http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/ en-us Nucleus CMS v3.32 � Weblog http://backend.userland.com/rss http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog//nucleus/nucleus2.gif http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/ http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=32 March of the Penguins, a cinematic magnum opus filmed in Antarctica that chronicled the idiosyncratic reproductive cycle of the emperor penguin. In the film the penguins march seventy miles from their usual ocean feeding grounds in order to mate in a spot that offers some shelter from the fierce Antarctic winter. When the birds pair off, the female is starving and must shelter her egg under the male’s fur and then waddle back to water to stoke up on fish. Having satisfied her famine, she makes the same grueling 70-mile trek back in time to feed her new offspring and exchange places with the male, who by then is starving himself and must return to the sea.

A biologist or naturalist sees the emperor penguin and notes a textbook example of random mutation, natural selection, and adaptation to the harshest climate on earth. One who believes in creationism or intelligent design, however, observes the same features and notices not inefficiency, but somehow a miracle of survival. How one would regard breeding grounds seventy miles from the feeding grounds or, increasingly, any species installed in such an inhospitable climate as an intelligent design is an explanation left unaddressed. Incredibly, the film was endorsed by religious conservatives not only as a demonstration of God’s presence in nature, but also as an affirmation of “traditional norms like monogamy, sacrifice, and child-rearing”*

These penguin ‘family values’, however, mandate monogamy for only one reproductive cycle: the mating penguins part ways and never see their offspring again once their chick is old enough to survive on its own. During the next mating cycle, they choose new partners. One could assume, therefore, that religious conservatives regard serial monogamy, if it’s been ordained by a supreme being, as sufficient ‘family values’.

On the issue of evolution, popular infotainment culture reinforces public ignorance about both science and religion. Media outlets tend to treat evolution with the same bogus objectivity that is applied to other ‘controversies’, and even in a nature documentary, it is difficult if not impossible to find any mention of evolution. The financial necessity of the omission was borne of out at the box office: A year after its release, the movie was the second highest grossing documentary of all time, exceeded only by Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911. One need not speculate about the box office receipts in the United States if the National Geographic (the filmmaker) or Warner Independent (its distributor) had used the accursed E-word, evolution. Four years earlier the Public Broadcasting Service produced an eight-part documentary, accompanied by materials designed for use in schools, boldly titled Evolution.

The Christian Right went bananas, instantly classifying the series as anti-religious and unscientific propaganda, and ultimately banned the supplementary education materials from most US schools. Moreover, the evolution series prompted the Bush Administration to begin monitoring all PBS productions for “liberal bias” and sought further budget cuts in a government program conspicuously on the religious right’s hit list. It would appear that the Bush Administration has every intention of leaving a few children behind whenever scientific theory conflicts with the agenda of influential and wealthy right-wing religious organizations.

There are many scientific disagreements about the particulars of evolution, but the general theory of evolution by means of natural selection is a settled issue for the mainstream scientific community. The common ‘just a theory’ position rests on national indifference between the definitions of theory in general and in science; in science, a theory is a set of principles designed to explain natural phenomena, supported by observation and subject to proof by peer review. Moreover, scientific theory is not static, but rather modified as new tools of measurement and research findings become available. This is the essential difference from the broad meaning of theory, where it’s regarded as nothing more than a guess based on limited information or misinformation. Predictions of Armageddon are perfect examples of nonscientific theories and each time such predictions fail to materialize, the prognosticators merely select a new date for fulfillment of their prophecies. In their view, a specific set of calculations may be incorrect, but the prophecy retains its status as an unverifiable supernatural truth. On the other hand, science either unmasks a falsehood, as Copernicus’s and Galileo’s observations undermined the belief that the sun revolves around the earth, or it supports an earlier theory based on incomplete information.

In 1925 the anti-evolutionists and fundamentalists were dealt a heavy blow by the negative publicity surrounding the Scopes “Monkey Trial” in Dayton, Tennessee. John T. Scopes, a high school teacher, was charged with violating a state law banning the teaching of evolution in public schools. Scopes’ opponent was William Jennings Bryan, the three-time Democratic presidential candidate, who infamously declared that he was “more interested in the Rock of Ages than the ages of rocks.” During the trial Bryan took the stand as an expert witness on the Bible and was forced to admit that many biblical stories, such as the sun standing still for Joshua’s armies, could never be taken literally in the light of contemporary scientific knowledge. Although Scopes’ conviction by the jury of primitive reactionaries was a foregone conclusion, Bryan’s humiliation on the stand had seemingly discredited fundamentalism forever. 80 years later, however, modern science is again under assault by a rising tide of anti-intellectual sentiment, exemplified not only by a resurgent fundamentalism, but also by the widespread failings of US public education and the scientific illiteracy of much of the media.

In the United States, where national curriculum standards are absent, many teachers, regardless if they believe in evolution, are wary of incorporating the subject into their biology classes. The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, an education research institute, concluded that schools in over 33 states, mostly in the South and Midwest where there is a powerful fundamentalist presence, are failing to acquaint students not only with basic facts of evolution, but also with the importance of Darwin’s theory to all modern scientific thinking. Biological evolution is frequently ignored in favor of the geological history of the solar system, a phenomenon less disturbing to the American Taliban than the decent of man. Ron Bier, a biology teacher in Oberlin, Ohio (a state receiving a poor grade from the Fordham Report) summarized his teaching strategy in the New York Times. He revealed that he seeks to avoid challenges from fundamentalist parents by teaching evolution by putting out “my little bits and pieces whenever I can.” One may ask, therefore, what is the point of teaching if not to replace ignorance with knowledge?

Yet passivity and avoidance of controversy are far from the worst repercussions. Simply put, many teachers simply do not understand evolution themselves. A 1998 study by researchers from the University of Texas found that only one in four public school biology teachers believes that humans and dinosaurs inhabited the earth simultaneously (**), a glaring misconception that displays how poorly teachers are trained. A teacher who does not know that dinosaurs were extinct long before Homo sapiens arrived is unfit to provide biology instruction in any era.

For more than twenty years the persistence of anti-evolutionism sets the United States apart from every other developed country in the world. On August 30, 2005, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released the results of a public opinion poll that revealed nothing more than an intellectual disaster on par with the natural disaster inflicted by Hurricane Katrina one day earlier. The poll found that nearly 65% of Americans want both creationism, generally understood as the hard-core fundamentalist doctrine based on Genesis, should be taught along with evolution in public schools. Less than half of Americans, 48%, accept any form of evolution and only 26% accept Darwin’s theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Incredibly, 42% actually say that all living things, including humans, existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Yet this level of scientific ignorance is not merely the result of religious fundamentalism, for the proportion of Americans who reject evolution in any form is higher than the proportion who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Adding to this upheaval, Americans are as ignorant about the particulars of religion as they are about science. According to a 1990 Gallop poll, a majority of adults, in the most religious nation of the developed world, are unable to name the four Gospels or identify Genesis as the first book of the Bible. With such widespread ignorance, it is impossible for Americans to understand what creationism means or make an informed decision about whether it belongs in a biology class if they cannot locate the source of the creation story. It is equally impossible for such citizens to understand any definition of evolution when millions of children are taught that dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together.

Theology and Biology are rightly regarded as separate subjects, requiring different paths to knowledge and understanding in the same manner as mathematics and literature are separate subjects. Certainly there are overlapping events, but most credible theologians readily admit that while the Bible contains historical text, belief in its messages is a work of faith and not a testament of scientific evidence. Religious faith relies on a belief in miracles and salvation, and the comfort and strength such faith provides in everyday life. The miracles that take place in the Bible were never intended for scientific analysis and are impossible to define. My question therefore is this: if a miracle is scientifically indefinable, why even bother trying?

* Michael Medved, “March of the Conservatives: Penguin Film as Political Fodder” New York Times, September 13, 2005.
** George E. Webb, The Evolution Controversy in America, p. 254.
]]> General http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=32 Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:33:23 -0400 http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=27 A FOX NEWS EXCLUSIVE

“Good evening, and welcome to this special edition from Fox News. I am your host, Rush Limbaugh, and with me tonight are Senator McCain and Governor Palin, or the Republican nominees for President and Vice-President of the Untied States of America. Senator McCain is busy at the moment and will try his best to join us. Right now he is believed to be in a conference call with the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon involving a matter of grave national security and the chiefs have sought out the Senator’s advice. Governor Palin has taken time off from her busy schedule, however, and is with us now.

“Governor, welcome to our program. As a public service, we are going to ask some tough probing questions for the benefit of our viewers so they can make an informed decision this November. We hate to trouble you, Governor, and we appreciate you making this effort.”

Palin responds, “I am working mother and I know all about making sacrifices, but I am used to it. I have experience is such matters. Today was a busy day. Earlier I got together with the fellas, Dopson and Osteen, and we burned a few books. The smell reminded me of the time I cooked a moose over a pit. My opponent wants to distribute pornography to Kindergartners, you know.”

The questioning of Palin commences:
1. Of the two major parties, yours and the socialist liberal-Democrats, which one places country first? Palin, “We do, it’s our slogan, we are proud to be Americans and we won't forget those who died.”
2. Your opponents are mere legislators. Are you the commander-in-chief of the Alaskan National Guard and State Police forces? “Yes I am, it’s a large state, largest in the nation, and we have enemies, and there are no homosexuals in our police force.”
3. As commander-in-chief of the Alaskan National Guard, you have successfully deterred an invasion from Russia. Is Russia just on the other side of the Bearing Straits on the West coast of Alaska? “Yes, from Wales or Nome one can make out the Russian coast. On a clear day Russian soldiers are visible, with their guns pointed in our direction, wishing to invade, but I stare them down.”
4. Since the Republicans successfully captured Iraqi dictator and terrorist Barrack Hussein, are the Republicans better equipped than the Left-wing Democrats to capture Obama bin Ladin? “Yes, we put nation first, we know how to deal with terrorists and our opponents are interested in lawyers and courts. If they are in our prisons, they are terrorists and they must be guilty otherwise they wouldn't be there.”
5. You have a son serving in Iraq. Do you agree that freedom isn’t free? “I am proud of my son, he is serving his country, and yes freedom isn’t free, something those soft liberals don’t understand. My opponents have no children serving our country. They may make some excuses, but you know these liberals, they always have excuses for their cowardice because they are weak and afraid.”
6. As you know, the liberal Democrats want to impound all guns from law abiding Americans. Do you hunt? “I am a great hunter, I can skin a moose, I am a crack shot and I’ll never take anyone’s gun. I hunt in the wilderness on private property. Using public lands for hunting is for sissies.”
7. Do you remember the events of September 11th? “I sure do, but many may have forgotten, so we Republicans will the scare the hell out of…I mean, remind everyone about Nine-one-one, every day if need be.”
8. A lot of foreign countries want to push America around. Should the next commander-in-chief approach our enemies like a pit bull? “I’m a pit bull, nobody messes me with me and America’s enemies will learn that soon enough, they won't like it when I get angry."
9. Are pit bulls tough? “Yeah, we’re tough, want to arm wrestle? I kick ass, c'mon you liberal softies, make my day!”
10. Are hockey players tough? I’ll bet their moms are, too. “Do you want to step outside? We hockey moms are tough, we can kick anyone’s ass, I'll take out America's enemies with a pound of flesh, just like I did in Alaska.”
11. There are terrorists out there, as we learned from the latest attack on America. Do we need a tough commander-in-chief? “You bet we do, and I am one tough commander-in-chief, those terrorists can't hide from me, I'll smoke them out and bring them to justice.”
12. Do you think mothers have the right to murder their children? “No, I love my children, one of which has downs syndrome, by the way, while our opponents are either murdering children or exposing them to pornography.”
13. Do you think most Americans would prefer a good Christian with sound American family values as president as opposed to a radical Muslim extremist? “I have strong American values and I am Christian, there are no queers in our home. My husband works with his hands and we hunt and fish and listen to country music.”
14. Which is the better energy plan: drilling for oil here in America or buying it from terrorists? “I say drill, drill, drill.”
15. What is more important: creating American jobs or hugging trees? “I put hundreds of Alaskans to work and I’ll put thousands of Americans to work!”
16. Which is more important: people or polar bears? “People and country come before bears. There are plenty of bears. I should know, I am the chief executive of the state with the most bears.”
17. I notice that you are wearing an American flag lapel pin, but I also noticed Joe Biden wasn’t wearing one today when he addressed a gathering of communists. Shouldn’t the Vice-President to love his or her country? “Yes, I love my country and I love my new lapel pin, it shows my patriotic side, which is always front and center. Anyone who puts my country down is walking on the fighting side of me, I tell you.”
18. What is more important: spending billions on welfare for those who are too lazy to work or protecting our national security? “National security, something I know about with my extensive executive experience, I know how to keep the largest state in the union safe.”

John McCain enters the studio to thunderous applause. He looks harried and didn’t have time to freshen up. He looks like an old version of Uncle Fester and seems agitated, smiling through gritted teeth.

Senator, welcome to the program. All is well?
McCain: “it is for now, thanks to me. I know how to defeat terrorists and I put country first.”

Senator, we’ll continue the questioning.
19. Barrack Hussein Obama is a Muslim name. Are you a practicing Christian? “I am a Christian and I attend a Southern Baptist Church!”
20. Obama says he wants to roll back President Bush’s essential tax cuts only on those making more than $250,000 per year, which isn’t a lot of money by the way; don’t socialist Democrats lie about such things? “Well, you know, I can’t answer for them, I can only answer for myself. That’s what mavericks do best.”
21. Do you think the socialist Democrats plan of increasing taxes on everyone making $24,000 per year is a wise plan? “It’s a terrible plan, but that’s all they know, tax, tax, tax. We Republicans created the deficit and only we Republicans can eliminate it. We know how to submit a balanced budget, look at recent history…or that is…listen to what we have to say.”
22. Is it true that the Democrats are going to increase spending but you are going to decrease spending by eliminating waste? “There is too much waste and Governor Palin and I know how to fight Republicans. It's like what old Bull Halsey, an old Navy war horse like me, used to say, 'in order to fight in the North Atlantic, you've got to train in the North Atlantic.' To fight a Republican you got to hire a Republican.”
23. We want to clear up some rumors. Is it true you were a POW? “Yes, I was a POW. I was a POW in the Nam when the rest of the nation was taking LSD and listening to Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock. I was a POW!”
24. OK, and of course your running mate is commander-in-chief of Alaska. Has either of your opponents ever spent a day in uniform? “No they haven’t. I was in the Nam and they were not. Neither one of them."
25. When you take the oath of office, will you be sworn in with your hand on a Bible or a copy of the Koran? “It will be the Holy Bible. Jesus is my Lord and Savior.”
26. Amen. We want to address another rumor. Is it true that one might consider you a maverick? “Well, yes (laughter) I am a maverick (now anger). I’m going to clean up that town just like I would have cleaned up Vietnam had the Democrats not cut the funding for the war!”
27. Do you think we should win in the Middle East or surrender? “We should win and we will win if the American people elect me as president. We will win in Iraq, we win in Afghanistan, and we will win everywhere, all those other countries over there. We will win because FREEDOM ISN’T FREE!” (roaring approval from the audience)
28. Is it tough to get your message of victory out there with all liberal media? “Yeah, it’s tough (anger rising, face turning red), but we are Americans and these colors don’t run.” (The audience erupts in applause and a chant, “USA, USA, USA, USA!”)
29. Who supports our troops, you or Senator Hussein? “Me, I support our men and women in uniform because I was one of them, I was a POW!”

The audience is now ballistic, screaming and roaring, yelling out, “USA” and waving flags. Just then Sean Hammity arrives, followed by Rudi Giuliani, who is wearing a FDNY cap and a Yankees jersey numbered ‘911’. Giuliani momentarily breaks into a Goose-step while Hammity points to the crowd, tears in his eyes, “look at those flags!” The audience goes wild.

A color guard arrives, and Palin stands, places her hand over her heart, and begins to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The crowd hushes and they all scamper to place their hands over their hearts, and repeat after Palin, screaming out the words, “Under God.” At the conclusion, Limbaugh jumps up, “win, win, win, in Iraq!” The crowd goes wild. In the front row a young skin-head in an Ohio State sweater begins to shake and quiver, yelling in ecstasy, "Nine one one! Freedom isn't free! USA! USA! USA!" before passing out.

The program credits begin to scroll to the strains of “Onward Christian Soldiers” as McCain and Palin wade into a crowd of delirious Republicans waving their tiny flags. McCain and Palin scream out in unison: “God bless America!”

“This is Rush Limbaugh, on behalf of Sean Hammity and Fox news, ‘we report, you decide’, the future of America is at stake this November.”
]]> General http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=27 Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:53:47 -0400 http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=25
Partisan bickering has always been the backbone of a democracy, thankfully, but each four years here in the United States our collective senses are assaulted with meaningless trivialities that add nothing to the discourse necessary for voters to make an informed decision. There is no single villain and it’s presumptuous to blame it all on the fourth estate, ‘the media’. The media (i.e. television, Internet, newspapers, magazines, etc), like all private enterprises, is in business to turn a profit. Some do so with an open agenda, like the National Review or the New Republic, while other news corporations give lip service to providing unbiased information, such as Robert Murdoch’s Fox News and Viacom’s CBS News. The common denominator, however, is that they need to sell their product.

Gossip sells: Dirty secrets, sex scandals, a relative who is a drunken lout always makes good copy. Many families have members, often that one, who just run into trouble. Charles Adams, son of one president and brother to another, died an impoverished alcoholic at age 30. Elliot Roosevelt, brother to Theodore and father to Eleanor, was equally useless and alcoholic. Billy Carter was a lovable buffoon until he started to conduct business with The Flake. Jim Bush, uncle to ’41’, divorced four different women and died mysteriously in the Philippines, his grave the most inconspicuous marker in the family plot. Roger Clinton struggled with substance abuse and of course JFK had his brother Ted. These types of stories fill papers and web sites and provide idle water cooler chit chat. My own conclusion of those who decide on a candidate based on such gossip is lumped in with those who appear on the Jerry Springer Show: I hope they don’t vote.

An increasing feature of partisanship is either the temptation to magnify such trivialities directed at those of the opposite political persuasion or to hold all in equal contempt. Over the past 30 years, in the post Vietnam and Watergate era, personal conduct has taken on added importance with many voters. On one hand we want those who seek office to be ‘just folks’ like us, and on the other hand we hold those to a higher standard of personal conduct. Unfortunately ‘folks like us’ are flawed. Narrowing it down to personal choice, I don’t want a common ‘folk’ and my only standards are that neither private gain nor ambition clouds a candidate’s judgment. If I were born 200 years earlier, I wouldn’t really give a crap about Charles Adams.

What I do care about is that I want my elected officials to have an open mind. Yes, convictions, ideals, and a base philosophy are important facets, and I hope those beliefs are grounded on knowledge and reason. Along with flexibility, I would also expect anyone seeking the highest office to possess the necessary gravitas it takes to confront the complex and difficult issues that remain unknown and the intellectual curiosity required to obtain additional knowledge. During the current campaign, the two candidates who were most accused of ‘flip-flopping’ were Mitt Romney for the Republicans and Barrack Obama for the Democrats. It is perhaps no coincidence that both Romney and Obama are the two most gifted academically and, in my opinion, the two who displayed the most fundamental knowledge of the issues confronting us not only today, but anticipated in the future.

The point here is not to endorse a particular candidate, but rather to emphasize what I regard as the three defining features required for leadership: flexibility, knowledge, and intelligence. When a problem arises, I’d expect the leader of the free world to be smart enough to seek all counsel and posses enough background knowledge to make a wise decision. When candidates are asked about a certain foreign nation, they’d better have more than just the name of the current prime minister. Granted, since this is a ‘gotcha’ culture, a candidate knowing next to nothing about a small, insignificant nation is no basis for disqualification, but I’d expect the candidate to know why it’s insignificant and to have the audacity to call out the offending reporter as doing a disservice to his/her profession.

One example of a leader with an open mind was apparent during the debacle in Lebanon. Twenty years before the US invaded a nation that posed no existential threat, the US sent Marines to Beirut as part of a peacekeeping operation at the behest of the corrupt Phalangist militia leader Amin Gemayel and the Israelis, eager as they were to get out of the anarchic asylum known as Lebanon. In recent history, there are few US secretaries of state as qualified or as learned as George P. Shultz. Shultz was without peer in understanding world dynamics and foreign alliances; however, the insanity of Greater Lebanon eluded him, a pardonable omission, as no one else did either. On October 25, 1983, two truck bombs killed 216 US Marines and 58 French peacekeepers. Resolved, President Ronald Reagan immediately sent in 300 replacements. With the Marines hunkered down at Beirut International Airport while the sectarian violence continued, Reagan ordered a withdrawal four months later, realizing the folly of the operation (France, eager to surrender, offered no protest). They lowered the banner with pride and boarded the awaiting craft with their dignity intact. Marines don’t sulk away on Reagan’s watch; they are re-deployed where their services are better needed. The Lebanon misadventure was a learning experience, but fortunately the nation was blessed with a leader who kept an open mind, sought out divergent guidance, and acted in the nation’s best interest when all the facts were presented openly. Eight months later Reagan was re-elected, winning 49 of 50 states.

In 2000 candidate George W. Bush was the antithesis of an open minded, informed, and curious politician, and therefore he was a ripe target for Billy Kristol and his associated neoconservatives, among them Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and others dating back to the cold war era. Bush ran an in-your-face campaign both in 2000 and 2004, the tough guy with the entire swagger, wrapped up in red, white, and blue bunting sealed with a crucifix. The debate became a matter of patriotism, bluster, fear, and morality. This year the hottest star on the stage burst in from nowhere (where they were going to build a bridge to) with a Bush employee drafted speech that was in-your-face, the Barracuda hockey mom who takes no crap. The bluster is back, along with disparaging remarks directed at those involved with community service and those who regard science and religion as separate entities. War rocks and diplomacy is for cowards and traitors. Only in a militarialistic nation such as the United States today will anyone find multiple commanders in chief. This spring, we were led to believe that national security starts in the East Wing with the first lady in control, now we learned that it was the governor of Alaska and her 4000 national guardsmen and highway patrolmen who keep us safe after the kids were tucked in.

My answer to those political opportunists that dwell on the trivial, the prima donnas who lecture us on their morality (let alone inflict it upon us), and the fear mongers who say ‘boo’ when international affairs are discussed is a simple one: Get out of My Face!]]> General http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=25 Sat, 6 Sep 2008 00:46:20 -0400 http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=23
Two years ago, I returned to capture some nostalgia and alleviate the strain I was under at the time. Clementine, my golden retriever companion of ten years, accompanied me on that trip and it became the best vacation of my life. In August 2006 Clementine was robust and healthy, with only the grey hairs exposing her true age. She ran and swam and played, never betraying for a moment that a disease had infected her, a disease that would sap her strength six months later and take her life in twelve. Perhaps it was remembrance of that vacation, just so recent, that made Clementine’s ultimate demise incomprehensible.

Last year, of course, with Clementine’s infirmities taking hold, no trip was possible. This past spring, however, I became the human companion to Blondie, a beautiful and bouncy five-year old Golden Retriever rescued by the generous folks of Golden Retriever Rescue of Michigan (GRRoM). With Blondie’s initial fidgeting finally manageable, I returned, again for the same reasons, though this time the pangs of nostalgia augmented by my previous visit. The logistics were simple; the resort was perfect, set off of the expansive Otsego Lake, complete with no telephone connection, but equipped with cable television. The proprietors were dog people, moreover, and I knew we were welcome.

As before the worst part of the trip was emerging from mass suburbia, navigating through the traffic congested tri-county mega-metropolis known as Metropolitan Detroit. Having cleared that cluster, my anxiety gave way to calmness inasmuch as the scenery changed from parking lots and cars to trees, farms, and rolling hills. Before checking in, I drove down some wilderness roads, parked at a desired location, and Blondie and I cleared the confines of the car and explored the north woods of Michigan. On our way to the resort, a fawn, very young, was spotted by the side of the road. We locked eyes for a while, Blondie unsure what to make of it, until the deer sprinted off to the dark reaches of the forest. We are home.

Also as before, I had a basic routine in mind, grounded upon practical weather patterns and my desired pace: long hikes in the morning, the beach in the early afternoon followed by a leisurely drive, and ending with a stroll to walk off the evening’s consumption. The main portion of the trip, of course, was the morning excursions on foot into the wilderness. This is where all one can hear are the song birds, no starlings in these parts, and the rustling of tree leaves, punctuated with an occasional crackle in the brush when a white tail is intruded upon and gallops away with its graceful stride.

We literally spent hours walking, or more pointedly, I walked while Blondie raced ahead, doubled back, plowed into the woods, and treed innumerable wildlife. Until now, to the best of my knowledge, Blondie has been a suburban inhabitant, her quests limited to assorted squirrels and rabbits, all the while restrained by tether. Here in the wilderness, she reveled with the discovery of her inner wolf. At one point she ran towards me and jumped up, as if warning me of an unidentified predator she had detected. At 60 pounds of solid muscle, she is dominant of the predatory species found in these parts, inhabited by fox, coyote, and perhaps a rare and secreted bobcat*. Michigan is home to bears, approximately 19 thousand, but the omnivorous and reticent black bear poses no threat to live or limb; however, at 300+ pounds, its presence discourages nighttime walks. As it is, my primary concerns are skunks and porcupines, both an extreme nuisance for a curious dog.

We trekked through abandoned, at least unoccupied until fall, hunting trails that led deep into the wilderness, some branching off to ancillary paths that nobody had set foot upon in years, literally miles and metaphorically light years from any human being. Some were on public lands or part of some sportsman’s association, while others belonged to private clubs, legally making me a trespasser. I encountered one member along a private roadway, perhaps an official, but was seen as just some guy out walking his dog, greeted not with inquisition but rather a friendly wave and a smile. Their paramount interests are vandals, poachers, or thieves, of which I am none.

It was on private property when Blondie and I came across a stray dog that had been following us at an undetermined distance. He was a big guy, definitely male with his maleness apparently intact, a mix of retriever, not aggressive but aloof to a certain extent. He seemed playful and he and Blondie greeted each other with the prerequisite sniffing. Since we were in proximity to the main lake, I assumed he had come from one of the surrounding properties.

The first place I inquired was, coincidently, at the same address where I had spent many parts of my summers growing up, though of course with different ownership. The cottage itself had undergone a transformation from a primitive dwelling to something of a chalet. I was greeted most warmly by the lady in residence and she believed the dog belonged to her neighbor. She indicated that I could reach her neighbor’s by taking a path through the woods, the same path I had first explored when I was nine years old. After a friendly chat (they’d purchased the property post renovation, but she seemed genuinely interested in its history), we went ‘next door’ (which translates to over a 200-yard trek through the woods) to find that cottage empty.

In sight, however, was the next cottage and it was occupied, once owned by a man named Miller, and remains in the family to this day. After another especially warm welcome, the man was able to identify the dog and knew its owners, a few properties down, just past the Sportsman’s Association, about a half-mile by shoreline. It turned out that Miller was the man’s late father-in-law and he inherited the property along with Miller’s son. Taking the continuous wooded path to the dog’s owners, we stopped by the shoreline and the dogs cooled themselves off in the lake, the lake of my youth, the lake of effortless days of yore, the lake where I spent the happiest days of my childhood.

The lake, such a central part of my existence, lay before me. I’ve seen it a few times in adulthood peering through the brush, but this was the first time I could really absorb it. Since my first visit, the number of developments has doubled, from seven to 14. Considering the lot sizes, it’s doubtful if another property could squeeze itself in, and therefore the lake retains much of its rustic charm. Most of the abodes are modest, save for the newest ones, which take on the modern grandiose appearance of opulence.

Harkening back to my somewhat spoiled yet innocent youth, I vividly recall the times spent on these waters. Fishing was never really my scene, but I enjoyed the boat rides and sense of discovery, of skipping stones and catching frogs, of swimming and getting bitten by a leach, for there are no beaches at this lake, only the uncultivated shores. Today the lake appears enviable and even idyllic, but somehow tamed. To the succeeding generations who frolic in those waters, this is certainly the wilderness, all reality being perceptive.

I return my uninvited guest, the aforementioned stray, to his relieved owner, who had walked him along the road, as she does every morning, allowing him to dash in and out of the woods free of molestation, when he undoubtedly caught Blondie’s scent and gender and went searching for their source. She had been calling out repeatedly to no avail and, distraught, she was about to hop in the SUV and start looking when I approached. She was pleasant and grateful and joyful, as was I, for we both felt a sense of relief: her for having her beloved pet returned unharmed; I no longer burdened with a stray canine of uncertain temperament.

As I left I could surmise by the surroundings that she was one of the year round residents of the newer houses, not to be mistaken for a vacation cottage. The property has an element of seclusion and its design is tasteful, unlike the hulking McMansion of today’s sprawl. Yet with the attached garage, manicured lawns, white fence, and lavish gardens, it seems out of place among the more Spartan domiciles. Returning to my hike and my carefree position, I reflected in wonderment whether I would have been greeted as amiably if I looked less like Bill Clinton and more like Barrack Obama.

Inconclusive and speculative racial politics aside, these encounters left me with the satisfaction that very little has changed. One defining feature of this area wasn’t so much the scarcity of people, but rather the cordial respect they extend one another. When I encountered a power company employee servicing the station where I parked, I inquired if parking was permissible. He replied bearing a cheerful smile, “No problem, you have a wonderful dog; I love goldens, they are so happy.”

At the end of one rather long trail, over a mile in distance, I discovered evidence of a dangerous species. This class, unfortunately, is the lowest life form on earth and apparently, as with any invasive species, stubborn in its existence. There was an unused encampment, and surrounding the old fire pit were dozens of discarded beer cans, many ripped or burned, broken glass, candy wrappers, bottle containers, energy drink cans, newspapers (latest dated December 1, 2007), an old tee shirt, a pair of undergarments, spent fireworks (in a wooded setting!), etc. Nine months after their invasion, elements of their wanton destruction remain unadulterated. That this devastation is contained to this single site is hardly assuring, as their offense is hardly trivial. As a part of nature, we use and consume resources, but to the enlightened, we choose to leave the smallest footprint possible, thereby enabling others to satisfy the same enjoyment. These creatures, in contrast, deliberately ruin a pristine environment because of capricious indolence and callous indifference, unpardonable sins against nature and humanity.

After exhausting our collective strength, I more than Blondie, we retire to my favorite public access, a semi-private beach and boat launch, covering approximately 200’ of frontage. Clean, seldom crowded (indeed vacant at this hour), and with plenty of shade and sun. I relax under a tree while Blondie soothes her paws in the cool, clear water. Recently introduced to water this summer, she ventures deeper with trepidation, unsure of her swimming prowess, and is more content to romp along the shoreline and around the park, investigating oddities with her nose to the ground. Clementine, naturally, would bolt from the confines of the car and into the water, swimming with the ease of waterfowl. On these cool early afternoons, I attempted to entice Blondie into deeper waters, only to discover that it’s too cold for my soft, suburban constitution. Some other time, perhaps; we are here to have fun and not work. The fetching stick never reaches the deeper waters.

Gazing out, I see fish jump and fishing birds scan the surface. On the second day, in the distance a gull is making noises, trying to distract the attention of a larger, more graceful bird. It’s clear that the larger bird has alpha status; its flight seems as purposeful as it is easy, simply gliding as it maintains pace. As it draws nearer, I detect the unmistakable white head and dark feathering. It continues in my direction, dropping to only 20’ directly overhead, majestically soaring with its massive wingspan, truly the ruler of the airwaves, the Bald Eagle, in all its grandeur and elegance. A camera would come in handy, I thought, but I’d probably capture the blue sky and perhaps a smidgeon of its bold tail feathers.

During the afternoon we visit the small towns, or more accurately, the farm markets of yesteryear, charming in their simplicity and apparently free of intense, angry curmudgeons. Nobody tailgates or honks his horn, cell phones are uncommon, nobody seems rushed or stressed out. The presence of a farmer meandering down the lane draws neither irritation nor obscene gestures. The big ball executives who inhabit the larger lakefront estates leave their boorish mannerisms behind in Detroit or Chicago.

I nap in the late afternoon, read, relax, while Blondie looks remarkably contented, as only a dog can, with her paws spread out, her snorts interrupted by an occasional sigh. The breeze from Otsego Lake provides sufficient air circulation, negating any need for fuel manufactured comfort.

The early evenings are spent taking Blondie for a walk on leash along the nearby trail and visiting dining and drinking establishments, feasting on the local specialties, Lake Superior Whitefish and Northern Pike, the co-owner of the inn having made impeccable recommendations. The first nights were slightly overcast with a full moon, much resembling the graphic on this blog, and we drove down some more distant and unknown roads, searching for exotic wildlife. It’s a hit or miss endeavor, one I recall from childhood, and both times we came up empty, save for a porcupine scurrying into the woods as the car made its approach.

The final two nights were cloud free, however; and those nights were spent along the Otsego Lake coastline. I have only seen the Northern Lights in photographs, I and the land of the midnight sun are complete strangers, but here there is no grander vista than the celestial masterpiece painted in the heavens above, the night sky awash in a dazzling display of brilliant starlight, the tectonic constellations discernable to even the unpracticed eye.

I was never a resident of Otsego County, my extended visits seldom exceeded one week; indeed, as an adult, we remained apart for over a decade. Yet to this day it remains an indelible part of my life, the fabric that Thomas Wolfe wrote of in 1929 with his first novel, Look Homeward, Angel. If it is serenity that I seek, a system of value and trust I most admire, an appreciation for natural beauty and its preservation, it is there where I find it. Tranquility reigns supreme, triumphant in its enchanting splendor.

I was once asked if I’d want to live forever, and my answer was negative. I rue the day when my beloved Otsego County takes on the appearance, atheistically and socially, of sprawling Oakland County or the innumerous suburban quasi-communities that blight our natural habitat with dizzying speed. Whether I return or not in the near or distant future is immaterial, for my entire hopes and aspirations end where they began, in north woods of Michigan.

*Years ago my parents were out walking with their dog and cat (yes the cat would follow) when suddenly both animals turned about face and ran in the opposite direction. Seconds later a fox appeared from the woods, noticed mom and dad, and scampered back. Apparently Dachshunds and felines are further down the predatory chain than Golden Retrievers.
]]> General http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=23 Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:28:56 -0400 http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=22
While the Federal Reserve places $30 billion of taxpayers’ money at risk to prevent the collapse of the investment bank Bear Sterns, the Senate rejected, by a vote of 58 to 36, the Helping Families Save Their Home in Bankruptcy amendment while simultaneously granting $6 billion in tax breaks to corporations that feed off the local and state till. Once again the federal government extends feudal privileges for the bourgeois and ignores the interests of middle-class homeowners. Both presidential candidates missed the vote on this amendment, introduced by Richard Durban (D-IL), and every single Republican voted against it.

The amendment in question would permit bankruptcy courts to restructure debts on home mortgages by setting interest rates and principals at commercially reasonable market rates and extending repayment periods. Only those who are in imminent danger of foreclosure are eligible for loan modifications under the proposed amendment. If a bankruptcy court reduced a principal to the current fair market value of the property and the value later rose, a lender would be entitled to receive the net proceeds from a sale of the property. The legislation further protects at least $75,000 in equity in a principal residence from creditors in bankruptcy for homeowners over the age of 55. Bankruptcy law currently permits such restructuring only for vacation homes, family farms, and yachts.

Not to bemoan the entire episode as plutocratic abuse, the final bill contains some benefits to cloak its true measure. The bill does enable more homeowners to refinance problematic mortgages and provides $3.9 billion in block grants for communities hard hit by the crisis to reclaim foreclosed properties. Lastly while enhanced mortgage disclosures are helpful, they are no substitute for a genuine ban on deceptive lending practices. The Bush Administration only recently (July 23, 2008) dropped their opposition to the block grants, the only redeeming quality in the legislation.

In the final analysis, this bill does little beyond saving politicians from the charge of being 'out of touch' with the problems of 'ordinary Americans'. As we have seen since 2002 when the initial Bush tax cuts took effect, the middle class is stuck with continuous assaults on their dwindling earning power, with a grand transfer of wealth from the working and shrinking middle class to the wealthiest few, a pace accelerated by spiraling deficits that have accompanied Bush’s brand of fiscal madness.

It’s debatable whether knowledgeable voters are only stupid during an election year or that knowledgeable voters are only treated as though they’re stupid. All we know for certain is that most voters are anything but knowledgeable. When a uniformed public fails to look beyond the easy solutions, Orwellian measures become inevitable.

Over the past forty years the word ‘liberal’ became a bad word. The condemnation probably commenced following Robert Kennedy's assassination on June 6, 1968, the same year that Justice Abe Fortes, while defending the constitution, withered under a malevolent assault from Strom Thurmond. Liberals cowered when spoiled hedonists commandeered college campuses and thugs replaced civil disobedience with wanton destruction and lawlessness. Four years later George McGovern lost 49 states to Richard Nixon for telling the truth about Vietnam and respecting the rule of law. Today liberals continue their subservient postures, often in the face of evil; an evil manufactured by a public that fails to look beyond truncated headlines.

If the Democrats are painted as spineless liberals, the Republicans have abandoned the conservative principles of Russell Kirk, Barry Goldwater, and even Ronald Reagan. Today they are marked by a far darker form of ideology, a conservatism replaced by corporatism and civil libertarianism replaced by theocracy. The corporatism is clearly on display when a mounting storm is avariciously exploited by an industry that exacerbates the crisis instead of solving it.

The American Dream Act of 2003 expedited the aforementioned foreclosure crisis, an event predicted as early as 2004 when Bush was gearing up his re-election campaign. There is no better way to mask a stagnant economy than creating a false prosperity and sometimes a political figure needs more than just fear to garner votes.

In the immediate years following the crash of 1929, many Americans were reduced to living in shanty towns, deridingly called ‘Hoovervilles’. 80 years later, while no such stock market crash is imminent, there is another visual homage to a failed policy and a failed presidency, it’s seen in many middle class neighborhoods, abandoned homes, proliferating for sale signs, and potential drug dens, the 'Bush Blight'. ]]> General http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=22 Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:12:57 -0400 http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=19 ALL THE WAY WITH JFK

The winter of 1963-64 was a forlorn time for many Americans. There, on their television screens, footage of a young man riding triumphantly through the streets of downtown Dallas was replayed almost continuously. Handsome, urbane, confident, and witty, the young man came to symbolize the limitless optimism that many shared for a bright future; he was the epitome of vigorous, intelligent, and youthful exuberance. The despondency of that winter was temporarily lifted when a singing group (as they were once known) from Liverpool gave many a reason to smile again with their creative sounds and charming repartee. In the background, however, there was this dreadful feeling of despair, leaving many to wonder how something this horrifying could have ever transpired.

(Fade out)

On Wednesday morning, November 9, 1960, John F. Kennedy, 43, awoke without complete certainty that he would assume newer and far greater responsibilities. The election held the previous day was close, as expected, and neither he nor Vice-president Richard Nixon had been declared victorious. He was a decided underdog when the campaign commenced for myriad reasons. Nobody from his religious denomination or as youthful had ever won a presidential election; moreover, his opponent was the heir apparent to the revered and now retiring incumbent Dwight Eisenhower.

In the end the result was razor thin, with Kennedy receiving a plurality of 112,827 of more than 68 million votes cast. In the Electoral College, where the election is ultimately decided, his margin was a comfortable 303 to 219, aided, some have alleged, by a high turnout of cadavers in Cook County Illinois (JFK carried Illinois and its 27 pledged electors by a mere 0.19%, or roughly 9000 votes). Kennedy's victory was a strategic masterpiece, built around a coalition of the traditionally Democratic South and a few select industrial states, and serendipity. Nixon, in contrast, made a few but mortal blunders. First he endeavored to campaign in all fifty states (Alaska and Hawaii achieved statehood the previous year) when it was unnecessary and worse he arrived for the first televised debate pale, fatigued, and perspiring, a result of cramming in as many personal appearances as possible during the previous hours while his challenger prepared by working on his tan and catching a nap.

Sworn in on January 20, 1961, Kennedy delivered perhaps the most quoted inaugural address of all-time and thereupon immediately enthralled his countrymen with an unaccustomed style and charm. For the first time in decades writers and artisans held the comfortable knowledge that their works might be absorbed by the nation's chief executive. A voluptuous reader, JFK consumed printed material at a rate exceeding 1200 words per minute (at times, when handing memoranda to aides, he would lose patience and declare, "I asked to you read it, not memorize it") with 95% retention. Today, it's uncertain if President Bush even reads the daily headlines, much less a news story, relying on his aides exclusively for information.

Behind the glamour and intellect, however, there was the volatile world he had elected to confront. During the final year of the Eisenhower Administration the CIA hatched a harebrained scheme to overthrow Fidel Castro. When the two architects of the plan, Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, presented it to Eisenhower, who had led the largest amphibious assault in history, it was rejected outright and the two ambitious plotters went back to their drawing board. Enter Kennedy. Dulles and Bissell made their pitch, punctuated with the misleading understanding that Ike had approved the invasion at the Bay of Pigs, an invasion that not only required no direct US military support, but would also lead to a popular uprising against the accursed Castro. Kennedy took the bait and a band of Cuban exiles were subsequently routed on the beach by Castro's army. Had anyone in power bothered to read a then recent issue of Reader's Digest, the notion of an anti-Castro uprising was delusional; such was the credibility of secret intelligence. The young president learned his lesson the hard way, by experience, and released Bissell, fired Dulles, and tempered his expectations.

Taking full blame for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, JFK saw his popularity swell to an astounding 83% as he departed for Canada and Europe. There Jacqueline Kennedy, fluent in three languages including French, left Paris spellbound and JFK enjoyed his first tussle with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna. Appraising his young counterpart as vacillating and inexperienced, Khrushchev attempted to force the allies out of Berlin; in turn Kennedy defied the Soviets and kept the autobahn open. When the Soviets began installing missiles 90 miles from the US coastline in Cuba, Kennedy met perhaps the greatest challenge of the Cold War where failure meant Armageddon. Kennedy emerged victorious after the Cuban Missile Crisis because he presented unmistakable evidence to the public and the world, garnering support from US allies, including the bloated and defiant Charles De Gaulle. When his naval quarantine of Cuba forced the Soviets to dismantle and remove the offensive missiles, he gave his adversary, the humiliated Khrushchev, a bone in the form of an obsolete base in Turkey. With the realization that the US shared the large world with the Soviet Empire, Kennedy rightly recognized that the devil you know is preferable to the devil you don't.

The aftermath of Cuba led to a reduction in tension between the two superpowers, enabling the world to breathe a sigh of relief after coming so close to nuclear destruction. A 'Hotline' linked Washington and Moscow and negotiations began in earnest for a limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, ushering an age of détente. Kennedy articulated an enlightened approach during a commencement speech at the American University announcing the Test Ban, concluding with, "Confident and unafraid, we must labor on--not towards a strategy of annihilation but towards a strategy of peace."

He expanded the scope of NASA, witnessing the inaugural manned US space flight and the first American to orbit the Earth. He committed the nation to "the goal, before this decade is out, of putting a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth." During a rousing commencement address at Rice University, he outlined his reasoning with these familiar questions: "why climb the highest mountains, why cross the Atlantic, why does Rice play Texas (thunderous applause)? We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."*

At home Kennedy moved cautiously, too cautious for some perhaps, in the field of civil rights and the alleviation of poverty, but as an astute politician, he picked the battles moderately, forestalling the alienation and division that seemed to exemplify the rest of the turbulent decade. During the early 1960s, the Democrats were two parties, the northern liberal wing and the southern 'dixiecrat' wing; indeed it was the latter wing that every Democrat since Jefferson could count on every four years. He did, however, establish the Peace Corps by executive order and procured $500 billion for an "Alliance for Progress" with South America, seeking genuine allies in the southern hemisphere instead of coerced accomplices.

With progressives slowly making their way to congress following the 1962 elections, Kennedy introduced a civil rights bill that would ban discrimination in public accommodations, inspired by the moving address from Martin Luther King on the Washington mall and the despicable and malicious bombings of a Birmingham church. He sought to overturn a 21-year old tax code, established first to finance World War II (today, the current administration merely passes on the bill for its wars to succeeding generations) and later the Marshall Plan, Korea, Interstate Highways, and other large expenditures. This tax reform begat a period of sustained economic expansion, reducing the national unemployment rate to full employment, lowered inflation to below 1%, and elevated wages to unprecedented levels (in 1965 compensation for the average corporate CEO was 24 times that of its average employee; today it exceeds 400 times).

Intertwined with these policy initiatives, there was the distinctive Kennedy charisma. The one constant throughout his 1007 day administration was the excitement and interest level Kennedy generated. The PT-109 became a staple among model ships, the Kennedy rocker became a household item, and the ‘Jackie Look’ dominated women’s fashion. The articulate Kennedy was perhaps at his best facing the fourth estate, usually a politician’s worst nightmare; though his staff would periodically counsel restraint, as his press conferences were at times described as “Jack’s Comedy Hour”, the polar opposite of the tortuous ineptitude on display today.

There is, of course, the legacy of Vietnam. Much is debated on Kennedy’s role with the US led conflict and ensuing quagmire, but it’s plausible though speculative that the more cautious and deliberate Kennedy would have pursued a different path. It is true that Kennedy gradually increased the number of US military in Vietnam from 800 to 16,000. It is equally true that he was advised as early as 1961 to bomb North Vietnam, he never did. He was advised as early as 1961 to send combat units, he never did. He did go on record with Walter Cronkite in late 1963 that he supported South Vietnam but was unwilling to fight their battles. He did sign National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #263 on October 11, 1963, ordering the withdrawal of 1000 military personnel (LBJ signed NSAM #273 on November 26th, effectively negating the previous order). His and Johnson’s defense secretary, Robert McNamara, also went on record implying that JFK strongly considered removing all US forces from Vietnam after 1964; moreover, there is a tape recording of LBJ confirming that JFK planned to withdraw from Vietnam, a position of conflict between both men.

During the latter portion of 1963 Kennedy went on tour. He visited West Berlin, where he gave his famous “Ich Bin Ein Berliner” address before a throng of 1 million, comprising nearly half of the isolated city’s population. On a western swing he promoted conservation, and of course he made plans for 1964. One of the more obscure tragedies is that Kennedy never lived to face Barry Goldwater, his true friend and political rival. The two had laid groundwork for joint appearances during upcoming campaign, enabling the voters to observe each candidate without interference from the media; such was the respect each had for the other. For the remainder of his life, Goldwater always referred to Kennedy as ‘my dear friend’.

It was preparation for 1964 that led him to Texas, to repair a feud between state Democratic rivals, Senator Youngblood and Governor Connolly. During the flight to Fort Worth on the evening of November 21st, JFK mentioned to Jackie, “we’re going into nut country now”, after having read some incredulous rants full of hatred and recrimination from Dallas right wing extremists. That evening he reviewed his planned remarks for the Dallas Trade Center which ended with “…the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For it was written long ago: ‘Except the Lord keeps the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.’”

(Fade in)

The young man felt confident about the future and he had reason to smile. The trip had been a success beyond measure and his agenda remained unfulfilled. His debonair and sophisticated wife, resuming her chores as the political asset, smiled radiantly at his side. Their two young surviving children waited impatiently for the familiar sound of the Marine One back at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, ready to shout out, ‘daddy’s home’. This small family had captivated much of the country and the world at large. Then, suddenly and inexplicably, rifle bullets from out of nowhere tore into the young man’s head.

There is a bluff overlooking the Potomac and capital beyond offering a vista of the bleached white monuments of power and achievement. On that plateau a flame burns eternally, lit by a delicate, dignified, and courageous young widow. For over a generation thousands visit the site, now complete with the widow herself and their two prematurely diseased children (John Jr. was cremated, with his ashes tossed to the sea). Today it remains a place of meditation, wonderment, sorrow, and reflection. Surrounding the gravesite, etched in stone for infinity, contain perpetuate passages from an address that continues to inspire millions:

The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it – and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

Sadly John F. Kennedy never wrote his memoirs, a loss to historians and literary critics far and wide, given both the momentous events that marked his administration and his own eloquence. There are two memoirs from his staff of note, the Pulitzer winning A Thousand Days by Arthur Schlesinger and Kennedy by Theodore Sorenson, chief counsel and speechwriter (ironically the prose is quite flat). I also recommend Conversations with Kennedy by Benjamin Bradlee, an unfiltered account of Kennedy off camera, so to speak, and An Unfinished Life by Robert Dallek, an unbiased look at the Kennedy Administration. There is, of course, lighter works, such as the gossipy books that concentrate on Kennedy’s sexual appetite and other personal transgressions. On the assassination there is William Manchester’s Death of a President and, of course, innumerable books that deal with conspiracy theories. The Kennedy museum is located at Columbia Point, not far from downtown Boston, which offers a spectacular view of the bay and numerous films and other displays. It's well worth the visit.

*The speech, delivered on September 12, 1962, is currently quoted by the John McCain campaign, "we went to the moon not because it was easy, but because it was hard." The implication loses a little zest in the translation.
]]> General http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=19 Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:40:54 -0400 http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=17 I LIKE IKE
Following is the first installment of "Hail to the Chief", a resume of US presidents over the past 50 years; not necessarily a mini-biography (i.e. Born, died, served, etc), but a few highlights from their prospective administrations that correlate with current issues or impacted the world as we know it today. Relevant material as our eyes, ears, and other unmentioned senses are simultaneously assaulted with jackhammer intensity from the ongoing and seemingly endless presidential campaign.

I picked 50 years somewhat arbitrarily, but perhaps there will be a connection to contemporary issues. Although much has changed over the past half-century, many daily pursuits remain constant. Most of us commute almost exclusively by automobile, we have jobs, we watch "I Love Lucy" on rerun, we see inane game shows (increasingly dubbed as scripted reality programming), and we cheer our home team and glorious alma mater.

Leading up to the 1952 election, General Dwight D. Eisenhower was so esteemed that both major political parties recruited him for their presidential nomination. President Harry Truman even went as far as to not only step aside, but also run as Ike's vice-president. Truman, maligned at the time though vindicated by history, certainly had no chance of winning, but was nevertheless unwilling to give way to a parade of deceitful or fraudulent aspirants.

The United States in 1952 was gripped in an anti-communist hysteria. The Soviet Union acquired nuclear weaponry and enslaved the continent of Europe east of Elbe River, ‘from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic’. Truman was denounced for the impasse in Korea and for 'losing' China (how does one 'lose' something one does not own, anyway?). The capricious Senator Joe McCarthy, wanting in talent and scruples, manufactured a communist conspiracy and adversely destroyed the lives of innocent Americans with his malicious witch hunt.

It was into this environment of fear and discontent that Eisenhower continued his public service when he accepted the Republican nomination for the presidency, having defeated the principled yet audacious Robert A. Taft of Ohio, grandson of the former Chief Justice and 27th president, William H. Taft. For his running mate he picked the young anti-communist firebrand, Richard M. Nixon, the perfect antithesis for the non-partisan Eisenhower. With this balanced team, the Republicans cruised to an easy victory over Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, capturing every region save for the solid Democratic South, as it was theirs since the times of Jefferson. Four years later, the Eisenhower/Nixon team again prevailed over Stevenson with almost identical results.

During the first campaign Eisenhower, a five-star general, promised to go to Korea and end the stalemate. In July 1953, a mere six months after inauguration, the warring parties agreed to a cease fire, establishing a line of demarcation at the 38th parallel, almost the exact location when hostilities commenced. The truce was no defeat, however, as it validated the writ of the United Nations to resist aggression, that modern warfare need not include nuclear weapons, and it confirmed that international law is functional whenever the Soviet Union is absent.

Domestically Eisenhower exhibited the wisdom of never impeding an adversary's destruction as he watched the diabolical McCarthy implode under the glare of klieg lights. Tensions eventually began to fade as the American middle class reached its zenith, producing a baby boom while enjoying one new consumer product after another. To move the increasingly mobile citizenry, Eisenhower signed the Interstate Highway Act, connecting, among other places, Sault Ste Marie to Key West without the hindrance of a traffic light. With the peace and prosperity, came the eventual enlightenment, with Eisenhower playing a pivotal role, for example warning against “book burners” and thought control during his commencement speech at Dartmouth College, a generation before political correctness and library purges became customary.

Throughout his presidency Ike relied on the formula that guided him in previous positions, diligence welded to reason, honesty, consultation, and most of all, wariness. When the Soviets launched Sputnik, Ike assuaged national fears by creating NASA. When the Soviets paraded their latest missiles in Red Square, Ike reassured the nation that our defenses are capable of launching assured destruction at the Soviet Union. When the generals who specialize in military procurement, literally his former subordinates, begged for additional funds, he held them accountable.

Eisenhower was a rational caretaker in an immoderate world, though; and therefore he didn't always meet with unqualified success. When the French surrendered (they have much experience) at Dien Bien Phu, Eisenhower kept US forces out of Vietnam. Then he put them right back in when he extended SEATO protection to the South Vietnamese government, and thus violating the Geneva Agreement, instead of supporting a plebiscite (Ho Chi Minh would have won in a landslide). There the long journey of US involvement in Vietnam and the era of quasi-colonialism began in earnest.

As with his predecessors, Eisenhower found that his second term in office was at times frustrating. This, of course, is without prescient, as even FDR saw the mild recovery of the mid-1930s morph back to the Great Depression, Jefferson saw his embargo act stall the national economy, Jeffersonian outrage placed Washington's very mental competence and loyalty under suspicion after Jay's Treaty, and of course we all know what happened to Lincoln.

During the latter part of the 1950s political opportunists created a perceived missile gap with the USSR, the once booming economy stalled under the weight of an old tax formula, a despot in Cuba was overthrown, replaced by a revolutionary thug, and the adventurous defense department insisted on continued U-2 flights over Soviet airspace, resulting in the capture of a US pilot and international embarrassment for a leader the world had trusted. The CIA continued with their reckless mischief and incompetence, leading Eisenhower himself to depict it as, "The Legacy of Ashes", as one foolish enterprise followed another.

The 1950s has often been referred to as the 'American Decade' because its leadership was undisputed and the nation as a whole seemed immune to the troubling world beyond its shores. Much of the credit goes to President Eisenhower, who kept a firm hand on the instruments of power, using it when necessary but humble enough to resist its darker temptations. He was a leader the nation and the world could look up to and aspire to become. The very notion of a scandal that plagued many of his successors seemed incredulous because Eisenhower's dignity was unwavering and his devotion to his nation and fellow citizens was always above reproach. History will rightly regard him as both a great president and an exceptional human being.

On January 17, 1961, at the conclusion of a 49-year commitment to his country, President Eisenhower delivered a valedictory address noted for its similarity to another famous presidential farewell address delivered 165 years earlier. "In the councils of government," Eisenhower warned, "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. "

Today, 47 years later, it appears that our guard has been let down. Both presidential candidates have reaffirmed their commitments to military spending. Former candidate and presumptive election winner Hillary Clinton complained that President Bush wasn't spending enough on the military, and indeed her campaign was a special favorite of defense contractors. With all this military bluster and saber rattling, one is reminded of Proverbs 28:1, the wicked flee when no one is pursuing.

The annals of military history have proven that a show of overwhelming force obviates the need for armed conflict against an existential threat. With the hysteria surrounding national security, what constitutes a sufficient if not overwhelming force? Today more than half of the federal government's discretionary spending ($625 billion dollars in 2007) is devoted to the armed forces. In real dollars, US military spending has nearly doubled over the last decade.

The US military currently maintains more than 800 overseas bases, in more than 130 countries. We have more than a quarter of a million uniformed troops stationed outside the United States (this figure doesn't count support personnel and military dependents). The United States accounts for more than half of the world's total military spending and spends nearly 10 times as much on its armed forces as the second-highest military budget in the world.

Eisenhower and Washington were two military heroes noted for far more than battlefield strategy. Both were engaged in odious tasks requiring political as well as administrative skill. One fought to preserve an underpaid and untrained revolutionary army against the mightiest armed forces in the world; the other had to preserve an alliance that included, among others, Bernie Montgomery and Chuck De Gaulle, an alliance necessary to liberate a continent from tyranny. Both witnessed not only the horrors of war, but also the folly of foreign military adventurism.

On September 19, 1796, Washington delivered his own valediction as an open letter, later dubbed "the Farewell Address" and in his closing remarks, written in his own hand (for comic relief, imagine the current president attempting an identical task), he proclaimed: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies."

One has to wonder whether Washington would be either pleased or shocked to discover that the sun never sets on the American empire, just as Eisenhower would be equally dismayed over the national conquest by the military-industrial complex.

For further reading about the Eisenhower Administration there is a two-volume set of memoirs entitled Mandate for Change and Waging Peace that offer a detailed chronology of events and the president’s actions. I also recommend Eisenhower the President by Stephen Ambrose, an unbiased though generally sympathetic history of Ike’s time in office. Lastly there is the Eisenhower Center in Abilene, Kansas, which contains the meditation chapel, his boyhood home, presidential library, and a museum containing innumerable displays. In my opinion it is the best of all the presidential museums, given his remarkable life and accomplishments.

]]> General http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=17 Wed, 9 Jul 2008 17:39:27 -0400 http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=15 Defining Deviancy Down. For me to provide a scholarly counterpart to that watershed work is tantamount to St. Augustine defending Christianity in 410 AD from the charge that it was culpable when the barbarians sacked Rome. In other words, I have no provocation, aim, or ability as grand as either Saint Augustine or Senator Moynihan. This piece may be Augustinian, however, in that there is a verbal barbarism in critical discussion which has led ultimately to a fulfillment of barbarism in US foreign policy.

Argument is often uncivil and moreover this is no new phenomenon. In 1971 the iconic All in the Family hit the airwaves, a hilariously groundbreaking situation comedy that often featured the lead character, Archie Bunker, engaging in shouting matches with his ideological opposite, his son-in-law Mike Stivic. 20 years earlier, we saw on our early TV sets the thug Joe McCarthy brutally destroy innocent men and women with fictitious and unsubstantiated charges of communism. The former was self-parodying comedy; the latter, our darker elements exposed.

Today the disrespectful climate has transcended both Archie and Meathead, and has taken a darker path blazed by the discredited McCarthy. Some of this is a by-product of the anti-intellectualism that has been growing steadily since the late 1950s, coincidentally when television replaced all traditional sources of information. The pace accelerated to its nadir over the course of the past seven years, however, because of the deriding, divisive rhetoric of one man. When a visible man encourages apoplectic rage against his detractors, the public splinters. George W. Bush is that man.

There is no issue as divisive as the war in Iraq and Bush is the main cause for the acrimony. Rather than communicate with the public frankly on reasonable terms, he resorts to totalitarian tactics, demonizing those in opposition as 'siding with the terrorists' and worse yet taking a domestic debate to foreign shores, to the parliament of the most militarist democracy in the world. Bush’s address to the Israeli Knesset can be described as nothing less than an act of unprecedented treachery and an inimical act for the leader of supposed free people.

During the early days of WWII, in 1942, many Americans were disheartened and frustrated over our apparent lack of progress in the pacific theatre. President Roosevelt planned to address the nation via radio and in preparation the WH asked the citizens to purchase or obtain a map of the Pacific Ocean or the world a few days in advance.

FDR began his address by asking each listener to look at his/her map, and there he proceeded to explain in adult terms the logistical difficulty of moving an armada over such a vast space. In addition, he also noted the Japanese efforts in this theatre of battle and eventually was able to inform the public with complete candor and respect. FDR communicated with the public and in turn educated them; Bush, in contrast, despite all the technology at his disposal, with the visual medium of television, not to mention Google Earth, does none of that. Instead he repeats the same lies, he poses in a flight suit to look tough and resolved, he admonishes those who question not only the wisdom of the war but its execution as lacking resolve or of ignorance and questions their patriotism. He repeats the same old jargon that neither informs nor educates, reminding everyone of the 'events of 9/11' and that we are in a permanent state of war. Rah, rah, sis boom bah.

When a leader so disrespects his fellow countrymen, when a leader questions the patriotism and courage of his detractors, when a leader resorts to fear without fact, when a leader fails to articulate or even debate a strategy, the level of discourse can only disintegrate into name calling on both sides. Bush has failed his nation and disgraced his office on every level imaginable.

As an informed, educated, and literate citizen, I am appalled at the conduct of my president for failing to level with me and for talking to me as if I were some 15-year old immature child. I don't buy Bush's explanations because he provides nothing but discordant rhetoric, poorly worded and appealing to our darker angels. Intelligent dialogue is fundamental for a free society to survive and this sorry excuse for a statesman, a commander-in-chief, a chief executive, and a head of state has stifled that dialogue when he should not only encourage it, but also facilitate it.

This administration used patriotic fervor to such an extent that those who dared hold Bush to the rule of law were branded as traitorous left wing extremists and stifled the freedom of dialogue so necessary in such momentous issues of war and peace. Serious and polite disagreements end and insults begin when one starts attacking another and moves off point. After the US invasion of Iraq I resented being called a traitor or a coward just as much as those who supported Bush’s war resented being called war mongers. Whether side of the issue one finds oneself, though, there are salient, indisputable, and even incontestable facts.

The US had deployed a strategy against Iraq, prior to this administration, that had worked against the Soviet Union: containment. Saddam Hussein was nothing more than a harmless dictator in the desert in 2003. His air power was checked by no fly zones, sanctions and two wars had destroyed his infrastructure; not only had he no weapons of mass destruction, he wasn’t even close to acquiring any. Moreover, countless UN inspections turned up no proof of these wild and false accusations. Bush clearly violated not only the UN charter, but also the code of civilization itself when he repudiated the facts and went to war. While the sane world was willing to wait for the inspections, indefinitely if necessary, George W. Bush wanted war at any means.

It is increasingly clear that over five years after the initial invasion and ‘mission accomplished,’ the doctrine of regime change and preventive strikes historically translates to an unjust invasion and a war of unprovoked aggression. In short, Bush sold the people a bill of goods wrapped up in a misleading metaphoric 'war on terror', all the while ignoring that Hussein was a secular Muslim with no - that is in none, zero, zilch - ties to Al Qaeda.

It is increasingly clear that this war was waged by an administration that was clueless at best at the level of sectarian divisions and religious malevolence. Iraq was no nation inasmuch as Lebanon is no nation, but rather an artificially drawn map created by colonial powers. And the Bush Administration put US forces right into the middle of it, lining the pockets of cronies, and causing death to thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

It is increasingly clear that Bush will go down rightly as the worst president in history. He was certainly the least qualified and his sole redeeming value is that he knew how to win elections. Period. His administration was the most corrupt, dishonest, and inept in history. He is a towel snapping frat boy who never had to own up to his mistakes and never accomplished anything of substance without cronyism and connections. His whole demeanor, actions, and words reinforced the negative stereotype of the boorish rich provincial American.

He was a mediocre student who got to attend the best colleges on his family’s legacy, he was a truant soldier who avoided service because of his father’s political connections, he was a complete and utter failure as a businessman who reeled in riches by skirting the law, again protected by his father, then the POTUS, he was an inconsequential governor, who by law is relatively powerless, and finally he was a bad drunk. He had no resume of achievement and lacked the necessary gravitas, vision, and intellectual curiosity incumbent upon holding high office.

He is, in short, a bimbo.

The real irony is that despite his tough guy, gun-toting image, North Korea acquired nuclear weapons on his watch and Osama bin Laden got away. If discourse is defined down to shouting and insults, then the free exchange of ideas, so vital in a democracy, is another casualty from the administration of George W. Bush.
]]> General http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=15 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:53:48 -0400 http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=14 For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.

That one phrase from Luke 12:48 was the cornerstone of Tim Russert’s life, a humble man from working class South Buffalo, who came to appreciate the strong family values that guided him throughout his all too short life. In an era that places all value on material wealth, Russert in contrast regarded the support and love he received at home as his greatest asset. The impact of that biblical passage had such a great influence on him that he named his only son Luke as a tribute and perhaps as a reminder.

As Russert climbed to the pinnacle of his profession, winning accolades from all corners of the political spectrum, he never forgot where he came from and where he learned much of life’s lessons. He was the author of two books dedicated to his father, Big Russ, now 82. He was a religious man, a devout Catholic, but he never wore his faith on his sleeve. Many of his closest colleagues at NBC and in journalistic circles had no idea how important religion was to Russert because he never used it to enhance his moral standing or resume, so secure was he in his own abilities and own faith.

Few on television news could match Russert’s resume. Not only was he a graduate from the Cleveland-Marshall School of Law, he was, at age 27, the New York manager for the distinguished and cerebral Daniel P. Moynihan, a tough intellectual one would never expect to find in the superficial parade of US Senators. He became later the political advisor to Mario Cuomo, just as the governor’s political light was ready to shine its brightest. Thankfully for fans of TV news, Russert ended his political career and joined the fourth estate, often described as the slick politician’s worst nightmare.

Russert was perhaps a dying breed of television journalist, dedicated to his craft and devoted to his audience. Russert was never the story, avoiding the nihilism that afflicts so many others in his vocation. He asked the hard questions, offered unbiased analysis, and ignored the trivial, cosmetic material, all a product of his journalistic integrity.

He was, of course, a Sunday morning fixture on Meet the Press for over a decade, providing tough but fair and honest questions to the most powerful and significant figures of the day. Again, his integrity placed him above the rest, never offering an edited opinion, but rather trusting the judgment of his viewers to form their own conclusions. This sign of respect for the stay at home voter distinguished Russert from the many shrill talking heads that pollute our airwaves day after day.

Fox News proclaims itself ‘fair and balanced’ with the motto, ‘we report, you decide’. Here they might as well have been describing Russert, the star from their rival, NBC. The screaming and rude Bill O’Reilly, lacking Russert’s skills and preparation, prefers to badger his guests and lecture his audience, believing that they are incapable of digesting the substance of each issue. The phony super patriot Sean Hammity, posing as a journalist and pretending to take the moral high ground occupied by Russert, waxes indignation at anyone with opposing viewpoints, while continuously insulting intelligent viewers with his overly simplistic and belittling rhetoric.

Unlike those advocates pretending to practice the art of journalism at Fox News, Russert was the epitome of the unbiased and probing reporter. No political figure of either side received a free pass from him. He never mocked his guests; he never shouted over them, he never questioned their patriotism or their morality. Instead he carried no preconceived notions of what was right or wrong and moreover, he did his homework.

Incorporating the lessons he learned at law school and from Moynihan’s and Cuomo’s offices, he prepared for his program with background material and knowledge born of diligence. No guest received a pillow fight from Tim, but rather tough probing questions that left little or no wiggle room. A guest had to come clean facing Russert because he delivered major league quality questions and he always gave his guests opportunities to explain themselves. The goal was never to score ‘gotcha’ points, but rather to perform the journalist’s public service, inform the public.

The melding of journalism and politics often makes for an acrimonious relationship, but neither entity could survive without the other. In an arena charged with emotion and divergent opinion, the true journalist ignores his or her own beliefs, however deep seeded and emotional they may be, for a higher calling and for the benefit of the public. An informed public unbound from the constraints of partisanship is a free public. Tim Russert adhered to that ideal of professionalism to such an extent that, although he did work for two prominent Democrats, he never even hinted as to where his own vote was going.

That he was a professional also means that he was entertaining, witty, colorful, and lively. His delivery was as flawless as his astute observations. His laugh was genuine and nothing was ever forced or staged. This engaging and wholesome man was made for the cameras, yet he had a degree of dignity so lacking in that medium. First and foremost, however, he was a patriot who never had to boast of his love of country, for he displayed it every time he went to work in his own unassuming manner. He was an unaverage man who understood the average man.

Rest in Peace, Timothy John Russert, Jr. Along with millions of Meet the Press viewers, I echo what Spanky and our Gang sang over 40 years ago:

Now I wake up Sunday morning, walk across the way to find
Nobody waiting for me, Sunday's just another day.
Sunday Will Never Be the Same,
I've lost my Sunday song, he'll not be back again.

]]> General http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=14 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:26:16 -0400 http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=13 Canis lupus familiaris, otherwise known as the dog.

This movement has its genesis when the first Homo sapiens ventured from the community of the cave, threw a rock over the ridge and followed it. This migration led to the discovery of new continents and expanded trades (and alas, led to war all too often), and the migration continues today. Movement in the new world has been from the coastline to the interior, into the wilderness, up the rivers, to the Ohio Valley and plains beyond. Along with these settlements, new centers of industry and commerce were established. The railroads built Chicago, steel turned old Fort Duquesne into Pittsburgh, the automobile transformed Detroit from another old French fort into Motown, the Mississippi spawned St. Louis, flour gave us the Twin Cities, an old west trading post named Fort Worth gave us Dallas, and the list goes on.

Conquering the vast expanse of the North American continent became an American manifest destiny, and to that end perhaps the godfathers of sprawl are none other than Thomas Jefferson, who sponsored the Lewis and Clark expedition, and Abraham Lincoln, who in the mist of the civil war found the time and foresight to sign not only the Merrill Act (which gave us Ag schools), but also the Homestead Act. Although both Jefferson and Lincoln provided incentive, most of the migration was wrought by ambition and adventure. No corporation or trust lined their pockets over this migration; no private enterprise was subsidized by the government or raided the treasury. It was rather the over reported Invisible Hand of the marketplace that drove these settlements, that entrepreneurial spirit that has been the back bone of a free society ever since we exchanged goods and services.

Adam Smith's influential An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations is often cited as the template for today's Laissez-faire economic conservatives who categorize any restraints on pure capitalism as socialism or social engineering. What is missing from this argument, of course, is that Smith also warned against government facilitating commerce at the expense of competition. This, regretfully, is the state of our affairs today, more of corporatist economy with connected and influential corporations dictating not only our economic well being, but also our very quality of life, a feature best evidenced by our runaway suburban sprawl, absolute automobile reliance, community decay at its hub, and an aesthetically ugly landscape.

The sprawl that scorches our landscape and consumes our resources is the result of unintended consequences brought on by the greed and shortsightedness of urban politicians more than fifty years ago. Arriving fresh from victory in Europe President Eisenhower was impressed by the German Autobahn system and saw the potential for an identical structure in the vast expanse of the American continent. When the national highway acts were laid out, Eisenhower's plan mimicked the German model in that it bypassed the urban cores and merely connected cities and towns, as high speed divided highways were deemed both unnecessary and hazardous for high volume metropolitan traffic. In an arena where earmarks and pork set the national agenda, urban congressmen were quick to grab their share of the booty. They formed a coalition that hindered all appropriations until the Interstates were redirected into the urban cores of their represented cities. There Pandora delivered her box to the avaricious congressmen, which they deliriously opened and thus unleashed a torrent of unforeseen calamity upon their core constituency.

Beginning in the late 1950s, large tracts of land were torn up, neighborhoods were uprooted and cut in half, replaced by craters designed to move 4000 pound projectiles at speeds exceeding 70 miles per hour. As the traffic flowed in and out of our neighborhoods at unsafe speeds, the flow generally moved in one direction – out of town to the once vacant rural areas and wilderness. In time the automobile became the central, defining possession in many lives and the landscape reflected that change.

The town square was replaced by the shopping mall, with the sole function of retail sales and consumerism, all to the bane of the community spirit and cohesiveness. The soapbox orator, with Speakers Corner all but shuddered, now needs permission from the mall corporation; freedom of speech with an asterisk. Sidewalks became obsolete as increasingly newer housing developments skipped them altogether in favor of larger winding roads leading to the exclusive cul du sac, again the car triumphant over the pedestrian, cyclist, and kids playing hopscotch. The independent hamburger stand was replaced by interchangeable fast food chains selling junk through the standardized drive-thru window. The local shops of all makes and sizes were boarded up, as the new Wal-Mart and other big box chains sucked the life out of one community after another, all with taxpayer subsidies, replacing neighborhood friendly streets with hulking acres of blacktopped parking lots.

Even our abodes reflect this quantum shift from individualism to auto slave, with the bungalows, ranches, tri-levels, and colonials of Levittown replaced by the McMansion, starter mansion, and snout ranch, the perfect starter home with a small house attached to the rear of the encompassing 2.5 car garage, monstrosities of soulless blights of modernity. The end result is that each town is indistinguishable from another on the outside, and wholly owned by a few powerful corporations, whose owners are not members of the community, but rather remote faceless non-human entities.

The paramount repercussions from sprawl, other than the complete unattractiveness to the eye, are massive auto congestion and fuel consumption. Literally in every major metropolis during both the AM and PM rush hours (although the condition is neither a rush nor an hour in duration), traffic snarls for miles because of some accident, often resulting in injury and sometimes death. Traveling on the suburban beltways, urban spurs, and thruways is a bloody awful experience, both metaphorically and literally. Although overall greater safety features have been outfitted, usually by government mandates, the number the annual traffic-related fatalities remain at just fewer than 40,000, a slight drop from the 50,000 who perished annually on our roadways 35 years ago when automobile safety entered the lexicon of public responsibility.

Despite these grotesque numbers, very few have any personal knowledge of a loved one who died in a traffic accident, it’s always someone else we read about in the papers, such as the young mother and her two kids who were killed instantly when some idiot decided to get drunk and ram his damn SUV into their car at 65 mph. Rather than cite one example of traffic fatalities after another, let's put it another way. Over the past five years over 4000 servicemen made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq; this amounts to only 10% of the persons killed on our roads and highways every year.

The damage to one's health is not just limited to accidents, however, as extended commutes are sedentary, mentally exhausting, and increasingly irritating, as evidenced by the road rage incidents of the past twenty years. Moreover, it is often this rage or loss of concentrative powers, fatigue, or impatience that result in many accidents or other medical aliments.

One may say that this is the result of free choice, but how much of it is free if the choices are dwindled to nothing? After decades of unchecked sprawl, there are signs of gentrification in many cities. Not just in yuppie havens such as Boston or Portland, but in old rust belt cities like Baltimore and even Detroit. Los Angeles/San Diego (there is no other way to describe the area), the microseism of suburbia, hemmed in by the desert, the mountains, the ocean, and Mexico, has nowhere to go but rebuild its urban core. The progress is difficult, however, as political clout is further consolidated in affluent suburbs, and the diversion of funds from corporate subsidies to rehabilitation are demonized as ‘social engineering’ that hamper ‘growth’. Growth for whom? Perhaps a look at the crowd your representative is running with might answer the question.

With the cost of a gallon of gas at $4.00, the annual expense of commuting exclusively by automobile ranges from $7500 to $10,000 per year, depending on the lease payment or depreciation and the amount of gasoline consumed. Now take at look at your total federal income tax. It’s easy to say that we need to drill thousands of new holes for oil (we cannot drill ourselves to independence) or to develop alternative fuels or that we need more fuel efficient cars, but what’s missing is that we are addicted to our automobiles and the corporatist economy is not only much to blame for that, but also it has limited our choices.

The fact remains that we are running out of open space. As more companies leave the central business district for corporate parkways (now just where the hell is the ‘park’ in the parkway?), our commutes will continue to expand and our consumption will continue to rise. The financial costs are making many rethink their daily grind, but we also have to consider the costs to human capital, as well. If fidelity to freedom is our civic code, then our human code should be a faithful commitment to leaving a better world for our children. Rather than endorse any lifestyle change, I am only asking you, gentle reader, to take a walk outside and enjoy the outdoors and try imagining the future.
]]> General http://my-funnyfarm.com/blog/index.php?itemid=13 Thu, 5 Jun 2008 22:16:34 -0400