September 11, restrospective

We were told that it was a day that changed everything ... and in ways more far-reaching and destructive than we could have imagined when first we heard the phrase, it has been. Consider some of the changes these past ten years have wrought.

Our national fabric and political process have been twisted into a cruel parody of the hopeful statement so often displayed on bumper stickers, that "United We Stand." A cynical President we never elected, aided by the even more cynical ideologues of his party and his supporters, used September 11 to pursue a nakedly partisan agenda that has divided our country so deeply that we're probably more disunited now than we have been at any time since the Civil War. In so doing, they have hobbled our nation's ability to deal with any of the genuine crises that have arisen since, while creating levels of misery not seen in the memories of people now living, and levels of economic inequality not seen in well over a century, if ever.

We've entered a period of permanent war. I grew up during the half-century long Cold War, when we were conditioned to accept the premise that the very existence of humanity was properly subordinated to the political conflict between the superpower, and I thought that was bad enough. I grew up, too, during a period where every President had his war, be it overt, covert or proxy. I thought that too was bad enough. But now we seem to be in a period of endless war, wars with no sign of ever ending, of ever resolving anything; wars whose sole functions seem to be continuation for the simple reason we see no way to quit. The spectre of war now plagues the entire lives of nearly every living American. We are raising a generation that has never known a period without war.

Beyond that, we've entered an era of permanent militarization. I grew up in the shadow of "the greatest generation," where all the boys donned their fathers' left-over uniforms and played at war in empty lots and orchards. And I came of age when those boys donned their own uniforms and went off to the jungles of Viet Nam or the stalemate of Germany. But we never lionized all things military the way we have during this past decade, ranging from the use of military and war-related metaphors in all aspects of our lives and commerce to de rigueur salutes to all things military to the infiltration of military motifs into fashion. This deadly militarization shows perhaps most profoundly as our nation struggles through this "Lesser Depression" with all forms of effort to improve lives becomming highly suspect, but military spending remains largely sacrosanct.

And we've similarly entered an era of blind patriotism with its corollary of mandatory paeans to patriotism. The evil standard of the Bush years that political opposition was equated with disloyalty to the nation has eased somewhat, but it is still with us, as is it's closely related partner, xenophobic bigotry.

Yet despite our militarization and our constant war-making, our influence throughout the world is considerably diminished, and we have abandoned the leadership role America formerly held in global matters, be they issues of peace and war, human rights and justice, technology and economic development, environmental protection, or cultural advancement. Meanwhile, we as a nation have become impoverished in spirit as well as in wealth.

Comparing what we were to what we have become, I can only conclude that this past decade has proven that with the connivance of American leaders whose interests have not been focused on American well-being but rather their own, the terrorists of September 11 are the ones who have triumphed, and not us.


Note: At the time, I lived close to one of the sites attacked that fateful day, and knew and know personally many people whose lives were ended or affected. I've long found it troubling that the people who used September 11 aggrandizement tended to be from elsewhere; it's worth noting that the two jurisdictions most affected have consistently voted against those who rode the tragedy to power.

Thirty-something?

Was driving somewhere with my daughter, now nineteen. We were talking about the changes wrought by aging, with more of a focus on her time of life than mine. At some point, I commented that although I knew I'm sixty-two, I really feel like I'm still thirty. "Really," she dubiously asked?

Yes. Okay, I know I'm not, and there are certainly plenty of signs that I'm not - my eyesight grows steadily worse, my joints aren't as resilient as they used to be, I take longer to heal, there are creases where there used to be smooth skin, my bright red hair has faded to dull brown where it hasn't blanched to pure white ... and the list goes on.

But deep down inside, in my conception of who I am, I'm still in my thirties. I still do pretty much anything I want to, whether it's going for a 100 mile hike deep inside the Grand Canyon (see photos and commentary) or biking to work or swinging an axe. And my mind still feels the same way it always has (though perhaps I delude myself). An attractive woman still catches my eye. Most important, perhaps, I look at the future in terms of opportunities and plans, far more than in terms of restraints or memories or regrets.

I realize that in eight years I'll be seventy, that in the time it takes a newborn to be able to vote, I'll be eighty. And I look at my father - a remarkably vital and active ninety - and wonder how he sees himself? Is he still the handsome, dashing Army Air Corps pilot I never knew. Or is he the bowed, increasingly frail, easily fatigued old man with a deteriorating memory that I reluctantly see?

This aging process isn't what I thought it would be. Mostly, I happily add, it's better. Enough so, that I sometimes wonder if it's even occurring.

Until my daughter says "Really?"

Rick Perry, demagogue

In reference to Chairman Ben Bernanke and his policy of "quantitative easing:
“Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous in my opinion .... If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what you all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas” -- Texas governor Rick Perry, August 15, 2011


There's no other way to call it. When a candidate for the nation's highest office uses terms such as "treasonous" to describe the actions of a public official whose clear purpose is to pursue a valid public policy, that candidate is guilty of demagoguery, pure and simple. It doesn't matter whether or not the candidate favors or doesn't doesn't favor the policy in question; treason is one of the most heinous of capital crimes, and invoking such a charge is execrable.

In case one is inclined to dismiss such rhetoric as a "boys will be boys" sort of offense, it is useful to use the "shoe on the other foot" test. Can one imagine President Obama (or Presidents Clinton, Cater, Eisenhower or Coolidge ever using such a phrase to describe a public official with whom the he had a policy difference?

I for one do not want a demagogue as President. I hope the rest of America feels the same way.

Does Perry really mean it?

Texas governor Rick Perry wants to Washington “as inconsequential in your lives as [he] can.”

I'm sure that will sell well with the right-wing of the Republican party, but let's think about what he's saying, and take him at his word.

Taken literally, he's saying that our military should be "inconsequential," that we shouldn't be bothered with a strong national defense.

Is he saying that America's seniors should be denied the "inconsequential" benefits of Social Security and Medicare, and sink into poverty instead?

Should Americans with asthma and any of the rest of us who like to breathe see air pollution standards as "inconsequential?" Is clean water an "inconsequential" factor in our health?

Forget about the USDA protecting the wholesomeness of foods we buy in the market; like all other federal regulatory efforts, that activity is "inconsequential" in Perry's vision of our nation.

How many workers who have lost their jobs view unemployment benefits as "inconsequential?"

How many Americans consider that FDIC insurance is "inconsequential" when it protects their savings when banks collapse?

Try driving somewhere. It would be hard to do it in a Perry-esque world where our Interstate highway system is "inconsequential."

Are efforts to wean us away from our dangerous dependence on foreign oil "inconsequential?" I guess that governor Perry thinks so.

What happens to organized crime if the FBI is made "inconsequential?"

The list goes on and on. It's easy and maybe even gratifying to complain about the Washington, but we should stop and wonder how "inconsequential" we really want our government to be, how "inconsequential" we want the United States of America to be. The federal government is a vital and beneficial part of American life, and our nation would fall into chaos and misery if Rick Perry really succeeded with this idiotic pledge.

For us all, and for our nation, making our government "inconsequential" would have terrible consequences .


P.S. And what happens to national security when Rick Perry encourages a Chinese firm which both the Bush and Obama administrations view as posing a threat to U.S. cybersecurity? Will its potential for harming the U.S. be "inconsequential" too?

Media malfeasance in Ames

The "Iowa Straw Poll" held in Ames yesterday was hardly the model of democracy. Not only did Iowans have to get to the Ames fairground, but they had to pay $30 to participate in the process. Hardly a good way to get a representative sampling of Iowa's electorate, or even of that state's Republicans. Which makes sense, because it's really a fund-raising dinner for Iowa's Republican party.

But the even comes loaded with hype, and the media are eager to cast it as an important test of candidates' appeal in the presidential "horse race." So what should be seen as an unimportant partisan fund-raiser takes on a significance far beyond anything that can be justified.

Anyway, a grand total of 16,584 made the drive to Ames (did anyone take public transit or bike there?) to ante up their $30. And the media anointed the results with suggestions of those magical terms "mandate" and "momentum." The front-runners had a lot to gain, and any candidate who didn't do as well as the pundits thought they should was condemned to marginality.

So Michele Bachmann got the support of the grand total of 4,823 ticket-buyers (fewer than three in ten of the attendees) and is declared the winner. By contrast, Tim Pawlenty finished third with nearly half as many, but the media called that a "major setback" him and it must have been, because he immediately dropped out of the race.

I'm not great fan of Pawlenty's, but shouldn't we as Americans be alarmed that such an inconsequential event as this minor small state partisan fund-raising event should be deemed so important that it can knock a candidate who has governed a fairly large state out of the race because he trailed another candidate by the support of a mere 2,530 people who decided to spend their Saturday traveling to Ames to pay $30 so they could hobnob with the candidates?

This is not how a democratic republic should work. Those in the media should be ashamed of what they have done, and we in the electorate should be appalled at how we allow them to twist, undermine and emaculate our electoral process.

Romney's epiphany

“Corporations are people, my friend,” Romney said.

-- Mitt Romney, at the Iowa State Fair, August 11, 2011

White bread GOP debt panelists

Okay, I realize that the Republican Party isn't very inclusive, and especially not at its top levels, but the best that Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader McConnell could come up with for the joint debt committee were a bunch of white guys in ties?

Nobody expects that members of Congress will be poor or homeless or unemployed, but let's face it: the people who will be most adversely affected by the cuts to be imposed by the panel will be poor or homeless or unemployed, just as they're the ones who have suffered the most from the long-running financial crisis left to America as a key component of George W. Bush's legacy.

But Boehner appointed Jeb Hensarling, Dave Camp and Fred Upton, while McConnell appointed Patrick Toomey, Jon Kyl and Rob Portman. Hensarling is a middle-aged wealthy white business executive from Texas; Camp is a middle-aged white lawyer from Michigan; Upton is a middle-aged white political drone from Michigan; Kyl is a middle-aged white lobbyist from Arizona; Toomey is a white financial wheeler-dealer and business executive from Pennsylvania; and Portman is a white political staffer from Ohio. Not exactly representative of the people suffering from our economic problems.

The Democrats on the panel are obviously not poor, homeless or unemployed either, but two are women, one is Hispanic, one is African American, one was a community organizer, one is a decorated combat veteran, one is the son of working class immigrants, and one is a former high-school teacher. Something tells me that they will bring to the debt discussions a greater intuitive understanding of the plight of ordinary Americans, and a greater awareness of how this unending recession is hurting them far more than it is hurting the moneyed classes so ably represented by the Republican members of the committee.

The Washington Post seems to have noticed the same imbalance: "Debt Supercommittee’s Membership Dominated by White Men."