Morning Fog

A Good Spanking

 

Sometimes people do such strange things -- so weird, or inexplicable, or stupid, or unprofessional, or petty, that it just seems as if the best thing to do is to give them a good old-fashioned (all you under-fifty moms who don't believe in corporal punishment cover your eyes and ears now) spanking.  And it must be a full moon, or the madness-inducing weather patterns of El Nino, that brings such a bumper crop of so-o-o-o many cases this week:

• It almost goes without saying that the entire Republican Party needs a swat on the behind because of their collective refusal to participate in government; I won't belabor that further, but Tom Toles's political cartoon today encapsulates the problem.
• One Republican in particular deserves a dozen or so extra whacks: Senator Bunning of Kentucky, who's rather irrationally holding up a jobs bill that could help lots of people. But then, Kentucky has shown they can really pick some gems in the Senatorial category. (This just in: a deal in this odd case has reportedly been reached).
• Get out the hairbrush also for Rep. Charles Rangel, the Democrat who has had, to put it mildly, some ethics problems. Not just Republicans should be calling for his resignation or prosecution.
• Ditto for DC's former Mayor and current Councilman Marion Barry, a serial scalawag whose actions over decades have ranged from infractions to conflict of interest to just plain illegal. The latest: he is said to have obtained a city job for a girlfriend and taken payments from her for doing so. The breaking news is that the DC Council censured him and removed him from office.
• Then we have Jeffrey Skilling, former Enron exec who is now challenging the "constitutionality" of his conviction on a hair-splitting issue (since the basis for the challenge seems so razor-thin, let's use a razor strop on him. Bring along at least five more strops for the majority of "supreme" court justices who in taking on this case would seem bent on ensuring the Court won't have a shred of repute left.

• Last but not least, there are the Hawaiian tour guides who are complaining that the Obama family's vacationing in the state (and the concomitant security measures banning aircraft overflights in some areas) hurt them financially.  They want remuneration ...from someone!  Shouldn't they be proud there's a President who calls Hawaii home?  Haven't other locales put up with such inconvenience? 

  

Sometimes people do such strange things -- so weird, or inexplicable, or stupid, or unprofessional, or petty, that it just seems as if the best thing to do is to give them a good old-fashioned (all you under-fifty moms who don't believe in corporal punishment cover your eyes and ears now) spanking.  And it must be a full moon, or the madness-inducing weather patterns of El Nino, that brings such a bumper crop of so-o-o-o many cases this week:

• It almost goes without saying that the entire Republican Party needs a swat on the behind because of their collective refusal to participate in government; I won't belabor that further, but Tom Toles's political cartoon today encapsulates the problem.
• One Republican in particular deserves a dozen or so extra whacks: Senator Bunning of Kentucky, who's rather irrationally holding up a jobs bill that could help lots of people. But then, Kentucky has shown they can really pick some gems in the Senatorial category. (This just in: a deal in this odd case has reportedly been reached).
• Get out the hairbrush also for Rep. Charles Rangel, the Democrat who has had, to put it mildly, some ethics problems. Not just Republicans should be calling for his resignation or prosecution.
• Ditto for DC's former Mayor and current Councilman Marion Barry, a serial scalawag whose actions over decades have ranged from infractions to conflict of interest to just plain illegal. The latest: he is said to have obtained a city job for a girlfriend and taken payments from her for doing so. The breaking news is that the DC Council censured him and removed him from office.
• Then we have Jeffrey Skilling, former Enron exec who is now challenging the "constitutionality" of his conviction on a hair-splitting issue (since the basis for the challenge seems so razor-thin, let's use a razor strop on him. Bring along at least five more strops for the majority of "supreme" court justices who in taking on this case would seem bent on ensuring the Court won't have a shred of repute left.

• Last but not least, there are the Hawaiian tour guides who are complaining that the Obama family's vacationing in the state (and the concomitant security measures banning aircraft overflights in some areas) hurt them financially.  They want remuneration ...from someone!  Shouldn't they be proud there's a President who calls Hawaii home?  Haven't other locales put up with such inconvenience? 

  

Things Falling Off Cliffs

There's a lot of ferment right now about what the President will say in his State of the Union address tonight, and at least some indications are available, but I would rather comment after it's given.

Meantime, it seems the country has come to a near-halt, though not near enough to force us to deal seriously with some of the problems we face.  Steven Pearlstein today has taken a look ahead to describe what the President should (but will not) say.  He captures the feeling I've had also, that our government is deadlocked in extreme partisanship that prevents it from accomplishing even its most basic tasks.  He also offers an idea for fixing that -- he professes to think that real change could be achieved by Obama's being rigid about requirements (i.e., any initiatives have to be paid for, no legislative special deals and earmarks, etc.).   Pearlstein, I think, has analyzed the problem correctly but his solution could not be effective even if Obama were to adopt it.

One reason nothing is working right now to restore momentum is the nihilism discovered in a recent survey.  People are confused, disillusioned, and most important, feeling the pinch - so they're basically critical of everything.  As writer Achenbach says, they don't like the status quo, and they don't like efforts to change it.  Go figure.  As I've noticed myself, people have resisted beneficial changes in their health care because they prefer to believe untruths than truths; they complain that the government is more interested in rescuing banks than rescuing them without realizing that they were rescued -- from a far worse fate -- by the taxpayers' support of key financial institutions.

Effective government isn't the only thing falling off a cliff.  We now have houses and other buildings on both coasts falling off cliffs too.  In California, recent storms threaten apartment buildings; in Maryland, cliffside homes are under threat for several reasons: damage done by storms earlier this year, plus the cumulative effects of natural coastal erosion; oh, and some insects, too -- the cliffs are home to the endangered Puritan tiger beetle, and local politicians are blaming the Endangered Species Act for preventing action to shore up the cliffs.  In both cases, there seems to be an expectation on the part of residents and local governments that it is (federal) government's job to try to rebuild the cliffs. 

Wrong on both counts, I think. People who build or buy homes need to realize that no cliff is forever; a cliff by definition implies ground falling away, collapsing, eroding.  If you buy such a place, you should buy a damned good - and expensive - insurance policy right along with it.  Governments might provide some disaster assistance but if they do, the principle should be that aid is conditioned on relocating, and abandoning the endangered property.  (This works for flood areas too.) 

So we have a pretty typical picture, I think, of what people expect from government:  Do nothing for the common good like rescuing banks or extending health care (that might cost me money) but help me out of a jam of my own making by saving my house (when somebody else pays me).   

A New Blog In The Family

I'm pleased to announce that there's a new blog in the Morning Fog family as of last week --  The Tin Lizard.  

While Morning Fog will continue (perhaps with less frequent postings) with commentary on politics, the economy, social issues, and other weighty subjects, The Tin Lizard will have lighter fare on a variety of topics, from cooking to books, from product reviews to the English language.  That may be narrowed down in future but right now I conceive it in Marxian terms (that's Groucho Marx, for those who remember him or his 1950's television quiz show, "You Bet Your Life"), i.e., dealing with whatever you might "find around the house every day."  It may not be your cup of tea, but I invite you to find out for yourself:  (www.thetinlizard.com).

 

2009, The Fun Year

I'm sure readers in the U.S. are familiar with the work of humorist Dave Barry, and particularly his annual summation of the "lighter side" of the year's events.  For the past two or three years, I hadn't even bothered to read Barry's review -- it had got to the point where it seemed stale and un-funny. 

But I've just read the 2009 version, and recommend it highly.  Maybe it's just because Barry has some new targets this year, after eight years of the same old Bush jokes, but "Lowlights of a Downer Year" provides some good chuckles and is especially to be recommended to Democrats and Obamaniacs, who tend to take themselves far too seriously anyway.

That said, I did note one odd omission from Barry's summation of the past 360+ days.  With the exception of one sentence on Sarah Palin's resignation as governor of Alaska, and a mention of Joe LastnameAlreadyForgotten's shout of "You Lie," our comedic columnist offers nothing regarding any other Republican politicians.   Is it possible that Barry is a dyed-in-the-wool Republican?  I suppose so.  Or, could it be that except for some deMinted and repetitious raving, Republicans just haven't done anything this year that anybody would notice?  I leave to readers to make their own determination. 

Time For Bernanke

Time magazine has named Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke as its Person of the Year for 2009.  Probably a good choice -- despite complaints, the man seems to have turned around a crisis that threatened to make our current recession, bad as it is, look like a picnic.  

For a review of Time's past choices and a link to the full list, try: http://www.morning-fog.com/2009/12/the-time-magazine-person-of-the-year.html .  It's interesting to look at.  Fed Chairmen's names don't seem to stick in our memories through history as well as Presidents' do, so very likely your children won't know who Bernanke was, any more than they know Hugh Johnson, National Recovery Administrator, who won the title in 1933.

A Positive News Day

A theme stood out as I read today's news.  Unexpectedly, on this cold, blustery day for much of the nation, today's reporting was united by an underlying note of optimism, a flurry of encouraging signs that things are developing in a positive direction.  Consider, for example:

Obama struck just the right note in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize - humility, but also the obvious point that in the real world, peace can't be had without war, or the threat of war.  No reasonable person, whether detractor or defender, should have cause to be dissatisfied with his speech .

The media are making big news of a study that suggests Americans often accept the precepts of more than one religion.  Too often, a formal religion is a straightjacket that encourages bigotry, hatred, and intolerance of other beliefs (even when tolerance is supposedly a fundamental precept).  To me, this Pew survey showing Americans embracing multiple religions suggests a breakdown of that sort of barrier.  Religious dogma means less, not more, to Americans, and that's positive.  As several of those interviewed said, people don't necessarily accept that there's only one way - and that indicates respect for other ways.

Republicans are continuing to resist dealing with the country's problems by sticking their heads in the sand.  Today's news brings evidence that the GOP is earning the nickname I've assigned them in this blog (Geezers Obstructing Progress) -- they're against improved health care, if it means insurance or drug companies may lose a dime; they're against sound financial management and consumer protections unless that can be done without regulations that banks and investment companies don't like; they bitterly oppose efforts to deal with climate and environmental issues if oil companies, factories, and utilities might have to modify their current operating procedures a whit.  Is there any doubt about whose interests the GOP really works for?  But this, too, is encouraging to me because I believe this approach is political suicide and will lead to a change of direction sooner rather than later. 

In addition, extreme conservatives are talking about using "tea-party" politics to challenge both the established parties and bring their own candidates to elected office.  I say, power to them, because I don't think they'll succeed; instead, they'll push many Republican politicians back toward the center -- which could get us back to a better-functioning, more bipartisan legislative effort than we now have.  Or, if Republicans and conservatives choose to play the more-conservative-than-thou game, they'll enlarge the Democratic majority -- that won't be a bipartisan outcome, but at least it will be one in which some of the people's business can get done.

Even on the Second Amendment we had positive news today.  This survey suggests that the NRA leadership, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce leadership, is out of touch with its members.  It's always puzzled me that the NRA opposes even the most transparently reasonable efforts to reduce the mayhem produced by our gun culture.  If in fact many NRA members themselves believe it's rational to keep guns away from terrorists and criminals, for example, then there is hope for progress.  Maybe they'll toss out the rock-ribbed reactionaries at the top.

The Time Magazine Person Of The Year

December already!  Christmas is right around the corner, and then, for current events junkies, will come the speculation about whom Time Magazine will name as its "Person of the Year."  This honor/distinction has been bestowed on the world's biggest newsmaker annually since 1927.  Recently, I happened to review the entire list, which you can see here though for some reason it's a couple of years out of date and doesn't include Putin (2007) or Obama (2008).

Looking at the list in retrospect, I found that it's held up pretty well over time, though often only by virtue of making the most obvious choices. Many of the more "original" selections now seem passé, anachronistic, or just plain confusing.  A few interesting points:

The Time Person of the Year has, far more often than not, been a politician (or national leader) - 57 over 82 years, or about two-thirds.

The Person-of-the-Year Alumni Club is Americocentric by about the same margin; that's  less so than I had expected.  Time is a U.S. magazine, with the typical U.S. media bias against covering international events (justifiably so, since so few people read foreign news), yet in twenty-eight of 82 years (about 1/3), the nod has gone to a non-American.

Time's editors have been very generous to U.S. Presidents; 20 in 82 years, or once per term. Beginning with FDR, every President except Ford has been featured on the cover at least once, but many hit the jackpot more often -- FDR (3), Truman (2), Eisenhower (2 as President, but also once in uniform), Johnson (2), Nixon (2 - one shared with Kissinger), Reagan (2 - one shared with Andropov), Clinton (2 - one shared with Kenneth Starr!), George W. Bush (2).

Some of the choices seem a bit embarrassing in hindsight.  Were you aware that Hitler was Person of the Year for 1938?  That was right before the invasion of Poland, of course.  To make up for it, for 1939 Time picked Stalin, but focused on his villainy in making Hitler's war in Europe possible by signing a pact with Nazi Germany.  But by 1942 they had to eat humble pie, choosing Stalin again, who had become our ally by that time. 

Seemingly to add a bit of surprise from time to time, the title has been bestowed on whole groups at once:  The American Soldier (2003) and his grandfather "G.I. Joe" (1950) (but by no means his son who fought in Vietnam); U.S. Scientists (1960 - 4 years after Sputnik); American women (rather belatedly, 1975), or "Young People" (1966).  Most of these seem like simple copouts to me, especially the 2006 award to "You" (are you kidding me?). 

Finally, I have to wonder about the choice of "things" as Person of the Year.  Those were "The Computer" for 1982, and "The Endangered Earth" for 1988. 

Ultimately, my favorites among the 82 years so far are the ones that are a bit quirky (Wallis Simpson, Haile Selassie); the people below the head-of-state level who effected major change (Newt Gingrich, Lech Walesa); and those who names evidently were common currency in decades past but don't ring any bells in my head today without going to wikipedia (Pierre Laval, Owen Young, or Harlow Curtice - by the way, Curtice and former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney share the experience of a hunt with a buddy that went wrong; Curtice killed his).

Boobs, Boobs, Boobs

No, this isn't a post about the new recommendations on breast cancer screening for women (I wrote about that yesterday).

This is about the ancient wisdom of never underestimating people's intelligence.  We've had some recent examples of real dumbness in several areas.  The other day I mentioned the burglar who used his victim's computer to access his (the burglar's) Facebook page, but then failed to log off.  Another source of examples, often, is the Saturday column in the Washington Post in which A.J. ("Average Joe") Reader can write in to express his view on the really important issues of the day, like how a certain comic strip last week insulted his dog.

But today my attention was drawn to two separate items on the evening news (ABC, in this case).

One was contained in a report on reactions to yesterday's breast cancer recommendations.  In a hospital, a medical professional told the tale of a woman in her 40's who called in to cancel scheduled surgery on a suspicious lump in a breast.  Reportedly, the patient said that since the new guidelines said women didn't need to be screened until age 50, anything that was discovered when she had been screened (age 41) couldn't be really dangerous.  Wow, and she figured that out all by herself!  Frankly, I doubt anyone can be that dumb; I suspect if reporters tracked her down, they'd find someone who called in to make a political point, who will reschedule her appointment tomorrow.  Or maybe it was Sarah Palin. 

Speaking of Sarah, the other example comes from a woman-in-the-mall interview at her first book signing in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  One woman waiting in line for her copy allowed herself to be photographed saying that Palin could win the Presidency "if the media leaves [sic] her alone."  Actually, that's not dumb.  Palin probably could win the Presidency if the media allowed her views to go unreported.  What's dumb is to suppose that the media should "leave her alone."

So yes, there are boobs everywhere.  Some even get elected to Congress, and occasionally one makes it to the White House.  Two in 20 years would be a bit much, though. 

How Customs Change - Halloween

For years, we've noticed that we seem to get fewer trick-or-treaters every Halloween.  We always assumed that was because of our location on a dead-end street at the top of a hill.  Not too many kids (or their parents) decide to climb a steep grade for just a few houses, so typically, we only got the kids of our immediate neighbors.  Now that they're mostly grown, we were down to only four (4) trick-or-treaters last night. 

But other people who live in more accessible places are telling me they too are getting fewer visitors on Halloween night.   Halloween remains, according to various marketing surveys, the occasion for which more holiday decorations are sold than for any other time but Christmas.  Yet slowly, our Halloween customs seem to be changing. 

The big change came quite a few years ago.  Sometime between my own childhood and my dotage, we started to hear about incidents of some nasty tricks being played on kids:  Razor blades, poisons, hallucinogenic drugs, all kinds of weird stuff being put into candy or other treats and handed out to little tykes.  Not so much later came more tales involving sinister approaches, molestation, kidnapping.  This created a big security scare (with good reason!).  One consequence was that homemade treats pretty much disappeared, at least in more urban areas, to be replaced by commercially prepackaged little bits of sweets.  Another was that increasingly, parents felt the need to go trick-or-treating with their kids for supervision and protection.  This was the sea change; those of us who remembered just getting dressed and heading out the door with only a sibling or a couple of friends for company knew something had been lost from the experience.  It was our innocence, I guess.

Today, though, a variety of other trends also seem to point toward a gradual shift away from trick-or-treating from house to house:

• Concern about security continues to dominate. As a result, people are turning more to group parties - at malls, at the movies, at a neighbor's house - but often it seems these groups don't go out to trick-or-treat.
• Concerns about health and nutrition. Not every parent wants his child to collect and eat all that sugar. What else can we give out, though? An Ipod? No, every kid already has one of those. My sister gives money, and while that might be welcomed from 1 in 100 houses, most youngsters wouldn't consider it a "treat" if everyone were doing it.
• Actual health and nutrition. With so many children overweight these days (often emulating their parents), all that walking around might just seem like too much effort.
• Growing jadedness about the whole affair. In olden times, going out at night, by yourself, was a real adventure, and the sights, colors, noises, and displays of the evening could really be scary. Now, anyone over three gets equivalent thrills every day on TV and the computer.
• Daylight Saving Time. It's just silly to hold onto DST until after Halloween so "the kids can go trick-or-treating." The whole point is that it should be nighttime, and it's dark out.
• Trickee Fatigue. Those who offer up treats will just get tired of the whole thing. At my house, after only four kids and a lot of leftover candy I'm thinking this year will be our last (though my wife disagrees).  A neighbor of mine puts in a couple of days building a really frightening approach to his front door; almost a haunted house. Will he keep putting in that effort for four, or a half-dozen, sweet-seekers? 

Facing these challenges, how long can old-fashioned door-to-door trick or treating survive?

Poetic Justice: The Heene Family, AHIP, Chamber of Commerce

I'm not a big fan of poetry, but I do love poetic justice. 

A Side Note:
In the weirdly functioning synapses of my brain, that term conjures up images of Chief Justice John Roberts delivering an opinion in rhyme, possibly starting out like this:
I never met a corporation I didn't love quite madly
But if one should perchance turn up, I'll still rule for it gladly.
Or conversely, maybe some poet (quick...can anybody name one living American poet?) rendering a view on justice of some sort...
Ambulance at night
Lawyers chasing in its wake
Justice is left mute

Oh, but there I go, digressing again.  Poetic justice, as you know, doesn't have anything to do with those images.  Rather, according to several dictionaries I checked, it's a situation in which someone in the wrong gets his comeuppance, especially if he gets what he deserves in a way he would least expect.  It's a lot like being "hoist by your own petard," but the price of a good petard being what it is these days, we'll just stick with PJ.  Recent news brings several nominees for "poetic justice of the week," to wit:

Karen Ignagni and America's Health Insurance Providers (AHIP), the organization which she heads, and all the other industry groups that have spent billions to oppose any reform that would affect their profits.  AHIP made an ill-timed effort to quash the Senate Finance Committee's version of health reform by trying to scare people about its cost.  In a later statement the op-ed pages, Ignagni tried to walk this back, claiming the timing was not intentional, but accidental.  This bald effort to strangle an infant in its cradle was seen by most, including Congressmen, for what it was, and may have been the straw that overloaded politicians' patient backs.  It appears Congress is more determined than ever to pass meaningful reforms, and with public opinion polls still showing 57% of Americans favoring the "public option," and even some legislators who held back now saying a modified public option might be desirable, it's possible the various segments of the industry may even get the one thing they all opposed.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  Many U.S. companies, including some rather major ones, are increasingly reaching the conclusion that "green" changes are not only good for integral reasons, but also because they make good business sense.  Some of these companies are even bailing out of the U.S. Chamber.  Yet the Chamber has been almost berserk in its opposition to the Obama administration's climate bill, including the propagation of pure fabrication and distortion -- to the point where Adminstration officials seem ready to cold-shoulder the hot-headed organization.  The fake press conference in which The Yes Men announced that the Chamber was dropping its opposition to the bill was also deception, but it was done with humor, and there's a nice irony in having the Chamber's rabid reactionism brought to light in this way. 

The Heene Family, alleged perpetrators of the apparent fraud involving their son Falcon in the case that's now been dubbed "balloon boy." By most accounts now, except the Heenes' own, the alarm over the boy feared to be aloft in an errant hot air balloon was totally concocted - some kind of Colorado Rocky Mountain high? - for the purpose of getting the family more notoriety, and possibly another shot at a reality show gig.  The harm, of course, was in the false report, and the costs and efforts it entailed.  Whether the outcome will be any serious penalty for the Heene mom and dad or not, the FBI investigation of the incident should at least take some wind out of the Heenes' sails.  More broadly, maybe this incident represents the peaking of the craze for "reality" shows, and that would be a welcome development as well.