Et tu, Brute . . .

On the walls of the Old Cadet Chapel at West Point are plaques honoring general officers who served in the American Revolution. One plaque lists no name, only a rank, “Major General,” and the date “1740.” This is Benedict Arnold’s plaque. Commemorating the service, but not the man.

His service, by any definition, was extraordinary: The capture of Fort Ticonderoga with Ethan Allen; Leader of an epic expedition through the wilds of Maine to attack Quebec; Commander of the fleet (built under his direction, he was a seaman – and a pharmacist – prior to the revolution) on Lake Champlain that, although unsuccessful in battle, delayed the British expedition against Ticonderoga for a full year; Reliever of the Fort Stanwix siege and true architect of the great American victory of the war at Saratoga; Seriously wounded three times in combat. Arnold was arguably the best military commander on either side; only Nathanael Greene might be considered an equal contender for that honor.

But then, of course, there was that little business of giving up West Point to the British. Not to mention becoming a pretty effective Brigadier General for them afterwards. Arnold’s became the most hated name in American history. Following the war no lasting opprobrium was attached to American Tories, or to British Officers (even those accused of “war-crimes” like Banastre Tarleton, the role model for the villain in Mel Gibson’s The Patriot), nor even to hated Indians like the Mohawk Chief Joseph Brant. Benedict Arnold remains our once and future “Judas.”

Robert E. Lee (turncoat and traitor) became a sainted hero, Bedford Forrest (war criminal at Fort Pillow and founder of the KKK) a grass-roots military genius, William Boney (back-shooting degenerate) a miss-understood kid, Jessie James (thief and murderer) the last defender of a lost-cause, Wyatt Earp (corrupt gambler and killer) a western icon, Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow (killers and incompetent thieves) working class, depression-era heroes; Donald Trump (egotistical creep) a financial beau-ideal, etc, etc. All too many etceteras. Yet Benedict Arnold, almost alone, continues to occupy the lowest ring of an American hell.

The take-home message seems to be that Americans will forgive almost anything . . . anything but betrayal. Especially betrayal from those from whom much was expected.

Barack Obama might take heed.

Putting up with Bush’s policies from George W. Bush and his gang of sleazy, money-grubbing, immoral incompetents was one thing. Those on the Left never expected anything better – the “kinder, gentler” image put forth to steal the fraudulent 2000 election was never all that creditable – and George certainly didn’t disappoint. But Progressives voted for Obama as “one of us” and expectations were high. Probably too high – way too high. But we certainly didn’t expect Bush II, Bush’s policies masquerading as “Hope and Change.” Sarah Palin asked “how’s that hopey-changey thing workin out for ya?” The answer from progressives is “not so good.”

There was no claw back of eroding civil rights from the “Constitutional” lawyer. Guantanamo is still going strong, ditto “rendition,” and we’ve added Presidentally-sanctioned murder to the list. Harry Truman ended segregation in the military with a stroke of his pen, but gays are still having to suffer with “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Labor got nothing except an up-and-coming tax on “Cadillac” health plans. Wall Street and the banks were saved (thank you, Barack, for bringing back all those Clinton advisors who set the stage for the great collapse and the Goldman-Sachs groupies who facilitated the bailout), but our government couldn’t even manage bankruptcy mortgage modification for ordinary folk.

Bob Dylan sang about “those who rob you with a fountain pen,” but the bankers and brokers whose greed destroyed trillions of “Main Street” wealth not only got off scot-free, but walked away laughing . . . back to the bank. New regulations to prevent a repeat are mostly a joke and do nothing to protect the public interest – we’ve converted banks “too big or too important to fail” into banks that are even bigger and more important. In America we don’t seem to make much, or accomplish much, these days, but our corporations have gotten very much better at mining the Federal purse.

And then there’s his vaunted health care bill . . . Obamacare. Yes, the left finally did came around to supporting it. Reluctantly. While holding their collective nose. But only as a foot-in-the-door first step, something to be later modified and improved – like Social Security had been – not because it represented any intrinsic accomplishment (and we may be very much mistaken about opportunities for improvement). And to get this miserable piece of legislation the administration bought off the drug companies (no more talk of importing drugs from Canada nor reducing costs by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices) and the insurance industry (no removal of their trust exemption and a gift of 30 million new customers – with most of these new premiums paid with tax dollars). Not to mention assorted other commercial interests and numerous senators. No “single payer,” no “public option,” no “Medicare-for-all,” no separation of health insurance from employment, no long-range cost control. Instead we’re to be forced to buy insurance and practically guaranteed increased future costs. And, adding insult to injury, most of its provisions will not come into effect for years. Thanks again, Barrack.

On the positive side it’s nice having an articulate and intelligent President. Instead of a sneering douchebag. And college loans were removed from the predatory claws of the banks. That campaign promise was kept. Unfortunately, almost the only other promise kept was to invigorate and magnify the war in Afghanistan. It would be nice if, in his efforts to show some backbone, he’d stand up to Republicans instead of Progressives. The President may feel he can ignore his base, that they have nowhere to go; he should keep in mind that the base can even more easily ignore him. We don’t have to go anywhere. We can just stay home. The choice between tweedledum and tweedledee is no real choice at all.

I began with a Revolutionary War theme, let me end with one. Patrick Henry in a speech to the Virginia House of Burgesses said “Caesar had his Brutus; Charles the First his Cromwell; and George the Third . . . may he profit by their example.” Barrack Obama should keep in mind that Lyndon Johnson had his Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy; and Gerald Ford his Reagan. He should profit from their example; unless, of course, he wants to go home to Illinois in 2013.

(The photos, counter clock-wise from the top: A monument to Benedict Arnold’s boot on the Saratoga Battlefield; the inscription reads "In memory of the most brilliant soldier of the Continental army, who was desperately wounded on this spot, winning for his countrymen the decisive battle of the American Revolution, and for himself the rank of Major General." Arnold’s name is not mentioned. A portrait. The John Trumbull painting of Burgoyne’s Surrender at Saratoga on October 17, 1777 (painted in 1822). Needless to say, Arnold is not included; he lay seriously wounded in hospital and remained an invalid for seven months.)

Sic transit gloria mundi . . .

As a kid I was taught at school to hide under my wooden desk from a nuclear explosion – it was called “duck-and-cover.” But little good would that cover have done me growing up in New York City, an obvious initial target in any nuclear confrontation. Then, as now, our government was good with words; not so good when it came to common sense or rational thinking.

We then faced – and still do face – an existential threat from a nuclear attack. “Existential” meaning a threat to our very existence. We know now, although the threat was real, that the USSR was far more reluctant than our own government to begin any nuclear exchange. We should have realized it then: no nation, having undergone the physical destruction of Nazi invasion and retreat, along with the loss of more than 25 million citizens, would have been anxious for a repeat wartime adventure. World War II was not a “good” war for Russia, nor were WWI and the revolution/civil war that followed. For Russia, it had been a half-century of death – death up close and so very personal, leaving no family untouched.

In the 60s and into the 70s we were sold a war in Vietnam based on something called the “domino theory.” Simply put, if we didn’t fight ‘em there we’d soon be fighting ‘em here. Well, it took us almost 10 years before we gave up, but we finally lost (closer to 25 if you count our financing and support of the French effort in what was then called “Indochina,” and the years building up South Vietnam). It turned out that there were no “dominos.” And the only invasion we’ve had to put up with was from the cheap clothing they now ship to our stores.

It turned out that the Vietnamese hated and feared those Chinese we were so worried about more than we did, and had done so for about a thousand years. They went to war with China soon after we left. So much for the “Communist Monolith,” not to mention that the same Chinese – still Communist, by the way – are now supporting our economy and supplying us with gads of consumer goods. So much for the superior thinking of the “best and brightest” of three presidential administrations.

Forget all that revisionist nonsense you hear about “we could have won.” We wouldn’t have – the Vietnamese always had so much more at stake and a greater willingness to sacrifice – and our Army was disintegrating at the end. There are good reasons why Colin Powell and his generation of officers (who served there at the beginning of their careers) wanted an all-volunteer Army and no more Vietnams – and it wasn’t because they came close to winning. It went on so long, not because we were always almost on the cusp of victory, but because our so called “leaders” – our politicians and generals – were afraid to face the political consequences of defeat. Young Americans died because they didn’t want to admit error or lose their jobs. No one was willing to say “enough, this is stupid.” (At least not out loud.) Kids died because their leaders wanted to save face.

Sound familiar?

The morons who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the current bunch keeping us there, are making the “geniuses” that led us into Vietnam look brilliant in comparison. It was nonsense then, but it’s nonsense-squared now. Terrorism is not an existential threat. It poses, at best, some physical danger to a very small number of unlucky citizens – more Americans die every year from accidents in their bathtubs than are killed by terrorists – and a minor economic cost.
A few thousand – or is it only a few hundred? – raggedy-assed terrorists scattered over the world do not pose a threat to our existence as a nation. But our inappropriate response surely does. It’s a waste of lives and treasure that could be better spent elsewhere – at home, for instance. And we will come to rue the hatred it is engendering.

Our military budget is now over 700 billion a year – call it a trillion if we throw in veterans benefits and miscellaneous military costs hidden in other Federal departments – the highest it has ever been. More than the combined military spending of all other nations on Earth. Throw in another trillion for each of the wars. To paraphrase the late Senator Dirkson, a trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon we might just be talking national bankruptcy. We fought Vietnam on the credit card too. That old “guns and butter” routine. The price we paid was the “stagflation” of the 70s. And that was, arguably, a relatively richer and more powerful United States. The Biblical phrase “those that sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind” comes to mind.

But we will not, nay, probably can not, simply say “no more; we made a mistake; there is no overriding national interest worth this sacrifice at stake.” The Russians could. They gave Afghanistan nine years and left. Our stay is now going on ten. An irony is that in the old USSR political leaders dictated to the generals (Gorbachev’s dismantling of the Empire and survival of a coup attempt prove that), whereas in the US of A the opposite seems to have taken hold. We seem to adore our military – probably because most of us feel guilty about not serving. Indeed, about not having to make any sacrifice what so ever. And this awe, which should be reserved for the grunts who are doing the sacrificing and dying, seems also to be extended to the Generals – Generals who have led us through ten years of failure at inordinate expense.

Speaking of Generals . . . I find something untoward about the personal appearance of General Petraeus on the news lately. Petraeus’ combat experience has been confined to two tours in Iraq – the second of which, where he damped down the violence by buying off Sunni insurgents, is highly touted – and his present command in Afghanistan (he graduated West Point in 1974 and didn’t serve in Vietnam). I’ve contrasted his appearance in my photo with that of General Eisenhower.

Observe, if you will, the medals and other paraphernalia attached to the uniforms. Eisenhower’s career should need no introduction, nor should that of General Macarthur and Admiral Nimitz in the second photo (taken at as ceremonial a moment as you can imagine – the Japanese surrender in Tokyo Bay). Macarthur, a General without any noticeable lack of self-esteem throughout his career, earned a Medal of Honor, two DSCs and seven Silver Stars along with numerous lesser awards. All in a career that spanned from before WWI to Korea. The decorations he would have been entitled to wear on his uniform are shown alongside. As countless photos attest, he rarely wore any at all. It would seem that the budget is not the only thing undergoing expansion in our military.

The Election . . .

I feel an urge to say something about the upcoming election. I’ve tried to control it (God knows, far too much has already been said) . . . but alas. So here goes.

It’s an election between the feckless wonders and the morons. And it sure looks like the morons are going to win. And win big.

I sure hope not. A nation that collectively votes for representatives so obviously unfit to make decisions would seem to have lost whatever fragile grasp on reality it might have once possessed. Any party that sees – or claims to see – politicians like Reid, Obama and Pelosi as some kind of existential threat to the republic has gone off the deep end. That that party might actually take control of the US Congress should not be looked upon with equanimity by anyone with half a brain. That after eight years of a abysmally failed administration (perhaps the worst in our history), the sight of an electorate willing to return to their kind of misgovernment – nay, to something far less intelligent than the leadership given us by those evil incompetents – makes one despair for the future of the American Republic.

Some of the morons are almost beyond belief. Privatize this, privatize that, quit picking on corporations . . . Really? There’s that woman in Nevada talking about “Second Amendment Remedies,” i.e., civil war, and a Texas governor wanting to secede from the union – as if that worked really well back in 1860. A guy in Kentucky who thinks Ayn Rand (who he’s named after) said all that needs be said about government (or philosophy) in the 21st Century, and an ex-witch in Delaware that apparently thinks that stopping masturbation would be the answer to most of our problems. (Actually, I like her the best. It might be nice having a witch, or even ex-witch, in the Senate, better than those pious Christian frauds who believe the only human beings worth caring about are the “un-born.” Did I mention she’s easier to look at?)

Of course, the feckless wonders seem little better. Giving us “Bush-light” or “Clinton II” instead of the “change” a lot of us thought we had voted for. A Senate majority that couldn’t be bothered to change the filibuster rules – ‘fraid it might cost ‘em some power should, God forbid, Republicans make a come-back. A continued bail-out of Wall Street and the Banks, along with meaningless new regulations that most definitely will not prevent a repeat of our continuing economic crisis. A repeat we will probably be unable to afford. A health care bill that bought off medical corporations and drug companies, and shoveled even more business to the insurance industry. One war being continued (like “Friday the 13th”, we can expect a few Iraqi sequels) and another put into higher gear. Granted, some representatives and senators have tried to do better (more representatives than senators, for which I thank Nancy Pelosi, who proved to be one of the great Speakers of the House), but the end result was to feed us gruel and dare call it filet mignon.

“Things are probably no worse than they’ve ever been” is probably little consolation. It sure looks like we are re-living in the “Gilded Age,” when wealth and corporate power reigned. (A big thank you to our Republican dominated Supreme Court – the true Bush legacy.) And when politicians could be purchased rather cheaply – an honorable politician being defined as one who would stay bought. It’s probably too much to expect a majority of our Congress to be more concerned about the success of the American experiment than their own careers, but you’d think that every now and then we’d luck out and get a President more interested in the nation’s future than his own re-election.

It seems not, at least not this time. I come back to the wars. It all seems so hopeless. Elections come, and elections go. Yet nothing even pauses the continuing drive to sustain and advance the American Empire. Or the defense budget. There can be no good end. There will be no victory and no honorable exit. Yet the wars continue, because President after President is bound and determined that the eventual defeat will not happen on his watch. None are willing to bite the bullet. And we citizens cannot be bothered to even pay attention. Much less stop the tragedy being carried out in our name. Our nation seems to lack even the good sense of the Russians, who knew when to say “enough.”

I’ve always wanted to ask Jimmy Carter – who I’ve always believed to be a good and honorable man, and whose life after leaving the Presidency has certainly sustained that belief – what he would do differently if he’d known there would be only one term. I have a feeling I’m going to be wanting to ask that same question of Obama. It's almost a fantasy: a war without gore. At least for 99% of us. No National Service, no taxes paying for it, no sacrifices, no shortages, no need to even pay attention. And we surely don't. We are living in a fools paradise, and now we seem to want to put the morons in charge.

Mercutio, in Romeo and Juliet, says “A plague on both your houses.” I feel much the same way about this election. It’s a pity both sides can’t lose. Or that there was no “none of the above” line on the ballot. I did vote (mail-in), but I’m hardily tired of voting for the lesser evil. I must admit, the possibility of Sarah Palin being a presidential candidate in 2012 exerts a strange fascination. I may not be able to control myself. It might be the perfect opportunity to try the greater evil.

When the Gods Fail . . .

On a summer evening in 1968, a friend and I ended up sitting on a crumbling wall of Pueblo Alto, sharing a 6-pack, and watching the sun set over Chaco Canyon in New Mexico. The Park Service, then and now, frowns on that practice, as it does on visitors pocketing pot-shards found amid the ruins – another disreputable activity we engaged in. Back then, however, the Park Service presence in what was Chaco Canyon National Monument (now Chaco Culture National Historical Park) was rather slim, consisting of a single ranger, camping in a tent and standing guard over an 8 x 10 wooden shack that served as a museum.

Below us, spread out in this utterly barren canyon, were the ruins of dozens of abandoned pueblos; some had been as tall as 5-stories, each encompassing hundreds of rooms, indicating that thousands of Indians had to have not only lived here, but scratched out a relatively prosperous life in what now appeared to be totally inhospitable terrain. Now, some 900 years later, only these impressive remains were left. What happened? And what became of these people?

Aside from its monumental architecture, Chaco is a strange place. Take those big, multi-room, pueblos (called “great houses”): almost all are located on the northside of the wash, the “better,” i.e., sunnier side (think warmer winter temperatures – we’d call it “passive solar” these days). On the other side there were also lots of pueblos. In fact, lots more, but of a smaller, one-story, variety that had been the usual “Anasazi” living quarters for hundreds of years previously.

(Anasazi is the name applied to this culture, a culture which existed for over 2000 years in the 4-corners area where Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico come together; the word is usually interpreted as “ancient ones,” but it’s literal meaning, from the Navaho, is "enemy ancestors.")

Each of the “great houses” had hundreds of rooms, but it appears they were never fully occupied. At least not year-round. Pueblo Bonito (top photo), the greatest of the great houses, with some 650-800 rooms (archeologist’s estimates differ, indeed archeologists differ about almost everything concerning Chaco) might have housed thousands, but estimates based on the number of useable hearths reduce that to around 800; and some put it as low as 12 households, perhaps only 70 people. But however many, they were very rich households, for Chaco was a class society, the powerful living in relative splendor on the sunny side of the canyon (great house excavations have yielded luxury items such as turquoise, inlayed sea shells, copper bells, macaw skeletons, etc.), while others made do on the less desirable side of the wash. (We probably don’t have to ask who did most of the construction.)

But year-round occupation by a wealthy few doesn’t preclude occasional occupation by much larger numbers. Along with hundreds of ordinary rooms, Pueblo Bonito had 32 kivas and 3 great kivas – circular chambers specifically designed for ceremonial and religious purposes. A hell of a number if used by only a few families. And then there are roads: virtual highways extending out from Chaco in all directions, with the greatest beginning just north of Bonito (the Great North Road, passing in front of the Pueblo Alto wall we were sitting on). This road is over 30 feet wide – 30 feet in a society without wheels or beasts of burden. And planning. Chaco was first settled around 600 AD; with great house construction beginning about 850 and lasting until the early 1100s. From first to last, over a period of at least 200 years, it seems that Pueblo Bonito was being built with its final appearance always in mind.

Massive monumental construction, a vast road network, outlying satellite communities, trade goods moving over great distances (even much of Chaco’s corn – a basic staple – seems to have been grown at a far remove), a class society . . . it’s clear that Chaco was the administrative, political and religious center of a much wider civilization – an Anasazi Rome. And then around 1130-1150 it all came to an end. All signs of occupation vanish shortly after 1130.

Although archeologists have proposed dozens of theories, drought seems to be the most popular. Tree ring studies show the beginning of a 50-year drought at the time of Chaco abandonment. But there’s a problem. There had been earlier droughts, droughts of equal or greater severity. Why then were the consequences this time so much more severe? Especially since a society so much more powerful and better organized, more advanced in the techniques of irrigation, should have been better prepared to overcome this type of adversity.

Others have proposed invasion by outsiders. But it’s not likely that bands of marauding, much less invading, hunter/gathers, moving on foot, would have made much of an impression on relatively dense, organized, populations of settled agriculturists; populations with stored food reserves. Indeed, raiders would consider themselves lucky to escape alive, especially in the southwest’s open terrain. Think of Mongols invading the middle east – but on foot, without livestock, horses, supplies, superior weapons or organization . . . They’d be dead Mongols.

So if not drought or invaders, what then? Consider environmental destruction. Consider almost 600 years of occupation by large populations utilizing wood fires. Consider pueblo construction and the utilization of over 200,000 trees for lintels and beams. Analysis of packrat burrows have shown the area surrounding Chaco to have been completely deforested by the latter stages of occupation; building timbers were having to be transported from nearly 70 miles away. Think subsequent erosion and arroyo down-cutting rendering irrigation works ineffective. Think lowered water tables, flash flooding, earlier termination of streamflow, and the drying up of springs. And then came drought.

It was probably not pretty. We’re talking starvation and societal breakdown. The gods had failed, and their representatives were no longer creditable. It was not a matter of renting a U-Haul and moving on. It was family against family and clan against clan. A majority, and perhaps very much more than a majority, died in the collapse and ensuing carnage. It’s from this time that archeologists find destroyed kivas (the tops removed – no easy task since roofs were built up as a dome of solid timbers – and the insides burnt out), dismembered bodies and obvious signs of cannibalism. Nothing conveys hate and contempt quite so well as eating the good parts of someone and then defecating on the rest, and on their religious shrines.

Those that did survive moved on to other locations and re-established communal pueblo life. But it was communal life with a difference – pueblos were now situated for defense: cliff dwellings in Mesa Verde and Canyon de Chelly (lower photo), or fortress towers placed for mutual support at Hovenweep. Throughout the four-corners area Anasazi now lived in fear. And we have to ask “fear of whom?” Since the argument against outside invaders would still hold, the obvious answer has to be other Anasazi. Only other Anasazi had the resources and numbers to conduct war. This should come as no surprise. When things go belly up it’s your neighbors who will kill you. Just ask the Tutsi in Rwanda, or Polish Jews, or anyone who lived during the 90s in what was “Yugoslavia.”

By 1300 the Anasazi had completely disappeared. Survivors undoubtedly made their way southward to establish new pueblos, usually with other refugees from other failing societies afflicted with similar problems (e.g., the Hohokam and Mogollon). But culture and religion had changed; they were no longer Anasazi.

And now for the moral of this story (of course there has to be a moral!). Does environmental degradation and climate change leading to the destruction of an advanced civilization, a civilization that had lasted for hundreds of years, seem slightly familiar? It should. We ignore what we’re doing to our planet at our peril. Wholesale destruction of species, mindless harvesting of higher life forms from our oceans, exhaustion of the earth’s rivers and the mining of its groundwater, expanding human populations and the quest for a “western” way of life, etc., etc., and so on. These things can’t go on forever. And things that can’t go on forever, don’t.

Ignoring the possibility of climate change doesn’t help. Notice I said “possibility.” I’m convinced, along with almost every scientist studying global warming, that it’s not just a possibility, but reality. But let’s give nay-sayers the benefit of the doubt – the mere possibility alone should justify action. We’re fooling with things we don’t fully understand. We’re in for surprises; and most of them are unlikely to be pleasant. When consequences are dire, only the stupid fail to take precautions.

What were the Anasazi thinking during those last years? Did they turn a blind eye? Did they hope for a technological fix? Or put their faith in prayer? Did they condemn and punish those who pointed out the obvious? What was he thinking, that Easter Islander who cut down the last tree? Or those who fled the abandoned cities of the Mayan Yucatan? Why are there now no cedars in Lebanon? And when did the fertile crescent become unfertile? Perhaps these are things we should start thinking about – in preparation against the day when our gods fail us. As they surely will.
Al

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free . . .”

Or perhaps just wanting to make a buck.

Not that I have anything against immigrants. On the contrary. All my grandparents were immigrants. And our newest recruits are coming here for exactly the same reasons. To better themselves. And their families. To make new lives in a place they deem more hopeful and promising. Nothing at all wrong with that.

The average immigrant is no doubt a lot more admirable than your average American. After all, they’ve examined their lives and not only found something lacking, they got off their dead asses and did something about it. Packed a few belongings and a little money – probably damned little – crossed who knows how many borders, endured lots of adventures – mostly of the unpleasant sort – met lots of strange people, who mostly took advantage of them, and ended up in a strange country with strange customs and a strange language. And that was just getting to the starting line.

Next came the crummy jobs and low wages; living as cheaply as possible in order to save. To send money home or to bring over other family members. All the while keeping one eye open for “La Migra” and being exploited along the way – they are, after all, here illegally with little or no recourse to the law. Totally admirable. And if I could swap ‘em one for one with a few million native-born Americans, I wouldn’t hesitate for a second. (I do believe I might start with “tea-partiers” and those who voted twice for George W. Bush.)

But the important word in “illegal immigrant” is not immigrant, but illegal. It’s not their fault for wanting to come here – and succeeding. It’s our fault for allowing it to happen. And make no mistake, we – the collective we, i.e., our government (the guys – and it’s mostly guys – we elected) and the powers that be – did allow it. Any nation that lets more than 12 million illegal immigrants sneak across its borders was not just being a mite careless, it was knowingly inattentive. It turned the proverbial “blind eye” to the problem.

Stopping illegal immigration, or at least slowing it to a trickle, would have been easy. They came here for jobs. Prevent ‘em from working and most would go home, or not attempt to get here in the first place. (To prove the point, over a million have left since 2008; in other words, when our economy headed south, so did 8% of our illegal population.) But important economic interests wanted those immigrants. Wanted them badly. And better illegal than legal; “obey and stay” is a potent management tool. Cheap and docile labor – what’s not to like if the aim be improving the bottom line.

But it gets even better. The influx kept uppity working-class Americans in line. Kiss off unionization and the things unions fight for: reduced hours, worker’s rights, vacations, grievance procedures; dare I mention health care? Keep those on the lower half of the economic ladder fearful of new-comers willing to work cheaper (and probably harder) and half your labor problems disappear. Managing fearful workers is easier, and a lot more pleasant. And did I mention cheaper?

Oh, there’s a whole lot of talk about how immigration, both legal and illegal, makes everybody better off. Increases GDP, blah, blah, blah. A rising tide lifts all boats, blah, blah, blah. It might even be true; expert opinion remains mixed. But true or untrue isn’t the important point. What is, is that turning a blind eye to illegal immigration creates winners and losers. And Americans occupying our lower economic strata are the losers; with least well-off Americans the biggest losers of all.

Along with American businesses, and those who invest in them, the middle class also won. At a time of rising expectations but stagnating incomes, keeping things cheap with low-wage labor helped make ends meet. It allowed a partial return to those dimly-remembered, halcyon days of affordable domestic help. Child-care, cleaning services, gardeners, repair-folk, not to mention keeping all those minimum wage service jobs competitive and, well, at minimum wage. A wage, least we forget, that decreased by about 40% in purchasing power over the last generation. All helping to keep aspiring two wage-earner, middle class families economically viable.

At least until now. With fear, economic fear, stalking the land, all those little, back-of-the-mind, middle-class worries have been moving frontward. And becoming not so little. Losing your job, your house, having your kids drop out of college, moving – God forbid! – down the economic ladder. Toss in hungry college-educated, professional legal immigrants being brought in by American corporations from places like India, and the export of American white-collar jobs to . . . places like India, and it’s not surprising that immigration is no longer a back-burner issue (think “Arizona”).

We have had an enduring anti-immigrant tradition throughout our history, and it usually peaks whenever high rates of immigration intersect with hard economic times. When it comes to immigrants we have been equal opportunity haters. Take your pick: Germans, Irish, Italians, Slavs, etc. Americans, “native” Americans, have hated ‘em all in turn. And that’s just the Europeans (recall, or re-watch, the Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day-Lewis, movie “Gangs of New York” for the anti-Irish, anti-Catholic, mostly pre-Civil War, version). It’s a tradition that becomes even more xenophobic and racist as immigrant skin color darkens. But it needn’t be.

A nation, any nation, has a right, no, a downright obligation, to protect it’s borders. If it can’t. Or it wouldn’t. It fails a basic test. To believe that the strongest nation in the world, arguably the strongest nation that’s ever been, a nation that spends more on defense than all other nations combined, can’t control immigration is laughable. And everyone knows it (hence, part of the anger). So it’s time to end the farce and face up. Not by building bigger walls (but build ‘em if you must), but by removing the incentive that continually draws illegals across our borders – that they will be able to find jobs.

Whatever it takes. Fine businesses and corporations who hire illegals – fine ‘em heavily (how about $100,000 per illegal per year). Imprison personnel department employees who fail to adequately check, and executives who flaunt the law. Institute an National Identity Card (the idea that this will somehow deprive us of our freedom in an era of facebook, Google, shopping discount cards, required driver license ID, etc. is just plain silly) and a mandatory Social Security check. We don’t have to be harsh to illegal immigrants. Simply make it damn difficult to work, to go to school, to get aid. The harshness can be reserved for those Americans who flaunt the law.

Will things end up costing more? Sure. But perhaps they should. Perhaps a willingness to take on society’s difficult, dirty, back-breaking, physically-enfeebling, mind-numbing jobs deserves a premium wage. Perhaps someone willing to do a job most of us wouldn’t, or physically couldn’t, should be accordingly rewarded. Is sitting on ones fat ass, staring at a computer screen, so much more intrinsically valuable than picking our crops, packaging our food, caring for our elderly, or our young? How did we come to so denigrate hard work as to think it worth only about seven bucks an hour (a single mother with a child, earning a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, makes only enough to keep her at the Federal poverty threshold)?

And keep in mind that the last century has not been very kind to multi-ethnic societies. The Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires disappeared after the First World War; the British, French, Dutch, etc. Empires followed soon after the Second. And we’ve recently watched the break up of the USSR and Yugoslavia. Don’t look now, but we’re almost the only large multi-ethnic society left. Let’s be honest, 200 years of open US immigration succeeded as well as it did because we were able to form a “condominium of whites,” periodically opening the coalition to subsume each European ethnic group in turn. All in opposition to . . . being brutally frank, the non-whites among us. When “tea baggers” scream about wanting their country back it’s their “white America” they want. Alas for them, that nation is gone forever. And good riddance to it.

But that doesn’t mean they don’t have a point. Assimilation of minorities into our body politic takes time; the more culturally and racially dissimilar, the more time. It would behoove us to move slow – certainly slower than we have over the last generation. If nothing else, our exercise of imperial hubris in Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught us that small differences can become major gulfs when societies undergo stress. We’re no exception. Our current political situation may simply be a foretaste of what’s to come.

So for whatever reason, economic fairness, keeping American jobs for Americans, slowing the pace of cultural transformation, calming fears – both irrational and rational, or simply maintaining the rule of law, we need to end the current mess. We need to remove the incentive and shift the exodus into reverse. And soon.
Al

It's the Economy, Stupid.

Lately, the economic news has not been good. And that’s an understatement. Anemic or negative job growth – in a nation that needs 200,000 to 300,000 new jobs a month just to keep even with a growing work force. Housing sales down 25 percent. You name it. The only good news? Our remaining bankers and Wall Street wizards are doing quite well, thank you.

As might be expected, the bad news is far from evenly distributed. Take unemployment. I listened to a talk on C-span last week stating that the upper echelons of our society were only experiencing a 1-2% unemployment rate, whereas it was over 16% for those on the lower end. I tried to track down these data, but it’s hard to find unemployment figures categorized by the economic class people used to belong to. But there were enough unemployment numbers at the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/data/) to construct this little graph.

It shows monthly unemployment for the last few years (through July 2010). On the left, according to educational background for those older than 24; On the right, by sex, race and age (16-19, and older than 20). None of it’s good news, but it’s obviously better for white women with Bachelor’s degrees (5% unemployment), then for men with only high school diplomas (10%), or (God help you!) a black kid who left without graduating (45%). The more education, the better your employment chances; whites are doing better than blacks; and women better than men. No surprises there – except perhaps the last one.

But official figures are the best part of the bad news. The worst part being that they are far too optimistic: they don’t include those who have given up active job hunting, nor those, who can’t find full-time jobs, working only part-time (our government makes no distinction between part- or full-time employment: if you’re working you’re not unemployed). And there is no end in sight. No one, except possibly those shilling for the Obama administration, thinks better news is just around the corner. Even optimists see substantial improvement only by 2014 or 2016; the pessimists, not until 2020; and the real pessimists believe that a good portion of those lost jobs may never come back.

Unemployment, of course, is a tragedy for those who have lost their jobs. Our most basic question of one another is, “what do you do?” The implication being if you do nothing, you are nothing. Ask any woman who has had to reply “I’m ‘just’ a housewife.” But it’s a tragedy for the rest of us too. We are a society accustomed to smoothing over our various fractures and discontents with continual growth – we are a “bigger pie” nation. Not very good at readjusting the size of the various slices, much less slices of a shrinking pie. Our Pledge states: “one nation, indivisible . . . “ But that’s always been a hope, not a fact. We are anything but. Neither are we a nation inured to adversity.

High unemployment – long-lasting high unemployment – is a recipe for civil discontent and a breakdown of societal norms. For increased fear and anger. We are probably seeing some of it already. But not among those who have lost the most. The “Tea-Partiers” are not mostly young, black or disadvantaged. They’re mostly white, older and well-to-do. But the fear and anger are very real.

And the morons, i.e., the Republican Party, are playing with fire. It’s one thing to be against something, quite another to solve problems once you achieve power. You have to believe in fairy tales to think that their time-honored nonsense – free the free market, lower taxes, cut social spending, fix the deficit – offers any solution for current problems. Repeating Herbert Hoover’s prescription for getting out of the Depression is unlikely to work better the second time around. Combining “up the establishment” with “populism” may not prove to be all that clever.

What about the Democrats? Well, give them some credit. Obama and most of the congressional democrats tried, but their feeble and relatively feckless efforts seem to have fallen far short. The “stimulus” was too small and included little of the “infrastructure reconstruction” it was touted to finance. Injecting money into the banks turned out to be not quite the same as injecting money into the economy. Failure to allow bankruptcy judges to adjust mortgages downwards, and give-aways like “cash-for-clunkers” and “first-time home buyer credits,” seemingly emphasized the unfairness of it all, and may simply have increased the anger of those who didn’t benefit.

They have fought hard – and it’s become an increasingly harder fight – for the continuation of unemployment benefits, perhaps the most efficient way to inject money into an economy. So thank ‘em for that. I could go on, but why bother. A majority, perhaps even most, of the congressional Democrats wanted to do better, and would have had the votes been there – and had the administration been more supportive. Unfortunately, come November and the mid-term elections, these are probably the ones who will suffer most.

As for what comes next? Your guess is as good as mine. But I wouldn’t be living up to my chicken-little reputation if I thought the next news would be good news, and it will all turn out swell.
Al

I’ve read lots of book on the economic crash of 2007-09, perhaps because I’m into doom and gloom; or because it just might prove to be the transformational event of our times; or maybe because I’m the son of Depression Era parents for whom an earlier crash was the transformational event.

So let me make a recommendation: Read “I. O. U.” by John Lanchester (its British title, “Whoops,” is far more apt and descriptive). It’s clearly – nay, elegantly – written. It’s simple and short, and to the point. Lanchester, a novelist (winner of the Whitbread Prize) and sometime columnist, has written the absolutely best book on what happened. The best book that’s ever likely to be written. And if that wasn’t enough, it’s wickedly funny (perhaps not to those he skewers). (You can also watch him on a youtube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0RbK2kuN2c but Lanchester writes better than he lectures.)

I’ve read other books worthy of mention, “Crisis Economics”, by Nouriel Roubini (one of the few economists who predicted what was going to happen), “Freefall”, by Joseph Stiglitz (a Nobel Prize winning economist whom I always read, but not the most elegant writer), and “The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008”, by Paul Krugman (NY Times op-ed columnist and another Nobel winner I always read). All worth getting, but none should be considered “easy reading.” “Diary of a Very Bad Year: Confessions of an Anonymous Hedge Fund Manager” (by Keith Gessen), however, is. It’s a series of transcribed conversations between said hedge fund manager and a not very knowledgeable reporter, conducted as the crisis unfolded. It would be my second pick for those wanting to be informed, but without feeling that they’ve signed up for a college course.

Democracy . . .

“A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

The quote is from George Bernard Shaw. And it’s something our founding fathers fervently believed. Which is why they considered the word “democracy” a curse. More than four letters, but an obscenity nonetheless. When they framed the Constitution they did their very best to insure we’d have none of it.

For that “no taxation without representation” bit, left over from the Revolution, they gave us a House of Representatives. It would have the first word over finances. But all else, including the last word on everything, would reside in the Senate. Their finest creation.

First, they made sure that the smallest state would count for as much as the largest; e.g., that economic powerhouse of the Great Plains, that hot-bed of culture, that home to countless millions, North Dakota, has as much influence as California or New York. Next, the slave states would always have an edge. Slaves were property, not humans. Except when it came to determining how many representatives each state would have in that House of Representatives, and, least we forget, who would be elected President. Then each slave would count as 3/5 of a human being. Zero when it came to being human, 60% when it came to counting. Which is why, until the election of Lincoln, every President of the United States was either a southerner, or southern sympathizer (otherwise known as a fan of slavery). Except two: the two Adamses. Guess how successful each of their single terms were?

Not that elections were ever to be decided by one-man-one-vote, but by one-landowning-white-man-one-vote (women, of course, along with poor men or men of whatever other shade, need never think of applying). But even this kind of election was not to be used to elect Senators or the President. Oh no, that might not keep dreaded democracy far enough away. Those elections were left to the state legislatures or special Presidential electors. The Senate election business wouldn’t be changed until 1914 (more than a century later by the 17th Amendment; yep, the same one our present day tea-baggers want to reverse); and we still live with the presidential electoral vote nonsense – thank you very much, founders, for George Bush. And as icing on the cake, they gave Senators a six-year term vs. two-years for a congressional representative.

We’ve been able to change very little of this in the 223 years since; the dead hand of these old white men still dictates how our laws are made. I could go on about how the Senate itself proceeded to put together a rulebook to further reinforce it’s anti-democratic character – thanks, guys (it’s still mostly men) for the filibuster, etc. – but why bother. Because the real irony is that the founding fathers need never have worried. George Bernard Shaw was wrong: you can’t depend on Paul to vote in his own interest. Matter of fact, with a little investment of time and effort – and lets not forget money, never forget money – it turns out you can even convince Paul that he needs to rob himself and give yet more to Peter.

How? Just confuse ‘em about which side they should be on. Here’s what a recognized expert had to say about getting representative democratic government to jump on the bandwagon for war: "Oh, that’s all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That’s easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Call it “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” call it “the Death Tax,” or call “Obama’s Death Panels.” Or “Government is the Enemy.” As if. Government is the only chance we’ve got. If it comes down to you vs. big oil. Or you vs. Citibank. Or you vs. what Eisenhower called the “military-industrial” complex. My money will not be on you. Get enough talking heads in suits-and-ties (or, these days, nice dresses) to shout long enough and hard enough and there you are. Details? Who needs sniveling details? Winning the sound bite war is usually enough.

And who was the recognized expert? Why Hermann Goering, of late, unlamented, Third Reich and Luftwaffe fame. I’ll end with another quote, this one from James Bovard, a libertarian author and lecturer.

“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”

You’ll have to make up your own mind, but to me those two wolves might just be named Republican and Democrat. And that sheep? That sheep, my dear readers, is us.

The Election . . . and after . . .

(Writing this on October 31, 2008, it seems I was quite prescient; and, oh, I so wish I’d been wrong. Obama seems to be disappointed in his supporters on the left, but not as disappointed as we are in him. But still . . . would we have been better off with the “Maverick and the Twit”? Probably not. Unless we believe that really bad government would quicken the advent of a new dawn. Unfortunately, I’m not that naive. Although if Sarah Palin were nominated in 2012 . . . )

With the Presidential election just a few days away I thought I’d write something political. No, not about who you should vote for, we’re all getting more than enough direction on that subject. The choice is obvious. So obvious that it’s almost no choice at all. Not even the wealthy can afford to dither, now that the very sources of wealth are at risk. That a washed-up political hack, in the early stages of senility, with a reputation for rage and unthinking reaction, who’s only noteworthy accomplishment was getting shot down over Vietnam and being imprisoned more than a generation ago, is even competitive is a sorry commentary on American Politics.

Let’s assume Obama will win. The alternative is literally unthinkable. No, I want to talk about what happens then. As the (hopefully) failed Presidential hopeful might say, “my friends, we are in sorry shape.” We have gone on for far too long believing in myths instead of looking at reality. Wherever the economy may be heading, it’s unlikely to be a pleasant journey. We’ve been living on borrowed time – and borrowed money. We are less than 5 % of the world’s population, yet we use 25 % of its resources. American financial dominance began to falter in the 70s: We abandoned the gold standard in 1971; oil production peaked in ’72; OPEC embargoed oil in ’73; and in ‘74 our exports exceeded imports for the last time. In 1980 Jimmy Carter told us we had to change direction, and it would be hard work, but we chose Reagan’s “Morning in America.” And now our markers are coming due.

We’re surrounded by failure. Katrina and New Orleans, a joint failure of government and infrastructure, made the lesson obvious. As we’ve been coasting on financial strength built up during WWII and the high-growth years that followed, we’ve been living off of Public Works constructed during the same period: big power-generating projects, the interstate highway system, bridges, sewer and water systems, transmission lines, etc., etc. But we’ve avoided timely maintenance and replacement, and now that we’re running out of money we’re also running out of time. Bills for this neglect are becoming due. Past due in many cases.

We seem to have lost the ability to do things – the very thing Americans used to be famous for. Every President since Johnson has talked about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, yet we use more of it every year. Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972 – and 36 years later we are still “making progress.” In 1982 they mandated a National Storage Site for spent nuclear fuel, and settled on Yucca Mountain, Nevada, by ’87. It was due to open in 1998; that date is now 2017, and no one is taking bets that it will ever actually happen. It’s only a small example, but telling because of its implications for a renewed nuclear power program in light of oil prices and global warming, not to mention homeland security. And speaking of security, the building replacing Manhattan’s twin towers sure showed those terrorists what we could do – didn’t it?

Our military has failed us . . . again and again. A successful military produces quick, economical and meaningful victories. Valor and impressive technology (and no nation has ever spent more on this than us) are not measures of military effectiveness, success is. And success has been sorely lacking. The first Gulf War? That “first” gives it away. A victory? Perhaps, if parades are a sign of victory. But ten years of subsequent bombing and a follow-on invasion have shown it to have been meaningless. And we are now fighting two lost wars. Yes, lost. Lost soon after we announced those victories. We’ve now spent 7 years in Afghanistan, 5 years in Iraq. Our Civil War lasted 4, as did our participation in WWII; even the Revolution took only 6 years. Our Vietnam adventure, however, lasted 16. Do you see a pattern? Vietnam, the lesson we forgot.

Our recent adventures were doomed from the start. Invading foreign places and “killing strange people until they stop trying to make us go away” is not a recipe for success. It’s a formula for wasted lives and treasure, and demonstrates a profound failure of leadership and strategic thought.

Oh yes, the “surge.” Lessening the rate of killing is not the same as victory – especially when it’s achieved by giving arms and money to the “other” side. Actually, all three sides: Kurd, Sunni and Shi’a. Having a war disappear from our TV screens is not the same as making the war disappear.

Can we end these wars and leave gracefully? No. But we can just leave. We did that in Vietnam. Oh, it was disguised with a lot of words and logistical flim-flam, but it all came down to lifting those last Americans off of the roof of the Saigon Embassy. And yes, it was bad public relations, and more soldiers died in the leaving (the Nixon years) than when victory was just around the corner (that’s what happens when you try to leave gracefully), but it wasn’t that bad was it?

The war stopped, the killing stopped, the drain on our treasury stopped, and the violence and rage at home stopped. We are now wearing a lot of Vietnamese T-shirts and former soldiers are taking vacations in Ho Chi Minh City. Come to think of it, Germany and Japan were famous victories, but our troops are still there more than 60 years later; and Korea was a not-so-famous tie, and we’ve been there for over 50 years. But we’re not in China (think Korea) or Vietnam. All in all, we might be better off losing. Losing seems to be a lot cheaper.

Whomever it is we are fighting over there, they don’t represent an existential threat – a threat to our existence as a people and nation. Neither are “terrorism,” North Korea nor Iran existential threats. Oddly enough, the existential threat we faced during the “Cold War,” of Russian nukes aimed at our cities, is still the one we face today. The nukes are still there, and still aimed at us. But we don’t hear much about it, do we? What we do hear is a lot of fuzzy language to obfuscate the issue. It’s no longer nuclear weapons, it’s “WMD,” as if chemical and biological attacks presented threats of equal severity. However, there is another existential threat facing us. One perhaps even more dangerous in the long run: our over-reaction to incorrectly perceived dangers, and the waste of resources that entails.

So if Obama wins, what can he do? Let’s assume he does what he’s promised (and when did that last happen?). It still doesn’t look good. We might be able to leave Iraq, or, at least, kinda leave Iraq, but he seems to believe winning in Afghanistan is still possible. The Russians, and the British before them, would beg to differ. He wants to rebuild our military. “For what” might be an obvious question? He’s proposed a health care plan that includes insurance companies but not all citizens. And by not separating health insurance from the job, does nothing to ease the competitive problems of American corporations. Working towards a green energy future, a fairer tax system, more affordable higher education . . . These are all worthwhile, perhaps even noble, goals, but they require the willing participation of a Democratic Congress. The congress we elected in 2006 to end the war in Iraq – that went swimmingly didn’t it?

Will a Congress who couldn’t summon up the courage to cut off funding for an unpopular war – and by all accounts this will be a great year for congressional Democrats, whether or not Obama wins – challenge a despised administration or end torture, support meaningful change? It’s not as if we are talking about a lot of courage – just the courage to risk your job. I wouldn’t bet on it. And Obama, will he really fight for change, or settle for “Clinton-like” tokenism and gestures? Giving us great words in place of deeds. Meaningful change means sacrifice, perhaps from all of us, but surely from influential segments of our society. Change, however appealing in the abstract, is rarely popular when it strikes close to home.

But perhaps I’m being too pessimistic. Obama is obviously intelligent. Not that intelligence has always served our Nation well. No one ever doubted Clinton’s intelligence, nor Hoover’s, nor Wilson’s. But still, it’s a start (think Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt). We’ve seen what the opposite can accomplish. His campaign, and I have no doubt it was his campaign, has been masterful. He has shown himself to be a great politician. And I mean that as a compliment, in the sense that Washington, Lincoln and FDR were great politicians. How improbable would it have seemed, a few years back, that a relatively unknown black man might well be elected President? To have achieved that is no small accomplishment. And while no one without an inflated ego even contemplates running for President, Obama’s background provides some evidence for selfless and altruistic behavior. So let’s be hopeful. But let’s not expect miracles.

Not even small ones.

There really is no other choice.
Al

Questions . . .

I did get a few questions on a previous post that I’d like to answer. But first I want to thank those who responded. I'm glad when others like my blog . . . and even gladder when someone actually reads it. Oh the horror . . . of writing stuff that no one ever reads, or ever wants to.

I’ve been asked whether or not Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is more prevalent now, and did it even exist back in WWII? It’s hard to know, but PTSD may well be affecting more vets now. (Relatively speaking that is; about 13 million served in our armed forces during WWII and the actual number of vets with subsequent mental problems had to be far greater). Probably because they've been having to repeatedly go back for another tour of duty – each tour lasting about a year. Some have now had to serve 3 or 4 tours. And perhaps because of the highly asymmetrical nature of today’s combat experience, and the dichotomy between their lives and those of the rest of us.

(A cousin had about as extended a WWII combat experience as possible – landing in Africa with the first Allied invasion, fighting in Italy, and then in France and Germany. That's November 1942 to May 1945 – two and a half years. Other friends served in Vietnam – in combat battalions – but only for a year. Vietnam vets experienced many different Vietnam Wars. Most, thankfully, did not have to serve in line companies. We should be mindful of vast difference between those who serve at the point of the spear, and those who back them up.)

It may well be that we are also more prepared as a society to recognize PTSD as a problem. How many suffered from "acid reflex disease" 30 years ago? Or "restless leg syndrome." Give something a name and the number of cases dramatically increases.

We call it "PTSD." We often just give things initials. Initials sound less threatening than words, and it helps conflate what soldiers might be suffering from the occasional odd incident civilians experience. Not to diminish the possible impact of tragedy on the rest of us, but to me there's a world of difference between a school shooting or airplane crash, say, and a year of combat. We don't call what you go through after a parent or a child dies PTSD, as difficult as that might be. And even if we did, it wouldn’t be the same kind of experience.

PTSD has always existed. In WW1 they called it "shell shock." In WWII it was called "combat fatigue" (recall the slapping incident in the movie Patton). It had other names in Korea and Vietnam. And although it existed during the Civil War (we know from stories that survive) they didn't seem to have a special name for it. It seems that PTSD can also be separated into two components, a reaction during or immediately following combat and that brought on by memories afterward. In WWI and WWII attention was mostly focused on the combat reaction (but because the afterwards business was generally not recognized doesn't mean many didn't suffer). In Korea, Vietnam, and at present, the "while in combat" effect seems to be much diminished – probably because of the aforementioned asymmetric nature of our more recent wars.

It may be worse now because modern ways of destruction have become more impersonal and arbitrary, and more removed from what we consider “normal” existence. The complexities and cognitive dissidence of guerilla war – now called “asymmetric” or “counterinsurgency” warfare, or (initials again) “COIN” – may be particularly hard on a soldier’s mental state and memory. A particular horror may lie in the IEDs causing the majority of our causalities. A great contrast between civilian and military life probably doesn’t help. Nor may the reaction of returning vets to society at large. Saying "I appreciate your service" and understanding what many have gone through are two very different things.

I also think that the prospect of a very serious wound may cause a greater dread than that of death. It would to me -- I'd rather die than face life without arms or legs, or with half a brain (or at least I can say this from the confort of my computer). During the Civil War the ratio of dead to wounded was about 2.5 to one. In WWI and WWII, and Korea and Vietnam, it was about 3 to one -- three wounded for every man that died. (Medicine greatly improved, but modern weapons became much more deadly.)

Modern battlefield medicine has gotten so good that the present ratio is about 9 to 1. (And it's not only medicine but the nature of these two wars, where the might of the American military is so overwhelming that wounded can be rushed to medical care within very short times – it's both medical care and the speed of reaching medical care.) All this means, of course, that soldiers who would have died in earlier wars are now living – and the percentage of those with mind-boggling injuries is almost overwhelming. Think of it this way: if the expected ratio of wounded to dead once 3 to 1 is now 9 to 1, roughly 6 of those 9 probably have truly horrific injuries. This is the understated cost of these wars. Something the our military and politicians can be happy about since it diverts attention from the true price. When adding up the butcher’s bill we usually only count the dead. And only the American dead at that.

We don’t have to consider returning vets heroes. Most of them probably weren't – just people, people like us, who were trying to survive. But theirs was not quite an ordinary job either. Most of us go to work every day without the expectation of being killed or catastrophically wounded. Or seeing it happen to our friends and co-workers. Normally the military just sits around training and practicing. But now they are off to war – we sent ‘em off to war. It's us, voting citizens, who are ultimately responsible for that decision. The fact that we sent them and were, and remain, mostly unwilling to go ourselves adds to our responsibility.

So whatever help we can give them is OK by me. Medical care – good, timely, and un-begrudged medical care – not to mention educational opportunity, should be the least of it. We just spent a couple of trillion helping out Wall Street and the Banks – benefiting people I'd much rather see die in the gutter – so I don't care what it costs. Being adult, to me, means being willing to pay for your mistakes. And this war is not just Obama's mistake, it belongs to all of us.
Al

America the Fat

We’ve become a nation of fat people. It’s sad. And it’s disgusting. If you’re fat, it’s your fault. It’s a moral failing. Gluttony is correctly named one of the seven deadly sins, as morally despicable as greed or wraith. The math is simple: eat more calories than your body can burn and you end up fat. Losing weight is equally simple: eat less, or burn more calories.

Almost thirty percent of us are obese, not just fat, obese. Roughly 75 million Americans. And year-by-year, the number is growing (by about 1% a year – faster than most of our savings). How fat are you? Here’s how to tell: multiply your weight in pounds by 703 and divide by your height in inches, and then divide by your height once again. If the number (called Body Mass Index, or BMI) is over 25, you are overweight; if it’s over 30 you’re obese; over 35 is severely obese, over 40 morbidly obese, and over 50 – call it “super obese.” First super-sized food portions, and now super-sized citizens. Is this a great country, or what?

As if being fat weren’t enough, we lie about it. Or we might more kindly call it cognitive dissonance. The average American woman now weighs 165 pounds – a far cry from the images of feminine desirability bombarding us every day. Back in 1947, a size 10 was made to fit a woman with a 32.5 inch bust, 25 inch waist and 35 inch hips. We now call it a “size 2.” Particularly distressing is the trend: women in the 60-74 age group have had an average gain of almost 18 pounds since 1960; those 18-29 have gained significantly more, being, on average, 29 pounds heavier. Alas, those skinny-hippy days seem gone forever.

Men are having no trouble keeping up, but the trend is less surprising – older means fatter. Twenty to forty year-olds have gained 20 pounds since 1960, forty to sixty year-olds around 27, and those older an average of 33 pounds. The overall average weight of an American male is now over 190 pounds. Pants with a 30 or 32 inch waist go begging at local thrift shops.

However, the real crime is not what we have done to ourselves but what we are doing to our kids. A third of them are fat, or worse, up from around 1 in 10 back in the 60s. You don’t have to take my word (or the government’s), just stumble on down to a local school yard and watch the kids at PT or recess. It’s enough to make you cry. The average 16 year old has a BMI of 24. In other words, being fat is on the verge of becoming the new normal. The price they’ll have to pay will be considerable.

Carrying excessive weight when young will shorten your life-span, not to mention an increased risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer. But the more immediate costs are reduced opportunity and a less active life, social ostracism and self-disgust. Surely, any parent would want better than this for their kids.

Sadder yet, it’s a class thing. Being poor means being fatter. As does belonging to a minority or failing to graduate high school. Perhaps education and knowledge have something to do with it, but I’m more inclined to believe it’s because it costs less money to buy a McDonald’s Happy Meal than the makings of a salad – not to mention less time. Add in lower opportunity for physical exercise.

I can speak with some authority on this subject because I’m obese – make that severely obese, seemingly aiming for morbidly so – and I’ve struggled with weight all my life. I was a chubby school kid back in those old “1 in 10” days. Even with intense physical activity -- college wrestling, marathon running, bicycling across the country, nordic skiing thousands of miles – the best I could usually manage was being border-line overweight. I’ve spent more than 60 years living with the disgust, lack of self-confidence, and social consequences that resulted.

And now that age and a bad knee have curtailed physical activity, I’m rapidly progressing through increasing stages of obesity. Oh, I could blame it on genes, or glands or franken-food, but it’s really much simpler than that: I eat too much. As do a majority of my fellow citizens. Eating is the pleasure that never fails, always there and always comforting.

Ben Franklin said, “I guess I don't so much mind being old, as I mind being fat and old.” But I notice he didn’t lose any weight ether.
Al

What If They Gave a War and Nobody Came?

Back in the 60s there was a tee-shirt with exactly that slogan. And today it seems as if the dream has come true: we now have two wars to which almost no one has to come. Especially no one who doesn't want too. Those that do go . . . well, we know who they mostly are . . . long-service professionals and volunteers from the under class (driven to enlist, for the most part, by the barrenness of the futures they face and the vagaries of economic circumstance). Not anyone who would be really missed, except, of course, by their own family and friends.

Oh, we say we’re concerned and often worry out loud about what’s happening with “our” troops, but that’s mostly cheap indulgence of communal guilt at not having to sacrifice anything in a time of war. People who really cared might actually pay attention to what is now the longest lasting war in American history. People who, for example, might have to envision themselves or their kids being drafted to serve in a nasty little war without any purpose.

Best of all, nobody has had to pay for these wars either. At least, not presently. It’s mostly someone else’s kids who are fighting ‘em, and someone else’s kids who will be paying for ‘em. Just put it on the National credit card. Not only no new taxes, but lots of tax breaks over the last ten years – especially for the rich. As for ready money to pay for all those juicy military contracts? The graft. The bribes. The corporate maggots feeding on the 9/11 aftermath. The deaths we are buying – because war is about killing. That’s the best joke of all. The Chinese are footing the bill.

For now. But sooner or later every bill comes due. And will have to be paid. With money from higher taxes or forgone opportunity, a deteriorating national economy and economic position, inflated currency, reduced government services, Social Security and Medicare cuts . . . Pick your favorite, or chose ‘em all. But for most of us, at this time, it’s a war without sacrifice, a war without cost, a war where money can be made, and a war where the military remains popular – in spite of being unable to actually win.

Let’s consider our military. We are living in a time of economic hardship. A time when the “moron” party are increasingly insistent that budget cuts have to be made. No more stimulus, no more extended unemployment benefits, no more this, no more that. With one exception. The world's most expensive, fattest, over-generaled, and ineffective military continually gets its budget increased. And much else.

Generals who can't seem to win at anything are extravagantly lauded. And the one who seemingly could, General Petraeus, achieved his “victory” by buying off the Sunnis in Iraq. If you believe that will prove to be a lasting, proud monument of military achievement, I’ve got a war in Afghanistan I’d like to sell you.

Whomever they are, the few who are serving deserve better. The unfairness should cry out to the rest of us. It should scream. None of them, even those who escape injury, will return whole; neither will their families escape from the repeatedly demanded sacrifice. And if we cared we’d put a stop to it. We wouldn’t waste any more of their lives in an un-winable, unnecessary, war. We would finally find enough courage to say enough.

The 60s slogan is not without irony, coming from a poem by Bertolt Brecht (Threepenny Opera, Mother Courage and Her Children, etc.).

"What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Why, then, the war would come to you!
He who stays home when the fight begins
And lets another fight for his cause
Should take care: “

To be continued . . .
Al

Shame, shame, shame . . .

On everyone involved in the Shirley Sherrod business. Except, of course, Shirley Sherrod herself. Shame on the right-wing creep who published a dishonestly edited video and accused her of racism. Shame on the Obama administration who fired her without even asking for the other side of the story. Shame on the NAACP who encouraged that firing, also without asking or even the briefest investigation. Although she bears a famous civil right era name – her father having been murdered in the struggle for racial equality.


We should be clear here. This is a black woman being accused of racism against whites. So called “reverse racism.” As if that was a big problem in our society. As if it were somehow equivalent to racism against blacks. As if we struggling whites have been continually held down by the black power structure. Oppressed, enslaved, discriminated against, denied equal rights and opportunities, not to mention having to face unequal justice and disproportionate imprisonment. As if being born white in this land of the brave and home of the free hasn’t conveyed obvious advantages over those with less fortunately colored skin for hundreds of years. As it still does today. Perhaps more subtly, but advantages never the less.


Those of us willing to be honest with ourselves know that in the US of A it is still better to be white than brown or yellow . . . best of all to be white instead of black. A look at the power structure shows it still remains overwhelmingly white, as do most everyday authority figures like police and teachers. We also know that we all harbor prejudices capable of clouding our judgment. And even the best of us let them get the worst of us at least some of the time.


Racism, oppression, discrimination and prejudice don’t just disappear overnight. They bequeath a legacy that will take generations to remove. Perhaps hundreds of years. The election of a black President doesn’t mean it’s now all behind us. It’s not a wound that our mothers can kiss and make well. Those of us who have manfully borne the burden of white privilege should manfully be prepared to do what we can, against the darker angels of our nature, to help right the situation. At least those of us who believe in the desirability of an equal society. And we should try to pass that task on to our children and grandchildren.


Were the accusations against Ms. Sherrod to be true, so what? What could be more natural than a middle-aged black woman, coming of age when she did, with a father surely murdered by the Klan, raised, living and working in the south, being prejudiced against whites? She would have to be someone quite special to rise above all that. And it seems that she is. Would that we all were.

But what I find most offensive about the Sherrod situation was that this incident occurred 24 years ago, in 1986. At which time she worked, not for the Federal Government, but for a private organization specifically engaged in helping black farmers. Punished for a crime she didn’t commit 24 years ago. Guilty until proven innocent. By an administration claiming to be progressive. Never mind that it wouldn’t have been a crime even if she had committed it.


Let’s assume, for a minute, that she did. Is there to be no statue of limitations on the expression of bad thoughts? I feel sorry for all you kids presently confessing everything on facebook. Your future may prove far more interesting than you can imagine. Especially if you’re black.
Al

The Quest for Better Drinking Water

This was written in reply to request from John asking what to tell his friends when they ask him about buying “Kangen Water” or one of the other water ionizers currently on the market.

“Water ionizer" devices depend on the addition of ordinary salt to make water more conductive. Applying an electrical current across what is now a dilute sodium chloride solution splits some of the water molecules into hydrogen gas and hydroxide ions at the negative electrode (the cathode). This produces an alkaline solution – essentially sodium hydroxide (NaOH) – which can be drawn off as “alkaline water.” At the opposite electrode, the anode, chloride ions are oxidized to elemental chlorine. If some of this chlorine is allowed to combine with some of the hydroxide ions produced at the cathode, it forms hypochlorous acid (HOCl), a weak acid and oxidizing agent. Some of these devices (e.g., Kangen Water) allow the user to draw off this solution for use as a disinfectant. In some cases the two streams can be combined to form a cleaning mixture consisting of both HOCl and sodium hypochlorite (equivalent to diluted ordinary laundry bleach).

Personally, I wouldn't consider sodium hydroxide a positive addition to my diet. Our water, here along the south Coast of California, is naturally high in conductivity (with enough sodium and chloride already in it) and is probably not helped by adding even more salt. The only real benefit to drinking Kangan water would be that produced by the placebo effect. Research has shown that the more you pay the greater the placebo effect. So spend more than you can afford; no expense is really too great for an improved home water system. However, if some of your friends are cost conscious, for a small fee I'd be willing to make a periodic visits to bless their drinking water – a blessing by Dr. Al being a lot more effective than any ionizer.

Generally speaking, an alkaline water is better for you. The main reason being that it contains higher concentrations of minerals. The most desirable minerals being calcium and magnesium, and to a lesser extent potassium. Water containing appreciable concentrations of calcium and magnesium is what we also call "hard" water. Hard water is better for you than soft water. But hard water is what naturally comes out of local faucets everywhere in our area (at least before going through our water softeners – hard water is better for you only if you actually drink it, washing with it is a whole different story). A naturally alkaline water doesn't necessarily have to be hard, but it almost always is (it can also be alkaline if it's very high in sodium, in which case it would not be considered "hard" water – and high sodium would not be considered good from any health standpoint).

When we generally talk about "minerals" in water we usually mean positively charged ions like calcium, magnesium and potassium (cations), but water is electrically neutral. If you hold one end of a magnet to the side of a glass of water the liquid doesn't come rushing to, or away from, that side. Therefore, to balance every positive charge carried by calcium, magnesium or potassium (or sodium – which together make up the big four) there must be an equivalent amount of ions with negative charge – called anions. We tend to forget about them, but they are minerals too – or come from minerals. (Minerals are also electrically neutral and as such are combinations of anions and cations, e.g., sodium chloride (salt), calcium carbonate (limestone), potassium nitrate (saltpeter), magnesium sulfate (Epsom salt), etc.)

The best anion you can have in your water is either carbonate or bicarbonate – dissolved carbon dioxide. The other choices are less desirable: nitrate, chloride or sulfate (these make up the anion big four). They present no real problem in low concentrations, but lots of problems when concentrations are high: nitrate (cancer), chloride (hypertension, etc.), sulfate (diarrhea, and I'm sure lots of other problems that I'm too lazy to look up). (Sometimes minor contributors, and everything else is very much minor, can be very important. Like fluoride – an anion. Or arsenic – a cation.) The point of all this being that before making any claims about the desirability of some kind of water, its pH, conductivity, alkalinity, hardness, etc., we would have to know something about the chemical balance that underlies those broader characteristics.

The real answer is that in this day and age, when we face no shortage of getting our minerals from lots of other sources, it doesn't really matter what the hell is in our water as long as it's clean (bacteria and virus free) and tastes good enough to make us want to drink it. (In times past, and not very long past at that, smart people drank wine or beer, or whatever, because most water was far from clean and tasted like shit – which was probably a far from inconsiderable ingredient.)

If you don't like the way your water tastes, or if you are concerned about a host of minor contaminants not ordinarily removed by standard conventional water treatment, then the most effective thing you can do is to filter it . . . through a carbon filter. Carbon removes taste and odors, and adsorbs impurities onto it's surface. Because removal via activated carbon is a surface adsorbtion phenomenon, the carbon has to be periodically replaced – so it requires periodic maintenance and some expense. So if friends insist on doing something to improve their water, tell 'em to do that. Forget about the placebo effect and save ‘em money. Carbon is even more effective than my personal blessing.

Clean, cheap, trustworthy water is what used to come out of all our taps. And, by and large, it still does. Clean tap-water, along with proper waste disposal (and not, as most of us assume, advances in medical science), was the secret ingredient in the longer life-spans we now enjoy. We seem to have gone insane over water in this country. I first experienced it as a kid over the issue of fluoridation. But the possibility that people would travel to buy water from a store and carry it home in plastic bottles – after paying more for it than they do for gas . . . often more than they pay for beer . . . If someone had told me that when I was younger I would have considered them insane – and made haste to keep my distance. And don't get me started about this whole business of dehydration and carrying a water bottle everywhere you go . . . as if we were all to just about to embark on a trip across the Sahara.

John also asked how he could make money on this craze. My advice would be to look around for the craziest idea out there, and buy stock in that company. As P.T. Barnum reputedly said, "no one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American Public." Words to live by.
Al

God Bless BP

We Californians don’t have much to be thankful for these days – unless it’s the fact that we don’t live along the Gulf. We owe this minor blessing to our geography and to those of us who vociferously reacted to our state’s previous misadventure with oil company misfeasance in Santa Barbara.
Perhaps it shows we can learn from our mistakes – especially if they are really big ones . . . and reoccur before we've forgotten they actually happened, or before the powers that be convince us that now, these days, things have changed, and technology has improved. Too bad we didn't retain the lessons from Vietnam. But I digress . . .

Although the latest news – baring leakage from further down the well bore – seems to be good, fixing the leak now is still totally dependent on a relief well hitting the existing pipe sometime in August. Of course, in order for this solution to work, one of the two relief wells has to hit the present well – miles away and about 7 inches wide. A task that seems far from trivial although it's been tried before and worked. But usually not on the first go. It’s also been tried before and failed. And of course, hitting the leaking old pipe bang on doesn't mean the leak is stopped, other things have to also go well from that point forward.

I did hear an unusual expression describing how we conduct our national affairs these days: "Blah, blah, blah . . . Bang!"
Housing bubble -- blah, blah, blah, bang!
Financial meltdown -- blah, blah, blah, bang!
Drill, baby, drill -- blah, blah, blah, bang!
I could go on, but why bother?
We better hope, for the next generation's sake, it's not climate change -- blah, blah, blah . . . bang!

Returning to the energy crisis, and what George Bush aptly described as "our addiction to oil" (one of the few things he got right, not that he ever did, or wanted to do, anything about it), we are all at fault. Especially those of us who bitched at 4-5 dollar a gallon gas, drive a pickup or SUV instead of a Honda Civic, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah. And the saddest thing is that we are not going to change. Not until we are forced, kicking and screaming, to suffer the consequences of our past actions. That is where the bang will come in. Be assured we wouldn't go willingly.

Hell, with a little luck, those of us who are old enough will be able to say, along with Louie XV, “Après moi, le déluge.” Nice to know we'll be leaving our kids the Energy Crisis. Hell, we may even leave them this spill.

Many workmen
Built a huge ball of masonry
Upon a mountain-top.
Then they went to the valley below,
And turned to behold their work.
“It is grand,” they said;
They loved the thing.
Of a sudden, it moved:
It came upon them swiftly;
It crushed them all to blood.
But some had opportunity to squeal.

Al (My thanks to Stephen Crane)