A Better Nation

Lincoln on His 200th Birthday

2009-02-12T11:47:00.000-08:00

Here is my favorite quotation by Abraham Lincoln, the one which I think is most profound and most essential to his legacy and to the rise and fall of democracy:

"As I would not be a slave,

so I would not be a master.

This expresses my idea of democracy.

Whatever differs from this,

to the extent of the difference,

is no democracy."

The Audacity of Greed

2009-01-29T17:52:00.000-08:00

People don't work on Wall Street or even generally invest in the stock market to better the conditions of humankind and life on Earth. Investments are not often the stuff of altruism.

Wall Street is about greed, as in "greed is good."

And so what do we expect?

President Obama reprimanded Wall Street scions today for taking $20 billion in bonuses last year, even when there was no light at the end of the tunnel. Of course they would take those bonuses. And run.

It's a money brothel, not a volunteer fire department.

It's a greed machine, not the Peace Corps.

It's: "Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what the American brand (and loop holes) of the "free market" can do for you.

The lion that is the audacity of greed makes the audacity of hope seem like a mouse.

And so, will real change come?

A change of values? Against the grain of human nature?

Stimulus Package

2009-01-28T17:26:00.000-08:00

This just in from the Viagra Nation: even the phrase "stimulus package" sounds obscene.

Country and planet seeing some bumps along a stratospheric rise and overly caffeinated course of consumerism?

Look at the short term again. Put it on plastic. Charge it to who knows who?

We want a stimulant? We should take a rest. For three decades and more, we've been shopping in middair with our credit cards falling out of our pockets. It's time we got back down to the ground before everything we know becomes a dustbowl.

"Stimulus package," "stimulus bill," President Obama would rather call it a "recovery bill," but there's a HUGE disconnect here. Recover from what?

What we need to recover FROM is spending and debt, both personal and national -- and to shift the nation's resources from personal gain to public good.

We shopped 'til we dropped. Seems a drop in shopping is the answer. Good for us, good for all. It's not as if we are all really NEEDED. 300 million people in this country?

And so any part of the stimulus package that "puts money in the pockets of ordinary Americans" is not necessarily a good thing. Better to give others jobs or more education, retraining and opportunity to jump back into innovative and improved ways of building a more sustainable culture, a more enlightened nation.

As the president himself said in his inaugural address, "...we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America."

Now "remaking" is a big word. It doesn't mean just repairing and restoring the old status quo. I didn't vote for that. I voted for change. And I want to see the systemic change and the change in emphasis and the change toward the common good in this mega dose of National Viagra.

With Obama at the wheel, I want to see a distinct turn away from 'affluenza' and this consumerist juggernaut. America is either better than this spoiled accumulation of junk, this shopaholic patriotism, this sprawling and selfish paving over of paradise, or it's not.

Obama at the Wheel

2009-01-26T19:11:00.001-08:00

The only thing that concerns me so far is that President Obama may move too fast. He may be racing the clock, that 100 day deadline that the media impose.

In the span of about four and a half working days in office (though it seems there was no slowing down this weekend), the president has turned the tide on torture, government jobs and government assistance, public works projects, abortion, lobbyists, diplomacy, governmental transparency, and today, and vehicle emissions.

To be fair, the larger issues of the economy and global climate remain and probably will always remain beyond his ability to turn around. These things are bigger even than any administration.

But what a change a few staffers and the stroke of a pen can make.

A few staffers and the stroke of a pen.

And now for the enforcement and the rallying of public opinion. These are the greatest challenges of any president: to see that his edicts are enforced and to sway enough of the public to champion his causes -- and make his brand of CHANGE the brand of change for the public at large and indeed the dedicated goal of the majority. Can he do this?

GObama.

Clinton Gone, Kennedy Out, Kirsten In

2009-01-23T08:11:00.000-08:00

Way back last year, late in the Bush Era, when Caroline Kennedy announced her desire to be the next Senator from New York, I was all excited. But it turns out that excitement was based on an old crush, not current conditions. Kennedy has proved her desires to be pie in the sky. Her resolve started with the romantic aura of 'Camelot reborn' yet ended in mystery and even a bit of political mayhem. In the last month, "Sweet Caroline" has not displayed the steely focus, drive AND decisiveness one needs to be a particularly effective statesman.

These ARE qualities Hillary Clinton has shown from the moment she found out about Monica Lewinsky, and Hillary only built on these strengths during her determined run for the presidency.

Now we have Kirsten Gillibrand, a United States Representative from the Albany area, and good for her. Good for us. This is the right choice after all. A tough campaigner, an impressive fundraiser, a bridge-building "blue dog Democrat," who may catch some flak east of the Hudson and south of Westchester, but who may, in the short term she's got, help bring together more upstate and downstate values.

She'll become known for her defense of gun rights, but you know who else defends gun rights? The American Civil Liberties Union.

Rep. Gillibrand has a 100% voting approval record from the ACLU, and along with some green cred and on the ground experience in Washington, that's good enough in my book.

I say farewell to the old baggage of Clinton and Kennedy and welcome the fresh young face and future-leaning pragmatism of Kirsten Gillibrand.

Governor Patterson, a bit sloppy in the final rounds, but in the end, a victory.

HeRObama Cans Torture

2009-01-22T12:41:00.001-08:00

It's just the day after the day after, and I just got what, for years, I wanted most: an end to torture by the United States, effective immediately.

And this includes, as the Geneva Convention said it should, any life-threatening interrogation tactics. As we would not want our own lives threatened, no matter what, so should we not want anyone to threaten another's life. Perhaps their liberty, yes. To restrain someone and to incarcerate them is humane, but torture never is.

To put it bluntly, anyone who voted to re-elect George W. Bush in 2004, voted not just implicitly but explicitly to allow torture to continue. By then, the widespread use of torture in American-run prisons at home and abroad, far beyond and more secretive than Guantanamo, including top secret CIA "black areas" in undisclosed locations, was well known.

Like war, like any crime of violence, torture is personal. Millions pay (or go into debt) so that others may commit these crimes. They're the professionals; we're just the voters. But that is a cop out. Those who don't make it's absolution a priority are morally suspect.

Thank you, President Obama and ALL who help this change come to be and to stay.

1/20/09 on the Capitol Steps

2009-01-20T21:56:00.000-08:00

The big inaugural wrap up in short order:

Dr. Strangelove: Was there in his wheelchair. Talk about stranger than fiction. And not nearly as funny.

President Bush ('til noon): Just wanted to get the heck out of there. Even Dr. Strangelove was glaring at him. At least Obama gave him a hug, two hugs in fact.

Rick Warren: I was squirming through that god stuff and that African-American stuff at the beginning. And, at the end, I was thinking the Lord's Prayer a cheap shot to get the crowd to go along with the ruse. But in the middle, there actually were some good lines, asking for the things for which we might wish to be forgiven. A tall order.

The first thing that really got my attention: Aretha's hat.

The second thing: Aretha's voice.

Joe the VP: nice job on your oath, Joe. You got the job.

John Williams' musical piece: a piece of #%$! At least Aaron Copeland showed respect for the simplicity of the traditional Shaker tune, "Simple Gifts." If it says "simple" in the title, and "simple" is not only the sentiment behind the music but the moral theme of the music and of the religious sect behind its creation, then don't muss it up with layers of a confused cacophony of jumbled riffs and jamming solos. Perhaps the masses were wowed by (or at least respectful of) the two big-name players, but the piece was a travesty. This frazzled, bipolar chamber ditty, I am sure, left Williams fans wondering what it was and left classical aficionados groaning.

The Oath: It's written in the Constitution, but the phrasing (and pauses) are not. Barack jumped the gun, and Roberts took the blame. Even presidents and men in robes are only human, and we got our first reminder of this sad fact two seconds into the oath. Perhaps it's funny now. I hope Leno, Letterman, Steward and SNL can do something with this. I figure we're in for a redo. (But FYI, the O'Man still became president precisely at noon, somewhere toward the end of that mishmash of a musical number, even without the oath.)

The Address: I know he's got the job now, a grave and daunting task, but hey, this guy inspired us with some of the greatest political speeches in years. Why drag us through a short draft of a State of the Union address? Go for the rafters! This is your day. It's not a news day. Give the grim realities a rest, and shoot for the stars. And it doesn't hurt, now that the world is watching, to repeat a dozen of your best lines from the four best speeches you ever gave: your 2004 Democratic Convention speech, your February 2007 campaign announcement speech, your March 2008 Philadelphia speech on race, your 2008 Convention speech and, perhaps best of all, your acceptance speech in Chicago, that electric evening of November 4th.

We might need a serious and supremely aware and capable and tirelessly hard-working president, but to keep our hopes fired up and ready to go, we need more jolts of electricity, and today would have been a good day to make our hair stand on end.

The woman who spoke after the Address: Uh oh. Even with a speech on his B-list, Obama is a hard act to follow, but this was drivel. Poetry, Elizabeth? It didn't sound like poetry. It sounded like a mom at a PTA meeting. Most of the people in the room I was in turned away and stopped watching.

Joseph E. Lowery's Benediction: Could they have chosen a better guy for the job? I say no. He gave us the cadences and the rhyme we were craving by then. Those amens worked for me. Hear, hear!

And Diane: Good job. Your brevity was almost startling in the midst of some of these errant rambles.

Strangest scene: An ex-president's departure aboard Marine One has never seemed so startling. Everyone else could wind down and enjoy the party, but not the ex. Just an hour out of office, Bush was banished, it's as if he was not just going to Texas but was going into exile. The chopper made a slow, sad pass around the capitol, and that was that.

Okay, America, no more pleas for fealty or forgiveness. President says, "Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America." So keep the cannons at bay, and let's come down off this mountain top and get to work. It's time we turned those tanks into tractors.

Flying Out of the Valley of Despair

2009-01-19T21:21:00.000-08:00

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation....

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

"Mommy, my plane turned into a boat!"

2009-01-16T23:23:00.000-08:00

It's not a miracle when good things happen, and the pilot of the US Airways flight that landed (or "crashed") into the Hudson yesterday would be the first to say so. We do the best with the circumstances we've got, and having two minutes to make a big left hand turn and ease it straight down a big handy river turned out to be a very, very good thing.

It is nice -- it is inspiring -- to see so many perform so well -- and to see so many so happy. Cut and bruised and COLD, but happy, beaming glad to be alive and to see so many others alive, too.

In some ways, we NEED tests, perhaps even tragedies. Humans are happier with a few well-meaning life and death challenges -- not hate, not war, not animosity, not premeditated violence. But things happen, and it is good to see some of us jump in to do the best we can with what we've got.

We NEED tough times to bring out our "better angels."

And we need "heroes" who didn't ask for it -- and some who did.

We have been absolutely hungry for heroes.

And it seems 2009 might be a good year for them.

Surf's up.

The Race We Want

2009-01-14T14:14:00.000-08:00

Here's a new angle on globalization.

As Star Trek and other pillars of Sci-Fi have suggested for decades, we're inevitably headed toward a global melting pot and perhaps even an interstellar melting pot. As long as people can travel and intermix and share cultural traits (probably starting with food and ending with a mind-melded rather secular religion), we can't help it. Globalization R Us.

And here's one clue:

When we look at people, what we seem to prefer is a moderate skin color. George Hamilton aside, we seem to prefer darker whites (it's called tanned) and lighter blacks (it's called multicultural).

It's that Brazilian cafe au lait that is probably considered the world's sexiest skin color. Neither the Norwegians nor the Nigerians come close to the global appeal of coffee with cream.

Seems this mix is practical as well, desired and potentially accepted everywhere, not so dark as to cook and not so light as to be extremely prone to skin cancer.

And so, let the mixing continue. Let's get on with it, so that we can become one race and get over this tribal, ancient, petty squabbling.

And the globe now knows we have the ultimate poster child for this meeting of the skins. He's the one looking up from the word HOPE.

Obama: Thank John Edwards

2009-01-13T18:49:00.000-08:00

The first analyses of Barack Obama's victory are now being published, and more are being written. Some time back, at this blog, I wrote about a few people who helped the most to get Obama elected, including Colin Powell, George W. Bush and David Axelrod. But I left out one man who, inadvertently, might have helped more than any other.

And that man is John Edwards. Barack Obama might ought to thank Edwards for staying in the race, a strong and attractive candidate, through the Iowa caucuses.

January 4th, Edwards took a strong second to Obama in Iowa. Edwards had also taken second (to Kerry) in 2004. Edwards was familiar to the caucus goers in Iowa, and through two election cycles, he remained hugely popular there.

Edwards later succumbed to scandal (and wasn't even invited to the convention), but before that, he was instrumental in taking out the two biggest Pre-Obama Democratic Party rock stars of the century: Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton.

As much as Edwards tried to be the populist "change" candidate and cover his bases by showing substantial alignment with Obama, Edwards' voters remained more culturally similar to Clinton's voters.

In Iowa, Edwards helped split the two biggest voting blocks: the white vote and the status quo vote. His strong second gave Hillary a mighty shock, and Howard Dean knew all about that.

That gave Obama the opening he needed. Surely, Obama went into Iowa thinking he might well come in second to Hillary, but as in 2004, Edwards was there to deliver the surprise.

And early momentum is a huge thing, a monumental advantage. The 2008 election -- and history -- took it's amazing turn to Obama out on the prairie, January 4th, thanks to John Edwards. And as much as anything, that is why we are where we are today.

We'd like to think, in the pre-inaugural glow millions and perhaps billions are now enjoying, that it's all ordained, in hindsight, that we are fulfilling our destiny, that this was always how it was meant to be, that America's goodness is stamped in stone -- that Obama's rise to seeming invincibility and bipartisan (and multiracial) popularity is not just a dream, that it is our due. But it is often circumstances such as Edwards' strong showing last January that change the course of our political and national fortunes.

Wish List

2008-12-17T19:19:00.000-08:00

Okay O Man and/or Santa, World Peace, but also...

...A subscription to The New Yorker.

...A subscription to Harper's.

...A Specialized San Francisco Globe 1 (silver single speed) or, preferably, 3 (midnight blue 8-speed) bicycle. Size 17.5 inch/medium.

...Gold (one of the few 'hedge funds' I care to trust). Any form will do. Best: bricks.

...Car repairs (crunchy steering, broken window, engine light mystery, oil change, inspection sticker).

...Car insurance.

...Health insurance (bonus points for possibly saving my life).

...Airline tickets.

...Train tickets.

...A good old-fashioned cash for debt installment (and my de facto lenders will thank you, too).

...Bills PAID. Wow, what a concept.

...Something from the nearly 700 things on my Amazon wish list.

...A grown-up sized tooth fairy with deep pockets.

...Meds.

...Greens.

...Nuts.

...Champagne.

...An REI shopping spree.

... A National Parks annual pass.

...Jetboil backpacker stove.

...Steripen Adventurer water purifier.

...Black wool top coat to the knee, 38S.

...Anything I can resell on eBay.

...A rebirth of freedom.

...Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

...A good home for polar bears (and other animals at the top of the food chain).

...A great date.

...A charming romance.

...Another great date.

...The Love of My Life...

...And then comes Valentine's.

XO SantO... LOrenzO Elf

'Tis the Season

2008-12-16T18:37:00.000-08:00

'Tis the Season...

Not for driving fast.

Not for buying a bunch of stuff.

Not for settling scores.

Not for an eye for an eye.

Not for noise.

Not for blockbusters.

Not for malls.

'Tis a wonderful life.

Delicacy.

Grace.

Calm.

Quality time.

Peace.

Love, love, love.

"Slumdog Millionaire"

2008-12-15T13:36:00.000-08:00

Go see "Slumdog Millionaire on the big screen, so you can enjoy the SIZE of the soundtrack and the memorable compositions of COLOR.

Without having seen any of the other contenders, yet, I would bet right now that "Slumdog Millionaire" will win many awards, including the Oscar for Best Picture.

I was enthralled with the visuals and the soundtrack throughout, and oh what a PRIZE Frieda Pinto is!

"SM" has loads of intriguing chronological leaps and jumps which add to the suspense. And the craft of this film: above and beyond direction, cinematography and lighting -- the colors! I'll remember the colors most of all, along with the scenery and the gritty views of Mumbai -- even more than I'll remember the often torturous twists and turns of the main characters. This movie is being billed as 'a poor "slumdog" gets on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" to win the heart of a girl.' In the early ads, the movie sounds light and uplifting, but let's just say the road to that train station is rough, frought with real world peril.

A gorgeous film. I'm off to buy the soundtrack.

"Milk" & "Fuel"

2008-12-12T11:53:00.000-08:00

I just had a back to back movie day, thanks to friends Raul and Sandy. Not exactly a double feature since we had to drive from one theater to another, squeezing in a quick dinner in between.

In the afternoon, we saw "Milk" which will, no doubt, earn Sean Penn many award nominations. I do believe that he is the finest actor of our times. "Milk" is certainly well-made, and the twin themes of, on the one hand, acceptance/inclusion/HOPE and, on the other hand, discomfort and dread (since we know where we're going in this biopic) are ripe for our times. We do ask ourselves, how accurate and depthy or idealized is this portrayal of Harvey Milk? At the same time, we can't help but be swept up in his rise to heroic stature. Josh Brolin seems to be everywhere these days, and his characters always seem to have their finger on the button. I recommend "Milk" as a must see film of 2008.

"Fuel" is a cross between "An Inconvenient Truth," "The Eleventh Hour" and the playful documentaries of Michael "Sicko" Moore and Morgan "Super Size Me" Spurlock. "Fuel" is not at all a one man show (celebs include Sheryl Crow and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.), but the film does revolve around the temperament and the fossil and cooking oil fueled ramblings of a new young filmmaker, Josh Tickell. Tickell was present at our screening of the film, along with his number one fan, his mother, who worked the audience like crazy to support the film and help it find a wider audience.

There is more hope in this film than in most environmental explorations. And there are real solutions for change (CHANGE and HOPE being such big words these days).

"Fuel" won an audience award at Sundance and is racking up other awards as well, though I would say it's chances of wider release will be hurt by it's two hour twenty minute length. The film urgently needs to be cut by half an hour to come in well under two hours, and I said so at the screening. But if I get the chance, I will definitely watch this one again. And if you get the chance, definitely see "Fuel" however you can, and like Josh's mom, work your friends like crazy to see it as well.

Bailout Sellout

2008-12-11T09:37:00.000-08:00

Congressional Republicans are mostly right about this one: there are not enough reforms written into the Big Three bailout bills offered up so far. Real innovation is needed, and so far, it's all bass ackwards. Demand the changes first, then issue loans with plenty of strings attached.

The car companies should not be allowed to continue lobbying in Washington AT ALL. End lobbying for any business seeking either a bailout or bankruptcy protection. It is the strong lobbying efforts of the Big Three and the United Auto Workers union that have lead to much of this trouble (thus making Congress itself a part of the problem for being suckers to -- and sucking up to -- the lobbyists for decades).

The car companies should not be allowed to make certain wasteful, poorly designed private vehicles at all. Start with the Hummer and other cars that get less than 15 mpg , real symbols of America's decline. Cut these immediately. End production by December 31st. And starting in two years, add just about any car that gets less than 25 mpg to the hit list. Produce no more sub 25 mpg cars after 12-31-10. Don't just hope that CAFE standards are met by fleets overall. Specifically outlaw gas guzzlers, including gargantuan RVs. We can't dig ourselves out of this mess by continuing to drive dinosaurs.

And the car makers in dire straits should applaud the implementation of higher gas taxes, to keep the price of gasoline near half the current minimum wage per gallon (which would currently be about $3.50/gallon). If cigarettes can be taxed at dollars per pack, certainly we can tax gasoline at a dollar a gallon. The additional federal revenue would be used to clean up this mess.

My Crush on Caroline

2008-12-05T08:39:00.001-08:00

Very few crushes last a lifetime, but so far, so good.

Caroline Kennedy and I are about the same age. (I was born November 23, 1957 in Schenectady, New York. She was born just four days later about 200 miles down the Hudson in New York City.) Except for a loving husband, three children, and a seemingly settled family life, she's perfect for me. And she always was.

I always thought she was so cute as a kid -- and lovely as a young lady. And now, she's been a vetting insider for Obama and talked with NY governor Patterson about replacing Hillary in the Senate, potentially taking over a seat her uncle R.F.K. held around the time I first became really aware of his niece.

This is perfect for Caroline, considered, among all of the higher profile Kennedys, an unlikely politician. The good news for her (and for us, even, after the two years of campaigning just past) is that she would not have to run for the job. That is what she probably would not want to do: be a CANDIDATE.

But ACCEPT the office, I think she would, and I hope she will.

I am still in love with her looks, her grace, her reserve, and the narrative thread of hope and high ideals her family has brought to American politics for 60 years. Not naive, not too eager, just right.

Caroline's been waiting in the wings and now has a great chance to join her family's historic fight for justice.

And the Obama White House would have yet another connection to Camelot.

Big Three, I Repeat

2008-12-04T20:45:00.001-08:00

You American car companies spent millions of dollars lobbying against increasing fuel efficiency standards and other incentives to modernize/diversify/reduce the size of your dinosaurs.

So not a dime for you. For decades, you have spent fortunes working against progress.

Now of course Toyota also lobbied against the higher fuel efficiency standards (more so than did Honda, btw). But neither Toyota nor Honda are asking for a taxpayer bail out. They're doing OK because they have stylish, reliable, efficient, forward-thinking models to fall back on as their truck and SUV sales plummet as well.

And even if gasoline goes to a buck a gallon again for a while, there are billions fewer barrels of the stuff every day. As a species, we are burning it up about as fast as we can.

What a waste.

Re In Car Nation?

2008-12-02T10:31:00.000-08:00

The CEO of Ford says he'll work for a buck. And the CEO's of Chrysler and GM are saying the same thing. Great. That'll buy them each a half gallon of gas and keep them from flying not only in private jets but from flying at all. Even in America, rich beggars are ugly. Those guys need to do more sitting in their driveways or walking to work, as it is.

But still, a dollar a year for the three heads of Motown is just a rather empty, symbolic gesture. These companies have thousands of upper management guys who don't want to suffer for any reason, symbolic or otherwise. But obviously, these dinosaur makers all need to take a cut, from top to bottom, yes CEO to janitor. How about starting with 15% across the board? I mean, it is a recession, and for collars blue and white, a "decent" job is better than no job.

Then, anyone making over $200,000 a year takes another 15% cut in pay, effective immediately, long before any taxpayer bailout cash comes in. Everyone, and no one gets a raise for at least two years. Show some backbone. Show some dedication (besides greed) to making these antiquated automobiles.

Toyota and Honda and BMW are not so top-heavy in top brass. Their management to labor ratios are considerably better than those of "the big three." Toyota, Honda and BMW are not asking for a bailout. They're already building better cars than the competition. And isn't capitalism based on the premise that competition (among well-run companies) brings us the best products for the money?

Any bailout money comes from hundreds of thousands of American taxpayers who earn a heck of a lot less than $200,000 or even $80,000 a year. No way should the lower middle class pay for the bloated salaries and the audacious righteousness of the rich.

Hillary Around the World

2008-12-01T15:17:00.000-08:00

When I first heard of President-elect Obama's interest in having Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, I was kind of nervous and more than a bit skeptical, but now it seems to make a lot of sense.

At first, I was concerned about the loss of so many senators and congressmen at one time, but it seems even good replacements were considered in the mix. Obama, Biden, and Clinton leave good choices to the governors of their states. (But what about taking Governor Napolitano out of Arizona? Unless she really is the best person for the job, that really does seem a loss. The executive branch can only pilfer so much.)

Even after his shaky testimony to the U.N., I still miss Colin Powell, and this time around, I wanted Al Gore for State. I still do. But Hillary has the fame and the fire power to be really good at it, especially if, beyond the "call to serve," she really wants the job. It is a plum, and post the less than fluid tenure of Condi Rice, Senator Clinton could bring a lot of esteem to State and to diplomacy around the world. Send her forth.

****

In an aside, I am still concerned that, even after his strategic resusitation of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean may be shut out of the Obama administration. Dean's still my second-favorite politician these days, and surely, as with Rahm Emanuel, there's a place for the rambunctious Dean to do good. Too bad he can't take Hillary's seat in the Senate.

CHANGE I Could Believe In

2008-11-19T14:35:00.000-08:00

John Podesta wrote to me today, asking that I give my advice to Carol Browner and the Obama transition team on energy and environment. Gosh, Mr. Podesta, I'd be honored.

Here's what I said:

Well, energy and environment team, brace yourselves for some basic truth: humans waste whatever is cheap and seemingly plentiful (and cook the planet in the process). And so I am alarmed to see the sudden recent decrease in gasoline prices, as millions will quickly revert to their old ways, thinking we can waste again and put off the future for months or years to come.

BUT cheap gas prices give the incoming administration a prime opportunity to raise the taxes on gasoline. This would bring in billions in revenue which could be put directly toward environmental clean-up and development of alternative energy sources. Fifty cents more a gallon seems about right. Twenty cents right away, especially if gasoline prices are still under $3 next spring. As long as gasoline is cheap, I feel there is very little reason to hope we can stave off the climate catastrophes caused by waste and pollution.

(And the even bigger picture: Population reduction is also key to our long-term quality of life, including that of the environment on which we depend, but that seems to be a topic off the political table for the time being. A reduction in population, through lower birth rates and attrition, would be a CHANGE I could really believe in.)

And what a thrill it was and still is: the countdown to victory

2008-11-14T11:58:00.000-08:00

There's a nice little piece on CNN.com today about all the videos made of the CNN countdown on election night, including mention of a blog at Blogger that is collecting as many videos as it can from around the country and even around the world. The CNN article is here, and the blog with all the inspiring videos, some of which still give me chills and a tear, is called countdowntovictory. (At the countdown blog site, I can especially recommend the video from Norman, Oklahoma -- talk about a RED state -- which starts out even rowdier than most but which leads to a poignant ending.)

CNN asked for comments, and here is mine:

That night, I was fortunate to be in a room of about 60-70 Obama fans just outside Kerrville, Texas, in a county whose voters went almost 80% for the straight GOP ticket. We shouted out the count down as well and went nuts, a bunch of old folks, old white folks, senior citizens mostly, with a few blacks and Hispanics and youngish people in the crowd. We all just went nuts, and seeing the videos still gives me chills.

In the tough times ahead, my hope is that President Obama will be able to help bring us together with his persistent message of inclusiveness and the power of his speaking. The CNN countdown and, an hour later, the introduction of the cheerfully smiling and waving Obama family and (as President-elect for the first time) Obama's masterful speech in Grant Park will live on as one of the greatest, proudest moments in American history -- even decades, perhaps centuries from now -- and we knew that and felt that the night of November 4th, 2008.

2012 is (already) the new 2008

2008-11-13T16:44:00.000-08:00

I swear there are more articles right now about who's running in 2012 than about the substance of the "CHANGE" 60-something million of us just sweated blood to promote and vote for.

Throngs are fascinated with the broken record that is Sarah Palin, so confused she's both bashing and fawning over a guy who is still more than two months away from even taking office.

And now we learn that Romney and Huckabee, sort of like Laurel and Hardy, are already heading to Iowa to stir things up for four years from now, which, as we know, is really, just about a year and a half from now, since the next horse race contenders are starting as soon as they take off their tuxes and ball gowns after the 2009 innaugural balls.

And this is the way the media want it: the horse race is more compelling to more people than the boilerplate, nuts and bolts of policy and governance.

We are a people who seem fairly willing to dumb ourselves down.

Secretary of State: Why not Gore?

2008-11-12T11:05:00.000-08:00

I've said it before: why not Gore?

Okay, now maybe Al Gore really IS, as he likes to say, "a recovering politician," but if there is ANY chance he'd actually like a calling card to the world that's got some panache and power behind it (to go along with his Nobel Prize), that also in some notable ways goes above and beyond parochial and provincial politics, then State is Gore country.

It seems he's pretty much already been vetted not only by top level, super secret security (Mr. VP) but also by the popular vote. And Gore's got the experience and, frankly, the fame, to really make the job rock.

Eight years out, as with Colin Powell eight years ago, Al Gore's got transcendental stature.

I think most Americans would be quite proud to send Mr. Gore abroad, and I think the world would be not only proud but eager to receive him.

And so as before: why not Gore?

W. doesn't stand for Wolves

2008-11-11T07:05:00.000-08:00

Even as George W. and Laura Bush seemed to so graciously host the Obamas yesterday at the White House, the Bush administration is trying to wreak more havoc on the national lands and wildlife we own. Dick Cheney's just itching to get his gun out again as soon as the coast is clear and he can crawl out of his secret bunker, and I'm sure he wants his brave friends to be along for the hunt. For Bush and Co. 'til the last day, it's all risky business as usual. They smile as they stick the knife in.

The move is afoot (yes, again) to delist wolves in and around Yellowstone and elsewhere so that they can be not just controlled but aggressively hunted. It seems to me we humans have hunted wolves just about enough.

The NRDC is asking for citizens to respond. You can visit the NRDC to find out more and to send a customizable letter to Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne.

I threw out the standard, formal letter and wrote this:

Greetings Mr. Secretary,

I hope that the Bush administration and the Department of Interior under your guidance will not run out the clock with shameful setbacks for wolves and for the people of the United States. Sure, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of hunters in the Rockies who would love to hunt wolves, but there are MILLIONS of Americans who own the national parks and national lands of this country and who want to see those wolves prosper, multiply, and expand their natural ranges with the protections for which we have repeatedly and urgently and insistently asked.

Please do what is best for wolves and for millions of Americans.

Thank you, Lawrence Walker

Change.gov

2008-11-10T16:19:00.001-08:00

As you may know, within 24 hours of winning the election last Tuesday, the Obama staff put up the new website change.gov, currently subtitles "office of the president-elect," but I am sure to be updated as Senator Obama and his savvy staff come online for real January 20th.

Change.gov, there's never been anything like it. Especially in a transitional period by an incoming president-elect. The site gives links to Obama administration news, government jobs and a way to share your own thoughts and stories. Thus, this is already an important step, symbolically at least, in bringing the people back into government. We, the People, will have more of a voice than we've had in a long, long time.

Here's what I posted to the "tell us your story" link at change.gov today:

In 2008, I was the outreach coordinator for the Obama campaign in Kerr County Texas. I hosted and participated in Obama events in a half dozen counties, and a few of us die-hards helped WIN Kerr County for Obama in the Texas primary, one of only a few "rural" Texas counties that went for Obama. I am especially proud of that.

In 2003-2004, I volunteered for the Dean campaign in Texas, Iowa and New Hampshire, and as we now know, Dean's exciting model for a hip, modern, tech-savvy, internet-based appeal AND, more recently, Dean's 50 state strategy as chairman of the DNC really helped set the stage and the "ground game" for an Obama victory last Tuesday.

There are millions of us former "Deaniacs" who would LOVE to see Dr. Dean in the Obama cabinet, probably as the head of Human Health and Services. The doctor is IN again!

Thank you, Dr. Dean and the DNC. And thank you to Barack Obama. And thank you to the president-elect's entire campaign staff and administration for CHANGE to be!

These things we know

2008-11-07T06:10:00.000-08:00

We know that unfettered capitalism is based on the desire for relentless growth, which is like suburban sprawl, which is like a cancer.

We know that we have a worldwide human population explosion and that most people lust for wanton affluence.

We know we have 100 million more Americans than we can possibly sustain.

We know that technology competes with the need for, stability and sustainability of human jobs and natural resources.

We know that we have many more people than we have truly valuable work to do (millions more have just been scraping by serving and selling stuff to the excessive population).

We know that nature rules. And that nature has so many checks and balances that it is never based on permanent growth or the need for permanent growth.

We live within a system. People seem to ignore and resist and resent the limits of nature, its delicacy and its richness and its value.

The greed and profligacy of human beings: costly.

The planet Earth: priceless.

Who understands capitalism?

2008-11-06T16:37:00.000-08:00

IMHO (In My Humble Opinion), it seems to me, I would say, may I ever so meekly suggest, when it comes to capitalism, there are no experts. Certainly no long-term experts.

Those who pass themselves off as "economists" and (gosh) "experts" and even those accepted as demi-gods of green (yes sir, you know who I am talking about, Mr. Greenspan), just know how to MAKE money for some specific sector of investors, often, by chance, friends and acquaintances within their own socio-economic group.

Beyond that, their theories and models are vague at best, naive and ruinous at worst. And we are seeing some of the middle-bad to worser about now.

Berny, the Fed Chairman, an expert on the Great Depression, is helping to bring on another one, and the Secretary of Treasury is scrambling, at best.

When it comes to capitalism, the "experts" are almost universally on the side of investors, the "trickle down" boys who toy with others' money.

Greenspan (he's back!) now says he was wrong and is now surprised at how things have gone. Secretary Paulson, attempting to be the architect of fixing things he helped break by being so blindsided, is flailing in the dark. You just watch: he'll scramble many times to come up with a "bail out" plan that actually flies past Congress (much less works).

So who really knows how all this greed can really work long-term for the people and the finite limits of the earth?

Nature rules, not the Fed.

Obama owes much to these five people

2008-11-05T20:20:00.000-08:00

As with anyone who achieves anything big, Barack Obama owes his success to many. Surely, from Frederick Douglas to Martin Luther King to his own farflung family, historical figures matter. But there are a few of Obama's contemporaries without whom his move to the White House could not have happened. I'll name five: George W. Bush, Jesse Jackson, Oprah Winfrey, Colin Powell, and David Axelrod.

Let us realize that Obama might never have won this election without its coming on the heels of a stridently divisive and exceptionally destructive administration, and so, with deep irony, Obama owes his victory to the slovenly administration of the Bush league most of all.

Jesse Jackson twice ran an articulate, profound and very popular campaign for president with a compelling slogan and inspiring rallies nationwide. Jackson showed that, from a political candidate, the cadences of gospel churches could resonate with millions of Americans of every region and ethnic orientation. And Jackson showed what not to do as well: not to be too much of a preacher -- or to be too closely aligned with one.

Oprah Winfrey, the most influential and admired woman in the United States, has made more gains for the mainstreaming of blacks than anyone else, as she morphed from entertainer, from specialist to generalist, and onward, upward to become the female soul of the nation. Oprah is the soul at the center of America. And her early endorsement of Obama was a big thing and helped him loom larger than Hillary in the primaries.

Colin Powell is the male version of Oprah, an abiding American soul but with a uniform and a cabinet post, military intelligence and the masculine calmness in calamity we want from a leader. Powell's elegance transcended partisanship, showed it could be done, that a black man could look great at the top.

Every politician depends on a sidekick who compliments and constructs the drive behind his quest. For Clinton, that was James Carville. For Bush, that was Karl Rove. And for Obama, that is David Axelrod. As each says, they find their association compelling as they share a kindred world view. Axelrod is and will continue to be Obama's right hand champion. From Obama's early days on the south side of Chicago, we all owe a lot to David Axelrod, architect of the ambitious arc of the next president of the United States.

President-elect Obama

2008-11-04T23:57:00.001-08:00

A beautiful revitalization of American democracy.

An honorable concession for McCain.

A beautiful scene in Chicago, a beautiful speech from the President-elect.

Hope, at last, for progressives, pays off.

We voted against militarism, empire, deregulation, deceit. We voted for diplomacy, for friendship, for steadfastness, for honesty, for peace, for multi-lateralism, for multiculturalism, for the planet.

The electorate looks toward a more realistic, more integrated, more worldly, more cooperative future.

Tonight, all things considered, America lived up to its promise.

Tonight, America rejoined the world.

Cheap gas? What's this?

2008-10-30T16:27:00.000-07:00

A disturbing trend: gas prices are coming down. And fast. I paid $4.39.9 in Wyoming in September and $2.19.9 in Texas yesterday. This does not make me happy. Instead, I am chagrined (with a background sense of dread).

It makes the whole futures/gambling commodities system seem like a drunken spree in Vegas. I wish Vegas would stay in Vegas and not be the rule of capitalism worldwide.

Let's face it, Human Nature, we get away with whatever we can get away with.

We make up some blather about country and community and global this and that and "saving the world" (OK, a few of us still gush about that last one), but mostly, we prove by our actions every day that we are in this for ourselves.

And so we will burn cheap gas like it's an infinite resource -- and isn't cooking the planet and polluting our lungs and wrecking our children's future prospects.

We NEED reasonably priced gas, maybe even sort of expensive gas.

We've got to do whatever it takes to value the stuff, even if it means pain in the pocketbook. Better pain there than a bad case of lung cancer and a few polar bears in zoos. Because pretty soon after that, it might be a big die off for our own species. Cooking the planet can do that to you.

Governor Pain: A gift to world progress

2008-10-29T13:52:00.001-07:00

By choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain has done more good for the Democrats than anyone else alive, except perhaps the congresswomen from California and Hillary and Barack.

Sarah Palin has done more to doom Republican success this election year than any other conservative. And she is even causing deep distress within the GOP, causing a split between the increasingly alienated, anti-intellectual, faith-based fundamentalists and the confused, slightly libertarian "moderates" of the party.

I wouldn't want to be a moderate in America today. Even what is called a moderate in this country is a person who is notably backward thinking, trickle down believing by world standards.

According to some campaign staffers, Governor Palin has the nickname "Governor Pain." She's gone off the reservation, and let's hope she goes off the deep end soon, so that we don't have to hear much about her a year from now, much less four years from now.

And a PRESIDENT Sarah Palin?

Can you say "When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth"?

****

Obama, American rising

2008-10-28T21:02:00.000-07:00

Millions of Americans and millions of people around the world are already feeling it, that the rise of Barack Obama to presidential candidate and, probably it now seems, to the presidency, is just super news for the whole wide world.

Colin Powell said it best: "transformational."

Transformational and, tough as it may be, much of that transformation for the good.

So please be pleased. This is one giant leap for a man, one giant leap for mankind.

Who better to show that we, yes we here, are all in this together?

Thank you, Americans who have supported this campaign, and thanks to those of you who will come to appreciate the goodness here.

Michelle Obama was right: I have never been so proud of my country as I am in the closing days of this campaign. And I trust that, tough as times may be, Barack Obama will rise to the challenge and make for a better world.

Our cup may not runneth over, but it feels now like it may just be half full after all.

Cheap gas: BAD

2008-10-27T17:13:00.000-07:00

It's human nature.

If something is expensive, it's valued highly. If it's cheap, it can be squandered, wasted, thrown away, ignored.

And so the price of gasoline needs to be high. It's really the only way to accomplish any of our goals of cleaning up the planet and not cooking life off the Earth.

Cheap gas is a travesty. Cheap gas and (horrors) coal are suicide.

It's human nature: we burn the stuff according to how much it costs a gallon (or liter).

And so, as the price of gasoline comes down, the government should raise the taxes per gallon -- and not lower those taxes ever again. .Why lower the taxes on a finite resource? It's not like they're making more of the stuff.

And so it should be part of the "change" our country seems to be hungering for, IF INDEED it is hungering for REAL change. It is in our best self-interest to keep gasoline somewhat expensive, say $4.00/gallon in the current economy. And the government should make sure it costs at least that much. Better the government take in extra revenue through taxes to help counter and clean up the disastrous mess the burning of fossil fuels costs us in terms of health and human welfare than for the oil companies to profit from plundering a natural resource that truly belongs to all of us. Oil is or should be public property, not available for plunder by private companies.

Yes, that's socialism at it's best, and your children would be a lot better off if we had a lot more of it.

Caribou Barbie decides fate of the world

2008-10-23T09:15:00.000-07:00

Right about now, two things are amazing:

1. That We the People of the more or less United States of America will elect a half-black half-white man with an African-sounding name President. How cool is that?

2. That the race is as close as it is, even with the infamous governor of Alaska on the ticket.

Just think if John McCain had made a really good, manly war room choice, say Chuck Hagel or even Mitt Romney, or best of all, I think, Tom Ridge. This thing might be in the bag for the GOP, and then where would we be? Back in the dark ages.

The suavely skirted Caribou Barbie (and her lucky-for-us likeness to Tina Fey) may save us from that, save us from our regressive recent reputation, save us from the deadly and dim chapter of recent history through which we might survive, even if the polar bears and the beaches of Florida don't.

Perhaps a thank you to Her Alaskan Cuteness will be in order.

Thank you, Sarah Palin, for saving the free world!

(And a wink-wink to Tina, too.)

****

[This message brought to you by a member of the Elite Media.]

Real Americans: Defined !

2008-10-22T11:59:00.001-07:00

Okay, here it is, the definition of a Real American:

A Real American is... an American citizen.

That's it.

That all there is to it.

Just show your citizenship, and you, too, can be a Real American!

Barack Obama: Presidential candidate, role model

2008-10-20T20:01:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama is already teaching me how to behave in better ways.

As he does, consistently, I will make my case with honor. With fortitude, without insinuating fear or envy or other emotions to become central to any discussion. Obama shows us the difference between debate and argument, between being petty and being better than that.

In the old days, I was the angry young man, and now, John McCain is the angry old man. Not that I have anything against age, but young or old, anger, flustered, blinking, grasping, cat and mouse anger, is not the way to go -- at any age.

Anger can be a game changer, but it is never a winner. Note the difference.

Obama, on the other hand, is already a role model: Be consistent. Be fair. Be calm. Resist being rattled by attacks. Stand your ground, firmly but with grace.

A leader of any kind, a winner of any kind, needs firmness and grace, grit and gratitude, collected thoughts and calmness, and not the control of others as much as self-control, for it is self-control, with honor, that is how the game is played when the game is played to win in a virtuous way.

The October surprise: Joe the Plummer? No, Joe the Anti-Socialist

2008-10-17T12:40:00.000-07:00

There it is, where we least expect it, the October surprise.

Turns out it's Joe the Plummer, the Willie Horton of 2008. Specifically, it's one word that Joe introduced into our national kitchen table conversation: socialist.

Joe was a prominent McCain accomplice in Wednesday night's final debate, but now the use of that footage and anti-"socialist" sentiment is turning dangerous for progressives everywhere and possibly for the Obama-Biden campaign as well.

But only because so many of the American people are boobs. Bring up the word "socialist", and you'd think the nation was overrun with sociopaths.

Capitalism might be America's religion, but our government has for over a century been some version of democratic socialism, some versions (the Roosevelts' Teddy and Franklin, Kennedy's, Nixon's, Carter's) a bit more socialistic than others (Hoover's, Reagan's, the Bushes' George and George).

NASA is socialism. Head Start is socialism. The Interstate Highway System is socialism. The FDA and EPA are socialism. Every public building and public program and public park is socialism. Subsidies of any sort, whether for crops or cars, is socialism. It's not a scary thing. It is actually the basis of what we expect government to do: make useful, safe and beneficial for the citizens all the competing and disparate private interests in the nation (and around the world).

It's like communism coming from the word "community" and the verb "to commune", to come together. Socialism is social, a good thing: as in "for the greater good of all." Socialism is about protecting and providing for society at large. Socialism is better than anti-socialism, don't you think? But still, Americans have this childish neurosis about foreign/enemy-sounding words. Socialism is not to be confused with communism, much less totalitarianism. Most socialist societies are even more democratic than the United States, and we do love the idea of democracy, don't we, at least the idea of it? Democracy means coming together for the greater good, and the greater good is socialism's highest and greatest calling.

As in, "We the People..."

Barack Obama is already teaching me more about how to live

2008-10-16T19:03:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama is a contemporary of mine, and his towering personality is already impressing itself upon me.

He is teaching me things, if one wants respect and influence, about how to behave well.

Barack Obama is becoming a mentor of mine.

His cool collectedness is wearing off on me.

His steadfastness is becoming a rock I can use for myself and within myself. I am already more steadfast myself.

Draw your lines and stick to them.

When it comes to strength, don't go erratic.

And don't go dramatic.

Save drama for play, for family, for fun. When there is work to do, put on your game face and get it done.

Sure, be eloquent, be electric, but don't be a short fuse.

Be potential energy. Don't shoot off, and when the going gets really tough, don't show off.

Be firm but smile.

But don't smile too much.

Or be too firm.

Be pliable and encompassing yet with clear eyes on the prize.

I am in awe of the man, and I predict that no better man will ever be president in my lifetime, though I hope there will be other towering greats on down the road.

Tapped out

2008-10-14T18:52:00.000-07:00

What is all the complicated mystery to this "financial crisis?"

No mystery. We're tapped out.

Except for the billion-plus dollars of contributions we willfully sent to the political campaigns, which may, if we are lucky and fortunate and careful and at least a little bit humble be the best investment we ever made.

And I do mean EVER.

Besides all that credit card generosity, we're pretty much tapped out.

How could we borrow forever? Reagan showed us the way, but it seems it could only last about... oh... say... 28 years.

When the party is over it's got to be paid for.

And we're paying now.

And we will pay. We'll pay.

Economic Downturn? No way

2008-10-13T11:15:00.000-07:00

Since when should we value our credit rating more than our savings account?

This is not a crash of the "real economy." This is merely a crash of credit.

The "real economy" makes real things that we actually need.

So don't listen to that bull about needing all the credit that is currently built into the system. Surely, both we borrowers and those risk-taking banks can get by borrowing less than we have been, than they have been. It's not the stuff we need that will go away. It's some of the stuff we don't need, the junk that has piled up and polluted our lives.

This bloated, trumped up, adrenaline-crazed, gambling, ravenous-for-credit, hedonistic, unchecked, relatively unregulated economy we have been living in was always destined to at least recede, if not crash. How could the value of houses or loans or loaves of bread go up forever? How could anyone be so naive as to think we had beaten back greed and put it in its place at the same time we were being so greedy ourselves?

People are wondering now about taking extra jobs, selling their stuff on eBay, making ends meet? I think that talk of "putting food on the table" is campaign talk, and people buy it. There are thousands who go hungry in this country, perhaps even a few million, but food is not what is at risk here. It is the ravenous, gluttonous, immodest, wanton American dream of everything and more.

MORE. We've been living on the MORE wagon so long, that just buying what we need seems a sure sign of impoverishment. But it is really our culture which has become impoverished, much more than we the people, citizens of the most gluttonous country on Earth.

So suck it up, and keep what you need most in mind.

Palin goes to the debate camp dog house

2008-09-29T09:18:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin is off to the McCain's creekside retreat in Arizona for an intensive debate camp... and she's bringing her husband and kids? What, to play in the house while the McCains are away? To play in the creek? To bone up on sex ed and dinosaurs? To help grill her on pressing policy points?

Joe Biden is at home for his own debate camp. I suppose his family is around, but he doesn't really have as much remedial homework to do. I mean, he's met with the Georgian president twice lately, once in Georgia (Athens, I think, or was it Savannah) and once in New York near the U.N., a place Sarah Palin saw for the first time in person last week. She and Katie Couric took a nice stroll in the plaza there, you may recall.

Meanwhile, David Letterman and Jon Stewart are having field days with all of this, but believe you me, they can come up with plenty of funny things to say even if the Obama-Biden ticket wins. So please don't make it any easier for them by voting for McCain-Palin. Palin might be a barrel of anxious laughs, of the stomach-turning sort, but McCain, he ain't funny.

Since Reagan left office, the GOP has become the party of high anxiety. Higher still after Poppy retired, and higher and higher, as of late, as they front for the Cheney & Co. gestapo. No wonder they use fear tactics to get what they want, effectively black-mailing the shaky electorate. And no wonder they're SUCH sore losers.

Like buddy boy Bush, McCain's all bluster about "winning with honor" (and don't use the word "lose"). Okay, let's see if he can 'let this one go' with honor. Time to clear out kids, grand pap is coming home.

Round one: debate bites

2008-09-26T23:23:00.000-07:00

Wonk: Obama.

Storyteller: McCain.

Expanding: Obama.

Shrinking: McCain.

Chivalrous: Obama.

Wincing: McCain.

Deftly even-handed: Lehrer.

Dodged questions: Obama and McCain.

Petty: McCain.

Pedantic: Obama.

Professorial: neither.

High school vice-principal with a grudge: McCain.

Hit the "four more years" target: Obama.

Hit the "naive and dangerous" target: McCain.

Nixon: McCain.

Kennedy: Obama.

Lehrer: Lehrer.

Aggie Attila the Hun (offstage): Bush.

Aggie Hamlet's father (offstage): Poppy.

Collegiate debate team: Obama.

High school debate team: McCain.

Reliant on the 20th Century: McCain.

Reliant on the 21st Century: Obama.

Red-state power dresser: Cindy McCain

Chicago hottie: Michelle.

Head coaching staff: handlers.

Wingmen: Biden and Leiberman.

Blockers: Biden and FOX NEWS.

Center: McCain.

Quarterback: Obama.

Passed the ball: Obama.

Fumbled the ball: McCain.

Decent ground game: McCain.

Decent end game: Obama.

Best candidate for VP: Lehrer.

McCain & Palin: ready for the high school debate team?

2008-09-25T21:34:00.000-07:00

Debate is a good exercise because it forces one to organize both incoming and outgoing information, to stay on message, and to distill complicated and confounding scenarios into digestible statements.

In a debate, as in government, more than one thing at a time is going on: Each debater is listening to the actual question of the moderator, listening to the actual answer of his or her opponent AND at the same time composing three answers on each front: first, the truthful straight talk answer, second the answer the audience would like to hear, and third, the answer which strategically can best win debate points.

John McCain may or may not debate Friday night, but he has already blinked so badly that Obama can't help but win now. Obama knows that a president has to stare down messes and multitudes -- and not blink.

And Sarah Palin: she might want to read up on the Bush Doctrine, for starters. I'd recommend the handy explanation available at Wikipedia. From what we have seen in her interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric, her performance in a debate will effectively end McCain's chances of winning the election.

And he knows it.

He didn't know it before because he didn't even know her before.

But he knows it now. His aides are telling him it's finished.

And stall as he might, he can't buy enough time to pull this one out.

I predict he'll retire from the Senate at the end of his current term.

And Sarah Palin will never again mean much outside the state of Alaska.

Paulson & Bernanke: snake oil salesmen

2008-09-24T09:35:00.000-07:00

We certainly are having a crisis in this country, and it is based simply on these two things:

1. Too many people want too much credit.

And 2. The government itself depends on too much credit.

That's it.

Today, on Capitol Hill, Ben Bernanke is saying that the current woes are having a 'ripple effect throughout the economy' and that this is restricting the consumers' ability to get credit.

Isn't that what the financial system should be doing, placing more restraint on credit? It seems the time is ripe to restrict some credit, all around, not just for those who can't "afford" it. The entrepreneurial and the affluent think they can still "afford" more credit. 'Let the suckers eat cake,' they imply, not: we're all in this together. We aren't really upwardly mobile if it's mostly based on borrowing. That's just a house of cards and a nation in a shambles.

The rich make their money off those high interest rates and defaults and write-offs. They are getting anxious that they won't be able to so easily keep feeding off their deflating, downscaling, depression-prone neighbors.

The American Empire used to be based on good old-fashioned imperialism. Now it's just based on buying stuff we can't afford. The crisis is not that the poor or middle class are squeezed but that finally even the rich can't afford to keep up with the pace of their ravenous desires.

That's what's really got Paulson and Bernanke and the White House and country club Republicans in a tizzy.

Wall Street loaded for bear

2008-09-22T19:07:00.000-07:00

It's as if Wall Street/the NYSE is a gun pointed at our heads.

It is as if we are being held hostage by a bunch of powerful and rich people who know each other, who hedge their bets and who, when they screw up, get their friends in high places to bail them out.

And the gun is pointed at us, even those of us who never bought a share of stock, much less a whole house.

Let the bunglers in high places eat the crumbs.

Congress: don't give in to this "clean and quick" grab for cash.

Lessons for the GOP

2008-09-19T11:19:00.000-07:00

The GOP does well when it chooses a smooth talking populist (Eisenhower, Reagan) or a scrappy bulldog with a checkered past (Nixon, Bush). McCain has certainly had a checkered past, and he sure seemed scrappy enough of a bulldog back in the '90s.

The party thought McCain was that bulldog this round, since the smooth talking Romney came off as a rather rootless shoe salesman, not a populist, and the smooth talking Huckabee came across as a preacher nut selling some strange brand of 19th century snake oil.

So they were stuck with bulldog McCain, sort of a known unknown.

But it turns out, McCain has gotten old in the eight years since 2000 (when he announced his first run, he was 63, now he's 72), and so has his ability to dish out some straight talk geriatrified. Now, these days McCain makes Bob Dole seem smooth.

American voters have always preferred elite money and upper crustedness to elite education and expertise, but maybe, just maybe, competence and the smarter, more agile man will win this time.

Good odds: Howard Dean for Human Health & Services

2008-09-01T16:36:00.000-07:00

I've been saying this for months, and I think our chances are getting better:

Howard Dean will retire, as he has said he will, after one term as chairman of the DNC in January -- and be appointed to a position in the Obama cabinet. Most appropriate, of course, would be heading Human Health and Services.

The doctor will be IN AGAIN!

Still a Deaniac after all these years.

We need some Democratic attack dogs, and along with Rahm Emanuel, the doctor, the original "democratic wing of the Democratic party" governator, Howard Dean, is still, rhetorically, hell-fire and brimstone but with the old-fashioned, flinty Yankee chutzpah to back it up, just about the best we've got.

"Clean and articulate": Biden passes muster

2008-08-23T11:28:00.000-07:00

YES, a first-ever and thus unique Saturday post on A Better Nation! Must be big news! And according to an e-mail I got at 4:15 AM, it is, well, good news at least.

So it's Joe Biden for VP, and what a relief. There is only one person who would have better for the job, Al Gore, and apparently he didn't make himself available. I do think that if Gore had accepted, the Obama/Gore ticket would have won by a landslide.

The Obama/Biden ticket will be more of a squeaker, but hey, no terrible baggage here, and that's where my take comes in.

I was a fan of Biden's twenty years ago, when he first ran for president. Back then, his tan was even better, and he had a dashing flair (his famous or infamous loquaciousness) that the tight-faced, stolid Dukakis lacked. Like Bill Clinton, he's gone on too long, but the import of higher office (that and speech writers) can fix that.

We'll probably enjoy his mix of gravitas and good cheer. Americans will see that the guy likes his job, something neither McCain nor any of his cohorts exhibit. Come to think of it, perhaps Gore would have still been too stiff, too officious and have had too much baggage to get down and grab the hearts, minds and votes of the base.

One gaff keeps coming up: Biden's comment last year that Obama is "clean and articulate." Perhaps you can draw racial overtones from this, as so many have, but consider this: Clean can mean 'no abominable ties to churches, thugs, corporations, controversy, mistresses, etc., etc.' And articulate: Some in the Senate are articulate, and some are not. This is not a racial slur, it seems to me, but a compliment. Obama is well-spoken. That's what that means. Take it at face value. I think Obama himself did.

And thus Joe gets a big chair at the table. Welcome, Joe!

Dear CNN & CNN.com

2008-08-21T08:24:00.000-07:00

I've sent this comment to CNN:

I find it inappropriate for CNN and CNN.com to suggest that the opinions of talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are newsworthy, much less news. These are not impartial experts. They are rabble rousers, and it does CNN's viewership and readership a disservice to report their intentionally skewed and hyped opinions.

"Camp Codependence"

2008-08-01T09:53:00.000-07:00

Some people, many of whom are parents, just can't get enough of a bad thing. And some are so fixated on what they can get out of life for themselves and their upwardly mobile offspring that they see pampering as a right. They see doting not as a loving and occasional pleasure, used in moderation, but as a duty, a constant duty, probably because they fear losing status.

Judith Warner wrote today in the New York Times about summer camps that cater to the super spoiled, both kids and parents. It's an insightful article that raises questions about our society and American culture at large. Please see the article, "Camp Codependence."

And here is my response:

Perhaps it is NOT out of "love" that parents desire and demand such pampering, protections and special treatment. It may be overly generous to say that such parents parent out of love. Some are no more altruistic than the for-profit camps; they're acting out shark behavior to raise more sharks, not a loving matter but a Darwinian struggle for prestige and power.

In general, across all classes, Americans are raised to compete much more than they are encouraged to cooperate, yet cooperation seems to be the antidote to this sort of society.

Ask: what is simple? What is low maintenance? What is low stress? What helps the most people involved in a situation or with providing and partaking of a service? That is altruism, a sort of ethic much closer to real love, if we agree that "real love" is patient and accepting and tolerant and nurturing -- and gives sensibly and wisely, without considering what it might receive.

Lovin' under 60

2008-07-04T08:43:00.000-07:00

Senator John Warner has reintroduced the idea (not a bill) of reducing the national speed limit, and that takes some political courage. There were no good reasons for lifting the speed limit from 55 in 1995, and I still consider it a strike against Bill Clinton's record. 55 had proven to be a success for 20 years as a law we could live with, in more ways than one.

Here's what I added to a forum at CNN on Senator Warner's act of prudent patriotism:

55 has always made sense for saving money, saving lives and conserving a non-renewable resource. Speeds under 60 remarkably lower pollution levels and reduce driving stress. To say otherwise suggests that impatience and waste are virtues, but we all know they're not. I recently took a long road trip never cruising above 60, and it seemed to me some other drivers were easing off on the pedal as well, more aware this summer of how much pushing down and pushing forward was costing them. Bring back 55, or at best, compromise at 60. Even as a Texan with a long way to go, I loved it then and will love it again.

Free gas!

2008-07-03T09:29:00.000-07:00

OK, so I just got home Monday from a 4,650 mile road trip from west of Austin to Washington, DC, Pittsburgh, PA, and back. I never cruised above 62 and sometimes kept it just below 60 for long stretches. Let's figure I squeezed 25 miles per gallon out of that Chrysler mini van. That's 186 gallons of gas. At $4/gallon, that trip cost me $744 in gas alone.

The irony of it all: I took this trip to run a 350 mile bicycle tour for a dozen people, five of whom drove almost the same distance in two midsized sport utes and seven of whom flew round trip. Just think of all that fossil fuel to run an eight-day bike tour. We could never pedal far enough to make up the carbon footprint.

But the bottom line is: every day we don't drive, the gasoline in our own cars is free. And if we keep our driving to, say, just 10 miles a day, then a big yuppie beverage in a styrofoam cup costs more.

Make Independence Day a driveless, independence-from-cars day, and your gas is free.

Cheering on $5 gasoline

2008-07-02T10:00:00.000-07:00

In an e-mail today from Frances Beineke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), members are asked to write to Congress asking that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other sensitive potential oil fields be protected. But the president brings in the high price of gasoline as a way to motivate would-be letter writers to act.

Here is what I wrote to the NRDC Action team:

Hello NRDC,

I have received Frances' letter asking us to write Congress asking the save ANWR. But she says high oil prices are a major problem. Evidence shows that high oil prices are the only thing that, in a major way and quickly, WILL get us to reduce our use of fossil fuels. In other words, in the short term, we NEED high fuel prices to reverse pollution, global warming and related concerns. I want the NRDC to be brave enough to say that oil and gasoline have been too cheap for too long and that we should welcome high oil prices and high fossil fuel prices in general (including natural gas and coal as well) and ask that, as in Europe, the U.S. government put additional taxes on the oil companies and on retail gasoline to raise the price per gallon even more. (As in Europe, the additional taxes would go toward developing and making more affordable cleaner fuel sources and technologies. Now THAT is progress!)

If human nature is any guide (and is there any other?), we can't have it both ways: we can't have cheap gas and genuine conservation. We can't have cheap gas and clean air or cheap gas and widespread efficiency. If fossil fuel is cheap, we will waste it. If it is expensive, we will conserve it, decrease our consumption and value it accordingly as a precious resource not to be squandered.

I challenge the NRDC to not participate in the hypocrisy of asking for cheap fossil fuels. I would like to hear from Francis or another NRDC representative regarding this fallacy.

Thanks very much,
Lawrence Walker
Kerrville, Texas

$4 gas? How about $8 gas?

2008-06-06T08:58:00.000-07:00

Oil doesn't grow on trees.

Not $10/barrel oil, not $138/barrel oil.

Three things:

1. Stop your whining, especially if you had kids. Where do you think the increased demand came from?

2. Politicians, stop your pandering. There is never a bad time to implement a carbon tax. Show some guts.

3. Ever heard of the profit motive? Let's all remember that, in this capitalist system, the oil companies are not in this as a public service. They are there to make billions of dollars in profit. Love it or change it.

When I was a teenager in the early '70s, the planet had two billion fewer people than it has now. But I saw rampant growth all around me. Wide open Texas? Maybe on a stretch of highway between Midland and Marfa, but I grew up in Dallas, at the time the eighth largest city in the United States, and in every direction, I saw the prairie going under. I saw the suburbs steamroll the "wide open" with asphalt and sprawling houses.

We always knew this was coming: $4 gasoline 30 years later seems cheap. Now, $5 will start to seem expensive, and $6 will actually make a difference. But we know that $10 gasoline is coming, relative to income and the U.S. dollar. We know it's coming. We just don't know when. Oil is like diamonds, except oil is not a girl's best friend, and oil is not forever. You can get by in life with one modest diamond. One. Try that with a tank of gasoline. And yet, every day, there are millions of barrels less oil on Earth than there were the day before. When it comes to oil, gone is gone (except that it hangs in the air and thus in our bodies as a waste product, biting us in the asthma and the atmosphere).

We need expensive oil and pricey gas to get us to grow up and stop behaving like spoiled brats. The problem is that very few people are getting rich off all this. It is time for the governments of the world to conserve and protect our precious natural resources.

Especially when those resources are priceless.

Has the time come for a U.S. Department of Peace?

2008-06-05T13:34:00.000-07:00

A bill has been introduced into the U. S. House of Representatives (HR 808) calling for the formation of a national Department of Peace and Nonviolence. It would work on non-violent solutions for our national and international woes, from domestic violence and abuse to the staving off of wars, especially, one would hope, those deemed preemptive and thus started by our own government.

U.S. Representative and erstwhile presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) often proposed a Dept. of Peace and got laughed at, but perhaps he was prescient. As with the formation of the Department of Energy in the 1970s, such things come to be when a dire need is felt far and wide. Perhaps one legacy of the Bush/McCain/CIA/traditional American interventionist "police the world" doctrine will be the institutionalizing of some antidotes to the messages we send and the sheer horror and havoc we wreak with military might and war.

The American powers that be are quite macho, and so the Department of Peace probably sounds too wishy-washy to them, too girlie. Maybe such a department needs a different and alas more "practical" (manly), bricks-and-mortar name, such as the Department of, say, Civil Affairs, since civility is, by its very nature, peaceful.

Or how about the Department of Civic Responsibility? That of course implies that we, the citizens, "We, the People," are responsible for governing ourselves according to someone else's definition of what responsibility is -- always a dangerous thing to suggest. (We vote to give responsibility away, not keep it for ourselves. Millions would rather complain about the White House or Washington than look in the mirror.)

The crux of the problem, especially in the U.S., is that we are taught to be MORE competitive than cooperative. I think that is at the heart of the matter. As a culture, if we taught and demonstrated that cooperation is better than competition, we might actually get some place. That is the future of human evolution. For millions of years, we (and our animal ancestors) have shown what competition can do. I think it's high time we give peace (I mean cooperation) a chance.

As good as she was

2008-06-04T13:55:00.000-07:00

As good as she was, Hillary Clinton could not help but represent the past, conventional thinking and even the status quo. In the wake of two Georges Bush and her own husband, and in contrast to Barack Obama, she could seem a steely "fighter," but she could not seem like the change agent for which so many millions clamor.

Historically, the U.S. Senate has not been a ripe launching pad for presidents or presidential campaigns. The senate has had some great orators but few members who capture the imaginations of millions, much less a majority of Americans. And Hillary is, we can tell, however capable, a senatorial type. She is a policy wonk, which is not a bad thing. It's a lot better thing than being incompetent or being from the CIA or the military or the minor leagues. But we've got radar on wonks when what we want is a head of state, when what we want is a two-term monarch, a suave and gallant symbol to lord over our national and worldly prospects.

Hillary suffered the same fate of so many senators who have run for president (and look where they are today, back where they belong). She ran as a capable senator, and that is not enough. She ran as a woman, and that is not enough. And she ran, in her worst moments, as Bill's wife and as a former First Lady, and that is not nearly enough. She ran on all she had.

Meanwhile, had he waited another term or two, Barack Obama would have been forced to run as a senator, as well, perhaps an "experienced" and even "senior" senator, as a committee chairman and accomplisher of legislative daring do, but a sitting senator with the clock ticking and a paper trail a decade long. He knew that to run as that sweeping, shining symbol, to be in millions of voters' eyes that gifted, suavely superhuman, blessed monarch we imagine, he'd have to run soon, run once, run now, and run with everything he had.

Cross-voters

2008-06-03T20:17:00.000-07:00

There's been a lot of talk about cross-voters. Supposedly, about a fifth of those who voted for Senator Clinton say they would vote not for Senator Obama but for Senator McCain in the fall.

Are they nuts? How could one person stomach the policies of both Clinton and McCain? Is that racism? Or confusion? Or just insanity? It does seem to support the notion that a sizable minority of the electorate is irrational.

But frankly, irrational or not, I wouldn't worry that Obama's impending nominee status will bleed the Democrats and progressive independents of votes. Just think how many right-wingers are shuffling around and threatening to flee the maverick McCain. Middle of the roaders find a spicy appeal in a maverick or so-called maverick. But ultra-conservatives think a speck of whole-grain in the white bread is sacrilege. If he continues to waffle shifty-eyed a la Pappy Bush, McCain will cost the conservatives plenty. Personal health aside, his unsteady vision thing will cause fractures all over the right side of the electorate -- and perhaps even cause a few red states to turn blue. ("It's the economy, stupid,"rings true again, and only a terrorist attack in the U.S. could change that.)

McCain is starting to make Bob Dole seem like presidential material. Or even Pappy. No wonder the right-wingers liked Reagan so much. He's the only one of them who ever made the past look so good.

Meanwhile, as we speak tonight, farewell Hillary, hello Hope.

Veeps Sweeps

2008-05-23T10:46:00.000-07:00

Every four years, I love playing the VP Sweepstakes.

And so the talk is now being walked, if not paraded just yet. You know McCain is bar-b-queing for his buddy ups before having serious sit downs. And Obama? Obama has to wait until he can figure out how to, at once, knock Hillary out AND win her over (her and her millions of loyal and even rabid fans).

Since he can't pick Hillary, McCain (yes, John McCain) would do well to pick...

... Bill Richardson as his running mate. Yep, do the cool crossover thing and put a real dent in the Democrats. McCain might have picked Kerry in 2000, and Kerry seriously considered McCain in 2004, and so a crossover is not out of the question. It's just unlikely. A neighborly Arizona-New Mexico alliance, and Richardson could bring both experience, youth and a darker shade of skin to the Republican side.

Chuck Hagel? A friend and a tough, manly campaigner, also a maverick. For two gray-white guys, they'd make a strong team.

You know, there just aren't that many quality Republican guys around these days. Who would be his best match? Sandra Day O'Connor, but then that is sticking to Sun City a bit much. Newt, back from academic purgatory? Mitt is chomping at the bit, and he is an ingratiating shoe salesman. McCain probably doesn't think much of him and dreads seeing his name so high on the list, right above monkey man Huckabee, who would be cool. I vote for Huckabee to bring the most to the ticket, if a daring crossover is out of the question and Margaret Thatcher turns down the offer.

OK, Obama actually has it easier than McCain does this round. The way I see it, he's got a top three right now, without all this vetting and circling the wagons. Currently, Al Gore tops my list. He's the only person on Earth better for the ticket than Hillary Clinton. She's a runner up in every way to the former VP who knows how to do the job better than anybody.

And then, a few guys deserve honorable mention: Bill Richardson again, though he is a fuddy duddy on the campaign trail, he does have the cred and could bring along some Hispanics, if Hispanics actually matter enough to bring not popular votes but Electoral College votes. Remember, this is all about, not us, We the People, but they, the SUPER SUPER delegates, the Electoral College (and let's hope not the Supreme Court this time). And so the fourth and only other top candidate, I'd say, for Obama, is Ed Rendell, governor of Pennsylvania. Rendell might put PA in the electoral bag, and he's got clout with the blue collar throngs Obama needs to carry him over the top.

Gotta LUV DAH BUS!

2008-05-15T16:18:00.001-07:00

OK, so not that many of us ride the bus much, but hey, you heard it here first: trains, bikes and BUSES are the future.

Whether near or far, buses are a pretty cool way to go. And you'll be proud if you ride the bus.

Each year, I tend to ride the bus at least a few times. One of those trips tends to be a 1500+ mile, 48+ hour or so trip from Texas to Montana or Texas to Ohio or Minnesota or some such far flung place. And yeah, that can become tiresome. And it's true, going Greyhound can seem a truly UN professional and even Third World experience these days. Make note that Mexico has better buses than we do. Brazil has better buses than we do. They're not just for the marginalized underclasses there.

Last week, in NYC, when the subway wasn't going where I wanted or needed to go, I rode the bus, and I was proud to be on that bus! But don't wait to visit the Big Apple. There's a bus near you!

Perhaps you'll this first here at ABN: Trains, bikes and buses are the future. Yep, the future. Think $6.299 gas. We've seen the fiddling while the world burns. Think Finite Resources. And in the future, buses won't be so bad. Indeed, they'll be better.

So near or far, take the bus, and be proud!

The woman I'm not looking for

2008-05-14T09:11:00.000-07:00

A friend wrote asking, basically, how my love life was going.

"Was" is the appropriate tense of the verb here, as my quixotic love life seems to be a thing of yore, relegated to the past. But then perhaps that is because I may have experimented enough for one grand and storied lifetime. Or... or the nature of the experiment has changed, morphed into something more internal, more calm, more patient, more self-assured.

Which just goes to show that most people should probably NOT get hitched until they are past 35 or 40, at least. You can't know what you want until you know yourself. The more variables there are, the more dynamism, the more there is to know, and the more you are aware of the nuances and the cul de sacs, the longer it takes.

My friend had written to say she was glad to have her boyfriend, though, as I see it, their ties are tenuous, their communication, much less dedication, often obtuse, even absent or obfuscated. I know that we are all limited in different ways, and he comes close to satisfying some of her basic desires. She said he veered from feeling weak and withdrawn to "being the jovial prankster."

I did write back to my friend, and here are a few paragraphs, here revised, from that letter:

I really like that phrase: "the jovial prankster."

I think all the most interesting guys (myself included, of course) go back and forth between melancholia and being the jovial prankster. From "life of the party" to "contemplative" at best, "melancholic" at worst. Not as far flung as bipolar. Bipolar would be the extreme version. Something less extreme is best, of course. Of course most men are not particularly contemplative, at least not articulately so. So no wonder women wonder about them. Men crave virile strength and something to hunt or fix, then the down time to rest up for the next big kill. Pushing papers or shuffling stuff around doesn't bring out the best in any one.

As me right now, I am not inspired or motivated to jump in and do the work. I am drawn to those who are both witty and gracefully self-assured. But many seeking a partner seem rather edgy and reveal resentment and even anger issues, which, in anyone, seem not the best choices of attitude. We all know the radar on "needy." Well, there is also radar on bitter.

We owe ourselves grace and peace, and that's more important than anything we might think anyone ELSE owes us. We owe ourselves our own good behavior, which is based on patience and peace and a lack of competition or expectation, much less guilt and painful fear or fretting.

I don't think I need to experiment with women any more (meaning dabble in a relationship that clearly has limitations or discomfort, much less potential animosity).

Meanwhile, I do know the kind of woman with whom I'd like to share some quality time: She is above all compassionate (without being slovenly sentimental). She is empathetic yet intellectual, alternately sassy and soothing, also lyrical, even literary. She risks flippancy and deep concern. She is witty, wily, and worldly (a passionate and wise citizen of the globe, aware of and engaged in the world, not overly domesticated, nor decidedly parochial or provincial or patriotic). She is Aware with a capital A and yet still sees dashing Absurdity (also with a capital A) as the sparkling and stellar antidote. Seize the day, seize the precious ironies and the scope of human drama, woeful and wonderful.

Carpe Godot.

I think keeping my eyes open and seeing those around me, but not looking, not seeking, is the best way to go, for now.

Howard Dean pitches the series

2008-04-28T07:42:00.000-07:00

The haranguing continues regarding how the Democrats will get out of 'this mess' of a primary season. I will say again that the primaries are a mess, thanks to party rules and state impatience and greed, but Howard Dean had nothing to do with making this "mess." He's umping the game, but he didn't invent the game or make up the rules.

And why do so many consider this such a "mess" anyway? The timing is a mess. The order of states is a mess, some haphazard, some stuck in a decades old rut. But the close contest is not a mess. Close contests are not disasters or defeat. They are what competitive democracy is all about.

Since when is a World Series that goes deep into the 7th game a mess? Since when is a Super Bowl that's won in the last few seconds of the game a mess? Since when is democracy not about getting the most votes possible in the most primaries possible?

Dean is right on. The primaries end June 3rd. The votes will all be counted (we hope accurately), and then what will count most? I believe it will be the popular vote which will hold sway, as that is the measure of every vote cast in the five months of the primary season.

Howard Dean didn't create these rules and arrangements. Rules and steering committees in the Democratic Party established the ground rules long ago. The candidates know the rules, and they also know strategy. After June 3rd, it will be up to the two of them together to come to terms they can accept. To Dean, it is Party Rules of Order and a little bit school principal and pitching out a few fast balls. To the candidates, it's high stakes blackjack and the bottom of the 9th.

Dean, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore and others have been wise to wait until after June 3rd to say much more than they have already said. For another five weeks, let the voters have their say.

Farewell Hillary, Hello Bill

2008-03-27T08:31:00.000-07:00

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows Hillary Clinton's popularity dropping significantly, even in the midst and in the wake of the Obama/Rev. Wright debacle. Not good news for Hillary, whose chances now seem very slim. Even a win in PA, unless a landslide (defined as 60+% of the vote), cannot save her campaign now.

I would have to count myself among those whose regard for the New York Senator has dropped. She's proven herself Old School, and I don't want Old School. She may be on the right side, and her politics are perhaps capable, but they're not attractive. She's not got the air of high statesmanship. She's a wonk in the trenches, and that is where she needs to be. She will, after her run, thrive as a notorious and increasingly powerful Senator, a la Ted Kennedy, until she retires.

As long as Clinton has been running for office, I have wanted nothing to do with her husband, Bill. He's been a pain. But that could change.

If Senator Clinton were to win the presidency, Bill's presence, and even more so any actual involvement, would be seen as cronyism. We'd never hear the end of speculation and investigations into his role in a Hillary White House (which should, like wedding dresses for second and subsequent marriages, be repainted off-white, if not yellow or pink).

But if Senator Obama were to win the presidency, any involvement by Bill would be seen as resourceful team-building, as reaching out, as a la Martha Stewart cleaning house, a good thing.

And so let's hear it for some positive team-building.

And the good news for Hillary: with the end of her push to be president, her negatives will sink, and her positives will go up. Her slightly martyred and slightly heroic stature will rise and stabilize.

The 55th Governor of the State of New York

2008-03-17T20:34:00.000-07:00

David Paterson may not be the light at the end of the tunnel for New York, but he is at least a light in the tunnel, a significant, symbolic, inspirational, comforting light (irony perhaps intended for the blind and yet hardly disabled man from Harlem). He is, especially in contrast to the fire and brimstone that preceded him, a beacon of hope, of some reconciliation, if not outright peace. And Paterson's reaching out, his deft touch and his very welcomed tone, encompassing and non-threatening, bode well for what might happen in New York and elsewhere, even on a national and global scale if we elect politicians who want to serve the people, as in all of the people.

Welcome, David Paterson.

Bush wins Brown Thumb Award

2008-03-14T10:39:00.000-07:00

Well, as if there were any doubt, this is the clincher: The EPA comes out with tougher standards for air quality in 20 years, and at the last minute, the White House and President Bush kneecap the deal. MSNBC posts the AP story here.

Two days ago, some of us were thinking things were looking up. Some presidents, desperate to put a more positive "legacy" spin on their final years in office, sometimes do some encouraging things, things which run counter to their generally corrupt corporate/good ol' boy favoritism.

I was even about to blog on the idea that Bush might pull out his best year yet, though that would not be saying much. The man hasn't really had a good year, I'll bet, since he somehow snared Laura to be his lucky wife or way back when he was yucking it up at Yale.

The man does not have a gold thumb for business, a gold star for good behavior, or even a tin star for the law. And he certainly doesn't have a green thumb for the Earth or anything growing on it. More like a Halliburton-steeped/Brown & Root Brown Thumb.

By undermining the EPA, Mr. Bush proves he is an enemy of our health and well-being. His bitter legacy is cynical, insulting, snide, poisonous, noxious, toxic. Surely, there must be a law -- or should be -- to stop such wanton destruction, such woeful corruption.

Corporate greed may be public enemy number one, but Mr. Bush, you are number two.

And therein, Mr. Bush, can be found your Brown Thumb.

Cynical Predictions

2008-03-11T11:00:00.000-07:00

Crystal ball, March 2008:

The Dems' "dream ticket" will prove naive.

American forces will come closer to capturing Osama bin Laden, and if they can nab the main man, they'll do it in October.

Dick Cheney will, with gravitas and a grave air, endorse John McCain for president.

Barack Obama will make sure his VP choice is a Pentagon pal, strong on defense, perhaps Wesley Clark.

Hillary Clinton will choose a very masculine and "experienced" running mate, perhaps Wesley Clark.

Profits for the weapons builders and warmongering corps will continue to rise, even as the American Dream tanks.

In other words, the domestic dreams of this country will fall further victim to the goals of empire.

And glossy ads will work hard to keep us from harping too much on our downfall.

The economic stimulus will pale compared to the printing of money and the bailing out of banks.

Spending will drive the middle class, even in recession, and saving will become something only the rich actually do.

Entertainment will continue its march as biggest business in the world, especially if we consider the slings and arrows of war to be just another thrill ride, just another necessary cost of doing business.

Cah-ching.

The Medium is the Monster, Part 2

2008-03-10T07:52:00.000-07:00

The more that comes out about Hillary Clinton's "3 A. M." ad, the less likely I am to in any way support her continuing political career at any level. Within its soft yet sinister storybook implications, it is a prime product of desperation and fear-mongering. It is a deftly composed yet stodgily old-fashioned dose of anti-hope, anti-bravery. And Hillary Clinton approved this message. She said so herself.

This ad looks like one of those ads on TV for a drug, where the side-effects are summarily buried behind Utopian pictures of soft ecstasy and rampant, even rapturous pleasure, as if the only real side-effect is a world in which everyone is smiling and making even the most mundane everyday tasks child's play... all in slow motion.

Friday, I said the medium is the monster. Or I should say media, plural. The media are the monsters. And then I was referring to the media outside the campaigns. But the media hired by the campaigns are monsters of a sort as well. They, like the pharmaceutical ads, are not meant to be informative. They are drug pushers, ripe not with information but with propaganda. Anyone who forms their options or decides their vote in any way swayed by a television ad is a victim. These ads are designed to victimize voters.

And so, once again, I've got to offer up my suggestion that all political campaign ads be limited to the candidate speaking into a camera, point blank, with no voice overs, no sentimental images, no slow mo, no flags, no pep rallies, no ad agency gimmicks, whether mundane or monstrous. Just the candidate facing the viewer, face to face. And then we'd see the candidates taking more responsibility for what's out there. At least they'd be speaking every word themselves, not just signing off on the work of others.

The Medium is the Monster

2008-03-07T16:10:00.000-08:00

Now, huh?

Who's the monster?

Not Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton, compared to many candidates, is no monster.

But look at the rabid junkyard dogs of the media.

Radio. Television. Print. Web.

The media are the monsters.

The media are all over this up and down, and one could argue, they drive the negativity of the candidates, quite often. The media are absolutely rabid for the ups and downs, the stellar ascensions and tawdry downfalls, the headlines and endless/daily intrigue. AND THEY HELP MAKE THEM.

The media help escalate, exaggerate and exacerbate, even masturbate these things to a FROTH.

They're jerking off and jerking us off. For what?

For sales? For viewers? For audience share.

We're always in danger of having plenty of FREE press but very little just consideration, thorough consideration. Both politicians and journalists are now, to some extent, in the same game: sales. Promoting sound bites.

Feel free to fear not for the fate of a free press but of a market-driven press. Feel free to fear for the fate of any semblance of a healthy, progressive democracy.

Hillary is not the monster (though plenty say so at happy hour and not-so-happy hour). The drive, the DRILL TO WIN is the monster.

Have a nice weekend, and as ever, happy campaign trails!

Clinton Can't Be Serious

2008-03-06T11:27:00.000-08:00

Good lord.

Hillary Clinton is now calling, rather urgently I might add, for the results of the Florida and Michigan primaries to stand, even though the candidates agreed to not campaign in those states, and even though neither John Edwards nor Barack Obama were on the Michigan ballot.

I used to think Clinton would be a reasonably runner up to Obama. Now, no. Not with her suggesting that the results of those improperly conducted and unfairly contested primaries should have any say in the outcome.

Party and governmental officials in Florida and Michigan are themselves to blame. Surely, the voters are not to blame, as they were not in a position to insist that the two states move their primaries up the calendar, ahead of the open season for primaries, which began February 5th.

Howard Dean is not at fault. He is the good cop, having tried all along to get all 50 states to abide by the rules. Now, he's saddled with a historic mess. It's up to Michigan and Florida to fix it, at their own cost.

All of this shows how urgently we need a more reasonably, less impetuous primary calendar. The current "system" looks like bullies and babies throwing sand in the sandbox. As it is, whatever maturity is shown early on by the campaigns and the electorate is reduced to childish play by the first day of spring.

There is no reason the primaries and caucuses should be going on in January anyway. And early February even seems too early to me. Why not contract the whole thing, starting on Presidents' Day? How about if only four states get to go in February, leaving the rest to March through May? The campaigns would be less costly. The news media would have less dead time to fill with hype and dirt. The weather would be better. And, I believe, the candidates and the voters/caucus goers would be less confused, better prepared -- and better behaved.

Doing the Texas Two Step: Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the caucus

2008-03-05T20:01:00.000-08:00

Many were thinking the Texas Two Step would be a mess. A month or so ago, Senator Clinton said that, within her strategy team, 'grown men were crying over it'.

But I've survived and even thrived in my second caucus experience, and I have to say I am now an enthusiastic fan of the caucus format. It might seem like caucusing is undemocratic, that it gets in the way of 'the will of the people'. But it's face to face, it's at least a bit more personal than a voting machine, and it's social.

If some of us are unaccustomed to caucusing, then let's have more of them, not less. How about caucusing every two years?

The big draw, whether in a presidential election or midterm election cycle, would be the introduction of resolutions and perhaps even referendums to be presented to the current Congress and administration. Caucuses are our chance to become more involved in direct democracy, and given the chance to practice them more regularly, every other spring, they could become even more so. And the quality of our democracy might well improve. Or, at the very least, we could feel we have a clear chance to take responsibility for how things are going.

It is, to some extent, our alienation from the party players and the powers that be that alienate us to the process and the workings of our government and the fate of our nation. Caucusing, even for just two hours every two years, would give us a chance to connect, a chance to affirm and to offer official criticism, a chance to feel involved and perhaps even truly become involved, dedicated to the grand tasks at hand.

Some would not want that responsibility. Some would resent the implication that the citizens are responsible, to some extent, to any extent. But isn't that what John Kennedy meant when he suggested we "ask what we could do for our country." It seems that a nationally instituted caucus, available in all states, would give us a chance to both ask and offer.

That, to me, would be a better democracy, a more democratic democracy, more social, more personal, more mature -- and more hopeful.

Obama-Gore: You heard it here first

2008-03-03T19:41:00.000-08:00

Obama-Gore: You heard it here first, or maybe you didn't, I don't know. I haven't googled this speculative ticket yet.

But what a ticket.

The "experience" issue is solved. The international experience issue is solved. The global warming issue is solved. The name recognition issue for the VP is solved. The "executive" issue is solved. Laurie David and Oprah are happy. The Gore hopefuls are happy. The Obama camp counts ku. A powerhouse team is born.

Obama and Gore agree about several basic things, and the Iraq War is at the top of the list.

Everything else could be worked out. Gore would, post-Nobel, bring in Tennessee this time, an electoral advantage, and sans a noble Nader, he'd probably bring in Florida this time, too. And how about Ohio? John McCain's not gonna take Ohio (or Minnesota or Nevada) from these two.

This ticket would summarily END the Republicans' chances to win in November.

No other ticket comes close.

Obama-Gore '08.

And maybe, just maybe, you heard it here first.

Do you miss me?

2008-02-28T22:21:00.000-08:00

I'm blogging over at www.my.barackobama.com at least through the nail-bite-worthy Texas and Ohio primaries. Over there, it's called "A Better Nation: Lawrence's Blog." Check it out.

Campaign Hurdles and Rhetoric, Past, Present and Future

2008-02-26T08:46:00.000-08:00

OK, so the national primary "system" is a mess.

And the Texas backroom plotted hybrid primary AND caucus makes the national "system" look like it makes sense (especially if you look at the actual apportioning of delegates).

Hillary says grown men are weeping about it, and Jason Linkins called it the "Texas Primacaucus/Caucumary" at the Huffington Post. No wonder Will Rogers said, famously, "I'm not the member of an organized political party. I'm a Democrat." Well, it may be that the party is overly "organized", or should we say organized to the point of self-parody. Yes, absolutely, and let's not use the word sensible in the same sentence as either the primaries or the party.

Sometimes, the entrenched old-timers of the Democratic Party especially, seem not to have all their meetings to optimize cohesion and/or power but to see what mediocre bureaucrats it can attract. That is why I am truly not a member of a political party. I'm not a Democrat, can't really even stand that sort of bickering, trickle down system, it's clubbiness and, most of the time, disgruntled yet almost sedate status-quo. Change? No wonder it's got to come from a candidate like Obama, not Clinton. She's paid (and been paid) too many dues. He's of the Howard Dean School of On the Ground Insurgency. Even John Edwards, in our Facebook/My Space times, makes Barack Obama seem like a populist, a modern populist (the one we've been waiting for since the '60s). Edwards was a populist of the old-fashioned sort, and I suppose even his fans, myself included, came to see him as a product of the past, tethered to it, and we (it seems millions of us who are politically charged these days) want to be tethered to the future.

The Clintonistas are, it turns out, a lot like the Bushites: old school, top down, big donor, divide and conquer types. Hillary doesn't smoke cigars, for good reason, but she hasn't saved any breath spending so much time kissing up to the party machine, and now that there's a meltdown/showdown in her camp, it's looking a little mafioso. Meanwhile, the Howard Dean/Barack Obama political model is ascendant. In 2003, Howard Dean set the stage, and in 2007, Obama took it and ran with it, right to the top.

The big difference: Dean was a little old-fashioned and parochial himself. He wore some crusty and even angry Yankee frumpiness. He wonked from Vermont as if it were inside the Beltway. Obama is cooler, leaner, more worldly, downright international.

So from Obama, no divide and conquer rhetoric, no rhetoric of the trickle down. There is plenty of "I", but there is much more "We". The urgency is a little cultish and a little idealistic and a little fierce, but it is careful and controlled and reaching out. Bravely, it really does seem to be all encompassing. Or at least all encompassing enough, forward thinking enough. And so it is not much about yesterday. It's saying the time is now.

Lawrence Walker Goes Obama

2008-02-22T23:57:00.000-08:00

Hi friends of A Better Nation. I've created a blog over at Obama World, otherwise known as www.barackobama.com. Here's the link to my blog in Obama Land, called A Better Nation: Lawrence's Blog. I'm there in Texas, listed by my name, Lawrence Walker, member of about a dozen Obama groups, including Writers for Obama, Bloggers for Obama, Texas for Obama, Austin for Obama, Houston for Obama, and my favorite, AlamObama.

I've attended a compelling Obama Town Hall Meeting in San Antonio and an awesome nighttime rally at the Texas State Capitol in Austin, and I've created my own Obama event, The Kerrville Rally & Walk for Barack Obama, set for 4 PM, Thursday, March 28th.

I've met tens of thousands of fired up people in the cities and, gosh, dozens in the Hill Country.

Not to lose sight of the big picture: Huckabee will probably get more votes than Obama in Kerr County. It's real, status quo-shaking CHANGE or Noah's Ark.

Most people pick ancient parables over paradigm-shifting futures.

Most are focused on the grind, not greatness.

So it goes.

SPECIAL PRESIDENTS' DAY POST

2008-02-18T09:14:00.000-08:00

SPECIAL PRESIDENTS' DAY POST: on what?

Why, our pick of presidents, of course!

In yesterday's New York Times, Frank Rich wrote about how the GOP has specialized and marginalized its base and its appeal. This morning, on the homepage of most news websites, we see graphic evidence of this: 83 year old former President George H. W. Bush endorsing 71 year old Senator John McCain for president.

The GOP has become the TOG, the party of Tired Old Guys.

But then, isn't that the way it has often been? It's just never seemed THIS old because it has never BEEN this old. John McCain is the oldest candidate ever, and he looks it, even when standing beside an ex-president pushing 84.

Mike Huckabee is out there dancing around, playing guitar, and in Wisconsin yesterday, bowling for kicks, with reporters, having a blast, and saying this election is "about the future of the Republican Party." The guy's got some suave flair and even some really good things to say. Too bad he's a fan of Noah's Ark.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the old gray-haired men are speaking to the gathered klieg lights and microphones, but they still look as if they're uncomfortable unless they're sitting in the back room smoking cigars.

And this actually does matter. Old, rich and/or Republican men don't run for office to dish out freedom. They run for office to aggregate power, to pool and protect their profits.

Frank Rich says the party is of course in stark contrast this round to Barack Obama. Hillary can be seen as one of the GOB (Good Ol' Boys) and perhaps even wants to be seen as such. But Obama has really never used the insiders' cloak, not even rhetorically. He's into crossing the aisle but not making tithing, tethers and secrecy his modus operandi. (That's Clinton. That's McCain. Indeed, in this, I bet Huckabee is closer to Obama than to the other two.)

Post-Bush, circa 1992 (when the ex-president already seemed out of touch and even addled), and post-Bush II, circa this year, 2008, the writing was and is on the wall. The Republicans are entrenched in a narrow, fear-mongering, power hoarding past that will rack up millions of votes but just won't sell very well.

The senior Bush was 64 when he took office. McCain would be 72. Eight years is considerable. In just the last eight years the senior Bush's son has been in office, McCain has gone from feisty renegade to would-be retiree, past his prime, past his time. McCain is aging rapidly, and as the months go by, we may find that the old fire in McCain's belly has indeed turned to embers if not ash -- and that he campaigns about as well as he sings.

This Valentine's, give the gift that keeps on giving

2008-02-14T10:29:00.000-08:00

This Valentine's, give the gift that keeps on giving: slowness.

Yes, slowness, as slow kisses, slow goodbyes, slow eating, slow driving, slow sex, slow goodnights, slow rituals.

Sensual TV ads might have you convinced otherwise, but really, even diamonds are just trinkets of a sort, a predictable sort, however expensive. It is the delicacy of slowness that will really impress that special someone, as slowness is the essence of quality time. If you're going to go trite, then at least be funny about it. Don't think the TV ads can tell you how to be your best.

Words work. Whispers work.

What of the wonder of holding the hand of someone. And holding one's gaze, put a dollar sign on that. Box of chocolates: $12. Dinner for two: $70. Genuine affection: priceless.

Turn off the TV; real romance is free.

We've been led astray if we believe we have to ratchet up the heat, to get fired up, however fake the flames. We've missed the mark if we think we have to get all lusty, much less bawdy. We hit the bullseye is we create a moment, an hour, an evening that is steeped in time. Quality is not complicated. Quality is not often lavish. Quality doesn't have to be decadent or even opulent, if indeed it can be those things. Quality is simple: attention, compassion, gratitude. Give good attention. Show meaningful and personal compassion. And show how grateful you are.

And you're there, right in the heart of the sweet spot.

Endorsements waiting in the wings

2008-02-12T10:04:00.001-08:00

So here's a scenario: Colin Powell endorses Barack Obama.

Can't do it for some months to come, but Powell has said he has been considering all of the candidates of both parties. Even with his stature as a statesman above the fray, Powell has power.

The thing is, in this sort of celebrity-driven culture, ALL publicity is good publicity. Publicity itself is some sort of warped credibility -- as if, since she's got it, Britney Spears deserves attention. Thus, Mr. Powell's engagement with the candidates on any level matters (hence the article that brought us to this discussion). Even with one's credibility compromised or even trashed, publicity sways our attention, our values, and even our actions.

The mass of rather apolitical Americans give attention to celebrities they'd never give to anybody else. It seems we care more about Tom Cruise's religious views than we do the pope's. And lest we forget, Oprah has shown she's got more than the usual two cents to give.

And then there is Al Gore, who, like Ted Kennedy, all blogger blather aside, could help more than he might hurt. And what of Jimmy Carter? And even Walter Mondale? All political celebrities on the A-list. And John McCain has a few name-brand endorsements he'll be hoping for as well, above and beyond that of Chuck Norris.

The strangest twist might be, if Obama becomes the nominee, to see Bill Clinton red-faced, passionately stumping for Barack. By September, with just two horses left on the track, the bandwagon will be in high gear.

OK, the Conspiracy: Stimulate WHAT?

2008-02-11T22:24:00.000-08:00

Friday, I said there is a conspiracy afoot in this country, and here it is:

The economic "stimulus package" is designed not for our health but for our harm.

Short term and long term harm.

And it is money that will put millions doubly in debt. First, the government borrows the money (well over 100 billion dollars) to give to the people, a grand election-year bonus. Then, since many millions will not use the money to pay down their debts, they will, in effect, buy more not with cash but with credit.

And if not for gas bills and groceries, most of the money will go to foreign countries, exacerbating the national debt and the trade deficit. The money would be better spent, by the government itself, on bridges, parks, bike paths, air traffic control, the Peace Corps, a few hundred new, state-of-the-art high schools and tickets home for some of the troops.

You really have to question the fortitude and the ethics of elected leaders who would lead us down the path of loan sharks. Sending people a rebate check, encouraging them not to save it or even invest it but to spend it ASAP is like suggesting they snort some white powder.

Best option: cancel the whole thing. Government: just say "NO" to borrowing more money for any reason. And government, if you need money, take it out of the Pentagon's gold-lined coffers. Maybe cut down on the number of contracted mercenaries we've got padding the Pentagon's payroll.

And since this election-year scheme is the product of a majority in Congress and encouraged by the president, it is nothing less than a conspiracy to keep us consuming as fast as we can, even if what we're really doing is paying the gravedigger.

Doesn't this sort of "stimulus" just seem so adolescent and cowardly?

It's like taking Viagra for erectile dysfunction instead of just laying off. It's like smoking crack. It's like flying brooms and magic carpet rides. It's not even remotely the work of a mature nation going after the real roots of its problems. Whoever signs off on this (or thinks it is anything but a very bad idea) ought to seek out the closest AA meeting.

They (leaders like the ones we have) want us to remain complacent, vulnerable, indentured, addicted. And so even if your idiot and evil leaders think short term greed, you can think long term good.

At least use that money to pay down debt.

Closing ranks with the Bob Dole of '08

2008-02-08T21:19:00.000-08:00

In a comment to yesterday's post, reader Duane seems to be fishing for a conspiracy theory in "Circling the Wagons". I offered several rejoinders there. And now, further thoughts, as this "circling the wagons" story continues unabated:

By the weekend, Mitt Romney is out of sight, and Mike Huckabee is still being hounded to drop out of the race. Texas Governor Rick Perry and others have called on Huckabee to call it quits.

What's the theory here? Hitch your wagon to a falling star???

McCain might have been Mr. Straight Talk in 2000. That round, pre-South Carolina, Mr. McCain was a fresh and feisty campaigner. He was 63 at the time, raring to go. Now, at 71, having been beat up in that campaign and further confounded all through the eight years of Bush rule, McCain seems tired, uncomfortable, and compared to the slick and even sleek horses surrounding him in this race, even addled. As a speaker, I worry for him, he seems so out of his comfort zone. Like Bob Deer-In-The-Headlights Dole, Missing Man McCain could do little last year and can do little now but hope the nomination falls into his lap. The doldrums and despair are there, just beneath the surface of his pinched smile. Like Dole, McCain's charms and humor, previously witnessed in public, have turned to dust or been relegated to back door deals. Like Dole, his heroism is ancient history, and his resume seems stodgy, if not quite obsolete. And like Dole, I think McCain sees the writing on the wall: nice to be the nominee but no way the election is going his way.

It's difficult to win against an especially eloquent and assertive speaker, especially if you are seen as talking tentatively. Just ask those who ran against Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

Huckabee is right to say that competition is the crux of successful capitalism and that, even within the party, competition is key to a good campaign and to vibrant governance. Gotta respect him for that. Party stiffs want to move on quickly from what they see as unnecessary if not hopeless clutter to a monopoly, sort of a 'my party right or wrong' rally around a torch bearer, even if that torch bearer seems at least out of touch and at worst, crippled as a candidate. (I figure Huckabee's charm, charisma and superior straight-talk are causing many to see McCain as the fuddy-duddy he's become.)

Huckabee for the GOP and Obama for the Dems seem to be up to the mantel of current, compelling torch bearer. They're saying they can take the heat (a la "swift-boating") and even fan the flames. Meanwhile, McCain seems ready for retirement in Sun City.

Give the guy a golf cart.

Meanwhile, there ARE some serious conspiracies afoot in this country, and I'll get to some of those in Monday's post.

Circling the Wagons

2008-02-07T10:39:00.000-08:00

Win together or fall apart. With Romney's withdrawal, within hours or days, the Republicans will be circling the wagons.

Maybe fairly soon -- within hours or days or at most weeks -- it will be time for Clinton and Obama to get their wagons together as well, hitched to one star or another.

UPDATE: Later in the day, the same conservative group that heard Romney's announcement gave McCain a chance. He got cheers and boos. If only liberals would boo the middling candidates we've had to suffer for years. The left should have booed Clinton -- Bill, that is. And the left should boo Hillary Clinton as well, for ever having supported and/or financed this shameful and, yes, conspiratorial war.

I have to hand it to the far right: via talk radio and even in person, they're willing to make some noise against what they see as the white-washing of the causes they care about the most.

I can't say the left has the same gumption.

Note to Harry Reid and his ilk: politeness is not everything in politics.

Talk about white-washing: just say "NO" to candidates who have ever supported brutish, illegal imperialism, whether overt or covert.

What to do about Michigan and Florida

2008-02-06T08:52:00.000-08:00

The U.S. primary process is a mess. Both major parties have created arcane and arbitrary systems to confound even careful voters and keep party insiders running the show. Each party ought to be able to set a consistent calendar for the primaries, and that calendar, considering holidays and weather, probably ought to run from, say, Presidents' Day through April each election year, all done within ten weeks. That's plenty of time, not too early and not too late, like Goldilocks, just right.

Last year, a lot of ridiculous jockeying went on, and the DNC decided to reprimand the states of Michigan and Florida for moving things up (though somehow Iowa and New Hampshire didn't get slapped for moving their contests up three weeks, so close to New Year's some would-be Iowa caucus goers were still nursing hangovers). Even Super Tuesday had to vie with the Super Bowl for attention and hoopla.

Michigan and Florida were told in advance that their votes and delegates would not count. It asked candidates not to campaign in those states, and most did not, though Clinton went in for big fund-raising events. Edwards and Obama were not even on the ballot in Michigan.

And so the DNC owes it to the party, to the process, and to the people, as in We the People, to stick to its bargain, no matter how much it made a mess of things. Don't make an even bigger mess now.

It would be terribly unfair and a SHAME for the DNC to go back on its Florida and Michigan deal. Obama honored the DNC by not campaigning in those states, and he wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. So counting those primaries now would be a travesty, a huge injustice.

I do feel for the disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan, and as I say, I think the current haphazard primary arrangement/calendar is a mess. But the DNC should not change its deal now. Party hurdles and delegate smokescreens are already suspicious enough -- as they so often seem to confound and even counter the will of the popular vote and thus the People.

Please settle this controversy once and for all, as I'd like to wake up and respect this election in the morning.

Super Fab Feb Five

2008-02-05T23:23:00.000-08:00

And then there were... if not just two, then just a few (on each side).

But...

As of late Super Dooper Twos-Day night, it looks like we have a real race going here for the Dems.

The groundhog of primaries past, present and future predicts we're in for six more weeks of nail biting and ad smashing and stump speech tweaking and talking heads (and oh by the way bloggers) telling us what it all means.

Seems like a LOT of work to pick a president. Parliamentarian pick of the lot, anyone? Anyone?

Bush to Choose Next President

2008-02-04T08:27:00.002-08:00

So much is being said these days about Barack Obama being the John F. Kennedy of today or even of 'this generation'. In the Sunday New York Times, in an article titled "Ask Not What J.F.K. Can Do for Obama", Frank Rich says that, as candidates for the presidency, as candidates touting a lofty idealism, J.F.K. and B.H.O. share weaknesses and vulnerabilities as well as strengths and charisma.

In the midst of all the hoopla, it seems Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s endorsement of Hillary Clinton means little compared to Caroline Kennedy's endorsement of Obama. From Brother Teddy to Maria Shriver, Obama is definitely winning the endorsement war (if not, currently, the delegate war).

But besides the voting pawns near the endgame, who really decides? Who really decides earlier on? The endorsers? The delegates? How about the incumbent president.

In 1960, Kennedy's margin of victory was the slimmest ever. In 1960, Richard Nixon was the incumbent VP, as was Bush Sr. in 1988, as was Gore in 2000. When an incumbent and popular president is of the inclination and in a position to get fully behind his VP, that VP can win. But if the president is not whole-heartedly a fan of his VP, that VP stands to fall, by a razor thin margin, to the up and coming Agent of Change.

Who cost Nixon the election? President Eisenhower, that's who.

Who cost Gore the election? President Clinton, more than anyone else.

Eisenhower didn't care for Nixon. Indeed, the president considered Nixon to be a commie-baiting political mercenary, blown about by his own curmudgeonly political winds, by his own suspicions and uncertain ambitions. Had Eisenhower shown more whole-hearted support for Nixon, he could have easily made up the difference. Eisenhower chose to let Nixon go down. Kennedy won thanks more to Eisenhower than to anyone else.

The incumbent VP Bush won in 1988 because Reagan was so big and because the times were flush (and because Dukakis was such a vulnerable candidate). Reagan didn't even have to go out on a limb for the senior Bush. Such was not the case for Gore in 2000. Post Monica, President Clinton was not in a position to stand tall, much less push for his VP. The two men had had a serious falling out, not to be mended in private, much less in public. As with Eisenhower, though for different reasons, Clinton cost Gore the 2000 election.

And this year, though no sitting VP is in the race, it may well be up to President Bush to decide the fate of John McCain, his prodigal opponent and back-handed ally within the Republican party. As with Eisenhower, where's the love? And as with Clinton, the incumbent president will finish his second term deeply flawed, politically wounded and marginalized. That above all else may make the difference.

Thus, Obama might win in a fashion similar to that of Kennedy, and it will have nothing to do with the endorsement charades.

Thank you, John Edwards

2008-01-30T13:39:00.000-08:00

No, not thanks for dropping out. Edwards' dropping out of the race today seems sad but not bad. As he said, he was "stepping aside" to "to let history blaze its path." And in doing so, he called himself, if not a liberal, then at least "a proud progressive."

Now, the Democratic Party will make history with either Clinton or Obama, not another white guy, no matter how well meaning. "A man of the people" rarely wins.

And so as the dueling Clinton/Obama show leaves Edwards in its dust ups, let's keep in mind what John Edwards has doggedly stood for in this campaign:

*** Edwards has called for (and pledged to) the withdrawal of ALL combat troops from Iraq by January 2010. Clear enough? That's as close as any candidate has come to saying "get out now". (Clinton and Obama have been vague, at best, leaving the door open to extended stays.)

*** Edwards supports truly universal health care for all Americans, no matter what, with an honorable plan not dependent on employment or insurance but on citizenship. (The other candidates have not committed to ANY universal health care plan.)

*** Edwards is for the outlawing of PACs and, in many roles, lobbyists in Washington; he would decisively put the covert interests of corporations in check. (This sort of stance is true populism and brave indeed. Whether they take PAC money or not, neither Clinton nor Obama have focused on the corruption of government which corporate influence causes; they have been much more reluctant to alienate their power base. Edwards took more risks, which clearly hurt his fundraising.)

*** Last summer, Edwards offered the most sure-set agenda for curtailing and perhaps even controlling global warming and other pervasive, truly global problems. Edwards has gone on record against licensing ANY new coal and nuclear power plants. When it comes to the environment, Edwards has been the closest thing this election has seen to Gore.)

*** A relentless focus on poverty and our nation's neglect of the poor. (By comparison, Clinton and Obama move in elite and lofty circles and don't even symbolically get their jeans on and their hands dirty. Edwards, like Jimmy Carter before him, has more than once helped to build houses with Habitat for Humanity. Indeed, Edwards has in many ways been the Carter of this campaign, not the most judicious power player but the earnest and passionate "man of the people.")

And so, thank you John Edwards. Now you have the chance to prove your quest is not about lawsuit slickness or name-brand ego but about serving the people. Perhaps the next administration will offer you that chance.

Caroline, Teddy & Me

2008-01-28T13:07:00.000-08:00

Over the last few months, here at ABN, I sure have given it up for John Edwards. But those days are waning, as is Edwards' candidacy. Call this my transition period.

I tend to go for the edgy fighter, and this round with his pushing of a truly progressive agenda and his good ol' fashioned down home tone, John Edwards has been that fighter. But as we know, the edgy fighters tend to inspire passions but not primary wins. My enthusiasm for Howard Dean you know, but I've got a long history of going with the edgy fighter.

In '76, Eugene McCarthy was my first love of candidates, and he remained a hero of mine through several election cycles. Back in '76, I was anti-establishment, anti-normal, anti-government pork. Thus, Reagan was attractive, as well, in '76. I was swinging all over the red, white and blue political map. In 1980, by then seething at the ruinous Reagan revolution, I actually volunteered for and voted for the independent John Anderson. And in 1984, I was predictably a Gary Hart kinda guy. By then, we'd had a string of mild-mannered lambs, I felt, trying to carry the middling Democrats: McGovern, Carter, Mondale? I could have slept through those candidacies, with Dukakis to come. I needed more fire power, more risk.

And so John Edwards, whom I've seen as the Howard Dean of the 2008 election. And perhaps Edwards will play a role, even an inspiring and/or significant role in the politics of the future. But, as of just the last few days, I've joined the tide turning toward Barack Obama.

Caroline Kennedy, who is just a few months younger than I and on whom I've had a crush most of my life, elegantly and very simply endorsed Obama in the Sunday New York Times. And today, to much fanfare and with a commanding dose of "legacy", big Teddy endorsed Barack.

I also admire RFK, Jr, environmental lawyer for the NRDC, and he's sure edgy, getting edgier all the time (did you see his bile-spewing rant at Live Earth?), and he's supporting Hillary Clinton. Still, I think what Caroline and her "liberal lion" of an uncle have to say about Obama has won me over: we need Barack to inspire this nation and the world, in part by putting the Clintons behind us. And so now I see it: Obama IS the candidate to most inspire us to move forward. Hearing tell of the Bill Clinton skirmishes of late have had a lot to do with my shift toward Obama. It's just not the '90s, please! That's the past, and really, a lot of us want the future. The Kennedys have voiced it well: it is more about vision and inspiration than it is about resume.

I can't support Hillary Clinton because I believe she supports ongoing imperialist operations in the Middle East. And I was not a big Obama fan because, though he was against the Iraq war, he was not anti-establishment/anti-lobbyist enough for me, and I think Edwards is. But to support Obama is to go beyond the edgy/angry fringe to move the whole middle, and that 's making more and more sense to me.

Please, Barack, bring Edwards onboard in some capacity (actually, I think that is a done deal; Edwards is still in to best play the cards and deligates he's been dealt). And if Barack would like to offer Bill a prominent position in his administration, fine, but let's not have Bill living in the White House again.

Been there done that. Thank you John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Thank you John Kerry and John Edwards.

Barack here and now.

Bono, Bill, Gore, Dean, Davos

2008-01-25T19:42:00.000-08:00

Once a year, a month after Christmas, the world actually revolves not around Bethlehem or London or New York, Washington or Baghdad or Mecca, but around Davos. This is the week of the annual World Economic Forum, which draws the likes of capitalist kingpins and political rock stars -- and even some elected officials of the first tier. Also some of the most connected "independents". It's the Sundance of running planet Earth.

Bono is there (again). Bill Gates is there (again). And so is Al Gore. Gore's A-list attendance once (again) brings up the specter of a Gore candidacy back in the United States -- or at least (hey, throw us a crumb!) a Gore endorsement of someone who is actually running for something besides Tech Geek Guru Superman Savior of the World.

Well, as for the candidacy, after being elevated to Nobel Laureate status, Gore is learning to sit more comfortably on the highest of fences.

And as for the endorsement, won't happen. Gore learned his lesson by endorsing Howard Dean early in the '04 cycle (he actually busted that move way back in 2003, even before Howard made the cover of Rolling Stone).

But (again), the pundits (or some) are chattering on about the elephant in the Green Room.

And (again), here's my take, in brief, as stated today at the Cafferty Files on CNN.com:

IMAGINE: In 2000, Gore briefly considered Edwards as his running mate. I think Leiberman was a mistake (and I am certainly not alone in that). I propose that if Gore had gone with Edwards, Edwards would be running for president this year, but he would be running as the incumbent Vice President. Moral of the story: both Gore and Edwards remain important to the progressive movement, and I hope that Gore and Edwards stay in the ring, if not in the race.

Sundance? Meanwhile In Utah...

2008-01-24T08:36:00.000-08:00

This says a lot about America and, I suppose human beings in general: The Sundance Film Festival gets more attention each year than any other "news story" in Utah, probably ALL OTHER news stories in Utah COMBINED.

Meanwhile, the wild red rock and "slick rock" lands of Utah are some of the most amazing lands on Earth. And they look so weird and austere and even foreboding that you might think they were safe from plunder. But no, not as long as there are valuable minerals in them there rocks -- and underground. And so the plunder tends to go on with some vocal local outcries but very little said beyond the state itself. No Utah land story has even come close to the Yucca Mountain stage of infamy.

The national parks are fairly well protected, but the shady Bureau of Land Management seems to operate as the go-between in Purgatory. The BLM is often a lot like the Army Corps of Engineers with fewer bulldozers and ballistics techs (the modern swords in this battle), but the BLM has the almight Pen, and as we know, the Pen can be mightier than the sword, supposedly. Well, the BLM often signs away protections with the stroke of a pen, paving the way, as it were, to plunder. Bring in the dozers and dynamite!

Right now, the BLM is once again set to sell out our public lands for company-friendly song and dance. The Wilderness Society is asking that we stand for protection, not plunder, of Utah's priceless and gorgeous public lands. The Society sent out a blah-blah "I'm worried/I'm concerned" letter to send in, but I scrapped that and, one stroke more broad and blunt, got right to the point.

Here is what I wrote to BLM Director Jim Caswell:

Director Caswell, please show President Bush and his administration that there is a great deal of public support for protecting our public lands -- and only industry interests in plundering OUR land. Yes, the BLM land, too, just like the national parks, BELONGS to the American people, and yet we, the public, are often marginalized in the process of what happens to our land, even things which are harmful and permanent -- maybe especially when it comes to things which are harmful and permanent. So PLEASE do what you can to make us PROUD of the wisdom and protections the BLM is providing for US.

Thank YOU!

From Windbags to Grocery Bags

2008-01-17T09:20:00.000-08:00

We're just past the ides of January, and it seems the politicians are getting windier by the day, especially Mitt, who, like his hero Reagan, will offer up whatever silken-voiced windbag pleasantries it takes to bring on the smiles, the false hopes and the votes. Let's get back to the kind of bags we can really use every day.

The Sierra Club's Green Tips today deals with that most pervasive and telling of environmental debates. No, not nukes, not whales, not even global warming. Ah, friends, green and not so green, it's the one that precedes all those, in fact. It's the ever persistent paper, plastic or "neither" debate.

"Neither" has come to mean, ideally, "I don't need a bag, thanks." If you can carry your stuff out of the store without a bag at all, please do. Just say no to any bag. But for most, "neither" now means you've brought your own bag, and you'll be using that one instead of the store's "throwaway" bag.

But when we say "neither" and indeed use our own bag, we are still not using nothing. We're not off Scot free. There's no free lunch. The bag we bring is still made of either plastic or cotton in most cases.

Often, the thinking on this debate and the choices we make are superficial. Let's keep in mind some aspects almost always left out of stories about "throwaway" vs. "reusable" bags.

It's been said that we have lost the game (and a healthy future for ourselves and others) if we drive a car to the store and think that our choice of bags is making a significant difference. And that is true. The bag game is a game. The fossil fuel game is for keeps. Still, we make some of these smaller choices to feel we have any control at all over the challenges we face, and in that way, any little bit helps.

I use store and reusable bags, and I always refuse a bag if I can carry out my purchases by hand or in my arms. More importantly, I can walk to my grocery store and do about half the time when I need to go on days I work at home (which is sometimes weeks at a time), and I recycle all bags and everything else I can, picking up the cans and trash of others as I walk to and fron the store.

But I still consider these things:

Reusable bags are not as recyclable as paper and plastic bags. Reusable bags are often made of plastic themselves, about as much plastic as 20 (Earthwise) to 70 grocery store bags (watch out Whole Foods!). At least we can recycle most store bags, hoping they are truly recycled and hoping that that process is a net gain, meaning that it saves energy.

Many busy stores actually don't prefer people bring their own bags for two reasons: store security AND because the store's own bags are faster to fill with purchases and easier to slide out of the way at checkout.

Cotton bags are popular for being anti-plastic, but cotton is not an environmental freebie, either. It takes plenty of fertilizer and energy to produce and ship those cotton and other reusable bags to the store. (The new thin plastic bags such as Earthwise are more efficient to produce and ship.)

Now here's an irony: sometimes, "green" consumers make a special trip to shop for reusable bags or order them via mail, creating even more shipping. Also, many of us already own plenty of reusable bags (say 2-4), and so getting more, even as gifts, is overload. My sister gave me three for Christmas, and I had four already. I'd like to give some as gifts myself and might re-gift a few of these, but I'd want to be absolutely sure the recipient would regularly USE the bag. Otherwise, the reusable bag might either be clutter or get thrown away -- another irony. (To really take advantage of reusables, you've got to reuse them many, many times, and so far, reusables have not saved the stores or the consumers ANY money or resources, as the costs to produce and buy the bags and the landfill/cleanup costs for conventional throwaways are going up.)

And lately, some retailers have turned the bags into a style issue so as to jump on the bandwagon and SELL MORE BAGS. Clearly, this is about the store manufacturing something more you something you are willing to buy, even when the really "green" answer is always "less". The only real way to tread more lightly and win the green game is to do with less, including buying less stuff you might put in a bag -- and most importantly, a lot less driving to the store. Our CO2 debacle is dumped in the landfill, but is also written on the wind, and we have yet to see if any politician's rubber will really hit the road. Meanwhile, what matters most? Every gallon of gas we burn bites us in the ass. Every mile we drive counts against all of us.

It's About A Lot More Than Time: Click to See the World Clock

2008-01-16T09:29:00.000-08:00

At her blog "Warming in the Desert," here at Blogger, Denise said that Peter Russell's World Clock gave her vertigo. And I would have to agree. Please go see this thing.

Thanks Denise for putting me onto this one. Those numbers spinning give me "vertigo" as well. Or not well. In fact, I need to sit down, or it's a good thing I AM sitting down. I am sitting down, I think. And which way out of this spiraling, spinning, escalating predicament. It's a planetary pickle, for sure.

And I must remind our dear readers of one of the most profound things I heard said in 2007: "As long as the human population is increasing, NOTHING is sustainable."

And Then There Were Three

2008-01-15T20:16:00.000-08:00

Today's Michigan primary and Nevada Democratic debate effectively made both the Republican and Democratic races three person events.

Tonight's Michigan results made it a Republican One, Two, Three: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Father, that would be Comeback Senior Citizen McCain in New Hampshire. Son, that would be Mitt in Michigan. And the Holy Ghost? Why, that's Huckabee in Iowa, of course. And so it is the top three candidates, One, Two, Three.

Now, if only the Democrats would see the advantage of spreading things out like this. It's all coming down to South Carolina, really, the state in which John Edwards was born. If he doesn't win there, he is effectively out as a presidential candidate, just as Romney, the prodigal son, might have effectively been out if he'd come in a weak second tonight in his boyhood state of Michigan.

The Republicans have done what they could to sustain suspense. It would help the Democrats to do the same by voting for John Edwards in South Carolina. Nevada would be nice, but South Carolina is the Edwards firewall. We still need Edwards in the race, partly because there's a crowd over at the GOP. And no matter how many headlines they can muster, Hillary and Barack will start to look a little lonely in late January or February if it's just the two of them up there on the stage.

I watched the Democrats "debate" in Las Vegas tonight (sadly minus Kucinich, who got axed at the last minute). It's the first "debate" I've seen since 2004. And really, these things are more collective and even collaborative interviews than they are classic debates. There was more making nice tonight than there was divisiveness or even stubborn differentiation. Yet we needed all three (and Kucinich would not have hurt, which shows that the Democrats really still do need at least three candidates to carry forward their aura of diversity).

Edwards offers a gutsy, emotional call to populist arms the other two can't match. We need him to uphold the populist wing of the Democratic Party at least 'til spring.

"Recession" is not a religious term

2008-01-14T20:04:00.000-08:00

Recession?

We NEED a recession.

A recession is consistent with what we need for our long-term well being.

If consumption, pollution, sprawl, debt, extravagance, waste and inflation are the enemies of our long-term well being, then a recession is the answer to those things.

You can't have it both ways -- constant growth AND conservation.

And conservation is the basis of retaining some of what is left.

And so, as gently as we can get it, let's welcome a recession, one step in heading toward the end of rampant, wanton capitalism as we know it.

You've seen the yard signs that say "War is not the answer."

Well, clearly, as Americans seem to know it and champion it and hail it as a religion, capitalism is not the answer, either.

And so, let's enjoy this adjustment against cancerous growth. Put the reins on the spoiled. Get serious about redistributing the wealth. Recession: bring it on.

The Prodigal Father: Kerry Endorses Obama

2008-01-10T09:00:00.000-08:00

As I've said here more than once, I've been an Edwards man myself. I like the guy's pounding of the corporations, taking up the mantra, if not quite the mantel, of "corporate greed" as the root of all evil. There is a lot to be said for that line of attack. John Edwards is the Howard Dean this round.

But now, with John Kerry endorsing Barack Obama today in South Carolina, Edward's birthplace, the corporation-backed middle-of-the-roaders are taking aim at the past and further isolating Edwards. I think Edwards' new fire-branding rhetoric makes the staid yankee Kerry uncomfortable, and to boot, Edwards is not currently holding public office. He is no longer a fellow senator.

Kerry does well to choose to endorse an active senator. That's his own best power play. Edwards can't do him any favors now, and no matter what, Obama can.

Back in late 2004, Bill Clinton only reluctantly campaigned for Kerry, right at the end, and so Kerry can leave the Clintons behind with a fairly clear conscience, even if she is a senator from a neighboring state. They can work together again, if need be, as fellow senators. And now, at least for a while, Kerry gets to seem like the prodigal father, the big guy who set Obama up on the national stage, something neither the Clintons nor Edwards ever did for him.

Many will say that endorsements are irrelevant or even harmful. But an endorsement for your candidate is plainly preferable to having that endorsement go to another candidate. A well-placed endorsement is just that much better.

The more cautious Kerry may feel Al Gore was wrong to endorse Howard Dean before the Iowa caucuses. If you carry the mantel, wait to pick not a firebrand but an energizing team player. And if you can be patient, wait to pick a winner, not necessarily THE winner but at least A winner. We'll see if pre-South Carolina is good timing for Obama in '08.

The Most American New Year's Resolution of All

2008-01-02T09:10:00.001-08:00

Human beings the world over want to lose weight, get trim and fit, improve their looks and well-being, improve their education, increase their reading, spend more "quality time" with friends and family, and accomplish a fairly predictable array of life goals.

But the most American New Year's resolution of all?

What do you think it is?

I'd say it's to "get organized," aka "reduce clutter," "get rid of stuff," "unload junk".

After spending the holidays buying and accumulating stuff, you may have noticed, if you have entered most any big store this week, that the plastic storage containers are prominently displayed. Target's got them on sale. The Container Store is having a field day. Or should I say a "How Do I Put All This Stuff Away Day"?

'Tis the season.

Just as gym memberships are a hot buy in January, so are ways to store stuff. But as a New York Times article points out, in the wake of the December onslaught, ours is not so much a storage problem as it is a widely occurring personal problem, indeed a phenomenon of human nature and First World Culture, nowhere more evident than in the good ol' U. S. and A.

Actually, hoarding and accumulating so much stuff was not a very American problem until this culture really started to ratchet up, if not perfect, advertising, affluence, and the spread (some would say "sprawl") of an insatiably materialistic middle class, soon after World War II. The shift from Great Depression to Storage Unit Suburbia deeply and pervasively ingrained in most of us Americans the desires for new and more things more than ever before. 60 years later, the urge to consume and hoard is on the verge of becoming an officially recognized and defined mental illness. Americans didn't invent materialism, but as a culture, we have been crested a hoarding wave at a particularly precarious time for the health of the planet and ourselves.

The rich have always accumulated things. It's not that the rich are different, it's that they are the same as the rest of us, of every class, except that they have more money. We are no different than the rich; given the chance to get more, bigger and best, most humans jump at the chance. The monastic rich are rare. The tread lightly affluent are rare. With human nature being what it is, self-imposed deprivation is never going to be a dominant trend. Thus, the limits to greed and growth do generally have to come from the top down, not the bottom up. We can't expect the poor to lead the way. We don't envy the poor (or ourselves if we are poor, as I am, no matter how much humility or righteousness we might at times feel). I myself don't envy the rich, either, except for their money.

We might think, oh, if we had that kind of money, we'd do it differently, but of course history shows that most of us would do it the same. Swimming pools and 42" televisions and Hana Montana tickets and Nintendo and SUVs and luxury cars and room additions are quite popular. They always will be.

But they will never seem very mature, much less wise. Wise people see the big picture and the far-reaching consequences of certain desires. The wise ask themselves more about need than want. Fads are for kids. And no matter how stylish or elegant, putting desire and immediate gratification before long-term good just looks goofy. But people are what they are, acquisitive busy-bodies, and no matter what country or culture we live in, this is majority rule, and so most stack up stuff and pile it up all around us.

It's all going to the landfill. It's just a matter of time.

****

TOMORROW: Another take on this acutely American orgy of materialism, a take both more familial and personal. Be there.

In the meantime, get out a cardboard box, and start putting stuff in it to give away -- or to sell on eBay!

Lawrence Walker's Blog "A Better Nation" Careens (Gracefully and w/Care) Into 2008

2008-01-01T10:10:00.000-08:00

New year's greetings and salutations (and effervescent though a bit groggy thanks) to you, dear readers of A Better Nation, you, my pointedly pontifical and precious public, my adoralicious audience. Thank you from the bottom of my virtual mail bag.

In the past four years, since this grand and mighty (make that slightly mighty) blog was born, we have worked together, as a national and even planetary consortium for change. We have righted the wrongs and fixed the ills of this nation we love, the good ol' (and not so good new) U. S. and A.

We have shined our lights (key fob flashlights and frugal LEDs) on the powers that be and brought them to their knees, at least to their proverbial (and some would say, imaginary) knees. We have banded together, like the good brothers and sisters that we are indeed not, to act like family, with our own set of American family values. We have gotten the lead out and led the way.

I support you in your hour of needing me, Mr. ABN, your humbly omnicient reporter and culture critic. I've been there for you to criticize. And criticize me you have, more often than not. Yes, like the true patriots you are, you have really given it to me, and I have taken it like the beguiling blogger man I am.

In the chin.

Virtually, that is, in the virtual chin.

And in the gut, too, in the gut I have taken your blogger body blows.

And I have taken up arms, your arms, your virtual arms, as it were (or is?), and run with them, flailing. But not failing. No, we, the Royal WE, as in YOU with ME, have succeeded in keeping this thing going, in making this a better nation than it was when we still had the last four years ahead of us.

Now they are behind. US. Or we are behind them. But not behind the eight ball, even though it is '08 (and though I am not the first, surely, to try that pun). We refuse to be back there (behind the eight ball). We're not suckers, and we refuse to succour ourselves. We stand up straight (if not tall, unless we are tall) for the measly blogger facing up, in some small, piddling, inconsequentially infinitesimal way, to the might that makes wrong seem right. We stand together (or surf alone, in the privacy of our own homes, in a slouching towards virtual togetherness), yes, we do this together or alone as the BNP, the Better Nation People, we silly supercilious magnificently magnanimous mongrel menagerie, we, yes you, we/us hobnobbing hobos of the webby world, we like no one else. And there are a lot of them.

At other times, we stand, at other times (as in the kitchen and at the car wash), and yet, we here while here at A Better Nation, we tend to sit, alone, scattered, fingers splayed or poised, hovering over quivering keyboards, pulling from our quivers our poisonous quips, persistent, wayward, poised to stay a bit or surf onwards against the tides, we the few, the proud, the perseverant (sp? people? I defend my use of that perse-something word, even if, as may be the case, it is not one).

Onward.

And SO, I say to you, dear reader(s), Happy New Year and OH (8) GREAT DAY to each and every ONE (1) of you.

And you know who you ARE.

.

Dear Iowans Likely to Caucus

2007-12-28T23:04:00.000-08:00

Well, Iowan caucus-goers and nation, even though the epic election begins next year, as of now it really is less than a week away. Already. The elephant in the holidays, dressed up for New Year's Eve and the Circus d' 08. Who ever thought this idea of crunching a wintery blizzard of canvassing and caucusing right into the middle of the Jesus Season (otherwise known as the Santa and Snow Storm and Champagne and After Christmas Sales Galas and Bowl Games Season) was a good idea? Hmmm?

Meanwhile, we've got to go with it, even those of us who live in states that lean precariously Red AND which are LPS (LPS, that would be Late Primary States, such as Big Red, big and behind the curve Texas). Never have we "late" staters felt so much like we were waiting helplessly in the wings, not even really part of the process. It seems to me, we of the sensible spring primaries, we've got to get our feet in the door in the early states, at least until some sane new spring schedule of these things gets put in place of this premature holiday hoedown.

As regular readers know, I worked Iowa in '04 for Dean, and now I am a John Edwards enthusiast, and so I'm pitching here as I see fit -- to a state that really does matter. Dear Iowans Likely to Caucus, lend me your ears (as well as your courage and your convictions).

I have friends in Iowa, and so I just sent a link to my recent post endorsing John Edwards, which you can see as the December 13th post here at ABN.

As an intro to that post, here's what I said to my friends:

Hi Friends,

Since by March my vote in Texas may not count for anything (if it ever did), I forward this to you, one of several takes on John Edwards (and Iowa) at my blog, "A Better Nation." All three of the top contenders are decent candidates, but I asked myself, who would I most want to have talking to me from the Oval Office in a time of need? Clinton and Obama came up as capable but shrill, packaged, not really inspiring, much less heroic. I suppose it turns out that, of the three, I think John Edwards would be the most heroic and comforting.

I hope things go well on Thursday for the candidate who, for now, is showing the most conviction -- and enough warmth to melt the ice off the sidewalks.

Lawrence

Eyes on the Green Prize

2007-12-19T17:48:00.000-08:00

Again, as many days, I feel compelled to comment at the Sierra Club's Green Tips. Today's tip was about refilling plastic bottles with bulk soaps, household cleaners, etc. Nice but not essential. Here's my take:

It's best not to make special trips to buy all sorts of specialty things at a dozen stores when three or four have everything you need -- making special trips to find refillables, for example. If we keep our eyes on the big picture, we're reminded that mostly making a real difference comes down to just a few things: living in town near stores and services, having one or no children, driving and flying efficiently and in modest amounts, buying generally modest things (mostly "necessities") in modest amounts, and doing whatever you can to reduce your energy use at home. Everything else is just details, fun perhaps but really just distractions from the big picture that REALLY counts.

Putting to Death the Death Penalty

2007-12-18T20:26:00.000-08:00

Thanks to New Jersey.

Thank you, New Jersey legislature and Governor Corzine, for putting an end to the death penalty, the first state to do so in over 40 years.

What a gruesome state of affairs our prisons -- and especially our death rows -- are in. No other civilized nation packs 'em in like we do. We must love prisons. Or someone loves prisons. The prison lobby, and don't you know, like grackles, like funeral directors, there is a strong prison lobby.

As a region, the South loves the death penalty the most. The South accounts for 86% of all executions performed in the United States. And Texas alone, this ass backwards state in which I happen to reside, accounts for 62% of ALL United States executions. Jesus, lord.

I know we have a lot of people here in Lone Star State, around abouts 20 million or so, but we've also got some serious inclinations toward the institution of incarceration. And we've got the most famous death row in the world, behind "The Wall" in Huntsville, an historic burg in which I have dallied long enough to learn that prison guards do not make for great cocktail party conversation.

No studies show prisons nor prisoners of the sort we so to be the solution to our ills. And no study shows the death penalty to be a worthy deterrent, the only moral argument for its existence. And so, really, the arguments for the death penalty are immoral, the stuff of bullies and profiteers and Old Testament thugs. Still, the march to the gallows (by lethal injection now, not rope nor guillotine ) goes on, with tough old gunslinger Texas leading the way.

Surely, there is a better way.

'Tis the season to turn the tide.

And so again, thanks to New Jersey for leading the other way, surely a better way toward a more decent nation. Even a more honorable one.

Digging Into Life

2007-12-14T19:35:00.000-08:00

The thing is, you could miss it. It could pass you by. Not life. You're alive. You're not missing life. But LIFE.... mmmm, that might be a thing you miss...

UNLESS, you dig deep into the veins beneath others' skin, and crawl around inside their limbs, as if they were the tunnel/roads to your quest.

Do you get in? Do you grovel? Do you risk it that much? Out on a limb? Into a limb?

Are you letting others do the living for you, thinking their movies are as good as it gets? Their poetry is as good as it gets? Their headlines and pastimes and passions as good as it gets.

It only gets as good as it gets when it's all up to you.

And it's just NOT a matter of the middle of the road, never the middle of the road. Keep your land, but push on, press on, press in, then adrift, FLOAT, lift off, lift UP, FLOAT, and with all deft grace and patience, fly.

Dig into this thing, LIFE. ONE chance, one try, one, one.

And the best way to get there, down that flying highway, that low and go way, hovering and having and heaven? Don't hold back. Be bold. Express. Give. Gush. Give. Love, love, LOVE.

I'm a John Edwards Man, Myself

2007-12-13T21:39:00.000-08:00

Four years ago, in late 2003, I was already signed up to go to Iowa to work for Howard Dean. Dean was, in December of that year, at the apogee of his popularity and appeal. He was on the cover of Rolling Stone, even though he said he was a politician, not a rock star. Dean was treated like a rock star that night he came in third in Iowa, and he still is.

Back then, as the winter of '03-'04 approached, I thought John Edwards was just a smooth-talking pretty boy. I preferred Dean's scrappier, Harry Trumanesque, street-fightin' posture. Edwards was not my man, but then neither was John Kerry.

Go back another four years, to 2000. Al Gore briefly considered picking Edwards for his running mate. Instead, Gore chose Joe Lieberman, and the rest is sad history. If Gore had chosen Edwards, I think Edwards would be running for president this year as well, but as Vice President. It turns out Leiberman was a horrible choice for VP, and it had as much to do with Gore's defeat as anything else. If Gore had chosen another young, gutsy Southerner, as Clinton had done when he picked Gore in 1992, I think the Gore/Edwards ticket would have won. With two dedicated, fired-up Southerners on the ticket, both Florida and Tennessee might have gone for Gore, easily taking the election without any interference from the courts, Floridian or Supreme.

Edwards is a more compassionate, more graceful and more nuanced speaker than either Clinton or Obama, and personal riches aside, he is a populist, not a paper-pusher. Clinton and Obama are senators at heart. They come across as senators. Edwards is a man of the people, for the people. I think he alone of the three puts people above policy, and that resonates with me.

Newsweek has a big profile of Edwards this week, suggesting he still can take Iowa. As we've learned, Iowans like nice, and Edwards is Mr. Nice Guy in that state, especially in its rural nooks and crannies, the ones that killed the Dean campaign (our orange Deaniac caps were like a cancer of carpetbaggers to the cautious, insular heartland people of Iowa). Edwards has the right tone to take Iowa or at least come in a strong second.

And if he does that, then this campaign is a no lose situation for him. Even if he is not the nominee or the VP pick, he'll be in the top three for a cabinet seat, and that would be a good thing.

The "Affable" Huckabilly

2007-12-12T13:17:00.000-08:00

Ah, the Huckabilly!

This coming weekend, The New York Times Sunday Magazine features a long profile on Mike Huckabee, and despite the fleshed-out, state of the art portraiture, the whole thing comes down to the ex-governor's down-home, good ol' preacher boy "affability," a word the Times piece wastes no time using in the first few paragraphs.

By the story's end, even after demonstrations of Huckabee's likability and his ignorance (avoidance of basic 20th Century knowledge) of Biblical proportions, his jeans-on-the-front-porch Hillbilly Soul, the moral of the story is the same as it ever was.

We used to think the taller presidential candidates prone to winning (and throughout human history, there is anthropological evidence aplenty to support that). But ever since the advent of televangelized, sound bite candidacies, the Affability Factor wins just about every time!

Take note: the less stiff, the less robotic of the candidates has the edge (as long as he isn't TOO bland and doesn't rant or otherwise get too edgy). The taller guy still has an advantage, but the shorter person can overcome that with other attributes better conveyed from the distant stage, especially in ten-second clips on the you-know-what.

Let's look at presidential elections since 1960, when the TV camera began to run the show:

Kennedy over Nixon (clearly), Johnson over Goldwater (a closer call, though Johnson stiffened more after he won while Goldwater loosened up after retiring), Nixon over Humphrey (hard to call, an aberration? '68 was a MESS of a year!), Nixon over McGovern (two stiffs, one a soft stiff, one stiff in power), Carter over Ford (clearly), Reagan over Carter (clearly), Reagan over Mondale (clearly again), Bush over Dukakis (two stiffs, but Bush was the much more ambling speaker), Clinton over all comers (and poor Bob Dole, a funny man out of campaign mode), Bush over Gore (again, a Bush the more ambling, if illiterate, speaker of the two and certainly less robotic), and Bush over Kerry (the drawling Texas squeaks by a buttoned-down Yankee every time).

The most affable/comfortable speaker of the Republicans this round: Huckabee (who towers in affability over the much taller and more imposing but not-so-discreetly scripted Fred Thompson.

The most affable/comfortable speaker of the Democrats this round: I'd say of the leading three, John Edwards. And of the marginal candidates, Dennis Kucinich, who, at times, seems almost ready for prime-time PBS, a cross between Charlie Rose, Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street.

As we're seeing, the Affability Factor rides again. Game ON!