The Wisdom Post

The Blog to Be Named Later returns with a discussion of the wisdom of George Walker Bush. This is not so simply that I could write a sentence that has never been written before, but because a particular quote by W fits quite nicely into a discussion of the diminished expectations that people have for this year’s crop of presidential candidates.

Referring once to education policy, President Bush the Dumber once chastised Democrats for the “soft bigotry of soft expectations.” This phrase perfectly describes the apathy voters feel toward this year’s candidates, although I wouldn’t call it bigotry so much as well- deserved contempt.

Republicans currently have the dilemma of choosing a nominee who can defeat President Barack Obama. While former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has led the field and has won the first two contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, lingering suspicion about his conservative bona fides has left many Republicans longing for a realistic alternative. One by one, the other candidates in the race have gotten their moment in the spotlight, and ultimately been found wanting. Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and now Rick Santorum have been scrutinized and then rejected, to one degree or another. Congressman Ron Paul has chugged along, holding on to a base of rabid supporters but seemingly unable to build upon it. Former Utah governor and U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman lingers in the race, hoping to catch on or at least avoid joining Bachmann, Cain and Tim Pawlenty on the sidelines.
Recently, I encouraged several New Hampshire residents in my family to consider voting for Jon Huntsman. I did this not as an Obama supporter, but in spite of my desire to see the president re-elected. I continue to believe that Jon Huntsman, should he somehow secure the Republican nomination, would be the most formidable candidate against Obama.

I say this because history teaches us that re-election campaigns are referendums on the incumbent. In the event that an incumbent president is running for re-election but not generating enthusiasm, the task among his campaign team involves winning a war of attrition. Barack Obama and his prospective performance as president is known to the American people, and divided roughly equally between those who find it acceptable and favor a second term and those who do not and prefer a change. The challenge for Obama is to gain those few remaining undecided voters and shore up a lukewarm base. He cannot do this by generating enthusiasm. Many people have complained that Obama is another Bush. Well, to win re-election he needs to be. Like the son, or the father.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush ran for president as a pseudo incumbent president, the supposed heir to the legacy of Ronald Reagan. The problem is, most of the American public found Bush far less likable and inspiring than Reagan. Polling indicated that on the issues, voters sided with Democrats and in generic polls, indicated a preference to elect a Democratic president. So Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes and the rest of the Bush team proceeded to elect their candidate the only way they could: by making his opponent unacceptable to the voting public. The focus of the Bush campaign in 1988 was not to advertise the virtues of George Bush. It was to make Michael Dukakis look like an unpatriotic weirdo who was completely out of step with traditional American values. Never mind that the origin of the “unpatriotic” tag was Dukakis vetoing a bill requiring students to say the pledge of allegiance. Which is illegal, because you can’t require anyone to take an oath of allegiance. Dukakis vetoed the bill not only on constitutional grounds, but to save the public’s money from being wasted on a useless court defense of said bill. So of course we want to forget that part, since Dukakis was a liberal and liberals want to waste your money.
The point is that there were broad strokes to paint Dukakis with, and the substance found in the smaller details couldn’t save him. This is what Obama must do to the Republican nominee, because the substance of his own record can’t get him a second term, since those important details are lost in a larger, largely false narrative that the Democrats have lost control of.

Even if one does not accept the premise that there is a difference in quality between the perception and reality of Obama’s record, there is still a path to victory for him, and in this case, he would follow the pattern of the son, not the father. In 2004, very few Republicans seriously argued for the re-election of George W. Bush. Instead, they argued against the election of Senator John Kerry. The rationale was, “Okay, so Bush isn’t perfect. But he has kept us safe, has kept the terrorists on the run, and anyway, he’s not an effete wishy washy windsurfer.” I’m just kidding, most Republicans couldn’t come up with a turn of phrase like that. Most Republicans couldn’t read a turn of phrase like that. Anyway, they persuaded enough people to buy into that narrative, and forget about all of those other tiny, insignificant details, like starting an unnecessary war by attacking the wrong country, spending billions of dollars occupying Iraq while Afghanistan slipped out of control, shredding the Constitution for the sake of public safety and cutting taxes in wartime for the first time in American history, producing record deficits that burdened an economy already headed toward a historic collapse. You know, the small stuff.

Despite those issues, ultimately George W. owes his re-election to the supremely important and relevant fact that….black people in Ohio are homophobic. Yes, that’s correct. In a time of war, and great expense of treasure and blood, the Republican Party stirred up so much agita about the prospect of gay marriage that Bush’s vote in Ohio inched up enough to provide his margin of victory over Kerry in the state, and therefore the electoral college. Man, for a guy that could barely count, Georgie sure had a lot of success with electoral math. If you don’t believe me, look it up on the internet, brought to you by Al Gore.

If a candidate for the worst president in American history can crawl to re-election to a second term in that office, then apparently, another president who many think fits that description can do the same. This is why the Republican Party should choose as its nominee one Jon Meade Huntsman, Jr.

In the absolute circus that is the Republican primary, one question should be paramount in the minds of Republican voters. Which one of the guys tumbling out of the clown car is the most acceptable alternative to Barack Obama? Or rather, which of them is the least objectionable? Rick Santorum? Newt Gingrich? Rick Perry? Ron Paul? No, it’s Mitt Romney. Unless it’s Huntsman. Let’s pretend that these two are culinary dishes. The recipe for both includes: conservative but not an out and out right winger. Calm demeanor. Equitable balance between social liberalism and fiscal conservatism. Picture perfect family. Mormon. Former governor. The only difference between these two dishes is that when you want to make a Huntsman, you hold the bullshit.

Remember how much Republicans hated Bill Clinton? Then why did they help re-elect him by propping up old Bob Dole onto the ticket? Mitt is a younger Dole, minus the sense of humor. The other wing nuts running this year would have fit in quite well in that race. At the time, the Clinton White House prayed that one candidate wouldn’t catch on. Who? Boring, plaid shirt wearing, unobjectionable Lamar Alexander. Old Lamar didn’t excite anyone, but he would have been the most formidable candidate against the controversial Democratic president because he didn’t bother anyone either. Huntsman presents the same danger to Obama, but the Republican Party probably won’t recognize it. And Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.
Wait, why am I telling anyone this? Never mind! Go Romney!

The Silence Post

The Blog to Be Named Later returns with a possibly futile appeal to reason.

The so called “stimulus bill” has become the whipping boy for every conservative political commentator in this country. The discontent over this measure has trickled down to the average guy, who works harder and earns less, and who doesn’t understand why the government is “pissing his money away.” Americans hear the term “stimulus” and naturally expect some stimulation. It hasn't happened, and people are angry. People are furious. Tea parties are underway.

But is it rational anger? I doubt it. Any time Congress approves a large expenditure, there is always going to be senators and congressmen slipping things into the bill that don’t belong there. I won’t defend that, although some people’s definition of “pork” is either very broad or very misleading.

For instance, this summer two Republican senators, John McCain and Tom Coburn, released a joint report highlighting the most wasteful spending provisions of the stimulus bill. One oft mentioned item is the $54 million that the government gave to the Napa Valley Wine Train. This does not sound like a good use of taxpayer money. The only problem is, the money didn't go to this train and these senators knew it.

Oh, I know, the idea that John McCain would screw up on money matters and do something irrational and reckless is completely out of character. There was $54 million dollars of stimulus money directed to the Napa Valley, but it was appropriated for flood control. It has nothing to do with this wine train, whatever that is, except that apparently the train passes through the area. This is like saying the government wrote me a check for $54 million dollars because I drove on Interstate 95 last week. It sounds outrageous, but it just ain’t so.

Still, there is no doubt that there must be truly wasteful projects slipped into this bill, and that McCain and Coburn have (I hope) an actual point and aren’t completely playing politics with this. And the larger point is inescapable: the stimulus bill isn’t stimulating the economy, right? Surely that’s true, right? Right?

Wrong. The money spent in the stimulus bill has put people back to work and has saved the jobs of millions of people. Is the economy great? Of course not. But think of it this way. Let’s say you fail to take care of yourself. For years, you drink too much, you eat too much, you don’t get any exercise or display any discipline. So you have a major heart attack and you’re rushed to the hospital. At the emergency room, you are revived and stabilized. Then you’re moved to intensive care. Would you try to sit up in bed and claim that the treatment didn’t work? No, of course not. You’re not on your feet again yet, but you’re still alive.

That’s what Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill did. It kept the economy alive. Just like Bush’s Wall Street bailout the previous year. People hated it, but it was medicine. It tasted bad going down, but we needed it. Had it not been enacted, there would have been a catastrophic failure of this economy. You think it’s bad now? Imagine 80% of small businesses in this country out of business because of a lack of available financing. Imagine dozens of Fortune 500 companies out of business. Imagine tens of millions more people out of work and without health insurance. Imagine the overall unemployment rate not at 10%, but at 25%. Imagine a new Great Depression. Yeah, that sounds great. We should have done that. Look, I understand wanting to stick it to the fat cats who caused this situation. But I’m not going to cut my own throat to do it, and I think if people who bitched about the bailout stopped and thought about it, they would come to the same conclusion.

There’s a joke about hurricanes and how they are named. They don’t sound menacing enough, and people fail to take notice. Earl? Sounds like some dumbass coming to town in a pickup truck. Katrina? I knew a German foreign exchange student named Katrina once. She was cute. They need to use names that better convey danger. If you turned on the news, and saw that Hurricane Bad Motherfucker was headed your way, you’d leave town, wouldn’t you?

This is the problem with the stimulus bill. It’s known by the wrong name. It’s not a stimulus bill. It’s a stay afloat bill, chock full of things that we just have to pay for, whether they help the economy flourish or not. Because of political necessity, it was sold as some kind of steroid for the economy that was going to fix everything. And that’s ridiculous. But that’s modern politics. You have to sell things to the American citizen, even legislation, because we have the attention span of a three year old at Chuck E. Cheese. Consequently, we’re all familiar with the stimulus bill, which we hate. And yet, we know nothing about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even though it just saved our collective asses. Guess what? They’re the same thing.

So what did Obama and the Democrats “piss money away” on with this legislation? Well, let’s look at the big ticket items:

-$53 billion in aid to local school districts, preventing teacher layoffs and further cutbacks in education. I don’t know, that sounds important. You’d think that the average mom or dad on Facebook who can’t speak two words without mentioning their kids could get on board with this one.

-$105 billion for infrastructure development, including highways and bridges. Hmm. I don’t know. Yes, it’s true that infrastructure is vital to commerce in this country and helps create jobs both in construction and in the development of new industries. And of course, it’s nice to drive on an interstate bridge without plunging 100 feet to your death as happened to those folks in Minnesota a couple of years ago. Still, I don’t know. Commerce, employment, public safety? Sounds kind of frivolous to me.

-$18 billion for water, sewage and environmental cleanup, including $4.6 billion for flood control. Anybody in Louisiana really want to argue about the need for flood control? If you like, we could just figure out the cost of half a million life preservers and give them out if you’d prefer that. That would be cheaper. No? Okay.

-$25 billion to keep the COBRA program alive for people who have involuntarily lost their jobs. My brother worked in the publishing industry for thirty years. In 2008, he was diagnosed with cancer. A few months later, he was laid off. Ask him if funding COBRA is a good idea. Don’t want to argue that one either? Okay then.

I know what you’re thinking. "He's cherry picking different items to make it sound like this wasn’t a huge, wasteful government program. Surely the most expensive items are not this noble."

And you’re right. Sort of. Because I haven’t mentioned the single biggest expenditure of Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill. Conjure up your worst nightmare, conservatives. Is it comprehensive health care? Welfare? A grant to build mosques on every block in America? No, it’s worse! It’s tax cuts!

“Oh no, tax cuts! Aaaaahhhhh!.....Wait, what? Tax cuts? Really? In Obama’s stimulus bill? And that’s the biggest item in the bill? Come on. “

It’s true. $288 billion in tax cuts.

“Oh, I get it. More tax cuts for the fat cats, for Wall Street, and I get to pay for it.”

Nope. There are billions of dollars for corporate tax credits and reductions, but over 80% of the tax cuts are for individuals. Payroll tax credits, child tax credits, college tax credits, homebuyer tax credits, deduction of sales tax from car purchases, and reduction in personal income taxes.

*Silence*

Yeah, I thought so.

The Stupid Post

The Blog to Be Named Later returns with a sad but true fact. The American people don’t know who they are.

See, to understand who you are, you have to know where you came from. You have to know your own story. When somebody says, “Where ya from?” you can’t answer with a blank stare. When someone asks you to tell them about yourself, you can’t simply mention your love for Crocs and mixed martial arts and think that’s a sufficient response. And when a pollster comes up to you, an American citizen, and asks you to name the country that America declared its independence from, you can’t get the answer wrong.

But that is exactly what has happened. In a new poll conducted by Marist College, more than 1 in 4 Americans failed to correctly identify the country from which the United States declared its independence in 1776. To be fair, that means that 74% of Americans can identify Great Britain as the country in question. It also means that based on the current estimate of the U.S. population, no less than 75 million Americans would get the answer wrong.

The results of the survey, when broken down, are essentially an indictment of this country’s educational system. 20% of those surveyed failed to name any country at all, preferring to go with “Unsure” as their answer. Other responses include China, Japan, and Mexico. Yes, that’s correct, we declared our independence from Mexico. As a resident of New England, we frequently have ceremonies commemorating Paul Revere’s midnight ride to warn citizens, “The Mexicans are coming!” Oh wait…

I am particularly happy to see that there are people who think that the United States was once a colony of Japan. That makes perfect sense. I guess when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, they were bombing their own people? What, exactly, was the reason that we revolted against Japan? Didn’t like sushi?

Of course, I can understand people thinking that America once belonged to China. They basically own us now, so that’s not such a leap.

We love to roll our eyes about these things. Ha ha, look at the dummy on Leno, getting the question wrong. On some level, it makes us feel better about ourselves. But it shouldn’t. We should each feel worse, because while it’s easy to laugh in the present, history is as much about the future as the past. In The Tempest, Shakespeare said “What’s past is prologue.” Of course, Shakespeare lived in England, and knew nothing of our great revolutionary struggle against…er…uh…hang on, it’ll come to me…

The Red Herring Post

The Blog to Be Named Later returns for a brief rebuttal on a silly issue. There is a tradition of sorts that the President of the United States visits Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day to lay a wreath at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

Unfortunately, we now have a president who was not born in this country, who has no respect for the military, cares nothing for the troops or their families and would rather spend Memorial Day on vacation rather than honor this nation’s heroes.

Or some would have you believe, anyway. President Obama chose not to attend this year’s ceremonies, opting instead to send the Vice President in his place, and instead took his family back to Chicago for a much delayed visit home. Of course, the burdens of the presidency do not leave the occupant of the office, whether or not he is actually in the office. I don’t think this is primarily a controversy about vacation time. I think most people regard the president, any president, taking a break from work as entirely understandable. The previous occupant of the White House spent 490 days, more than one year of his eight in office, at his ranch in Texas. It was not terribly controversial, except for the perception that this president was disengaged in the summer of 2001 prior to 9/11, and was disinterested and disengaged in the summer of 2005 during Katrina. But the fairness of those charges really should be separate from the question of vacation. I think most people would agree that some time off from one of the toughest jobs in the world is a good idea.

No, the main “issue” seems to be that the president didn’t spend Memorial Day honoring the troops at a ceremony. Which is a great story that seems to indicate that the president really doesn’t have the proper respect for the military.

Except for the fact that it’s not true.

You see, while Arlington is the most famous of our national cemeteries, it is not the only one. It turns out that the president went to Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Illinois for a ceremony there. He then followed that with a trip to the Hines Fisher House at the Edward Hines VA Hospital, where he met with wounded veterans.

Yes, that is outrageous conduct. I can see why people are pissed.

People should be upset, but not at the president. People should be mad at organizations like Fox News, that stir up bullshit stories like this. People should be annoyed at their friends who copy silly stories like this into their Facebook status without checking the facts. And people should be critical of themselves. Why? Because in addition to getting too much of our news from entertainment driven media, we have become far too vulnerable to the impulse to believe anything bad about any public official. Sure, there are bad apples. And there is plenty of good reason to be cynical. But it doesn’t have to be the only reaction we are capable of.

The Reason Post

The Blog to Be Named Later Returns in defense of reason. This is not to say in defense of health care reform, although I reluctantly favor it. More than legislation is under assault today. The American ability to debate issues calmly is in danger of extinction.

This trend is evident in the halls of Congress, on television, on message boards. I am generally of the opinion that Facebook is more enjoyable without politics. What is normally a forum for catching up with friends becomes something of a virtual war zone when politics is mentioned. Yet while I deplore the war, I will not unilaterally disarm.

I readily confess that I am guilty of what I accuse others of. Since last night, when the House of Representatives passed the Senate health care bill, provoking an onslaught of negative commentary from my “friends” on Facebook, I have referred to some of them as “stupid bastards” and posted a quote from scripture that essentially accuses Christians who oppose the charitable functions of this legislation as being hypocrites. However, I am pleased to stand by those remarks. Allow me to explain.

Several weeks ago, Rush Limbaugh announced plans to leave the country if health care reform passed. Although I have offered to help him pack, I am not yet aware of any travel arrangements that Rush has made. Therefore I assume his comment was satirical in nature. I’m not entirely sure what to make of a comment I read on Facebook last night, that perhaps it was now time to “succeed” from the United States. That’s not satirical, it’s just stupid. If you’re going to re-fight the Civil War to avoid giving health care to the poor, then learn what secession is. At least the people who wanted to keep slavery could spell the word.

As for my other remarks, I have no preference for another person’s religious affiliation. The next person I convert will be my first. I’m not even settled on my own religious views. However, because of the nature of my studies, I have become somewhat acquainted with at least the history of religion. I’ve noticed that many of the same people who frequently use Facebook to post requests for prayer, quote scripture and so forth, are the ones furiously typing expletives and complaints in all caps because of the passage of this bill. To these apparently devout Christians, let me offer the following passage: In the book of Mark, Jesus said, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

Now, I’m no Bible scholar, but that sounds very different from “Why I gotta pay more taxes to the gummint so someone who don’t work gets to go to the doctor? Nuh uh!”

Of course, I realize that you can find a passage in scripture in support of or against pretty much anything, because these words were written by flawed, imperfect human beings. Still, Christianity, as I understand it, is not religion a la carte, where you pick and choose which teaching of Jesus that you happen to like. It is therefore inconsistent and, dare I say, hypocritical, to oppose these reforms solely on that basis after spending months turning your Facebook page into a prayer group. Find another objection. Say we can’t afford it. Say it’s unconstitutional. Fine. You could make a reasonable case for either of those. But please, take a deep breath and type in lower case characters first.

The Free Advice Post

In the presidential campaign of 1800, Thomas Jefferson was subjected to substantial abuse by his critics. He was called a “mean spirited, low lived fellow…sired by a mulatto father” and it was speculated that if he became president that “murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will be openly taught and practiced.”

That is but a short selection of what was said of our third president, and he was not known to have replied to such criticism, understanding that to do so would be to dignify it with a response. Jefferson also well understood the nature of politics and the passion with which people engage in it.

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was described in a newspaper as a “grotesque baboon.” Lincoln ignored such commentary, except when he saw fit to make light of his own appearance with self deprecating remarks. He too understood the price of participation.

Throughout American history, presidents and other politicians have been forced to deal with an unrelenting barrage of criticism of their conduct, official and otherwise. They are mocked for their lack of personal charm (Richard Nixon) or their clumsiness (Gerald Ford). Politicians are teased for their deficiencies in spelling (Dan Quayle) or for wearing goofy outfits (Michael Dukakis). Often the criticism focuses on a public figure’s private life (Eisenhower, Kennedy, and the list goes on and on). And once in a while, the criticism even centers on the politician’s children.

It is this singularly unfair part of being a public figure that has set you off once again. After taking offense at remarks made by David Letterman last summer, now you’re insulted by an apparent reference to you on the television show Family Guy.

Really, Sarah? Is your epidermis that delicate?

Look, nobody is saying that this sort of behavior is fair or right. But if you’re going to become the President of the United States, then in addition to sending you greetings from my new home in Montreal, could I suggest that you toughen up a bit? You’ve already confessed to a sneaking admiration for Hillary Clinton; you’re going to need to look to her husband for tips on how to handle the big time. Let’s face it: given all the personal drama, the Palin family is the Clinton family in snowshoes. If you’re going to have teen pregnancies, and aborted shotgun weddings, almost relatives posing in Playgirl, then maybe you should give Bill a call and learn how he handled the media pounding that resulted from tawdry behavior and familial black sheep.

I know what you’re thinking, Sarah. “But Clinton brought all that onto himself with his own personal conduct. This is about my children!” I know, the liberal media has no respect for your son or daughter and their right to grow up outside the public eye. This kind of dastardly conduct reminds me of the time someone told a nasty joke about poor Chelsea Clinton at a fundraiser. Oh, wait, that was John McCain that did that.

Anyway, Sarah, you can’t have it both ways. When some right wing group offers you $100,000 and two first class plane tickets to come make a snarky speech attacking President Obama, you can’t say “You Betcha!” and then complain when someone comes after you. You can’t quit your job when the scrutiny is too much and then step back onto the public stage by working for Fox News and expect a free pass. You can’t expect two hundred years of fierce criticism in American politics to pass you by, especially when you partake in that tradition yourself.

After all, Sarah, you know how to solve this problem. Go back to Alaska and stay there. Nobody teases Mike Dukakis anymore, now that he is quietly teaching at Northeastern University. People tend to leave Dan Quayle alone. Even George Walker Bush is granted a modicum of peace and quiet because he has left the stage. If you can take the pounding, by all means, remain in public life. But if not, perhaps you should follow the advice of another oft criticized politician named Harry Truman: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

The Speech Post

When I was seven years old, Ronald Reagan became President of the United States. I remember going to school on a cold New Hampshire January morning and being told we would not have our regular class because we were going to see the presidential inauguration. I wasn't quite sure what an inauguration was, but the idea of watching television at school seemed pretty good to me.

At the time, New Hampshire was a solidly Republican state, and one of the 40 that had gone for Reagan over Carter in the 1980 election. There was no controversy over the idea that kids should listen to a speech by the president, not because New Hampshire was a Republican state, but because it was an American state and this was an American president. It seemed perfectly normal to put the kids in front of the tv in that circumstance.

While New Hampshire in 1981 was a very red state, I lived in a very blue household. The fact that my Dad quietly voted for Ronald Reagan didn't compare to the fervor with which my mother worked for Jimmy Carter's reelection. She voted for every single Democratic nominee from LBJ to Bill Clinton. In her lifetime, she voted for exactly one Republican, for governor of Louisiana in 1991, and only because I was working for him. A more dedicated member of the Democratic Party did not exist. As a small child, I didn't understand the antipathy adults had toward certain political figures. I certainly couldn't grasp the complexities of politics. I only understood that my mother was no fan of Ronald Reagan.

Two months after the inauguration, on March 30, 1981, President Reagan was shot. In the hours that followed the shooting, with no definitive word on the president's condition, I found myself confused by my mother's reaction. Why was she upset? I thought Reagan was "bad"?

When I expressed this opinion, I was told in no uncertain terms that whatever party Reagan belonged to, he was still our president. It was explained to me that while she didn't agree with his policies, he still deserved respect and certainly didn't deserve to be shot.
Looking back, I realize now that it would never have occurred to my mother to keep me home from school in order to prevent me from listening to a speech by President Reagan, or any president. She fiercely guarded my well being. But she was guided by a sense of patriotism, not partisanship.

The Driving Post

On June 13, 2009, four year old Diya Patel stepped into a crosswalk on Washington Street in Stoughton. As she made her way across the street, accompanied by her grandfather and two siblings, Diya was struck by a Toyota Camry driven by 89 year old Ilse Horn of Canton.

Diya, who was to enter kindergarten this fall, was thrown over 60 feet by the collision. Later, an investigation showed no evidence of pre or post crash emergency braking by the car.

Early the next morning, Diya died at the Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

What happened on that street in Stoughton is becoming far too common. Across New England and around the country, elderly drivers are causing accidents at an alarming rate. Just four days ago, Officer Michael Davey, a 34 year old veteran and father of three children, was killed when he was struck by a pickup truck driven by a 79 year old man, who now faces charges. This adds to a long list of elderly folks driving cars into crowds, through store fronts and into other cars.

Jacqueline Sorensen, 83, drove her Mustang convertible through the front of a liquor store in Natick, injuring the cashier. What's more out of place here, that you can't work in a store without being hit by a car, or that an 83 year old woman drives a Mustang convertible?

This sort of thing has been going on for far too long because no one has the will to address it. Any proposal of reform is immediately denounced by the AARP as age discrimination.

Age discrimination? Tell that to Diya Patel's family.

It's a question of basic freedom, we are told. Okay. Then try explaining to Michael Davey's children why they are free to grow up without a father.

Look, nobody wants to pick on old people. After all, we're talking about protecting them from harm as well. But we have do something about this. By the year 2025, one in four drivers on the road will be an over the age of 65. Public policy, however, is not going to solve this problem.

For example, here in Massachusetts, the governor is proposing legislation that would require annual driving exams for everyone over the age of 85. That age is too high. Hell, I'm 36 and I can feel my own skills beginning to decline. Why not set it at 65? That is usually the age at which people retire. Is it too much to ask that they take a half day to ensure that their driving skills have not eroded to the point of danger?

But this is really beside the point. The burden, and most of the blame, resides not with elderly folks, many of whom no longer know any better. It's not with the state, which is not the parent of its citizens. It's about the kids. Not the little ones in the crosswalk, but the middle aged children of these elderly people.

In time the child becomes the parent. It is inevitable, it is natural, and it is far more feasible than the government determining whether each individual is fit to drive. I have seen keys taken from senior citizens who were once fiercely independent. It hurts their pride, but it is far less harmful than a head on collision.

The Teddy Post

The Blog to Be Named Later returns for commentary on the news of the day, the passing of Ted Kennedy.

In 1968, at the funeral of Robert Kennedy at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City, Senator Edward Kennedy said, "My brother need not be idealized or enlarged in death what he was in life." Today, admirers will disregard Teddy's words as they mark his own passing. Detractors will bite their tongues because it lacks grace to denounce the recently deceased. And a great many Americans, disengaged from the world of politics and preoccupied with their own lives, will simply shrug at the news and go about their day.

For forty years, John and Robert Kennedy have, in fact, been idealized, and in a sense that is unfortunate. Not because they are unworthy, but because it's unworthy of them. What John F. Kennedy achieved is far more impressive when he is viewed as a flawed, imperfect human being, much like you and I. His life is more compelling as a person than as some remote idol or icon. President Kennedy is remembered for his youth and vitality. Yet a majority of the days he spent on Earth were ones of severe physical pain. His back was so weak from football and war injuries that he could not lift his children. After his death, aides wrote of Kennedy arriving for a public appearance, painfully making his way into the venue on crutches, agony etched on his face. At the edge of the stage, he would cast the crutches aside and stride confidently onto the stage as if in perfect health.

I suppose that your reaction to that story depends on your point of view. To me, it's a display of courage and triumph over adversity. To others, perhaps, it is an unworthy deception. However it is interpreted, it is nonetheless illuminating, because it's real. Similarly, I vastly prefer the real Robert Kennedy to the two competing images of him that are recorded in history. He was not a villain, he was not a messiah. He evolved during the course of his public life from someone primarily concerned with law and order to someone who was an advocate for the weak and suffering. This process was slow and difficult, and he made mistakes along the way. He was real. He was gifted, and he was flawed.

It is dangerous when a society fails to understand its own history. That is the country in which we live today. This is so partly because a vast majority of Americans live in ignorance of our nation's story and how it fits into the history of the world. Then there are those who read history, but misinterpret it. When public figures pass from the scene, as Ted Kennedy did today, it is important to see past the idolatry of the media, but also to disregard the whispered criticism, and find the middle ground in between, where some semblance of the truth resides.

Edward Kennedy spent more than half his life in the United States Senate, holding his seat from 1962 until last night. That is an enormously long career in public service, yet in some ways that reality is overshadowed, as ever, by the controversies provoked by his private life. That he endured enormous personal tragedy is well known, but perhaps not fully appreciated. It is not "merely" that John and Robert Kennedy were assassinated; Ted Kennedy buried sisters and nephews prematurely, endured his father's stroke and incapacitation, his son's cancer, a plane crash, and finally cancer of his own.

Just as he was defined by tragedy, Kennedy was known for a personal life that was, by all accounts (including his own), not up to the standard one might expect. There were episodes of womanizing and excessive drinking, but of course they all pale to what happened on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969.

All of these things obscure the daily grind of Ted Kennedy's life. He was no dilettante, no absentee senator. For forty six years he trudged up Capitol Hill to countless committee and subcommittee meetings. He was the last living symbol of the glory years of the Kennedy family, but there was nothing glamorous about the grind of paperwork and negotiations and drudgery of legislative work.

Why did he do this into his seventh decade? It could not have been ambition. Teddy long ago renounced any notion of the presidency. It wasn't to hold on to his Senate seat. Could he ever have been defeated in Massachusetts? No. He certainly didn't do it because he had to. He need never have worked a day in his life if he chose not to.

I can only conclude that his motives, in this instance, were pure. He wanted to help people. Kennedy was described this morning on NPR as a fine senator and a compassionate human being. I suspect he would be content to be remembered that way.

The Prison Post

This morning NFL player Plaxico Burress pleaded guilty to a weapons charge and will serve two years in prison. The Blog To Be Named Later returns to ponder the logic, or lack thereof, of sentencing guidelines in this country.

So Plaxico Burress shows up at a nightclub. Instead of hiring a security detail to protect him, he carries a gun. There is no evidence at all that Burress intended to use the gun in the commission of a crime, violent or otherwise. The idiot then proceeds to shoot himself in the leg accidentally. Now’s he is going to jail for two years. For what? Being an idiot?

How does this make sense? There is a shortage of jail space for actual criminals, many of whom get off on technicalities, but we’re going to spend $50,000 over two years to imprison a millionaire football player whose only crime was possessing a gun to protect himself? Yeah, I understand, it was an unregistered gun, he was in a state with strict weapons possession guidelines. Still, where’s the victim here?

Wouldn’t it have been far more productive to impose a stiff fine and use the money to educate people about gun safety? Wouldn’t it be better to give Burress 500 hours of community service and make him an advocate for the issue?

This reminds me of the Martha Stewart case.

In another instance of legal brilliance, Martha Stewart was sent to prison for insider trading because she sold stock to avoid a $45,000 loss. She’s worth $1 billion. The fine she paid? $30,000. Lovely. Let’s have the public spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to try, convict, and imprison a billionaire and then fine her $30,000. Well done.

I have a better idea. Next time Martha commits another victimless crime, let’s try MAKING some money off this deal. You take half of Martha’s money away. That’s $500 million, leaving her with only half a billion. Wah. Then you take that $500 million, and with an average cost of $14.5 million, build 34 schools with the money. Doesn’t that make more sense?

In my home state, former governor Edwin Edwards was sent to prison in 2002. He’s still there. His crime was taking $400,000 from the (then) owner of the San Francisco 49ers in exchange for assistance in getting a casino license in Louisiana. First of all, I’m not sure I see the crime here. Maybe it’s blackmail, or maybe it’s just a straight up business deal. Edwards was no longer governor when this happened. He took money in exchange for a promise to use his political influence to get public officials to do something. That’s called lobbying.

Second, if it is a crime, who’s the victim? DeBartolo, the owner? No. He wanted the deal. Actually, if he’s a victim of anything, it’s being pulled into court to testify, which eventually cost him his team.

The U.S. Attorney in the case identified the victim as the State of Louisiana, because of the damage to its reputation Edwards caused. Excuse me? How the hell do you damage the reputation of Louisiana?!? Is that possible? Consider:

-State Treasurer Edward Burke, who fled to Honduras in the late nineteenth century with $600,000 of the people’s money. (That’s about $130 million in today’s dollars)

-Governor Richard Leche, who famously said, "When I took the oath of office I didn't take any vow of poverty”, and then stole millions of dollars from LSU.

-The three consecutive Insurance Commissioners who went to prison over the last twenty years.

-Louisiana has more federal corruption convictions per person than any state in the country.

-Louisiana citizens elected the former Grand Wizard of the KKK to its state legislature. Later, he went to prison too.

Yeah, it was Edwin Edwards that made Louisiana look bad. Whatever the merits of the Edwards case, in the end the United States Government sent a 75 year old man to prison for ten years for a white collar crime. Instead of taking away an old man’s last few years of life, why not punish him financially and let the poor people of Louisiana benefit? Why not do this with all wealthy individuals convicted of a non-violent crime? Or does that make too much sense?

The Protest Post

Apparently, August is the silly season for protests. How do you protest the protests?
As Mitch Hedberg once said, “I’m against picketing, but I don’t know how to show it.”

Today in Portsmouth, New Hampshire the President of the United States, or as one advertisement sinisterly put it “Barack Hussein Obama” visited the region to have a town hall meeting about health care reform.

My understanding is that the event itself went okay, and the audience managed to remain civilized, even after the president asked for questions from those who were skeptical about his proposal. Outside, of course, it was a different matter. Police erected rope lines which separated protesters from supporters.
I don’t think it is any secret that I am a supporter. Maybe that disqualifies me from trying to write about this with some measure of reason. I don’t think so, however, and so the Blog To Be Named Later returns with a rebuttal of the signs and comments from today’s event:

#1 – “WE HAVE THE BEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD”
Um, no. I have heard this argument before: "Hey, if our health care system is so bad, how come people from other countries come here for medical treatment?"

Because there is a difference between having the highest quality at the very top, and having overall quality. You wouldn’t say based on the luxury boxes that Fenway Park has the best seats in all of sports. Not when you’re sitting in the grandstand in a seat designed in 1912 designed for a citizen of Lilliput. And to stretch this analogy, what if you’re one of the 50 million people who can’t get in to see the game at all?

The fact is that the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. health care system 37th in the world. If you’re happy with your health care, great. Guess what, under the president’s plan, you get to keep it just the way it is. No, wait, it could be cheaper. Sorry about that.

#2 – “Communism Kills, Freedom Works”
Okay, first of all, the guy holding the sign clearly needs better health care. He’s the best argument for reform I have ever seen. But we’ll take the point straight on. Adding a public option to the health care system is NOT COMMUNISM, IT IS CAPITALISM. It’s called “competition”.

I love how ultra conservatives have these deeply held beliefs that they cling to only until they become inconvenient. Remember devolution? For years Republicans wanted everything decided at the state level. States rights. On all matters. We insist. Wait, not presidential recounts!

#3 – “A Public Health Care Option will drive private insurers out of business”/”A government program will be awful, nobody will want it, and it will just be a big waste of money.”

Okay, fellas. I understand that you’re upset, but you’re going to have to pick an argument here. These are two completely contradictory statements being made by the same group of people. Make up your fucking mind.



#4 “I’ve Changed” – (Obama with Hitler mustache)

Ah, see, now you’ve finally hit on an argument that makes sense! Well done! I happen to be a student of history, and I well remember when Hitler and the Nazis conquered Europe so that they could make sure that everyone had decent health care! Those were the days!

By the way, just as a reference for this guy, Communism is extreme leftism, Fascism is extreme rightism. Obama can’t be both Stalin and Hitler. Again, you guys need to make up your mind which argument you are making.

#5 – “I don’t want the government to choose my doctor”

Oh My God. *slaps palm to forehead*

Please listen to me. Please. Just stop waving your cardboard and stick and listen. Nobody is going to choose your doctor for you. No one is talking about making you change your health care AT ALL IF YOU ARE HAPPY WITH IT. Health care reform is about adding a public option. Let’s break that down. Adding, not subtracting. Option, not mandate. Do you understand that? Or are you just pretending not to?

Here’s another simple analogy for the simple minded. Protesting a public option for health care is very much like going to your favorite restaurant, seeing something new added to the menu, and immediately becoming hysterical because you believe that the hamburger you’ve been ordering for ten years is going to be suddenly taken away by evil chefs that you are sure exist just behind the kitchen door. Calm down. In the meantime, let me replace those sharp things with some plastic utensils.

The Survey Post

C-SPAN recently conducted a survey of over fifty historians and observers of the American presidency, and have ranked the presidents on ten individual categories such as Public Persuasion, Economic Management, International Relations, etc. The scores were averaged and produced an overall ranking of the Presidents of the United States.

Of course, this is only opinion, but it’s the opinion of a pretty broad ideological range of qualified historians. When Richard Nixon was about to resign in disgrace, Henry Kissinger assured him that history would remember him more favorably than his contemporaries. Nixon’s reply was, “It depends on who writes the history.”

Here’s the link to the survey: http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Index.aspx

In my view, there is much more right than wrong here. Lincoln is the obvious choice for number one. FDR, Truman and TR are ranked appropriately high. I tend to think that Theodore Roosevelt was the best president we ever had. He just didn't have the crises that Lincoln or FDR had to deal with. In any case, I take issue with some of the rankings. First of all, George H.W. Bush, as all distinguished historians would say, got jacked up. His overall ranking is 18th, which sounds okay, but the numbers that produced that average are grossly unfair. He received a 46 (out of 100) on economic management. No doubt this rating was fueled by memories of the recession that hit during Bush’s term, and his obvious discomfort debating economic issues with Bill Clinton in the 1992 campaign.

It should be remembered, however, that a recession after the growth stimulated by the Reagan years was all but inevitable. Bush should be judged on how he responded to the downturn. In 1990, he brokered a deal to lower the deficit which contributed greatly to economic recovery and the booming economy of the 1990’s that Clinton gets so much credit for.

Bush’s numbers are part of an overall underestimation of his performance as president. I tend to believe that in this survey, the father is being punished for the sins of the son. Here are some shorter observations of the survey:

-George Washington is too high for the relative lack of concrete accomplishments he achieved during his presidency. It’s not a list of greatest Americans, it’s a list of greatest presidents.
-Teddy Roosevelt is rated far too low in the category of “Pursued Equal Justice for All”.
-Jimmy Carter was a pretty poor president, but a 62 in “Moral Authority”? That’s all he had was moral authority!
-Given the catastrophe of Vietnam, I cannot in good conscience agree with ranking LBJ our 11th greatest president. I’m sorry to say that, because he had greatness in him.
-The guys who did no harm, like Millard Fillmore and William Henry Harrison, should not be ranked below George W. Bush. I’m not sure anyone should be.

I could go on, but again, it’s all opinion. There are no correct answers, and the best that one can hope for from surveys like these is that they provoke debate. For those who are well versed in presidential history, the debate is the thing. For others, it’s a chance to become better acquainted with these figures who impacted our country.

The Double Take Post

On Tuesday afternoon, during a visit to a children’s hospital in Nashville, Cindy McCain said that her husband’s opponent, Senator Barack Obama, has “waged the dirtiest campaign in American history.”

Huh?

Maybe Cindy meant that Obama has been the target of the dirtiest campaign in American history. But I doubt it. No, she meant what she said, and it’s ironic that she made these remarks in a hospital. Back in 1994, Mrs. McCain admitted to stealing drugs from her own charity to sustain her personal addiction to Percocet and Vicodin. She also fired the administrator of that charity in an effort to cover up her crime.

If Barack Obama has run the dirtiest campaign in American history, as this woman alleges, why haven’t they mentioned these facts? Can you imagine what the McCain camp would do if it were Michelle Obama who had done this?

In the past several months, conservative advocates have spread vicious and unfounded rumors about Barack and Michelle Obama. He’s secretly a Muslim. She hates “Whitey”. The subtle and not so subtle instances of racism have been a consistent undercurrent to this campaign. With less than a month until Election Day, and with McCain’s poll numbers sinking like the NASDAQ, now the surrogates have stepped aside. Now the principals are directly involved in the slander.

It’s a simple matter, really. The American people are preoccupied with the economy. McCain’s own advisers admit that his poll numbers go down when he addresses economic issues. So if you’re losing, and you can’t talk about the one thing people really care about, what do you do? You throw bombs. You call your opponent “unpresidential” because he’s willing to negotiate with our enemies. You roll out the stewardess to say that Obama is “pallin’ around with domestic terrorists.” And now, in a new low, you trot out the trophy wife to engage in personal attacks and distortions.

Distortions? Oh, yes, I forgot to mention Cindy’s remarks on Wednesday. At a McCain rally in Pennsylvania, she said “The day that Senator Obama cast a vote not to fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body, let me tell you.”

No, Cindy, that was the Vicodin.

What Mrs. McCain declined to mention, or perhaps does not know, is that Senator Obama voted against a particular appropriations bill that did not include a timetable for withdrawal for Iraq. Now, I know that it goes against the policies of the last eight years to ask questions and demand accountability before handing out billions of dollars. But this is nothing but the same old foolishness of singling out one vote on a particular bill and ignoring the fact that a legislator voted for a different but similar bill instead. They did this to Kerry in 2004. At one time, I thought that this was one tactic we would not have to endure this year, because we had two senators running against each other, and presumably that would cancel out the effectiveness of the tactic.

What we have seen in this campaign, rather, is John McCain’s refusal to let facts get in the way of a good line. He continues to recount in speech after speech Governor Palin’s opposition to the “Bridge to Nowhere” even though it has been well documented that she was for it until it became a political issue, and only then did she oppose it. We have seen Senator McCain continue to claim that his opponent voted 94 times to raise taxes. What he doesn’t mention is that the votes in question were to lower taxes for most people, while raising them for a much smaller number of people. And neither the Senator nor his felon, I mean wife, bothers to mention that McCain himself voted against funding for the troops. McCain voted against a funding measure virtually identical to the one opposed by Obama. The difference? The bill McCain voted against included a timetable for withdrawal. You know, the same timetable that the Iraqis themselves have now adopted because they want us to leave.

So why does Cindy McCain say these things? Maybe she doesn’t know any better. Maybe she doesn’t care. Or maybe she can’t stand the thought of the next few years at home with a defeated John McCain. Maybe she’ll say or do anything to prevent him from going off on her and once again calling her (in public) a word that rhymes with runt.

What a wonderful First Couple they would have been...

The Apology Post

The Blog to Be Named Later returns, despite a relative lack of commentary expressed by its readers, either publicly or privately, because it is now necessary for me to issue a formal apology.

During the life of this blog, I have been awfully critical of our president. I have expressed evolving views of the candidates to succeed him, with one constant caveat: Whoever is elected to succeed him, I opined, it will be an improvement. After all, I could (and have, on occasion) made the case from a historical perspective that George W. Bush ranks 42nd out of 42nd in terms of successful presidents.*

Well, Mr. President, I owe you an apology, because it’s clear now that I am completely wrong, because President John McCain would obviously be much worse.

Why is this, as I say, “clear”? Well, there is an overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial and concrete evidence that points to a McCain Administration eclipsing its predecessor in ineptitude.

First, there is the issue of ideological inconsistency. Say what you will about President Bush, but he has, over the last eight years, remained consistent with his core beliefs. I happen to think that they are wrong, but he has at least stuck with his principles. Whereas John McCain opposed offshore drilling as an impractical solution to the energy crisis, until he ran for president. He opposed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, until he ran for president. He sponsored campaign finance reform and decried negative campaigning, until he ran for president.

Second, there is the issue of the nature of their campaigns. Bush ran for president in 2000, and ran for re-election in 2004, promising smaller government, compassionate conservatism, reluctance to commit American forces to open ended military assignments, and ample funding for education. Okay, so he gave us the exact opposite of all that. But at least when he tarnished the honor and integrity of his opponent, he did it by inference. He suggested that John Kerry’s policies would leave the nation vulnerable to terrorists. John McCain and his running mate are now calling Barack Obama a terrorist.

Third, President Bush is in one sense the kind of person I admire. He’s an idiot, but he at least KNOWS he’s an idiot, so he recruited some smart, experienced guys to work in his administration. For instance, he selected Dick Cheney as his running mate. Now, I’m no fan of Dick Cheney. He has, in my view, routinely abused the power of his office and promoted an agenda favorable to Big Oil at the expense of the American people. But how does he compare to his potential Republican successor? He’s Abraham Fucking Lincoln.

Finally, there’s one major difference between Bush and McCain, and it’s not that Bush at least didn’t crash his planes when he was flying them in Alabama. No, the biggest single difference is that while I have never doubted Bush’s incompetence, I have also never doubted his sanity. Again, say what you will about George W. Bush, but at least he has been steady. At least he could be counted on to at least speak responsibly compared to Captain Chaos. It’s one thing to elect a dumb guy to be president. It’s quite another to elect someone who is unstable. And that’s what the Republican nominee for president is. I am referring to his apparently unresearched decision to select Sarah Palin to serve a heartbeat from the presidency after months of promising to select a running mate solely on the basis of qualifications. I am referring to the bizarre back and forth make believe shutting down of his campaign to address an economic crisis that he one week earlier denied existed. And I’m referring to the following quote from his own biography:

“I don't torture myself over decisions. I make them as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can. Often, my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint."

Well, I for one am not prepared to live with the consequences of President McCain’s quickly made decisions. And, after all, given the power of the presidency in these perilous times, millions of Americans might not get to live with the consequences of those decisions.

Senator McCain, in the absence of a coherent economic policy, lacking the ability or knowledge to address the health care crisis, burdened by decades of opposition to alternative energy, and desperate to escape the performance of his own party these last eight years, has spent a large portion of what he promised to be an “honorable campaign” trying to convince the American people that electing Barack Obama is too great a risk. Instead, he has amply demonstrated that he himself is the true risk.

And so as the McCain campaign thrashes around like a boxer, losing on points but desperately seeking a late round knockout, I say to you, Mr. President, I’m sorry. You weren’t so bad after all. Comparatively speaking, of course.






*George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. However, only 42 men have served as president. Grover Cleveland served non-consecutive terms and therefore counts twice.

The Provisional Post

When the economy melted down last week, John McCain, saying the economy was fundamentally strong, continued his campaign. The situation continued to deteriorate. McCain campaigned on. Two new polls came out today, one from the Washington Post and one from FOX NEWS (!) showing that McCain is losing again, and NOW he is suspending his campaign to deal with the economic crisis.

I’m sure this has nothing to do with the fact that he’s suddenly down in the polls, that he’s two days away from a presidential debate he is, by his own admission, unprepared for. I’m sure it has nothing to do that he is falling behind Obama because the economy has surged to the top of a range of issues, and by a wide margin people trust Obama to handle the issue better.

In the last two weeks, even KARL ROVE has admitted that McCain has crossed a line that makes previous campaigns look like truth and justice. He flat out lies in his commercials. He picks a running mate and potential successor solely for political reasons. Now he’s trying to hide his complete lack of knowledge regarding the economy by presenting himself, once again, as being above politics.

Okay, that’s fine. I’ll take McCain’s action at face value. I will consider this an act of patriotism. We all should, with one provision. Since Senator McCain feels that his duties as a senator are more important than the campaign, he should not only suspend his campaign, he should go one step further: Drop out.

C’mon, John. Put country first.