A Lot of Guys Named “Joe”

Posted on October 30, 2008 by Gavin Stevens

“But the manner of death seemed unimportant. Murder had been done at Buchenwald.”

Edward R. Murrow, Visit to Buchenwald

We live in a confused world. I suppose much of the variety and confusion arises from our very diversity, but much of it arises from our ignorance and fear of people and things we don’t take time to understand. This confusion causes me to reflect upon the nature of good and evil but without any expectation of having any new or startling insights on a subject of ancient human concern.

The particular source of these thoughts comes from the dissonance I am suffering between (a) current news accounts about thwarted plans of white-top-hatted-and-tailed skinheads to kill Barrack Obama in a grandiose drive-by shooting, and (b) my attendance today at the annual luncheon of the Washington State Holocaust Education Resource Center (WSHERC). Ironically, the two items couldn’t be more disparate or more closely linked. Both speak to the ongoing, innate capacity of mankind for hatred and cruelty by one member of our species to another, while the first bespeaks the continuing need for the efforts expended by the second.

At the WSHERC luncheon, we heard from a survivor of the Holocaust and one of the soldiers that first reached Buchenwald where that survivor was incarcerated. The then 19-year-old soldier, Leo Hymas, was clearly unprepared for what he found after helping to blow the Buchenwald front gate with explosives on April 11, 1945. One has to assume that prior to his gate blowing exploit he was a typical American boy of the period – slightly innocent, yet world weary from fighting in a great war to preserve democracies from Nazi domination; in short, an American citizen soldier on whose backs the US portion of the war was fought. What he found that day were the seeds of change that eventually made him into a man well deserving of our respect, acclaim and sympathy.

I am not going to make an attempt to describe what Mr. Hymas found, smelled and heard that April day at Buchenwald. It is well beyond my powers to do so, and I have not the imagination to try. If you want some idea, some picture of the conditions there that day, you must listen to Edward R. Murrow describe Buchenwald following his visit there on April 12, 1945 – the day that Franklin D. Roosevelt died and a single day after Mr. Hymas helped liberate Buchenwald: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYVn0hzcSs0. Only a man as capable as Murrow could create a tone poem to inhumanity and bring it to life in a way that a video never could. As you near the end of the tape, listen for the quaver in the voice of this very strong man. It is palpable and he seems near tears at times. The piece says as much about his humanity as it does about the perils of genocide – a term not yet in use at the time of his short wave broadcast.

Mr. Murrow must have had some minimal preparation for his visit to Buchenwald. Imagine, however, Mr. Hymas’ reaction – a young man lacking Murrow’s sophistication and resources who, along with two other members of an advance infantry patrol, was merely acting in response to a direction from his commander to “find out what that barb-wired compound is over there.” Following directions and in the last several moments of his innocence, he walked several yards to meet what would prove to be his fate. If you have an ounce of empathy, perhaps you can barely begin to understand the impact Buchenwald must have had on Mr. Hymas’ life, but if you or I presume to really understand, we can only be lying to ourselves.

Sometimes, the presence of profound evil generates the greatest good. For years after that April day, Mr. Hymas struggled to rationalize what he had seen, smelled and heard, apparently living with anger and depression. And then, sometime in the 1980’s, he met a Buchenwald survivor and his healing began. Eventually, Mr. Hymas connected with WSHERC and they asked if he would be willing to visit high schools in our state to tell his story. WSHERC is dedicated to keeping the lessons of the Holocaust alive and real to a generation for whom it is only a story in a book. Mr. Hymas then began a long career of teaching about the Holocaust in the company of numerous Holocaust survivors living and residing in our region.

Mr. Hymas was quietly crying while being introduced by Robbie Waisman, the Buchenwald survivor who was 15 when Mr. Hymas and his fellow American soldiers blew open its front gates. As I watched the introduction unfold, I began to understand that I was in the presence of simple goodness. For Mr. Hymas wasn’t crying over the honor he was about to receive from WSHERC. He was crying about a statement Mr. Waisman made during the introduction – that had Mr. Waisman known, on April 11, 1945, that his entire family and home had been destroyed by the Nazis, he would not have gone on. Mr. Waisman’s survival of Buchenwald had been based upon his belief that he would be reunited with his family when the war was over and he had exercised his extraordinary will to survive to achieve that goal, only to be subsequently, and cruelly, disabused of his hopes. Mr. Waisman’s will to live drove him onward, however, and now he lives in Vancouver, British Columbia amid the family he created for himself after the war, and spends his time helping others understand the lessons of the Holocaust.

Just being in the same room with Mr. Hymas and Mr. Waisman and being able to hear the barest outlines of their stories was a true privilege for which I thank WSHERC. I need these reminders as a guide for my own, personal behavior.

It is only through our personal behavior that we can help prevent future occasions of genocide, for the seeds of the Holocaust and of genocide lie within our individual actions and thoughts. While I am personally unable to deny the skinheads now under arrest in Virginia the success of their wicked dreams and must leave that to the civil authorities, I can control what I think, what I say and how I act. I can teach my children; I can behave in a manner consistent with my beliefs; I can, perhaps with luck and time, serve as a role model to a few. I can also speak up and speak out.

And, so I will. And I don’t have to look very deep into today’s news to do so.

For example, the latest case of stupidity by dint of public celebrity comes from the mouth of Sarah Palin. Without the slightest attempt at verification, she reads lines no doubt penned by a Karl Rove clone to assert that Barrack Obama is palling around with a college professor she denominates as a former spokesperson for the Palestine Liberation Organization. At a campaign event in Ohio she says: “It seems that there is yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years.” When asked if she isn’t calling Mr. Obama un-American, she blithely dissembles and claims that it “is not negative campaigning to call someone out on their record.”

What record? The record doesn’t support the statement. The statement is nonsense. The only possible reason for making the statement is that it is the last minute in the campaign, the Republicans are behind, and just maybe, if they can smear the muck fast enough and thick enough at a moment when there is barely time for the Democratic campaign to respond, they might get votes. And the appeal is to our dark side – references to the “radical professor” who is “from the neighborhood” can only be intended to raise the issue of race in the campaign in the only roundabout manner deemed acceptable by the campaign powers that be – by sly innuendo followed by a “who me” look of innocence when questioned by others regarding your intent.

Ms. Palin would do well to remember Mr. Murrow’s words in summarizing a CBS News report on Senator Joe McCarthy, the communist baiting 1950’s Senator from Wisconsin:

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.”

When our public officials behave in this manner, they are playing with fire. For in statements like these lie the seeds of racism which, if planted firmly and well enough, may eventually grow into a further evil. And, if evil is allowed to sniff around in the corners of our lives, it only does so in its ceaseless attempt to find center stage where it can blossom into the conflagration it fervently seeks to become.

Mr. Hymas and Mr. Waisman know this about evil, and this is why they do what they do without thought of pay or other personal gain. Mr. Hymas was then, and is now, one of those whom Mr. Murrow, in that same broadcast, called “a lot of guys named Joe” who did what they did, and who still do what they do, simply because it was and is the right thing to do. Mr. Waisman is another such Joe, and is living proof that evil is alive in our world, but that it can be successfully resisted by one person – one Joe or one Jill – at a time.

Thanks again to WSHERC for the privilege and honor of being able to associate, however remotely, with those for whom personal honor is a lodestar. They represent what it really means to be a guy named “Joe.”

Posted in Civics | Comments Off on A Lot of Guys Named “Joe”

Let’s Give It a Rest

Posted on October 27, 2008 by Gavin Stevens

As the end of the world’s longest political campaign nears, it is time for us to take stock and ask ourselves why we continue to wallow in our extended misery. Not only do we take far longer than any other nation to pick our leadership, we spend ungodly amounts of money in the process. Since our leadership doesn’t bother to question the wisdom of a process in which they are totally invested, it is up to the rest of us to question our sanity.

I suspect that our presidential election process must have been the creation of Rube Goldberg. I cannot imagine anyone else who could have dreamed up something this bizarre, something that would try the patience of a three-toed sloth. Even the candidates I want to vote for are tiresome by now, much less the ones I cannot stand. If it is one of Rube’s jokes, the joke is on us.

There is something seriously wrong with our entire federal political system. The campaigns are endless, the amounts spent are staggering, the results achieved are akin to stagnation mixed with invective, and the standard of governance achieved might have been effective for student government during my senior year in high school, but I doubt it. In short, nothing is working well.

We usually spend our time blaming the politicians. As a sport, politician bashing is sometimes fun, but mostly it is an excuse to vent our disgust at the system in an unprofitable manner. In fact, I have come to believe that politician bashing is keeping us from focusing on the real problem – the obsolescence of our system of government. I suspect that a careful analysis would show that the system our founders installed is leaking at the seams and that no matter whom we elect we will get substandard governance as a result.

Our Constitution was a marvel of its time. When it was adopted, it was a serious attempt to create something more than rule by royalty. It was not an attempt to create a democracy, no matter what we may say about our country and our beliefs. It was an attempt by our founders – members of the colonial elite – to create a form of representative government that would enshrine that elite in power. For its time, it was daring, novel and far more democratic than anything else then in existence. While it was not more democratic than some of the early Greek city states, for its time it was truly revolutionary.

Anyone who thinks we were creating a democracy when adopting our Constitution has read neither its text nor the Federalist Papers. Our founders created a republic – a form of representative government that they felt fit the needs of their times. They wanted more democracy than the King provided, but wished to also accommodate a basic distrust of the general populace. Given the condition of roads and the means of communication then available to our founders, they wrought something magnificent. They created something that we have all come to revere even though it harbors many anti-democratic ideas.

And in that very reverence are the seeds of our current despair. We continue to enshrine our Constitution in our hearts and minds and don’t bother to re-examine its dictates in the light of today’s society. The system it created has been broken for several decades and no longer serves us well. As much as I would like to blame the Republicans for all of the stalemates in Congress, the truth is that it is the system that creates a fertile environment for stalemate no matter who is in charge or the size of their majority. Our vaunted system of checks and balances means that nothing can be accomplished in a timely manner and, all too often, means that nothing can be accomplished at all.

Our founders wanted to widen access to government but they had no intention of throwing it open to all and sundry. Again, read the Federalist Papers if this statement seems heretical to you, and then consider the founders in their time and place. For their time and place, they were revolutionaries. But their dreams, judged by today’s standards, are no longer visionary but, instead, are representative of a far gone past. I strongly suspect that if Thomas Jefferson were alive today as a fully cognizant man of this century, he would be foremost among those arguing for a new constitutional convention.

Ironically, the country from which we splintered when the Constitution was adopted has a far more modern system of government than we. It is still a representative government, but it operates, as a system, with far more effectiveness and efficiency. Is it the paragon of governmental structures? Somehow I doubt that, but we should be reviewing our own form of government as a predecessor to the parliamentary form currently prevalent in Europe and Canada, and be designing a new system that fits our size and our times.

Having said this, I have a great love for our Constitution. But the love that we all share for this document is precisely the reason why we are unable to see that it no longer functions effectively. We have deified the document to the point where we are unable to see its flaws. With all due respect, it has served us well, but the time to give it a rest is upon us.

A call for a national constitutional convention will be seen as many as a call for chaos. Nothing could be further from the truth to my way of thinking. Until a new constitution is ratified, we still enjoy the form of government that has served us these many years. If the members of a new constitutional convention are unable to agree, at least they will focus us upon the issues that can and should be debated until a consensus can be reached. In any event, since when have we been afraid of debate in this country? Instead of debating endlessly as our Congressional structure demands, shouldn’t we decide to engage in a debate that might actually produce a constructive outcome?

I suspect the biggest problem with our present Constitution lies in the structure of the legislative branch of government. Our current structure is a recipe for stalemate. But the institution of the Electoral College is equally suspect, since it is the most singularly anti-democratic institution left enshrined in our Constitution. Think about it. The founders didn’t truly trust the average voter, so they created an Electoral College of the elite to make certain that not just any Tom, Dick or Harry became President. In doing so, they ensured that we got a George as President – one as equally demented, ineffective and as sorry an excuse as a sovereign as the one from whom we escaped all those many years ago during our pre-Constitutional revolution.

I don’t have a recipe for doing it right next time. I have some ideas, but whatever we choose should be the result of able minded men and women of all colors coming together in a national constitutional convention to find the way forward. Everything should be open to review – even the Bill of Rights which, as you may well recall, was not part of the original Constitution in the first place. We absolutely need a bill of rights in a new constitution, but its contents should be carefully reviewed in light of the times in which we live, our population density and the state of our communications.

In short, let’s venerate our Constitution as it deserves, but not let it blind us to our present needs. The time has come to give the old dear a rest and let it take its rightful place in history. We should never forget what it has meant to us, but it is time to move on to something for our times. It is past time to rekindle the spirit of our founders and to revisit the schemes and means of government. Two Georges are too many.

Posted in Civics | Comments Off on Let’s Give It a Rest

New Name; Same Blog

Posted on October 23, 2008 by Gavin Stevens

“The end of an empire is messy at best And this empire is ending Like all the rest Like the Spanish Armada adrift on the sea We’re adrift in the land of the brave And the home of the free” Randy Newman, “A Few Words”

While I don’t wish to take away from the philosophy with which we started this blog (see first entry), I have decided that the blog’s title was hackneyed. I have always been fond of the new title, which is from a William Faulkner short story entitled “Adolescence.” The more I think about what Eliot and I are interested in, the more it becomes apparent that this new title is appropriate. While Eliot and I are not in despair, we seem to be focused on distant despairs and the sources and means of their existence.

So our failure doesn’t lie merely in the fact that we are extravagantly wasting our treasury of money and good will in unwinnable causes; we are also actively damaging our moral fiber from within, while claiming to be the good guys, when, in stark fact, we aren’t. Such moral incongruity simply cannot be maintained without material adverse consequences to our national psyche.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is known in my grandmother’s lexicon as a load of crap. If you think we can survive such an extreme moral dilemma without suffering significant harm, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Just don’t ask for a warranty deed, because it won’t be forthcoming. Furthermore, I will only accept cash in payment. Therefore, because of the basic inter-connectivity between our actions and the actions of others elsewhere in the world, I am positing that we must adopt a wider vision in making our decisions than the narrow one that our current leadership possesses. In this world and at this time, we must come to understand that our actions affect others as much as their actions affect us, and that, therefore, the only rational means of international engagement is in forms of give and take that are mutually beneficial to all varying viewpoints. Easy? No. But we have always been a creative nation, and this standard merely challenges our creativity. Have we lost so much faith in ourselves that we are no longer willing to trust our success to the promise of our creativity and ideas?

We must quit pretending that we are benefiting others by trying to make them think and act as we do. It is one thing to assert our values as an internal societal right in the governance of our own community; it is quite another to think that all nations must behave as we do at all times. It is one thing to explain our thinking and our values to the world by rational discourse and consistent behavior; it is quite another to seek, by means of war, intimidation, or other exercises of raw power, to compel others to live solely in accordance with our standards. One is our right; the other is simply wrong – and, as noted above, just plain stupid.

So this is what what Eliot and I seem to be doing here – shoveling crap to expose lies. As we do so, I have begun to realize that these rumors of far despairs are far closer to our home here in Humptulips County than I like or wish to condone. And so it is that I have decided to say what I think in accordance with the KISS principle – you know, the one that says “keep it simple, stupid” – since I am convinced that at the very heart of every seemingly complicated situation or circumstance lie simple rights or wrongs which can and should be used as measuring sticks to determine our way forward.

The truth is that some of the despairs which we have been observing aren’t so far away after all, and each of us – you, Eliot and myself included – engage in some behaviors which contribute, however remotely, to the existence of all despairs, near and far.

It is a cliche that ours is a small world, but the funny thing about cliches is that, often, they are cliches because they represent fundamental truths. If nothing else, the recent financial crisis should convince mankind once and for all that no one can hide behind an artificial political border and ignore what is going on in the rest of the world. What is going on in the rest of the world can and will affect us immediately or with time, with some matters more directly affecting us than others, but with all matters having some affect upon us for good or ill.

By so stating, I am not arguing that we ought to interfere routinely in the activities of others in order to stave off adverse effects or to police the world in accordance with our narrow standards. We have already seen that we lack the capacity as a single country to do either well -at least most of us who don’t live in the White House or who aren’t subservient to its current occupant have realized that. What our current administration has failed to understand is that in trying to make everyone else in the world think and act as we do, we have initiated counteractions which are now reverberating and affecting us adversely in many instances. While we bluster about assuring democracy for the world, we seem oblivious to our own engagement, in the name of democracy, in various horrendous activities which are, at the very least, antithetical to democracy – if not more appropriately classified as human rights violations or, in some cases, as war crimes.

If you believe that a nation can undergo such dissonance for any significant period of time without material detriment, take a look at history. Every country that has wallowed in the arrogance of its power to such an extent that the ability of its fundamental, founding beliefs to control, limit and advise its leadership has become emasculated, has failed. I don’t mean by that statement that they have failed in their goals or failed in some particular action; I mean that they have failed as a country. Think of the German people under Adolf Hitler and then ask yourself how we can observe and condemn that behavior, but be unable, with one voice, to rise up and condemn water boarding for the vile act of torture that it is. We are unable to do so because our arrogant leadership has convinced many that we can and should, in the name and pursuit of democracy, behave toward non-Americans in ways we would never tolerate if dealing with ourselves.

Big lies seem to be the hardest to for us to recognize probably because, while we want to disbelieve them, we are rendered insecure in the face of their sheer magnitude. We torture ourselves with the fact that our incredulity is as large as the asserted lie, and we cannot reconcile our disbelief with the fact that someone would make such an assertion with a straight face. We need to see past our incredulity and accept the big lies for what they are – lies. The truth about lies of this kind is really quite simple no matter the level of our incredulity at their assertion: what is wrong under our shared moral standards is simply wrong, and, no matter how hard you try, you cannot gussy it up so that it is anything but wrong. To say that you can do wrong to some in the pursuit of good for others doesn’t even rise to the level of sophistry – it is just, plain old stupidity at all times, and evil most of the time.

Besides, as long as we adhere to the KISS principle, the more likely it is that those currently in power might actually come to understand our concerns and commentary. After all, you must play the hand you are dealt.

Posted in Civics | Comments Off on New Name; Same Blog

Palinburgers, anyone?

Posted on October 22, 2008 by Eliot Mentor

Far be it for me to attempt to predict the outcome of the next presidential election. Remember the foolish headline that the Chicago Daily Tribune put out on the streets announcing the election of Tom Dewey and inferring that Harry Truman had lost? Well, I do, and I shy away from doing anything even close to it.

But, one can make assumptions.

So assume for purposes of contemplation and speculation that John McCain does not win the election. OK, he will once again be able to roam the Senate office building without presidential and electoral concerns, pound the podium as he speaks to an empty Senate chamber and be free to maverick away in the Senate to his heart’s content. But what about Sarah Palin? Will she just trundle back to Alaska and take up where she left off, hounding her former brother-in-law out of his uniform as an Alaskan State trooper and being a simple aw-shucks hockey mom and moose skinner?

No, siree. That isn’t the way the system works, not the “democratic capitalistic” system that George W. You-Know-Who set out to save this week when he invited the heads of many large and small nations to confer with him soon on the future of the world’s economy. In fact, the system doesn’t work in one simple way. The ways are many — and they can be very lucrative. Now, then, here’s where I’m willing to make a prediction.

The prediction is that Sarah Palin will become one of the richest women in America. No doubt about it. As Browning might have put it, “Let me count the ways.”

The GOP has bought her a new $150,000 wardrobe and hairdo. That’s a start. From here on, it should be easy pickins’.

There will be a newspaper column. Karl Rove writes one. Why not Sarah, too? Lots of folks will want to hear what she has to say whether or not she really says anything. Then a talk show. Rush Limbaugh spews stuff to a rapt audience regularly. If memory is accurate, not so long ago he signed a contract to keep the barrage of words up for around $425 million. If Rush can do it, shouldn’t Sarah? Politics aside, she’s a lot cuter.

Speaking engagements should keep the coffers full. No question about it when the going rate is at least $50,000 to $100,000 a pop. If she really is smart, she’ll sign up George W. to be on her team, and with good writers they might even create a comedy routine, like “Who’s on first?” or a ventriloquist act reminiscent of Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy — although who would be the dummy is an open question.

With some ghosting and editorial assistance, an autobiography should make the best seller lists. Not in the same category as “The Making of a President” but still “The Unmaking of a Vice-President” should find a significant klatch of followers.

When counting the ways to politically inspired riches, let’s not forget the product endorsements. Here we’re also talking big money: Sarah Palin’s Hair Moose, Palin Genuine Moose Jerky for those in between snacks, Palin autographed hockey sticks from Spalding made from Alaskan birch wood, signature T-shirts, Palin inscribed hats with moose antlers (it’s way past time for those silly Mickey Mouse hats to go), Palin’s Presidential Perfume, Palin’s Platforms and on and on —you name it. It’s there to be had.

 Last — well, maybe not last — but certainly not least, will be the “grateful” party supporters. These are the pillars of the “democratic capitalism” that I alluded to before. They provide well-paying seats on boards of directors of Fortune 500 companies, vacations to exotic places, stock market tips, vacation homes in warm climates, cruises on private yachts and trips to faraway spots in company jet aircraft.

 And for the long run there are charitable foundations. I can see them going into action now. “Unwed Teenage Mothers In Need” (UTMIN), “Palin Eskimo Relief Fund” (PERF), “Hockey Moms For Family Values” (too long for an acronym). Remember Evita Peron? The money kept rolling in. It will for Sarah, too. Bet your best moose skinning knife on it. Foundations need management, don’t they? Of course. A spot for Todd — with appropriate salary, health insurance and a retirement plan.

 Think I’m kidding? That’s how the political system takes care of those who labor in the trenches. Always.

 As Sarah, herself, said recently at a political rally: “…there are many possibilities.”

Eliot Mentor

 

Posted in Politicians and Other Lower Life Forms | Comments Off on Palinburgers, anyone?

118,673,464 To Go, Dear Reader

Posted on October 21, 2008 by Gavin Stevens

“Oh good. Only 118,673,465 blogs still up”

Gray Trudeau, Doonesbury, Sunday October 19, 2008

I have enjoyed posting on this blog and expect that I will continue to do so with fair consistency – weather, work load, other singular distractions and interesting subject matter permitting. However, I have to ask myself what might be the enticement for doing so in light of no reasonable assurance that anyone, anywhere is reading it. Since I have no interest in making a living doing this, in attracting advertisements or other means of income, or in measuring the number of hits to the blog, why bother? Why post to a blog when you are nothing more than one small noise in a hurricane?

I had to laugh at myself when I read Doonesbury this weekend and saw the above.

The internet is a truly special place for many of us, and I have learned to respect it for what it is – a means of open and free expression available to anyone, anywhere, regardless of race, religion, politics, or personal attribute. I first came to understand this when watching my youngest son spend what I then believed to be an inordinate amount of time on the internet during his formative years. As concerned parents, my wife and I began to lecture him on the amount of time he spent on line, worried about his school work and his social development in real time. One day, it suddenly dawned upon me that my son, who happens to be hearing impaired in real time, suffered from no impairment whatsoever while on line, and that during his time on line he was on a level playing field with everyone else with whom he might be dealing. In short, I had this epiphany: for him, being on line was a form of liberation and I was trying to restrict his liberty. Recognizing this at last, my wife and I toned down the level of our objections significantly in favor of letting him become whomever he might choose to become in this world that was so enticing to him and so foreign to us.

My son has grown into a responsible adult and is undertaking a post-graduate degree in – what else? – digital information management. His first love remains all things digitized, and the digitized world will be his vocation, avocation and, I hope, his oyster. I have come to believe that he is one of those truly rare persons who knows what he is made for from birth. He began using a computer at age 2. As I have watched him develop, I have enjoyed sharing with him his interest in cutting edge discussions and debates on the subject of managing digitized information and have become increasingly aware of the power of the internet – for both good and bad.

It was my sense of his feelings of liberation that caused me to consider posting to a blog of my own. I thought about doing so for several months before actually trying it out, somewhat hesitantly, last month. There are many things in the world that puzzle and delight me, and one of those has come to be the feeling that I can say whatever I wish to say in a place where anyone can read it. Posting to a blog is somewhat akin to writing graffiti on a high wall – people may notice it or not, may be annoyed by it or not, and may, or may not, even see some art in the result. The fact is, however, that it is your graffiti and your art, and the enticement of posting it lies in the ability to make a public statement in a manner meaningful to the author – even when it is unknown whether the public is interested in it.

I think this explains why there are blogs on almost every subject under the sun. Any time someone posts to a blog, it represents a statement, publicly made, about something of personal interest and importance. Anyone else can read or ignore it at their whim. The fact that others may ignore your particular post is irrelevant to the joy of knowing that you have publicly plead your case.

I will continue down this path for my own enjoyment if for no other reason. After all, I always, secretly, wanted to be the one with the spray can next to that vacant brick wall, but was too respectful of private property to try it. So, until some byte hugger starts a campaign to “save the bytes,” I can, and will, feel free to post here and to have my say.

Posted in Ponderings on the Meaning of Things | Comments Off on 118,673,464 To Go, Dear Reader

Mockingbirds and Stopwatches

Posted on October 17, 2008 by Gavin Stevens

“‘What’s the matter?’ I asked.

Atticus said nothing. I looked up at Mr. Cunningham, whose face was equally impassive. Then he did a peculiar thing. He squatted down and took me by both shoulders.

‘I’ll tell him you said hey, little lady,’ he said.

Then he straightened up and waved a big paw. ‘Let’s clear out,’ he called. ‘Let’s get going, boys.'”

Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

I have just seen a piece in the legal press regarding Craig MacGlashan, a California lawyer who is Chairman of the Sacramento County Republican Party, who posted material on a website about Barack Obama which, among other things, suggests that Mr. Obabma be waterboarded and compares him to Osama bin Laden. This is well and truly beyond anyone’s pale. I strongly suspect that John McCain, if he ever learns of this, will immediately repudiate it. Not only has he begun to speak out against such excessive attacks on Mr. Obama, but he has consistently fought against torture as an American investigative tool – hardly surprising given his own experience. Even though I feel he has gone not nearly far enough in doing so, I give him credit for beginning to reassert his values in recent days.

This campaign has had far too much of this sort of horse manure. Once expects incivility in a political campaign since contenders hardly seem able to avoid it in the heat of battle, but suggestions of torture, killing and slurs (many racially motivated) are simply a new low in American politics. The Republican party ought to be ashamed of itself for promoting an environment where such garbage can flourish, and needs to examine its teachings and culture carefully to see what it is doing to foster evil in this form. Partisan politics is one thing; filth, muck and outright urging of domestic terrorism are something entirely different. While I reluctantly acknowledge that the former has its place, the latter should never be allowed to see the light of day. It will be informative to see what, if anything, the Republican party brass does to Mr. MacGlashan and how fast it does it. If the top party brass fails to remove him from his position with dispatch and promptly censure him in the process, the party will simply ratify his un-American message and become deserving of outright censure in its own right.

This is the action of a desperate party falling precipitously from power, after living large and excessively for far too long. Further, if Mr. Obama were white (see previous post), I seriously doubt that messages of the type attributed to Mr. MacGlashan would (a) see the light of day, or (b) be tolerated for longer than thirty seconds by the powers that be within the Republican party. This means that the speed with which the Republican party reacts to Mr. MacGlashan’s remarks will also say much about its tolerance for racism within its own ranks.

The stop watch is on and ticking.

The stop watch is also on and ticking with respect to the California Bar Association’s reaction to this filth. Given the speed at which ethics complaints are processed in any jurisdiction, the Bar Association deserves more time in which to react, especially given the need for due process in what is essentially a judicial proceeding. I hope and trust, however, that one or more of my California colleagues will see fit immediately to file a complaint under applicable ethics codes to begin the process. While I decry the actions of the Republican party in creating an environment in which Mr MacGlashan can unashamedly state “Some people find it offensive, others do not. I cannot comment on how people interpret things,” I have to acknowledge the failure of the American bar, as a whole, assertively to insist upon civility in the practice of law. Shame on my own house for this failure. Lawyers should be leaders, not followers.

While it is true that judges and those at the top of the American Bar Association and the various state bars have wholeheartedly rejected the growing lack of civility in the practice of law, I also have to acknowledge that many individual practitioners simply see incivility as either their right or as an acceptable tactic in the practice of law. While one not only has to wonder about the sense of honor possessed by any lawyer who believes this way, one must also question whether they have any brains at all if they somehow see such tactics as effective. While various courts and bar associations have begun to create codes of civility to which they urge adherence by lawyers, it is well beyond time for these same courts and bar associations to begin to actively sanction obviously uncivil behavior.

I take the notion of being a counselor at law very seriously. While I aspire to the status of an Atticus Finch, I know I fall short – but I keep trying. I well know that I have to behave in a civil manner not only while engaged in the practice of law, but in the conduct of my personal affairs as a citizen of this great country. I can only wonder whether Mr. MacGlashan understands that to do otherwise is to bring discredit upon our shared profession and to bring shame upon his own house. I suggest that he look in his mirror and tell the rest of us what he sees staring back.

The exchange in the above quotation from To Kill a Mockingbird occurs on the front porch of the court house, under the incongruous floor lamp, while Scout wonders why Mr. Cunningham and his “friends” are challenging Atticus, who has come to defend Tom Robbins from lynching. She understands nothing of the situation other than the one, singularly essential element common to everyone there – the need for man’s humanity and civility to his fellow man. Her simple assertion of this creed by questioning the strange expressions she sees on the faces of those around her defuses an otherwise ugly situation.

Can we not all learn from Scout? I hope I have and will continue to do so. I wish Mr. MacGlashan would. I would be happy to send him a copy of To Kill a Mockingbird, gratis, if he will only furnish me with his address.

Posted in Politicians and Other Lower Life Forms | Comments Off on Mockingbirds and Stopwatches

Let “7” Be Like It Always Was

Posted on October 17, 2008 by Eliot Mentor

Over many millenia, mankind has fastened onto certain numbers, among its many superstitions, as talismans of good luck. Of course, there were also numbers that were deemed unlucky, even diabolical. Rolling dice to show a combination that adds up to “7” brings good fortune in a crap shoot, and for many that number in dealings of general commerce and every day life is also as good as, or even better, than owning a lucky rabbit’s foot. Certainly true in the USA and in places with a Las Vegas kind of mental outlook although other areas of the world undoubtedly adhere to a different number or combination of numbers as a symbol of prosperity.

But what about 7 hundred billion, the lucky 7 with 11 zeros after it? Or how about adding another 7? You might think that two 7s would imply twice as much good fortune as one.

Well, consider.

In terms of dollars, that would equal the latest effort by Congress to put a number on what it takes to unravel the recession in which the USA is enmeshed. It would also equal somewhat less than the amount of revolving credit owed by Americans, you know, mostly credit card debt plus a few billions of small change attributable to other improvident indebtedness, but not mortgage or car loans. It is also the same number that the Brits expect to cough up in order to free up the credit freeze there. And have you heard of the war in Iraq? Official cost around 700 billion greenbacks (although there are some who say that it is more like $3 trillion).

There is more: the “official” current budget deficit is something over $400 billion, but that doesn’t include off-budget expenditures. My guess is that if the government bean counters were committed to “transparency” (now there’s a word to dream about), the deficit would close in on our magic number of $700 billion. Then, there is the current account deficit. Guess what, right at 700 billion.

It’s not yet time to cease this catalogue of 7s. On October 9, 2008, the Dow plunged almost 700 points. Again, it did the same and a bit more on October 15.

Then there are numbers with two 7s, like the unemployment rate in California — 7.7%.

In my book — pardon me, blog — the number 7 seems to have lost its cachet as a lucky number, and has become a number to beware of, until the Dow explodes some time in the distant future with a 700 point rise. For the moment, there are many stock traders, i.e., horse players, who would say that right now a 7 ranks with snake-eyes. So, the next time you see a 7 on your side of the street, think about crossing over to the other side — unless you are looking for a Seven-Eleven Food Store where you hope to buy a 7-up.

All of this, of course, is superficial, just plain coincidence, not quite double-talk but certainly seven-speak. Interesting, but not leading very far toward a solution that will unmire the world from the deluge of 7s. However, those economists and public officials who have been honest and forthright say that they don’t know what the solution is.

So let’s move on.

More significantly, the subject raises many questions. When, how and what transformed our culture into one in which most citizens assumed they could live beyond their means forever and borrow more than they could ever hope to repay? Where did they learn about that kind of a life? Was it from their parents? Was it a derivative of laissez-faire economics? How did the guardians of the financial world, the banks, decide to toss time honored and prudent lending practices to the winds? What kind of a balance sheet would a bank show if the asset side consisted of underwater loans? Who in his right mind thought he was fooling anybody for long by packaging such loans in various forms of previously unheard of credit type securities? A wolf in sheep’s clothing it turned out to be, devouring everything and everybody in sight.

When did the “ American dream” come to mean entitlement to the good life, rather than the promise of opportunity?

How did anyone — our leaders, the wise men, the thinkers — buy into the notion that it was smart to invest untold treasure — say $700 billion — in a country whose people had never heard of democracy, didn’t know what it meant and didn’t want it anyway? Was that venture merely an extension of the credit card mania, the idea that because you want it you can have it, that we could go on indefinitely borrowing from Bejing to pay Riyadh?

That’s a lot to think about, especially all at once, so I’ll save my thoughts right now for another day and another blog.

Meanwhile, contemplate the grief inherent in the number 7 as it repeats over and over again in the daily headlines. Take a measure of courage from the lyrics of a song from Kurt Weill’s Street Scene. The words speak a sentiment that is on most everyone’s mind these days as eyes blur over with the procession of bad 7s: “Let Things Be Like They Always Was.”

Eliot Mentor

Posted in Civics | Comments Off on Let “7” Be Like It Always Was

Botox and the Media

Posted on October 14, 2008 by Gavin Stevens

“All successful newspapers are ceaselessly querulous and bellicose. They never defend anyone or anything if they can help it; if the job is forced on them, they tackle it by denouncing someone or something else.”

H. L. Mencken

“It’s white and black like industrial waste,
Pollution of the highest degree,
You wonder why I don’t hang out much,
I wonder how you can’t see.”

George Harrison, The Devil’s Radio

There is a report this morning that the Washington Post is investigating whether Joe Biden has had a botox shot. I have been waiting a long time for someone to tackle this most important issue, since I suspect that the fate of the free world and free markets hinges upon getting a correct answer to the matter. I am particularly gladdened that it is the Washington Post, that most venerable of newspapers, that has chosen to tackle as important an issue as this. After all, we cannot allow our country to rest on its botox.

The really important question is “why?” Why on earth would anyone care whether Biden did or didn’t have a botox shot? Why would a prestigious newspaper like the Post waste time on this drivel? Why would other news media report that the Post is so engaged? Why would Biden’s campaign deign to issue a denial (as, in fact, they did)? And, why is it the subject of this blog entry?

The answer to the last question is that it isn’t the subject of this blog entry, but only my excuse to wonder aloud about the nature and character of those working in the news industry. I warned my faithful readers (is there such a thing?) I would do this; I was simply biding my time until the inevitable opportunity presented itself.

Among the many suspicions I harbor about modern life is that the concept of “news” is nothing more than one end of a continuum of information sharing that ranges from “news” (acceptable information about shared events) to “common gossip.” They are of a kind, with one end of the spectrum being rightfully condemned by George Harrison in song as “industrial waste” and the other end elevated beyond acceptable into a commodity for which we are willing to pay. The question then becomes: what is the nature and character of those who determine where information fits on this continuum.

At any given time, it is the currently active journalists, reporters and editors that make the decisions that matter about the newsworthiness of an item. The professors, critics and pundits can subsequently debate whether or not something was newsworthy at the time it was published, but by the time they get around to having the debate it is too late to matter, since the subject of the debate has, by then, long since been reported and largely forgotten. The results of such a debate may well marginally influence some future reporting event, but likely not to any appreciable degree since publication decisions happen in the urgency of real time. So it is the people working in the news industry – the journalists, reporters and the editors – who effectively decide what is reportable news and what isn’t. It is their character and nature that should interest us.

It appears to me that far too many of the decisions to publish “information” are in the gray area between news and gossip, and that the consistent quality of these decisions must say something concrete about the nature of journalists, editors and reporters. Whether they get the continuum placement decision wrong 10% of the time or 75% of the time in your point of view, the fact is that they get it wrong with far more frequency than any thoughtful person should care to see. We would like our news people to be dispassionate, to report the facts, to leave the editorials to the editorial page, and not to report gossip. I would have presumed that someone of the stature of Edward R. Murrow – a true, serious journalist whose reportage was stellar, but who was reduced by his editors to broadcasting programs that he despised and which brought him no honor – would prefer to stay far clear of anything that even remotely smacked of gossip.

Without further preamble, it is my humble opinion that many employed in gathering and reporting news take on far too many of the characteristics of the gossip monger than they do of the serious journalist. How else can you explain the need to determine whether Joe Biden has had a botox shot? I suppose, if you are absolutely determined to try and justify a salacious interest in the subject, you can argue that your interest has something to do with Mr. Biden’s underlying character, but wouldn’t you rather be honest and simply say you want to know because you need fodder for a good gossip session? That Mr. Biden might have some aspects of personal vanity can hardly be news to any of the rest of us who have our own private vanities which we “enjoy” – and, in case any of you are wondering, the term “the rest of us” as used in this sentence includes everyone, everywhere, specifically including me and all of the gossip mongers and serious journalists out there.

I am as certain that not all journalists are gossips as I am that more than a fair share of them are gossip mongers or little more than such. No other conclusion explains the syndicated entertainment gossip shows, the extraordinary and almost loving focus on the bad behavior of Britney, Paris and Lindsay, the immense popularity of magazines such as People, and, yes, any sort of interest whatsoever on whether Joe Biden has had a botox shot. Scholars might well counter that many of the folks starring in the syndicated gossip shows are not real journalists, but these folks maintain stoutly and loudly that they are. Talk about lipstick on a pig!

The journalistic professionals can make whatever distinctions that please them about such matters, but, to those of us outside the profession, it seems as if an inordinate amount of time is spent by the media in informing us about the more disgusting aspects of the lives of celebrities that most of us would never willingly invite into our homes in the absence of such information.

Of course, people pay good money to listen to or read this garbage, so one cannot wholly blame the media for pandering to their tastes when they are trying to earn a living. One can, however, ask serious journalists – like those working at the Washington Post – to refrain from becoming infected by the gossip mongering bug if they wish to continue to be taken seriously.

To quote George Harrison again (check out YouTube if you want to hear a great song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0mGBpoFxB4 ):

“I hear it through the day,
Airwaves gettin’ filled,
With gossip broadcast to and fro,
On the devil’s radio.”

Posted in Media and Mayhem | Comments Off on Botox and the Media

“If He Were White…”

Posted on October 13, 2008 by Gavin Stevens

“I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal simply because he will endure: that when the last ding-dong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking. I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance.”

William Faulkner, Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech

“…the chance and probability of meddling interference arising out of the disapprobation of all communities of men toward any situation which they do not understand.”

William Faulkner, Absalom, Absalom!

I was listening to NPR this morning while driving to work, and heard Fred Bauer, a Democratic activist residing in Vigo County, Indiana say: “If [Obama] were a white man, I’d say he’d be way out in front here and nationally.” He reminded the reporter interviewing him that his county had a Ku Klux Klan chapter at one time. This coming on the heels of a Seattle Times front page article this weekend suggesting that our fair state is not free from racism, quoting some jerk in a bar using the “n” word when speaking of Mr. Obama.

I am not surprised that there are a lot of racists in the world, many of them living in the closets of America. While it isn’t appropriate in polite society these days to engage in overt racism, what we all think in the privacy of our minds and homes is unregulated and unreported. It is in the dark that the worm of racism keeps its faith and plies its trade. When it pokes its head into the light of day – such as the lady in the red t-shirt telling John McCain that Barack Obama is an Arab, while strongly suggesting by her demeanor that to be an Arab is to be an abomination – one can only shudder at the illiteracy at racism’s roots, the raw stupidity of its motivation, and the power of its hatred.

Why is it that racism continues to be prevalent in the world? As much as we like to think that there has been substantial progress in defeating racism, it keeps rising in various ways. It ranges from the pure evil of the Holocaust to the simple snub of someone due to the fact of their race. Who among us hasn’t wondered about how “those people” can possibly think or act the “way they do?” What is it that keeps us all in fear of others who are seemingly different from us?

I have come to believe that we are hard-wired to discriminate and that our innate ability to do so stems from one of our strongest survival traits. Among the many things that allowed a puny species, mankind, to become dominant on the planet when we weren’t the strongest, fastest, or most ferocious of the beings that inhabited the earth during our infancy as a species, were the traits of tool making, communication, bipedalism and the ability to classify. We were good at classification of the many things that were dangerous in the world, including other members of our own species. It is a very, very tiny step from the ability to classify and label to the vice of discrimination. In fact, one could easily argue that discrimination is nothing more than the obverse of classification.

If I am correct in this supposition, then we discriminate invariably and without real thought. If true, I suppose one could use this as an excuse for the behavior, and thereby forgive everyone their discrimination on the basis that they had no choice. For me, however, just the reverse is true – not only isn’t it an excuse for poor behavior, but it is a trait that we must haul out into the bright light of day, acknowledge openly and fight against mightily, if we are ever to succeed as a truly mature species. In short, we need to train ourselves to fight a crucial aspect of our own nature.

While the greatest cost of discrimination is the harm, physical and emotional, that we cause to others, it also has side effects which are damaging to the practitioner. Not only does it impede our moral self worth, it also keeps us from celebrating the uniqueness of mankind. To me, this latter result is the most interesting side effect of discrimination. The ways of mankind in surviving the period between birth and death are wonderfully amazing and varied. As a species, we are incredibly creative and resourceful. We have created a myriad of philosophies to explain and govern our lives and we have engaged in explorations of the soul, the mind, the earth and the heavens. Mankind has survived in garbage dumps and in Antarctica; in the cities and in sheep herding camps in remote locations across the world.

Discrimination prevents us from seeing these matters for what they really are – an incredible patchwork quilt of life, each episode devoted to a participant succeeding in the particular environment into which he or she was thrust by fate. The fog of discrimination keeps us from the communal celebration of these varied achievements, and keeps us, instead, focused upon the negative aspects of “them.” By focusing on the minutiae, we miss the magnificence of the sum.

I am not trying to argue that there aren’t bad people whom we would all do better to avoid like the plague; I am trying to argue that they come in all sizes, hues, shapes and temperaments. To let the few control our overall thinking about the many is to give in to the thuggery of those few. To allow a few of any stripe cause us to dismiss out of hand the rest of mankind that goes by that same stripe is to deny ourselves appreciation of the wonder of their achievements as a group. To never speak to anyone who thinks differently from you is to deny yourself the ability to learn, to grow, and to challenge yourself about your own preconceived ideas.

When I watched the repeat of McCain’s interaction with the lady in the red t-shirt, I had two reactions: (a) maybe a little bit of the real John McCain still lives, and maybe he is trying to come out and play with the big boys, and (b) how sad for the lady that she has to be mired in her ignorance, fear and incoherence. Hers is a mind I do not wish to emulate; hers is a mind that is a typical result of becoming blinded by racism and discrimination.

Here in Humptulips County, as in Faulkner’s Yoknapatawpha County, all is not beer and skittles, as my grandmother used to say. We have our share of bigots and their bigotry knows many guises. But I, at least, will continue to marvel not only at the physical beauty of our little corner of America, but also at the beauty and joy that has been created by all of its inhabitants.

And, while doing so, I pledge to do my best to overcome my inclination to toss everyone wearing a red t-shirt into a box marked “conservative bigot.”

Posted in Ponderings on the Meaning of Things | Comments Off on “If He Were White…”

McCarthyism and McCain

Posted on October 10, 2008 by Gavin Stevens

“We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men.”

Edward R. Murrow, See It Now, March 9, 1954

What is there about Presidential campaigns that presents such a severe challenge to a person’s character and his or her adherence to long-held principles? Is it the lust for power? Is it the spotlight of media attention and the fear of losing center stage? Is it the once-in-a-lifetime aspect of the process, with the candidate knowing that if he or she doesn’t get it right in the next few weeks the chance may never come again? Or, is it all of the above and/or some combination of other factors I am unable to fathom?

Whatever I may have thought about John McCain over the years, I have always known him to be a man of honor and principle. Not only is he a man of honor and principle, he has demonstrated his willingness to uphold his honor and principles under the most dire of circumstances. He was tested in this regard during the Vietnam War in ways the rest of us can only shudder over and never fully comprehend, and he emerged with his honor, principles and character intact.

However, as I have watched and listened to him over the past few months – and especially in these past few days – I have reluctantly concluded that when it comes to the presidency, his adherence to honor and principles are decidedly secondary to his imperative need to get elected. How can he stay the course under torture only to lose his way in the election spotlight? Can it possibly be that he has so many special interests pleading with him to do what it takes to get elected that the sound of their voices has overcome the sound of his inner voice? Has he forgotten that they want him elected for their benefit, not his?

The specific matter that prompts this question is McCain’s latest attempt to question Barack Obama’s ties to Bill Ayers. This is not a new story – it has been around for quite some time and has been “investigated” by various journalists of all stripes who have generally concluded that it is all a lot of nonsense. So Obama knows Ayers. So what? Radicalism is not a communicable disease. Character traits and principles are not transmitted by a virus, they are learned at our mothers’ knees. I rather suspect that if the truth were known, John McCain has known a significant number of rascals in his time other than Kenneth Keating. Does this association make him one himself? I think not.

Until yesterday, McCain left this sort of trash talk to Sarah Palin, probably understanding that to engage in it was to dirty his image. But since his campaign seems to be running out of things to say in this election, he now appears to be seeking a spin on the issue that will allow him to talk about it without appearing to actually be in the mud. Opining that he didn’t care about a “washed-up former terrorist,” McCain stated that the real issue was this: “We need to know the full extent of the relationship because of whether Sen. Obama is telling the truth to the American people or not. That’s the question.”

The question of what the Ayers/Obama relationship might be, or might have been, has been asked and answered on more than one occasion, and McCain’s re-asking it at this time is little more than demagoguery. Obama has repeatedly said what the relationship was, and it is a stretch to even describe it by using the term “relationship.” McCain’s statement is of the same caliber as the infamous question: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” If your answer is “yes,” you are a self-acknowledged former wife beater; if you answer the question “no”, you are a self-acknowledged current wife beater. This is because the question has an unstated predicate – i.e., you are a wife beater – thereby leaving as the only uncertainty whether you are still at it or not. The only proper answer one can give to a question such as this is “Go straight to Hell. Don’t pass Go. Don’t collect $200.”

The unstated predicate behind McCain’s statement that the issue is whether Obama has told the truth about the Obama/Ayers “relationship” or not, is that there is more to the “relationship” than has been admitted and that McCain has hard information which suggests that the truth hasn’t been told. Well, if he knows what that information is, why doesn’t he simply give it to us? If he doesn’t have such information, he has no business suggesting by innuendo that he does. To hint and suggest indirectly that such information exists is the true essence of demagoguery. In case he has forgotten, the concepts of “demagoguery” and “honor” are wholly incompatible.

While McCain has seemingly been in the Senate forever, he apparently has not been in the Senate long enough to remember Senator Joe McCarthy, the 1950’s communist baiter who was later censured by the Senate for his behavior. McCarthy spent the better part of the 1950’s asserting that there was some specific number of communists in the U.S. State Department – variously, either 205, 57 or 81, with the number apparently dependent upon the time of day, the weather report, the tightness of his shorts or the state of his then-current level of inebriation. He was pressed by many to produce the written list he always maintained he possessed, but he never produced one for the simple reason that he never had one. “Innuendo” should have been his middle name.

John McCain knows that he doesn’t have a viable issue over the question of whether Barack Obama knowingly associated with Bill Ayers. Knowing that, he engages in the worst kind of sophistry to keep the issue alive, saying that while the “terrorist” doesn’t matter, Obama’s character does and asking whether Obama has told us everything – with the unstated suggestion (predicate) that Obama hasn’t yet done so and is, therefor, not to be trusted. This is not John McCain at his best, and it saddens me to see an honorable man reduced to such a level of desperation that he would abandon the same principles he consistently maintained under torture.

Incidentally, I have far less problem with Sarah Palin uttering this garbage. Yes, it is still garbage when she utters it, it still shouldn’t be seen or heard in the limpid light of day, it still fails the smell test, and, no, I don’t think she should utter it in the first place. But, when she utters it, I unfortunately think we are seeing her at her best. She shares a fundamental problem with George Bush. As I stated yesterday, he is not of Presidential caliber. Simply put, neither is Ms. Palin. In fact, I suspect I could well compare George Bush favorably to her, and, given my opinions about Mr. Bush, I will leave you to conclude where I might place her in the character continuum.

Whatever quandaries I may find myself in over the issue of honor and character vs. the lure of Presidential politics, those of us who participate in this process as voters need to remember the words of Edward R. Murrow quoted above. He spoke these words on his first national television broadcast about Senator Joseph McCarthy. He eloquently reminds us that “accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.”

It is only a blind follower of his or her political party that might possibly conclude there is some value to repeating this kind of trash. As voters, none of us should be fooled by it. As voters, all of us should insist that politicians immediately produce what proof they have of the truth of statements like this one, so that such proof can be timely analyzed by independent means. As voters, we ought to remember that we aren’t in a position to know the hard facts and that we are dependent upon independent verification or disproof. As voters, we ought to tell the politicians to shut up if they cannot produce hard proof. And, since the politicians don’t listen to us while the electoral lust is upon them, we have to send this message in the only way the process allows – in the silence and privacy of the voting booth.

The role of the media in repeating all of this ad nauseam is a matter for further reflection on another day. Suffice it to say here that while their hands are equally unclean, I am not as surprised by the media’s behavior in the way that I am amazed by McCain’s. More on this subject at another time.

Near the end of his career during the Army/McCarthy hearings, Joe McCarthy was famously put down by the Army’s counsel, Joseph Welch, when Welch said to McCarthy in front of television cameras broadcasting to some 20,000,000 watching Americans: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” While John McCain does not, as yet, deserve that kind of put down, the political smear tactics of Karl Rove and his ilk (from which the McCain suggestion directly derives) certainly do.

It is time for John McCain to remember who he is and to listen to his internal voice, no matter the volume or cacophony of his advisers’ voices. The John McCain I thought I knew would not stoop so low. Where is he? I hope he will come out and play, since it would make the election far more interesting and far more deserving of his participation.

Posted in Politicians and Other Lower Life Forms | Comments Off on McCarthyism and McCain