacob got the advantage of as well), he was also more interested in the poetry and story aspects of older German literature. Much of his solo work was related to those interests – Old Danish Heroic Lays, Ballads and Folktales; On German Runes; and, The German Heroic Legend, which was considered by Jacob and most of Wilhelm's followers, his greatest achievement. It includes a study of the Nibelungenlied, a wonderful epic (and a great favorite of your legendary hero loving blogger) still published in America, but little appreciated here. Wilhelm was ahead of his time in his understanding of it, recognizing it to be of German origin, and not a Scandinavian work as scholars and the public then thought.

But, Jacob’s work was more ground-breaking. I came to know the Grimms' history through my interest in philology and mythology, the same interests which make Tolkien's works so fascinating to me. Jacob's German Grammar, written in 4 volumes over the course of 18 years, made him a giant of philology. His most important contribution is known as Grimm’s law. Like so many discoveries, it did not begin with him. Other seminal German philologists had formulated a law concerning the way sounds have systematically changed from the proto-Indo-European language that they believe preceded virtually all European and many other languages (still a theory, but largely accepted as true - I slightly disagree with the prevalent theory but won't bore you here; someday I probably will bore you with it - and that's a threat). Jacob greatly expanded the law and is credited with “the first non-trivial systematic sound changes to be discovered in linguistics”. I put that description in quotes although I have failed to track down the origin of it; but I have seen it described thus in a number of sources, and it has to come from somewhere. Jacob himself called his contribution Grimm’s law of Permutation of Consonants.

Since the description of it was rather dry, I’ll give a couple of examples with some familiar words from Halsey’s Etymology of Latin and Greek written in 1882 (which, by the way, to show the loss of quality in bookbinding over time, my copy of Halsey is in much better condition than many of my books published very recently), examining the changes of consonants for the same word in Greek, Latin, English and German.

(Grk) thugater (Lat) -- (Eng) daughter (Ger) tochter

(Grk) odous (Lat) dens (Eng) tooth (Ger) Zahn

(Grk) tu (Lat) tu (Eng) thou (Ger) du

I don’t want to dumb down Jacob’s inspirational scholarship. It was a lot more complex, and, it seems obvious once someone figures it out. Philology is not exactly a popular field, and this might not excite you too much. But, even now, for philologists, Grimm's Law is considered a staggering achievement which led to so many other developments.

And although German Grammar and Grimm’s law were perhaps Jacob’s greatest solo achievement, he made many others, particularly in books titled German Legal Antiquities, German Mythology, and finally, History of the German Language.

German Mythology stands out in my mind. There is no Grimm’s Law to pull out from it, but it was still of great importance, if only because he applied scholarly techniques to a subject that had little of it previously. Today we have many sources for stories about the Norse or Germanic gods and other tales on our bookshelves. But his was the first clear, well-researched work on the subject. He connected German mythology to Roman descriptions of their northern neighbors, covered the great gods like Wotan and Thor as well as the sprites and elves, and spent a lot of time on linguistic aspects, which, given his expertise, is not surprising. As far as I can see, Jacob’s point in much of his work seems threefold – to impart the substantive scholarship, to show the depth and richness of the Old German culture (as opposed to the barbarian civilization the Romans described and which was still believed) and also to show that that the popular culture of his day was derived from their own ancient culture - in other words, they shouldn't be skipping right from the Romans to modern Europeans -- the old German contribution was immense.

The major modern scholarly work on German mythology by the Dutchman, Jan de Vries, is considered by many to be a continuation of Grimm’s work. German Mythology is still published, last in 2004, although thanks to the first translation in the 1880’s, it is usually titled Teutonic Mythology. Frankly, there’s much in the work that has been criticized as just plain wrong, but with seminal works in any field, that is typical. It was still a substantial advance from previous work in the field. In fact, to this day much of modern study in German mythology is based on Jacob’s work in the field.

There are other aspects of both Grimm’s work which are worth discussing, but the above should make my point. Of course, I’ve only included the brothers’ major works. I've left out a major political escapade where the Grimms were thrown out of a university because they protested a king who revoked the local constitution and released them from vows they did not think he could legally do. Now, a small footnote in history, it was of tremendous consequence to them and colored the rest of their lives. During the failed revolutions of 1848 and an early attempt to unite Germany, Jacob was elected to represent the district where he grew up in the new parliament, although, in reality, he was ill suited for it and soon lost interest. But, they were not really political, and for what it is worth, they were very conservative, monarchistic and anti-republican. I also haven't touched on their family relationship, which was quite benevolent, from what I can see. They were best friends as well as brothers, and when Wilhelm died a few years before Jacob, it was quite sad for him. He took a portrait of his brother to bed before he died.

And, for what it is worth, the brothers were greatly celebrated in their own day, not just in Germany, but throughout Europe, particularly Jacob. In Spring, 1841, he received the French Cross of the Legion of Honor and the next year he received Prussia’s first Pour le Mérite for arts and science. In 1846, a large group of German scholars from many fields dedicated to German unity assembled for a conference. They unanimously elected Jacob their president by acclaim.

But, as I like to say - this isn't Wikipedia, so I refer you to a few available biographies - I haven't read them all - but neither of the two I did read (Peppard's Paths through the Forest is the only one I know by name) are worthy of a recommendation, and the websites, which mostly concern the tales.

Here, I just wanted to shed some light on how important the Grimms were to literary scholarship - particularly in philology and mythology, two of my favorite subjects. Unlike other past figures I've highlighted in this blog, the Grimms are actually famous and celebrated, and I am not in any way diminishing their work on the tales, as those are very important and scholarly too, despite their entertainment value. So, I'm not complaining, just expanding.

WWII trivia

2009-10-31T08:42:00.000-07:00

You know I love my historical trivia. This week’s category is World War II. My own self enforced rules are that I have to know the answer before I ask you (although sometimes I do cheat a bit if it is one of those things where I know I know it but it’s on the tip of my tongue and I can't quite . . . . You old guys know what I'm talking about).

Questions

1. Kay Summersby was the name of

a. Eisenhower’s reputed mistress during WWII.
b. Roosevelt’s reputed mistress during WWII.
c. the only member of the U.S. house of representatives to vote “no” to war after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
d. Tokyo Rose’s real name.

2. The name of Albania’s ruler until Mussolino had Italy invade a few months before WWII started.

a. Ramades Pera.
b. King Zog.
c. Ross King.
d. General Zod.

3. Churchill’s physician was

a. Lord Halifax.
b. Stanley Baldwin.
c. Duff Cooper.
d. Lord Moran.

4. Poland’s leader, at least in foreign affairs, when Germany invaded Poland to start WWII was

a. Josef Beck.
b. Heinz Guderian.
c. Wolfgang Hochstetter.
d. Monte Cassino.

5. The surrender of Japan took place on the

a. U.S.S. Indianapolis.
b. The U.S.S. Missouri.
c. U.S.S. Philadelphia.
d. U.S.S. Bismarck.

6. The first head of the U.S. spy service the O.S.S. was

a. William J. Donovan.
b. Charles Lindbergh.
c. Allen Dulles.
d. William S. Stephenson.

7. The name of British spymaster and later author Ian Fleming's home in Jamaica was

a. Moonraker.
b. Chartwell.
c. MI6.
d. Goldeneye.

8. A valet in the British Mission to Turkey was a German spy code named

a. Pastorius.
b. Ultra.
c. Rainbow.
d. Cicero.

9. The only pilot to fly on both missions dropping atomic bombs on Japan was

a. Colonel Paul Tibbets.
b. Major Thomas McGuire.
c. Major Charles W. Sweeney.
d. Lady Jennie Jerome Randolph.

10. John Strange Churchill, a WWI British hero, was also

a. Winston’s brother.
b. Winston’s nefarious uncle who had a great influence on his nephew.
c. An American author who capitalized on Churchill's name in the 30s and 40s.
d. The only Churchill from the same generation as Winston now still alive at 107 years old.

11. Winston Churchill, as opposed to Winston S. Churchill, was

a. The code name for the actor who actually broadcast Churchill’s famous radio addresses.
b. A British politician, novelist and painter.
c. A British scientist at Los Alamos who designed the trigger for “Fat Boy”.
d. An American politician, novelist and painter.

12. Savrola was the name of

a. The leader of the Yugoslavian underground.
b. A mystic who would occasionally counseled Hitler early in the war.
c. Winston Churchill’s one novel.
d. The home built near Berchtesgaden for Hitler's 50th birthday.

13. Spandau was the name of

a. Hitler’s beloved german shepherd.
b. The prison where German war criminals were held after the Nuremberg Trials.
c. Churchill’s prized foxhound.
d. The first bridge to be taken in Germany after D-Day.

14. Georgy Zhukov was

a. A leading Soviet general.
b. The province in Georgia where Stalin was probably raised.
c. The legendary unjammable Soviet assault rifle.
d. The Soviet Spy at Los Alamos.

15. King Michael’s Coup refers to

a. A child’s game played in the Soviet Union during the war.
b. The tavern in Cambridge where Eisenhower and staff formulated D-Day plans.
c. The recapture of political power in Romania by King Michael near the end of the war.
d. A tactic used by sub-destroyers to trap German submarines by triangulating sonar.

16. He fought at Guadalcanal

a. “Would you believe” Don Adams (Get Smart)?
b. Don Rickles, you stupid morons.
c. Don Knotts.
d. Donald Pleasance.

17. He studied at Harvard, planned the Pearl Harbor invasion and said “"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.”

a. Isoroku Yamamoto.
b. Hideki Togo.
c. Hirohito.
d. Kantaro Suzuki.

18. He was a leading proponent of tank warfare and lightning attacks among the allies before WWII

a. FDR.
b. Winston Churchill.
c. Charles de Gaulle.
d. Dwight Eisenhower.

19. The notorious “Munich Agreement” was

a. The surrender of Germany to the allies, excepting the Soviet Union, in May, 1945.
b. An agreement by France, Britain and Italy to allow Germany to take part of Czechoslovakia.
c. An agreement by France, Britain and Italy to allow the unification of Austria and Germany.
d. The formal agreement by France and Britain to guarantee Poland’s independence.

20. Audie Murphy was

a. a decorated war hero who died in a plane crash on the way back from Europe.
b. a successful actor who many believe was actually a decorated war hero – he was 14 when WWII ended.
c. a great soldier, a successful lightweight boxer and country western songwriter.
d. a great soldier, a successful movie star and country western songwriter.

Answers

1. Kay Summersby was the name of

a. Eisenhower’s reputed mistress during WWII. At least she so much later claimed (she was his chauffeur, for sure) as did one fairly diseputable author who wrote that Truman told him that Eisenhower wanted to divorce Mamie and marry her (also after everyone was dead). Who knows. Even she indicated they never really had intercourse, although that could have been to save her reputation. However, popular culture being what it is, many people just assume it is true without even recognizing that the sources are very weak. Jeanette Rankin was the lone voice against war after Pearl Harbor for which she was booed and did not get re-elected. She was one of the few who voted not to go war in WWI as well, but that was a tougher call.

2. The name of Albania’s ruler until Italy invaded a few months before WWII started.

b. For those who are thinking Zod, he’s a character in Superman. Zog was the name of the Albanian King who fled with his wife and child when the Italian’s marched in not long before the big war. I just like his name. He’s not real important. Pera was a child actor who played young Kwai Chang Caine, Ross King an author about art (I particularly recommend Brunelleschi's Dome and Michaelangelo and the Pope's Ceiling).

3. Churchill’s physician was

d. Lord Charles Moran. Halifax was Britain’s foreign affairs minister, Baldwin a previous PM and Cooper an undersung Churchill ally. Moran was the author of probably the first book yours truly ever read about WWII not authored by Churchill

4. Poland’s leader, at least in foreign affairs, when Germany invaded Poland to start WWII was

a. That would be Josef Beck, whose name has fallen from most histories, probably because he was interned in Romania for the war. There probably was not a sole leader of Poland at the time, but the responsibility for foreign affairs was his and he worked hard to protect his country. Guderian was a great Panzer leader and tank innovator (I recommend his memoirs). Hochstetter, in case any of you picked him, was a character on Hogan’s Heroes, and Monte Cassino was an Italian monastery central to a great battle of the war.

5. The surrender of Japan took place on the

b. The U.S.S. Missouri, of course. The Indianapolis went down at the end of the war and has never been located. The most famous Philadelphia (there were several with that name) saw service in the Barbary Wars. The Bismarck was Germany’s flagship, sunk Britain’s Hood, and was later torpedoed by them - don't mess with the British Navy - at least in the old days.

6. The first head of the U.S. spy service the O.S.S. was

a. William J. “Wild Bill” Donovan was certainly a great American whose name is generally forgotten. I recommend Anthony Cave Brown’s Wild Bill Donovan: The Last Hero. Believe it or not, Lindbergh did actually fight in WWII and even shot down an enemy plane, but he was really there for planning and morale. Dulles was Donovan’s chief of operations and later the head of the CIA which Donovan also started following the war. Stephenson was Britain's intelligence liaison to America.

7. The name of British spymaster and James Bond author Ian Fleming's home in Jamaica is

d. Goldeneye, which Fleming says was based on one of the missions he planned regarding the preservation of Gibraltar and also a Carson McCuller’s novel. Chartwell was a Churchill family home.

8. A valet in the British Mission to Turkey was the spy code named

d. That would be Cicero. I won’t put his real name because I never remember it myself, but you can look it up. He was Albanian in origin and for a while very successful at his task, which he apparently did purely for money. Pastorius was the code name for the comical German sabotage attempt in America in 1942, Ultra was the name for the material garnered from allied intercepts of German Enigma machine coded messages and Rainbow was a collection of American combat plans prior to the war.

9. The only man to fly on both missions dropping atomic bombs on Japan was

c. Sweeney’s War’s End is worth reading. He was in another B-29 for the Hiroshima bombing, where his boss, Tibbets, piloted the plane that dropped the bomb. Sweeney took the lead role for Nagasaki. Thomas McGuire was a top ace in the Pacific, but was killed there. Jennie was Churchill’s mother and not a pilot at all. If you picked her, you need to do some reading.

10. John Strange Churchill, a WWI British hero, was also

a. He was, in fact, the great man’s brother and quite an impressive fellow in his own way. They were close but Winston’s fame completely eclipsed subsequent knowledge of him. He died a few years after the war. There are those who believe that the man he was named for, John Strange, was Winston’s real father, possibly being one of Lady Randolph's lovers. We could dig them up and do dna testing if Britain would allow it (yeah, right), but otherwise it's hard to say. I know of no Churchill still now alive from Winston's generation.

11. Winston Churchill, as opposed to Winston S. Churchill, was

d. He was, in fact, quite a well known American politician, novelist and painter. They knew each other and corresponded. The British version decided that when he wrote, he would use his middle initial to differentiate between them. The American had no middle name. Norman Shelley was a British actor who was rumored to be Churchill's stand it, but, that claim appears to be bogus.

12. Savrola was the name of

c. Winston Churchill’s one novel, a political thriller. I read most of it and just could not finish. Don’t bother. Churchill was a magnificent writer, but I'm glad he stuck to non-fiction. The home built by the Nazi’s near Berchtesgaden for Hitler’s 50th birthday was Kehlsteinhaus, eerily similar to the name of the grade school teacher I disliked the most.

13. Spandau was the name of

b. The prison where German war criminals were held after the Nuremberg Trials.

14. Georgy Zhukov was

a. Probably the greatest Soviet general. These things are always debatable, but I think not so much here. Even with one or two controversial contributions, those that are sure almost certainly make the Marshall the best of the best. I completely made up b and c. Klaus Fuchs was the name of the Soviet spy at Los Alamos.

15. King Michael’s Coup refers to

c. King Michael reclaimed his throne from the pro-German dictator, Ion Antonescu, in Romania, switched them over to the allies, but soon after the war became a puppet for the Soviets before he was forced to abdicate a second time and Romania became a satellite. Nice try though, Mikey.
16. He fought at Guadalcanal

a. “Would you believe” Don Adams (Get Smart)? Rickles was in the navy. Pleasance was reportedly captured and tortured by the Gestapo. Knotts was an entertainer there and actually received a medal for his services. Adams, a marine, fought in several battles, was lucky to survive when his battalion was wiped out ("missed it by that much"), and was shot at Guadalcanal.

17. He studied at Harvard, planned the Pearl Harbor invasion and said “"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.”

a. Isoroku Yamamoto, who was brilliant and also right about America. Hideki Togo was a political opponent of his and became Japan’s prime minister. Hirohito was Emperor, of course, and Suzuki was the last war PM and the one who surrendered.

18. He was a leading proponent of tank warfare and lightning attacks among the allies before WWII

c. Charles de Gaulle was a successful combat veteran who wrote about tank warfare before the war, just as Guderian was pressing it in Germany. Guderian was listened to, de Gaulle was not. Obviously, de Gaulle led French forces after the country's surrender and was France's long time leader after the war. There are a number of good books about him of which I read a couple. He's hard to warm up to if you are an American.

19. The notorious “Munich Agreement” was

b. The agreement which Neville Chamberlain said represented “Peace in our time,” and, as we know, did not. Hitler took Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland for Germany and the rest of the country was soon after dismembered by hungry neighbors. Although Hitler himself did not see Munich as a political victory, the ease which he manipulated Chamberlain emboldened him to invade Poland the next year, beginning the war. There have been efforts to rehabilitate Chamberlain's diplomacy, but they sound hollow to me when I read them.

20. Audie Murphy was

d. a true American combat hero in WWII, a movie star and actually a successful song writer (although, seriously, how hard is that . . . It was cold and wet the day my mawmaw diiiiiied. . .) He did die in a plane crash, but that was much later.

Hope you enjoyed.

Ten things you didn't know about lawyers (and may not want to know)

2009-10-26T18:25:00.000-07:00

While 9/11 stands as the single most ominous day in their lifetime for most Americans, for this laddie 9/12 is as significant. Yes, that was the day I was sworn in as a lawyer in the State of New York, 25 years ago.

What was I thinking?

Leave aside that I could of, should of, would of done other things. That ship has long sailed. But, I flash back to 1979 or early 1980 – the crystal ball is foggy – to when I was speaking to my mother and my then wife about my future career (or lack thereof). My mother said, why don’t you go to law school? My wife agreed?

I looked at both of them with what I imagine now was puzzlement and said “I don’t even want to be in a room with a lawyer.”

In the movie version of this story, the next scene shows me seated on the right side of a large lecture hall listening to some professor drone on about law and I am thinking Three years. I’m never going to get out of here.

And in the next scene, I am in the same lecture hall, except where everyone else is looking at the professor, I have swiveled my chair and was staring out the back windows. At least, this is what I am told I was doing by someone who was there. I have only the vaguest memory of it, but it sounds like me.

My law school career was perhaps even less stellar than my college career, but at least in college I could get decent grades with a minimum of effort (we won’t even discuss my high school career, but to sum it up, I got a 4 on the last math final I ever took). Actually, I put some effort into my first year of law, or I would have drowned, and did well enough to get on Law Review, the goal of almost all law students. Of course, they had ambition.

But Law Review did not go well for me. We had to do two things. Edit an article supposedly written by a scholar and also write our own article.

The editing process was difficult for me, but that wasn’t really my fault. The scholar I was editing had written on the constitutionality of the party primary and caucus election system. Now, of course, I would devour such an assignment, perhaps even re-write it for the guy (which it needed). To this day, I still don’t understand his points and his research was so bad that I remember vividly one case to which he cited that turned out not to be about party primaries, but fish hatcheries.

Now, I was lucky in a sense. I was teamed up with a young woman who was number one in our class, and real sweet. Despite the fact that she desperately did not want to be a lawyer (just a mommy – wonder how that worked out), she was as hard-working as I was lazy. However, when we were going on our 11th week of work on it and most of the other reviewers had long finished their easy projects, I quit.

I didn’t just quit because of the editing. I also quit because I couldn’t figure out what to write about myself. Hard to believe if you are a reader of this blog, I’m sure, as the complaint is never that I don’t write enough, but write too much. I knew very little about politics and was only a student of law. What did I know?

I had no idea what to write about. I knew very little about the constitution, less about politics, and was filled with the notion that you shouldn’t write about something unless you were an expert. I now realize that 95% or so of what passes for expertise is just prattle and almost no one knows what they are talking about on any given subject, but I was still years away from that revelation. I came up with – don’t laugh – I was a super liberal – a constitutional right to a good environment. I said don’t laugh. Of course, I couldn’t find much to support my proposition. A couple of newspaper articles, I believe, although my memory is not so good. Of course, my editor should have said (as one co-worker did) that I had no clue what I was talking about and pick something else.

My quitting Law Review caused quite a stir. A few editors begged me not to quit, and many people in the school were aghast, but I didn’t want to work for a big firm when I got out of school anyway – the thought left me quite cold. I made my mind up.

I can’t say whether that was a big mistake or not, looking over my shoulder at the years gone by. I may have found law even more unfortunate of a profession than I sometimes did later on had I gone on to big firm world. But, the truth was, although I have made law my career, it was not what I should have done - period.

But, law in the abstract is fun. I love the case law, I love the constitutional debate, I love writing. What I do now, write, research, edit for other lawyers, is great. Because it is not the law which ruins being a lawyer – it is the clients, and the judges and the other lawyers.

Here are ten things you didn’t know about being a lawyer.

1. Lawyering can be very funny.

Sometimes it can be downright hysterical. Like the time I was doing a deposition in a car accident case and an elderly attorney, questioning a young woman passenger, asked her if just before the impact she “ejaculated anything?” Of course, I knew exactly what he meant and his usage of the word was fine, if a little archaic, but the sexual double entendre was too much for me and after locking eyes with the reporter, I asked for a brief adjournment, went out of the room followed by the reporter and another lawyer and proceeded to dissolve into laughter or tears. That one I sent off to a reporting company which collected incidents like it for a year end volume. Another one which made it into print was a dog case. The lawyer, trying to get a defendant to acknowledge that her friendly dog, Lucky, may have been overly rambunctious, asked her if Lucky liked to lick people. She said yes. And then, for some reason that I can’t conceive, he asked her “Does Lucky like to lick people in special places?”

Time out. Brief break please.

2. Many lawyers have no clue what they are talking about.

Lawyers want you to think that they are smart and know what they are talking about. Some, however, have no idea what they are doing – even in their own specialty. For example, I have done a small amount of real estate work – buying and selling houses for clients. It’s not particularly hard, and took me a few years to get to the point where I can get through them fairly easily (although they have become more tedious). If I have a problem there are a couple of people I trust who do it full time that I can ask. But, about ten years ago, when I was doing maybe ten deals a year (which is very few – some do hundreds) I looked at my secretary after one phone call and said – “Are we the only people in the world who know how to do this?” Don’t get me wrong. I am not Mr. Real Estate, but I was constantly stunned at how many deals would get botched up by the other lawyer, even when it was their livelihood. Now, I’ve never had a deal go wrong at the end, somehow fixed them all (except one for myself, but that’s a long story and I just let the other side out), but the incompetence can be overwhelming.

The level of incompetence is perhaps even more so in litigation. Not that I never make a mistake, I do, but some lawyers will try a case not having the first clue what the law is on it, no idea how to cross-examine someone (which is fun and easy with a little training). Often the law they cite stands for the opposite proposition. When I have ventured into new fields I often found that a couple of days’ research makes me more of an expert than people who have been doing it for years. Me smart? No. Them dumb? Lazy? More likely. Trust me, many lawyers have no clue.

3. You have no idea who is a good lawyer or not.

There is a saying in the law that goes around every once in a while. “Many lawyers wouldn’t know their own reputation if they met it on the street.” If that is too dry to be understandable, it means that lawyers’ actual abilities were not consistent with their reputations. Reputation is about marketing and sometimes media. There are exceptions, of course. My first boss, Dave Dean, is known as a first rate trial lawyer. He was lead counsel on the Agent Orange case (settled before trial) in the 80s and tried the first World Trade Center bombing case a few years ago and got a whopping verdict (which, to me was crazy, but he’s that good). Dave has remarkable people skills that just bowls juries over. I doubt it is teachable. I’ve seen people try and they’ve been pathetic. Big firms are often filled with lawyers who were good students but not so good lawyers (not all, of course). When I see a big firm on the other side of a case, it gives me a good feeling. They are filled up with themselves and often try and rely on “who they are” without doing solid work. A few times in my career, I have literally been asked – “Do you really think you can beat us?” The answer is yes, it happens all the time, although I prefer to play with them and feed their egos.

Many times when I hear some lay person tell me that “so and so” is a great lawyer or, and I love this one, “a big shot lawyer,” I laugh to myself. They aren’t. But, lay people have no ability to tell who is and who is not. Frankly, a lot of lawyers can’t tell either.

4. Hate to tell you – but it’s the same with judges.

I’ve practiced in New York for 25 years. So, I can only tell you about those judges. Some are very good and knowledgeable. But, many are not. In fact, worse, sometimes they are ignoramuses on top of being biased. Some hear trials and don’t even know the most basic rules of evidence. For example, one of the most basic rules in law is that if you call a witness, you can’t lead him/her by giving the answers in the questions. However, when you call the other side as your witness, you can lead them because otherwise they won’t cooperate. Regardless, many judges believe that you can’t lead them either. Here’s another example. I was deposing a party and asked the content of conversations between him, his lawyer and a third party. There is no doubt that the rule of privilege ends when a third party comes into the conversation. The other lawyer objected and we went for a ruling by a notoriously dumb judge (nice, but dumb). She asked me why I wanted to know what this party said the conversation was – why didn’t I just depose the other guy. I answered because when I do depose the other guy, I want to see if he says something different. She said, well, that wouldn’t be fair, would it? What? Not being able to see if witnesses are lying is fair? I guess in that courtroom, witnesses have a right to lie.

Unfortunately, in New York, judges are nominated by the political parties for their party work and they often cross-endorse, so that there is really no choice. In my humble opinion, if you want to be a judge, you should have to pass a test harder than the bar lawyers pass. You should be as knowledgeable, if not more so, than those practicing before you. The standard shouldn’t be how much time you’ve spent licking stamps for politicians. You might get some good judges that way, but you get a lot of bad ones too.

5. Witnesses do lie all the time.

I hate to say it, but people feel that when they take the stand they have a right to lie. Yes, they take an oath and some people take it seriously, but it seems to me a majority of witnesses feels they have a right to lie under oath if it is in their interest. Even nice people. It has just become the culture. When I was a very young attorney I went out on a deposition where the plaintiff and the defendant were neighbors and they got along despite the lawsuit. They told different versions of the same story. Afterwards I walked past them as they waited for the elevator together. One of them, I no longer recall if it were my client or the other, said “You lied. I lied. We both lied.”

It opened my eyes a little. Lying witnesses actually helps lawyers sometimes. Some people are very good at it and your client can lose their case based on their testimony, but I find as often as not, maybe more so, the lies are provable, and the right thing happens. Usually, it’s because there is some document somewhere that tells a different story.

6. Your lawyer is ripping you off (maybe).

There are good, honest lawyers out there who charge only for what they bill, but, truth be known, many lawyers bill far more time than they spend. That reminds me of a joke. A young lawyer dies and goes to heaven. When he gets there he complains that he is too young. After all, he says, “I’m only thirty-five.” St. Peter looks at him and says, “According to your time sheets, you are eighty-five.”

So often when I’m an adversary on a case and I get to see what the other side billed, or even people I’m friendly with, I’m stunned that the numbers are so high for simple things. A lay person cannot know how long it takes to bill to write a complaint, for example. However, lawyers even over bill other lawyers. One lawyer I frequently worked with hired a “big” firm to do a complaint up state. They billed him and his partners roughly $100,000 just for the first document, large portions of which my friend wrote for them. Not that it wasn’t complicated – it was, but he estimated we could have done it for less than $30,000. The firm’s administrative partner billed 9 hours for administrative time. What administrative time. I’d love to see him defend that in court.

7. Jurors are actually pretty fair.

Jurors sometimes get a bad rap. We know most people don’t want to be jurors. It’s not their problem so they could care less. But, I’ve noticed, once they are on the panel, they do try pretty hard to be fair. I’ve been lucky on trial, but I’ve lost some cases. Yet, only in one case I lost did I feel that a jury was biased, and that was tangentially a race issue (I won the second half of the case anyway with a different jury).

I developed this rap with jurors when I am questioning the panel as to who shall sit on the jury. I mention that we all know that people usually don’t look forward to sitting on a jury, but I tell them that in all the cases I have tried, I notice that once people take the oath, just like the witnesses do, not to mention the oaths lawyers and judges have taken, they take it very seriously (I actually raise my hand as if taking an oath). Studies show that if you talk to people about good qualities or model it for them, they will often mimic that behavior, unless they have strong interests the other way. I think it works. At least some times.

8. Perry Mason moments do happen in court.

I rarely have ever had a trial where there wasn’t some excitement, usually on cross-examination. But, some cases were more exciting than others. I remember one that I still can’t believe. I was defending a little old man who was sued by two 30 somethings. They claimed that they were driving along the parkway when suddenly they were hit in the rear. The driver says he bounced his head off the steering wheel, making him groggy, looked into the rear view mirror and read the license plate, memorizing it. I asked him a few times if he had any problem reading the plate after his head smacked into the interior of the car. He read it just like he read anything else. Except, as I pointed out to the jury on summation, in his rearview mirror, the letters and numbers on the plate would have appeared backwards. Even if it was possible for him to have read it in one second, he sure couldn’t have done it right after the blow to his head. I could see their eyes register that fact, although they remained stone faced. After the verdict, in my clients' favor, they indicated to me that they saw exactly what was going on. It was a Perry Mason moment which seems like something you’d only see on tv. I've had some others, but that will do.

9. Lawyers are nice.

Well, some of us. There are a small percentage of lawyers I hate. But, generally speaking, lawyers are some of the kindest, nicest people I know, despite all the jokes (and I do love those jokes).

10. Lawyers make great lovers.

I have no basis to say this, having been intimate only for a short period of my life with one lawyer, a young woman who soon moved away, but I definitely want people to believe its true for selfish reasons.

Bashing partisanship - the saga continues

2009-10-15T05:24:00.000-07:00

Oh, poor Rush, the liberals are being mean to him and he can't be an owner of a football team. Poor, Obama too, the conservatives are making fun of him for not getting the Olympics for Chicago. This is what you both get for your tactics, even if the attacks are unfair. We all get what you deserve - more mindless bickering and unfair character assassinations. I do believe we can do better. It's not a utopian dream although it will not be realized any time soon, probably not in my lifetime.

A few weeks ago I was challenged by a friend/reader as to my political assessment that "partisanship makes everyone a little bit crazy". I will state my position, discuss some studies I think are relevant, and throw it open for criticism. My friends' belief – and I'm pretty sure this covers it - is that my position (1) is offensive to people who have an ideological position (2) confuses that ideology with partisanship, and (3) merely evidences my own bias that everything has to end in some “nice” amorphous middle ground.

I disagree with the first two points and can give some credence to the third.

My central position is this - the biggest problem we face in this country is hard to define because it is not an issue, it is procedure. The control of congress by the two national parties, steeped in partisanship, stifles debate and legislation. This is a long standing problem and not surprising. We should train ourselves to be more open minded.

If it is ever to change it must be bottom up as we cannot expect the people in power to willingly surrender theirs. One of the reasons we cannot get past it is the strong partisanship felt by so many people towards one party or the other based on their identification with conservatism or liberalism, the two parties’ central ideologies. Many Americans share these beliefs, yet, because of the nature of independents, there are no central or common positions they repeatedly rally around. As it stands now, few people with a chance to win will run as an independents, and the few who do successfully must almost then always ally themselves with one of the two parties to even have a voice. The eventual flame out of Governor Ventura in Minnesota and Ross Perot’s Reform Party being taken over and essentially destroyed as a powerful political presence by Pat Buchanan’s party takeover in 2000, are good reasons for independent minded people to pause before they support independent candidates. It may not only waste their vote but help those they most dislike politically to win.

Thus, we can't simply "throw the bums out," because no side wants to take the chance that they would throw their bums out but the other side wouldn't, leaving them completely and utterly in control.

Partisanship can be very different from ideology, although often you can't tell the difference. You could alternatively use the phrase "ideological partisanship" instead of just "partisanship" and it would mean the same thing. Ideology means that the person has a position based on theories of government, jurisprudence, society, culture, science, etc., that is, something based on evidence or reason. Aside from the obvious definition, partisanship means knee jerk reactions as what party (sometimes person) proposes or opposes; liking or disliking or disparaging a public figure (or ordinary person even) or entity based on their party or ideology or belief system; forming positions on issues based on who is supporting them; rejecting policies out of hand because of who proposes it. It means being more likely to believe in the negative "facts" about the other side, and less likely with your own, and also taking the most extreme opinions from the other side and tarring the entire -ism with it.

Likewise with how important you think a scandal is - the question is rarely the real issue for many people, but who's ox is being gourd? As an example, a very strong conservative once complained to me that Frank Lautenberg was flouting the election laws in NJ because of a late entry after scandal came out over the Democrat candidate. I agreed with him but asked if he thought that Dick Cheney was flouting the federal laws by pretending to live in Wyoming at the time he became a VP candidate to satisfy the election law in the constitution. That he said, was a silly thing to argue because it wasn't important, even though the two issues were quite similar.

I don’t mind admitting a bias towards the middle and opposition to extreme. We tend to have a bell curve shaped universe and most issues (not issues like slavery) seem to resolve themselves toward the middle over time. But by middle I do not necessarily mean some “feel good” kumbaya compromise, although that is a possibility sometimes. But, I have always been attracted to Ben Franklin’s closing speech (read for him) at the Constitutional Convention, which I will excerpt here:

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right — Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."

. . . For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. . . .

Rejecting partisanship or being independent in no way means you always believes a compromise or some soft middle position is the right thing to do, or, that important principals are not worth fighting hard for (hopefully, politically, and rarely otherwise). Independents or moderates might be more willing to compromise than partisan warriors, but where a true principal exist, they can be as strongly for or against a given position as any partisan. For example, for me, first amendment rights are most important and I am also quite passionate about the economic ruin I believe both parties are forcing upon us.

There are limits to everything and you can take any of the above statements to their extreme and find them untenable. But, in the main, I solemnly believe they are correct.

When I say “partisanship makes everyone a little crazy,” I often follow it up by saying something like - "not wacka wacka crazy." I say that not just because, clearly, being partisan doesn't make one nuts in the way we usually mean it, but also because I’d rather not offend people unnecessarily.

That leads to a paradox. I dislike ad hominem arguments and prefer to argue with people who don't regularly make them. That is, when people tell me that my position on something is because I'm a liberal, I'm a conservative, I'm a lawyer, I'm a psychology major (college), I only want to be controversial, I have too many rules, I'm illogical, I'm overly logical or technical, etc., I only take extreme positions, everything I say is a generalization, etc. (and I've heard all of those), I don't find it leads to a good discussion. Yet, when I am faced with regular ad hominem argument (the preferred method, not just of partisans) I find that the only way to deal with it is to call the person on it, point out that it the arguments they make are regularly ad hominem and encourage them to stop. Sometimes they do (although never for long). But I admit that doing so is itself an ad hominem attack on them. However, it is the only thing that seems to work other than not discussing anything with them. The same goes with partisanship. Extreme partisanship is merely one form of ad hominem attack and the only way to deal with it is call everyone on it.

Now, partisans might think my saying that partisanship makes everyone a little crazy is an insult, but, at least I am not singling out one side or the other. I do believe that devotion to a side causes people to make irrational arguments to bolster their sides chance of winning. The irony is that partisans regularly use far stronger language to describe each other than "a little bit crazy," even regularly calling each other Hitlerians, Stalinists, murderers, etc. But, both sides have a special place in hell for moderates – who they often chide as worse than their opponents – even though we agree with them roughly half the time. Now, why is that? Because moderation and independence requires looking at the issues, not the asserter's character or the label and that is the last thing partisans want.

Here’s Andrew Sullivan on partisanship from August, 2007 – Practically every pundit and public intellectual thinks that their pet idea - whether it's neo-Reaganism, Sam's Club Conservatism, or whatever the heck Peter Beinart was selling his fellow liberals - is at once the solution to America's ills and the ticket to a lasting political majority. This can produce some deep silliness, like Linda Hirschman's argument that the repudiation of John Rawls will cement a new Democratic majority, but there's nothing particularly sinister about it. . . .

Too true. Even this month Democrats or liberals will tell you that the Republican Party is finished and Republicans or conservatives say that Obama is on his last legs. Both are silly. After next years election, one of them will get to say, see, we were right - it’s all swinging our way. But, they both have been wrong so many times before, that it is just meaningless to declare victory. It has been swinging back and forth since Washington took office. But, how is it, if people are being rationale, that conservatives come to one belief and liberals another every election? How is it that they routinely are convinced their own side will win even if the polls show the opposite (and the polls are usually right). It is more like rooting for a sport’s team.

The examples of partisan thinking as opposed to ideological thinking are too numerous to list comprehensively. But, I will hazard a few. It may be ideological to believe that abortion is right or wrong, but it is more partisan than not to believe that most pro-life or pro-choice people are evil, stupid or cruel just for disagreeing with your position. It may be ideological to think that Obama’s policies are right or wrong, but it is partisan to say that he is actually a Marxist seeking to make us at least a pre-dominantly socialist country or that those who disagree with him are racist. It may be ideological to like or not like John McCain policies, but it was partisan for conservatives to call him a liberal (he has over 80% lifetime conservative rating according to the rating system relied upon by conservatives) because he sometimes disagrees with them or that he was a Neanderthal right winger who was determined to give us “four more years of Bush” as the two had butted head many times over the eight years of Bush’s terms and McCain was long the favorite Republican of many liberals and least favorite Republican of many conservatives.

It is partisan for liberals to think that Michelle Obama is exceptionally attractive or for conservatives to think she is doesn’t even have a pretty face (I've heard both a number of times). It is ideological to disagree with a president’s policies, but both liberals and conservatives mind when their president’s speech is interrupted and are glad when the other guy’s is – if that isn’t partisan – what is? I’ve never heard the conservatives approve of the Pink Ladies the way many approve of Joe Wilson’s outburst, and never heard the liberals complain about Cindy Sheehan the way they do about Wilson.

Are moderates and independents just smarter than anyone else? No (although partisans on both sides frequently are dismissive of the intelligence of those who disagree with them). But intelligence has little to do with it. All I can claim for myself is that I have made a strong conscious effort for the last half of my life to avoid the knee jerk reactions we all have, however often I may fail in it. I am skeptical about many political things I hear or read until I see what I think is strong evidence of it, and I do not believe it is necessary to have a position on things I just don’t know enough about (which is a lot of things). Example – it took me about ten years to come to my conclusion about the death penalty. I remain ambivalent about global warming although I don’t see any real evidence of it reported or of human contribution to it despite it being stated as a "fact" and find it laughable that people’s views about the climate are so influenced by their political party.

Fence sitting is something that I admire. It is deplored by the more partisan people. They do not want open minds; they want to be told that they are right. Nor do I claim not be without biases. In fact, I believe it is impossible to be without them. One could argue that I am just slow, of course. I accept that criticism. I’d rather be slow than hasty when it comes to policy (but not when ordering from a menu). I notice that conservatives I know tend to believe news stories from the media or blogs they hear which support their positions and liberals their positions. Both know that many things reported turn out to be false or at least exaggerations. If being cynical about the truth of stories that seem to overwhelmingly favor one side over the other is wishy-washy, I’m willing to shoulder that characterization. Non-partisanship is cynical by nature. For the same reason, it is often come to much slower than a partisan one. Is there any other area of thought where people are encouraged not to be deliberate, thoughful and to look at the other side?

I also freely acknowledge my bias towards non-partisanship may be no more a function of my free will than someone else’s partisanship. I believe there is strong evidence that political beliefs are to a large degree emotionally determined. Partisanship itself may also be genetically determined to a large degree. If that doesn’t sound right to you, consider the following study out of the University of California at San Diego (Partisanship, Voting, and the Dopamine D2 Receptor Gene (Dawes & Fowler 2008). It looks formidable, but the central point is easy to make out.

Abstract: Previous studies have found that both political orientations . . . and voting behavior . . . are significantly heritable. In this article we study genetic variation in another important political behavior: partisan attachment. Using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, we show that individuals with the A1 allele of the D2 dopamine receptor gene are significantly less likely to identify as a partisan than those with the A2 allele. Further, we find that this gene's association with partisanship also mediates an indirect association between the A1 allele and voter abstention. These results are the first to identify a specific gene that may be responsible for the tendency to join political groups, and they may help to explain correlation in parent and child partisanship and the persistence of partisan behavior over time.

Psychological studies rarely make broad conclusions. In fact, like most good studies, these scientists state their “suspicions” or “suggestions” carefully. You can read the study itself, but I offer these two further paragraphs as the gist of it:

While no studies to date have considered a link between specific genes and partisanship, previous association studies have identified genes that are important in shaping personality traits and behaviors integral to instrumental and social psychology theories of partisanship. The social psychology theory of partisanship suggests variation in partisanship can be explained in part by variation in social attachments, whereas instrumental theories suggest that differences in information processing, as well as the level of individual-level noise, are important determinants. Although there are likely to be dozens of genes involved in complex political behavior, here we identify one, the DRD2 dopamine receptor gene, that is believed to play an important role in both the development of social attachments and cognitive functions that may be critical to the formation of partisan ties.

Based on the political science and behavior genetics literature, we hypothesize that the DRD2 gene influences whether or not a person will identify with a political party. Using both case-control and family-based gene association tests, we find that the A1 allele of the DRD2 dopamine receptor gene is significantly associated with partisanship. Specifically, individuals who are homozygous for the A1 allele of the DRD2 gene are 8% less likely to become partisans than those who are homozygous for the A2 allele. Furthermore, this reduction in the likelihood of partisan attachment also mediates a significant negative association between the A1 allele and voter turnout. Finally, tests of cognitive function as a mediator suggest that the DRD2 gene does not influence partisanship via its effect on cognitive function. As a result, we suspect that DRD2 specifically influences partisanship via its effect on mood and social attachment, but more study is needed to elaborate the causal pathways responsible.

They go into much greater detail concerning brain chemistry and it is difficult for most of us to thoroughly analyze it. We don't have the background. With science, of course, there are few final answers and it is an ongoing process of learning. But, one of their conclusions thus far is as follows:

It must be emphasized that we have only found an association and cannot make any causal claims about the relationship between the DRD2 gene and either partisanship or turnout. However, the empirical link between the D2 dopamine receptor and DRD2 gene, as well as the known functions of dopamine in the brain, suggest at least two channels through which the A1 allele may influence partisanship. We hypothesize that difficulty in forming social attachments and impaired cognitive function, both of which have been shown to be associated with the A1 allele, reduce the likelihood an individual will form and/or maintain an attachment with a political party.

Now, the last statement is somewhat obvious when you think about it (much science just confirms or disproves obvious things) but it strikes me in a personal way. Difficulty forming social attachments has always been a hallmark of my life. In fact, the idea of joining a group is close to anathema for me and I had reservations even about nominally joining a bar association just to get better rates on continuing education lectures (although, I did eventually - needed to save the money). I don’t mind being this way, but it is nothing to be proud of either. Does it explain my anti-partisan bias to some extent? Is it wired into me? Certainly there is evidence for it.

The evidence for partisanship affecting reasoning gains ground all the time. A functional mri study out of Emory University (Westen, Etc., 2006) entitled Neural Bases of Motivated Reasoning (that's the short version) suggests that when one applies reasoning to a problem threatening to one’s political preferences (that's "motivated reasoning," but you could call it partisan thinking as well) it activates different parts of the brain than it does when cold reasoning is going on, such as putting together a puzzle. That means that partisans on both sides of the aisle are applying one part of their brain when figuring out the best way to get from uptown to downtown, but with another part when deciding whether they believe in global warming or for whom to vote. My belief, and this is a hypothesis, is that the difference will turn out to be that motivated reasoning is result oriented. The person has a result in mind and is reasoning to come to that conclusion, whereas cold reasoning is attempting to find the best solution to a problem. Some day perhaps they will test my hypothesis.

David Brooks of the New York Times, probably my favorite columnist at this time (yes, because he is more moderate than others) loves to cite research to back up his opinions. Recently, he did an article (10/13/09) on neurobiology in which he summarized recent studies indicating, among other things:

that people whose parents had lower social status than others exhibited higher activation in the part of the brain involving emotion;

that Arabs and Jews in Israel had different perceptions of pain when viewing body parts in painful scenarios;

that different areas of the brain were activated when subject watched home teams played baseball as opposed other teams;

that the so-called “reward” centers of the brain were activated by dominant behavior for Americans but submissive behavior by Japanese; and, that our brains are quicker activated by viewing members of a group we identify with undergoing pain than an outsider, even if by milliseconds.

The above studies all tend to support beliefs not only that decisions we perceive as rationale may be much less so than we think but also that culture may deeply affect our reasoning process. Further studies need to be taken to determine if these traits are inherited or social in nature - or both. Brooks also discusses a study suggesting that these reactions can be changed by cognitive therapy (a fancy way to say training). That is, we do not have to be slaves to partisanship.

As I have written in early posts, I believed I was a slave to liberalism when I was young, due to my being raised in that philosophy. I accepted it without much thought and demonized those who thought differently. My conscious training starting in my 20s led me not to be a conservative but to be skeptical and cynical about political (and other) claims and to pay attention to perspectives and frames of reference. It wasn’t easy, but it may be that I got there because I also had a bias for cynicism, moderation and independence. The studies Brooks’ discusses would seem confirm my beliefs, if true, so it is no surprise I pay attention to them and believe the suggestions are correct. David Brooks and I likely share some psychological traits which makes us look for and tend to believe information like this.

I have no problem with the concept that I am biased towards moderation, independence or cynicism. In fact, I recommend them to everyone. Which leads me to one of my two favorite quotes:

Loyalty to petrified opinion never broke a chain or freed a human soul – Mark Twain.

Okay, I’ve attacked your belief systems and suggested that "what you think you think" is already programmed into you. I await with pleasure your response (just kidding - usually no one comments when I say something like that).

What if?

2009-10-07T19:04:00.000-07:00

What if?

What is now history once lay upon the edge of a knife. The slightest twist of fate could have changed everything we know, everything about our lives we take for granted. Whether that would be for good or bad, of course, we can never know, nor how differently history may have turned out. You do not need to accept the butterfly wing theory - that a butterfly beating his wings in Brazil might mean a tornado in Asia, -in order to recognize that if certain persons who arose to greatness at critical moments in history either did not exist, died or had their own circumstances change before that moment arrived, things would be extremely different - perhaps unrecognizably so. The following are just some interesting facts from history that make you say - what would the world be like if just a few little things changed? What ifs are just novelties, although they seem to be a cottage industry, but they can be entertaining all the same, particularly where the actual history is interesting itself.

One day soon after the end of the Revolutionary War, Young Thomas, age 6, and his two older brothers, Mordecai and John, were working in a corn field with their father on one of his 5000 Kentucky acres. He was a former Captain in the Virginia militia during the war and well regarded. At the time, Kentucky, originally part of Virginia, was considered part of the western frontier. Conflicts with Indians were common. Suddenly, while they toiled with the corn, an Indian appeared from out of the woods, and shot the boys’ grandfather, killing him instantly.

The two older boys ran for their lives, but Thomas, still only an infant, merely sat beside his dead grandfather and cried. The attacker came out of the woods, a silver crescent hanging upon his chest, and made his way towards the young boy, perhaps to take him as a prisoner, a slave or to raise him as a son, or maybe to kill him with a blow from a tomahawk or the butt of his gun.

Mordecai, age 14, stopped running, turned and raised his rifle. He aimed for the silver jewelry on the Indian’s chest and fired, killing the brave, and thereby probably saving his little brother’s life or at least preserving for him a future in the culture he grew up in.

The name of the father was Abraham Lincoln, but not the one you are thinking about. But Captain Lincoln, as his men called him, was the father of the father of the future president. The young son crying by his side after he was shot was Thomas, the future president’s father. When the president's Uncle Mordecai saved Thomas’ life, he indirectly saved his future nephew’s life and changed history forever.

What if Uncle Mordecai’s aim had not been so good?

Some might say, it would have been better for our country. The South only seceded upon Lincoln’s election. Maybe they would not have if someone they trusted more had been elected. For example, if Stephen Douglas, who had beat Lincoln out for the 1858 Illinois’ Senate seat, didn't have to face Lincoln, he might have also won the 1860 presidential election and there would have been no reason for the South to Secede. After all, many Southeners voted for him and he had a laissez faire approach towards slavery. Perhaps, indeed, slavery would have come to an end in a few years without the need for the bloodiest war in our history. Some folks suggest that not only would it did not have to occur, but that the hundred year plus struggle of blacks for true liberty in the South would not have occurred either. Of course, they may be all wrong. Perhaps the war would have come upon the next election anyway, or, perhaps no Northern commander-in-chief would have had the stomach to handle the horrifying casualties and steady defeats that occurred and would have made an armistice, basically freeing the South (but not the slaves). There are an infinity of other possibilities and only so much of your patience.

Here is another story which shows how subtly history may change.

The young man was proud of his little flat bottomed boat. One day two prospective passengers on a steamer anchored in the middle of the river asked him if he would row them out to it with their luggage. He obliged and even loaded their luggage for them. The young man was known for his kindness and did it without thought of reward.

So he was stunned when both of the gentlemen threw him a half dollar and much later said it had been a very important moment in his life. He thereafter performed the same services for a few other people when he found himself in trouble. He was called before the Justice of the Peace and charged with ferrying without a license, a complaint brought by a family that felt they had a monopoly on it.

The young man appeared himself and pleaded innocent. His only defense was that he was only helping passengers on his side of the river, not taking them all the way across. Sure enough, when the Justice looked at the law, it turned out he was right. It only prohibited unlicensed persons from ferrying from one side of the river to the other. Case dismissed.

Now that young man actually was the future President Abraham Lincoln himself. What if he had been convicted? It is neither inconceivable or even unlikely that the Justice of the Peace could have interpreted the statute differently or never never bothered to look at the statute itself. How much would it have changed Lincoln’s life and his future had he been convicted? If you think this is too small of an incident to consider as life changing, then consider this - no president had ever been elected who was previously convicted until George W Bush was in 2000, a much, much more tolerant era when it comes to youthful indiscretions (not that he was that young). If you know of another president who had been convicted and I missed, let me know. That’s what comments are for.

Lincoln was also almost killed when he was just nineteen years old and on a commercial raft trip with another young man down in New Orleans. Seven men attacked their boat in what appeared to Lincoln to be an attempt to both murder and rob them. Lincoln, of course, was famous for his great height and strength and his friend, after poling much of the 1200 plus miles on the Ohio River and the powerful Mississippi must have been no slouch either. The two of them fought the attackers off and survived.

Years later, in his thirties, Lincoln was challenged to a duel by a well known and quite deadly soldier named James Shields, who felt Lincoln had slandered him. The story of how that ended I have already blogged about (10/23/07), and, leave it to your perusal if you are interested. Of course, Lincoln wasn’t the only one whose life hung in the balance.

In another recent post here (8/20/09) I quoted from George Washington's own journal of a perilous crossing of a river strewn with fast moving blocks of ice into the path of which he was hurled, almost losing his life, and his companion's journal which described how an Indian they were traveling with shot at Washington at close range and missed, both events taking place during the French and Indian War. But Washington escaped death so many times before he became father of our country, we could do this entire post on him. He was shot at numerous times without unfortunate result in both of his wars, nearly froze to death, managed to survive the mumps, smallpox, malaria, tuberculosis, typhoid, infection, the flu, dysentery and pneumonia, all of which were regularly fatal back in those days. He dodged death so many times that instead of telling about one of those, I'll relate instead an incident where he might have been facing death, but certainly the Revolution almost faltered. Either way, our lives would be much different today.

On September 18, 1780, Benedict Arnold, who Washington once called his "finest officer," met with Washington and Alexander Hamilton near his base at West Point (when it was a critically important fort, not a school). Washington was traveling with his staff and a very small Life Guard. At one point, ferrying across the Hudson, Washington and co. (even Lafayette and the artillery chief, Henry Knox) came within cannon shot of the nearby British ship, The Vulture. Had the Captain known it was Washington, he undoubtedly would have fired at him or moved in to capture him. At the meeting Arnold asked Washington just when he would be returning to West Point. He was told it was to be six days later, the 24th. The traitorous Arnold signalled the British signalled the British in code when Washington would return. He had already been negotiating to turn over West Point and thousands of troops and had lied to Washington about the state of its defenses, which were terrible as opposed to formidable.

One of my favorite Revolutionary era historical characters, a man with the almost impossibly heroic name of Hercules Mulligan, was a spy for Washington in New York City where he pretended to be a loyalist while the British controlled it. He had already advised Washington that one of his own generals was a spy (obviously, that was Arnold). Now he learned that British troops were indeed headed up river and warned Washington about that. One of the British officers Arnold contacted was a charming and talented intelligence officer, but ultimately unfortunate man named Major John Andre, who went up towards West Point to meet with Arnold in secret, traveling out of uniform. Arnold waited at West Point for his prey, who was supposed to show for breakfast Saturday.

Hamilton showed up with one of Lafayette’s staff and they breakfasted with Arnold. Washington, he explained, would be delayed but would be there later. During breakfast Arnold got an express from a courier. He learned that Major Andre had been captured and papers with Arnold's name on them discovered. In fact, Andre had been waylaid by some brigands (some say deserters from the American Army) who were robbing loyalists and Andre's secret papers were discovered by them in his boot. He was also informed that papers, which he knew would incriminate him, were on their way to General Washington. Without letting anyone know what he was doing, Arnold excused himself, told his wife to burn their papers and to stall his guests, while he left the house and commandeered a boat. Later, when Washington arrived, he received the papers Andre was carrying and ordered Hamilton after Arnold. It was too late. He was already on a British ship - The Vulture.

While still at the house, Hamilton had heard Arnold’s wife shrieking upstairs. She played the role of a madwoman and fooled Hamilton and Washington completely. They let go and never suspected her. Her role in the espionage, which was extensive, was not discovered until the last century. But Major Andre was hung as a spy.

There are some questions about whether the British really were going to try and take Washington and his men in addition to capturing the fort for which they already agreed to pay Arnold a very large sum of money. There is a paucity of evidence of it on the British side, but, given the fact that Washington, upon visiting West Point, would (and did) discover the awful condition the fort was in, he certainly would know Arnold was lying to him and probably would have figured out he was the traitorous general Hercules Mulligan warned him about. Why would Arnold have taken this risk unless he Washington was to be quickly captured? On the other hand, if that was the case, why didn't Arnold execute his plan anyway. It is all lost in the mists of time and the fog of war, to overwhelm you with cliche. However, we know that many important figures at the time believed that Washington was the target, including Lafayette and Henry Laurens, then president of congress.

What if Andre wasn't captured and the plot uncovered. Both Washington and the British knew if West Point fell, the Americans would be split in half and the war all but over. Arnold, in fact, had been completely false to Washington as to the condition of West Points' defenses. If Washington, not to mention his staff, had been made British prisoners, perhaps executed in London, the war would quite possibly have been over in 1780, even if West Point wasn't taken. Even if matters caused Washington not to head back up to West Point, it would have soon been taken and war ended. As another alternative, what if Washington had perished or was rendered unable to serve in one of his earlier adventures or succumbed to one of his illnesses. As strange as it might seem to us now, it is not that unlikely that the brave and competent Benedict Arnold, who craved recognition from his countrymen, would have been turned to early on in the War as a leader and we would be recognizing Benedict Arnold as a founder, if the not the father of our country.

Many presidents have narrowly escaped death. But, if Benjamin Pierce had been killed when his carriage crashed on the way to D.C., taking his son’s life, or, if Andrew Jackson died in one of his bloody duels or in the assassination attempt on him when he was president, for example, I doubt the world would have been very different. But Washington’s and Lincoln were extraordinary men and their absence or disappearence would have had enormous consequences.

Here are a couple more "what ifs" which might have had changed our history dramatically.

The rotund British author was visiting New York City a little before Christmas, 1931, on a lecture tour.

Already a disgraced government official who had had an exciting life including a life of risk in the Boer War and WWI, in 1929 he had lost a ton of money in the Great Crash. Now he was on his way to see an old friend, the famous financier, Bernard Baruch. But, while walking to Baruch’s place on Fifth Avenue, he looked the wrong way crossing the street and was struck by a passing car.

He was thrown into the gutter and suffered a serious head wound. He went to the Bahamas to recuperate but then caught a form of typhoid fever.

But he survived all of it.

Good thing. The fortunate pedestrian was soon to be leading the last stand in Europe against Nazism. Without Winston Churchill bracing Britain, it is possible both that she would not have survived Germany’s assault on her or that the United States would not have put so much effort into defeating Germany when Japan was considered her real enemy by so many of our citizens. Perhaps without Churchill's iron will, Britain would have sought an early armistice. Although I believe that the good guys would have won in the long run, Churchill was more than just instrumental, and his special relationship with Roosevelt, his own American heritage, his indomitable spirit, and ability to motivate the British people not to mention Americans, were critical. Not for nothing, Churchill sometimes tops opinion polls of the 20th century’s greatest man, and, in fact, won this blog’s award (the most coveted of all such awards - 5/9/07) as well.

But what if the driver had been going just a little bit faster or had hit him more squarely in the front of the car?

Last one.

Just two years after Churchill’s accident, an Italian immigrant named Giuseppe Zangara was down in Florida. He was an anarchist, believing that no government was the best government. He was not only out of work but had just lost a couple of hundred dollars at the dog races. He purchased a 38 caliber pistol and went to the park to hunt a particular human one day. It wasn't a fair fight as his prey was crippled. Zangara stood up on a chair just 25 feet away from his target and opened fire. He got off five shots before a bystander knocked his hand away and he fell off his chair.

He hit some people, but missed his main target, in fact managed to gravely wound the mayor of Chicago, Anton Cermak. It took only 5 days to convict Zangara who was sentenced to 80 years in prison. Then the mayor died of his wounds. Zangara was tried for murder and convicted. His execution quickly followed.

The very fortunate main target was then president-elect Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Because Zangara missed, and we tend to remember only successful assassination attempts, people forget how close FDR came to missing his dates with destiny – both the depression and WWII.
What if Zangara had gotten closer or been a better shot or waited until he was closer?

We might have a clue to this since we know who the Vice President-elect was. John Garner was also a Democrat, but he was a southern Democrat, and had very different ideas about policy than FDR. There probably would not have been a New Deal – for better or worse – as Garner was against it. Who can say how he would have dealt with WWII as he was out of office before the war actually started and Roosevelt would not have given him any real role anyway. Unlike Roosevelt, Garner was very committed to the two presidential term custom and actually ran against him in the primaries (losing badly). But, had Garner been president instead of Roosevelt, would he have found reason to run again himself as WWII loomed. Also, unlike Roosevelt, Garner would have lived through the whole war too. He didn't until he was nearly 99 years old in 1967, exceeding by far the life span of all other presidents or vice presidents. Ironically, If FDR had died while president-elect not only would he be virtually unknown today, but possibly we never would have heard of George Marshall, or Dwight Eisenhower or many others for whose fame FDR was directly or indirectly responsible. Perhaps not even Winston Churchill. If there was a short war, perhaps the atomic bomb never would have been created, or for many decades.

Of course, some might argue we'd have been better off as FDR has his critics. Some say that the New Deal was the wrong way to handle the bad economy and made it worse. Some also say that regardless of how we did in the war, Roosevelt's giveaway to Stalin at Yalta set up a much longer war, albeit a cold one. However, most people feel Roosevelt did well, and there can be no doubt his life has been quite consequential.

Roosevelt, Churchill, Washington and Lincoln all came within a hair’s breadth of losing their life or, in Lincoln’s case, to not even being born. They were arguably the four most important men in the English speaking world since America’s inception. You can play what if with anyone about almost anything, but the virtually unique importance of these four men and the dramatic ways they almost disappeared from history makes it a somewhat more interesting consideration.

But, the truth is, I just like to talk about interesting history I come across, and what ifs are as good an excuse as any.

Websites

2009-10-01T20:27:00.000-07:00

I find great websites all the time. Today, I just want to talk about a few that just appeal to me because I like their subject matter.

http://www.thefire.org/

One of my favorites sites lately is FIRE, short for Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a foundation advocating freedom of speech in education. Few things get me as riled up as first amendment violations, and frequently FIRE has an article that just makes me mad.

Take this case documenting what looks like a disturbing power play by a Georgian State college to stifle all dissent by their employees. Thomas Thibeault was a professor at East Georgia College. According to FIRE, during a seminar on sexual harassment he complained that the school’s policy had no protection for people who were falsely accused. The school’s vp for legal affairs, Smith, replied that there was, in fact, no protection for them. Thibeault said he thought that made the policy unfair. Seems like they agreed, no?

Apparently not.

Two days later Thibeault was called to the presidents office, where President Black, along with VP Smith, confronted him. President Black essentially fired him – well sort of fired him, as you will see. FIRE provides a copy of Thibeault’s letter to Black and Smith giving details of the meeting, of which I include a part here:

You commenced the meeting by stating that I was a divisive force in the college at a time when the college needed unity for the forthcoming SACS inspection. You then informed me that you were canceling my present contract and all future contracts on the grounds of sexual harassment. You claimed that I have a “long history os (sic) sexual harassment which includes smutty jokes, foul language, obscenities, and innuendo.

I asked you for proof of these allegations, and you stated that, if you received my resignation by 11:30, nothing more would be done and that you would provide me with a good reference for my next teaching position. If you did not receive my resignation by 11:30, you would dismiss me and that my ‘long history of sexual harassment would be made public.’

His letter also states that he was told he would be escorted off the campus and that the sheriff was informed if he was found on the campus to arrest him for trespass.

Thibeault was a teacher at a State college, which is required to apply due process under Georgia’s law, not to have professors escorted off campus and threatened with arrest because the president thinks he’s not a team player. It gets crazier, according to the FIRE article.

On August 25 the president wrote Thibeault again, claiming for the first time that Thibeault had actually been suspended, not fired: "[T]he committee's finding was that there is sufficient evidence to support your suspension." The letter also stated that Thibeault was going to be terminated because of "sexual harassment," that he could obtain the charges upon request and also request a hearing. So, he requested a copy of the charges a few days later, and, of course, did not get a response. His lawyer had the same result.

Of course, I have no idea whether Thibeault is a celibate monk or leers at his student. But, if FIRE is even remotely accurate here, then the school’s process, unfairly depriving professors of their jobs, might be worse than many cases of actual harassment, unless you think a boss abusing his power by unfairly taking someone's job is okay. My question is, what will happen to Black (not to mention Smith) if Thibeault’s facts are borne out? I'd like to think it would be severe, and that they was dismissed himself or at least severely chastised and required to apologize for his bullying and rule violations. Of course, in real life, that won’t happen at all, which is why organizations like FIRE are so necessary.

Whatever the result is, my point here is really just that it’s a terrific website, whose mission is one I can get behind. There are also articles on FIRE this past month about Yale’s decision to remove cartoons characterizations of Mohammad in a book which is actually ABOUT THOSE CARTOONS (you all remember the hullaballoo in Denmark over these cartoons, including death threats), another one on Virginia Tech’s coercive requirement that professors produce research supporting Tech’s diversity policy (FIRE takes no position on the policy; only on the coercion); University of Idaho’s speech code prohibiting “insensitive” speech (I know people who think any public mention of ethnicity, skin color, gender, etc., is insensitive at best, if not outright bias); and, a similar one at James Madison University where students may be punished for "lewd, indecent or obscene conduct and expression" - naturally, no definition for lewd or indecent is given - as FIRE points out, the school's explanation that it is only to prohibit illegal conduct like public urination or masturbation doesn't explain why "expression" is also prohibited.

I don’t need to check FIRE everyday, but once a week or so does the trick.

http://www.pardonpower.com/

Another site I’ve discovered lately is on the pardon power and the related power of presidents and governors to grant clemency, reducing a sentence. It is run/owned by Professor P. S. Ruckman, Jr. (and I can’t find his full name anywhere), who has a Ph.d in political science and is an associate professor at Rock Valley College in Illinois. He is also one of one of the few experts in pardons in the country.

Pardons usually become exciting only at the end of a president’s term as the media and political opponents wonder which of his cronies, supporters, etc., will get a pass. Clinton’s Mark Rich pardon (which did Rich little good and Clinton much bad) and Bush’s clemency for Scooter Libby are well known examples.

Ruckman has written heavily not just on presidential pardons but keeps us informed as to what is going on in each state. The pardon power is, of course, an awesome one. It can be sweeping (Carter pardoning all those who fled the draft during Vietnam; Andrew Johnson pardoning the confederates), it can be obviously political (Nixon pardoned supporter George Steinbrenner or Clinton's of Mark Rich); and astonishing (Carter pardoning unapologetic Puerto Rican terrorists - one of whom had tried to kill President Truman and who was indirectly responsible for a security officer’s death in doing so; Clinton pardoned Puerto Rican terrorists too). It can also be an act of mercy that it was meant to be, such as where terminally ill persons are allowed to go home to die or to receive medical treatment.

What’s interesting about Ruckman’s site is that it is so comprehensive, both he and his associates having made a scholarly inquiry into the subject. The stats are fun and overwhelming (I’ll obey the request on his blog not to cut and paste).

For example, he breaks down George Bush’s pardons by State. He didn't pardon very many people but when he did, 17 were from his home state, Texas, which received by far the most. Of the top eleven states having prisoners receiving pardons from Bush, nearly two thirds are from the 11 states which were in the Confederacy, as was Texas. Nearly 70 percent came from red states as were 80 percent of the top ten. Of the states that received only 1 pardon, 7 of the 11 had gone blue in his last presidential election, including some very populous states with lots of prisoners. Total pardons received by blue states – 47; Total received by red states – 105. He’s not suggesting Bush was more political than any of his predecessors and, if Ruckman has a political persuasion, I can’t tell from the site what it is. But, can it be said that this power was placed in the Constitution for the president to get to score political points. I think not. Athough there was already a federalist/anti-federalist split in the founders, parties didn't exist yet the way they would just a few years later. A separate article reprinted in Ruckman's blog suggests that the power has only recently morphed from an exercise in checks and balances into the president’s personal prerogative.

Here’s some more from the site – of all of our presidents, the two main World War presidents, Wilson and Roosevelt, made by far the most pardons. Since LBJ, the number of pardons presidents grant have substantially shrunken. In the last two of FDR’s terms (the last term mostly Truman’s), more pardons were granted than all of the pardons from Reagan through Bush put together. Since Carter left office, Clinton has granted the most, but still quite few compared to all presidents since the Civil War.

I got turned onto the site after reading a scathing article by Ruckman on the congressional testimony given by “experts” to congress after the Clinton “last minute” pardon scandal, the one which included the pardon to Mark Rich. Ruckman was not defending the Rich pardon, but he showed that if you actually look at the statistics, the experts who testified were anything but expert. In fact, despite their testimony that Clinton’s pardons did not fit a historical pattern, the actual statistics show quite the opposite. The problem was, as he pointed out, those who testified claimed to be basing their opinions on history, but cited almost no facts at all. If you've ever watched congressional hearings, that is hardly a surprise. Apparently, they just had no idea of what the truth was and based their opinions on what they thought might be the case. I find it curious that the "expert" Ruckman most heavily criticized for inaccuracy at the hearings, Margaret Colgrave Love, who had worked in the Justice Department’s pardon department, is listed on the sidebar of www.pardonpower.com among its lists of experts. After the bashing he gives her in his article, I’d like to see that mystery unraveled.

Go to the site, if you have any interest in these things and spend as many hours as you like reading it. You won’t exhaust the amount of information there. It’s like reading Wikipedia but just on one topic.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/

A couple of years ago I found this truly amazing website hosted by Tufts University (with contributions and support from many other sources). Perseus collects many ancient texts of the Greek and Roman world and translates them in a word by word clickable fashion. It also provides dictionaries and commentaries for most of their collection. It is a revolutionary tool that allows you to translate, as examples, Aristophanes, Tacitus or even the Bible, word by bloody word.

This might not excite everyone, but it will language lovers and it excites the bejabbers out of me. What it does is open the doors of knowledge that previously could only be enjoyed by a handful of scholars, the same way the internet has opened up trading on the stock market to any idiot who wants to gamble his money away.

Let’s jump, just for fun, to Perseus’s table of contents and then scroll down to the Bible under “World English Bible,” then to the Old Testament Book of Judges (from whence, e.g., the story of Sampson) in the Latin translation of St. Jerome. I choose St. Jerome, one of the "fathers" of the Catholic Church, because his efforts in revising the existing Latin translations of the Bible paved the way for translations in so many other languages, just as Perseus has done in a different way. When completed, the translation became known as the "Vulgate" or common text.

So, I click on the Vulgate version and up pops the Latin translation for Judges. Then, I choose, not quite randomly, the second word, mortem, because it looks familiar, and I’m guessing almost certainly has something to do with death, as in "mortician" and even "Morticia," of Addams family fame.

Click.

A word study box pops up. It tells me that the root – Mors – does indeed mean death (that was an easy one), and that mortem is in the feminine, singular and accusative case (which, if you care, is basically the direct object of a transitive verb). You can also connect to Charlton T. Lewis’ An Elementary Latin Dictionary for more information. But, even without doing that, the word study tool box tells me that the word appears 458 times out of the some six hundred and fifty thousand words in the database. In all of the Latin texts, out of nearly four and a half million words, it appears 2168 times or 6.27 times per 10,000 words.

Tell me that doesn't get your heart pumping. No? Maybe I'm a little strange.

I click on the number 2168 and I am taken to a page which lists for me every single usage of the word in their database. The first entry is from Cicero, and when I click on that entry, poof, there is a Latin translation for that text with again every world clickable to a dictionary translation. Perseus also highlights Mors wherever it is found in the text I pulled up.

Of course, you can just skip all that word for word translation and just read any of these ancient texts in the full English translation that you can also access with a click, not to mention commentaries and related texts all linked to most every word. No library you or I could get to without tremendous inconvenience could ever be so handy and make these great texts available to us. It would take a huge library just to collect the texts, and even then reference works wouldn't be just a click away.

Here’s a selection of authors you can do all this with on Perseus (my favorites in bold): Aeschylus, Appian, Aristophanes, Aristotle, Caesar Augustus, Julius Caesar, Bede, Catullus, Cicero, Demosthenes, Epictetus, Euclid, Euripides, Herodotus, Hesiod, Homer, Livy, Lucretius, Horace, Pindar, Plato, Plautus, Plutarch, Sophocles, Tacitus, Thucydides, both Testaments and Xenophon. I just gave names that are somewhat familiar to most interested people, but there are many others.

The name Perseus was inspired. Perseus was one of Greece’s greatest mythological heroes, the one who cut off the head of the dreaded snake-coiffed Medusa, whose mere look could turn a man to stone. Scholars often try to guess where the names of mythological characters come from, but I emphasize the word guess, as, although there is knowledge involved, it is hardly a science, even though it is often stated with great certainty. The best guess for the meaning of Perseus is “destroyer” or “sacker” (as in, they sacked the city), from Perth- (“-eus” being a typical Greek male ending as in - Zeus).

But this post is really about websites and I can’t start talking about mythology or I’ll never get back on track. A similar site to Perseus is the http://www.blueletterbible.org/, a cite that has a search engine for 14 different translations of the Bible, as well as tons of study aids, charts, lists, summaries, encyclopedias, etc.

I recognize that the first amendment, pardon power and translations are subjects which interest me and might leave others cold. Let me know what websites have you fascinated these days. And no, my friends, I wasn't referring to porn.

Good-bye, Mr. Safire

2009-09-28T02:37:00.000-07:00

Having blogged on ghosts just yesterday, it feels a little strange to write a memorial to William Safire, so recently departed, and I will pass on doing a longer piece such as I wrote for George MacDonald Fraser, John Mortimer and George Carlin here the past year or so, though not because Safire isn't worth it. I am sorry to see him go as I have been sorry in the past to see him give up his New Times column and later his language column.

He was the kind of political "pundit" I like, rarely making a personal attack, almost always debating the point rather than stating the party line or baiting his followers with "red meat," and almost always softening whatever he wrote with his particular sense of humor (I almost wrote "impish" or "puckish," to modify "humor," but he would scold me for the cliche and then snicker while he used it himself). If I had to pick, he and the late Jack Anderson have been my favorite columnists. I never read one of Safire's novels (that I can remember, anyway) and his re-interpretation of the Book of Job was just a mistake in more than one way. But, those are minor criticisms of a great writer and can have the same damage to his reputation as my blowing into the wind would have on a hurricane.

I very highly recommend his Lend Me Your Ears, a collection of inspirational speeches (he was, after all, first known to us as a speech writer for Nixon) that I have revisited enough to destroy the spine, as well as his column on columns, How to Read a Column. If I am allowed a slight fantasy, I picture him greeting his old boss, Richard Nixon, today, but then moving on with delight to the spirits of Pericles, Judge Learned Hand, Malcolm X, William Jennings Bryant, and so many others who have inspired him with their words and which he has helped pass on to us.

I leave this topic by quoting from a speech by Charles I of England, just before he lost his head, which I read first in Lend Me Your Ears. I imagine Safire might have liked to quote this himself, if he could: "I troth, sirs, I shall not hold you much longer; for I will only say this to you, that in truth I could have desired some little time longer, because that I would have put this I have said in a little more order, and a little better digested, than I have done; and therefore I hope you will excuse me."

Boo!

2009-09-27T17:16:00.000-07:00

For the most part this blog is not biographical, but, there’s no rule against it. This past week I went to Gettysburg, my third visit, and it was as historically sublime as the last time I went. The first time I went it rained heavily and I was accompanied by one adult girlfriend and three female children who all seemed to think that Pickett’s charge was as exciting as watching the test pattern on tv at 3 in the morning (am I dating myself – do they even do that on tv anymore?).

For those of you who haven’t been to Gettysburg, it is the preserved town and battlefield from one of the most - if not the most - important battle ever to have been fought in our country since Yorktown. I can’t recommend it more highly as a great two day destination, even if the Civil War isn't your thing. One couple I recommended it to loved it so much, while they were there they reserved rooms to go back later thaat same year. A truly special place. I posted here after my last trip I believe two years ago and gave there a very short summary of the battle and a longer discussion (possibly intolerably long) of General Longstreet’s controversial role in that great fight. You can check out that post (4/16/08) if the Civil War interests you. I’m not going to repeat that all here, and, as I say all the time - this isn’t Wikipedia. There are a tons of sites on Gettysburg and as many, if not more, books.

Rather, I will discuss my personal experiences with the paranormal in my life up through Gettysburg this week. If there are two phrases you will rarely see written together in a sentence that I write, they are “personal experience” and “the paranormal”. Frequent readers here know I am one skeptical fellow (see my 8/7/08 post - The Anti-Muldar Society - I don't want to believe). I will tell you now, certain as Scrooge, I do not believe I have been visited by ghosts these past two weeks any more than I believe beings from other planets are visiting Earth (although, admittedly, I do love reading about that subject or watching it on tv), but I will relay my experiences to you all the same as objectively as I can.

So, follow me back through the misty waves of time to Westbury, Long Island in the late 60s - early 70s, where a young boy we will call David and his friends are having some weird experiences in the unfinished part of the basement in his house. It seems like there is a ghostly presence there which makes unexpected noises and even occasionally moves things. We actually found this quite a bit of fun and emboldened with each others' presence, would frequently visit downstairs and await to be scared so badly that we would run up the stairs as if the devil were right behind us. One time that especially stands out in my mind, I watched my friend Rainer standing behind the door of an old closet, bb gun in hand (wondering, even then, what use to him would that be against a spirit) as the door began to slowly closed upon him, to both our horror. There was no reasonable explanation – no breeze and neither he nor I was touching it.

With a strange bravery that seems a little nuts now, we would turn off all the lights and wait not long for the inevitable footsteps and sounds that would come from the next room (the finished part of the basement) or even inside the unfinished room where we waited, although there was no one else home. In retrospect, it is hard to believe we did that at all, but we did so constantly. Bear, who frequently comments here, was then an acquaintance and not yet a friend. He visited the house in the 7th grade and wrote a story about it for the school newspaper (still have that story around, Bear?)

The truth is, the reason I think we were able to be so frequently frightened by our "ghost," but then managed to live in the same house without fear and actually fall asleep at night without even thinking about it, is because deep in our hearts we did not really believe. I was sure, even if I didn't say so out loud and spoil the fun, that there must have been some explanation for the uncanny events.

Skip ahead to about 1997-8. A friend of mine who used to clean my apartment (thank God for friends, but I'm pretty sure I paid her) tells me that while she was there, she heard a door open. I pointed out to her that I lived upstairs from other people and that it wasn’t a big surprise. She said, no, it wasn’t that kind of door. I asked her if she was going to tell me my long deceased mother was visiting me. She said that was exactly what she meant. I replied, “Great, so much for walking around here without clothes anymore”. But I did not believe. It was not a problem.

Skip ahead to 2003. I am in Ireland in an old house that literally had bats in its belfry (seriously, it had a belfry and bats). In the middle of the night, the woman I affectionately refer to as my insignificant other tossed me out of the room and, bedspread in hand, I headed off towards the library where I knew I had seen a couch. I walked down the large eerie stairs past the impossibly large mirror with the long diagonal crack and into the library with the spooky pictures on the wall. I lay down on the couch, looked around, thought about some of my friends who would have had the hair on their head standing straight up, and said to myself, “Thank God I don’t believe in ghosts”. I went back to sleep. Skepticism has its benefits.

Skip ahead to last Sunday, September 20, 2009. I return from a breakfast with two friends, sometime in the late morning or very early afternoon. I entered my house and moved directly to the computer in the front room. From there, about thirty feet away, I can see the kitchen refrigerator and, in front of it, a black bullet shaped garbage can with a see saw top that moved moved up and down when you dropped something in it.

I was working on the computer for roughly an hour, half watching the Jet game (must have been after 1 o’clock p.m.) when I looked up. That may have been coincidental, or it may have been a reaction to motion in my peripheral vision. Whatever it was, when I looked up, I saw the top of the garbage can moving up and down. I immediately thought it was an optical illusion of some type, and stared at it for I believe five or six seconds. No illusion. It was definitely moving, and not just a little, until it settled down.

My first reaction was not that there was a ghost, but a living person visiting me, who must have either touched the lid or dropped something in it. I walked into my bedroom, picked up the knife I take hiking with me and walked into the kitchen. Nobody there. I went from room to room, closet to closet, and satisfied myself there was no one else in the house. It is small for anyone to have avoided me seeing or hearing them move about. Yet the lid moved.

I checked the garbage can for an explanation, such as a mouse, but found nothing that would explain it.

That's when I got that creepy feeling up my spine like you get when you are watching a scary movie. Later that night when I went to bed I asked myself if this was going to be a problem. I did think about it for a minute, literally said "Bah, humbug" out loud and went to sleep, I believe immediately.

And nothing further has happened there. Yet. At least there.

Later this past week I drove north to Gettysburg. I had chosen the bed and breakfast my friend and I would be staying at because of its reasonable price, and more importantly, its availability on the days we needed. When I spoke with the host, Keith, on the telephone, he told me that the house was well known to be haunted. He also said that it had been the subject of an episode on a television show, but that it had exaggerated the truth. One of the former inhabitants of the house, Tillie Fields, after whom the house is now named, was involved in caring for patients during the battle and was witness to much horror. But, her worst experiences were a few miles away from her house. Although her house, like so many others, was used as a makeshift hospital, probably nothing all that dramatic happened there. The house across the street was struck by a live cannon round, which is still stuck in the front of the building. Fortunately, the fuse had come out along the way and it did not blow up. Tillie's house was more fortunate.

Nor did Tillie die there. In fact, she had not lived there for decades when she finally passed on. So, who would be haunting the house? I don’t know. No one knows. Since I don’t believe (keep remembering that as this gets scarier), it’s not that important to me.

My friend, Mike, who lives in New York, met me there. The hostess who greeted us, Leslie, assured us that although the tv show greatly exaggerated what happens there, but also quietly insisted to my friend and I that there were ghosts which were harmless, but mischievous. I told her I didn't really believe and she said that maybe nothing will happen to us when we went up to bed. However, she also told us that after an experience recently, one guest fled the house in the middle of the night and wouldn't come back in, despite her boyfriend begging her to. Who knows if is true. The hostess has a motive to increase interest in the house and entertain her guests, however much she assured us she was not exaggerating. Unfortunately for Mike, the room he was going to sleep in was the one she claimed the most people report seeing and hearing spooky things. Each room has a book that guests can write in and many left a record of some ghostly experiences, usually hearing raps and footsteps or sometimes seeing small lights, but they didn't seem all that scared either. More amused, it seemed to me. One the other hand, they all seemed to be couples. As I knew from my adventures in my basement all those years ago, company breeds courage.

Close to midnight, we went to bed. I was a little concerned about my friend, and I wasn’t quite sure whether he believed in ghosts at all and whether our hostess had primed him to the degree he'd be frightened, although he is a usually a very collected fellow. After some joking, and my showing him the really creepy picture in my room of two very serious looking children, we said good night. I learned the next morning that he had fallen asleep with the lights on while reading. Honestly, if I were in that room, it is possible that might have happened with me too. Even skeptics can get spooked.

I read for about a half hour from a book of essays on Lincoln that I had picked up in town and then turned off the light to go to sleep. As often happens with me, I woke up in the middle of the night and read until about 5 a.m., when I felt sleep overcoming me again.

Perhaps I fell asleep or perhaps I was in the process of falling asleep, but I had a very vivid of feeling someone or something holding my left arm up and pulling on it. It was warm, tingly and so very real that as I write this, I get the same chilling feeling I got at that moment. Possibly because I was dreaming, I felt paralyzed, and try as I could, I was unable to open my eyes or move my body, despite the alarm coursing through me. For a few seconds I felt - I say felt, not believed - as if a ghost was holding me and it was more than a little disconcerting. Fortunately, I don’t believe, and after a few seconds of this, I reminded myself of that, and let myself fall asleep (if I wasn’t already) without even opening my eyes. Nothing more happened and when I awoke, it was light outside.

I reported my experience the next day to Mike, but I played it down, because, frankly, I didn’t want to scare him if he had a difficult night. Mike said his night was uneventful, although he kept the light on.

The next night there was a full house. I had no incidences at all, but I was awake again much of the middle of the night. I looked at my cell phone when I awoke that night and knew that I was up from about 2:30 a.m. until about 5 a.m. In the morning everyone except me, including Mike, reported hearing footsteps in the hallway in the middle of the night. Mike was certain it was at about 3 a.m. That one I could explain. I told them it was almost certainly me they heard. Whenever during the night I had gotten out of bed and walked in my room, the floor creaked beneath me and I wondered if I was scaring the bejabbers out of everyone on the floor. Apparently I was. I can't think of another explanation as I know I made the floor creek, but heard nothing from outside my own door. If they thought it came from the hallway, it is only because they could not, in the dark, with the doors all closed and lights off, tell where the sounds came from. I did also relate my experience from the night before to them and wrote in the notebook in my room what I had experienced, including my skepticism that it was a spectral event, despite what it felt like at the time.

Smart people I know believe in things I don’t. I accept that, but it hasn’t changed my mind. Still, even for this dyed in the wool skeptic, the two recent experiences – the one in my house and the one in the Tillie Pierce House, were quite strange, among the strangest in my life, and a little unsettling. I am no less a skeptic today, but can't deny what I saw and felt, and leave you to your own conclusion.

Political update for September, 2009 - you are still all crazy

2009-09-17T05:21:00.001-07:00

I take a few weeks vacation from the blog to attend to other business and the whole world goes to hell. Health care reform, which I think is critical, stands on the abyss; an angry congressman shamefully loses control at an Obama speech; an ex-president blathers on about the loyal opposition being overwhelmingly racist; constant whining about partisanship WHEN YOU ALL DESERVE IT, and so forth.

It is nice to be needed, so I will get to work and resolve some of the problems. To warm up this week, I started reading some popular political blogs, and even commented on them (and guiltily admit to cleaning up the typos in them reprinted here). I don't read them much, but I haven't really watched the news in a few weeks. Many of these blogs were about President Carter. Let's visit his most recent error in judgment. Here's the exact controversial quote:

An “overwhelming portion of the intentionally demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man; that he is African-American.”

For the first time in this column, I say, - Seriously?

Sure, there's too much racial prejudice in the world today. Maybe there always will be during my lifetime, and long thereafter (I have hope - someday). The fantasy that prejudice is no more is a conservative one, but the fantasy that there are still substantive legal impediments to certain races or ethnic groups is a liberal one (in fact, it is by law weighted the other way).

But there has been a tremendous improvement in race relations the past half century to which I can personally attest. I know through experience that some people might read the previous sentence and believe I wrote - There is no racism anymore - but I've also learned that they cannot hear much else, such is their sensitivity to the subject, and so I will let it go. But, gone are the Jim Crow laws of the South, a large part of the animosity towards black/white couples, and many other of the badges of slavery that continued for a century after the Civil War. Even in my conservativism soaked little Southern town, where there seems to me far more racism than I would like, both conscious and un-conscious, a black and white couple could walk up and down the streets unmolested by anyone. Even in the north, where I still know people against inter-racial dating, they say nothing when in the presence of such a couple, nor would they have a problem inviting them to a wedding or a barbeque. It's undeniably better than it was.

Of course, the fact that we have a bi-racial president who identifies himself as black, speaks the proverbial volumes as to the change in our culture. Many people thought it could not happen. Indeed, until about two months before the election I admit I thought we would have a small percentage of people who would even say that they would vote for him but would not and that might make the difference - but it didn't seem to happen, at least in any measurable way, and it wouldn't have mattered much anyway.

Carter's rhetoric is inflammatory and meant to say, if you disagree with my side, then you can't have a good reason we can discuss and therefore it must be a product of racism. It is because of statements like this that he has so often played the fool the last few years. He hasn't done President Obama any favors with these comments and maybe he doesn't care. Ex-presidents often think they are still relevant, and for a few weeks he will be. That's because cable news needs something to talk about.

The real flap is mostly, of course, over health care, which dominates the political scene. I offered my own solution a few months ago; use the power of charity, augmented by increasing its tax benefits, to fuel non-profit organizations to supplement various medical needs. Part of that plan has now arisen in the idea that a not-for profit insurance company would be a good way to force for profit companies to compete harder. I have no problem with a not for-profit-insurance company competing with for profit companies in health any more than in other industries. I do have a problem if it is subsidized by the government, because then it's not really competition, it's destruction, followed by government takeover. But, perhaps I'm a racist for thinking so.

Last week, after Joe Wilson's unfortunate outburst during Obama's speech, Maureen Dowd - who - sorry liberal haters - is a great writer (no worries, though, so is Ann Coulter) - took aim by writing that even if it was "unfair" to say so, that when Wilson said, "You lie," he meant, "You lie, boy." I commented on the New York Times page as follows:

Seriously? You are not going to castigate him for calling Obama a liar during his speech, you are going to make believe that he added "boy"?

It's not "fair or unfair," it's just plain unfair. Especially because you know that people will read it and just remember the "boy" part, not that you made it up. Wilson was rude, unprofessional and even, idiotic. But to target people as racist because of where they live - well, I live in the South too. I guess that makes me a racist.

The other day I commented on a Jonah Goldberg piece where his defense of birthers was that people who believed the government was involved in 9/11 were even more nuts. We get the same ridiculous, over the top, nonsense from both sides.

If you folks can't write about something that actually happened, why do you have these big jobs?

p.s. I usually like your column, and you are a great (although biased) writer, but this was just silly. Come on.

However, if one of Dowd's points is that there is still a lot of prejudice in the South, I'm not going to argue too much. For example, The Daily Kos reports a poll showing that “birthers” are a regional phenomena. 69% of them are born in the South. The suggestion is that because the South held onto Jim Crow so long, this is a holdover of racism. Maybe so. Living in the north of the South, it seems to me that there is a little more racism here than in New York, where I spent most of my life. However, this is purely anecdotal, and I can’t be sure that this is so, and admit a bias to believe it given U.S. history. Also, I’ve met any number of people down here who are anything but racist. But it is also a place with a strong history of anti-federalism and state’s rights, not exactly the Obama administration’s strong point.

It is no more fair to decide that Joe Wilson was rude because Obama was black as it is to believe that Obama is being less than honest because he was black. In fact, put Clarence Thomas up as even the Democrat candidate and see how many conservatives would happily vote for him. Most.

Now maybe Wilson had a knee-jerk conservative reaction to Obama. That I buy (although I do agree with his point that Obama was not telling the truth, at best, being slippery, but he was rude and that doesn't serve his side at all, any more than the Pink Ladies influenced debate by interrupting congressional hearings). But Dowd has knee-jerk liberal reactions every week.

Calling someone racist without good grounds is almost as bad as being racist, some might think exactly as bad. It certainly happens much too often.

A number of times during the presidential election I was asked with incredulity – HOW I could vote for McCain? I had a list of reasons which even my political accusers agreed were, at least, reasons. I won’t bore you here with it as I already lost that one. But one reason I voted for McCain definitely was not that Obama was black. I, and I know many others who voted against him (even, I think, John McCain), who thought it was a significant moment in our history that a black man was elected. But one of the few personal faults of Obama that bothered me during the election was the too frequent race cards thrown by Obama’s staff or supporters, particularly in the primaries. He stayed out of it for the most part and still does. I appreciate that. But, I thought he should have actively countered it during the election and he failed in that.

Obama can’t control Carter (no one can). But, he could, in passing, say, "I disagree with President Carter’s belief. Racism does exist. But most of my political adversaries have principled positions that differ from mine. Let’s have a debate about the best thing for America." That would impress me. His press secretary, Gibbs, has pretty much said so, and Obama gets his chance this Sunday on the news shows.

Speaking of Jonah Goldberg, here was my comment on his absurd little piece on the birthers, defending them on the basis that "truthers" who believe that the towers went down as part of a U.S. government plot. Admittedly, it sounds suspiciously like my comment to Dowd, as I wrote them close in time:

Seriously?

That's your argument? Birthers are nuts, but truthers are more nuts? You should have mentioned the "flat earthers" and the "no moon landers". That would make birthers look even better. Come on. You are better than that.

And speaking of birthers, they are out of their evalovin’ partisan minds just the way the liberals who thought Bush was going to declare martial law if Obama won were out of theirs. People don’t like it when others disagree with their politics and they tend to make up stuff and believe almost anything about their “enemy”. I laugh when I read that some society, like Iraq, for example, is susceptible to rumors and myths, as our own culture is awash with them.

One of my favorite myth/rumor busters is John Stossel, who has been commenting for years on the silly things Americans believe and demolishing them with facts. He recently announced his move from ABC to FoxNews where he felt he will have more time to explore his libertarianism, which I find to be an elastic term difficult to pin down. I have my libertarian instincts, and if you put a a gun to my head and said pick an -ism to describe yourself, I might just settle on that, although I would be very unsatisfied with the answer and greatly prefer the even more amorphous independent/moderate. In response to Stossel's online request for suggestions I wrote as follows, venting my usual anti-partisan rant:

I picked up one of your books one day (never saw your show as I never watch network news) and recognized a sympathetic soul - the fears Americans have, the things they believe, are often absurd. And you nail them, one after another.

However, although I hope you continue your approach on Fox, please do not fall under the Fox spell that everything left is wrong. We have too much tunnel vision on tv - whether on the networks, Fox, CNN or MSNBC. In my humble opinion, partisanship makes everyone a little bit crazy and both sides believe things that aren't true as articles of faith. Bust all myths, not just liberal ones (and they both have plenty).

For example, conservative radio and tv hosts' claims that it was conservatives who gave us the the civil rights acts are just so much nonsense. That comes from mixing the concepts of Democrat/Republican with conservative/liberal. If you read the votes on the acts, you can see, the split was not so much Democrat/Republican as it was North/South. The southern Democrats were primarily conservatives, the Northern Democrats primarily liberal, but whether Republican or Democrat, the push for civil rights came primarily from liberalism.

In other words, be the same maverick you were on network tv on Fox. If you were going to MSNBC, I'd be asking you to do the same, but in the opposite direction – bust liberal myths too. Vex your bosses and you will draw fans like me.

Politicians change over time. Often they mellow with age. Pat Buchanan is one of them. He was for a while the leading extreme Republican. At least since he started working for MSNBC and spending a lot of time with Republican moderate Joe Scarsborough, Pat Buchanan has way mellowed. He was so hated on the left that it took me a while to convince a couple of liberal friends that he really was cuddly and grandfatherly. They came around after they saw him a few times.

That doesn't mean he became a liberal - far from it. One of the more distasteful aspects of his early rhetoric for me was the belief that diversity is bad for America. There was a time when his feeling was quite intense, but he states it more gently now. Recently, he posted an opinion piece where he blamed the increase in partisanship and uncivility to diversity. I commented as follows:

Relax

I admire Mr. Buchanan's knowledge and experience, but this is just hooey, as he must know given the depth of his historical knowledge. First, America was always a diversified country - what it wasn't was a country where power was shared among different ethnic groups. There were always blacks, Hispanics (speaking Spanish), Protestants, Catholics (at the beginning very few), Indians, etc. and their cultures always intermixed. Take something that seems as solid and fixed - classical music. It itself comes from the contributions of people all over Europe whose people and governments were often at each others' throats during that same time period it was being developed. Where do you think Jazz came from? It didn't pop out of Benny Goodman's clarinet and Bing Crosby's throat - it developed primarily from Black music - Whites liked it and contributed to it. There was always old music and new music; there was always a mix of languages (I'm for one official language - English - for government, law and school). You could go on endlessly. That's what great about America. Diversity can be unsettling, but eventually, when given time, develops into culture we all think of as "ours". America does have big problems (always will) and two political cultures at odds with each other. But, as I'm sure Mr. Buchanan knows, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were battling away in the very first cabinet. My advice - relax; try and get together on what we can; be fairer to the "other side" than you perceive they are to you; and read history. People like Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann are popular among their fans because they are extreme and often just absurd, but there are other more moderate voices out there. Mr. Buchanan used to be an extremist, in my view, but has grown into a more balanced position. He used to be one of the verbal bomb throwers, and I'm glad to see he has less patience for it.

Whenever I write a political post, I look back and say - Oh, it's about the same thing again - partisanship makes everyone a little bit crazy. And perhaps nothing is sillier than my own hope that one day, long after I am a pile of dessicated dust in an urn on my daughter's mantle, the large majority of Americans will have learned to have political debate without the endless name calling and assertions that the other side is just being . . .(pick your sleight). Maybe so. But it is clearly my passion, my mantra and my cause d'etre. I certainly have a lot of work to do as almost everything political I read makes me shake my head and say to myself, your side does the same damn thing. Take the email I received today from one of my favorite liberal friends, which stated, in part:

I think the national Republicans are without honor, ideas, or courage.

I couldn't help but write back as follows reporting on my previous evening with a group of conservatives here in town:

Oh, now I get it. It's the Republicans who are at fault. See, I was confused because I had heard that about the liberals last night, although I believe they used "mentally ill," "without a clue" and "without morals". I was also told that "you moderates" (meaning me, not you) are the problem. That I expect. No one likes the guys who point out that both sides behave the same way. It ruins the illusion of good and evil, right and wrong.

Had enough? Giving up your partisan ways? Fine, I'll stop for now, but I will be watching.

SUMMER BLOGCATION

2009-09-09T20:03:00.000-07:00

I'm up in New York and wishing I was home kayaking and also that I wasn't too busy these last two weeks to write anything. So, I decided for the first time in my astronomically long career as a blogger (three years this past Sunday) to take a Summer Blogcation and skip a few weeks. Feels strange. I'll be back the weekend of September 18th. Please do not hold your breath. I can't be responsible.

I just liked these stories

2009-08-29T19:29:00.000-07:00

I just like this story.

In late 1947 the show Starlight Review opened on the West End in London. Its host was an Austrian turned American conductor named Vic Oliver. During one scene an American performer in his late 20s was making balloon animals on stage and asked if any kid in the audience wanted one. A little voice from the back said she would and soon the little girl in pig tails came on stage joined by Oliver. He asked her if she would like to do something for them and she did. She said she would sing Polonaise from a play, Mignon, and Oliver said, “Oh, lovely, just the kind of junk I like.”

And the little girl sang Polonaise. At the end, she hit something called F above high C, of which I have no idea what that is, but it’s high. The audience went crazy and cheered for, so it is said, five minutes.

The little girl, the product of a very dysfunctional family who had already toured with her, was, of course, supposed to come on stage. She had actually been cut from the show by the producer at the last minute, but he relented when her mother convinced him to give her a shot just before dress rehearsal. Good thing for her as and she blew the casts’ minds. She became a star. She’s not so little any more. Her name is Julie Andrews. I got the story from her biography by Richard Stirling and confirmed with some other sources.

I just like this story too.

The conductor I just mentioned Vic Oliver was already a successful performer. He was also the former son in law of Winston Churchill, but had divorced the famous man’s daughter. Allegedly, and I don’t know if this is true, as there are many Churchill stories which are apocryphal, the great man was at a dinner party at which Vic Oliver was also in attendance. Someone asked Churchill who he most admired and he said “Mussolini”

Naturally, someone asked him why.

Churchill responded, “Because he had the good sense to shoot his son-in-law.” I hope it’s true, anyway.

I just like this story too.

Remember the American on stage making balloons. His name was Wally Boag, an American name if there ever was one. He made balloon animals and sang and the usual Vaudevillian type stuff. He had been professionally dancing since he was nine. You’d think calling up Julie Andrews on stage and essentially making her career would be enough for one lifetime, but he did something else interesting which somehow hasn’t made him a household name.

After a very unimportant movie career (I believe he wasn’t even billed), he was touring Australia in the early 1950s when he met a singer name Don Novis. Novis asked him if he wanted to try out for a very short, very silly and fast moving skit he was going to be involved with back in America.

Boag tried out and got the job. He made a career making balloon animals, shooting squirt guns and other ridiculous bits. The show became so popular that according to the Guinesses Book of World Records, Wally and the show have the greatest number of stage productions of any show ever.

There is a relatively good chance you have seen the show and just not remembered his name. It was originally called The Golden Horseshoe Review and later the Diamond Horseshoe Review and has been thrilling audiences at Disney since 1955. Boag retired in 1982, but he is still alive at 89 years old.

I just like this story too.

A young Californian with the usual dysfunctional family started working at Disneyland when Boag was there in the 60s. He thought Boag was incredible and watched the show so many times he memorized it. He started doing his own version of Boag’s act including making balloon animals, playing the banjo and the like.

Eventually, the young man started the slow painful process of his own career, urged on by his comedienne girlfriend with the weird name of Stormie Sherk. They had a close relationship until she moved away to go to college and they grew apart. He continued his career nevertheless. He went to college too and majored in philosophy, but never graduated.

Later in the 60s another girlfriend got him a gig writing for a variety show – the kind they don’t have anymore – and one job led to another. He started appearing on stage too as opening acts for some pretty successful bands and singers.

Finally, he got his chance – to do a spot on the Tonight Show. His wacky comedy - animal balloons and all - was a success and now we’ve all have heard of Steve Martin.

But, if you listen to Martin’s interviews, he credits as inspiration a wacky comedian at Disneyland named Wally Boag. When you think about some of Martin’s routines’ – the balloons, the banjo – it’s clear as day.

I just liked this story too.

Did I mention Steve Martin’s young girlfriend, Stormie Sherk?

Unbeknownst to Steve, she had quite a difficult time growing up. Her mother was an unhospitalized schizophrenic who would sometimes lock Stormie in the closet for hours or days, depending on what you read. Stormie, although successful while young as a comic, a dancer and entertainer, and certainly beautiful (take a look online - and she is in her 60s), grew up feeling ugly and depressed. She even became suicidal, a feeling that followed her into her marriage.

Somehow Stormie survived. Like Steve Martin she appeared on many of the variety shows of the 70s.

I never heard of her until I started following this crazy chain starting with Julie Andrews, Vic Oliver, Wally Boag, Steve Martin and then Stormie. But, she is wildly successful and has sold millions of books. The reason I never heard of her, and probably not anyone reading this blog either is that we don’t read Christian literature, which is where she has made her millions, including such titles as The Power of a Praying Wife (many of the titles have the word Praying in them).

Not bad for a little girl locked in a closet. She’s happy, rich and apparently beloved by millions of fans. Is her success hard on her husband Michael?

I doubt it because . . . I just like this story too.

Michael Omartian, Stormie's husband, is another name I’ve never heard before until I started following this chain. As a young keyboard player he found himself in the Christian music world, starting a college campus tour, but he didn’t limit himself to it. He was a back up artist for groups like Steely Dan, Seals and Croft, The Four Tops and Loggins and Messina, all top groups at the time and his own group, Rhythm Heritage wrote and performed The Theme from S.W.A.T. and the theme for Baretta (I’m dating myself with these television show references, but kids my age know what they were).

His annus mirabilis was 1981 when the Christopher Cross album he produced, won three grammies. But, he was nominated for seven others that year. Of course, I’m dating myself again, but Christopher Cross was a big deal in the 80s.

One of music’s great achievements ever was getting together close to 50 top performers (they turned down even more) to sing on We Are the World, the title track of which was the first multi-platinum song ever recorded. Everyone knows that the project was produced by legendary producer, Quincy Jones. Even I know that. However, there was another name who almost never gets mentioned and that’s Michael Omartian, who co-produced it.

Omartian is one of those people who, if he decides you are good, you become a success. According to the Wikipedia article, his list of artists he has produced includes such performers as Michael Bolton, Whitney Houston, the Jacksons, Rod Stewart, Trisha Yearwood, Clint Black, Donna Summer, Peter Cetera, Amy Grant, and Steely Dan (among others I left out because I never heard of them, but that doesn't mean anything as I'm not very learned in the music world).

One more story I just happen to like.

Omartian’s group Rhythm Heritage was composed of a number of performers. One was a young man who had been a studio musician in Motown, playing with groups and performers like Smokey Robinson, Gladys Knight, Barry White, Diana Ross, etc. He later wrote (he claims) one of my favorite pop songs from the era, You Make Me Feel Like Dancing, for which Leo Sayer got a Grammy. Parker said it was his first depressing moment in the business, because he got no credit for it. Parker had several hits with a group, Raydio, but, of course, we know Parker best for writing and performing Ghostbusters (“Who you gonna call - GHOSTBUSTERS!?”)

Ghostbusters actually has a stormy past because Parker was sued by Huey Lewis who claimed the song was plagiarized. They settled out of court and then Ray sued Huey, claiming he violated the confidentiality agreement by mentioning that Parker had paid to settle. I don't know what happened after that and don't care.

The part of Ray's story I like is that one day when he was at home at the age of 18, his telephone rang. A voice identified himself as Stevie Wonder and asked Parker if he’d like to go on tour with him and The Rolling Stones.

Naturally, Parker didn’t believe it and hung up. The phone rang again. Same guy. But Parker still wasn’t buying. So, Stevie sang to him – Superstition to be specific. That did it.

Parker’s memory of the tour with Stevie and the Stones: “Nothing like it before; nothing like it since.” I’m not surprised.

Anyway, I just like these stories. Bad reviews and corrections of possible inaccuracies are always welcome.

Fun with POTUS

2009-08-20T08:39:00.000-07:00

Outside of a few critical biographies, we celebrate them as almost as if they were flawless marble figures, but our presidents were not just human, but all too human. Some of the following stories would be fascinating if they were about anyone, but some are just so because they are about a future or acting president.

Here’s a paragraph from the journal of a famous American woodsman, a Major in the army, on a disastrous adventure on a rapid ice filled river that sounds like it could have been a first draft of The Last of the Mohicans:

There was no Way for getting over but on a Raft, which we set about, with but one poor Hatchet, and got finished just after Sun-setting, after a whole Days Work; we got it launched, and on Board of it, and set off; but before we were Half Way over, we were jammed in the Ice in such a Manner that we expected every Moment our Raft to sink, and ourselves to perish ; I put out my setting Pole to try to stop the Raft, that the Ice might pass by, when the Rapidity of the Stream threw it with so much Violence against the Pole, that it jirked me out into ten Feet Water, but I fortunately saved myself by catching hold of one of the Raft Logs; notwithstanding all our Efforts we could not get the Raft to either Shore, but were obliged, as we were near an Island, to quit our Raft and make to it.

The Major had a traveling companion named Christopher Gist, who wrote (badly) in his own journal:

The Major desired to encamp, to which the Indian asked to carry his gun. But he refused that, and then the Indian grew churlish, and pressed us to keep on, telling us that there were Ottawa Indians in these woods, and they would scalp us if we lay out; but to go to his cabin, and we should be safe. I thought very ill of the fellow, but did not care to let the Major know I mistrusted him. But he soon mistrusted him as much as I. He said he could hear a gun to his cabin, and steered us more northwardly. We grew uneasy, and then he said two whoops might be heard to his cabin. We went two miles further; then the Major said he would stay at the next water, and we desired the Indian to stop at the next water. But before we came to water, we came to a clear meadow; it was very light, and snow on the ground. The Indian made a stop, turned about; the Major saw him point his gun toward us and fire. Said the Major, “Are you shot?” “No,” said I. Upon which the Indian ran forward to a big standing white oak, and to loading his gun; but we were soon with him. I would have killed him; but the Major would not suffer me to kill him.

The Major was 21 year old George Washington, the year 1753, the onset of the French and Indian War in which Washington was heavily involved, particularly at the beginning. The first item I quoted is from his own journals, which was later published, making him famous as a young man.

How different would life have been if the Indian had been more accurate? No Washington - who would have filled his place in the war? The ambitious, perfidious and careless General Gates? And as the all important first president? Franklin didn't live long enough and there was no one else acceptable to everyone who was above the partisan warfare then brewing. In fact, if no Washington, we probably would not know who his protege, Alexander Hamilton, was either and their would have been no political counter-balance to Jefferson. But, perhaps there would have been no independence at all, and no first president?

Washington had a good start in life. Rich, educated, family, etc. Not every president had one like it. But, one in particular had a very good start and thought he was shortchanged:

When I recollect that at fourteen years of age the whole care and direction of myself was thrown on myself entirely, without a relative or friend qualified to advise or guide me, and recollect the various sorts of bad company with which I associated from time to time, I am astonished that I did not turn off with some of them and become as worthless to society as they were.

That was Thomas Jefferson (my special historical nemesis) writing to a grandson in his later years. Poor, poor Tom. Fourteen years old (nearly full grown by the standards of the day) when his father died, richer as an infant heir than all but a few grown Americans, owner of thousands of acres he lifted not a finger to deserve and surrounded by slaves to leap at his every desire. Must have been tough. But, not so fast. He was hardly without a relative or friend to guide him. His mother lived almost two decades after his father died. The ungrateful brat lived at home a couple of more years with her and then went to school nearby; he just dismissed her as unimportant. He had eight living brothers and sisters. He could not have had better connections in Virginia than the Randolph family on his mother's side. He got a first rate, one would say, remarkable education. Is it any wonder I give this prima donna such a hard time? By the way, Washington's father died when he was only eleven, Thomas, so man up.

Apparently, sometimes the best thing a future president could do is shut up. Here are a few words of advice concerning a potential presidential candidate which could be well applied to modern candidates or Supreme Court nominees:

Let him not say one single word about his principles, or his creed – let him say nothing – promise nothing. Let no Committee or Convention – no town meeting ever extract from him a single word, about what he thinks now, or what he will do hereafter. Let the use of pen and ink be wholly forbidden as if he were a mad poet in Bedlam.

This was the suggestion of powerful banker, Nicholas Biddle, probably a more important historical figure than the future president he was discussing, William Henry Harrison. Actually, the time Harrison should have been quiet and said nothing was during his own overly long inaugural address in inclement weather, as he caught cold and soon died of pneumonia. Or was murdered, as some have claimed. Some claimed it was really the Jesuits (but also the Masons and the Illuminati) - any Jesuit trained reader want to defend that?

I love this little tirade by a very young New York congressman who confronts a Tammany Hall enforcer in Albany planning on humiliating the brash newcomer by a good old fashioned blanket tossing:

By God! McManus, I hear you are going to toss me in a blanket. By God! If you try anything like that, I’ll kick you, I’ll bite you, I’ll kick you in the balls. I’ll do anything to you – you’d better leave me alone.

It's more interesting when you know the congressman was Teddy Roosevelt. That was reported by a New York Times correspondent and repeated in Nathan Miller's biography. Apparently, TR didn't have much of a sense of humor about such things. But, boys will be boys. Here’s a description of a less feisty president from his early days:

Sometimes, he would get into fights-just ordinary scuffling and wrestling matches. In the memory of friends, he always lost—he was physically quite uncoordinated; “he threw a baseball like a girl,” one classmate says—and as soon as he started losing, he would run home crying, a tall, skinny, awkward, teen-aged boy with dusty cheeks and tears sliding down them, running through the streets of that quiet little town sobbing loudly.

Not the best of starts for LBJ. But, there’s a lot worse. That was from Robert Caro’s The Path to Power, first of three (so far) incredibly well researched volumes on LBJ. Caro gives non-stop descriptions of Johnson’s seemingly unparalleled lack of character and obsessive ambition, includes the following comments from his college mates:

"'Master of Bullshit' – that’s what M.B. means,” says one of Lyndon Johnson’s classmates, Henry Kyle. “He was known as the biggest liar on the campus. In private, when there were no girls around, we called him ‘Bullshit’ Johnson.”

He was given the nickname “Bull.”

“When you saw him, that’s what you called him,” says Horace Richards. “ ‘Hiya, Bull.’ ‘Howya doin’, bull?’ Bull Johnson was his name, as far as we were concerned.”

“That was what we called him to his face,” Edwards Puls, another classmate, says. “That was what he called generally called. Because of this constant braggadocio. Because he was so full of bullshit, manure, that people just didn’t believe him. Because he was a man who just could not tell the truth.”

Caro goes on to document Johnson’s allergy to the truth, which he never outgrew. I tend to read biographies very cynically, looking for sloppy research or unsupported conclusions. But, never have I had an opinion of a politician or historical character change so much as I have of Johnson after reading Caro's phenomenally well researched work. He spends much time detailing Johnson’s vast political skills, drive, charisma, sense of humor, intelligence and occasional good works, but no doubt the non-stop dishonesty, excessive ambition, bullying, moral depravity and criminal behavior dominates the story. I would go so far as to say that although I have never believed any of the conspiracy theories about JFK’s murder, and still don’t (relax), I would no longer have a problem believing that Johnson would have at least looked the other way if he had known.

Sometimes people just don’t see the promise in our future presidents at all. Here’s one noted diplomat speaking on his feelings about a visit from the son of a powerful man on tour during war-time:

We were furious. [His father] was not exactly known as a friend of the career service, and many of us, from what we had heard about him, cordially reciprocated this lack of enthusiasm. His son had no official status and was, in our eyes, obviously an upstart and an ignoramus. The idea that there was anything he could learn or report about conditions in Europe which we did not already know and had not already reported seemed (and not without reason) wholly absurd. That busy people should have their time taken up by arranging his tour struck us as outrageous. With that polite but weary punctiliousness that characterizes diplomatic officials required to busy themselves with pesky compatriots who insist on visiting places where they have no business to be, I arranged to get him through German lines, had him escorted to Prague, saw to it that he was shown what he wanted to see, expedited his departure, then, with a feeling of ‘that’s that,’ washed my hands of him – as I thought.

The writer was George Kennan, possibly America's most celebrated diplomat since Franklin, Adams and Jefferson. The "upstart" and "ignoramus" he was referring to was JFK. Hindsight is 20-20 as the following quote from Kennan shows:

Had anyone said to me then that the young man in question would some day be the President of the United States and that I, in the capacity of chief of a diplomatic mission, would be his humble and admiring servant, I would have thought that either my informant or I had taken leave of our senses.

Even in office, presidents are still just people. Here’s a president who was sure the White House was haunted (and he wasn't alone):

Just two months ago today, I was a reasonably happy and contented Vice President. Maybe you can remember that far back too. But things have changed so much it hardly seems real.

I sit here in this old house and work on foreign affairs, read reports and work on speeches—all the while listening to the ghosts walk up and down the hallway and even right here in the study. The floors pop and the drapes move back and forth—I can just imagine old Andy and Teddy having an argument over Franklin. Or James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce deciding which was the more useless to the country. And when Milliard Fillmore and Chester Arthur join in for place and show the din is almost unbearable.

That was Harry Truman writing to his beloved Bess in 1945. He was having some fun with it, but he was also serious. Here’s another excerpt from a letter written the next year:

Night before last I went to bed at nine o’clock after shutting my doors. At four o’clock I was awakened by three distinct knocks on my bedroom door. I jumped up and put on my bathrobe, opened the door, and no one there. Went out and looked up and down the hall, looked into your room and Margie’s. Still no one. Went back to bed after locking the doors and there were footsteps in your room whose door I’d left open. Jumped up and looked and no one there! Damn place is haunted sure as shootin’. Secret service said not even a watchman was up here at that hour.

Truman didn’t mention Lincoln’s ghost, but that is the one that is most often allegedly seen, felt or interacted with at the White House, including by Grace Coolidge (the first of many), Eleanor Roosevelt, Queen Wilhemina of The Netherlands (she fainted), Winston Churchill (caught naked by the ghost during WWII, he claims to have said, “Mr. President. You seem to have me at a disadvantage”), Reagan’s daughter Maureen (and her husband), Lincoln biographer, Carl Sandburg and Lyndon Johnson (whose supposed spectral visit really seems to just be a joke to me). Many other staff members and guests, as well.

Lincoln himself does not report a visit from a ghost, but had several eerie dreams during his life. According to a friend of his, shortly before he was killed he reportedly said:

About ten days ago, I retired very late. I had been up waiting for important dispatches from the front. I could not have been long in bed when I fell into a slumber, for I was weary. I soon began to dream. There seemed to be a death-like stillness about me. Then I heard subdued sobs, as if a number of people were weeping. I thought I left my bed and wandered downstairs. There the silence was broken by the same pitiful sobbing, but the mourners were invisible. I went from room to room; no living person was in sight, but the same mournful sounds of distress met me as I passed along. I saw light in all the rooms; every object was familiar to me; but where were all the people who were grieving as if their hearts would break? I was puzzled and alarmed. What could be the meaning of all this? Determined to find the cause of a state of things so mysterious and so shocking, I kept on until I arrived at the East Room, which I entered. There I met with a sickening surprise. Before me was a catafalque, on which rested a corpse wrapped in funeral vestments. Around it were stationed soldiers who were acting as guards; and there was a throng of people, gazing mournfully upon the corpse, whose face was covered, others weeping pitifully. 'Who is dead in the White House?' I demanded of one of the soldiers, 'The President,' was his answer; 'he was killed by an assassin.' Then came a loud burst of grief from the crowd, which woke me from my dream. I slept no more that night; and although it was only a dream, I have been strangely annoyed by it ever since.

It always amazes me as to how many of our revered forefather’s of the first and second generations engaged in duels, and not just Hamilton and Burr. Here’s an excellent description of one such fight to the death.

At seven o’clock on the morning of Friday, May 30, 1806, on the Red River in Logan County, Kentucky, Jackson and Dickinson faced each other at twenty-four feet. Jackson let Dickinson shoot first, and he hit Jackson in the chest with a bullet. Though wounded, Jackson coolly leveled his own pistol at his opponent, and fired. The trigger caught halfway; Jackson cocked the gun again and fired, killing Dickinson. Only later, as his boot filled with blood after he had left the dueling ground, did the extent of Jackson’s wound become clear. He carried Dickinson’s bullet in his body until he died. Even in pain—the wound complicated his health for decades—Jackson never let his mask drop. “If he had shot me through the brain, sir,” Jackson told a friend, “I should still have killed him.”

That's from John Meachem’s recent American Lion. Here’s yet another Jackson gun fight, this one far more exciting, from Marquis James' much earlier Jackson biography. This time Jackson has it out with future Senator and, ironically, Jackson supporter, Thomas Benton:

As they reached the hotel Jesse Benton stepped into the barroom. Thomas Benton was standing in the doorway of the hall that led to the rear porch overlooking the river. Jackson started toward him brandishing his whip. "Now, defend yourself you damned rascal!" Benton reached for a pistol but before he could draw Jackson's gun was at his breast. He backed slowly through the corridor, Jackson following, step for step. They had reached the porch, when, glancing beyond the muzzle of Jackson's pistol, Benton saw his brother slip through a doorway behind Jackson, raise his pistol and shoot. Jackson pitched forward, firing. His powder burned a sleeve of Tom Benton's coat. Thomas Benton fired twice at the falling form of Jackson and Jesse lunged forward to shoot again, but James Sitler, a bystander, shielded the prostrate man whose left side was gushing blood.

The gigantic form of John Coffee strode through the smoke, firing over the heads of Sitler and Jackson at Thomas Benton. He missed but came on with clubbed pistol. Benton's guns were empty. He fell backward down a flight of stairs. Young Stockley Hays, of Burr expedition memory, sprang at Jesse Benton with a sword cane and would have run him through had the blade not broken on a button. Jesse had a loaded pistol left. As Hays closed in with a dirk knife, Benton thrust the muzzle against his body, but the charge failed to explode.

General Jackson's wounds soaked two mattresses with blood at the Nashville Inn. He was nearly dead - his left shoulder shattered by a slug, and a ball embedded against the upper bone of that arm, both from Jesse Benton's pistol. While every physician in Nashville tried to stanch the flow of blood, Colonel Benton and his partizans gathered before the Inn shouting defiance. Benton broke a small-sword of Jackson's that he had found at the scene of conflict. All the doctors save one declared for the amputation of the arm. Jackson barely understood. "I'll keep my arm," he said.

I never thought much of Andrew Jackson, but he was astonishingly tough. He was the first president to be attacked by an assassin, in his case an insane out of work house painter who fired at him with two guns. Fortunately, some might say providentially, both guns misfired. Jackson, who suffered from numerous ailments and pains, attacked him with a cane, his own friends probably saving the assailant’s life.

Just to balance it a little, not every president felt the same about dueling, of course. Here is one honest and humble response from a guy just as tough, but with the courage to paint himself in less than heroic light:

I do not believe I ever would have the courage to fight a duel. If any man should wrong me to the extent of my being willing to kill him. I would not be willing to give him the choice of weapons with which it should be done, and of the time, place and distance separating us, when I executed him. If I should do another such a wrong as to justify him in killing me, I would make any reasonable atonement within my power, if convinced of the wrong done. I place my opposition to dueling on higher grounds than any here stated. No doubt a majority of the duels fought have been for want of moral courage on the part of those engaged to decline.”

That was Ulysses Grant, from his celebrated (I would say over-celebrated) memoirs. But, if you don't like Grant, there may be something wrong with you (die hard Confederates probably excepted).

I have a feeling I'll be back on this topic.

Political Update for August, 2009

2009-08-14T18:51:00.000-07:00

Do you find listening to the health care debate on television a bit boring? I sure do, and I like C-Span. Imagine how most people feel. I know it is important and I believe we need to straighten out the insurance issues quickly, but it just puts me to sleep. The house bill is well over 1000 pages long and in such arcane language that I have not heard one even reasonably definitive description of what is in it. Do not be fooled into thinking that the congressmen know. They are certainly not going to read it. They will rely on what their leaders tell them is in it, who will rely on their staff, much like the stimulus bill earlier this year.

I know there are others who think it’s strange that politicians, commentators and whomsoever can’t agree on what’s in the damn thing, and when they do argue about it, they never refer to the text of the bill itself, but not enough. It would be like having a theological discussion about whether Adam makes an appearance in Genesis, but no one actually reads from it. But, this is the way we have always argued about politics. The internet adds resources we never had until very recently, but it is never used for that.

So, although I touch upon health care here, but I’ll mix it up with my usual rants as there is always something new to say about it.

Trillions and trillions

I sighed a few weeks ago when I was listening to Peter Schiff, a stock broker and economic commentator who made loud predictions of the collapse of the U.S. economy before it happened and is now maybe/maybe not running for Senator from Connecticut. He understands that our economy is based on myths, yes myths, a firm belief of mine (why else would I sigh? He agreed with me). As he points out, we borrow money from countries like China and then use it to buy their products. We buy more than we sell from every important economic partner. We tax, regulate and unionize business to the degree that it doesn’t pay for companies to make products here, because they can’t compete with companies that go elsewhere. Consequently, if they can leave, they leave or start up elsewhere. We tried to put everyone in a house whether they could afford it or not. We continue to uptick our deficits to unprecedented levels and talk about balancing the budget. I have no idea what Schiff’s other political views are, although he sounds like a conservative, so I can’t say if I agree with him on everything or would even vote for him. Probably not. I end up being disappointed by almost everyone. But, at least, he understands economic mythology. If he sounds like Ron Paul, he was his economic advisor during the campaign. And the part of Ron Paul which is realistic is good stuff (the other part, well . . .).

When our economy is obviously made up of mythical elements, why would we pay attention to obvious signs of trouble? Because it is much more comforting to say, yeah, but the market is going up and I want in. Frankly, after watching the huge gains in the market for the past few months, I just bought back in (expecting it to come to a screeching halt thanks to my few shares and, I just may have accomplished that – there will be a collapse but I am pretending to myself I will get out before it). I can scream all I want about our economic system, but I can’t change it. That would take millions of people carrying on about it and its not going to happen. The best thing to do is manage your risk as best as you can and try to be careful.

Now that we have spent and pledged trillions and trillions of dollars, we run the risk of trying to make sure almost everyone has health care - certainly a noble goal – and perhaps only to find that only the well off will have good health care. As always, I am amazed by the amazing coincidence that conservatives and liberals throughout the country know how they stand on the bill without even knowing what is in it. I don’t know what’s in it any better than anyone else, but to me that means I don’t know how I feel about it. But, when it comes to the public option, I’m pretty sure I do. Consider how well government has handled its duties in the past, how poorly it routinely performs (if in the private sector, they would all file bankruptcy), how much money it costs not to mention how much money they often lose track of. Probably not a good idea. Ironically, Obama’s own attempt to allay fears about health care led him to use an example pitting the bankrupt post office against Fed Ex and UPS, which means – what? (I think you know).

I am not sure if a public plan of sorts will be in the final bill voted on in congress. It is seemingly the biggest reason for the anger in the country about the bill (of course, liberals/Democrats would say those are conservatives, but, conservatives are citizens). If it is in there, I agree with those who believe that in time it will suck the air out of the air for private health care companies, who will be unable to compete against a company that can just make money when it is doing badly. Once public health care becomes a monopoly, well watch out. Naturally, if public health care will cut my bill a few hundred dollars a month, I’m signing up.

But, let’s be fair. When government puts its collective mind to something, it makes happen, right? Take the foreclosure situation. Nine months ago we faced the possibility of record setting foreclosures. Government took action to stem the tide and . . . completely failed. They did try, but, nearly ten months after the financial meltdown we have set a new record for foreclosures in July, the third such record in just five months. In fact, foreclosures went up 7 percent in July. The nature of foreclosures tells us that they will go down eventually, but we should not be fooled into thinking that means everything is better. It means that a lot of people have already been foreclosed on and we’ve almost run out of them for the time being.

What is the state of our economy actually? When POTUS gives his first State of the Union speech, he will say “The state of the Union is Strong!” or some such nonsense. Yet, we have no safety nets which don’t show strong signs of future collapse (social security, Medicaid, etc.) in the not too distant future. We are at the point where some people hope they die before these systems collapse. To the contrary, public jobs like police, toll takers, garbage collectors, etc., have gone from underpaid to extremely well paid with pensions which will eventually bankrupt the municipalities. I have a friend who makes $175,000 a year as a police officer. He works hard and is a good cop who cares about what he does, but his pension, but if he retired now, he will get more than half that for doing nothing, and he is only in his 40s. Good for him and others like him, but, can we afford it as a people? You’ve heard the stories about retired toll collectors making six figures. Nothing against toll collectors (I have a sudden fear of being targeted by E-Z Pass when I’m next traveling), but that is a real problem.

The bane of my existence

In the middle of it, as with all things political in the U.S., stand the two political parties and ideologies which run this country. Often they do keep each other from the worst of their good and bad intentions (each would be at the least, a benign tyranny if extended to full power and benign tyrannies don’t end well) but also make sure they take care of themselves as a symbiotic despot. It is sometimes hard to believe that this is true, because no matter how old you are, you have lived in a country where we have had two dominant parties making sure that no other ideology can take root for your entire life. It’s hard to see how things can ever improve with this system. It guarantees, for example, that the party in power will always be for spending more, as only the minority ever cares to anything but talk about deficits.

And, thus, we continue to live in a country which prides itself on its openness and fairness but will always be institutionally grossly unfair to any elected politician with an independent mindset. You want to get anything done in either house of congress, you MUST kow-tow to either the Republican or Democratic leadership. You must caucus with one of the parties.

Let’s take a look at just how crooked our system is. Recently I listened to an absurdly youthful appearing congressman on the floor of the House of Representatives named Jeff Flake, R-Ar. (he looks to me 15 years younger than his 46) who I hope we will hear more from, unless he morally crumbles and starts taking money himself. He goes after pork barrel spending in a more detailed way than the few others in government who seem to care at all.

Here’s an outtake, long but worthwhile, from what I heard back in July as he attacked the spoils system during a debate on a defense bill. I found it fascinating:

“There are 109 Member-requested earmarks in the bill; 43 of them are going to powerful Members of Congress who serve in leadership or as appropriators, committee chairs, or ranking members. That represents about 40 percent of the share of earmarks being taken by less than 24 percent of the Members of the House.

I am sure my colleagues will tell me that these projects are sorely needed at the military bases they are earmarked for and that service members will suffer without them, but what about the many installations that don't receive Member-requested earmarks in the bill and the service members stationed there?

Neither Camp Lejeune nor Camp Pendleton received any Member-requested earmarks in the bill. Each of these camps houses a Marine Expeditionary Force comprised of tens of thousands of marines who deploy with great frequency. I am willing to bet that each of these installations have suggestions for new structures to build. Why haven't they received any earmarks in this bill? The answer is pretty simple: Neither of them resides in a district represented by a powerful Member of Congress.

The earmarks in this bill total more than $578 million. . . Of that dollar amount, more than $240 million are being taken home by powerful Members of Congress. That is nearly 41 percent. When you take into account earmark dollars secured by rank-and-file Members in conjunction with powerful Members, that number jumps to more than $300 million, or 52 percent.

So just to reiterate, the earmarks in this bill favor powerful Members by a ratio of 2 to 1. One-quarter of the Members of this House are associated with more than half of the earmark dollars in this bill.

I wish I could say that this is an anomaly, but this is pretty consistent with the rest of the appropriation bills we have considered so far this year, and I have a chart that demonstrates that. . . . Again, those are committee chairs, leadership, or those on the Appropriations Committee, representing 24 percent of the Members in this body. In the CJS bill that we considered earlier, 58 percent of the earmarked dollars went to just 24 percent of the Members.

In the Homeland Security bill, 68 percent of the earmarked dollars went to just 24 percent of the Members of the House.

In the Interior bill, 64 percent of the earmarked dollars went to just 24 percent of the Members of the House.

In the Agriculture bill, 67 percent of the earmarked dollars go to just 24 percent of the Members of the House.

And in this bill, 52 percent of the earmarked dollars go to just 24 percent of the Members of this House. That is a pretty stark pattern.

There are different types of earmarks, obviously. There are those that are simply wasteful. We see those for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and whatever else that is easy to laugh at. Sometimes it is small amounts of money and sometimes it is a lot larger.

And then there are those, particularly in defense bills, where you are giving no-bid contracts to private companies. There is often a pattern of campaign contributions coming back to Members who secure no-bid contracts in private companies. That does not describe what is going on here.

These earmarks, as I mentioned, I have no doubt that they are for a legitimate purpose. But here is another problem with earmarking: It represents a spoils system where rank-and-file Members of the House are not given access to those that others are.

In the Homeland Security bill, it was particularly stark. As I mentioned, a huge percentage, nearly 70 percent, went to just 24 percent of the body. In fact, more than 50 percent went to just 14 percent, those represented on the Appropriations Committee, and these were for predisaster mitigation programs, flood control districts and the like. I don't think Mother Nature decides, I'm going to hit those districts represented by appropriators more than I am going to hit other districts. It is just because they are able to do it, and so they do it. So the rest of the country that competes for these grants on a competitive basis has, at least in that case, 25 percent of that account is earmarked before they can even compete for the rest of the grants that are given out on a competitive basis. Madam Chair, that is just not fair. That is just not the way we should do this. I think we ought to rethink this and we ought to strike that funding in this bill.”

He’s right. This is unfair. It’s corrupt. It’s insane. But, as powerful as Flake’s arguments are, it went virtually unnoticed in the media. Notice, he’s not even talking her about the insanely wasteful earmarks – the bridges to nowhere, or the earmarks that are payback or a bid for campaign contributions, and those are big problems. Yet, the “good” earmarks he describes, the ones which actually serve a purpose, show the institutionalization of the corruption and that is even worse. It is simply the way we have always gone about business and maybe few care. They should. Flake does not get cheers from his peers, although I imagine he gets a few private pats on the back in lieu of votes. Yet, in response to Flake, a political opponent stood and not too politely suggested he shouldn’t challenge the integrity of other members. The amendment Flake sought was voted down. In all, he has set a record in the appropriations committee of well over 500 amendments for the defense spending bill to cut out earmarks. He loses them all. Few will notice. Fewer will care. We will just print more money and give it to the lucky people who live where the powerful members of congress do.

I note that many of the figures I ballyhoo in these pages for economic wisdom (again, meaning they agree with me) are at least fiscal conservatives, maybe they are just plain conservatives (I don’t look). Right now, I believe they have a better economic theory. Emphasize theory. Of course, when they had their time to rule, they were as bad or worse as Democrats have been when it comes to spending, corruption, procedural game playing, etc. I’d like to know just when Flake started pounding on earmarks as I believe he is on his fifth or sixth two year term. Was it just since 2006, when Democrats took congress back? I don’t know the answer and my doing a Jeff Flake research paper is not going to happen. But, he should keep it up now even if it is partisan.

In the meantime, the appropriation committee added 4 additional planes to the 4 new planes that the pentagon asked for with respect to government, not defense, use – 3 Gulfstreams and a 737. Reputedly, these additional planes would mostly be used by congresspersons themselves. It has caused enough controversy that it appears that the committee is now backing down. John Murtha (the king of earmarks, by the way) has said that if the Pentagon doesn’t want the extra planes (they didn’t ask for them) then they won’t appropriate them. Sounds like sour grapes to me. The days of senators and congressmen flying all over the world at public expense should be ended by greatly restricting it. I have trouble of seeing why congresspersons need to travel to war zones or disaster sites, where their visits are often more trouble than they are worth in terms of security, manpower and military personal. It’s just not necessary and we all know they really go abroad as a type of vacation or to make photo ops for themselves (and I’ll politely skip visiting their girlfriends).

Well, when we vote for people with R and D next to their names we get what we deserve – which brings me to my next topic.

You all get what you deserve

Any number of times during the past campaign I have said to friends and family on both sides - you will get what you deserve. What I meant by that is that their anger, name calling, unfair attacks, made up facts, attempts to intimidate and drown out the opposition, etc., all beget more of the same from the other side and we will continue in this partisan system where both sides idiotically think they will ultimately win and the other side will go away. It seems to me that most people believe that such behavior cannot be avoided, and that since the other side does it unilaterally with glee, the only thing to do is jump in and do the same.

It can be argued that it is just human nature to attack the other side and defend our own. Not only do these tactics not always prevail, but I don’t believe it is helpful to us in the long run. But, it is very ingrained in our system and changing it will be a long, long, uphill struggle. But, so was ending slavery and Jim Crow laws. So was giving rights to criminal defendants. But, culturally, in our country at least, even heated public political discussion rarely ends in violence. The angry town hall meetings congressmen are facing right now regarding health care are a good example. They are sometimes rowdy, and often impolite, but I haven’t seen much violence, although a few people have been carried out for disturbing the proceedings. In some other countries, these political fights routinely turn to violence. It gives me hope that we can someday turn the bumper sticker discussions, exaggerations and character assassination to actual valuable political discourse. Not too long ago Newt Gingrich and Charles Schumer debated each other on stage in New York City, sort of a short version of the famed Lincoln-Douglas debates. It was a good idea. It should happen a lot more.

It is unfortunate that most people’s beliefs do seem to be established by identification with political ideologies or parties, usually the one they were brought up with. It’s not that different than religion. They hear someone on their side say something and they are much more likely to agree with it or believe it. This is hardly news. Most of us know this in general, except who among us believe it applies to ourself in particular? A few MRI studies seem to support the common sense idea that political reactions are, at least at first, emotional, before there is an attempt to rationalize. However, if I believe that, and I do, I can’t also logically believe that I’m somehow exempted from it. All anyone can do, is try to challenge their own knee jerk reaction. One way I personally try and do this is by being a fence sitter – that is, by taking my time in making up my mind (ten years on the death penalty). Don’t think this is bragging. Many people find fence sitters of the worst sort. They do so because if people try and rationally think about issues, and try not to just be for one team, it makes a mockery of the partisans bias.

For example, a liberal recently told me that she didn’t think Sarah Palin was attractive at all. Okay, taste is individual, but we do have such a thing as consensus (although one recent study shows men have greater consensus than women when it comes to attractiveness). I haven’t seen any studies on the affect of political views on who we think is attractive, but want to bet that conservatives think she is better looking than liberals do. That’s a study I’d like to see. I’ve heard the same thing from conservatives about Nancy Pelosi – that’s she is ugly. Although Pelosi is much older than Palin, I find it hard to believe that if conservatives were not aware of who she is they would not find her attractive for her age. Ugly? Come on.

This is no different than when we played baseball as kids and somehow people on each team always saw the guy running to third as safe or out depending on which side they were on. Maybe there is something wrong with me, a symptom of existential alienation, but that always infuriated me. Of course, I quickly learned that the best way to get your own team mad at you was to agree with the other team about a call or rule. Bringing it back to politics, this is in turn analogous to the hatred conservatives have shown for Arlen Specter, who left their team for the Democrats for political reasons, and the hatred Democrats showed for Joe Lieberman who merely agreed with the other team on a few issues.

Sonya Sotomayor’s now famous wise Latina speech tried to make the point that our judgments are affected by our experiences in life and if we want to be as impartial as possible we need to recognize this and then try to weed out these unfair inputs as best we can. I do believe it is at least partially possible. One problem in achieving this goal is that most people don’t seem to believe they are biased in the first place, but that they are moderate and impartial, even if they always vote for one party or listen to one side. It may be impossible to self judge this attribute

One of the ways that partisanship manifests itself is in believing wild stories about the other side. Recently, I read a conservative blog post by Ann Coulter which listed crazy things liberals believed. I’m not going to copy her whole post but she included things like:

-O.J. is innocent;
-Sarah Palin's infant child, Trig, was actually the child of her daughter;
-Justice Antonin Scalia threw the 2000 election to Bush so that his son could get a legal job with the Labor Department;
-Duke lacrosse players gang-raped a stripper;
-Bill Clinton did not have sex with "that woman";
-Heterosexuals are just as likely to contract AIDS as gays;
-John Edwards didn't have an affair with Rielle Hunter;
-Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.
-Bush was holding Osama bin Laden and planned to release him just before the election.
-the World Trade Center was blown up with explosives, not taken down by terrorists in airplanes

She listed many others, some of which I thought were fair accusations as I do many of those listed above (although beliefs concerning OJ are more racial than political; I’ve never heard liberals deny the John Edwards affair and 9/11 conspiracy theorists come in all flavors). Being Ann Coulter, her glasses only allow her to see the world from one angle. I commented there substantially as follows in my usual long winded fashion:

“Some liberals also believe that Bush was going to declare martial law and make McCain president, that Palin wants to punish women who claim to be rape victims and led cheers calling for Obama's death during the campaign. But conservatives are just as eager to believe nonsense:

-the birthers;
-Barack Obama is a Muslim;
-he ascribes to his former pastor's anti-American rantings;
-he is a Marxist (socialist leaning economic policies yes, but a Marxist?);
-when Obama gets elected whites will be forced to pay black's income tax;
-America is no longer a capitalist country (Glenn Beck recently);
-gays are trying to force heterosexuals to be gay (how?);
-immigrants don't have to pay taxes for seven years on businesses and then can switch them to their relatives so that they never have to pay them;
-99% of taxes are paid by the rich (although, of course, they do pay most of them);
-"marriage" is the only word ever that cannot change;
-the U.S. is a "Christian nation" (despite the first amendment);
-liberal politicians are more likely to cheat on their wives than conservative politicians (as recently as a few days ago)
-Japan is a civilized country because after WWII we forced them to be Christians (I've heard Ann say this herself);
-the ice caps are growing (forget whether global warming is real, the caps are shrinking);
-national security letters were necessary and never used irresponsibly;
-wiretaps were not abused during the Bush era (still believe that one, don't you? It’s quite possible it still is);
-no innocent man has ever been executed under the death penalty;
-all prisoners kept at Guantanamo Bay were terrorists (why did Bush release most then?);
-most blacks are on welfare;
-pro-choice supporters want to require abortions (so silly it hurts - you can find extremists on almost anything, but really?).

How many times do I have to tell you, partisanship makes everyone a little crazy. That's my point. I’m sure I will be saying it again. And again.

Dear Doctor Eisenberg

2009-08-08T18:34:00.000-07:00

The other day I started reading some online advice columns. These have to be the biggest scams of all time. Thus, I’ve opened up a new website called AOO!O, pronounced just like its written, at www.AdviceOneOh!One.com, where I give advice on various subjects ranging from teenage broken hearts to quantitative analysis, of which, thank SHAZAM, I know nothing. Google Reviews calls AOO!O “The most exciting new website since Google.” Bill Gates writes, “When I have a problem with my wife or kids, or am just trying to figure out a way to destroy my competitors, I go to AOO!O and get expert advice. So should you!”

I decided to give a sample of AOO!O so my massive blog audience can start joining in the fun.

Dear Doctor D,

I am a 13 year old young man from Newport, Rhode Island. My family is quite well off. I have everything you could ask for and then some. We often go away for the Summer season and when I come back, I feel quite distanced from my peer group with whom, to be frightfully frank, I have little in common. I am told that with my breeding I am quite a catch, but you would not believe the scallywags and riff raff that the women in my class go for. It's positively distracting. Please don't mock my request, as, to be honest, I am quite despondent. Any wisdom you can send my way would be duly appreciated

Many thanks,

Lost on the Gold Coast"

Seriously. High School girls don't like you? No friends? I'll bet your mother's friends just think you are peachy. Good God, man, I thought I was a loser in high school. You should have signed your name King of the Zeroes. Let me explain this in one word for you, you dithering cretinoid mass of teenage befuddlement.

Drugs! I never thought I'd recommend this to anyone, but if there is anyone drugs will help it is you. Not over the counter and not prescribed. Illegal drugs that will get you ten years for just possession. If anyone ever needed to completely destroy their own psyche, it is you. If you are in recovery you probably still won't have friends, but, at least people there will be people who have to say hi and listen to you.

As an alternative, go ask Jeeves to help you find a stool and some rope in the garage, throw the rope over a rafter and then chant as follows – No one likes me, No one likes me, No one likes me - until you get some results. If you can’t figure that out, at least don’t ever, ever, ever write here again. Ever!

Hope I helped,

The Doctor

. . . . . . . .

Dear David,

I don’t know where else to turn for help, you know. I am 17 year old and supposibly really hot looking, but comfoosed. Everyone says I look like a curvy Angelina Joley. Boys have started paying me a lots oftention this year ever since my body started, you know, changing, sum old guys too. I don’t think I should be doing anything, you know, with these guys, at least my parents wouldn’t want me to, you know. But, my body just wants to go, go, go. You know.

What should I do?

Young, tan, hot and bothered

Dear Hottie,

You poor thing. I don’t blame you for being confused? Your body is telling you one thing and your heart and mind another. You sound so sweet, intelligent and pretty too. Those bastards. I’m sure that these guys are not good enough for you. Stay away from them.

I shouldn’t do this, but, since you seem so nice, you deserve a break. I run a religious camp for troubled kids like you at my home. I want you to send me your email address and we can move things along from there. If you can get here, and I don’t mind helping with the money, I think I can help you to a path to God you are not going to forget.

Let’s keep this between ourselves. No reason to worry your parents and your friends will just be jealous if you tell them and try and talk you out of it. It will be our little secret, sweetheart. I know none of them understand you, but I do. You can call them from here after we get acquainted and you get straightened out if you want to.

Your bff,

David
Note to Webmaster from David – do me a favor; Don’t include this one in the post, but send it privately to her. Thanks.

. . . . . . . .

Dear Doctor David,

Maybe you can help with a research product we’ve been working at The Institute for Higher Biological Research. My co-workers and I are working on quantitative analysis of conformational changes of the nucleotide-binding subunits, MalK2, of the maltose ATP-binding cassette importer MalFGK2 during the transport cycle. Distance changes occurring between selected residues were monitored in the full transporter by site-directed spin-labeling electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy and site-directed chemical cross-linking. We aren’t sure where to go from there though? I don't know if you've worked on anything like this, but based on your website, I have a feeling you can help.

Suggestions?

Yours reverently,

A group of geniuses

Dear geniuses,

Have you considered S83C and A85C from the conserved Q-loop and V117C located on the outer surface of MalK. Also, I’d suggest including two native cysteines (C350, C360) in the study. You will probably find on ATP binding, small rearrangements between the native sites, and will likely not detect distance changes between at position 117. In contrast, position 85 should come closer together in the ATP-bound state and in the vanadate-trapped intermediate and move back toward the apo-state after ATP hydrolysis.

Likely, your results will be consistent with a slightly modified tweezers-like model of closure and reopening of MalK2 during the catalytic cycle, and show a previously unforeseen potential interaction between MalK and the transmembrane subunit MalG.

Any more hints than that and I will have to insist my name goes on the paper. Next time give me a hard one.

Peace out, brother scientists.

. . . . . . . .

[Follow up from researchers]

Dear Professor Eisenberg,

Oh my, God. Thanks so much for your advice on our study. It worked out exactly like you said it would. How did you know? By the way, we’re not brother scientists. We are all women.

Yours,

A group of lady geniuses

Dear Geniuses,

Yeah, right. And I lactate. Nice try, guys.

. . . . . . . .

Dear Dr. David,

I thought you might have some advice for me. I run what you might call a big company. Everyone I hire comes with a great reputation, went to Harvard or Yale, blah, blah, blah, but in the end, they are all screwing up one way or the other, particularly our financial planners. Two kids with a pitcher of lemonade have more sense. I consider myself more a motivator rather than a hand’s on kind of guy but I’m about to give up. Honestly, I’ve been saying dumb things myself lately. I'd quit, but my number two is three I.Q. points from being an idiot, but there is no practical way to get rid of him without a lot of trouble. What embarrasses me is, the more we screw up, the more we have to pretend we know what we are doing to maintain credibility.

Here’s my question. I’ve been thinking of going back to teaching, something I used to do back in the good old days. It’s less money, less “glory” (I guess), but no one’s really mad at you except for a few kids who get bad grades and you sleep a lot better. Any words of wisdom,

Yours truly,

Barack Obama
POTUS

Honorable Sir,

Hah, hah, hah, hah, hah, you have to be president, and you don’t know what you are doing, and I didn't vote for you, and everyone’s going to hate you, and you have to have lunch with Joe Biden, and you are probably going to screw up the wars, and the economy will fall apart, and every one is going to blame you, and you will never teach again, and hah, hah, hah, hah, hah.

Yours,

David
p.s. Of course, once you are done you will earn millions of dollars writing an uninspiring book ("Biden excused himself and we all waited until the door was closed before cracking up so bad our sides ached") and making speeches, even just signing letters for big corporations. It’s not a bad life.

. . . . . . . .

Dear David,

I am 60 something government retiree, an "A" personality type, and now I’m feeling a lack of purpose. It’s depressing getting old. You’d think after giving my life to my country for 40 years you’d have some kind of respect but noooo, I’m so last year. And now, for crying out loud, a black guy is president - a black guy - and he gets more respect than me. I need some sage words or I swear I will put a gun to my head.

Yours,

Dick Cheney

p.s. I am also a vampire.

Dear Dick,

You want more respect? Here’s a starter. Start calling yourself “Richard”. What do you expect people to think when they call you Dick? Can you name a real person named Dick who has been a success outside of a few comedians? Remember Nixon. He came in Richard and went out as Tricky Dick. See, what I mean.

As to the vampire thing, I had a feeling you might have been responsible for Harry Byrd’s condition. Very nice work, indeed.

But, given your astonishingly low favorability ratings I don’t really want to be known as the guy who kept you from putting the gun to your head, so keep this between the two of us.

Stay Strong, Dick.

. . . . . . . .

Dear AOO!O

Hi, I’m a musician in a rock n’ roll band along with my three best friends, Gina, Pam and Debbie. There’s no doubt that Debbie is the most talented one of us all. She’s the best looking, writes music, plays awesome guitar and can sing like Aguilar. The rest of us are okay, but we don’t expect to make a career out of it. We just want to have fun for a while and maybe make a little money in college.

I have a feeling that Debbie is going places in the entertainment world either as a singer, musician or model. I don’t want to feel jealous but I do. Also, she is my closest friend and I just know she might forget me when she makes it. We have just started getting gigs, but already I feel like this is going to tear the group apart.

Yours truly,

Jealous at 21

Dear Jealous,

I’m glad you wrote because the solution is easier than you think. The best way to lose Debbie as a friend is to let the green eyed monster drive you crazy watching her succeed in show biz while you work your way up to kiosk manager. Oh, she would try and be friends with you for a while, but soon it will be . . . “I didn’t think you’d feel comfortable around my big star buddies and didn’t want to embarrass you.”

So, let’s make sure that doesn’t happen. Face your feelings, think before you act and then, go out there and sabotage her. Insist on being lead singer. Just before a performance, weaken one of her guitar strings and then really lace into her after the performance. Get Pam and Gina into the action. During practice everyone agree that she is constantly off key. It’ll really screw her head up. Maybe pay someone to pretend to be a talent scout who wants to watch her and then have him leave shaking his head in the middle of the set without saying goodbye. If your band gets covered in the paper, bribe the reporter (trust me, they make almost nothing; lunch might do it) in order to make you sound like the star. Success often is dependent on confidence and I promise you, if you handle it right, you can destroy hers while you end up feeling like a million bucks. And that, my young friend, is show business.

Yowsa.

The Doctor has left the building. Please write in with your advice requests.

Endlessly fascinating: The Civil War

2009-08-02T18:03:00.000-07:00

I have three favorite wars which I find endlessly fascinating. The first really isn't one war; arguably its four - the two wars between Persia and Greece and the two Peloponesian Wars (sometimes considered one war), all of which were fought mostly in Greece in the 5th century B.C.; then WWII and the third, the War Between the States aka The Civil War. I admit that I sometimes feel a little guilt glorying in the carnage and horrors of others, but that is a pleasure I share with millions of others. War is hell, but it is also riveting reading.

For the Greek Wars, I think I have absorbed what is most valuable, Herodotus' coverage of the Persian Wars, Thucydides study of the Peloponesian, and several of the works of the modern scholar, Donald Kagan. There are other authors who I have proffited from immensely (particulary Michael Grant and Barry Strauss), but modern historians are mostly relegated to commentating on the ancient recorders and I find Kagan the best of the bunch.

For WWII, the reading is endless. Churchill's The Second World War I read when I boy as my parents had it in the house, and I recently re-read one volume and will probably re-read a second this year. Readers of this blog know I am enthralled with Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb. I am not a basher of the unfortunate David Irving and I believe a number of his books are excellent, including The Trail of the Fox (Rommell), Hitler's War and Churchill's War. Also, the German officer, Heinz Guderian's Panzer, the repentant Nazi, Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich, Spandau and Infiltration, Winterbotham's ground breaking The Ultra Secret, John Toland's The Rising Sun: The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire, Nigel West's little but excellent A Thread of Deceit, all come to mind, but I must break off here with the traditional "too many others to mention," or this will be what the whole post is about. John Keegan wrote a whole little book just on WWII books he has read.

The Civil War is equally difficult to limit to a few books and I know I can't do it without waking up tonight in a start with a sudden memory of what I forgot to add, but, I loved the fictional Traveler, Harry Hansen's The Civil War and any book by Bruce Catton, Shelby Foote, James McPherson and Douglas Freeman. And, I've already posted here on the wonderful memoirs of Edward Porter Alexander on May 15th of this year, the best, in my humble opinion, from the war. Henry Steele Commager's Living History, The Civil War is the veritable horn of abundance. Of course, all that leaves out books just on Lincoln alone, an even bigger group, but I've said before I probably enjoyed most The Library of America's Abraham Lincoln, Speeches and Writings, Ronald Whites' The Eloquent President, and Benjamin Thomas' and Steven B. Oates' biographies. Many think David Donalds' Lincoln the best, and it might be. There are many others, of course and I'm sure someone somewhere is screaming what about Doris Kearns Goodwin's popular Team of Rivals, which I thought was really good, but not among the best.

Sometimes, alone with my library (that must sound pathetic, but really I enjoy it), I saunter through one of the wars, lately the Civil War and just mark down stuff that is interesting to me. Recently, doing so I found a bunch of stickies and pieces of paper stuck inside some of these books and figure I probably put them there so that I could blog about it. As usual, I look for the unusual.

Here's the legendary Sam Houston, governor of Texas, only a few years a state, vainly and powerlessly protesting against Texas' secession and entry into the Confederacy:

Fellow-Citizen, I have refused to recognize this Convention. I believe that it has derived none of the powers which it has assumed either from the people or from the Legislature. I believe it guilty of an usurpation, which the people cannot suffer tamely and preserve their liberties. I am ready to lay down the office rather than yield to usurpation and degradation.

At the end, he wrote in capital letters, screaming out his warning. Sorry, Sam. On a cheerier note, here's a paragraph from the inspirational Second Inaugural Address:

But the picture has its lights as well as its shadows. This great strife has awakened in the people the highest emotions and qualities of the human soul. It is cultivating feeling of patriotism, virtue, and courage. Instances of self-sacrifice contending are rife throughout the land. Never has a people eviced a more determined spirit than that now animating men, women, and children in every part of our country. Upon the first call, the men fly to arms, and wives and mothers send their husbands and sons to battle without a murmur of regret.

Stirring, no? I may have neglected to mention that this was from Confederate President Jefferson Davis' Second Inaugural Address, not Lincoln's. Davis was appointed president in 1861 when there was no time for elections and then elected the next year. As for Lincoln, let's take a look at what the London Times thought about our hero in 1862:

We do not think that even now, when Mr. Lincoln plays his last card, it will prove to be a trump. Powerful maliginity is a dreadful reality, but impotent maliginity is apt to be a very contemptible spectacle. Here is a would be conqueror and a would-be extirpator who is not quite safe in his seat of gevernment, who is reduced to such straits that he accepts a defeat as a glorious escape, a capitulation of 8,000 men as an unimportant event, a drawn battle as a glorious victory, and the retreat of an invading army which retires laden with plunder and rich in stores as a deliverance. here is a President who has just, against his will, supplied antagonists with a hundred and twenty guns and millions of stores, and who is trembling for the very ground on which he stands. Yet, if we judged only by his pompous proclamations, we should believe that he had a garrison in every city of the South. This is more like a Chinaman beating his two swords together to frighten his enemy than like an earnest man pressing on his cause in steadfasteness and truth.

Well, much of that was hard to argue with, and then General Grant came East. And, in the end, Lincoln did at least indirectly free the slaves when the 13th amendment was ratified. I admit those racist bits ("the Chinaman") that sneak into the language of even heroic sounding writing in the 19th and 20th century cracks me up a bit. I can't copy the whole article here but its tone was anti-slavery but also anti-Northern and condemned the emancipation proclamation as an incitement to murder. It's okay, the Brits and we fell in love in time for the two big wars.

Here's Joshua Chamberlain, the hero of Gettysburg's Little Round Top skirmish, telling of a sad moment at Appomattox just as victory is in hand and a white flag has come in from the enemy with the messenge from Lee asking Grant to discuss surrender:

I was doubtful of my duty. The flag of truce was in, but I had no right to act upon it without orders. There was still some firing from various quarters, lulling a little where the white flag passed near. But I did not press things quite so hard. Just then a last cannon-shot from the edge of the town plunges through the breast of a gallant and dear young officer in my front line, -- Lieutenant Clark, of the 185th New York,--the last man killed in the Army of the Potomac, if not the last in the Appomattox lines. Not a strange thing for war,--this swift stroke of the mortal; but coming after the truce was in, it seemed a cruel fate for one so deserving to share his country's joy, and a sad peace offering for us all.

I hate it when that happens.

If ever there was a guy you love to hate on the side of the North, it was George B. McClellan, who was for too long Lincoln's General and possibly the most vain popinjay ever to wear stars, and that is saying a lot. The president's patience with him undoubtedly prolonged the war. Here is Lincoln's secretary of the navy, Gideon Welles, on McClellan:

McClellan is an intelligent engineer and officer, but not a commander to lead a great army in the field. To attack or advance with energy and power is not in him. to fight is not his forte. I sometimes fear his heart is not earnest in the cause yet I do not entertain the thought that he is unfaithful. The study of military operations intersts and amuses him. It flatters him to have on his staff French princes and men of wealth and postion; he likes show, parade, and power. Wishes to outgeneral the rebels, but not to kill and destroy them. In a conversation which I had with him in May last at Cumber-land on the Pamunkey, he said he desired of all things to capture Charleston; he would demolish and annihilate the city. He detested, he said, both South Carolina and Massachusetts, and should rejoice to see both States extinguished. Both were and always had been ultra and mischievous, and he could not tell which he hated most. These were the remarks fo the General-in-Chief at the head of our armies then in the field and when as large a proportion of his troops were from Massachusetts as from any State in the Union.

McClellan was extremely popular with the troops and blamed Lincoln for his problems. At Gettysburg, rumors of his appearence reportedly rallied the troops several times. But, Lincoln sacked him eventually, and replaced him with Fighting Joe Hooker. I like Bruce Catton's strange introduction to this charming character and probably above average general for the North, in his Glory Road:

Beyond any question, Joe Hooker was the handsomest commander the Army of the Potomac ever had. Crusty Publisher Alexander K. McClure grew fairly dreamy-eyed when he tried to describe him: "A man of unusually handsome face and elegant proportions, with a complexion as delicate and silken as a woman's." Major Dawes . . . spoke of Hooker's "Apollo-like presence," and a newspaper correspondent noted that the general had large gray-blue eyes, a rosy skin, and an abundance of blond hair, and said that he looked like an ideal soldier with his erect carriage and his square shoulders. To another correspondent Hooker looked "as rosy as the most healthy woman alive."

There are a million stories from the war. They are greater than any one man's ability to collect. Hence, we will never stop having volumes with new information. Here's a touching moment between Meade and Grant after the latter shows unusual anger hearing a subordinate berate Meade, this one from Catton's Pulitzer and National Book Award winning A Stillness at Appomattox:

For once in his life Meade was calm and not irascible. He stood facing Grant, towering head and sholders over him, and he murmured gently: his name's Griffin, not Gregg, and that's only his way of talking"; and as he spoke he leaned forward and buttoned up Grant's uniform coat for him, for all the world like a kindly father getting his son ready for school. Then Grant went back to his stump and his twigs and his cigars, and couriers dashed off with orders, and in the trackless forest the support troops shouldered their muskets and tried to go forward through the midday twilight.

Lincoln had as his two private secretaries (there was another one who is almost never mentioned in Civil War writings, but that's for another time) John Hay and John Nicolay, who were still young men. They sometimes seemed to me like they were having a great time even in the midst of the terrible pressure of working for Lincoln (whom they referred to as "the tycoon") during the war. Here's a letter from Hay, later the U.S. secretary of state, to Nicolay where the teasing reminds me of boys being boys wherever they are [brackets are mine]:

Glorious news come borne on every wind but the South Wind. While
P[ope] is crossing the turbid and broad torrent of the Mississippi in the blaze of the evening's fire and G[rant] is fighting the overwhelming legions
of B[eauregard] at Pittsburgh, the little Napoleon [McClellan] sits trembling
before the handful of men at Yorktown afraid either to fight or run. S[tanton][secretary of war] feels devilish about it. He would like to remove him if he thought it would do.

Things go on here about as usual. There is no fun at all. The Hell-cat [Mrs. Lincoln] is getting more Hell-cattical day by day.

Lamon has indicted Horace Greeley [powerful newspaper man not afraid to criticize Lincoln] criminally for libel and thinks of going to New York to bring him down to the jail here. He would not be persuaded by his best friends.

We have made Van Alen a Brig. Gen. The Senate, however, have not yet confirmed him. I am geting along pretty well. I only work about 20 hours a day. I do all of your work & half of my own now you are away.

Don't hurry yourself. We are getting on very well. I talk a little French, too, now. I have taken a devil of a notion to the Gerolts. I went to see them the other day. The children were less scared than usual and they and Madame la Baronne talked long and earnestly of the state of your hygiene and said, "it was good intentions you for to go to the West for small time."

The latest rumour in "our set" is that Mr. Hay and Miss Hooper are engaged, as Count Gurowski [Polish nobleman, writer and Lincoln critic] calls it. I wish I had that old nuisance's neck in a slip noose. I'm afraid the Hoopers will hear it and then my good times there will be up.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo, an economist who writes about Lincoln, is no fan of his. You do not need to agree with all of his conclusions to appreciate his work, as the field of Lincoln is one that is exceedingly hagiagraphic and needs sunlight. DiLorenzo points a torch where others would prefer dark. Here's a paragraph which points such a torch on General Sherman, whose march to the sea delighted many in the North, probably got Lincoln re-elected, and devastated the South:

Upon taking command in Tennessee, Sherman described the ultimate purpose in the war to his wife: "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but of the people." His loving wife responded by expressing her sincerest wish that the war would be a war "of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like the Swine into the sea. may we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing." "Sherman and his family," explains Sherman biographer John Marszalek, "saw everyone south of the Mason-Dixon Line as an implacable enemy."

There is always another side in any discussion of war. Harry Hansen, who wrote my favorite one volume history of the war, describes Sherman, replying to a plea from the mayor and councilmen of Atlanta not to make refugees of the remaining people, as follows:

Sherman was quick to defend his course. He deluged the mayor and councilmnen with a a flood of words about the war, the guilt of the South, and his determination to root out the enemy. Atlanta might again become a battleground, said he, so in asking the citizens to leave he was doing them a kindness. Hardships of war? "War is cruelty and you cannot refine it," said the general; "and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out." The Confederates had sent men and munitions to carry the war into Kentucky and Tennessee, and hundreds and thousands of women and children had fled from the Confederate armies and desperatdoes, "hungry and with bleeding feet."

Why not end this post with Lincoln himself, in one of my favorites among his letters, this one to his wife, mostly because it emphasizes just how different growing up then was from growing up now.

Think you better put "Tad's" pistol away. I had an ugly dream about him.

Tad was ten.

The awe inspiring

2009-07-23T17:04:00.000-07:00

I promised a friend that this week's post would be something about physical fitness. Why not? Everyone loves an athlete.

This blog is dedicated to a handful of the greatest athletes in history, all wrestlers.

Ironically, Alexander Karelin(e) came to the attention of Americans by losing. It was the 2000 Olympic games and the ancient sport of Greco-Roman wrestling (which differs from freestyle wrestling in that the athlete's need to stay on their feet) was suddenly on everyone's radar. A huge American farm boy named Rulan Gardner defeated Karelin in the finals of their sport 1-0. That is - he only scored 1 point and Karelin none. Doesn't sound like a big deal, does it? That's because you don't realize how good Karelin was and how startling one point could be.

Karelin had started wrestling internationally in 1987. It is hard to find records but he apparently lost at least once that year but became the world junior champion. The year prior he had one loss to the world champion (who he later regularly beat). In 1988 he never lost a single international match. He went into the the 1988 Olympics and won every match right through the finals. He did the same thing in '89, '90, '91 and '92, another Olympic year. Never lost a match, not one right through the Games and picked up his second Gold there. Then, in '93, and '94 he again never lost a match. Not one. Astonishing. Even Michael Jordan missed shots. Even Greg Louganis lost diving competitions. Even Muhammad Ali lost fights. Karelin just never lost.

Going seven years without a loss would make anyone an all time great. Here's what makes Karelin greater still. In '94, he not only didn't lose a match in international competition, he didn't lose a point. That seems almost impossible as he fought huge powerful men determined to beat him. And then in '95 and '96 he again never lost a point including in the Olympic games, taking his third gold.

And he kept not only winning every single match, but winning them without losing a single point. A SINGLE POINT! And again in '97, '98 and '99 and into 2000. Only a pulp fiction writer could conceive of someone so dominant in his sport. Bobby Fischer lost chess matches. Tiger Woods loses all the time. So does Federer and Nadal. Everybody loses. Not Karelin, not even a point.

In 2000 Karelin was now nearly 33 years old and still a phenomena. He had always been astonishingly strong. More than one sports enthusiast thought him the toughest man in the world. His signature move was a reverse suplex, virtually unknown in the heaviest Greco-Roman weight division, 286 pounds and up, because you had to lift 300 pounders off the ground into the air and body slam them into the mat. Not like in pro-wrestling where the victim was giving you a helpful bounce off a friendly surface from a standing position, but bending over and picking up a huge mass of resisting thrashing athlete like a sack of potatoes and . . . .

With all these years of not losing, for many of them not even a point, his opponents did not know what to try anymore. They literally feared him physically (it hurts when you are lifted in the air and smashed down on the ground) and were in awe of him. It is quite possible that no athlete, at least since there are regular leagues and events, has ever had the same dominance in any sport for so long a period of time.

His competitors called him "The Experiment," as in science experiment, giving an explanation as to why he was so much better than they were. Karelin had his own reason. He simply said he worked out harder each day than any other athlete did any day of their life and maybe so. As so often happens, he is actually rather intellectual and a nice guy. A Siberian whose parents were exiled there because they were intellectuals, he was elected to the Russian parliament in 1999.

The 2000 Olympic games would be Karlin's last. He started out as usual winning all his matches without losing a single point.

That's when he met Rulan Gardner, a less classical looking but great athlete himself with a wonderful story, but with nowhere near the career Karelin had. In fact, he was probably the second best wrestler in his family, although his older brother, Reynold, was no longer competing. But, he was four years younger than Karelin and a huge man, virtually unmovable. He had missed the last Olympics because he missed the weigh-in by, literally, seconds. He had never won a world championship or an Olympic title (although almost few had other than Karelin for well over a decade). They had met only once before and Karelin, of course, had won.

Gardner acknowledged later that Karelin was much stronger than he was, but he got his one point early on, by escaping from Karelin's grip, not by scoring himself, adopted a low center of gravity and beat perhaps the most dominant athlete of all time. Even still, he later admitted, although he kept telling himself he could win, he never really believed it until it happened. And his own fame came not so much because he won, but because of who he beat.

Despite that one single point at the end of his career, I nominate Karelin as the most dominant athlete in any modern sport period. But, now that I said that, let me name two other wrestlers who can challenge that assessment.

Dan Gable is another wrestler whose career is legendary, and some would say as amazing as Karelin's.

Gable was a free-style wrestler. His legend started young. As a high school freshman, he wasn't allowed to wrestle varsity and lost one unofficial match to a teamate. The next year he started wrestling varsity and didn't lose a single match. The key to his greatness was similar to Karelin's. It all had to do with working out. He said that if he could walk off the mat, he considered the workout a failure. That was a slight exaggeration, but not by much. He won every match the next two years and all three state championships.

On to college at Iowa State. Gable wasn't allowed to wrestle varsity as a freshman there either, but did his sophomore year. He not only won every single match but the NCAA championship. He repeated the performance the next year. No losses. NCAA champion. Then, as a senior, the same thing happened right through the NCAA championships up to his last match as a collegian. As Karelin had his Gardner, Gable had his Larry Owing.

Owing was a little younger than Gable. When he was a high school senior, Gable was a sophomore and they both tried out for the Olympic team. Gable blew him off the mat. When Owing went to college he wrestled in a different weight class his first time he could have faced Gable, but the next year, he deliberately dropped two weight classes just to face him in the championship. Gable was famous for his conditioning. Owing decided to match him in that department and seemed to do it.

Owing let it be known - he wasn't there to win the championship, he was there to beat Gable. At his coach's persistent persuasion, he was seeded no. 2 after Gable, which meant that he would face in the finals (142 pound class) if they both won, and they did.

Gable, the invincible wrestler, had heard about Owing's message, and admits that somehow, it got to him. For the first time in his career, someone else was in his head. He watched Owing wrestle. He thought he made mistakes but nevertheless he kept pinning everyone, often using a move called an inside cradle.

The final came. The word was out. This would probably be the greatest match in wrestling history.

Before the match, Gable even gave an interview, something he had never done before. Gable kept waiting for the inside cradle and distracted, he found himself down 7-2 at the end of the second period. He had only one period left against a wrestler who might possibly have been in as good as shape as he was.

That's when Gable put on a performance of a lifetime. He quickly score 8 points to Owing's 2 and he had time to spare. With 30 seconds left, he had a 10-9 lead. It looked like he could just ride the time out, but he got up and wrestled. With seconds left he went for an arm bar. Owing countered the move by grabbing Gable's leg and sweeping it. He had never done that move before. Gable went to the ground in slow motion. Later he said it was a judgment call to count it, but the referee did. Owing won 13-11.

There was a 15 minute ovation as people recognized the greatness of the match they had just seen. At the awards ceremony, Gable got many more minutes of applause for his career. But he had lost and "The Machine" and finished his college career 181-1.

30 years later, Gable said the match wrankled still. But, he also said it changed him as a wrestler and later as a coach. He never let his guard down again. He met Owing one more time, in the Olympic trials two years later - 1972. No one had scored a point against Gable in the trials yet when they met. Gable wiped the mat with him and won 7-1. But Owing could be happy that he had scored the sole point against him as Gable went on to the Games and took gold without losing a single point there. In fact, in his post-college free-style wrestling career he lost only a handful of times through 1976, when he retired.

In my humble opinion, Karelin's record in the sister sport is more amazing than Gable's (see my one reservation below). He never lost for 13 years until his very last match and went 6 years with out giving up a point, almost doing the same thing in consecutive Olympics. He won the European championship twelve years straight. Besides, he was not only the dominant wrestler for all those years in his country, but in the world. Gable wasn't but that one Olympics. I say all this being a little emotionally partial to Gable, as I had watched his career when young and had even remember his legendary match with Owing (I can't remember if I saw it live on tv or on tape the week after).

However, there is one thing Gable did with which Karelin can't compete. Gable turned coach. He coached Iowa State, his alma mater, for 21 years. During those 21 years, his team won the Big Ten Championship 21 straight times. 21 out of 21. During the same period they won 15 national championships, at one point 9 in a row. That probably makes him the greatest college coach in history (better than John Wooden at UCLA) on top of being possibly the greatest freestyle wrestler in history.

Yet, there is another freestyle wrestler who is probably as great as he was, and more recent in time too, but who has nowhere near Gable's fame outside of wrestling circles.

His name is Cael Sanderson. He started with a high school career almost as great as Gable's, only he wrestled varsity for four years, not just three, as the rules had changed. Wrestling was a family thing with him. His father was his coach and three of his brothers won state championships too. Cael won four state championships himself and finished 127-3 (Gable did not lose in high school). Off to college, he also wrestled at Iowa State and smashed Gables records, winning 159 matches while losing none (Gable was 118-1). Gable won two NCAA championships, and one second place in three years and Sanderson won four (although Gable was not allowed to try his freshman year). Although it did not seem possible, Sanderson eeks him out in their college careers, almost like Robin Hood splitting the arrow.

Cael's Olympic shot came in 2004 in Greece, where he won fairly handily (strangely, he won each match 3-1) but not good enough to match Gable's shutout performance (or come close to Karelin's 6 years of doing so). He also won a silver medal in the world championships and three national championships before retiring to become a coach too. It is still too soon to know if he will be the coach Gable was, but in three years his team won three conference championships and came in second in the NCAA championship's once.

Is it possible Sanderson isn't as famous as Gable or Karelin because he didn't have his Gardner or Owing? Maybe. I haven't given John Smith his due either,(I won't dwell on him but there are those who consider him the greatest freestyle wrestler ever), as he was the first to win four NCAA championships, and also won four world titles (Sanderson never did) and two Olympic Golds, plus coached 5 NCAA championship teams. On the other hand, his 5 losses in college are 5 times as many as Gable's and Sanderson's put together. Still, it would not be unfair to give him the nod over them given his international record.

Who was the best of them? I'd have to go with Karelin (setting aside coaching; if you include coaching, then it is Gable). Leaving aside the 13 years undefeated and the 6 years unscored upon, Karelin won nine World championships, more than the other three put together, and has only one less Olympic Gold than the three of them too. Add 12 European championships, and that he is the greatest wrestler in Russian/Soviet history. That's important because the history of the world championships in both freestyle and Greco-Roman wrestling has been the Soviets and then the Russians winning the team title virtually every year with a few exceptions (fewer in Greco-Roman). Thus, just to get to where he was in the international world, he had to first defeat the best wrestlers in the world from his own country. My only reservation is I can't get his domestic record although it appears that it would make little difference. I will update this post someday if I can obtain it.

Are there any athletes in any sport I'd put up against Karelin for sheer dominance? Edwin Moses won 122 straight 400 meter high hurdle races over almost ten years, two Olympic Golds (and it would have undoubtedly been three if the U.S. competed in 1980) and a bronze in the last race of his career in 1986. He is almost in Karelin's class. I've written here about Paavo Nurmi, the Finnish long distance runner who revolutionized the sport (posted 4/11/2007) and he might come close. Most boxers stayed too long and ruined their records. Dempsey had his Tunney, Ali his Frazier. Marciano was undefeated but fought an old out of retirement Joe Louis and made his record on the "bum of the month" club. I'm partial to Louis among them but he was knocked out by Max Schmeling once and then tried to come back when old. Arguably, Wilt Chamberlain was so dominant in basketball for a few years that he set records that almost certainly will never be challenged unless the game totally changes. Yet, his teams consistently lost to the Celtics. Michael Phelps would have to swim at the same level for nearly a decade to match Karelin. The astonishing sprinter Usain Bolt would have to continue to blow everyone's doors off (and I mean that literally) for another dozen years to match Karelin. I doubt either of them will do it for that long.

I'd say Karelin tops them all. Name your challengers and we will debate them. You better tell me why though. Names aren't enough.

The Passion Play of Sonia Sotomayor

2009-07-17T08:31:00.000-07:00

Like most like most political processes on television these days, the Senate confirmation is a grandstanding joke, where both the Senators and the nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, act dignified and grandiose, while superficially touching on important issues. It is a performance, a play, a passion play, if you will, where the opposition tries to nail the nominee to a cross and the majority tries to resurrect her.

I don't blame Judge Sotomayor or any nominee for that at all. She's a guest. The Senators, many of them anyway, are trying to score ideological and political points, and it gets ri-goddam-diculous, as John Wayne would say.

If you weren't interested enough to watch the hearings you don't want to be overly bored about it with me, so I will just give a very general summary and then go onto a few little things I noticed, of which I doubt you will much about in the mainstream media, although you might in blogs as they sort of jump out at you if you read constitutional law and legal theory.

Summary opinion: Obviously, the judge is a highly accomplished person. Unlike Supreme Court justices in New York (that's the trial level) with whom I've mostly dealt, federal District Court and Court of Appeals judges can't just be political appointees, but do have to know quite a bit. After enough cases, I would expect most know an awful lot of law. Some, of course, are better than others and there are always exceptions. I'm sure on the average though they have forgotten more than most lawyers know, and I mean that literally. Practicing lawyers tend to specialize in a field, and often come to rely on experience as opposed to legal knowledge, but these judges must learn about every subject from admiralty law to patents to international law to personal injury and so on, and deal with thousands of cases over decades sometimes This is why I was so surprised she completely blew some very basic constitutional law (see below).

Sotomayor's background shows she was always a very high achiever, and leaving aside whether you disagree with a small handful of cases she decided on hot button issues, she seems to have accomplished a lot as a student, prosecutor, corporate lawyer and judge. She is famously driven and hard working, as many federal judges are. She has a reputation for being a bully on the bench and Senator Graham of South Carolina probably embarrassed her, although his manner was quite pleasant, by reading a list of descriptions lawyers polled by a federal almanac gave for her. As Graham pointed out, other judges ask tough questions and make the attorneys stick to ten minute arguments, but she is the only one who is repeatedly talked about like this on her bench. I have read or heard a few attorneys describe her this way too. Lawyers have the same biases, wackiness and differences between them that every other group of people do. But, one thing they tend to agree on, in large part anyway, is who the nasty or crazy judges are. However, the only person I know personally who has been before her thought she was one of the most intelligent judges he was ever before (although he bases it on one appearence), and Senator Graham pointed out himself that many people say wonderful things about her. In case you think the criticism of her is sexism - first, why do you presume it is male lawyers who feel this way? and second, there are four other female judges on the second circuit bench who are not viewed the way she is.

I think she should be confirmed. I don't see the difference intellectually between her and Alito, for example, other than he appears to be somewhat more ideological than her. While I agree with Barack Obama (when he was a Senator) that there is nothing wrong with voting against confirmation over ideological differences, I probably personally would not do so unless it was something I thought crucial, like if they believed that the courts can't hold laws unconstitutional or that the administration or states weren't bound by Supreme Court decisions among many other possibilities or that separate but equal is a good way too go. Frankly, I have never seen a confirmation hearing (and I've seen it for everyone on the bench now thanks to C-Span) where I would not have voted to confirm.

Which brings us, as almost all things political do eventually, to abortion. The suspicion is, because a liberal president appointed her, that she is pro-choice, and if you put a gun to my head, I would guess she was too. Apparently, no one really knows - I imagine she has been careful about what she says about it since she was first nominated for district court - Only the head partner in a firm she worked at when a practicing lawyer says he is sure she is pro-choice, but she testified, and I thought credibly, that she never discussed abortion of any topic like that with at any time. I tend to believe her. It does not seem like the type of thing she would be discussing with her boss in a big firm.

Now for the interesting stuff.

A legal realist?

I found one early exchange quite fascinating, because she pretended to know what she was talking about and had not a clue. Senator Graham asked the judge in the first round of questioning whether she considered herself a legal realist. Here's the exchange:

"GRAHAM: And that's what we're trying to figure out. Who are we getting here? You know, who are we getting as a nation? Now, legal realism, are you familiar with that term?

SOTOMAYOR: I am.

GRAHAM: What does it mean for someone who may be watching the hearing?

SOTOMAYOR: To me, it means that you are guided in reaching decisions in law by the realism of the situation, of the -- it's less -- it looks at the law through the...

GRAHAM: Kind of touchy-feely stuff?

SOTOMAYOR: That's not quite words that I would use because there are many academics and judges who have talked about being legal realists, but I don't apply that label to myself at all. As I said, I look at law and precedent and discern its principles and apply it to the situation... "

Here's the problem. The theory of legal realism has NOTHING TO DO WITH JUDGES REACHING DECISIONS BY THE REALISM OF THE SITUATION. She just heard familiar word words - legal and realism - and figured it was easy to guess right. It's possible she thought she knew, but then she is just plain wrong.

Legal realism is actually is a theory of law which, admittedly, is somewhat hard to define as it is a school of thought and there can be differences of opinion, but it's certainly not what she said. It recognizes that judges are human and that in coming to decisions they impart a lot of who they are into their decision, including their experiences and ethics. Now, it is important to note, that being a legal realist doesn't mean that you decide cases a certain way because of your biases whereas a legal positivist does it based on the law. I think that is what the Senator was hoping to show. Both theories allows for judges to try their hardest to be impartial and follow the law. But, either the legal realist is right and both are imparting part of themselves in their decisions or the positivist is right and it their decisions are totally divorced from ethics, etc.

If she really knew what it meant, then she gave a ridiculous response and was afraid that being a legal realist would make her seem like she was partial in her judging. That may have been politically wise, because some legal realists also believe that the judiciary is a way to change society and perhaps that is what the Senator was angling at. I think Senator Graham at least understood that aspect, because he also questioned her at that time about what is the best way to change the culture in America. She had no idea what he was talking about but he finally said that he meant the legislature - that is, through the democratic process as opposed to the bench. It is a position that most legislatures give lip service to although many people are very happy with the judiciary shaping policy. She herself has said in the past that they make policy at the Court of the Appeals level, which we know makes conservatives crazy and liberals giddy. It is certainly true and has been for a long time. I do not buy her response that she just meant District Court cases only involve the case in front of them, but Court of Appeal cases make the law for all the courts below them.

Here's the truth. Regardless of what she said - she is a legal realist. I'll get to how I know this in a bit.

The Wise Latina

When I first heard the words from her speech - that, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life" - I thought, uh oh, that doesn't sound good.

I couldn't wait until I heard how she tried to get out of that one and I'm not surprised that the conservative Senators jumped all over it. Could she possibly really believe it?

So, I watched the hearings. The left all pooh-poohed it as just a speech and the some on the right acted as if she said, when I'm the judge, the minorities win. Senator Graham, who I thought handled himself quite well in these hearings, politically speaking, pointed out to her, and she agreed, that if he or others like him (that is, white males) had said something comparable, their career would be over.

Her defense, and I had trouble with it, was that if you look at the whole speech, she was saying the opposite - that you don't let your personal biases affect your decision and that her whole career as a judge shows that. More, she sad the way she phrased it was "bad". She was trying to inspire group of young Latina women and thought this was a good way to say it. I didn't buy it. Now, the truth is, the right wing Senators on the committee did not put a dent in her record, in my opinion, in terms of bias. But, how could she mean the opposite of what she plainly said? How can she deny something she said so clearly in multiple speeches.

I thought her defense of this issue so poor that I finally bit the bullet and decided to read the speech, which took all of five seconds to find online, but which I bet, and I mean this, few, if any of the Senators on the committee did at all. Such is the cynicism I have for this process. So, I read it, and . . .

You know what? She wasn't lying and doing a bad job of it. She was telling the truth and just defending it badly. When you read the whole speech, you see that what she was trying to say was - we judges are human. Some of our experiences goes into our decisions. We have to guard against that. In fact, you should be aware of who you are and try to nothing but follow the law. But, since it is going to happen, so, all the judges shouldn't be white males. They should be women and people of different ethnic groups, including Latinas, who will understand racial and gender bias cases better than white males.

Do you know what this type of belief system this falls into (except that last part)? Legal realism. Her speech is a perfect example of it even if she doesn't know what it means. And she, the theoretician, is a legal realist.

Let me give you two paragraphs from her speech which shows her legal realistic approach, and, while reading it, remember that she does say that judges must aspire to be impartial:

"While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. Thus, as noted by another Yale Law School Professor ... there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.

That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, 'to judge is an exercise of power' and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states 'there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives -- no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,' I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. . . As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging."

Now, I happen to agree with much of the legal realist in her (although it is not presently a very fashionable theory in law). I do think that judges are invariably affected by the experiences of their own lives and whether they want to or not, it affects their decisions. I also agree with her speech that it must be guarded against to the extent possible and the only way to do that is to try to recognize your biases and not to let them affect your decisions. I also think it is a good reason to have diversity on the bench. For any conservative who just had a stroke at the last sentence, no that doesn't mean that I think there should be unqualified judges on the bench, but that over time, having a more diversified qualified bench will be fairer. Clearly, that is the direction we are headed.

Now, no where in her speech did she say that, when I judge, I am partial to Hispanics or any other minority, although that is the way Jeff Sessions seems to have taken it. You know why - because his experiences in life affect his judgments too.

I know there are people who believe that there is a black and white law out there that can be easily followed. I thought so too, even through law school, until I became a lawywer. Every lawyer before every judge knows that the judge has a perspective and you can't help but hope it favors your client. Now, the fact that Judge Sotomayor and the entire committee pretend that is not the case, that doesn't make it true or not. They are politicians and entitled to all the credibility of anyone who will say or do anything to be re-elected.

I don't believe her record shows racial or sexual bias and it did not seem to me that any points were scored by that with one possible exception - the Ricci case, and I will get to that in a bit. I thought Senator Schumer did an excellent job using her immigration law cases to show that she was exactly in the middle of judges on her bench in terms of deciding asylum appeals for or against the petititioner and that she turned down far more requests than she accepted (I believe 83%). If his analysis (really his staff's analysis) is wrong, then some other Senator has to show that is so.

Before I get to Ricci, I'd like to more quickly cover three more interesting points.

A fundamental what?

This one surprised me. Supreme Court justices are appointed so that they can rule on the constitution. One of the most important things they have to decide, at some point is whether states are subject to the bill of rights in the constitution. Let me explain what this means in a couple of paragraphs.

The bill of rights contains the first ten amendments to the constitution and were added soon after the constitution was ratified. It was done because a few states and many people were unhappy that there weren't more restrictions on what the federal, not the state, government could do to people. The first eight of the bill of rights covered issues like free speech, religion, bearing arms, search and seizure, criminal rights, and so forth (don't worry about nine and ten right now). The constitution makes it clear that they applied ONLY to the federal government, although states had their own constitutions and many restricted themselves likewise.

So, how is it that some of these restrictions have come to be held to apply against the states by the Supreme Court too? Early last century Supreme Court justices applied some theories as to how some or all of the first eight amendments were "incorporated" by the "liberty" clause in the fourteenth amendment. This amendment, made after the Civil War, was added in order to prevent the states from doing certain things like depriving someone of life, liberty or property without "due process" of law. I don't want to go into what "due process" means, because that's really complicated, but for now, just think of it as meaning before the government can kill you or take your liberty or stuff, they have to give you some fair chance, like a trial where you have a meaningful opportunity to defend yourself. But, what taking "liberty" mean?

One theory of how certain rights, say free speech for instance, gets incorporated in the meaning of liberty in the fourteenth amendment, is that liberty contains those rights in the first eight amendments which are "fundamental".

Getting back to our nominee, when she was asked what that meant, she took a very professorial tone and explained:

"That legal doctrine uses the word fundamental, but it doesn't have the same meaning that common people understand that word to mean. To most people, the word by its dictionary term is critically important, central, fundamental. It's sort of rock basis.

Those meanings are not how the law uses that term when it comes to what the states can do or not do. The term has a very specific legal meaning, which means is that amendment of the Constitution incorporated against the states."

That would be great except IT'S COMPLETELY WRONG. WRONG AND BACKWARDS. Fundamental, as in fundamental rights, pretty much does actually mean exactly what we lay people think it means. In fact, a "critically important" right would be a perfect way to describe it (the Supreme Court has used a few different formulations including one Senator Hatch relied on, beginning "deeply rooted in . . . ". It definately doesn't mean the right is "incorporated" although, that may be the result. It is just one theory some judges have used to determine whether the right is incorporated or not. To say fundamental rights are those that are incorporated is to completely beg the question. It is a theory about why some rights are incorporated and applied against the states. There are other theories, including that all the first eight are automatically incorporated, and, that no rights are incorporated.

Now, you might think (if you are a liberal, Democrat, or otherwise just want her to be confirmed and could care less what she says) that, so what -- she made a mistake in defining it and jumbled the words up, I'm sorry, that is not correct. She not only got it wrong, but so wrong, I have trouble believing she actually remembers this basic constitutional tenant. Her answer is one that, if she were the judge (and she knew the law) and an attorney in front of her said it, she apparently would lambaste him or her for being so unprepared. Remember, she's not trying to pass the bar; she's supposed to be the best. This is like a professional boxer not knowing he has to go to a neutral corner when he knocks down his opponent.

Now, personally, I still don't think that disqualifies her from being a Supreme Court judge, because I believe she is very knowledgeable and has a fantastic work ethic. I can't explain why she doesn't know this, but, she'll learn, like everyone else. Nothing in her record indicates that she doesn't learn the law she needs to for a case.

Baker v. Nelson

Ready for another one where I believed she tried to play the brilliant scholar and bolloxed it up. Senator Grassley asked her whether she was familar with the case of Baker v. Nelson, which he explained, was a same sex marriage case from the 70s which the Supreme Court refused to take because there was no federal question involved. Now, his reason for asking her was the typical political nonsense. He wanted to get her to commit now that this is precedent so that he could box her in to agreeing that she will never allow a same sex marriage case to be heard by the Supreme Court. Naturally, she wouldn't cooperate and gave the usual, it depends on the facts and case answer they all give. Doesn't matter as it's not my point. Now, when I heard him talk about the case in his question, I thought, well that was probably a one or two sentence decision which says, we refuse to take this case because .... There are thousands of Supreme Court cases which say that and there is no reason for a judge or lawyer to know them at all. They were rejected.

So, her answer surprised me. She said she hadn't read it in a long time, perhaps since law school. She didn't say, I think I may have read it, she said she had.

Now, I'm sitting in my living room watching this, and, unlike her, I have a laptop. So I look up the case, and sure enough, it was in fact a one sentence rejection which actually said even less that Senator Grassley thought it said. I would have bet anything right then if I could have my hands on a copy of her law school constitutional law text book that not only would it not have this case in it, but that it would make no mention of it. Why should it? At the time this was not a hot button issue (early 70s) and no one would have thought twice about it except the litigants. She certainly never read it. She just didn't want to look like she wasn't up on important cases.

I was disappointed that they agreed that they would talk about it the next day. And they did. And, sure enough, having looked at it, she said that she probably never read it.

This is really no big deal as I don't believe that Supreme Court justices are any more honest than anyone else. She was just participating in the horse and pony show.

The controversial cases

I will just cover quickly the two cases that the Republicans seemed concerned about, or at least thought they could cause her grief about.

The first is the Ricci v. Defestano case, recently decided by the Supreme Court. The argument is that because the Supreme Court determined that the decision which Justice Sotomayor joined in with her two colleagues was overturned, she is not qualified to be a Supreme Court judge (or, if they adopt the Obama standard of ideology counts, it shows she has an ideology that they don't like). This was a civil case where the city of New Haven, a city with more minorities (black, Hispanic, etc.) than majority white, threw out the results of some promotion tests for firefighters, because the pass rates of whites roughly doubled that of minorities.

People are often surprised to learn that the Civil Rights laws not only forbid intentional discrimination by the government, but also acts which lead to disparate impacts or results. And, they don't have to be that disparate. The EEOC uses an 80% standard. The disparate impact hear far exceeded that. The lower court wrote a long decision and determined that it was okay for the city to intentionally discriminate against the white (and 1 Hispanic) test taker who would have been promoted based on disparate treatment (intentional discrimination), by throwing the tests out, in order to avoid a likely lawsuit by minorities based on disparate impact (unintentional discrimination). Confuses yet?

Judge Sotomayor's three person panel voted to affirm the district court's decision in a summary decision. A vote to have the whole panel of second circuit judges rehear the case lost. The Supreme Court took up the matter.

In the usual five to four majority the conservatives on the court won a reversal, finding that the test was job related and business necessary (that is, we want firefighters promoted on merit, not race decisions). I agree with them, not necessarily for the reasons they give. The law is actually much more complex than I just summarized though, and I am not going into further analysis. Feel free to read the case. Title VII law is mind boggling and in my opinion, highly subjective.

I do not think that because the Sotomayor was reversed that she is not qualified to be a judge. Of course not. If so, what of the four Supreme Court judges who saw it her way (I expect my conservative friends to say, yes, they are incompetent too). But, if Obama gets to replace a conservative judge on the high court with a liberal, will that mean that no conservative judge who gets overturned will be qualified (I'm sure my liberal friends would say, yes, they would be incompetent)? If you add the two other judges on the panel with Sotomayor, the score would be 7 go 5 in favor of the city. She doesn't look so incompetent then. Sotomayor states that she just followed the law and that the Supreme Court decision changes the law. That is arguable, but not invalid.

Here's the ironic thing. The fact that the Supreme Court keeps ruling five to four with the same judges on each side shows the merits of the legal realism theory. I accept that each side believes it is just following the law (Sotomayor and the committee all acted as if the law has written in stone meaning, as if it was a brick you could put your hand around. Why do they keep ending up voting in this five to four pattern? I know. It's because who each judge is, including their experiences and beliefs, has an effect on their decisions.

The other case which was used to attack Sotomayor I can be briefer about. In Maloney v. Rice (there is another case too, but this one is enough for now), a New Yorker challenged the constitutionality of a law against possessing nunchuks, (if you don't know what they are you are no Bruce Lee fan) which are two sticks or tubes tied together with a cord or chain and which can be very lethal. The challenge to the law is based on the argument that now that the Supreme Court ruled last year that the right to bear arms found in the second amendment to the constitution is a private right, to bear arms with respect to the federal government, that it now should be found to be incorporated in the liberty clause of the fourteenth amendment and applied against the states. Sotomayor and her colleagues found that since the Supreme Court has not found it to be incorporated (declined to decide that yet), they aren't going to do it for them. However, as was pointed out during Sotomayor's hearings, conservative Court of Appeals' judges have made the same holding she did. I disagree with all of them that they did not have the right to make that decision (if they believe that's what the constitution means, then that's what they believe) but it is certainly not an anti-gun position, as her opponents seem to want us to believe. For all we know, she'd like to own a gun.

Of course, many conservatives, generally speaking, will be clamoring to find that the second amendment is a fundamental right and needs to be applied against the states. Pure hypocrisy, of course, as conservative theory has always been against the fundamental rights theory. And many liberals will be clamoring to find that it shouldn't be found fundamental, although it is, generally speaking, the only one of the bill of rights they don't seem to think should be. Pure hypocrisy, of course. If you missed the argument, if the goals of the idealogues on either side are hypocrites, they have succeeded beyond measure.

Isn't that what this blog always comes around to concluding?

Top Ten II

2009-07-10T18:48:00.000-07:00

TEN BEST LISTS

We’ve done this before. Here are my new, random and exciting top ten lists:

Guitar Oriented Rock Songs

10 Layla by Derek and the Dominoes (Clapton/Allman)
9 Hocus Pocus by Focus
8 The Harder They Fall by Jerry Garcia (concert version)
7 Wham by Stevie Ray Vaughn
6 Freebird by Lynyrd Skynyrd
5 Legs by ZZ Top
4 Green Grass and High Tides Forever by The Outlaws
3 Jessica by The Allman Brothers
2 Smoke on the Water – Deep Purple
1 Sabre Dance – Love Sculptre (Dave Edmunds)

Movie/Television Karate Guys

10 Steven Seagal (His first five, Above the Law, Hard to Kill, Marked for Death, Out for Justice, Under Siege and then a short role in Kurt Russell's Executive Decision were his best)
9 Jackie Chan (unique combination of kung fu and comedy)
8 Jean Claude Van Damme (Bloodsport was his class the classic, but there were many great ones)
7 Keanu Reeves (What? The Matrix trilogy dummies; I don’t care if it was computerized)
6 Chow Yun-Fat (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, etc.)
5 Bolo Yeung (a muscle bound Bruce Lee protégé – Enter the Dragon, Chinese Hercules, Bloodsport, etc.)
4 Yuen Biao (I don’t think he ever made a Hollywood movie, but a Bruce Lee type)
3 David Carradine (Kung Fu)
2 Chuck Norris (Walker Texas Ranger and the last standing bad guy in The Way of the Dragon)
1 Bruce Lee (I mean, there’s no question – all the movies plus Kato)

Obviously, I'm not a Jet Li fan. I thought his best role was was as a bad guy in one of the Lethal Weapon movies.

Movie sword fights

10 Rob Roy (Liam Neeson v. Tim Roth)
9 House of Flying Daggers (Takeshi Kaneshiro v. Andy Lau)
8 Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Zhang Ziyi v. Michelle Yeoh)
7 Star Wars II (Christopher Lee v. Yoda)
6 The Three Musketeers (Gene Kelly v. Some unknown actors playing one of the Cardinal’s Guard)
5 Pirates of the Caribbean (Orlando Bloom v. Johnny Depp)
4 The Princess Bride (Cary Elwes v. Mandy Patinkin)
3 Robin Hood (Errol Flynn v. Basil Rathbone)
2 The Court Jester (Danny Kaye v. Basil Rathbone – please watch the video; both a great fight and hysterical; Danny Kaye could do anything)
1 The Mark of Zorro (Tyrone Power v. Basil Rathbone – you get the point about Basil Rathbone yet)

Historical Generals preceding Napoleon (non-American)

10 Saladin (the great Kurdish warrior who showed the Crusaders what chivalry meant)
9 Gyllipus (a Spartan general, sent to Sicily, helped the colony beat the supposedly vastly superior Athenian Navy)
8 Julius Caesar (perhaps Rome’s greatest general other than Scipio)
7 Attila the Hun (if not murdered, maybe history would be different and we’d all be speaking modern Hunnish now instead of a Germanic language)
6 Themistocles (maybe the key figure in stopping Persia from conquering Greece in the early 5th century BC)
5 Subotai (Ghengis Khan’s greatest general; used tactics Eurpope hadn’t even thought of; I may be underrating him)
4 Charles XII (Sweden’s King; he was Europe’s greatest general of his era; I've posted on him before)
3 Alexander the Great (lots of old Greeks here, I suppose, but I like old Greeks)
2 Hannibal Barca (he virtually broke the mold and made fools of the Romans)
1 Scipio Africanus (because he beat Hannibal)

lines from Shakespeare

10 Now is the Winter of our discontent. (Richard III)
9 Brevity is the soul of wit. (Hamlet)
8 Et tu, Brute. (Julius Caesar)
7 Hoisted by his own petard. (Hamlet)
6 Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and cauldron bubble. (Macbeth)
5 Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. (Macbeth)
4 Cry “Havoc” and let slip the dogs of war. (Julius Caesar)
3 This above all: To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst then not be false to any man. (Hamlet)
2 There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. (Hamlet, again – because it was the best)
1 But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east and Juliet is the Sun. (Romeo and Juliet)

historical mysteries that we’d like to know the truth about

10 Did space aliens crash land in Roswell, New Mexico? (no)
9 Are aliens stored at Area 51? (no)
8 Did Shakespeare write his plays? (of course, he did)
7 Who was Jack the Ripper? (I have no idea)
6 Who was Homer, if anyone? Man, women, a group of poets, etc.? (my guess is that there was a Homer, but he is only one of many poets who added to the story or was just a well known singer)
5 Was there an Atlantis? (No; possibly Crete or some other island off an advanced civilization [Egypt? Phoenicia?] inspired the belief. Plato mentions it in two dialogues, but as he places it nearly 10,000 years previous to his time, his account lacks credibility; but; in any event, it wasn’t a continent in the Atlantic Ocean)
4 What happened to Judge Crater? (This is a long and fascinating story, but, essentially, in 1930, this NY Supreme Court Judge had dinner with a couple and disappeared into a cab – forever. I like to think he ran off with a showgirl)
3 Was there an historical Jesus? (I’ve posted on this question and argued yes)
2 Was there an historical Buddha? (a much tougher question; who knows)
1 How did Marilyn Monroe die? If there really was a Kennedy connection, that would make news)

favorite words

10 angel (not a rare word, but I’ve always like it)
9 jeremiad (from the biblical prophet; a long angry complaint)
8 quixotic (a few meanings from Don Quixote’s character, overly romantic or fanciful)
7 sycophant (a suck up)
6. fulgent (very bright or shiny)
5 niddering (a coward)
4 muliebrity (being a woman)
3 velleity (a mild desire to do something)
2 apotheosesis (the sudden breaking off of thought; the last three words I learned from the author Bill Bryson's wonderful The Mother Tongue)
1 mellifluous (something like eloquent, but sweeter – melli means honey)

Mythological characters

10 The two angels from Jehovah who visit Lot in Sodom in the Bible. No names. A great mysterious touch to the story
9 Bellerophon (tamed Pegasus, slew a chimera and other great feats)
8 Skinnr (a servant of the Norse god, Freyr, he goes to woo a giantess for his boss with a few magical instruments)
7 Ganesha (Hindu elephant headed god)
6 Loki (the Norse trickster; he’s what made the Norse saga interesting)
5 Andromache (I have a soft spot for the wife of Hector, whose husband was killed by Achilles in the Iliad; Hector and Andromache are the most sympathetic couple in all mythology)
4 Prometheus (the titan who gave man fire; he was tortured by the gods until freed by Hercules)
3 Enkidu (this half man, half beast from the Epic of Gilgamesh was far more noble than the hero of the epic and paid for his friendship with his life)
2 Odin (the mysterious old one eyed father of the gods, wandering among mortal men with his staff in hand, who sacrified himself more than Zeus would ever consider)
1 Thor (I always loved this incredibly strong, sometimes angry, but heroic Norse god; often ranked below his father, Odin, but at an earlier time before Odin's worship came to Scandinavia, he was a more important god and probably always the favorite)

You might not care, but it bothers me that I had to leave out Beowulf, Sigurd, Pan, Cheiron the centaur and the American Indidan trickster, Coyote.

American Icons

They must be dead, have been born or lived in America for a significant period of time and their image must be imprinted in our heads.

10 Mae West
9 Babe Ruth
8 Teddy Roosevelt
7 Albert Einstein
6 Dan Rice (A 19th century clown who was the model for Uncle Sam)
5 Humphrey Bogart
4 Jackie Onassis
3 Mark Twain
2 Elvis Presley
1 Marilyn Monroe

Sitting Bull almost made the list and Michael Jackson, freshly dead, might put out someone at some point. The list though is probably geered to my age group and older. I don't know if a 35 year old would know many of them. It be a good test.

Places I would love to go to

10 Hawaii (saving it for my honeymoon, so, probably never will)
9 Minnesota (since I’m a kid; why I can’t say)
8 Australia (also since I’m a kid; my first chosen destination and yet I’ve never been there)
7 Rome, Italy (been to Italy thrice, but never there)
6 Scotland (the lure of the moors)
5 Egypt (obvious reasons)
4 Zion National Park, Utah
3 Macchu Picu (I fear it may be ruined by tourism and technology by the time I get there)
2 Canyon de Chelly (you need an Indian guide to go in; a little Grand Canyon featured in the film Contact)
1 New Zealand (a hiking trip, preferably)

Places I’d love to go back to

10 The Black Forest, Germany (one of the two most beautiful forests I’ve ever been in and dotted with Hansel and Gretel little villages, not to mention Heidelberg)
9 Niagara on the Lake, Ontario (not the falls, but a little ways from there; a wonderfully pretty little town)
8 Grand Canyon (maybe the most spectacular place I’ve ever been)
7 New Orleans (exactly what you think it be; I think "fun" covers it)
6 San Francisco (took my breath away first time I saw it from a height; in my mind the prettiest city in America)
5 St. Thomas, Virgin Islands (beautiful and peaceful)
4 Florence, Italy (been there twice and could go back many times – doubt there is a better place to look at Renaissance art)
3 Santa Margherita, Italy (a beautiful town on the Italian Riviera)
2 Galeria, Corsica (a tiny fishing village with a few small hotels; a quiet paradise where you start to recognize the town dogs after a couple of days; not for those who crave night life)
1 Matala, Greece (little tourist town on the Southern Coast of Crete surrounded by little hills riddled with caves)

Powerful Senators who never became president (rated on importance and achievements, not my preferences)

10 Henry Cabot Lodge (Harvard's first history Ph.D and an imperialist, he battled Wilson over the League of Nations; a powerful figure who could never manage his way into a presidential nomination)
9 William Crawford (lost to Monroe and J. Q. Adams; one of those very prominent men we no longer ever discuss)
8 William Seward (wasn’t president because Lincoln beat him in the primaries and he became his secretary of State, serving until the end of Johnson's term, he almost died with Lincoln in the same plot)
7 Thomas Hart Benton (served longer than anyone at that time; a peer of Clay, Calhoun and Webster and quite a career – never ran though. He dueled with Jackson and then became a big supporter)
6 Richard Russell, Jr. (Nearly 40 years in the Senate, this Georgian white supremacist dominated there for decades, opposing civil rights the whole way but very strong on national defense. He tried for the presidency once, but Northern Democrats blocked him)
5 William Jennings Bryan (a great orator, prohibitionist and inventor of the stump speech; he lost twice to McKinley and once to Taft; famous for role in the Scopes Monkey Trial)
4 John C. Calhoun (protector of states rights and slavery, but considered a man of great character; he was twice VP)
3 Henry Clay (The Great Compromisor over slavery and inventor of the American System of infrastructure improvement; he ran thrice; involved in the the "corrupt bargain" that made J. Q. Adams president)
2 Robert M. La Follette, Sr. (once rated by historians as the greatest Senator tied with Henry Clay; ran for president in 1924 as a third party and actually got about one in 6 votes, but Coolidge was in office already after Harding died and ran away with it)
1 Daniel Webster (one of the greatest American orators and of the triumvirate with Clay and Calhoun; admittedly, I like him best because of the short story, The Devil and Daniel Webster, with which he has nothing to do)

Apologies to Michael Mansfield, who should be in there somewhere.

Political update for July, 2009

2009-07-03T03:48:00.000-07:00

The economy

No surprise that the Obama stimulus projects aren't working and people are starting to get fidgety. That fact seems to have penetrated even the political armor of some on the left, according to recent polls, who in increasing numbers are questioning the logic of borrowing more or creating more money. If you are a Democrat or liberal or even an independent willing to give it Obama's plan a try, you may still have resistance to believing this. So, take the word of Paul Krugman, who presents himself as a liberal. Many on the left see him as the last word on economics in the private sector, particularly since he won the Nobel Prize.

Krugman's NY Times' column of 7/2/09 acknowledges that the jobs aren't coming although he believes that the plan hasn't been given enough time. Also not surprisingly, he wants more spending, not less. It seems to me that we've had enough of these experts - and I include the so called "geniuses" of the Bush administration along with the "pointy heads" of the Obama administration - telling us that the things that make no sense are the only things that make sense. It's part of what got the economy in such trouble - the belief that we can make money and even lots of money, by financial systems which seems to create money from nothing.

The history of stimulus approaches to failing economies seems to be, as far as my limited education tells me, one of failure, both here in the United States and abroad. With respect to the New Deal, we must remember that many of Roosevelt's large federal economic laws were found unconstitutional, leading him to his unsuccessful attempt to pass legislation allowing him to pack the Supreme Court with additional New Deal judges, and that after 1935 he never passed another major one. Towards the end of the decade, as I never tire of repeating here - his own secretary of treasury emphatically admitted that spending didn't work.

And although I won't repeat my prior screeds on the economy, I did revisit them myself (my personal favorite on 11/13/08) to see if I've evolved or changed my opinion so far (nope). But, looking back I wonder how it is that I haven't taken whatever cash I have and put it under my mattress given the bleak future I see. No doubt, right now I believe the conservatives have a better economic theory than the liberals, however much they mucked it up when in power themselves. Lefties who are still glowing in the bask of their president being elected and predicting the end of the Republican party had better take a look at recent changes in the polls already and consider how fast they can put their plans in place before the economy so tanks that the right is given back control of the house of representatives (it is much harder to change the senate as only one third of them face re-election every two years except for seats opened by death and retirement). Listening to them, I can still remember how many believed the same of the Democratic party only two short years ago.

But, I will briefly restate my basic economic premises in another way, and will probably continue to do so so long as the government won't give up this insanity. It was, after all, a long time coming and with constant complaint that the Bushies finally figured out a few years ago what everyone else knew - that the plan in Iraq wasn't working and a change was needed. Don't expect Obama and Co. to be any less dense with the economy. It would mean admitting they were wrong.

- Economists can explain what happened economically in the past with some success. They have no greater ability to predict the future than Nostrodamus did. If you believe Nostrodamus could in fact predict the future, you should disregard everything I write on every subject - for among my base philosophy is that "magical" thinking doesn't work, and that our collective way of thinking is consumed with it.

- Our economic problems are cultural, involving greed following uncommon success, a desire to live over our head, lack of individual planning, the belief that things too good to be true are true including that value can be created by everyone saying it is so - like with housing or stock market bubbles - and confidence that our government leaders "know" what they are doing and have our best interests in heart as opposed to just achieving political control, to name a few.

- F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom seems to accurately describe how a socialistic system could arise in a Democratic country- not by military takeover, but a slow surrendering of individual rights to the government; by the same government swerving from the law (such as by "bailouts," picking economic winners, taking over control of the economy, and other post hoc changes) under the guise that "we have no choice" and, when the economy continues to fail, sory, but now we really have no choice. Indeed, that is exactly what Krugman and others like him seem to be saying. "We're not climbing out yet? Keep digging and someone hit those guys trying to build a ladder over the head with a spade".

- Even when government is completely screwing up, the economy can move on its own and the worst thing that can happen right now is a recovery, which will not be permanent, but encourage more bad planning and economic policy.

My short term recovery plan, as it stands now is as follows:

- end the bailouts now;

- stop all stimulus activity that is not directly related to producing jobs such as infrastructure projects; don't use it to stop companies from failing - that's why we have bankruptcy. No company is too big. How else are we going to get people to be careful with their money. If we don't let businesses fail when they should (and it seems like they do anyway after they take our money) then we can't learn how to avoid the problem or fix it;

- put in a regulated voluntary assistance health care plan, essentially allowing a fixed amount of charity to go directly to alleviate healthcare cost by giving donors a tax credit (I posted on my plan on 5/28/09 to thunderous non-support);

- reduce individual and payroll taxes across the board. Why not at least try that before the government spends money it can only get from its citizens;

- completely throw out the budget and start over. I'm for PAGO except in cases of national emergency;

- let's suffer through the problems of business failing and people losing their houses; the economy will find a botton level and start to build again. That might sound Hooverish to you, but I'm far from convinced that this wasn't the better approach after all.

My long term plan calls for political change that people probably aren't ready for yet but I think it's necessary:

- severely reduce non-military government employee pension plans and restructure how they are done (no one should be well off on just a government pension and they should never approach an actual salary - the country can't afford it). If you don't like that, it started happening already all over the country the last few years;

- make retirement from government at age 65, and not after 20 or 25 years. We all want to retire young, but we can't;

- amend the constitution so that no one can serve in congress for more than a combined twelve years;

- restructure the congressional rules, including by constitutional amendment if necessary, so that the political parties cannot control it exclusively and cannot raise their own salaries and benefits. I'd severly reduce their benefits to a reasonable amount related to their duties, do away, or greatly reduce their pensions (politics might be a career, but being in congress shouldn't be) and cut back their medical plans to the same level as most people can get;

- completely get rid of any congressional privileges once they are out of office (like going on the floor of either house), have complete transparency of their lobbying and financial activities once they are out of office for five years, starting now, and have complete and immediate transparency of earmarks (which aren't all bad, but need to be watched);

- require a full senate up and down vote on all presidential nominations, again by constitutional amendment if necessary, within no more than two months after nomination or they are presumed valid unless they are later voted down within four months;

- revolve committee chairpersons every two years max; require members presence on committee or the senate floor while in session with little exception (some for temporary illness, deaths in the family, etc. - if you can't be there long term for any reason they lose the seat, which was never theirs to begin with;

- limit personal fundraising appearances and electronic calls while congress is in session. I don't care if that hurts their chances of re-election; they spend the majority of their time raising money; they are being paid to work, not run again;

- modernize the parliamentary procedure. No more "laying bills on the table," and similar archaic jargon new members have to learn over time; get rid of bogus voice votes where the congressperson's staff are screaming out votes for them and the acting president automatically declares that his/her side won; no more quorum calls to delay votes, etc.;

- last, have state judicial ballots made without reference to political parties. An independent judiciary is always a good thing. Party allegiance is not.

Of course, since you need congress to do almost all of that, forget it. It's not happening. But, it should.

The Senator from Minnesota

Al Franken's rise to the Senate was delayed much too long and states should put in procedures to expedite finding a winner. I take nothing from Coleman in his right to contest the election, but, enough was enough. There was no credible argument in his favor from the beginning. As Gore learned, sometimes you just lose by a little bit.

Naturally, I'm concerned at the power this gives Democrats now. The way that congress has designed itself, political parties have the power, not the people who send their representatives there. The one power a minority has to stop a bill (good or bad) from going forward is by the filibuster power of the Senate (the House has a different system and the minority party, shy even one vote of a majority, is virtually powerless, and both parties abuse that power) and now, with the Democrats having 61 votes, it barely exists except in theory.

Middle class people on the left who have the illusion that their party cares about them more than Republicans do are in for a rude awakening. Political parties are there to serve themselves, not you. If by hurting the economy they can ensure their continued power, they will. The same is true of the opposition. If by hurting the economy they can win power, they will. If you disagree, what in our history tells you this is so?

I thought Franken was funny back when he was on Saturday Night Live and looked forward to his appearances. I have read through some of his books and still believe he is funny - when he is writing, that is. I have heard him on radio and seen him debate and find him not very funny personally. In fact, he is a bad debator who would not have won this time except for the anti-Bush sentiment.

If he will take my advice, he will not try and be funny in the Senate. He's going to find them a tough audience. Besides, his senior senator, Amy Klobuchar, is much funnier than he is. Seriously, she is very funny.

Ricci v. DeStefano

Having just posted on another Supreme Court case I will restrain myself here. This was the case where test scores for promotion in a Connecticut fire department were thrown out so that more minorities could be promoted.

I'm glad for the decision. It was, not surprisingly, a 5-4 decision, with Kennedy writing the opinion and as always, providing the swing vote. It is really his court, regardless of the fact that we always call it the Robert's Court after the Chief Justice. Only Obama has more power in America than he does and that will not change with Sotomayor taking Souter's seat. Kennedy is still the one whose vote you need to win in tough cases.

Fortunately, Justice Kennedy is a good man to have this power. While he is economically and culturally more conservative than liberal in his votes, he is apparently motivated by other things, and his jurisprudence is much more consistent than the right wingers who hate him for voting with the left sometimes would have it. I hope to find time to read Helen Knowles' The Tie Goes to Freedom which discusses his decisions and ascribes to him a modest liberatarianism. I don't think I see that, but I've listened to her on C-Span and she has some argument. I see him more as a humanistic conservative. Naturally, I don't always agree with him - sometimes I vehemently disagree. But, as far as I am concerned, he is the only one on the court who is not substantially a prisoner of ideology.

If in America, a civil service test (or the like) can really be thrown out on racial grounds, as happened to these white Connecticut firemen, then we have a racist system. Since I criticized Justice Thomas a little (praised him too) in the last post for a partially extreme position in a 4th amendment case, I throw him a bone by mentioning that his dissent in the last big affirmative action case hit it square on the nose when he asked if we had determined that we were going to act unconstitutionally for 25 years (what the majority opinion written by Justice O'Connor had said) until we feel blacks have caught up economically. I recognize that many on the left feel that the law was so unfair to blacks and other minorities for so long that we must rectify it by giving them certain advantages. I sympathize with that history, but disagree with the solution. I am not against all of what might be called affirmative action (I have no problem, for example, with some advertising which encourages minorities to apply) but am definitively against quotas, set asides, preferences or anything which would allow merit to be set aside in favor of skin color or genes.

I am doing here what I often criticize, looking at a case purely politically rather than analytically, but, as I've also said, people prefer that, and I can't go on and on about everything. I've never had a comment complaining that I've been too brief on any subject ("Please, Sir, pontificate some more").

Health Care

I've posted on my response to the health care crisis, and, realistically, it is not something that would be considered. For one thing, no one in public life has considered it. With respect to what's going on in congress, I have three thoughts.

First, the idea of a public sector alternative is not a good one, if the government is the insurance company. Naturally, government has all the advantages and there could never be fair competition. It would merely be a slow, and maybe a quick way, of driving out private health insurance companies. That might sound like fund now, but wait until government is the monopoly choice. Like with taxes, the prices would go up and up.

Second, one of biggest health care problems people face is non-coverage of prior health problems by new insurers. That means any time gap in coverage can be a huge problem, perhaps even fatal to a person. Without wanting to require it of health insurance companies, we need to address this problem, and, if possible, to eradicate it without killing the industry. I don't have an answer but I suspect that giving insurance companies some tax benefits by not having this exclusion in any of their policies might be an answer, but, you could talk me out of it if you can point out a good reason it shouldn't be the case or present a better solution.

Third, another big problem is faced by the unemployed or self-employed individual who needs health care. This should not be difficult to fix. I note that New York manages to have a public health care policy which is managed by the health insurance companies, not the government; they must all provide the same services, but can charge whatever they like for it. There is a potential anti-competitive edge to this, but, so far, I don't see any sign that it has hurt the insurance companies and the prices do vary considerably (why anyone would take any but the cheapest I can't conceive).

Sex and the governor

Dear Governor Sanford,

As a citizen of the United States who has railed against the idea that sexual unfaithfulness means unsuitability for serving in government, and as someone who had previously liked and respected you, I now ask you to stand up and say either -

"I resign my office as governor of South Carolina," or

"I am a complete hypocrite but, as such, will not resign my office."

Very truly yours,

David

The worst thing that the Republicans ever did, in my lifetime and memory, was the unmitigated political attack on President Clinton, wherein they sought to unseat him for his sexual hijinx. However much individual Republican members of congress protested that it was was about lying under oath, honor, trust, etc., it was pure hypocrisy, and I enjoy it whenever a politician is shown to be a hyprocrite in this regard, whether Newt Gingrich or John Edwards.

I liked Mark Sanford well enough when I heard him speak last year and I liked his attempt to avoid taking stimulus funds from the federal government this year. I would have been pleased if he had been selected as McCain's running mate, although I suspect his affair would have come out much faster and possibly hurt McCain in the long run (not that he didn't have other problems).

I'm happy the governor is suffering for his sins. Why not? He was adamant that Clinton must go and has elsewhere commented that those who commit adultery can't be trusted. Why should he be an exception? Hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite.

There are probably other good reasons Sanford should go, of course. It looks like he apparently used State funds to pay for at least one trip to Argentina to see his girlfriend. Naturally, all this adverse publicity has set him back on his heels and he is saying some strange things, like Maria (the girlfriend) is my soulmate, but he is going to try and fall in love with his wife again, and, mentioning that he has been "inappropriate" with other women as well. As, Maureen Dowd wrote recently, his wife should make sure the doors are double locked. How embarrassing for their kids. Besides, hasn't he ever seen a movie? People would have rooted for him if he did it the right way.

I understand men who fall for younger and more attractive women (I wouldn't say Maria's among the most beautiful women in the world, but she is much more attractive than his wife in the conventional sense). I love it when a man who wanders from his marriage uses "soulmate" to describe the woman he's interested in, as if its just a spiritual connection, when it inevitably turns out that she is much younger and sexier than the wife. Although I am generally in favor of people keeping committments to their significant other (who isn't?), I have long ago come to believe that being dishonest with your other half does not necessarily mean you are dishonest in any other way, although, of course, that's possible too. Cheating is a human weakness that some flounder with and others don't. Some who don't are right on the fence and just need to meet the "wrong" person. Don't get me wrong. It is better to be faithful and honest and all that good stuff. Divorce or breaking up should always be an option before cheating and shouldn't result in death to your public life. But, I have known too many people I like and trust who have not met even their own personal standards in this regard (even adulterers usually think it's wrong to cheat, in general) to think its okay for them but no one else, based on whether I personally know them. It's a personal problem that should be dealt with personally, not legally and not even socially.

The adultery laws, still out there thanks to the cowardice of public officials, rarely, but sometimes enforced, should be repealed by state governments. The last two times I've read of them being enforced, it was against public figures and used as an example. That's not a good reason to enforce a law. Those who decide not to vote for someone because they cheated on their wife should think twice because it probably makes them a hyprocrite too. Chances are, they excuse it for those on their side but find reasons not to when its the other side. I had to laugh recently when a conservative friend told me that adultery was a liberal problem. That was just before Sanford, but after Ensign. Neither side can declare victory here and it is just foolish to believe that our political views will govern a politicians' ability to resist temtation.

And it leads to ridiculous situations like this one. If Mark Sanford fell in love with someone else while he was married, he should have been able to say so, divorce his wife, bring his girlfriend here (legally, of course) and date her, live with her or marry her while still governor. You don't stop being a person just because you are elected to office. If our forefathers could be womanizers, why can't modern politicians?

But, of course, Sanford is part of the problem, a complete and utter hypocrite when it comes to this, and he deserves what he gets. I hope he is hassled about it enough to resign and the same for any politician who shares his opinion that adultery means you can't serve. But, I also hope that we have had enough of this nonsense, and that some brave cheating politician comes forward before the press or an acquaintance ousts him and sets a new standard. After all, we have now elected a divorced president and even one who admittedly did drugs. We can handle it.
Hard to find that kind of courage in politics, so, don't count on it.

Sarah Barracuda

The girl does know how to make an entrance and exit.

Sarah Palin being selected by John McCain was not a huge surprise to anyone who was following the election closely. Her name had been bantered about. I had dismissed her towards the end because there was an ethics investigation pending. McCain, seemingly impulsively dismissed the investigation and, in the end, was proven correct in his decision not to worry about it too much when it was dismissed just before the election.

However, as they bungled most of the campaign, they seemed to bungle the way they handled that as well. Originally, SP had been given great credit for her handling of the investigation, with high marks from the investigator for cooperation. That changed dramatically as the McCain team weighed in. Obstruction, not cooperation, became the rule. And, obstruction leads people to believe in guilt. I was, rooting for McCain, pleased when the report was favorable to her for the most part. But no one seemed to care. For by then, SP had had her reputation so tarnished by her opposition that nothing could save it.

In the end, I don't believe the choice of Palin had much of an effect on the election. Anecdotally, I can tell you that with few exceptions (I can think of one), those who told me they were thinking of voting for McCain but changed their mind when he selected her, had never voted for a Republican before. No doubt they didn't like her - what liberal would want to vote for a strong conservative - but I think they were probably not going to vote for McCain anyway. We'll never know. Anyway, the Bush factor, the economy and the horrible campaign choices by McCain were certainly much bigger factors.

SP is not someone I would choose for president, but we so rarely get a candidate we really like, McCain being the first one for me ever except to some degree - Bill Clinton the second time around and that was more due to his mistreatment by Republicans. But, despite that, I have never seen such media abuse of a candidate as I did with Sarah Palin (not that she helped much). She was targeted and ridiculed more than Dan Quayle, Al Gore, John Dean and Mike Dukakis (yes, contrary to conservative claims, Democratic candidates have been very roughly handled by a predominantly liberal media).

I believe the key factor in Palin hatred was a reverse discrimination. The left, who you would think was a natural audience for a woman candidate was furious with the choice of one so far right. She violated the cardinal principal - she was pro-life.

I had many email exchanges with friends and family during the election. There was vituperation on both sides - McCain seen as a Bush clone and even an incompetent pilot (I'd love to see his critics get in a plane again after going down in one) and Obama portrayed as the Manchurian candidate. But both of these ridiculous charicatures devolved after the election, where as Palin hatred did not abate.

Palin was portrayed - and the left believed - that she was anti-woman (trying to force them to pay for their own rape kits - a falsity) and leading death to Obama chants (some correspondents told me they saw this on u-tube themselves - those videos all magically disappeared, of course, and the secret service report investigating the claim by one reporter who alone heard a third person scream out "Death to Obama" could not be corroborated by a single person standing near him (and, yes, I read the report, which was posted on the web)). It didn't matter. When the media wants you dead, you have little chance. And when the other side finds a way to successfully ridicule you, you are double dead (the John Dean yowl being a great example).

Not that she did not help it herself. Her interview with Katie Couric could have been a home run, but was a disaster. There was no attempt by Couric to get Palin. But, she appeared like a deer caught in the headlights, not even able to answer what newspaper she read. I have no doubt she had advisors in her head telling her "commit to nothing" but ultimately, it is the candidate's decision to make and she flunked.

Although she would not be my candidate, I find Sarah Barracuda fairly harmless. I am never offended by pro-life people. If there is one demonization I will never understand, it is pro-choice hatred for people who are trying to save lives. Although I am not against abortions in the first few weeks, I am not offended by those who believe a life is a life at any stage and you can't draw a line (you certainly can't draw one but arbitrarily).

And, although an atheist, and aware that we are the single most unpopular group in America (much more so than even gays according to years of polls in terms of who people would automatically not vote for president) I found her religious bearing non-offensive. She was portrayed by many as a religious zealot who would try and force people into her religion. She said all the right things as far as I remember, and I would not even have a problem if she wouldn't vote for me because I am an atheist. There are lots of people who I wouldn't vote for because of religious extremism, but she certainly wasn't one of them.

Of course, no one really knows why SP decided to quit being governor. Does she want to get out of politics or is she planning a run for president in 2012. I am guessing, but I think she is leaning towards the latter. It doesn't matter, because I don't think she will get the nomination (I was right about McCain, but wrong about Obama, who I thought would lose to Clinton). Too many Republicans, mostly moderates, will doubt her ability to win. The more right wing Republicans will have other choices without her weaknesses.

And, unless she suddenly becomes a stateswoman, I don't see her as impressing a lot of people with her knowledge and abilities. Although she showed leadership ability before running for VP in cutting spending and going after those in her own party (a big plus for me), she never really impressed anyone except with her looks. Of course, it is not a level playing field. Joe Biden, who I personally like, made far more mistakes of facts than she did in their debate and was overwhelmingly seen to have won. His buffoonery before and after the election is always dismissed as if he is a lovable but strange uncle. "That's just Joe." SP will never be given that leeway. She is too tarnished.

But, she will try and she will fail. Although a deep conviction as to the existence of God has been key to winning American presidencies, that does not seem to be the country's mood. And, if I'm completely wrong and she emerges in 2012 as the candidate for the Republicans, she will almost certainly fail.

Then again, a lot can happen in three years (terrorist attacks, wars, economic disaster, personal scandals, etc.) and we've all been wrong before.

The Problem with strip searching is that we have a problem with strip searching

2009-06-28T05:21:00.000-07:00

This years' Supreme Court decision in Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding was a sexy one for the press. It involves the strip searching of a teenage girl by female school employees at the direction of a vice principal in an effort to see if she was hiding any pills. Naturally, the media would be happier if it involved some corporal punishment or lesbianism, and no doubt readers of this blog would as well, but, compared to a case about anti-trust or interpreting pre-emption clauses, this is the Holy Grail and I can already picture the Wednesday Night movie. Although I just posted on Miranda, with the Supreme Court's calendar winding up for the year, one more won't hurt. I might even get around to a year end summary in a few weeks.

Of course, the established media (so, excluding bloggers, etc.) does not really cover Supreme Court, or actually any legal cases in any kind of analytical fashion; they almost never go into the legally reasoning underlying an opinion, but cover only the broad decision, subject to political spinning. They do this for good reason. They are after a share in the market and they correctly surmise that most people don't want to know nitty gritty details, particularly if dressed in some esoteric jargon, as court cases usually are.

Yet, I do believe that there is a moderate ground and that some people do want to know something more than just the headlines about these cases. Many blogs do that, some written or hosted by law professors, but I'm not going to engage in a blow by blow account here either, but just lay out the main arguments like so many after dinner mints on a bed so that I can also blather about what interests me - the political and ideological anchors surrounding most of these judge's ankles, and, the social values underlying these cases that say more than the decision.

I wasn't following this case, although I had heard it was coming up. I learned of the decision when one of my left leaning friends (he called himself a kind of socialist during the last election, admitting that his deep hatred of Bush had made him so irrational - his word - that if all Republicans and Democrats had suddenly switched parties the night before the election, he would have still voted straight Democrat) wrote me the other day to mock Justice Thomas for dissenting in this case for finding it okay to "strip search" a girl. I wrote back that unlike my peers, I was unable to come to a conclusion about what I thought about the case without reading it. Although a sarcastic and condescending reply, it was appropriate, and, at risk of singing my same old song, it is partiality to political parties or movements which makes us even more gullible and obtuse than nature would have it.

When I did read the decision, later that day (to my relief, it was not one of the longer ones, even with four judges opining) I wrote to my friend to say that I agreed with the majority's judgment, but not for the reasons given by Justice Souter and that Justice Thomas' opinion (actually part dissent and part concurrence with the majority), with which I disagreed, actually had a lot of reason in it, in some ways more reason than the others. He certainly applied more analysis as you can only see by actually reading the opinions. One thing he didn't seem to be concerned about as some media outlets (and my friend) implied, was a desire to see young girls stripped and searched. One could argue, reading his opinion, that he shows more concern for young people than any of the other judges.

There is irony in this case too. For Justice Thomas, who came to this court through a gauntlet of sexual hysteria in his confirmation process (and, as I have written before, I believe the stunningly mild allegations about him were true, but were also completely irrelevant to his fitness to be a judge), seemed alone of the justices to analyze it without sexualizing the issue and by applying a set of principals he has long stood for and pragmatism. For that, he would, of course be criticized in our culture, because we tend to sexualize, or over-sexualize, anything we can and then publicly recoil from it as if "those" people are at it again.

Apparently, if you don't sexualize the strip search of a female student, you should be horse-whipped out of the Supreme Court, possibly in the minds of many if not most Americans. No doubt empathy for the young girl played a large roll in the opinions of the other eight judges who did not side with Thomas. The question is, one conservatives want answered, is will our empathy towards students in general lead us to "babying" them in ways that will, in the end, harm them. Justice Thomas believes so.

Reading the headlines, even the stories written about this case, and likewise the television coverage, one gets the feeling that this poor sweet high school girl was taken by a group of predator-like school officials, and stripped bare before them to pointing and laughter for no good reason. Not so. You can easily picture her nude, red cheeked, with one arm across her breasts and one covering her private parts. Not what happened, of course. And, she certainly wasn't picked out of the school directory by pathological monsters either.

As Justice Souter himself pointed out, a week earlier a student reported to the principal and vice principal that some students were bringing weapons and drugs into school. The student had taken one of the pills himself and it made him sick. He later gave the vice principal a white pill he had gotten from a friend of the claimant (Savana Redding) named Marissa and told him that other students were planning on taking the pills at lunch. At this point, I hope, this case doesn't seem like it's about sex anymore to you, because it really wasn't. It was about drugs and weapons.

After the nurse identified the pill as prescription strenghth Ibuprofen, Marissa was called out of class and the teacher turned over her day planner which contained knives, lighters and a cigarette to the vice principal. When Marissa turned out her pockets there were several Ibuprofen's and also a blue pill which turned out to be over the counter Naproxen. Possession of these materials were not criminal, but violated the school's zero tolerance drug policy. Marissa said she had gotten the pills and planner from Savana Redding. She didn't say when she was given them or if Savana had more of them.

Marissa was given what is now called a "strip search". Justice Souter acknowledged that it was hard to give a label to the search, but he thought "strip search" was fair terminology. I don't because it is deliberately provocative, although it is half right. Marissa, and later Savana, was asked, in the presence of the female nurse and a female administrative assistant, to take off her outer clothes and shake out her bra and underwear. The court said that parts of the breast was visible. Given the description, I have trouble believing it was more than might be visible in a bathing suit and, if this school had communal showers, certainly a lot less than that.

After Marissa displayed the pills, Savana was called to "the office" (remember that dread summons?) and shown the day planner. She admitted it was hers, but said that she had lent it to Marissa and she also didn't know anything about the knives, etc. She also denied knowing anything about the pills when she saw them and denied that she was giving them to students. She voluntarily agreed to have her own stuff searched and then went through the strip search, all of which revealed nothing. None of the judges was particularly descriptive about how that part of the search happened, but it appears it was not coercive in the sense that she was ordered or directed to take off her clothes. However, in fairness, a teenager in school might feel the same coerciveness that an adult might find in a police station.

Savana's mother brought the action on her behalf claiming a 4th amendment violation; that is, her daughter was subjected to an unreasonable search by the school. I stop here for the briefest of tutorials. The 4th amendment to the constitution requires that there be "reasonable cause" for a search (or seizure) and that a warrant be obtained. Without going into detail about the many exceptions for getting a warrant that the courts have allowed which common sense, but not the text of the constitution, would seem to allow, that is all there is to the rule. Applying it to cases is the hard part, particularly as people and also judges rarely agree on what is "reasonable".

The Supreme Court has determined over time that our 4th amendment rights are determined by factors outside the text of the constitution. A lot of it has to do with a presumed expectation of privacy. For example, you are presumed to have a greater expectation in your home than in public, with a locked box than with an open bag, etc.

The high court has also repeatedly taken notice that we have schools for a reason, and that they have a mission to teach our students which could very easily be squashed by allowing them too many rights (and, no doubt, policy-wise, this is true - whether it is constitutional is another question). Thus, they have decided, without the need for a constitutional amendment, that you don't need "probable cause" to search a student, you just need what is commonly called "reasonable suspicion". How to tell the difference between reasonable suspicion and probably cause is anyone's guess. But reasonable suspicion is the same standard which would allow a police officer to pat you down for weapons on the street if his training indicated to him some probability that you might possess a weapon.

In any event, a prior case had led to the rule that a search in school is deemed permissible when the search methods are "reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive" in light of sex and age and what rule was being broken. If you are thinking that this is a fairly vague standard, you are right, but many legal standards are as vague or vaguer.

Justice Souter points out that school officials, like parents, may overreact in an effort to protect their children, but that because the school is part of the state, they are prohibited from doing certain things by the 4th amendment in ways that parents are not. Finding that there was little here in the way of danger (the pills were relatively harmless, he wrote, each was like taking an Advil or an Aleve) and that although there was some small possibility of finding pills in Savan's underwear, there was not enough evidence that they would likely be there. Thus, applying the test, he could not find reasonable suspicion that she was hiding contraband or that this was a reasonable search to do considering the circumstances.

However, since the law concerning this issue did not appear to him to be well settled, and it was not clear to the school officials that they were violating the constitution, the majority ruled that the officials would get what is called "qualified immunity" and were not subject to liability (although the school might). That is, they wouldn't have to pay money damages. This, my dear readers, makes me laugh, as I wonder if Justice Souter thinks that the issue will be any clearer to the next high school principal unless the exact same fact pattern comes up. This would have been clearer - no stripping kids down to their underwear unless it is an apparent danger to their or someone else's harm, like, a weapon or a more significant drug than aspirin. While the judges are right that school officials shouldn't be put in a position where they have to decide whether certain drugs are dangerous enough to be a concern, they certainly can know that a student sitting in the office with someone watching isn't going to suddenly reach into their underwear and swallow an Ibuprofen, which will cause them to froth at the mouth and expire.

Justice Souter did do some legal analysis, if not much (although this was his last case) which is more than we can say for Justice Stevens who, thinking it mostly unnecessary, wrote a short concurrence, the highlight of which was "I have long believed that ‘[i]t does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitu-tional rights of some magnitude.’” There is some wisdom in that.

Of course, it was not a nude search at all and he was deliberately being provocative. We can expect more specificity from a Supreme Court Justice. However, I have no doubt that I would have been mortified if asked to strip to my underwear some some 37 years ago and that my daughter would have been mortified under the same circumstances as well just a few years ago. I'm guessing most teenage kids would although others would find it fun. In any event, Justice Stevens would have withheld any immunity for the school officials, apparently thinking them bad guys who needed to be taught a lesson. Justice Ginsburg, at present the only woman on the court, agreed with Stevens. That seems too blood thirsty to me - forcing school officials to fork over money when they were trying to do their job in protecting students. If they went over the top, and I think so, they did not do so without any reason and it was not malicious.

Thomas' opinion was quite different and he was left Rudolph-like, without any other Justices to join him in his opinion - not even good buddy, Antonin Scalia. This is no surprise. As is often true, this year, Justice Thomas was roughly four times as likely to be the only holdout on an eight to one opinion than Justice Ginsburg, the next most likely Justice to do so. That's a big number.

Justice Thomas did not find the partial strip search (what I would call it - not so hard, Justice Souter) violated the constitution. As he has written in other school cases, he really doesn't believe that school children have many constitutional rights (a position I find extreme and so far removed from the text of the constitution that it is an absurdity for a so-called "strict constitutionalist" like Thomas) but its a position that has some policy reasons behind it. But, I will let him speak for himself:

"The majority imposes a vague and amorphous standard on school administrators. It also grants judges sweeping authority to second-guess the measures that these officials take to maintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge. This deep intrusion into the administration of public schools exemplifies why the Court should return to the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis under which “the judiciary was reluctant to interfere in the routine business of school administration, allowing schools and teachers to set and enforce rules and to maintain order.”

While grudgingly acknowledging that the kids have some constitutional rights under the court's "precedents" (meaning, he doesn't think so), he notes that "(f)or nearly 25 years this Court has understood that “[m]aintaining order in the classroom has never been easy, but in more recent years, school disorder has often taken particularly ugly forms: drug use and violent crime in the schools have become major social problems. . . . In schools, “[e]vents calling for discipline are frequent occurrences and sometimes require immediate, effective action.”

As grudgingly, he applied the same test of reasonable suspicion and reasonable relationship of the search to the "crime" that Souter used, but looked at it from the school's perspective. The law recognizes, he tells us, that, unlike judges, school officials work in the actual environment and thus have a common sense understanding of student behavior that judges do not and they are allowed to make decisions based upon it.

For example, in this case, and the majority ignored these facts, the school administrators knew that quite recently a student had ingested a prescription pill he obtained from another student and spent a few days in intensive care. I'd like to highlight that - a student took one of these seemingly innocent pills and was sick enough to go into intensive care. In fact, the school had a history of on campus drug and alcohol problem that it was struggling to deal with. One of the ways they did this was to have a zero tolerance program for drugs and alcohol.

At a recent school dance, alcohol was found in the girls' bathroom and both Marissa and Savana were with a group of girls who reeked of alcohol. Another student reported having gotten sick at a party at Savana's house where she served hard alcohol. In this case, they had actual evidence of a pill from the same student who had become ill and he was the one who reported the lunchtime deadline (probably the reason, at least in their minds, that they didn't call the parents or get a warrant). The school was led to Marissa by a student who had gotten a pill from her (admittedly) and when she coughed up the other pills, she fingered Savana. Thus, neither Marissa nor Savana was picked out of a hat. There was common sense reason to believe they were dealing or at least distributing drugs that put at least one student in the hospital already. Ironic to me, not one of the judges seemed to think that the knives that were found were of much importance.

Given the lunchtime deadline, how unreasonable was this so called strip search (a term Thomas quarrels with, again not without reason - however his belief that a strip search requires nudity is also highly questionable)?

So, Thomas concludes, if there can be a reasonable suspicion that Savana had pills that might be given to other children at lunch, what is wrong with looking in places that it might be concealed, which is only the standard applied in 4th amendment cases? Certainly drugs or paraphenalia can be hidden in underwear. It's a natural place to hide it and I doubt there is a kid so innocent he doesn't know that. Even I knew it, and if there ever was an innocent teenager, it was me.

When I was about 16, a friend asked me to return a hash pipe to another friend - I was very reluctant to do it because I didn't do drugs (I still don't even know what hash is) and I was sure that I, of course, would be caught as soon as left the donut shop we were in. Although I was not a drug person (you never would have guessed to look at me) I did believe that people had a right to do it if they wanted to (still do). So, idiot that I was, I shoved the pipe down my underwear. No more than ten steps outside I was stopped by the police who pulled right up to me and my friend (who had given me the pipe) as if it were a movie and we were asked for identification. I had none, and said, given my jockey shorts full of hash pipe - "Hominahominahomina". If my friend hadn't had identification on him, I might have been frisked, illegally or not, and subject to a lot of punishment and embarrassment (and confirming many people's suspicion that I was a drug addict).

Thomas doesn't need my story. He rattled off a long list of evidence that this is where people hide their drugs. He also spent a lot of time rattling off the proof of the dangers of abuse of prescription drugs to children in schools, which did not seem to concern anyone else. The statistics are alarming, including that 1 out of 5 high school students admit to using prescription drugs without a medical reason, that prescription drugs amount to nearly 1 out of 4 of drug related emergency room visits and 1 out of 5 drug related deaths. Had Justice Thomas had another couple of weeks to write his opinion, he would have had much more evidence from very recent Congressional hearings about how dangerous some over the counter painkillers are supposed to be (I personally know one young woman who died from taking too many). While it is easy to point out that prejudice, bias and other bad attitudes can be hidden by seeming compassion, Justice Thomas' opinion seems to me to be more compassionate in many respects than his brethren's. It recognizes the need to let school's control their charges and protect them from harming themselves.

As I said at the outset, there is a lot of reason in what he writes, even if I end up in disagreement. However, Thomas sometimes surprises even conservatives with how far he is willing to go in his conservative ideology. He argues that it doesn't matter at all what the rule infraction was, just so long as it was against school rules. Thus, I can very reasonably conclude, that even if the infraction was hiding a note in class in a bra, a partial strip search would have been acceptable to him. I have trouble with that. The nature of the infraction should matter. I have the same problem with the Supreme Court okaying the police handcuffing people for traffic violations, a case Thomas cites to support his position.

Thomas might argue with me that his preferred standard - that is, the school stands in the shoes of the parents - in loco parentis - would mean that a secreted note isn't sufficient grounds for a partial strip search. Of course, this refers to a concept that is not much in vogue these days - the “societal understanding of superior and inferior” with respect to the “parent and child” relationship".

But, in the end, that standard is as vague and ambiguous as the "reasonable suspicion" standard the majority used. Who knows what a parent would do. A parent who subscribes to Thomas's way of thinking, or Souter's. But, that being said, Justice Thomas does make a reasonable argument that the courts should not be substituting their inexpert judgement of which pills are dangerous enough to justify a "partial strip search".

After pointing out some dangers of Ibuprofen and Naproxen, Thomas also writes "If a student with a previously unknown intolerance to Ibuprofen or Naproxen were to take either drug and become ill, the public outrage would likely be directed toward the school for failing to take steps to prevent theunmonitored use of the drug." Does anyone doubt that is true? In fact, it is likely in this litigious environment that Savana's mother would be suing the school for personal injuries. Many would agree with her.

Nor is Thomas ignorant of all the wacky policies, particularly "zero-tolerance" policies that schools come up with. He gives a long laundry list of them, and a solution. To keep the "judiciary from essentially seizing control of public schools . . ." and to allow "teachers [to] again be able to ‘govern the[ir] pupils, quicken the slothful, spur the indolent, restrain the impetuous, and control the stubborn’” by making “‘rules, giv[ing] commands, and punish[ing] disobedience’” control must be returned to the legislatures and school boards to make the decisions. They are empowered by the parents who vote for them.

After all Justice Thomas must constantly remind us -- this is still a democracy, isn't it? Parents who aren't happy with the system can home school or use private schools, or, in the end, move. Of course, many would object that those are remedies for the wealthy and not available to most people. More's the reason to get wealthy, I expect he would say.

I've chosen this case, not because I agree with Thomas, which I don't, but because it highlights the same old way that the media covers cases and the same old way we are trained from youth to respond politically. I have no doubt that many liberals I know would have the same knee jerk reaction to Thomas's opinion (in some cases, simply believing he's evil). No analysis or consideration necessary. On the other hand, Thomas' belief that any small violation of school rules justifies stripping a student to their underwear is just absurd and also shows what happens when you are fixated on a political ideology.

Still, some standard needs to used. Ultimately, Justice Stevens was right in my mind, it should not take a constitutional scholar to realize that this wasn't appropriate action by the school. With Marissa and Savana sidelined, how hard would it have been to have called the kids' parents and have them come to school. At least have them in the room when the outer clothes come off (presuming they have a parent). If what occurred is so serious an infraction that it is a crime, then call the police and let them get a warrant upon probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, like they are supposed to under the words of the fourth amendment. If it it not that serious, well, then the kids will get away with it like they usually do.

I'm not advocating that the school needs to go to court to do most searches. There's a big difference between searching a kid's locker, a desk, a back pack or a daily planner and having them strip to their underwear. We all know this.

Of course, this case is a big win for kids who want to hide drugs in their underwear. They all no now that this is the place to hide a few drugs. But, frankly, they already knew that and I doubt that there was a lot of strip searching going on in this country anyway. I could be wrong, but you'll have to prove it to me.

So, ultimately, I agree with you, Justice Souter, as you sing your swan song -- the "strip search" should not have been done, at least without parents present, and their should not have been liability against the school officials. But, you did not draw a bright enough line and you do not apply the constitution, but your own set of values. Strip searches like these should not be done without real probable cause. Period. If it is a serious enough matter, then school officials, who aren't trained to investigate shouldn't be doing it.

But, I like this case, because it also aptly demonstrates that constitutional cases are often more about culture than they are about "law". It reveals an underlying cultural weakness which was never discussed, even though it is impossible to separate from the decision. I'm talking about our cultural hyper-sexualization of the human body. I don't abstain myself from its effects - I'm as hung up about nudity as the next guy. But, really, from our fear of female breasts at the beach (while we snicker about other cultures where women cover their hair), parents' fears that their children will see naked people on cable tv or the internet, to the Janet Jackson incident, it just gets silly. Young kids, raised naked, bathed naked, running around the house naked, one day wake up and realize that they are naked and that they should be ashamed of it. Clothes have some important purposes like warmth and containing bodily secretions, but shame shouldn't be one of them. Admittedly, it is not as bad as it once was, but we still maintain this Noadic shame about our bodies that seems to be increasing lately even as the technological revolution makes it possible to share nudity with everyone around the world.

When I was growing up, the high school showers were open. Kids showered together (not me - too hung up, shy and ashamed). I believe it was the same for the girls' showers. Perhaps that has changed. I don't know - I'm a blogger, not a social scientist. But, it would seem that it would be a better world if people weren't so ashamed of their bodies, or gag because a mother is breast feeding her kid (like I do).

We manage to go to a doctor and we take off our clothes in front of them to whatever extent is required. We undergo gynecological and rectal exams. Why is it more embarrassing to get into your underwear in front of a school nurse while they look for drugs? Times change and the mores with them. My daughter used to go to high school in her pajamas, something that would have been the utmost in mortification when I was a kid. People wear skimpy bathing suits on the beach and go to restaurants in shorts now, but we still act as if the sight of even a partially exposed female breast in front of a nurse is shocking and that these kids were put through a shameful situation. Without this sense of shame that we instill in our children, there would be no case. Arguably, in a more perfect world, there should not be. But, we don't live there. We live here and this is the culture we have. Cultures are more based on experience and custom, not logic. That is true with respect to the law as well, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once more eloquently wrote.

Whatever rule of law might be applied, Justice Souter seemed to believe that a strip search was not appropriate in our culture given what the concerns were. Most of the judge's agreed. Thomas did not seem to be as affected by that particular cultural shame, or, at least found it wanting giving his concerns about drugs, democracy and school efficiency. Ultimately, it did not matter which legal standard was used, Souter's or Thomas's, because in each case, a judge could simply decide what was "reasonable," or "appropriate," or what a parent would do in that circumstance. I am sure both Justices Souter and Thomas understand that their views of the law are inseparable from their cultural influences. If not, then they could not be more wrong.

I'll leave this post with a last word about Justice Souter who has given us the court, chosing not to die in it at some justices do. He was certainly an unusual man for a number of reasons. He is known, of course, for being appointed by a Republican-Conservative and then for usually voting with liberals. He was the original "stealth" nominee, in refusing to answer many questions the Senate put to him in his hearing. He is an old school nerdy intellectual who seemed out of place in Washington and more suited to his small hometown in the mountains, a feeling with which I quite easily identify. I doubt anyone would say he didn't seem to be a decent man who worked relentlessly on his craft and that is something. I'll miss his sharp engagements in writing with Justice Scalia as they battled for cultural control of the court.

The death of the West

2009-06-20T17:15:00.001-07:00

The stories I learned when being taught to read from Edith Hamilton’s Mythology have lasted me my entire life, and are no doubt part of the reason I am such a Greco-phile today, however little I have written about it here (I count 1 post). After American History I have more books on ancient Greece than any other, at last count, somewhere in the forties, with Homer being the overwhelming favorite followed by Herodotus. No claim to originality there as they are (presuming Homer was an actual person) the two greatest authors in Greek History, with some few votes probably going to Thucydides and maybe Sophocles.

Last year, while surfing the web (is that phrase already archaic?) for Greek topics I came across a fellow who asked if Western civilization really owed that much to the Greeks. Immediately, after recovering from my cardiac arrest, I shot off a borderline condescending (possibly more than borderline) comment back. I can no longer find the give and take, but I listed something like (and including things that may not have originated there, but were greatly developed or passed down to us), for starters:

- the alphabet you are writing in, fellah, not to mention vowels,
- logic,
- ideas of individual liberty,
- democracy,
- many of the words we still use,
- philosophy (so many topics, you can add twenty more),
- the Olympics,
- drama,
- poetry,
- epic adventures,
- mythology (we still love stories about Hercules),
- history,
- medicine,
- Christian concepts like hell and the devil, and, what is usually called Platonism,
- the screw (thank you, Archimedes),
- algebra,
- geometry,
- physics,
- public speaking,
- rhetoric,
- architecture (Ionic, Doric and Corinthian styles still being in fashion).

Probably there are lots more which readers can add in comments if they feel like it. But most of the topics I listed encompass enormous amounts of cultural information. Just the imparted language is enough by itself to make it as great a contribution to Western civilization as exists – In just the area of medicine alone there are hundreds of words, if not thousands, directly derived from ancient Greece – schizophrenia, cardiac, urinary, anemia, trachea, chiropractor, artery, biology, thorax, cytoplasm, stethoscope, and so on, seemingly forever. Many of medical terms are derived from Latin too, but Rome was indebted to Greece for much, if not the best parts of its culture, including of course, their mythology and the Latin alphabet, which is almost the same as the ancient Greek alphabet, give or take a few letters.

It is often a pastime of people, and a literary genre, to wonder what would have been if one thing was changed in history. For example, what would have happened if England had not been successful in wresting New York from the Netherlands. Would America be a different country? Would our country have become more Germanic? Would America have sided with Germany in WWI and II? All food for thought, but for another time.

How different would our world have been if Ancient Greece had been destroyed or enslaved, particularly Athens, from whence comes so much of the Greek culture to us, and most of its heritage had been destroyed or kept from us? As it would have happened so long ago, it would have had a much larger effect than the English/Dutch situation. For one thing, there would have been a much greater effect on all of the subjects I listed above, from math to medicine to drama, etc. Unbeknownst to us, the world would look much different. I leave to fiction authors the hypotheticals, of what would have happened and prefer to talk about the times it almost happened and Athens escaped by the skin of its wine sacks.

The Dark Age

There was a dark age before the one in middle European times. It lasted from some time around 1180-1100 B.C. and lasted until sometime late in the eighth century B.C. It is not even known when the ancient Greeks, or those who brought or developed the proto-Greek language there arrived, although there is much scholarly discourse which I have read some, but won’t bore you with. It is all controversial and the range of time for when the Greeks became the Greeks we know is perhaps something less than two millennia - a big spread. But, safe to say thanks to heroic archeologists like Heinrich Schliemann, the discoverer of ancient Troy and Mycenae and Arthur Evans, who uncovered the Labyrinth in Crete and so much more, we know that there was (for lack of a better word), a Mycenaean Empire existing from around 1600 -1200 B.C.

This is roughly the time that Troy, located in modern Turkey, traditionally is deemed to have fallen to the Greeks, led by the King of Mycenae, Agamemnon who is most certainly fictionalized as were likely all the characters of the Iliad. These Greeks did not call themselves Greeks, but Danaans or Achaeans or Argoans, etc. The Egyptians of that time, already an ancient race, had a name for them much like Danaans and knew of Mycenae. It is possible these Greeks are the same people who had a treaty with the Hittite Empire, who called them the Ahhiyawa, close enough phonemically with "Achaeans" for some scholars to claim so. I am not persuaded as to any particulars.

However, the Mycenaeans had a language which is now clearly understood to be ancestral Greek, but was probably a formalized administrative version for the empire's clerks, now known to us as Linear B. There is no certainty about which Greek dialects existed then, but only that, now that Linear B can be somewhat read, that the main Greek dialects either co-existed with the written language of the Mycenians or that a proto-Greek existed. Modern scholarship believes the language in general is derived from an Anatolian group (modern Turkey) known as the Luwians, although the evidence seems so slim to me that I would only say that there was a relationship between them.

About 1180 B.C. something was happening in the world. The hugely successful Hittite Empire was destroyed. Possibly Troy, a vassal state of the Hittite Empire (known in Linear B as Wilion, later Ilion, and then to the Latins, Ilium – hence The Iliad) and a huge town for its time, was destroyed by fire with it, and maybe by Greek warriors as described in Homer’s Iliad. I leave for another time what we know of that. And the world of the Mycenae either was destroyed too or just went dark. Linear B writing disappeared from the world as far as archaeology and scholarship can tell us and it appears that this is when a great migration to the islands and Asia Minor (mostly Turkey) occurred. Although writing in cuneiform and Middle Eastern alphabets existed during the dark stretch elsewhere, writing did not evolve again in Greece until some time between 800-700 B.C., when they improved on an alphabet they picked up from the Phoenicians (who picked it up or developed it from some Middle Eastern alphabets).

Know one knows who or what caused this to happen, how many people survived whatever happened (could have been a plague like the kind that almost destroyed the Greeks in The Iliad) or what changes if any resulted with the spoken languages. There is much speculation about what is called the Dorian Invasion, but nothing is clear there either, except that the traditions of it occurring and the names of descended tribes seem to match up with philological evidence. There is though a dearth of archaeological evidence to back up such an invasion. Perhaps it was very gradual.

There is enough to know though that in that cataclysmic time, the Greek culture seemed to disappear centuries before Homer (again, if he . . . ), before Marathon or Thermopylae, before Socrates and Plato, and so on, only to reappear centuries later. Although we know that the people did not all disappear, and the great colonization of the Mediterranean and Asia Minor occurred and perhaps there was an invasion by a group traditionally called the Dorians (no one is sure). But certainly, the political glue to the Mycenaean Empire fell apart or was destroyed. And aside from the language, much of what has descended to us that we consider valuable, came afterwards. If it never rekindled . . . . imagine.

Marathon

But, they survived, these Greeks, or some of them did. And they spread out in the colony system they developed and many of those were on Islands in the Mediterranean or Aegean Sea. Some were on the coast of Anatolia. And they went on to prosper and create the city states which are so well known to us like Sparta and Athens. Homer (if . . .) probably wrote down the Iliad around 725 B.C. Several hundred years went by before Greece was almost destroyed again at a place you have heard of, or at least of the long distance race which bears its name – Marathon.

The Persian Empire was a much larger and far more powerful empire to Greece’s East. There is a relationship between the languages of the two groups, and, in fact, we are also heirs of those peoples, but that is for another day. The Greek colonies on the coast of modern day Turkey, and in many of the Island became under Persian domination. In the early fifth century B.C., they revolted, and were helped out by their cousins, the Greeks of the mainland, particularly by Athens and its ally, Eretria. The Ionians, even bolstered by the Athenians were no match for the Persians and were defeated after about six years.

At that time, the Persians were ruled by Darius I, of whom we know a great deal of history and legend. He was undoubtedly a reformer (relative to his time) and a respecter of religious beliefs and other political systems. He was a Napoleon of his time, remaking legal rights and dividing his empire up into divisions, experimenting with coinage and greatly expanding the empire from present day Iran into Europe, India and Egypt. The Achaemenid empire was founded by Cyrus, undoubtedly a great king, but many consider Darius the greater of the two.

He decided that newly democratic Athens need be punished for helping, even if unsuccessfully, the Ionians and he sent an amphibious navy/army into Greece under two successful generals, Datis, a Mede, and Artaphernes, Darius’ nephew, the son of the satrap of the city, Sardis, which the Greek invaders had partially burnt. They conquered Thrace and Macedonia first, invaded Greek islands first, even capturing and burning Eretria on the Island of Euboea, punishing at least one of the two city-states that had helped the Ionians burn Sardis before the tables were turned.

At last, they turned their attention to Athens and landed in a bay off of the Town of Marathon. The Athenians were assisted this time from Plataea (which favor would be returned). From what we think we know, the Greeks first blocked off land retreats from the invaders and then, after a few more days, attacked the far numerically superior force, attacking at the flanks and then crushing their middle. Why they did this is hard to say, as if they waited just a few more days until the Spartan festival ended, they would have come to aid them (and did, just in time to say, wow, great job). But, for whatever reason, the great Athenian general, Miltiades, decided to attack (possibly because the Persian calvary took off for reasons unknown). They did not destroy the whole Persian force, but the Persians did leave (after perhaps unsuccessfully trying to directly attack Athens). Depending on who you believe, Datis did (Herodotus says he did) or did not survive the battle. Artaphernes definitely did.

The Greeks won perhaps because of surprise, their superior armor and hoplite troops, and Miltiades generalship. But, there can be no denying how close they came to the destruction of Athens. We are pretty sure there were 10,000 to 11,000 Greek hoplites present. The Persian force is much harder to figure, as reports range as high as 200,000 with 10,000 calvary, but modern scholars believe 25,000 is about right. Less than 200 Greeks died and between six and seven thousand Persians and their allies.

We are told the Athenian runner, Pheidippides or Phillipides ran 150 miles to Sparta to get their aid. According to various accounts (but not Herodotus), after the Athenians won, he ran another 26 miles home (probably 21 under modern measurements) to declare victory, and dropped dead. And from that, we get the name of the most popular long distance race even to this day.

As usual with these events, I can only go so far before I start to feel as if I should write a book, and that you can read others on. But, suffice to say, before this whole debacle, both Athens and Sparta had applied to aid from Persia to help destroy one another, and the Athenian involvement in the Ionian War resulted directly from those diplomatic attemps. Throughout the Persian-Greek wars, many Greeks would fight with the Persians and both the Spartans and Athenians tried to ally themselves with them at various times. So much for the idea of liberty.

I cannot stress enough how important Marathon was to the continued existence of Athens, which was just embarking on the greatest experimentation in mankind’s history until the American Revolution almost 2500 years later. The difference of the world had Persia succeeded, as any rationale person without a dog in the fight would have expected, can not be rationally conceived. As John Stuart Mill, the British polymath put it:

“The true ancestors of the European nations (it has well been said) are not thosefrom whose blood they are sprung, but those from whom they derive the richest portion of their inheritance. The battle of Marathon, even as an event in English history, is more important than the battle of Hastings. If the issue of that day had been different, the Britons and Saxons might still have been wandering in the woods.”

The Second Persian Invasion

So as to make this briefer, I treat Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea and Mycale as one, but the latter three are separate battles that the West as we know it was spared (Thermopylae was, of course, lost). Darius intended to invade Greece again and had good reason to think he would be victorious. But, he died.

His son, Xerxes, picked up the torch. After having a bridge built to cross the Dardanelles to Europe made of flax and papyrus ropes (well, that’s what they had) it was destroyed by a storm. Thus, 360 ships were lashed together to make a bridge for the troops, deemed at the time a feat of great engineering. Two notable events occurred when they were leaving. First, a solar eclipse occurred, which Xerxes magi interpreted as a bad omen for the Greeks. Then, a rich Lydian who had given Xerxes gifts asked a boon, which Xerxes granted before hearing it. The man had five sons and asked that the first-born could remain behind. Xerxes kept his promise. He had the son torn in two and placed on either side of the road so the troops who were leaving could walk between the pieces of his body.

Xerxes sent, according to legend, between two and three million troops and sailors plus camp followers and including a great naval armada as well, made up of all the nations of the empire. Perhaps five to seven thousand Greek hoplites marched to the gates of Thermopylae (Greek for Hot Gates), a natural defensive position where there was only a small opening, perhaps 50 feet or so, which the invading force could march through.

When the Persians arrived they were shocked to see naked Spartans combing their long hair, although that was their custom before battle. One Spartan, upon being told that the arrows from the Persians would block the sun, said then they would get to fight in the shade. After two few days of battle it was more than obvious that eventually, the Greeks must all die. Not only were they slowly being chopped up, but a Greek traitor had led the Persians on a pass that would allow them to come from behind. Lookouts warned the Greeks that the Persians had found the pass and were on their way. All the remaining warriors were sent home except the Spartans three hundred, led by one of their Kings, Leonidas and a few hundred more of their allies, perhaps a little over a thousand in all.

The Persians won, but the prowess of the Spartans had a great effect on them and on the Greeks. Later, memorials were placed on the site, and though a defeat, it became the most celebrated of the battles. Of the memorials placed on the field, one read:

“Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by that here, obeying their commands, we lie.”

At the same time as Thermopylae, the Greeks were meeting the Persian navy in battle at Artemisium. Fortunately for the Greeks (and see the hand of God, if you wish – I’m sure they did), while the empire’s fleet greatly dwarfed the Greek, two storms diminished them. They fought for three days and although the Greeks held their own, it would be a battle of attrition. When they learned what happened at Thermopylae, they decided to make for Salamis, an island off of Athens. There they waited for the Persian Navy (when I say this, it was comprised also of many nations under Persian rule, and included the powerful Phoenicians.

Athens had been abandoned and it was burned by the Persians. It was probably a moral victory but little else as the industrious Greeks would quickly rebuild.

By some clever maneuvering, the Athenian Themistocles tricked the Persians into attacking into the straight between Athens and Salamis. The overcrowded navy was swarmed by the Greek ships and a massacre occurred. Salamis was a much greater cause of Greece’s victory over the Persians than was Thermopylae.

As a result, Xerxes left, leaving only a small portion of his army under his senior general, Mardonius, but believed sufficient to destroy the Greeks. Not quite. A year after Salamis, the Greeks met with the Persians at Plataea (remember the Greeks who helped the Athenians at Marathon). Mardonius had sacked and destroyed Athens again. Ironically, it was this act which perhaps set off the building and intellectual stimulation which led to the golden age of Greece centered in Athens.

Once again it appeared that the Spartans would not answer the Athenian call because of a festival, but when they were convinced that the Athenians, promised independence by Mardonius, would side with Persia, they marched. By the own standards, the Greeks fielded a huge army, providing tens of thousands of heavily armed hoplites, almost half either Spartan or Athenians. After over a week of looking at each other, the Greeks decided to retreat at night to better secure their position and water. They botched it and in the morning it appeared that their army had walked off and the remainder was in disarray (that much was true). Mardonius attacked and the Spartans, Athenians and Tegeans were left to battle all by themselves. This they did with their usual efficiency and defeated another huge army, anywhere from 80,000 (some modern scholars) to 300,000 (Herodotus’ belief) man army.

On possibly the same day the Greek navy defeated defeated the Persians at sea. It ended the second and greatest invasion of Greece and set off what was probably a worse war.

For the Persian wars had given super-status to Sparta, who were deemed virtually indestructible on land and the Athens, who had the same status at sea. Not that the battles with Persia ended. Indeed, they would last almost another thirty years with Athens leading the Delian league and freeing or at least aiding in freeing the Ionian cities, Thrace, Macedonia and many other areas. Finally, the Persians approached Athens to resolve it diplomatically and a treaty was signed highly favorable to the Greeks, by then led by Pericles.

The Peloponnesian War

But more than a decade before that peace, Athens, who was militarily active and led the Delian league and Sparta, who had eventually petered out in the fight against Persia after their great contribution, were battling, beginning when Athens supported Argos in battle against Sparta. This was the start of The First Peloponnesian War. It ended in a supposed thirty year treaty that lasted about fifteen years and led to the Second Peloponnesian War, which began in 431 B.C. and ended twenty seven years later.

While I would love to write about this war, which, other than our own Revolution, I have probably spent the most time studying since I believe 1981 when I bought a copy of Thucydides, I will spare you, because I am only writing here about the survival of Greece and its importance to Western civilization.

So, I skip to the end of this bloody war in which both sides committed atrocities, violating the usual rules of war of their own time, where both sides had their day in the sun and caused destruction to their lands as bad or worse than the Persians had. In the end, Sparta won by allying itself with Persia, and by finally managing with their allies to create a navy superior even to that of the Athenians. Despite anything you learned in high school, the body centered non-literature loving Sparta won. Athens surrendered in 404 B.C.

It is hard to imagine what would have happened to our culture if the Athenians had been enslaved, as some in Sparta called for, or the men killed and the women and children enslaved as the Spartans had enslaved the Helots who lived in their neighborhood. But, it didn’t happen, and this marks (if you count the entire Second Persian War) at least the fourth time it almost happened. All of the Periclean age washed away and no chance for Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, and so on to be handed down through history. Or at least that is the way that might have happened.

But, Sparta spared Athens. They knocked down the walls that had protected Athens for a quarter century against their superior army. They instituted a dictatorship in place of the democracy. And . . .

they went home. A year year later Athens through out the tyrannical Counsel of Thirty, picked by Sparta, reinstalled its Democracy and carried on as ever before. A little over a decade later they fought one more battle at sea, which Athens won. Although this battle cannot possibly be called a part of The Peloponnesian War there are some few who say so, apparently not able to stand that their beloved Athenians were defeated by the body centered intellectual Spartans.

Phillip of Macedonia

And then Athens was safe for a while. At least for another few decades. For when Phillip II became King of Macedonia in 359 B.C., he soon started eating up the rest of Greece. Ironically, he stopped moving South when the Athenians alone barred his way at Thermopylae. Obviously the reputation of the place held back Phillip, because, it is doubtful that the Athenians could have held him off long (actually during the hiatus, Thebes had risen as the principal city and Sparta decidedly declined). But Phillip had an easier way. With plenty of access to gold, he began buying Athens’ allies. Athens faced off with him multiple times, but finally saw the writing on their walls. They could not compete with him. Fortunately, he had visions of conquering Persia and a treaty was reached in 338 leaving Phillip in charge of Greece, save Sparta. But, Athens was spared and Persia became the enemy, and was later conquered, as you well know, by Phillip’s son (unless, as his mother claimed, she was impregnated by a God), Alexander the Great.

Everybody else jumps in

By then, the Golden Age of Athens was over and I will fly through history now. All Athens had left was its reputation and its history. It often was on the verge of rebelling against Macedon and when it did and lost, it was spared yet again by another admirer, who like many other victors over it, had earlier lived there and loved it. Rome defeated Macedonia in a series of wars in the late third century and early second century and saved Athens, essentially liberating it from over a century and a half of Macedonian rule. Rome conquered Greece, and fought several wars there, but essentially left Athens relatively free, although part of a Roman province.

When Sulla took Athens in 86 B.C. after a very long siege during the Mithridatic War, his men raped, slaughtered and destroyed whatever they could find, but by then, the transmission of Greece’s golden age of knowledge throughout the Mediterranean and the seeds for the whole Western world, had already occurred, particularly as Athens had long since culturally “taken” Rome and much of the Mediterranean had been long Hellenized. Ironically, Athens always seemed to pick wrong when it came to choosing which Roman soldier-statesman to side with in civil wars too and Caesar himself said “How often will the glory of your ancestors save you from self destruction.”

But, even Rome couldn’t protect Athens for ever. It was repeatedly sacked by the Goths in the fourth and fifth century A.D. It was the French Crusaders’ turn in the twelfth century and here I leave off, because even then Athens was no longer the Athens of old. Whatever greatness it had had, other than a few monumental buildings like the Parthenon, was already spread to the world and would be returned to the West with breathtaking power by the Byzantines, Muslims and Catholic monks, and once again in Italy during the Renaissance.

Although nothing was left of Athens’ greatness but its legacy, it was one that has taken hold of the West as no other power on Earth ever had or would ever again, save Christianity, and that is a toss up.

Miranda on the field of battle

2009-06-13T17:58:00.000-07:00

A few days ago a story came out that the Department of Justice, which includes the FBI, and which has to some extent taken over battlefield interrogations from the CIA, was Mirandizing battlefield captives the way “suspects” are Mirandized in America.

To say this is a stunning development, if true, is an understatement. It’s not that basic constitutional rights have not been given to foreign military prisoners before, because they have, particularly with respect to a series of cases since 9/11. But, those cases concerned the bare minimum due process standards for the prisoners.

Due process (whatever that means – but, at a minimum it means knowing what you are charged with, having a meaningful opportunity to defend yourself and a basic sense of “fair play”) has been around since the Constitution in America and in other forms in England for hundreds of years. It is arguably, a human right. There is no definition in the constitution of what it means and there have been many arguments about it. But, whether or not you agree that enemy prisoners have these rights, due process has a long history with tremendous bona fides and is one the few defendant’s rights mentioned in the constitution. And by few, I mean really very few.

Here are the basic criminal constitutional rights:

- prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and general requirement that a warrant be issued first upon probably cause.
- Right to a jury trial, at least for felonies (nowadays, if there’s the possibility of jail, you have the right).
- Right to counsel.
- Right not to self incriminate.
- Right to bail (not necessarily the states).
- Right to a grand jury for felonies (not necessarily the states although they all do).
- Right against double jeopardy (being charged again after convicted).
- Right to due process of law (a very vague term that seems to incorporate everything else in many judges viewpoint).
- No ex post facto crimes (criminalizing an act after the fact).
- No bills of attainder (a legislative act in lieu of being charged and convicted of a crime).
- protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Many of these rights were greatly expanded this past century particularly during the Warren Court days in the 1960s. One should also remember that most of the individual rights contained in the constitution, particularly those in the bill of rights, applied only against the federal government and the states were free to ignore them until this past century the Supreme Court started finding that those deemed “fundamental” applied against the states as well through the due process clause in the 14th amendment.

But Miranda v. Arizona, the 1966 Supreme Court case that transformed law enforcement in this country, doesn’t seem to be required by the constitution at all, at least at face value. It has only tentatively something to do with a right not to self incriminate and more to do with making the government the defendant’s advisor. How it will now apply to foreign fighters is a good question.

I presume readers all know what “Mirandizing” someone means. The government has to tell a prisoner his rights before they interrogate him or the confession is thrown out. But there are some things about Miranda you probably didn’t know and that’s what your handy dandy constitutional law blogger here is for. After this post, you’ll know more than you wanted to about Miranda and the cases that led up to it and be able to shock antagonists at the proverbial cocktail party (I'm pretty sure I've never been to a cocktail party - have you?)

With all the discussion of torture to get confessions of foreign fighters, it is sometimes forgotten that it used to be the way they got the confessions in America from regular citizens not so long ago, within the lifetime of our older citizens. Only in 1936, just a few years before WWII, the Supreme Court got around to finding that confessions obtained by whipping and hanging violated the concept of due process in a case called Brown v. Mississippi (I’ll give the case names in case anyone cares). This was a murder case involving some black defendants and white victims where the methods of extracting confessions was so revolting, I didn’t even read them to my criminal procedure class a few years back when we were covering it. I mention the color of the defendants, because so many of these cases involved black defendants and white victims. The only evidence supporting the Brown conviction was the confession and, probably, the justices were so revolted by what the police did to him, they took the big step which seems so obvious now and ruled due process (again, whatever that means) doesn’t allow you to force a man to confess by torture.

In 1944, the Supreme Court heard a case about a man who tried to get away with having his wife murdered by an accomplice (who had already confessed) and he lasted for over 36 hours of interrogation without cracking, until, inevitably, he did. This case, Ashcraft v. Tennessee, produced an interesting dissent from legendary judge, Robert Jackson, who was also our chief prosecutor at the Nuremburg trials a couple of years later. He pointed out that Ashcraft never asked for a lawyer, that credible witnesses (a doctor, a bank president and the president of Coca Cola (no kidding)) were present at the interrogation and watched him having breakfast and appearing fine after 3 days of interrogation. Ashcraft never complained about the interrogation and didn’t claim his confession was involuntary in any way. He claimed that he never confessed, although clearly he did. Jackson’s point was it shouldn’t be automatic to find a tough interrogation unlawful and that it didn’t necessarily produce an involuntary or false confession. Police interrogation was and is the best way to get the conviction of some really evil people, and we shouldn’t throw the baby out with bathwater because some police officers went too far. Jackson wondered out loud in his dissent if the courts were heading in the direction that all post arrest interrogations were illegal.

His concern was absolutely right, of course, although he was two decades early. Justice Hugo Black, who wrote the opinion for the majority in Ashcraft, seemed to hint that all secret interrogations were, in fact, unlawful, the very thing Jackson was concerned about, and even, Un-American. He wrote as follows:

“The Constitution of the United States stands as a bar against the conviction of an individual in an American court by means of a coerced confession. There have been, and are now, certain foreign nations with governments dedicated to an opposite policy: governments which convict individuals with testimony obtained by police organizations possessed of an unrestrained power to seize persons suspected of crimes against the state, hold them in secret custody, and wring from them confessions by physical or mental torture. So long as the constitution remains the basic law of our republic, America will not have that kind of government”.

* * *

“In reaching our conclusion as to the validity of Ashcraft's confession, we do not resolve any of the disputed questions of fact relating to the details of what transpired within the confession chamber of the jail or whether Ashcraft actually did confess. Such disputes, we may say, are an inescapable consequence of secret inquisitorial practices. And always evidence concerning the inner details of secret inquisitions is weighted against an accused, particularly where, as here, he is charged with a brutal crime, or where, as in many other cases, his supposed offense bears relation to an unpopular economic, political, or religious cause.”

Black and a majority thought that an interrogation such as this is automatically deemed compelled. No doubt, sleepless has a tremendous effect on a person, and, can lead to false confessions? Does anyone doubt this? It is kind of hard, in America at least, to argue that coerced confessions should be admissible, particularly looking back in time as we can now. But, when you remember that it did not appear that Ashcraft had been mishandled at all, was Jackson right, or was a day and a half of interrogation enough alone to find coercion (remember, his co-conspirator had already confessed)? The court was taking from police their most powerful tool to protective the ordinary innocent civilian from the monsters out there? What about Mrs. Ashcraft? Didn’t she deserve justice too? I note as well that the opinion was very light on precedent. Black could point to few cases at all to support his position. And everytime I think, of course that confession should be thrown out, I remember that three witnesses said that Ashcraft didn’t seem fazed at all.

In Chambers v. Florida (1954) this concept of due process was expanded. Four black defendants (up to 40 black men were initially arrested for the crime), were convicted of killing a white man. There confessions came after sleep deprivation while they were kept from any contact with lawyers or friends and under terrifying conditions (allegedly for their protection). They finally confessed and won their case.

Justice Black again wrote for the Warren Court. He had had a tough time earlier in his career when it was revealed that he was a Ku Klux Klan member in his youth. Chambers transformed him into a civil rights icon. He was proud of his authorship of the opinion which included these words:

“Today, as in ages past, we are not without tragic proof that the exalted power of some governments to punish manufactured crime dictatorially is the handmaid of tyranny. Under our constitutional system, courts stand against any winds that blow as havens of refuge for those who might otherwise suffer because they are helpless, weak, outnumbered, or because they are nonconforming victims of prejudice and public excitement. Due process of law, preserved for all by our Constitution, commands that no such practice as that disclosed by this record shall send any accused to his death. No higher duty, no more solemn responsibility, rests upon this Court than that of translating into living law and maintaining this constitutional shield deliberately planned and inscribed for the benefit of every human being subject to our Constitution--of whatever race, creed or persuasion.”

Fine words, and no doubt applicable to that case. I should add that in his time Justice Black stood alone among high court justices in believing that the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the constitution was a short way of saying that all of the first eight of the bill of rights, mostly those rights I listed above, were automatically applicable against the states. I couldn’t agree less and it seems not only illogical to suggest that the framers of that amendment couldn’t use the extra few words to actually say that, but, no doubt, the 14th amendment was trying to tell Southern states that they had to play fair with black defendants and nothing more. It is now a moot point, as through another route, finding that most of these rights were “fundamental,” and were applied that way through “due process”. There is little more logic to that route than Black’s, but it has developed as the law of the land, starting back early in the century when Babe Ruth was still playing ball, and I for one am glad for it, regardless of what it did to the Constitution, which had already been, and continues to be, mangled by the court.

As these due process rights of avoiding secret interrogations were being expanded by the courts, so also was the rights of the poor to have a lawyer, starting with the Scottsboro Boys cases, wherein a group of young black men, who won a fight on a train against some whites, were accused or rape of white woman, kept away from lawyers until the trial that they were rushed through, and, of course convicted. There’s a long and sad history to these cases (9 defendants and twice up to the Supreme Court), and they played out over a couple of decades. There isn’t room to go into them here (maybe someday), but, in general, after that, at least uneducated indigents in America facing capital punishment had a right to an appointed lawyer and in time to do some good for him – not just as trial was starting. Like other “rights” found to apply against the states, the right to counsel has been greatly expanded since then, famously in the Gideon v. Wainwright case in 1963, and certainly now anyone charged with a felony or even a lesser crime if there is a possibility of jail, has the right to counsel.

There are many cases that led up to the Miranda ruling, the three most important being from 1964: Massiah v. U.S. (police couldn’t use co-conspirator to trick Massiah into giving a secretly recorded confession at a supposedly secret meeting without his lawyer present), Escobedo v. Illinois (when Escobedo asked for a lawyer and was denied the right, the subsequent confession was not admissible) and, Malloy v. Hogan, which made the fifthamendment protection against self incrimination applicable against the States. These three cases (and the 1963 Gideon case) set the table for Miranda.

Although the beneficiaries of all these cases were often blacks being railroaded (whether guilty or not), the full development of the law led to these benefits being applied to everyone. And, as with Miranda, there was fairly exuberant opposition all the way.

In the hundreds of cases that had come up on appeal since that triumvirate of cases in 1964, the court singled out four such cases, one of which was the title case, Miranda v. Arizona two years later. Chief Justice Warren, the former governor of California, wrote the opinion of the court from which four of the nine judges abstained. But, although Justice Warren mentioned that Miranda was “a seriously disturbed individual with pronounced sexual fantasies,” we have to go to Justice Harlan’s dissent to even find out what Miranda was supposed to have done and how the police handled him:

“On March 3, 1963, an 18-year-old girl was kidnapped and forcibly raped near Phoenix, Arizona. Ten days later, on the morning of March 13, petitioner Miranda was arrested and taken to the police station. At this time, Miranda was 23 years old, indigent, and educated to the extent of completing half the ninth grade. He had "an emotional illness" of the schizophrenic type, according to the doctor who eventually examined him; the doctor's report also stated that Miranda was "alert and oriented as to time, place, and person," intelligent within normal limits, competent to stand trial, and sane within the legal definition. At the police station, the victim picked Miranda out of a lineup, and two officers then took him into a separate room to interrogate him, starting about 11:30 a.m. Though at first denying his guilt, within a short time, Miranda gave a detailed oral confession, and then wrote out in his own hand and signed a brief statement admitting and describing the crime. All this was accomplished in two hours or less, without any force, threats or promises, and -- I will assume this, though the record is uncertain . . . without any effective warnings at all."

There was no doubt where Warren stood from the opening words of his opinion:

“The cases before us raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence: the restraints society must observe consistent with the Federal Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime. More specifically, we deal with the admissibility of statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation and the necessity for procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself.”

Warren seemed to finally confirm Justice Jackson’s fears over twenty years earlier by holding that all interrogations done in secret were at least inherently suspicious, picking up where Justice Black left off:

“Again we stress that the modern practice of in-custody interrogation is psychologically rather than physically oriented . . . Interrogation still takes place in privacy. Privacy results in secrecy and this in turn results in a gap in our knowledge as to what in fact goes on in the interrogation rooms.”

Reading from a police interrogation manual, Warren made much of the psychological tricks the police used to trick or coerce prisoners. He admitted that the confessions obtained this way might not “traditionally” be found to be coercive. No beatings, no threats.

Although relying on the Escobedo case extensively, Warren rested Miranda on the fifth amendment right not to incriminate oneself rather than the sixth amendment right to counsel that the court had used two years earlier. It no was no longer required that the suspect had asked for a lawyer and was rejected to throw out the confession – the police now had to tell him he had the right to one, among other rights which Warren summarized for us as follows:

“[W]e hold that, when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. Procedural safeguards must be employed to protect the privilege, and unless other fully effective means are adopted to notify the person of his right of silence and to assure that the exercise of the right will be scrupulously honored, the following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that, if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded to him throughout the interrogation. After such warnings have been given, and such opportunity afforded him, the individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.”

Justice Warren knew that at least the most persuasive argument against this bold new rule was that it was more in society’s interest to allow the secret interrogations than to prevent them. To this he made two counter-arguments; first, that the power of the government had to take a back seat to the constitution, here the fifth amendment; and secondly, he quoted another legendary Justice, Louis Brandeis, who once observed in a fourth amendment case, Olmstead v. U.S., in 1928:

"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fail to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means . . . would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face."

Four of the other judges were not pleased. Justice Thomas Clark dissented, writing that he believed the court had overstated the coercive aspects of actual police practices (there was nothing in the record from even one actual interrogation; just a manual of which the record was silent whether even one police department followed), that this new rule “may well kill the patient” (interrogations) and that the due process rule that there could not be compulsory or involuntary confessions was the better of the two.

Justice John Harlan was less gentle. He wrote:

“The new rules are not designed to guard against police brutality or other unmistakably banned forms of coercion. Those who use third-degree tactics and deny them in court are equally able and destined to lie as skillfully about warnings and waivers. Rather, the thrust of the new rules is to negate all pressures, to reinforce the nervous or ignorant suspect, and ultimately to discourage any confession at all. The aim in short is toward “voluntariness” in a utopian sense, or to view it from a different angle, voluntariness with a vengeance.”

He complained that Warren's authority relied not on fifth amendment “self-incrimination” cases, which the court had held was being violated, but on sixth amendment “right to counsel” cases, which he believed had nothing to do with interrogations. The rule against self-incrimination, he claimed, did not mean that "no" pressure could be brought upon a suspect, no matter how gently done.

Justice Byron “Whizzer” White also wrote a dissent, complaining essentially that the court had created a new rule out of thin air; that is, there was no precedent for it. He didn’t seem to mind that a rule which held that a defendant must be told that he may remain silent, but pointed out the absurdity that an accused might blurt out a confession before he was read his rights and interrogated, which even Warren admitted was allowable, but that a suspect who was told he had a right to remain silent (but not the other rights) couldn’t even be asked “Do you have anything to say” or “Did you kill your wife?” Is that really compulsion?

Whether or not you agree with the rationale, 5 judges outweigh 4 and Miranda became the rule. The conservative branch of the Supreme Court has managed to limit the application of the rule in some cases, but, in 2000, a judge as conservative as William Rehnquist wrote the opinion in Dickerson v. U.S., that Miranda was a constitutional rule and as precedent, could not be overturned even by the act of congress that sought to modify it. I recall being surprised nine years ago to read some of Rehnquist’s basis for his opinion, as they seemed very un-Rehnquistlike, he being well known to have a preference for arguments favoring the prosecution and disfavoring civil rights:

“. . . Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become a part of our national culture. [W]e have overruled our precedents when subsequent cases have undermined their doctrinal underpinnings, [but] we do not believe that this has happened to the Miranda decision.”

Justice Scalia and Thomas, even to the right of Rehnquist, argued that what the court’s decision “will stand for, whether the Justices can bring themselves to say it or not, is the power of the Supreme Court to write a prophylactic, extraconstitutional Constitution, binding on Congress and the States.”

Scalia, of course, raised a whole other issue, which I will deftly avoid here, but it is central to the question at least as old as Plato - whether the people shall rule themselves (i.e., democratically), or, will elite unelected leaders make our decisions for us (Plato liked the second choice). I freely admit I love some judge made rules and laws that I actually believe to be unconstitutional, and Miranda is among them. I was influenced long ago by a case I had where a young man was accused by an ex-girlfriend’s family of swerving his car towards him. The police picked him up and while he was sitting in the back seat of their car, they asked him if he was trying to kill them or just trying to scare them? He later told me he thought he had to pick one and, naturally, chose scare them. I hardly believed that every client I had was innocent, but I was fairly sure he was (and, indeed, his case ended up being voluntary dismissal by the prosecution). However, as much as I acknowledge my fondness for some of these policies, I also recognize that it is a dangerous precedent, as Scalia always points out. The next time we might not like these judge made rules. But, actually, that ship has long sailed, as judicial policy making takes place all the time from judges on the right and the left.

Thus, it appears that Miranda is here to stay, and, it hasn’t seemed to stop the governments from obtaining their usual high conviction rate. However, those are for cases actually brought. How many guilty murderers, rapists, arsonists, etc., would have confessed if they didn’t think to ask for a lawyer or to remain silent in a Mirandaless world? How many other victims would have been saved their own horrors or death, if those criminals were in jail? A few years ago a friend of mine was burglarized at the cost of between $20-30,000. A young woman caught on tape hocking her jewels turned her accomplice, who lived next door to my friend. The police said that they asked her if she was involved and she denied doing it, although it seemed pretty obvious she did. But, it was also clear that the police could not truly interrogate her as they might have had there been a different result in Miranda. Is that just or fair? On the other hand, you might take some solace in learning that Miranda himself was retried without the confession and convicted anyway.

And now, finally, I come to the issue I started with, now that you can see how constitutionally weak Miranda is (whether you like the policy or not), the slim thread by which it gained a majority, and the reasonable arguments on the other side. If it’s true that soldiers or combatants on the battlefield are being Mirandized, where are we going with this? Does the administration mean to suggest that those fighting against us in a war have the same constitutional rights as American citizens arrested in America do? Or that they are worried that the courts will rule they have them and they want to be prepared? It’s hard to understand why else this would they would make this our policy.

It lends itself to the arguments of the right that the left in general and Obama in particular do not understand our enemies, foreign policy or war. It is reminiscent of a policy from the Clinton error which rendered our intelligence services far weaker than before, when agents were no longer allowed to consort (and thereby gain intelligence from) some disreputable characters. It more than allows those who have not been Mirandized to claim that since they weren’t, their confessions are now out the window. Indeed, how can the administration credibly say that they all didn’t need to be read their rights? And, if that’s so, what about search and seizure without a warrant, right to jury trials, etc. This is not a slippery slope argument. It’s a simple legal argument that the most ignorant third year law student could make.

All countries recognize that there is a huge difference between criminal law and the law of war. While it might even be manageable (although wrongheaded) to Mirandize an occasional captive, imagine a war with prisoners in number like in World War II or even the Iraq War. Should Saddam Hussein been told he could remain silent, that he could have a lawyer present, etc.? Will all of these indigent fighters be entitled to lawyers at American cost too? Moreover, the “fog of war” will certainly spread a thick curtain over these warnings and there may often be no may to prove that the warning was given. The soldier who gave the warning might be dead or unable to appear in court when a hearing occurs. How many of these Miranda hearings are we prepared to do? Thousands? In a big war, millions? Won’t each prisoner care to test it?

For my part, I hope this all turns out to be a right wing nightmare (or rumor) and not true at all.

Political update for June, 2009

2009-06-03T16:33:00.001-07:00

Ahhh, Spring!

It was 93 degrees in Buchanan, Va., where I live, on Tuesday and heading towards that today. Too hot for me. But, it is a pleasant change from the almost two months of rain and icky weather we’ve had for most of Spring here and up the East Coast. I have already had my usual Spring fights with people. They go like this – they say, Spring is the best season and the weather is wonderful. I say, no, it’s going to rain a lot and be cold; we will have a handful of wonderful Spring days and then it is going to roar into Summer weather ahead of schedule. It happens in the Northeast every year.

Yes, there are few days like beautiful Spring days, unless they are the best Autumn days (my favorite season), but, this is my personal Groundhog’s Day scenario. Every year everyone but me seems to forget what last Spring was like and I have the same conversations over every year, as if the last one never happened, when my nemeses insist that this Spring is unusual. I have only my daughter as a witness, who has heard it enough from me to remember we go through this every year, which is more support than Bill Murray got in the movie. This year I have been arguing with one friend, who insisted that Spring was wonderful every year and I was imagining the bad weather (glass half full). So, routinely, I get to send her “Ahhh, Spring” letters as it pours on us from above or we have to put our furnaces on because it is so damn cold in mid-May. Never mind Spring, there’s nothing like a good “I tried to tell you.” I counted four really beautiful Spring days thus far (that is, neither cold, rainy or too hot). And, yet, I will get to argue with her and others again next year.

Sully for president

I seem to have gone off the track in another argument I’ve been having, insisting that Chesley Sullenberger’s feat of landing the plane safely in the Hudson River wasn’t all that amazing. Not that I thought he didn’t do a good job – I was more impressed that no one standing on the wing in the freezing weather and water, fell in and took his word for it that he was just doing what he was paid to do. I don’t think I’ve spoken about it in this blog, but I’ve been saying it since it happened. After hearing from a bunch of pilots and pretty much everyone else in the world that I’m out of my mind, I’ll fold on it. Mea culpa. He did a great job and deserves all the praise he gets. I suppose that my being cynical about our media heroes, who often aren’t all that heroic, has its limits, and once in a while I get it wrong. That being said, I wouldn’t compare it to the guy who jumped on the subway tracks a couple of years ago and covered the epileptic while the train passed over, but it was a feat of which he can be proud. Besides, Sully seems to be a nice guy (at least, we think – there’s that damn cynicism again).

The Economy - getting better - nahhh!

Very little seems to be happening on the economic front these days. The state of the automakers and the banks, the unemployment, the GDP, GNP and what have you, all confirms for me my belief that all the messing around Bush’s team and Obama’s team have done to “rescue” the economy has all been for naught, and actually hurt. Every once in a while some powerful administration figure says that that there is light at the end of the tunnel, but the news always seems bad to me. I know not from whence they get the idea that things will turn around next year.

I never rule out the possibility of a recovery. The economy is not entirely beholden to politics and presidential tinkering and might just rebound. But, in the long run (whatever that means – the next ten years maybe, but even as early as this year) I expect another collapse due to the unprecedented spending from Washington. At some point, taxes must sky rocket. If the president had his way, that wouldn’t be until after the 2012 election, but it seems like they will have to do something way before then, and maybe very soon. If you just don’t get it yet and think that spending trillions of dollars is a good idea even with very little of it meant to spark business growth, consider that Obama now has stated (despite campaign promises – there’s a shock, eh?) to tax health care benefits. The effect this will have on the middle and lower class will be devastating. It will not have a big effect on the wealthy but will also be a blow to business, which will be faced with greater demand for some form of recompensation from its employees, some of whom will know longer be able to pay for their share of the premiums (but see last week's post on my brilliant solution to the health care crisis). Be sure, the government considers themselves and their spending more important than you paying your bills. What have they ever done since you’ve been alive to make you think otherwise? Doesn’t matter which side’s in office – they want your money.

If I haven’t made it clear umpteen times before, the New Deal did not seem to work very well during the thirties (you could ask then secretary of the treasury, Morgenthau, were he alive) and now, when we already have the huge expenses of so many entitlements already in place, and FDIC and social security and Medicaid, Medicare, Welfare, etc., it makes no sense at all to spend, spend, spend like madmen. Not only aren’t we on a gold standard any more, but it seems like all monetary theory has gone out the window. I am constantly struck that government pretends it has its own money to spend. They are either going to print money up like they are running out of paper, tax us to death, or default on their obligations (the last thing they want to do). One thing we can all agree on – the two parties and their corresponding ideological adventurers will blame each other if we fail and take credit for any success.

Please all laugh with me whenever anyone tells you that one of these "brilliant" money men like Geithner or Summers thinks he or she can tame the economy.

Sotomayor and the Senate

Justice Sotomayor’s Senate hearing, so far unscheduled, will be worthwhile viewing. And I am smiling, dear readers, at the thought that C-Span, the greatest boon to television ever – the poor man’s doctoral program – will again replay all of the past televised Senate hearings for Supreme Court Justices from Rehnquist (I believe the first televised) on down. You are not going to watch them, are you? Okay, if you are only going to watch a little (not going to, are you?), watch both of Rehnquist’s hearings (the second one, when he was appointed chief justice, is the more fun of the two), Bork’s, if they show it, Thomas’s (with Borks, definitely the most entertaining) and Scalia’s. That’s not a conservative political statement – they are clearly all right wingers, but, for whatever reason the political dynamic at the time made those by far the most interesting and provocative of the group. Watch also John Robert’s hearing if you can, where he put on a sterling performance, getting praise from even the Senator’s opposed to him for his brilliance.

I am shocked, shocked I tell you that Senators from both sides are already heating up the hypocrisy – the right wanting to slow things down, when they wanted to push through Roberts and Alito’s nominations, and the left wanting to push through Sotomayor while they claimed they didn’t get enough time on Bush’s appointments. We will unfortunately get cheated out of one big hypocritical moment. During the Bush days, when the right was in charge but the left had enough senators to filibuster, we reached the “nuclear” crisis. The right claimed that constitutionally, there was no right to filibuster a presidential appointment as a matter of constitutional interpretation and they were winding up to have Dick Cheney so rule from the floor as the president of the senate, and let the left deal with that however they could. The left, of course, was equally apoplectic, and insisted that since the senate could make its own rules, and there was no exception in the filibuster rule for appointments, then they could do what they pleased, also according to the constitution. A compromise was finally had, led by John McCain, where a few right wing Senators promised not to support such a ruling and the left promised to be sparing in its use of the filibuster for them.

We won’t get to see both parties reverse their stands, now that it is a Democratic appointment, for one reason only – the right almost certainly doesn’t have enough votes to maintain a filibuster.

Here’s what really bothers me about it. The reason the filibuster issue was a problem at all concerning judicial appointments was because it was a controversy that arose during important nominations. If the Senators really wanted to fix it, they would have waited until there was a lull, and then re-written the rule to take effect only after the election of the next president (which turned out to be Obama) – that way, no one would know which side would benefit from the rule change. But, you will probably never see it happen because the truth is, both sides love the filibuster rule when it suits them and don’t want to give it up, however much they complain when they are in the majority.

I have particularly grieved by the Senate process. The grilling hearings are a relatively recent phenomena, and nowadays, they seem to be done more so that the Senators can get a little press time than anything else. Do you think these Senators are actually going to read Sotomayor’s opinions? Even the most controversial ones? Don’t count on it. They will get briefings they will read from for a handful of cases they want to attack or praise. Remember, they are very busy fundraising and we have to be reasonable.

Of course, we all know what it really comes down to. All the posing, all the nonsense, all the hypocrisy these days comes down to whether many of the Senators think the candidate will be a vote for or against abortion rights. That’s a shame, especially because it can't be honestly done. I don’t see why asking a potential appointee whether they have a personal opinion about abortion and what it is. They will have death penalty cases, but you could ask them how they felt about murder. That is hardly the same as asking them how they would vote on a particular case. Still, it is accepted these days that no one will answer that question and I’m sure they hope they have never made any public statements on it before either.

What of the bias issue? Without quoting precisely, Sotomayor gave a speech where she said a Latina would have more experiences that would enable her to be a good judge than a white man. I have no doubt that Obama and many on his side think so too. His comments concerning who he would pick seemed to indicate it at least. I know many on the left who still feel that minorities should be given advantages that white (particularly males) don’t have – some say so openly, others just seem to also be on their side. Of course, I also know a fair amount of conservatives who almost always seem to come down on the white male side. At least we have a balance of injustice. As always, the miracle to me is that neither side can see themselves, but only the flaws in the other side. I wonder if any on the left will tell her they are troubled by her statement and vote against her. You have to doubt it, but it could happen (and we will see what Specter does).

I am hardly troubled by Sotomayor’s statement that they make policy on the court of appeals. She said in the same talk that they shouldn’t, but that it was a reality. Any attempt to utilize that against her is just so much political nitpicking and you should give it as much consideration as you would a hen’s opinion as to how many eggs you should eat (stretching for some type of profound simile there aaaaaand . . . missing badly).

The Middle East

I was deeply troubled earlier this year when America pledged 900 billion to help the Palestinians in Gaza after Israel crushed them when fired upon by rockets. It seemed an indication that he was going to make the mistake of trying to buy off people who hate us. That doesn’t work. Even statistics from the U.N. of how countries we give aid to vote shows us that they are happy to take our money but not our side. If it's appeasement they are after, Munich didn’t work out for Chamberlain either (and, yes, Chris Matthews, I know what happened at Munich). I for one don’t have faith that the money will not end up buying more rockets for Hamas or that they will get the credit for rebuilding Gaza. What this did is make it less likely that the Gazans or Hamas will think twice before attacking Israel again.

However, after I wrote feverishly on this topic a few months ago (1/24/09) in support of Israel as being more right than wrong in the struggle, identifying them as our ally, and encouraging them in the active right of self defense, I also mentioned that in a few years technology will allow their enemies to destroy them easily and remotely with so many missiles, that they had better find a solution fast. Also, I indicated that if Israel wants to keep the settlements in the West Bank, that I might very well turn around and support the Palestinians against that. It would be a violation of the U.N. charter. It would result in Israel giving up all moral authority. And, it would just make me think of them as thieves of the worst sort. Yet, we know from surveys that there are many Israelis who feel that they should keep the settlements and even expand (which they are still doing).

A one state solution is certainly not possible if Israel wants to keep its Jewish character. The two state solution is the only reasonable solution if they wish to survive. And that should mean that Palestinian land is Palestinian land (67 borders). To my surprise, when I discuss this issue with American Jews, they seem by a healthy amount to support Israel’s keeping the territory and they and Netanyahu are slowly going to pull me away from supporting them. It also makes me think two things might happen. One, there will be no solution and that is possibly what many Israelis (at least the government and perhaps a majority of the people) intend. Two, Israel will be destroyed some day and might deserve it by just trying reaching into the jar and not being able to take it without without opening their fist and dropping the cookie. I think they will find that once Hizbollah or Hamas or Iran is on top of them, they will not unilaterally stop or allow humanitarian aid in for Israel. But, Israel will have dealt the play, to quote one of my favorite fiction authors.

Nuclear proliferation

Is it me, or can you also not understand why any country with the ability to create nuclear weapons would be a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty? If I was Iran, I would certainly want the bomb, particularly with its neighbor Pakistan, a Sunni country, packing, not to mention India. If I was Japan, I would certainly want the bomb. Who cares if North Korea has a guidance system for a missile. They can motor and row it over to Japan on any calm night. One population center gone and it is the end for a country like Japan, which reproduces its citizens at a very low rate. It is one thing for us to say, we don’t want countries we don’t like to have the bomb. It is another thing to prevent it. Let’s face it. Bush did nothing about North Korea. Obama’s done nothing about North Korea. Bush did nothing successful about Iran. Same for Obama.

Really, what can they do? Sure you could attack Iran, but its one of the biggest countries in the world and it would take tremendous resources to accomplish anything while clearly destabilizing the Middle East. It’s nuclear program is spread out and hidden among many secret installations. An attack would almost certainly bring reprisals and our country has little stomach for that. Iran is not Libya and isn't going to panic at a rattling sabre. No American leader has the gall to do that anyway these days, nor any other country other than Israel, and they do not have the power to do it. Those days, at least for now, are over.

I might sound like one of those crazy conspiracy theorists to you. So, let me quote President Obama during a presidential debate:

“We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it’s unacceptable. And I will do everything that’s required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table.”

Like most presidential candidates with a chance, Obama said what he needed to satisfy the public he would defend us. But, what exactly would he do to avoid the bomb. He needn’t worry much. National Intelligence Estimates put the timetable for an Iranian bomb even beyond an Obama second term. Whether that’s accurate or not, he has cover to sit on his hands as long as he wants as long to and there isn’t a smoking gun. Even then, do you see him sending in Special Forces?

Besides, what country can answer this following question without at least knowing that their answer will be chauvinistic and unsatisfying, even if they have a good reason – “Why can you have the bomb and we can’t?” Once Iran builds one – like India and Pakistan did, there is nothing left to do about it. Economic sanctions haven't worked on Cuba in almost 50 years and won't work on Iran anymore than they have already.

I don’t know if Iran is building a bomb. I know we can’t trust intelligence or international inspectors to give us correct answers about it. So many of them were wrong about Iraq and to my mind, Colin Powell’s performance before the U.N. was one of the most craven political acts I’ve ever seen. It’s not that I don’t like Colin Powell. I actually do, although I don’t agree with some of his ideas on war (particularly the - you break it, you own it idea). Of course, the willingness to suspend disbelief by the American people after that speech was more astonishing. I'm sure there are people who didn't believe it, but I can't think of any (although like you had trouble finding Nazi's after WWII, you can probably find a lot of disbelievers of the the Weapons of Mass Destruction after Iraq went South). Sometimes my cynicism does lead to the right answer. No WMD's would be found. I thought getting rid of Saddam was a good idea anyway, for other reasons, but the way we have stayed was foolish and very destructive to our economy and the country's morale.

I do think Iran is trying to obtain nuclear weaponry, but my reasons are not based on inside information but on their prior behavior. Iran has already given us the reason that they will lie to us. When they were discovered to have been hiding a long entrenched program one of their leaders explained that they had no choice. Embargos by the U.S. had hurt their economy so much in order to prevent them from obtaining equipment they could use to make atomic power, that the country suffered from the lack of what it called dual purpose materials. They hadn’t wanted it to get worse, but wanted nuclear power, so they lied. The same theory applies to the bomb. They would find their power enhanced by obtaining the bomb as has every other country that obtained it. We now welcome India, for example, into the club, because it is better to have them on our side.

No doubt that U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the economic concerns now upon us has given Iran a much freer hand. This was one of the gifts of the Bush years to our enemies – perhaps the biggest gift.

Unlike many who are usually more on the hawkish side, at least in terms of preparation, I am not one who is concerned with dialogue between our president and other leaders. History shows us that it in itself is not a problem. Examples with Russia and China are to obvious to spend time on here, but I cannot see how engaging with much lesser powers like North Korea, Cuba, Iran, etc., can hurt either. Are we that dumb that we will be fooled that easily. Will the world really give Castro more credibility because he had lunch with Obama or shook his hand? Of course, one needs greater experience than President Bush to do so and not look in their eyes to see their soul.

Here are my solutions to all of the above problems. National recognition that Spring is not the best, but the worst season; a likeness of Sully in the Smithsonian (which he would find funny); growing recognition of the hypnotized American populace that spending money you don’t have and can never pay back (when is this ever good) will lead to higher taxes, inflation, severe depression or all three; Republican recognition that Sotomayor is not the anti-christ and they have no chance to block her nomination absent some bombshell like she keeps anglo-male slaves in a hacienda; increased pressure on Israel to unilaterally abandon the settlements and regain completely the moral authority they had in the past and last, increased diplomatic, covert and economic pressure on Iran, but learn how to live with their having the bomb if they are building one, because China and Russia are not going to help us apply the pressure we need to really accomplish anything.

That was so easy. Why don’t I just run for president? I seem to have all the answers. Perhaps I can get Sully to run for VP

My bright idea -fixing the health care crisis

2009-05-28T12:34:00.000-07:00

This will be an unusually brief post for me, but I am also asking your opinion on this. I sometimes find that is the worst way to get comments, but I'm asking anyway. This is an idea for reformulating our health care system which I hope would help people with their taxes at the same time.

As we know, there is a great debate going on in congress about our system of health care and insurance system ranging from leaving it as it is to a single payor or European style system. I have come up with my own idea to remedy this situation.

Here are the factors I believe to be true and consider:

1) The health care in this country is good, in some areas excellent or the best.

2) If you just said to yourself, no it's not, you may be thinking of my second factor, the fact that so many millions of Americans cannot afford health care or insurance. This is a huge problem and one most people want to fix.

3) One way we have to take care of people is by giving to charity; for many people.

4) People like to give to charity for a number of beneficent reasons, but getting a tax deduction is certainly a reason for many people.

5) The value of your tax deduction for charitable gifts increases as your tax rate increases. Those who pay a higher tax rate conversely get a better deduction when they give to charity (this is just a mathematical result of a progressive tax rate). But, you get nowhere near dollar for dollar back on a charitable gift.

6) Some people want to raise our federal taxes in order to pay for government run health care. Government run solutions are very often disasters. Look at the state of medicare, veteran benefits, social security, etc., and you should have trouble disagreeing with this.

Here's my solution. Get people who have excess money, i.e., more money than they know what to do with, to charitably solve the health care problem because they will financially benefit from dealing with a system that encourages them to help people who have less - you can call it charitable or tax planning, but the idea is the same - help everyone play for the same team.

To achieve this goal, is to give everyone, regardless of their tax rate, a tax credit (you can write it off against what you owe in taxes) rather than a deduction (write the expense off against the income - not as good) for donations to private enterprises which pay insurance premiums, or, possibly, direct patient contributions. I prefer doing this through charitable organizations, which will have to take very reasonable administrative costs (still better than having a bloated government department) than individually, because it will cut down on fraud. But, if someone wants to pay for someone's non-elective surgery, as an example, they should be able to do so and get the credit.

I've tried this out on a few people to see what there objections are. Everyone says it can't work. But, there have been three basic arguments and I don't think they are valid.

The first is fraud. My argument there is - when you can tell me that there is no fraud going on in the tax system or health care system no matter what we do, and then I'll agree we should not try this idea. Fraud exists everywhere and you have to try and minimize it. We don't not give to charity because of fraud and no reason we can't do this and have the usual anti-fraud devices - criminal and civil penalties, etc., for whatever they are worth. You will never stop all fraud, but it would seem to me that it would be far less prevalent than it would be in the medicare system.

Additionally, opportunities for fraud will be limited because of the five thousand dollar limits and also because direct contributions (say for someone's MRI or surgery) are limited in scope. You can't get a credit for paying for your someone's elective nose job, chest enhancement, etc. I'm not sure how "mental health" will figure in to this, but like to hear what you have to say about that too.

Another argument I've heard is that it would be taking to much money away from the government in tax revenues. That's true if you believe it is the government's money and you are just being allowed to keep some (every conservative reading this just passed out, but I think liberals and conservatives as individuals agree that they want to keep every tax dollar they can). Besides, it's a false argument. Yes, the government would be faced with millions of people getting five thousand dollar credits and that will reduce revenue, but, they would not be paying the tremendous costs of a single payor health care system or government subsidized system. Overall, I think it would be a plus for revenue. This might even be a way to get rid of or minimize Medicaid too, which is also a huge government expenditure. Besides, healthier people can work harder, go to school, etc. I believe it will eventually increase tax revenues the way the G.I. Bill did, even though that was a government expense at first.

A last argument is that people will stop giving to charity because the tax credit they get for this is so much better than the tax deduction they get for other charitable giving. That's why this has to be limited to, say, $5000 or something in that range. That number can be adjusted every year to fine tune it. Anything over that amount gets the regular deduction.

I think people would love this. Let's say you are a millionaire and you like to give to charity and like the tax break. Here, you lose nothing, as opposed to a deduction where you lose something.

Both liberals and conservatives should like this. Conservatives will like this because it is lowering taxes and it is privately and voluntarily done. Liberals should have no objection to that and also like that it is solving a major liberal objective - universal health care. Further, the government will have a hand in some small regulation (fraud avoidance and setting the limits).

What person would mind giving to charity if it means they get it back dollar for dollar? Don't worry about it wiping out other charities because it is limited. Besides, I have trouble thinking of any better charitable purpose other than health care. Even middle class people who have sufficient funds can participate in this and get back every dollar.

Politics, of course, can make even the best idea a mess. Should abortion be included? The two sides will differ and hold the rest hostage to it? How much government regulation? Again, they can fight over that. But, I really believe this is a logical solution to a really tough problem.

Tell me your thoughts about this. There may be flaws I'm not seeing.