Tis an ill wind that blows no good and at least one person on the planet has found the gentle breezes of Katrina irresistible. President Bush is cutting short his vacation in Crawford to return to Washington so that he can direct the federal response to the hurricane’s damage.
The fact that the press will have to pull up stakes and leave Cindy Sheehan and her companions behind in the hot Texas sun had nothing to do with the presidential decision to vamoose.
While Cindy can pack up and track her elusive quarry to the nation’s capital, there her simple story will have to compete with many others for the attention of the media. The isolation of Crawford was perfect for Cindy and her anti-Iraq War friends.
The president, who undoubtedly feels the pain of his constituents along the Gulf Coast, almost surely issued a huge, “Whew!” when the opportunity arose to return to the White House. His performance this summer and in the coming months gives new meaning to the term `Washington Insider.’
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Monday, August 29, 2005
C'est La Vie
I’m done! I finished writing my novel about the internment of the ethnic Japanese during World War II. When I typed the last sentence I was overjoyed, because for more than two years several hours of almost every day was spent working on the beast.
My first novel, A Tattered Coat Upon A Stick, was a joy to compose as I was proving to myself that I could do it, that I was, at least in some sense, a novelist. I looked forward to creating another story to demonstrate that I wasn’t a one trick pony and, of course, to make tons of money and reap the glory that goes with being a successful novelist.
It quickly became obvious that agents and publishers are not quite as interested in superannuated novelists as they are first timers straight from campuses. Not one person in the industry would read even a single chapter, not a page, not a paragraph, not a line, a sentence, even a word. How could they not even consider one of the great books of the new century? Easy!
Undeterred - there is some question about the sanity of the author here – I began another story. This time too, the words flowed and the novel took shape. Au Revoir, L’Acadie emerged after more than two years of hard work, and I was satisfied.
In the meantime, new technology came along, and I self published the first novel. I was greatly heartened when it sold almost a thousand copies and I made a profit sufficient to throw a pizza party for my grandchildren.
Heartened by my great financial success, I prepared to forgive the literary agents and publishers and magnanimously offered them a second chance to discover the next Ernest Hemingway. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water…
Quite by chance, I learned of Publish America, a company that actually produces books by people like Wild Bill, not mid-listers but rather off the bottom of the chart performers. They accepted the document and the rest is history – not important history but a record of someone having faith in my work. This book sells at about the same pace as the first, so another pizza party was in order and was enjoyed by all.
Truly, I was on a roll. Royalties are pouring in and it appears that Pizza Hut will be hosting an annual event for the kiddies. I am a professional novelist. While my hourly rate of return is a little below the U.S. minimum wage - by a factor of at least twenty, still I’m paid. Is it possible that I could sue somebody for back wages? In thinking about it, the target would be me, so litigiousness should probably be stifled.
After these successes, I still felt that the literary establishment did not appreciate what was there right before their eyes and decided to write still another spellbinder. By this time, I had an M.O. I had my story – its’ about the internment of the Japanese
The book chronicles the war time experience of an army lawyer who is caught up in the internment. Most of the stories about this dark event have been told from the perspective of the victims. Their sad tales have inspired many books and will motivate writers far into the future, but I thought that someone should describe what happened to those charged with implementing Executive Order 9066 that they believed was immoral and illegal.
Things are looking up, the first agent contacted agreed to consider it - CONSIDER. While it may get little more attention than its predecessors, it has done better than them already.
The purpose of this posting is twofold. I can’t tell you how exhausting writing this third novel was. The relief felt when the last draft was finished was almost beyond description – a ridiculous admission from a professional writer. I never wanted to see the document again. While I knew that was silly, that’s how I felt. I never wanted to face another word processor.
I played a round of golf the following morning, never feeling freer of guilt for not having plugged away at the novel. The relief was amazing.
The second day without obligation, I hung around the house. The editor kept looking at me in a strange manner. "What are you doing in the kitchen? Get down in your hole where you belong!"
After a week something big dawned on me, I was bored and had nothing to do. What to do? A writer writes, so I descended into the pit and confronted the key board. The Blog! That’s it, the Blog. Instead of once a week as I’d been Doing as the book took shape, the Blog became a several times per week event again.
But it wasn’t enough. An old man has to putter; some of them garden. That was my favorite pastime for years, but now my little patch is but twenty by twenty, half of that a brick patio. I’m not handy; my lack of talent with tools is the stuff of family legends. I play golf once a week and have no desire to pick up the pace.
What to do? What could Wild Bill do to keep the synapses firing? Why, write a novel! Good God, no, not another three year commitment! But it’s all I know – all I can do. After ten Blog postings slamming George Bush, I tired of picking on him – at least on a daily basis. Besides, there is a great need to be met. If those pizza parties are to be the success I dream there must be an infusion of royalties. You can’t expect grandchildren to praise dear old dead Grampa if they can’t have coke with their slices, and they are getting restless having to order only plain cheese toppings.
So for the sake of the kiddies, I must get down to work. For the last couple of days, I’ve been tossing around some ideas. I’m dreaming again; maybe there could be ice cream after the pizza and coke.
More important, the editor wants me out of the kitchen.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
My first novel, A Tattered Coat Upon A Stick, was a joy to compose as I was proving to myself that I could do it, that I was, at least in some sense, a novelist. I looked forward to creating another story to demonstrate that I wasn’t a one trick pony and, of course, to make tons of money and reap the glory that goes with being a successful novelist.
It quickly became obvious that agents and publishers are not quite as interested in superannuated novelists as they are first timers straight from campuses. Not one person in the industry would read even a single chapter, not a page, not a paragraph, not a line, a sentence, even a word. How could they not even consider one of the great books of the new century? Easy!
Undeterred - there is some question about the sanity of the author here – I began another story. This time too, the words flowed and the novel took shape. Au Revoir, L’Acadie emerged after more than two years of hard work, and I was satisfied.
In the meantime, new technology came along, and I self published the first novel. I was greatly heartened when it sold almost a thousand copies and I made a profit sufficient to throw a pizza party for my grandchildren.
Heartened by my great financial success, I prepared to forgive the literary agents and publishers and magnanimously offered them a second chance to discover the next Ernest Hemingway. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water…
Quite by chance, I learned of Publish America, a company that actually produces books by people like Wild Bill, not mid-listers but rather off the bottom of the chart performers. They accepted the document and the rest is history – not important history but a record of someone having faith in my work. This book sells at about the same pace as the first, so another pizza party was in order and was enjoyed by all.
Truly, I was on a roll. Royalties are pouring in and it appears that Pizza Hut will be hosting an annual event for the kiddies. I am a professional novelist. While my hourly rate of return is a little below the U.S. minimum wage - by a factor of at least twenty, still I’m paid. Is it possible that I could sue somebody for back wages? In thinking about it, the target would be me, so litigiousness should probably be stifled.
After these successes, I still felt that the literary establishment did not appreciate what was there right before their eyes and decided to write still another spellbinder. By this time, I had an M.O. I had my story – its’ about the internment of the Japanese
The book chronicles the war time experience of an army lawyer who is caught up in the internment. Most of the stories about this dark event have been told from the perspective of the victims. Their sad tales have inspired many books and will motivate writers far into the future, but I thought that someone should describe what happened to those charged with implementing Executive Order 9066 that they believed was immoral and illegal.
Things are looking up, the first agent contacted agreed to consider it - CONSIDER. While it may get little more attention than its predecessors, it has done better than them already.
The purpose of this posting is twofold. I can’t tell you how exhausting writing this third novel was. The relief felt when the last draft was finished was almost beyond description – a ridiculous admission from a professional writer. I never wanted to see the document again. While I knew that was silly, that’s how I felt. I never wanted to face another word processor.
I played a round of golf the following morning, never feeling freer of guilt for not having plugged away at the novel. The relief was amazing.
The second day without obligation, I hung around the house. The editor kept looking at me in a strange manner. "What are you doing in the kitchen? Get down in your hole where you belong!"
After a week something big dawned on me, I was bored and had nothing to do. What to do? A writer writes, so I descended into the pit and confronted the key board. The Blog! That’s it, the Blog. Instead of once a week as I’d been Doing as the book took shape, the Blog became a several times per week event again.
But it wasn’t enough. An old man has to putter; some of them garden. That was my favorite pastime for years, but now my little patch is but twenty by twenty, half of that a brick patio. I’m not handy; my lack of talent with tools is the stuff of family legends. I play golf once a week and have no desire to pick up the pace.
What to do? What could Wild Bill do to keep the synapses firing? Why, write a novel! Good God, no, not another three year commitment! But it’s all I know – all I can do. After ten Blog postings slamming George Bush, I tired of picking on him – at least on a daily basis. Besides, there is a great need to be met. If those pizza parties are to be the success I dream there must be an infusion of royalties. You can’t expect grandchildren to praise dear old dead Grampa if they can’t have coke with their slices, and they are getting restless having to order only plain cheese toppings.
So for the sake of the kiddies, I must get down to work. For the last couple of days, I’ve been tossing around some ideas. I’m dreaming again; maybe there could be ice cream after the pizza and coke.
More important, the editor wants me out of the kitchen.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Light or Darkness
For a generation, American society has been under pressure from the right. Frankly, there was good reason for the movement toward values and conservatism, but it has gone too far and progressives and moderates must push back.
At least since the 1920s, America has been the symbol for modernity in the world. Rights for women, minorities, and children have been revolutionized, and we are a beacon through the world for moving toward humaneness and fairness. Our environmental movement throughout the period was among the most intelligent and forward looking in the world.
The wars of the twentieth century brought great change, much of it enlightened but, sadly, much of value was lost. Clearly needed changes in the rights of women naturally led to unintended results, and in the latter decades of the last century undesirable phenomena such as single motherhood arose.
The long clash between capitalism and communism that ended with the demise of the Soviet Union had within it the seeds of problems for America and its allies. In retrospect, Vietnam which our government – over five presidencies – believed to be an integral battle in the Cold War proved to be an unimportant way station in that conflict but one which created many of our present problems. While America did not prevail in Vietnam, in no way did that slow our victory in the greater clash.
From World War I until the turning point in public opinion against the conflict in Vietnam, the Democratic Party was the source of support for an aggressive and forward looking foreign policy. The Republicans beginning with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge’s pressure on President Wilson in the years following the Great War, through Martin, Barton and Fish leading up to World War II, and on into the early years of the Cold War was the party of isolation.
But, (as has been described by many writers and thinkers – and most especially for me by Andrew Bacevich’s The New American Militarism) political and social forces that had not been clearly recognized before Vietnam began to be asserted. The left wing of the Democratic Party no longer held and, in fact, revolted against the war and led the peace movement in the country. Excesses, proudly proclaimed by one side and exploited and highlighted by those reacting against them led to a major resurge of the conservatives and the values oriented segments in American society.
The vast majority of people in the middle of the political spectrum gradually shifted from progressive supporters of policies long espoused by Democrats to the policies and values of Republicans. Most observers point to Ronald Reagan as the principal beacon in this movement, but I think signs of it were clear in the election of Richard Nixon in 1968.
With this great reaction against Vietnam, powerful forces in the most conservative wing of the Republican Party led the way in this values oriented society. Most prominent in domestic politics were the Evangelical Christians. In looking outward, the Neoconservatives, over time, came to assert themselves most effectively.
The success of these elements in American society today is obvious and overwhelming. They have cleansed American government of liberalism and stand today in charge of both the Executive and Legislative Branches. While loath to admit it, they also control the Supreme Court and most other federal courts.
They are in a position to direct the federal government’s role in foreign and domestic spheres, and indeed are now fighting for power they never dreamed possible when the movement took shape just one generation ago. They have reduced taxes and changed the ratio of redistribution of wealth in the country from rich to poor to the opposite. They are fighting to insert religion into science. They are revolutionizing public education by calling for the teaching nonscientific beliefs in science curricula. They are undermining American leadership in the natural sciences and in medical science and treatment.
They are leading American foreign policy in the bellicose assertion of power across the globe and have led us into the War in Iraq in which all of the premises for the conflict were later found to be false. In the face of obvious error, they have redefined that war as one of values rather than immediate defense of the country and its allies. Now almost two thousand American deaths, tens of thousand wounded and injured, and almost three hundred billion dollars in treasure later, they say we must fight on despite having no better goals than the day we invaded.
It is time for the middle to shift to the Democrats. Libertarians and enlightened business leaders have to recognize that Evangelical policies are worse for their values than those of the left. Moderates must see that continuing down the trail of ignorance in science and technology will cause us to fall behind our competitors.
While the Neocons have disappeared into the woodwork as the debacle in Iraq becomes obvious to the American Public, every day we see further emboldenment of the leaders of the hard right in domestic affairs. Only wild and crazy statements by the most radical, such as calling for foreign assassinations are criticized – and then not by the President.
So it is up to the middle to tilt leftward, despite knowing that this too will ultimately lead to a shift too far. We must take the country back now!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
At least since the 1920s, America has been the symbol for modernity in the world. Rights for women, minorities, and children have been revolutionized, and we are a beacon through the world for moving toward humaneness and fairness. Our environmental movement throughout the period was among the most intelligent and forward looking in the world.
The wars of the twentieth century brought great change, much of it enlightened but, sadly, much of value was lost. Clearly needed changes in the rights of women naturally led to unintended results, and in the latter decades of the last century undesirable phenomena such as single motherhood arose.
The long clash between capitalism and communism that ended with the demise of the Soviet Union had within it the seeds of problems for America and its allies. In retrospect, Vietnam which our government – over five presidencies – believed to be an integral battle in the Cold War proved to be an unimportant way station in that conflict but one which created many of our present problems. While America did not prevail in Vietnam, in no way did that slow our victory in the greater clash.
From World War I until the turning point in public opinion against the conflict in Vietnam, the Democratic Party was the source of support for an aggressive and forward looking foreign policy. The Republicans beginning with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge’s pressure on President Wilson in the years following the Great War, through Martin, Barton and Fish leading up to World War II, and on into the early years of the Cold War was the party of isolation.
But, (as has been described by many writers and thinkers – and most especially for me by Andrew Bacevich’s The New American Militarism) political and social forces that had not been clearly recognized before Vietnam began to be asserted. The left wing of the Democratic Party no longer held and, in fact, revolted against the war and led the peace movement in the country. Excesses, proudly proclaimed by one side and exploited and highlighted by those reacting against them led to a major resurge of the conservatives and the values oriented segments in American society.
The vast majority of people in the middle of the political spectrum gradually shifted from progressive supporters of policies long espoused by Democrats to the policies and values of Republicans. Most observers point to Ronald Reagan as the principal beacon in this movement, but I think signs of it were clear in the election of Richard Nixon in 1968.
With this great reaction against Vietnam, powerful forces in the most conservative wing of the Republican Party led the way in this values oriented society. Most prominent in domestic politics were the Evangelical Christians. In looking outward, the Neoconservatives, over time, came to assert themselves most effectively.
The success of these elements in American society today is obvious and overwhelming. They have cleansed American government of liberalism and stand today in charge of both the Executive and Legislative Branches. While loath to admit it, they also control the Supreme Court and most other federal courts.
They are in a position to direct the federal government’s role in foreign and domestic spheres, and indeed are now fighting for power they never dreamed possible when the movement took shape just one generation ago. They have reduced taxes and changed the ratio of redistribution of wealth in the country from rich to poor to the opposite. They are fighting to insert religion into science. They are revolutionizing public education by calling for the teaching nonscientific beliefs in science curricula. They are undermining American leadership in the natural sciences and in medical science and treatment.
They are leading American foreign policy in the bellicose assertion of power across the globe and have led us into the War in Iraq in which all of the premises for the conflict were later found to be false. In the face of obvious error, they have redefined that war as one of values rather than immediate defense of the country and its allies. Now almost two thousand American deaths, tens of thousand wounded and injured, and almost three hundred billion dollars in treasure later, they say we must fight on despite having no better goals than the day we invaded.
It is time for the middle to shift to the Democrats. Libertarians and enlightened business leaders have to recognize that Evangelical policies are worse for their values than those of the left. Moderates must see that continuing down the trail of ignorance in science and technology will cause us to fall behind our competitors.
While the Neocons have disappeared into the woodwork as the debacle in Iraq becomes obvious to the American Public, every day we see further emboldenment of the leaders of the hard right in domestic affairs. Only wild and crazy statements by the most radical, such as calling for foreign assassinations are criticized – and then not by the President.
So it is up to the middle to tilt leftward, despite knowing that this too will ultimately lead to a shift too far. We must take the country back now!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
You Don't Speak For Me, Cindy Sheehan
Cindy Sheehan doesn’t speak for me! That’s the sum and substance of the far right’s diatribe against Ms. Sheehan. They want to go on with the charade in Iraq while the real war on terror languishes.
I completely agree with the far right in this case. Ms. Sheehan does not speak for them. She speaks for the millions of Americans fed up with all the lies, the punting, all the dodging, and all of the lives and treasure pored down the rat hole of Iraq, for what reason? That’s what Ms. Sheehan wants to know – from the president.
The more the Administration howls about the error of Cindy’s ways, the sharper her basic question about why her son died comes into focus. Just why did Casey Sheehan and the almost two thousand dead fight and die? Was it for the weapons of mass destruction that were never found? Was it for the threats posed by the alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda has never been established? Was it to bring democracy to the Iraqis now at the negotiating table trying desperately to sort out who gets what territory and what share of the oil revenue?
All Cindy wants is for the Bubble Boy to explain why he sent Casey to his death in Iraq. She’s not questioning why we’re in Afghanistan. She isn’t asking why we haven’t pursued the al Qaeda and the Taliban with enough resources that others have said have been diverted to Iraq.
Cindy Sheehan simply wants to know why we sent her boy to die in Iraq.
Sadly she has brought in some extraneous matter. She wants us out of Iraq now, and she wants to impeach the president. She’s just a wounded and despairing Mom, and she’s wrong to mix apples and oranges. And the president has seized upon her mistakes, red herrings, to distract his base to hound her unmercifully.
Let’s just forget what Cindy has said about things she’s no more qualified than the rest of us to comment upon. Let’s just answer her basic question. What high and mighty principles were we invoking when we sent Casey Sheehan to his death?
Bubble Boy goes down all of those false trails and holes. He doesn’t agree with Casey Sheehan’s Mom. He says that Iraq is part of the war against terror. I completely agree with him. By toppling a regime and destroying the infrastructure of a country that had no WMDs and no alliance with al Qaeda, the U.S. certainly has made Iraq the central battlefield against terror. And we're not making a whole hell of a lot of progress on that field.
We’re now getting close to losing as many lives in Iraq as were lost on 9/11. We’ve lost almost as many lives in a battle field that once had no relation to the horror visited upon us by al Qaeda.
Cindy doesn’t speak for the far right. BUT SHE SPEAKS FOR WILD BILL AND A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER FOLKS IN THIS COUNTRY. WHY WAS CASEY SHEEHAN SENT TO FIGHT AND DIE IN IRAQ?
BACK TO YOU, BUBBLE BOY!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
I completely agree with the far right in this case. Ms. Sheehan does not speak for them. She speaks for the millions of Americans fed up with all the lies, the punting, all the dodging, and all of the lives and treasure pored down the rat hole of Iraq, for what reason? That’s what Ms. Sheehan wants to know – from the president.
The more the Administration howls about the error of Cindy’s ways, the sharper her basic question about why her son died comes into focus. Just why did Casey Sheehan and the almost two thousand dead fight and die? Was it for the weapons of mass destruction that were never found? Was it for the threats posed by the alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda has never been established? Was it to bring democracy to the Iraqis now at the negotiating table trying desperately to sort out who gets what territory and what share of the oil revenue?
All Cindy wants is for the Bubble Boy to explain why he sent Casey to his death in Iraq. She’s not questioning why we’re in Afghanistan. She isn’t asking why we haven’t pursued the al Qaeda and the Taliban with enough resources that others have said have been diverted to Iraq.
Cindy Sheehan simply wants to know why we sent her boy to die in Iraq.
Sadly she has brought in some extraneous matter. She wants us out of Iraq now, and she wants to impeach the president. She’s just a wounded and despairing Mom, and she’s wrong to mix apples and oranges. And the president has seized upon her mistakes, red herrings, to distract his base to hound her unmercifully.
Let’s just forget what Cindy has said about things she’s no more qualified than the rest of us to comment upon. Let’s just answer her basic question. What high and mighty principles were we invoking when we sent Casey Sheehan to his death?
Bubble Boy goes down all of those false trails and holes. He doesn’t agree with Casey Sheehan’s Mom. He says that Iraq is part of the war against terror. I completely agree with him. By toppling a regime and destroying the infrastructure of a country that had no WMDs and no alliance with al Qaeda, the U.S. certainly has made Iraq the central battlefield against terror. And we're not making a whole hell of a lot of progress on that field.
We’re now getting close to losing as many lives in Iraq as were lost on 9/11. We’ve lost almost as many lives in a battle field that once had no relation to the horror visited upon us by al Qaeda.
Cindy doesn’t speak for the far right. BUT SHE SPEAKS FOR WILD BILL AND A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER FOLKS IN THIS COUNTRY. WHY WAS CASEY SHEEHAN SENT TO FIGHT AND DIE IN IRAQ?
BACK TO YOU, BUBBLE BOY!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Bubble Boy
It is a given that the president of the United States requires physical and psychological protection. It is a job that entails great personal danger from enemies of the United States and from the mentally deranged within. Sadly, that need for protection can often translate into something that hurts as much as it protects the incumbent.
Franklin Roosevelt recognized this deficiency in the office and sent personal emissaries to determine what was really going on the country and the world. Eleanor was impelled by her own impulses to see the country and to feel the pulse of the unfortunate. She dug deeply and brought back to her husband as close to the truth as could be uncovered. And she made sure that he understood it.
Harry Hopkins, the most clear thinking loyalist in FDR’s inner circle, was dispatched to London, Moscow and wherever else trouble was brewing to bring back an independent analysis, however uncomfortable, on the condition of the United States in the larger world to Roosevelt.
Gerry Ford, that accidental resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, would not be dissuaded by courtiers and party loyalists from pardoning his predecessor. Any chance he had of winning the presidency by election was lost by that act. Yet a generation later, most would agree that his brave prescient act was the beginning of the healing process demanded by the excesses of Watergate.
The elder Bush, a decent man, stumbled badly when he was shocked by the technological advance of a simple barcode reader in a supermarket that all of the rest of his countrymen knew to be both ubiquitous and prosaic. This tiny faux pas demonstrated to the common man that the president was out of touch with their lives. A president more in touch with the voters was installed in the Executive Mansion.
Today on TV, I learned that Lance Armstrong, the great bicycle racing champion, would be visiting with Bush the younger at his ranch in Crawford, Texas and would go bike riding with him. The show’s anchor, half in jest, wondered aloud if Armstrong knew the protocol of the presidency and that he would be expected to stay a decent interval behind Mr. Bush. This is a president aware of his perquisites but not of how they are viewed by the people.
So it is that the president refused to meet with Cindy Sheehan. He said that it was his responsibility to maintain his lifestyle of normalcy in the Western White House. His inability to rise to the occasion of a visit with a grieving mother has caused him grievous damage. This man who does not like bad news indeed who seeks to have it screened from him is completely out of touch with the people and the nation.
This man says that we must stay the course in Iraq because failure to do so would break faith with those who have died. Break what faith? Those who perished were sent to that God forsaken land to overthrow a government that had weapons of mass destruction and that was consorting with al Qaeda, the sworn enemy of the United States. Those who died were sent on a mission that in retrospect makes no sense. Both reasons were in error – at best. Now our government has redefined the mission as one to bring democracy to the Iraqi people, a people who it is alleged would welcome our troops as liberators.
Democracy is the farthest thing from the minds of those negotiating a constitution in Iraq. It is power, territory and oil revenue that keeps them at the table.
Our troops are not defending the memory of those who died. They are in harms way to avoid bringing the truth to a man who does not want to see it. If we must stay, it is for naked reasons of defending our interests in Iraq - assuring that the oil continues to flow. The madness of the neocons in furthering an imperial dream that gets dimmer by the moment means that future casualties will happen to maintain a strategic presence in a country and region that abhors our presence.
This is George Bush’s war. He sent the troops into battle for reasons that do not hold up in the rear view mirror. We must get out. Sadly, we just can’t do it immediately. All of the deaths past and future began with a false premise. “Freedom” – baloney! We’re stuck and it’s this administration’s fault.
The boy in the bubble can’t even see what he has wrought.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Franklin Roosevelt recognized this deficiency in the office and sent personal emissaries to determine what was really going on the country and the world. Eleanor was impelled by her own impulses to see the country and to feel the pulse of the unfortunate. She dug deeply and brought back to her husband as close to the truth as could be uncovered. And she made sure that he understood it.
Harry Hopkins, the most clear thinking loyalist in FDR’s inner circle, was dispatched to London, Moscow and wherever else trouble was brewing to bring back an independent analysis, however uncomfortable, on the condition of the United States in the larger world to Roosevelt.
Gerry Ford, that accidental resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, would not be dissuaded by courtiers and party loyalists from pardoning his predecessor. Any chance he had of winning the presidency by election was lost by that act. Yet a generation later, most would agree that his brave prescient act was the beginning of the healing process demanded by the excesses of Watergate.
The elder Bush, a decent man, stumbled badly when he was shocked by the technological advance of a simple barcode reader in a supermarket that all of the rest of his countrymen knew to be both ubiquitous and prosaic. This tiny faux pas demonstrated to the common man that the president was out of touch with their lives. A president more in touch with the voters was installed in the Executive Mansion.
Today on TV, I learned that Lance Armstrong, the great bicycle racing champion, would be visiting with Bush the younger at his ranch in Crawford, Texas and would go bike riding with him. The show’s anchor, half in jest, wondered aloud if Armstrong knew the protocol of the presidency and that he would be expected to stay a decent interval behind Mr. Bush. This is a president aware of his perquisites but not of how they are viewed by the people.
So it is that the president refused to meet with Cindy Sheehan. He said that it was his responsibility to maintain his lifestyle of normalcy in the Western White House. His inability to rise to the occasion of a visit with a grieving mother has caused him grievous damage. This man who does not like bad news indeed who seeks to have it screened from him is completely out of touch with the people and the nation.
This man says that we must stay the course in Iraq because failure to do so would break faith with those who have died. Break what faith? Those who perished were sent to that God forsaken land to overthrow a government that had weapons of mass destruction and that was consorting with al Qaeda, the sworn enemy of the United States. Those who died were sent on a mission that in retrospect makes no sense. Both reasons were in error – at best. Now our government has redefined the mission as one to bring democracy to the Iraqi people, a people who it is alleged would welcome our troops as liberators.
Democracy is the farthest thing from the minds of those negotiating a constitution in Iraq. It is power, territory and oil revenue that keeps them at the table.
Our troops are not defending the memory of those who died. They are in harms way to avoid bringing the truth to a man who does not want to see it. If we must stay, it is for naked reasons of defending our interests in Iraq - assuring that the oil continues to flow. The madness of the neocons in furthering an imperial dream that gets dimmer by the moment means that future casualties will happen to maintain a strategic presence in a country and region that abhors our presence.
This is George Bush’s war. He sent the troops into battle for reasons that do not hold up in the rear view mirror. We must get out. Sadly, we just can’t do it immediately. All of the deaths past and future began with a false premise. “Freedom” – baloney! We’re stuck and it’s this administration’s fault.
The boy in the bubble can’t even see what he has wrought.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Friday, August 19, 2005
Term Limits
As anyone who has ever even casually eyeballed this blog knows well, I’m not a fan of George W. Bush or most members of his administration. Be that as it may, I think we ought to seriously consider repealing Amendment XXII to the Constitution that, at least in some measure, weakens his ability to perform his duties effectively.
For the very short moment in which California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s star burned brightly there was talk of amending the Constitution to permit a person born outside the United States to become president. My feelings about Ahhnold are immaterial, but I think that in a land of 250 million native born Americans there is little need for this change.
With regard to sitting presidents, however, I think the twenty-second amendment has caused significant damage to the presidency itself and that we should revisit the issue. Hoary details on the two term limit are unnecessary. Washington set the precedent and all of his successors until Franklin Roosevelt abided by it. Or did they? Actually, they did not, and the threat of a run for a third term by an incumbent or former chief executive was a useful tool in balancing the power between the Executive and Legislative Branches.
The threat of a run was always on the table, and Teddy Roosevelt made a run for his old job in 1912 thus assuring transfer of power from the Republicans to the Democrats. Thus, even in failing to win the job he wielded a big stick. The threat of a run for another term has not been available to any president since Harry Truman left office. While I’ve been a regular critic of the presidency for its constant grasping for more power, second terms since that of Truman have almost always been unhappy for most of the occupants of the Oval Office.
While Eisenhower and Reagan were foreclosed from additional terms, they were quite popular when leaving office and had health permitted and there was some fire left in them they might well have been candidates for retaining the job. In each of these presidencies, the second term was not as successful as the first fours years. Their rivals and even power points within their own parties did not fear the power of lame duck presidents and both parties challenged them without anywhere near the fear of the retaliation available to an incumbent second term president prior to the amendment’s adoption. Thus, with the twenty-second amendment the long second term status of lame duck came into being prior to Inauguration Day instead of when the potential candidate announced that he would not run again.
Thus while Bush twists in the breeze from his failures in Iraq, with Social Security, and for failing in his management of the budget and the economy, he is further weakened by his inability to threaten friend and foe (including other countries) with the possibility that he might run and win another term and thus still wield the clout of the greatest power center in the world.
Lamenting the usual executive power grab of first (and third and fourth) terms and deploring the weakness of presidents under the present two term limitation, should we not at least consider the change? Franklin Roosevelt is beyond another run, so the Republicans need not fear him any more than the Democrats have to worry about the Gipper returning to take a another curtain call. Looking over the rest of the field, it’s likely that Ike would have passed on a run and that Clinton had pretty much worn out his welcome with enough voters that he would have stepped aside. Assuming that Bush 43 will have had his butt kicked enough times between now and election day 2008, he looks like a candidate for the job of permanent brush clearer in Crawford, TX.
Since we now have more than half a century of experience in evaluating the Amendment XXII, would it not be prudent to evaluate whether the country would be better off with or without an amendment adopted in the haste caused by the passing of a political giant, FDR.
I say let’s give repeal a hearing. Don’t worry, Bush can’t get elected dog catcher in Crawford, so think about whether it would be good for the country without worrying about him.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
For the very short moment in which California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s star burned brightly there was talk of amending the Constitution to permit a person born outside the United States to become president. My feelings about Ahhnold are immaterial, but I think that in a land of 250 million native born Americans there is little need for this change.
With regard to sitting presidents, however, I think the twenty-second amendment has caused significant damage to the presidency itself and that we should revisit the issue. Hoary details on the two term limit are unnecessary. Washington set the precedent and all of his successors until Franklin Roosevelt abided by it. Or did they? Actually, they did not, and the threat of a run for a third term by an incumbent or former chief executive was a useful tool in balancing the power between the Executive and Legislative Branches.
The threat of a run was always on the table, and Teddy Roosevelt made a run for his old job in 1912 thus assuring transfer of power from the Republicans to the Democrats. Thus, even in failing to win the job he wielded a big stick. The threat of a run for another term has not been available to any president since Harry Truman left office. While I’ve been a regular critic of the presidency for its constant grasping for more power, second terms since that of Truman have almost always been unhappy for most of the occupants of the Oval Office.
While Eisenhower and Reagan were foreclosed from additional terms, they were quite popular when leaving office and had health permitted and there was some fire left in them they might well have been candidates for retaining the job. In each of these presidencies, the second term was not as successful as the first fours years. Their rivals and even power points within their own parties did not fear the power of lame duck presidents and both parties challenged them without anywhere near the fear of the retaliation available to an incumbent second term president prior to the amendment’s adoption. Thus, with the twenty-second amendment the long second term status of lame duck came into being prior to Inauguration Day instead of when the potential candidate announced that he would not run again.
Thus while Bush twists in the breeze from his failures in Iraq, with Social Security, and for failing in his management of the budget and the economy, he is further weakened by his inability to threaten friend and foe (including other countries) with the possibility that he might run and win another term and thus still wield the clout of the greatest power center in the world.
Lamenting the usual executive power grab of first (and third and fourth) terms and deploring the weakness of presidents under the present two term limitation, should we not at least consider the change? Franklin Roosevelt is beyond another run, so the Republicans need not fear him any more than the Democrats have to worry about the Gipper returning to take a another curtain call. Looking over the rest of the field, it’s likely that Ike would have passed on a run and that Clinton had pretty much worn out his welcome with enough voters that he would have stepped aside. Assuming that Bush 43 will have had his butt kicked enough times between now and election day 2008, he looks like a candidate for the job of permanent brush clearer in Crawford, TX.
Since we now have more than half a century of experience in evaluating the Amendment XXII, would it not be prudent to evaluate whether the country would be better off with or without an amendment adopted in the haste caused by the passing of a political giant, FDR.
I say let’s give repeal a hearing. Don’t worry, Bush can’t get elected dog catcher in Crawford, so think about whether it would be good for the country without worrying about him.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Freedom from Fear
I admit it; I’m a news junky. Actually, I’m an editorial, op-ed, and letters to the editor addict. Each morning, I spend an hour or more on the opinions of pundits and ordinary people far and wide. While there are many columnists that I admire, my favorite part of the day is to read what moves the readers of America’s papers to send their views to the local rag.
While I usually agree with writers like Paul Krugman of the New York Times and Richard Cohen of the Washington Post and rail at Robert Novak, I understand that they and their fellow pundits are generally well informed and honest purveyors of whatever line of thought they happen to have seized on for the day. Naturally, there are as many strikeouts as home runs. Meeting a deadline two or three times a week over a forty year career means an occasional error.
Some days back, I jumped down Anne Applebaum’s throat for her comparisons of al Qaeda and the Irish Republican Army in a Washington Post opinion. I was right, of course, but one of my best friends – wrongly – thought my Celtic heritage got in the way of sound reasoning. In case she’s reading, my challenge to her is withdrawn.
Now I’m upset with a column in the Boston Globe. I check the opinions in that paper daily as I’m a native of its circulation area and spent nine years as a subscriber before moving back to Virginia three years ago.
As you all know, Boston is the Hub of the Universe and is home to some of the most brilliant Homo sapiens on the planet. It also swarms with historically literate people, and, while I’m a moderate, many of these historians – amateur and professional – are of the liberal persuasion. So, when I saw an op-ed piece in the Globe that not only had its facts wrong but that gave an erroneous slap at Franklin Roosevelt, I thought the good folks of Boston would inundate the Globe with thousands of letters brimming with righteous indignation. Never happened!
Peter S. Canellos, the Globe’s Washington Bureau Chief, in an otherwise inoffensive article, ends his column with an apples and oranges analysis of the words of FDR. He argues that the president’s pre-war promise of `Freedom from Fear’ was permanently undermined by the nuclear weapons that his own decisions brought into existence. There are two statements on the subject of fear made by Roosevelt that may be in Canellos’s mind, and neither of them works in this case. The first was his famous first inaugural statement that “All we have to fear is fear itself…” Those words referred directly to the economic woes of the nation and the insecurity infecting the people.
The second FDR reference that Mr. Canellos may have in mind is that of the famous Four Freedoms of why we were fighting the war. Freedom from Fear was indeed one of those freedoms. That one too had nothing to do with the atomic age that we were frantically trying to enter. Roosevelt never heard of an atomic bomb when he uttered the first words, and there was a strong possibility that an atomic bomb would not be practical when the Four Freedoms were expounded.
You may recall that Roosevelt sent us down the path to nuclear weapons at the suggestion of a group of scientists, headlined by Albert Einstein, who suspected that Nazi Germany was already making efforts to develop such a weapon. It was. Thus, with a stroke of the pen, the Manhattan Project came into being. Naturally, had the fears of those scientists become a reality and Germany or Japan (which had a rudimentary atomic program) developed the bomb before us and before the end of the war, our world would be considerably different than the one we live in.
It has been argued and I agree with the notion that nuclear weapons on both sides of the Cold War actually kept us at peace during that frigid period. But Canellos is correct; all of us now live in fear of nuclear weapons and there is no `Freedom from Fear.’ But the even greater truth is that nuclear weapons were an inevitable product of the science and technology extant at the middle of the twentieth century. There can be no doubt that there would be nations with the bomb today regardless of whether the United States President, Franklin Roosevelt, had acted irresponsibly in the face of the warning by fearful scientists and had not sought the weapon.
Mr. Canellos’s article falls apart on his final points, and he laments an innocence that could never have continued.
My real surprise and disappointment was that neither his editors nor the readers I cited in the opening so much as yawned in the face of the ridiculous notion that somehow FDR somehow goofed by establishing the Manhattan Project.
Attached is a link to the article so you can judge for yourselves.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2005/08/09/60_years_after_hiroshima_america_still_lives_in_fear/
Don’t believe all that you read in the newspaper!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
While I usually agree with writers like Paul Krugman of the New York Times and Richard Cohen of the Washington Post and rail at Robert Novak, I understand that they and their fellow pundits are generally well informed and honest purveyors of whatever line of thought they happen to have seized on for the day. Naturally, there are as many strikeouts as home runs. Meeting a deadline two or three times a week over a forty year career means an occasional error.
Some days back, I jumped down Anne Applebaum’s throat for her comparisons of al Qaeda and the Irish Republican Army in a Washington Post opinion. I was right, of course, but one of my best friends – wrongly – thought my Celtic heritage got in the way of sound reasoning. In case she’s reading, my challenge to her is withdrawn.
Now I’m upset with a column in the Boston Globe. I check the opinions in that paper daily as I’m a native of its circulation area and spent nine years as a subscriber before moving back to Virginia three years ago.
As you all know, Boston is the Hub of the Universe and is home to some of the most brilliant Homo sapiens on the planet. It also swarms with historically literate people, and, while I’m a moderate, many of these historians – amateur and professional – are of the liberal persuasion. So, when I saw an op-ed piece in the Globe that not only had its facts wrong but that gave an erroneous slap at Franklin Roosevelt, I thought the good folks of Boston would inundate the Globe with thousands of letters brimming with righteous indignation. Never happened!
Peter S. Canellos, the Globe’s Washington Bureau Chief, in an otherwise inoffensive article, ends his column with an apples and oranges analysis of the words of FDR. He argues that the president’s pre-war promise of `Freedom from Fear’ was permanently undermined by the nuclear weapons that his own decisions brought into existence. There are two statements on the subject of fear made by Roosevelt that may be in Canellos’s mind, and neither of them works in this case. The first was his famous first inaugural statement that “All we have to fear is fear itself…” Those words referred directly to the economic woes of the nation and the insecurity infecting the people.
The second FDR reference that Mr. Canellos may have in mind is that of the famous Four Freedoms of why we were fighting the war. Freedom from Fear was indeed one of those freedoms. That one too had nothing to do with the atomic age that we were frantically trying to enter. Roosevelt never heard of an atomic bomb when he uttered the first words, and there was a strong possibility that an atomic bomb would not be practical when the Four Freedoms were expounded.
You may recall that Roosevelt sent us down the path to nuclear weapons at the suggestion of a group of scientists, headlined by Albert Einstein, who suspected that Nazi Germany was already making efforts to develop such a weapon. It was. Thus, with a stroke of the pen, the Manhattan Project came into being. Naturally, had the fears of those scientists become a reality and Germany or Japan (which had a rudimentary atomic program) developed the bomb before us and before the end of the war, our world would be considerably different than the one we live in.
It has been argued and I agree with the notion that nuclear weapons on both sides of the Cold War actually kept us at peace during that frigid period. But Canellos is correct; all of us now live in fear of nuclear weapons and there is no `Freedom from Fear.’ But the even greater truth is that nuclear weapons were an inevitable product of the science and technology extant at the middle of the twentieth century. There can be no doubt that there would be nations with the bomb today regardless of whether the United States President, Franklin Roosevelt, had acted irresponsibly in the face of the warning by fearful scientists and had not sought the weapon.
Mr. Canellos’s article falls apart on his final points, and he laments an innocence that could never have continued.
My real surprise and disappointment was that neither his editors nor the readers I cited in the opening so much as yawned in the face of the ridiculous notion that somehow FDR somehow goofed by establishing the Manhattan Project.
Attached is a link to the article so you can judge for yourselves.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2005/08/09/60_years_after_hiroshima_america_still_lives_in_fear/
Don’t believe all that you read in the newspaper!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Sunday, August 07, 2005
The Valley of Death
Yesterday was the sixtieth anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Whether that horror was necessary will be debated till the end of time. It matters not that the bomb killed 70,000 instantly and like number over the years since or that their destruction may have saved hundreds of thousands of Americans and Japanese from death. It opened an era that will never end, one in which death hangs over us all.
Stories on both sides of the issue bombard us, but the one that most disturbed me was the old saw from surviving crew members of the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the weapon, that their action was essential to the ending of the war. It is appropriate for these men to have such an opinion and for the media to transmit it. What always gets warped in the telling is that these men have no better vantage than the rest of us for their opinion. That they dropped the bomb does give them insight into the terror of the weapon, but they cannot know better than a person born twenty years later that the good of the event outweighed the evil.
Only a very limited number of people in 1945 were privy to the situation and intelligence on which the action was based. President Truman and his closest military and civilian advisors made the decision, and they must bear the eternal historical heat. What the crew of the Enola Gay came to believe is relevant to them as human beings but says nothing about their ability to judge the decision.
As a veteran of the Korean War, (very much a non-combatant one) I happen to believe that President Truman made the right decision in pushing the U.N. to defend South Korea from invasion from the North. But my views are personal and made with only an amateur’s understanding of the history and world situation. Again, only Truman and his closest advisors’ views are those that count, and they will be judged by history – and by people like you and me.
So it is with most major decisions of life and death situations. Vietnam’s kaleidoscope of decisions must be born by Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford. Johnson made the most important decisions and he suffers for them in history – at least so far. What those who fought there think runs the gamut, and their opinions are personally vital but strategically and politically of little value.
Now the country is embroiled in another controversial war. The number of decision makers among whom we can apportion credit and blame is among the smallest of any conflict in our history. And they have taken to hiding behind the troops who are fighting, bleeding and dieing as justification for their decisions. Every day the media calls our attention to the opinions of individual soldiers or families of those who died in Iraq. Often they proclaim that we cannot do an about face in Iraq as it would mean that their dead comrades or the fallen loved ones will have died in vain.
What the media fails to point out is that these people are being used for the basest of reasons. Instead of standing up and saying it is their sworn duty to have made the decision to make war in Iraq based on the constitutional mandate to defend the nation from weapons of mass destruction and from an evil leader who was plotting our destruction, the president and his closest advisors hide behind those doing the heaving lifting and proclaim that the almost 2,000 lives and tens of thousands of wounded and broken are there to spread democracy to a nation that posed no threat to us in any real sense of that word.
Now we are told that if we do not stay the course, we will betray the dead soldiers. That’s just not true. Those sent to Iraq died for reasons that never panned out and it is likely that those who sent them knew that to be the case before they landed.
That poor disheartened soldiers believe (or believed) in their mission in Iraq is as irrelevant as the views of the crew of the Enola Gay with regard to dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
If we give weight to the false view that only those who fight can judge, we the people are condemning additional Americans and Iraqis to death. We should not be hiding behind those who have fought and died; we should be examining the facts and circumstances as best we can and holding our elected leaders responsible for their actions. It is President Bush who made the decision. It is the Congress that endorsed it.
What those poor men and women on the ground think is immaterial.
Some one had blunder’d.
Their’s not to make reply,
Their’s not to reason why,
Their’s but to do or die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Stories on both sides of the issue bombard us, but the one that most disturbed me was the old saw from surviving crew members of the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the weapon, that their action was essential to the ending of the war. It is appropriate for these men to have such an opinion and for the media to transmit it. What always gets warped in the telling is that these men have no better vantage than the rest of us for their opinion. That they dropped the bomb does give them insight into the terror of the weapon, but they cannot know better than a person born twenty years later that the good of the event outweighed the evil.
Only a very limited number of people in 1945 were privy to the situation and intelligence on which the action was based. President Truman and his closest military and civilian advisors made the decision, and they must bear the eternal historical heat. What the crew of the Enola Gay came to believe is relevant to them as human beings but says nothing about their ability to judge the decision.
As a veteran of the Korean War, (very much a non-combatant one) I happen to believe that President Truman made the right decision in pushing the U.N. to defend South Korea from invasion from the North. But my views are personal and made with only an amateur’s understanding of the history and world situation. Again, only Truman and his closest advisors’ views are those that count, and they will be judged by history – and by people like you and me.
So it is with most major decisions of life and death situations. Vietnam’s kaleidoscope of decisions must be born by Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford. Johnson made the most important decisions and he suffers for them in history – at least so far. What those who fought there think runs the gamut, and their opinions are personally vital but strategically and politically of little value.
Now the country is embroiled in another controversial war. The number of decision makers among whom we can apportion credit and blame is among the smallest of any conflict in our history. And they have taken to hiding behind the troops who are fighting, bleeding and dieing as justification for their decisions. Every day the media calls our attention to the opinions of individual soldiers or families of those who died in Iraq. Often they proclaim that we cannot do an about face in Iraq as it would mean that their dead comrades or the fallen loved ones will have died in vain.
What the media fails to point out is that these people are being used for the basest of reasons. Instead of standing up and saying it is their sworn duty to have made the decision to make war in Iraq based on the constitutional mandate to defend the nation from weapons of mass destruction and from an evil leader who was plotting our destruction, the president and his closest advisors hide behind those doing the heaving lifting and proclaim that the almost 2,000 lives and tens of thousands of wounded and broken are there to spread democracy to a nation that posed no threat to us in any real sense of that word.
Now we are told that if we do not stay the course, we will betray the dead soldiers. That’s just not true. Those sent to Iraq died for reasons that never panned out and it is likely that those who sent them knew that to be the case before they landed.
That poor disheartened soldiers believe (or believed) in their mission in Iraq is as irrelevant as the views of the crew of the Enola Gay with regard to dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
If we give weight to the false view that only those who fight can judge, we the people are condemning additional Americans and Iraqis to death. We should not be hiding behind those who have fought and died; we should be examining the facts and circumstances as best we can and holding our elected leaders responsible for their actions. It is President Bush who made the decision. It is the Congress that endorsed it.
What those poor men and women on the ground think is immaterial.
Some one had blunder’d.
Their’s not to make reply,
Their’s not to reason why,
Their’s but to do or die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)