Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Texas and the union. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Texas and the union. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

TAKE TEXAS, PLEASE!


If I had my druthers, I’d let them go!
by Charlie Leck

So, Governor Rick Perry of Texas was making not-so-subtle little threats about seceding from the Union! I think he expected most of us to get upset as hell. Governor Perry, the concept didn’t threaten me at all. As a matter of fact, sir, I’d volunteer to be the one to cut the umbilical cord and let you go or I'll cut the ribbon at your grand opening as a totally independent nation with no ties to the United States of America. Bad knees and all, sir, I’d do the jig the day you were independent. Hooray!

Then I’d urge we build an immense fence (electrified with ultra high power, of course) all along the border with Texas and that we patrol said borders with armed soldiers and vicious dogs in order to keep out illegal aliens from Governor Perry’s new nation.

As a nation, we’d save a fortune without Texas as a part of the union. That state gets back far more in federal benefits than the total amount of taxes it pays in.

Shoot, there are all kinds of problems we’d be rid of without Texas as a part of the union. First-off, we’d be able to become a nation of one language again. I never could master that garbled mess they talk down there in the lone-star state.

Then, you realize, we'd be free of at least 80 percent of the political slight-of-hand and corruption that we see in Washington all the time. Goodbye Karl Rove. Whoopee! And with him go dozens of other scoundrels.

I think we’d then also be rid of about 75 percent of the religious nutcases in the nation. In religion, as in most everything, Texas takes things to the extreme and, often, way beyond.

Then, we’d be done with the biggest damned bunch of complainers in the nation, too. Complain, complain, complain! They bitch about everything and anything. Okay, I say, let ‘em go off on their own and we’ll see how they do. Just make sure they’ve got to purchase expensive visas if they want to visit and don’t grant them any student visas or temporary work visas.

Texas will be left with the University of Texas while we’ll still have Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Stanford, Northwestern and about a hundred other of the best Universities in the world. If any Texas students want to come to America to study, double their tuition and hit ‘em with heavy federal taxes.

I can’t think of any reason why I’d ever want to go to Texas to visit. It’s not safe to drive there. They basically don’t know how to eat. There isn’t a city worth a lick. Most Americans feel the same way and we really could prohibit travel to Texas and no one would give a damn.

And, oh, yes, Texas, you don’t get fly-over privileges either. Want to get to Toronto or Montreal? Sorry, you’ll need to go around the long way. There will also be exorbitant landing fees if you want to fly into any American -- get that? AMERICAN -- city.
And don't forget this? George W goes, too. We insist! How do we resist a deal like this?

Within five years, Texas would be back, on hands and knees, begging for readmittance to the union. Screw ‘em, I say.

Yup, the more I think about it, this might be the best thing that ever happened to the nation.

Kiss off, Texas! We're tired of your whining and bitching!

Sunday, February 10, 2008

The Real Ronald Reagan



I’m delivering this blog much later than I promised;
however, I can only use the excuse that it was much
more complicated than I believed it would be and
runs to well over 5,000 words even after it was
seriously and carefully edited. Ronald Reagan was
one of the strangest presidents in U.S. History in that
he bungled so much and got blamed for so little, thus
becoming known to the press as the “Teflon President.”


The Ghost of Ronald Reagan and his
greatest sin returns to haunt us!

by Charlie Leck

I have a good friend who is as frantic as I about our need to get progressive leadership back in control in Washington. A couple of months ago he told me that his only worry about the 2008 elections was John McCain. I, looking at the polls and at McCain’s slim campaign resources, told him that he had nothing to worry about.

How things change!

Now McCain is actually our big worry. Even at his age he seems to have abundant energy. He flipped the entire Republican primary situation on its head and is charging toward a giant, whopper-sized victory and the Republican endorsement.

Filled with new enthusiasm and certain the nomination is his, McCain has already put his general election strategy into play. He will portray himself as one of the nation’s great, patriotic heroes and the next coming of Ronald Reagan. “I am a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution,” John McCain keeps calling himself. McCain has the temerity to say that we are currently betraying Ronald Reagan’s principles about tax cuts and restraint of spending. The documentation following in this essay will show that Reagan actually did neither, but, quite remarkably, the opposite.

The name of Ronald Reagan is going to be invoked again and again. Writing in the LA Times, Michael Kinsley has written that this year’s “Republican primaries have turned into a Ronald Reagan adoration contest.” Kinsley reminds us, as I will get more specific about later, that Regan’s legacy is that he left us with taxes running at 999 billion dollars and a deficit of 153 billion dollars.

Democrats are going to be running against Ronald Reagan. They might as well get ready for it. Old time, conservative Republicans adore the memory of Ronald Reagan. The young are going to be sold a bill of goods about, not who he really was but, how Ronald Reagan is perceived today.

Here’s the Ronald Reagan the Republican Party will portray. Within days of his election hostages were released by Iran – hostages that Jimmy Carter could not get released for over a year. The great Berlin wall came tumbling down upon his Moses-like command: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!” The Soviet Union (“the evil empire”) began to crumble under Reagan’s stern watch and eventually dissolved. The labor movement became mostly ineffective because of Ronald Reagan. Deregulation of industry, commerce and government made the Anti-Trust laws virtually obsolete under the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The nation’ military strength was at the constant ready and Reagan demonstrated that he had a steady and ready-finger always upon a hair-trigger.

John McCain will declare himself the disciple of Ronald Reagan. It could be a road to victory if the Democrats don’t find a way to bust the myth and reveal Ronald Reagan for whom and what he really was.

My friend was right-on when he expressed his fear about John McCain as the Republican Party candidate. He is formidable. Because of his age, he will only be a one-term president, if he is elected, but even that could be disastrous for a nation already in trouble.So, my goal here is to present an honest history and a truthful portrayal of the man who was a second-rate actor and a third-rate president. You can see that I’m letting you know right up-front where this depiction is going.In 1989, Murray Rothbard, relieved that Reagan was leaving office, wrote candidly.


“Reagan’s heirs and assigns are a pale shadow of the Master, as we can see from the performance of George Bush. He might try to imitate the notes of Reagan, but the music just ain’t there. Only this provides a glimmer of hope for America: that Reaganism might not survive much beyond Reagan.”
Unfortunately, Rothbard was incorrect. The followers of Reagan are legion within the Republican Party. In the coming election, we will hear far more about Ronald Reagan from the Republican candidates than we will about our original founders and the constitution they so wisely crafted. Most people are simplistic in analyzing Reagan and those people will be easy fish for the Republican campaigners.

Oscar Buchmueller, an old, fatherly fellow for whom I worked for a year, doing an internship while I was in graduate school, was a fellow student with “Dutch Reagan” at Eureka College (a school that some observers have called “that Illinois barber school.”) Oscar’s eyes would light up when he spoke of his old pal. My, oh my, but Oscar was proud. He had been proud enough during those years when Ronny was such a star out in Hollywood; but, wow, when his fellow-alumnus became Governor of California, Oscar was busting his buttons. I never got to talk to Oscar during the years that Reagan was President, but I can imagine that he was beside himself. The interesting thing, though, is that Oscar couldn’t tell me too much of significance about his buddy. He was a terrific football player. He worked on a little college or town radio station (I can’t remember which) and got involved in dramatics. Oscar was a fairly deep thinking, contemplative guy. He couldn’t say the same about Dutch!

Go to the Internet and find the Eureka College web pages about Ronald Reagan’s time at the school. Reagan graduated in 1932. You’ll find all kinds of wonderful stuff that carefully avoids any discussion of academic achievement or class work.

After graduation, Reagan did some radio sports broadcasting in Davenport, Iowa, and in Des Moines (1933-1936), before moving on to Hollywood in 1937. After a screen test with Warner Brothers, he was given a seven-year contract.

Let’s get a lot of the petty stuff out of the way before moving on to Ronald Reagan’s terms as Governor of California and President of the United States.

Reagan was a two bit actor. I know of no one who will disagree with that. His list of movie credits is less than distinguished: Hollywood Hotel (1937) Love is on the Air (1937); Accidents Will Happen (1938); Boy Meets Girl (1938); Brother Rat (1938); Cowboy from Brooklyn (1938); Sergeant Murphy (1938); Angels Wash Their Faces (1939); Dark Victory (1939); Knute Rockne – All American (1940); An Angel from Texas (1940); The Santa Fe Trail (1940); King’s Row (1942); Stallion Road (1947); The Hagan Girl (1947); The Voice of the Turtle (1947); Bedtime for Bonzo (1951); Storm Warning (1951); The Last Outpost (1951); The Winning Team (1952); She’s Working Her Way through College (1952); Law and Order (1953); Tropic Zone (1953); Cattle Queen of Montana (1954); Tennessee’s partner (1955); and Hellcats of the Navy (1957).

During the Second World War, Reagan served in the Army Air Corp as a Captain, making pilot training films.

During his career, Ronald Reagan received no (zero) nominations for Academy Awards; yet, there is something about his movie career with which any evaluation of his life and political work must take into account. Reagan was elected president of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) in 1947. It was the beginning of McCarthyism and J. Parnell Thomas was chairing the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). A host of actors, writers, producers and directors were being named by the committee as people unfriendly to the “causes” of the United States. The list is startling. Over a few years period, approximately 320 people were “black-listed” from the entertainment industry. Reagan, as president of SAG, refused to support actors such as Larry Parks, Joseph Bromberg, Charlie Chaplin, John Garfield, Howard Da Silva, Gale Sondergaard, Jeff Corey, John Randolph, Canada Lee and Paul Robeson. The careers of most of them were ended as the result of defaming charges by HUAC. It was a cowardly act on Reagan’s part. He not only failed to come to their aid, but he openly and actively supported McCarthyism. He was shamefully protecting his own career; for, he knew that anyone who confronted the committee would likely end up on its terrible list.

Reagan was the kind of man who always chose the most convenient way and not the courageous way to leadership. He was a Democrat throughout the 30s and 40s and a huge admirer of Franklin Delano Roosevelt because his own parents had been so significantly assisted by the programs of the New Deal. After the second Great War, he switched to the Republican Party in order to back the popular general, Dwight David Eisenhower. He was a staunch supporter of Richard Nixon in the 1960 election and of Barry Goldwater in 1964. His active and visible support made him a friend of the business leaders of California. Using a promise of tax relief and the tactics of a dramatic and ugly smear campaign, Reagan defeated incumbent Governor Pat Brown in 1966. His governorship saw dramatic budget cuts and state employee hiring freezes. Student fees in California’s state universities rose dramatically. Students organized protest rallies and Reagan sent in the state police to deal with these rabble rousers. During a second term he instituted tighter requirements for welfare assistance. He squeezed the lower and middle classes very hard, but never delivered on his promise of tax relief. In fact, during Ronald Reagan’s terms as Governor of California, taxes rose to a level that had never been seen in any state in American history.

During his campaign for the presidency, Reagan made the same promises to America that he made to California. He promised lower taxes and smaller government. The facts show that the size of government during Reagan’s term grew enormously. Conservatives have controlled the reins of government in America for 16 of the last 24 years. Yet, government is bigger and more expensive than ever. Reagan promised more efficient government. During his term, the efficiency of government, when measured against dollars in and service out, decreased dramatically. Reagan promised to get U.S. debt under control. Our debt increased to record numbers and he left us with what was then the largest budget deficit in U.S. History.

Reagan was an extraordinarily good speaker (the Great Communicator), if not a magnificent one. He governed up an enormous amount of blunder with a fabulous amount of bluster. He actually knew very little about foreign affairs and international policy. He knew very little about Washington politics and he knew less about the manner in which the federal government worked. When he was asked a truly significant and thoughtful question at a press conference, he looked like a deer in headlights as he nervously pondered a reply. His handlers resisted every attempt Reagan made to go “off script.”

The one thing that Ronald Reagan knew for sure was that he hated Communism. He took communism on in ways that no president before him would have dared. At times he was open and candid about it, but he was mostly covert and devious in his attacks. The Great Communicator was not willing to criticize any anti-Communist government even if they were highly undemocratic. He had a series of UN resolutions criticizing South Africa vetoed. He was unsuccessful in vetoing the Congressional Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986.

As an example of Reagan’s anti-communist craze, take the unbelievable invasion of Granada as a prime case study.

The invasion of Grenada was called “a lovely little war” by some correspondent. Even such a broadcast news service at Public Broadcasting called the war “an unmitigated success” for Ronald Reagan. To most Americans it was an inconsequential event and nearly the entire country accepted the spin Reagan’s administration put on the action. There was no one to contradict the Reagan version because the administration had blacked out the media and they weren’t included in the invasion force. Only history and the facts are left to contradict Reagan’s version.

More than 20 years later, we know some of those facts and we can look at the adaptation the White House gave us with a jaundiced eye. Reagan claimed that the island was under the control of hard-line communists who were cooperating with Cuba to hold and store modern military weapons that would be eventually transferred to dangerous rebels in Central and South America. Reagan claimed there were vast numbers of military personnel on the island and that 800 American students at a medical college there were in great danger.

Let’s start with the last claim first. The President told the American people that the Grenada airport had been closed and that the students couldn’t get out. Indeed and in fact, the airport wasn’t closed. There was no military presence at the airport and customs procedures were being carried on. Airline service to other Caribbean islands had ceased because U.S. officials were putting pressure on those islands to do so – all in preparation for the invasion. Officials at the medical college sent numerous messages to Reagan and to the press that the students were not in danger and no attempt to save them should be attempted. Over 500 parents of students contacted the White House to say their children were safe and they would only be put in danger by U.S. military action.

Nevertheless, the President sent the marines in. They met very little resistance. It turned out there were few Cuban military personnel. Most were construction workers. Unfortunately, 19 Americans died in the invasion and a number of others were injured. Today we know that most of those were as the result of friendly fire or accidents. Only 100 of the students left the island with their saviours. The others saw no reason to go.

Reagan’s spin-meisters went to work, however, and told of the huge warehouses of modern, dangerous military weapons that had been uncovered. Today we know better. A small warehouse, half-filled with outdated and nearly useless military surplus weapons was stormed. Even these absurd weapons were further away from gorilla bases in South America than they would have been in Cuba.

When the military coup that raised Reagan’s hackles had taken place, Cuba and Fidel Castro had condemned it with great strength and stopped both diplomatic and commercial relations with the little nation. There was certainly no growing and dangerous communist relationship there.

Reagan had also claimed that Cuban construction workers were building a military airbase, bomb-resistant fuel tanks, sheltered bays for military aircraft and fortified control towers. In fact, the invasion discovered that it was a British contractor, underwritten and approved by the conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who was doing the work. Very few Cubans were on the work force. Most were Finns, Canadians and locals. They were not building military facilities, but only modernizing and enlarging the airport.

In reality, Reagan ordered the invasion because of his paranoia about communists. The little nation was certainly no threat to America. Some think the invasion was staged to take attention away from the horrible bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut that had killed 241 military personnel. Reagan’s popularity and approval rating suffered as a result of that attack. It rose remarkably again after the invasion of little Grenada.

A more likely theory holds that Grenada was too good an example of the success of a Black Power movement. The rebels in Grenada had claimed to have been inspired by the Black Power movement in America. That may have worried Reagan.

America’s humiliation in Vietnam was still fresh and Reagan had been angered by Richard Nixon’s half-hearted approach to that war. Grenada was an easy victory on which both Reagan and the military could hang its hat.

Never mind that it was a violation of International Law. Democrats did not distinguish themselves at the time of the invasion. Both Walter Mondale and Joseph Liebermann spoke strongly in support of the action. It was a Republican Senator (Lowell Weiker) who raised the biggest stink about the action, pointing out that it was an unconstitutional power that the President was exercising.

Reaction around the world was completely negative. It took a U.S. veto to negate a United Nations Security Council condemnation of the military action. The General Assembly’s vote against the action passed with an overwhelming majority.

Philip Zunes, an associate professor at the University of San Francisco, wrote of the invasion’s aftermath:


“In Grenada during the ensuing months, the mass organizations were dismantled, the labor unions were re-organized, over half of all medical personnel were expelled, investment and tax codes were revised to favor foreign investment, and cooperatives and states enterprises were sold to private interests. Billboards that had inspired the population to work for justice, equality, development, and national sovereignty were quickly replaced by those designed to inspire them to buy American consumer products.

“The quality of life for most islanders deteriorated in the period following the invasion despite infusions of American aid. This was most apparent in the health care field, where not a single pediatrician remained in this country where 60% of the population was under 25, nor was there a single psychiatrist to care for 180 mental patients (Seventeen patients and one staff member were killed when the U.S. bombed the mental hospital during the invasion.)

“The U.S. invasion of Grenada prompted witch-hunts throughout the Caribbean for those with leftist sympathies. Countries that thought they had the right as sovereign nations to receive economic and military assistance from whomever they pleased realized they had to reconsider. The day after the invasion, for example, Suriname closed down the Cuban embassy in its capital and expelled its diplomats.

“Upon taking over the island, most foreign doctors, teachers, and other civilians were summarily arrested and expelled by U.S. officials. Shortly after the invasion, U.S. forces raided and ransacked the Pope Paul Ecumenical Center due its "subversive activities" of aiding the poor. Hundreds of Grenadans were held for months without charge. Some suspects were shackled and blindfolded in violation of Hague convention standards on the treatment of prisoners of war. The island's only radio station was taken over by the U.S. Navy. The right of free assembly was seriously curtailed, the press was censored, and writ of habeus corpus was abolished.

“Over the next several years, U.S. forces loosened their grip and allowed for popular elections. Grenada has joined other small Caribbean islands under the leadership of a conservative and corrupt elite. The current center-right government, for example, has engaged in some major irregularities in awarding contracts for public works projects to foreign investors with criminal ties and has set up offshore banking operations with little oversight. Although Grenada's economy has been expanding, poverty is widespread, and it appears that the country has little choice but to follow the neoliberal orthodoxy dictated by Washington and its allied international financial
institutions.”
This Reagan action and the current war in Iraq are remarkable reminders that Congress must reign in Presidential power and restore the power of Congress to exclusively wage war. You can be guaranteed that such a restoration will never take place under the leadership of John McCain.

Reagan’s “biggest crimes” during his tenure in office, according to William Blum, were his powerful military actions to suppress social and political change in Central America and Afghanistan.


The support Reagan gave to Pol Pot in Cambodia was not much more palatable to most of us than his interference in Central America. Though Pol Pot’s thugs were murderous and dangerous, they weren’t communists. That was Reagan’s rationalization.

Now, let’s tackle the portrait of Ronald Reagan that John McCain will paint during his campaign and see how much of it is fictional.

Ronald Reagan ended the cold war and brought down the Berlin wall
This will probably be the major claim that John McCain will make and he will try to equate himself with Reagan. Well, the truth about this claim is “yes” and “no.” Objective historians will need to give Reagan some credit about the cold war claim, but little or no credit when it comes to the end of Soviet control over East Germany and other satellite nations.

The Soviet Union was nearly bankrupt when Ronald Reagan came into office. The situation in Russia and the other nations that made up the great union was terrible. Of Ronald Reagan, Mikhail Gorbachev had flattering things to say, but he wouldn’t go too far. “He was an extraordinary political leader,” Gorbachev told a group of listeners, who “decided to be a peacemaker” at just the right time. “Our interests coincided,” the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party said.

However, Gorbachev brushed aside the idea that Regan won the Cold War?


“That isn’t serious! That isn’t serious! …I think we all lost the Cold War, particularly the Soviet Union. We each lost ten trillion dollars. We only won when the Cold War ended.” The General Secretary knew he was in “an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limit of capabilities.”
It has to be admitted that Reagan poured money into the arms race at a pace with which the Soviet Union couldn’t possibly keep up. The domestic result of that in America was national debt astronomically higher than we’d ever seen before or ever imagined possible.

The effect and influence of Ronald Reagan’s famous, but fanciful, Star Wars Plan was devastating on the Soviet Union. Was Reagan bluffing? I think so! We were not in good enough financial condition to have implemented such an idea. However, the bluff worked. Gorbachev blinked. He was prepared to talk turkey with the President of the United States.

And, it’s pretty clear now that Reagan was bluffing and that he actually hated nuclear weapons. When he met with Gorbachev, face to face, in Reykjavik in 1986, Reagan shocked the General Secretary by seeing the Soviet ante of a 50 percent cut in strategic arms, and upping him by proposing a total disposal of all nuclear weapons. Declassified minutes from the Soviet Union show that this is factual and that it was an extraordinary historical moment. Reagan was flying solo and his nearby advisors and councilors were shocked. Yet, Reagan didn’t back down. He proposed that the Soviet Union join us in building the Star Wars Defense system to prevent either nation from reviving a nuclear program. In the end the whole idea fizzled out, but Gorbachev was rocked and had discovered Ronald Reagan was not the man he had suspected.

Gorbachev, in 1986, knew already that communism was dead and the Soviet Union was crumbling. It was not Ronald Reagan who was bringing down the great bear, but it was internal economics.

“We were a country with the richest resources on Earth,” Gorbachev said, “and we couldn’t provide toothpaste for our people.”

Though the great Soviet leader didn’t think Reagan had ended the Cold War, he did have great respect for his adversary. He praised Reagan for “restoring America’s self-confidence!” The Watergate scandal and the defeat in Vietnam had America in a depressed mood. “For him,” Gorbachev said of Reagan, “the American dream was not just rhetoric. It was something he felt in his heart. In that sense he was an idealistic American.”

William Blum, in his book, Killing Hope, claims something quite different. He says that Ronald Reagan did not end the cold war, but that he actually prolonged it. His argument is quite convincing. Reagan was certainly NOT responsible for the destruction of the Wall, but the arms race is quite another matter.

Blum shows that it was the failing of the Soviet’s own system of economic and government that did it in. The movement away from Communism is not something that happened suddenly or quickly, but the great empire moved slowly, but steadily, toward a great social change. The slow, steady movement began with the death of Stalin.

Harold Marcuse, a professor of history at the University of California (in Santa Barbara) has strong opinions about whether Ronald Reagan had anything to do with bringing down the Berlin Wall.


“Oh please,… in reality, it was the peoples of eastern Europe, the Poles, Germans, Czechs, Hungarians, etc. whose persistent pressure on their governments forced them into opening toward the west. To suggest that Reagan was the ‘true’ originator of Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika is utterly absurd.”
Reagan’s speech in front of the wall was perfectly timed, but was not motivational in bringing it down. The stage had already been set for that in Eastern Europe.

We must remember it was also Reagan who was given some of the blame for the rise of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. It was this President who sent Donald Rumsfeld to Hussein to seek his assistance in our problems with Iran. Reagan it was who supplied Hussein with the weapons (Helicopters and chemicals) and funds to fight against the Soviet Union. Reagan also approved of the decision to arm the Mojahedin in Afghanistan. It was this group that eventually became the Taliban.

There is neither time nor space enough here to review all the details of the Irangate Scandal. (Here’s a link if you want to read about this many-faceted and corrupt, illegal action by the Reagan administration.) Against the will of Congress, Reagan used the profits from those deals to supply fund to the anti-Communist forces in Nicaragua. The key element is this entire scandal is that Reagan had promised the American people that he would “never yield to terrorist blackmail.” As a result of this pitiful bit of corruption, two Reagan aides were forced to resign (Donald Regan and John Poindexter). Donald Reagan was only one of the chiefs of staff that the President would lose during his tenure. Michael Deaver, a deputy chief of staff, was also forced to resign and face criminal charges for taking a very apparent bribe from the South Korean government while he served the Reagan administration.

Don’t forget, also, that Reagan had his Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, abruptly resign in June 1982 over the President’s handling of the Falkland Island War involving Britain and Argentina.

[Revision of 13 Feb 2008] A reader sent a column by Fred Kaplan that was published on Slate that argues quite well that the extraordinarily unusual personality combination of Gorbachev and Reagan actually did, together, end the cold war. Click here if you'd like to read it.

Ronald Reagan reigned in Federal Government
This McCain claim will be one of the most absurd. Reagan was deeply committed to weakening federal government. Deregulation was the key word during his administration of our land. Though Ronald Reagan made the feds weaker in terms of their relationship to the states, he actually caused the cost of government to soar. There were 230,00 more civilian government workers when Ronald Reagan left office than when he took the oath.

Even though we were facing a 100 billion dollar deficit, in 1981 Reagan convinced Congress to pass a three-year tax reduction package. He followed this with cuts in domestic spending. Military spending rose at a rate beyond the rate of those cuts. He had increased defense spending by 35 percent, including ludicrously expensive programs like Star Wars (the Strategic Defense Initiative) and the MX missile program. The gap between the rich and poor was widened. The nation moved into a deep recession. This was called Reaganomics.

John McCain is starting to accuse the Bush administration of turning its back on Reaganomics. In fact, George Double-U was a faithful follower of the Reagan system. He cut taxes on the wealthiest of all Americans and, at the same time, increased spending.

Even Reagan’s promise to deregulate government and get it off people’s backs was a bogus one. Jimmy Carter actually set in motion the deregulation of oil and gas, the airline and trucking industries and abolition of the Civil Aeronautics Board. They were all timed to phase in during Reagan’s first year and, therefore, he got credit for all of those actions.

Let’s remind John McCain that Reagan went into office promising to eliminate the Department of Education. During Reagan’s years its budget actually doubled. The cost of farm programs also more than doubled. Federal entitlements increased by more than 100 percent. I’m sure a lot of these increases were necessary and good, but candidate McCain ought to be called on his unbridled praise of Caesar.

Let McCain’s memory be refreshed. Reagan signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) of 1882. TEFRA was the large increase in taxes in U.S. history. In the same year, Reagan supported higher taxes on gasoline and increased taxes on the trucking industry. In 1983 he raised Social Security taxes by 165 billion dollars and, a year later, he signed his Deficit Reduction Act to raise another 50 billion dollars.

The Republicans will herald the 1986 Tax Reform Act that only shifted 120 billion dollars in taxes over five years from personal income taxes to various, hidden business taxes.Immigration and Ronald ReaganThe Republicans will holler and shout during this campaign, as they have during the primary debates, that Ronald Reagan “would say no way” to amnesty for illegal immigrants. In fact, in 1986, President Reagan signed a law that authorized the most recent act of legal amnesty.

Ronald Reagan was the Great Communicator
True, Reagan could give a great speech; however, in analysis, the Reagan’s speeches were little more than grand rhetoric that lacked substance. More than one historian of American politics and many political scientists have pointed to the Reagan era as the one that ushered in a lower standard for intellect in American presidents. Reagan taught people, like George W. Bush, how to use a simple “aw shucks” approach to important decision making.


THE GREAT RONALD REAGAN SIN
Enough with all the questionable praise that John McCain will heap upon Ronald Reagan. Let me deal here with one of the most shameful acts any candidate for the presidency of the United States has ever committed. You need to be reminded that, during the Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan campaign in 1980, Iran was holding a sizable number of American hostages. Carter was working on a substantive plan to have them released. Word of this was leaked to Ronald Reagan and one of his campaign managers, Michael Deaver (who, as we mentioned above, would later resign in shame from the administration). Deaver, in later years, would tell the NY Times about it.


“One of the things we had concluded early on was that a Reagan victory would be nearly impossible if the hostages were released before the election… There is no doubt in my mind that the euphoria of a hostage release would have rolled over the land like a tidal wave. Carter would have been a hero, and many of the complaints against him forgotten. He would have won.”
For a candidate to interfere in foreign relations and international negotiations in order to benefit his election prospects is an unheard of sin in American politics. It should be criminal! Nevertheless, according to Barbara Honegger, a researcher and policy analyst in the 1980 Reagan campaign, just such a sin actually was committed.


“William J. Casey and other representatives of the Reagan presidential campaign made a deal at two sets of meetings in July and August at the Ritz Hotel in Madrid with Iranians to delay the release of Americans held hostage in Iran until after the November 1980 presidential elections. Reagan’s aides promised that they would get a better deal if they waited until Carter was defeated.”

So much for not “dealing with terrorists” – a promise Reagan was making during his campaign. He reneged on that promise immediately when he saw that it was the difference in his election or not.

And so much for those 5 or 6 months of the hostages’ lives, as they were forced to remain longer than necessary as prisoners of the Iranian government.

This is a sin for which Ronald Reagan should never be forgiven.

Try to remember some of these things when John McCain gets himself really wound up and begins gushing about the Ronald Reagan legacy and the mantel that he intends to pick up. Save us from that!

In the general election, Reagan easily defeated an ambushed and hand-cuffed President Jimmy Carter by receiving 56 percent of the votes cast – a landslide victory.

END

See the essay by a staunch libertarian: Rothbard, Murray: Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy [LewRockwell.com at http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html ]


See: Spartacus School Net { http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAreagan.htm ]


See: Los Angeles Times of 8 February 2008
[ http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-kinsley1feb01,1,4679972,print.story?ctrack=1&cset=true ]

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Harry Wiggs Dies


Former Mississippi State Patrol Officer Harry Wiggs dies and leaves a dark, summer night behind him.
by Charlie Leck

Fiction?

On a dark night in the summer of ’64, Harry Wiggs, a Mississippi State Patrol officer, was on duty, with his partner E.R. Poe, and covering the 37 mile stretch of State Highway 19 between the communities of Philadelphia and Meridian.

Memorial Services for Wiggs were held yesterday in Philadelphia and he will be buried in the Pine Grove Cemetery in the community of House, just off Highway 19.
Wiggs was 24 years old on that awful summer night, 21 June 1964. His heart began to pound as he learned the details of the plot. He felt a catch in his throat and his hands got that clammy feeling. He wondered to himself if it was his conscience speaking – or hollering like holy hell – to him.

The two state cops pulled up near the town jail in Philadelphia and Wiggs rolled down the window of his patrol car. Wiggs looked over at the small, red-brick building and his stomach again rumbled loudly. He moved ahead to a small vacant lot and saw the station wagon that belonged to the civil rights workers. It was exactly where he had put it earlier in the day after driving it in from the highway where the county deputy had stopped Mickey Schwerner. Wiggs turned to his partner.

"Still in there," he said. "You really ready for this?" Poe shrugged and looked straight ahead. Wiggs saw the worry in his partner's face.

Daylight lasted late into the evening hours at this time of the year. Wiggs was wishing it would grow darker more quickly – blacken.

“They gonna kill those boys. Ain’t no question ‘bout it.” Wiggs was speaking to himself in the hushed whispers of the mind. “They gonna kill ‘em sure as shit!”

Poe, as if he heard the words clearly, nodded his head silently.

Wiggs moved their car ahead and turned back toward the highway. He drove south and pulled into the parking lot of Pilgrim’s Store, a Standard Oil gas station just a mile out of town. He sensed that his breathing was rapid. His tapped his palms on the car’s steering wheel. The police radio was silent. The night grew much darker.

Earlier on that day, Wiggs had helped the Neshoba County Deputy Sheriff, Cecil Price, pull over the station wagon driven by Michael Schwerner. James Chaney and Andrew Goodman were passengers.

Price’s little plan to get the boys into jail had worked smoothly. No pangs of conscience bothered Wiggs during those hot, daylight hours. This darkness was something entirely different, however, and he felt the evilness of the shadows growing thicker and thicker. Price was to release the three boys when it was fully dark. He'd tell them to head straight home to Meridian. Poe and Wiggs were to pull the boys over, to slow them down, and allow Price to gather his Klan boys and move south on the highway.

Poe was the one to see it. The station wagon rolled by on the highway and, as expected it was heading south. Schwerner was driving. He was moving at a conservative speed, so the wagon wouldn't attract attention. Poe grunted and Wiggs look over to the highway and saw the wagon's distinctive tail lights disappearing.

"Ain't goin' after it," Wiggs declared. Poe nodded his agreement.

Billy Wayne Posey, driving his red and white ’58 Chevy, pulled into Pilgrim’s and drove up alongside the police car and rolled down his window. Wiggs looked into Posey’s eyes and could tell he had been drinking. He could smell Posey’s nervousness and fear, even though Posey himself knew nothing of it. Three other young men were in Posey's car. They had probably also been drinking.

Posey wanted to know where Deputy Cecil Price was.

“Don’t know,” Wiggs said, shaking his head.

Wiggs didn’t like the state of things. There were too many men involved – loose lips and nervous tongues everywhere. Wiggs looked hard at Posey and smoothly put his automobile in gear.

“We’re goin’ north now. We ain’t stopping them boys. Count us out. Y’all stay outta trouble now. Hear?”

A Neshoba County patrol car pulled into the parking lot just as Wiggs and Poe were moving off. Deputy Cecil Price guided his vehicle up next to the state car and rolled down his window. He looked over a Wiggs.

“Y’all better move and get ‘em before they git to that county line.”

“Weein' is outta this thing, Cecil. Too much drinkin’ goin’ on and too many boys gathered for this here meetin’ anyhow. Too many witness. Too many to do talkin' later.”

Wiggs could see that the Deputy was not going to argue. He was running out of time. Wiggs felt himself hoping it was too late and that the plan would be dropped.

“Shit,” exclaimed the Deputy. He gave Wiggs a hateful glance and hammered the accelerator on the county patrol car. Gravel flew behind him and pelted a few of the pickup trucks that were gathered there.

Wiggs watched the tail lights of Price’s police cruiser disappear at a rapid speed, heading south. The state patrol car moved silently and slowly out of the parking lot and turned north. The patrolman looked down at the clock on his dashboard. It was 10:25 P.M.. In his rearview mirror, Wiggs saw Posey’s Chevy fire out on to the highway and head south at high speed. A pickup truck also sped on to the highway and turned south, following Posey.

The state patrolmen decided they would stay north on this evening and hover near Philadelphia. They'd make a few moving violation stops on the highway to establish their whereabouts and make sure times were carefully recorded. A bright colored Ford Fairlane sped by them, heading south. A young girl was driving it. Wiggs flicked on his flashers and made a rapid u-turn and headed south to stop the youngster right in front of Pilgrim’s Store. Wiggs slid from the driver’s seat and walked forward toward the Fairlane. Poe sat tight. The girl had rolled her window down and Wiggs could see fear in the her eyes.

“Miss, you were goin’ a bit too fast back there,” he said to the girl.

“I’m sorry, officer. I'm late gittin' home and my daddy won't like this.” The girl spoke directly to Wiggs, her eyes fixed on his. She had a wide, but nervous smile on her face.

“I’ll just write up a warning for you, dear. Now y’all be careful. Hear?”

“Yes, sir, officer. Thank you kindly.”

“Where you headed?” Wiggs felt a desire to keep this pretty thing out of any trouble ahead.

“I’m headed for House, sir. That’s where I live. My daddy gonna have a fit.”

“Okay, girl. Y’all go straight home. There may be a traffic stop down the highway a piece. You just drive ‘round it carefully. Hear? Don’t stop for nothin’ now. Straight home with y’all.”

Wiggs watched the taillights of the Ford move south. His stomach rumbled again and he knew he had to find a toilet. He looked over toward Pilgrim’s. The parking lot was quiet now. The heat of the night was heavy. He’d spend some time in the store and use the restroom. The two officers would hang around and chat some. At least ‘til things were over.

Wiggs moved back toward his car and cursed the darkness.

Harry J. Wiggs

PHILADELPHIA – Services for Harry J. "Bud" Wiggs will be held Saturday [1 Aug 2009] at 3 p.m. at McClain-Hays Chapel with Bro. Shayne Martin and Dr. Dan Howard officiating.

Burial will be in Pine Grove Cemetery in the House Community of Neshoba County with McClain-Hays Funeral Home in charge of arrangements.

Mr. Wiggs, 73, of Philadelphia, died Thursday, July 23, 2009, at Neshoba County General Hospital. He was born and reared in Decatur, and had made his home in Philadelphia since 1963. He retired from the Mississippi Highway Patrol in 1990. He was a member of First Baptist Church in Philadelphia and a member of the Philadelphia Masonic Lodge.

Survivors include his wife, Sylvia Posey Wiggs, of Philadelphia; son, Jay Wiggs and his wife Theresa, of House; grandson, Jacob Wiggs, of House; mother-in-law, Ora Reynolds Posey, ofHouse; sisters, Freida Thrash, of Dallas, Texas, and Ruth White, of Union; and sister-in-law, Kay PoseyHollimon, of Brandon.

He was preceded in death by his parents, Harry E. and Verla Wiggs, of Decatur; brother, William E. Wiggs; and a sister, Jane Walker.Pallbearers will be Richard Jones, Larry Walker, Larry Myers, Floyd Spears, Johnny F. Smith,Jimmy Craig, and Jacob Wiggs. Honorary pallbearers will be Jack Reynolds and Mike White."

[from the Meridian Star]

Friday, November 22, 2013

Lee Harvey Oswald did it Alone!



The question I’ve asked myself for the last fifty years is probably very much like the question some young man began asking himself in 1865, after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. How could such a loser – such a scumbag in life – have so altered the momentum and movement of history?
by Charlie Leck

Where were you on that day in 1963 – November 22, 1963 – when you first heard that John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the President of the United States of America, had been assassinated in Dallas, Texas? I don’t want to review my answer to the question. I’ve written about it before, here on this blog and in other places. Nevertheless, I will, to a certain degree, revisit some of that day in order to make a few points.

Let me just say that it was a debilitating day, weekend, week for me; and it took many weeks before I could resume anything like a normal life again.

I hadn’t voted in the 1960 election. I wasn’t old enough. I do remember the summer of ’60, leading up to that election. I was back in New Jersey after spending time in the southwest and in the great Midwest. I was uncomfortable in Jersey. My thoughts kept returning to the Midwest and I was anxious to go back there. I’d completed a satisfactory year in college. I liked the quieter, easier pace of Midwestern living.

Back in New Jersey, I worked in a factory days and played town ball a few times a week with a couple of semi-professional baseball teams in the early evenings. Both in the factory and on the ball field the discussion was often about the coming election. Richard Nixon was campaigning hard against John Kennedy. I hadn’t yet established a political stance and I didn’t know much about either of these guys. Kennedy was elegant. Nixon was workman-like. My old man was a Republican. My older brothers wouldn’t talk about the election and gave no indication about what they’d do, but I suspected they’d vote for Nixon.

I worked on an assembly line with another college guy. He was attending Drew University. He wanted to be a reporter. He liked Kennedy. He wanted to stage a mock debate over the lunch hour. He asked me to take the Nixon position. We did it as a lark. He was better prepared than I and he whipped me in every which way in our little, staged dispute; yet, the factory workers, who had happily gathered around us to listen to the debate, cheered and clapped and hooted for me and my positions on Nixon. It told me where my little, rural town in New Jersey stood on this election. My very temporary friend and I laughed about it when we got back on the line. We conceded that neither one of us really knew what we were talking about.

On the day of his inauguration, I became a Kennedy man. Within the first year of his presidency, I became a dedicated Democrat. In the fall of 1963 I enrolled at United Theological Seminary up in the Twin Cities of Minnesota. I was to study theology and prepare for a life as a clergyman in the very liberal United Church of Christ. John F. Kennedy was, at the time of my enrollment, one of the heroes of my life. I wouldn’t miss one of his televised press conferences. He handled the press with great genius, cunning and humor. His sense of humor was clever and dry. I tried to begin developing a similar approach to humor. JFK’s smile was genuine. His love of life was immense. I enjoyed the film clips of him on his sailing yacht, on the golf course, on the beach where he played with his children, and with his knockout-beautiful wife, Jackie. By mid-November, 1963, I was totally a Kennedy man and I was looking forward to the 1964 election campaign.

Then, in an instant, it all came to an end. A classmate came rushing into the lunchroom where many of us were gathered. He told us that the President had been shot. It appeared to be very serious. I had never experienced such a sense of foreboding and sorrow. The heaviness of it nearly crushed me.

The mother-fucking television could not be correct! It couldn’t be! No little, squirrely, know-nothing son-of-a-bitch socialist could possibly bring down this glorious, bright and handsome leader of the free world! NO!

I went to my one o’clock Old Testament class. Herr Doctor McCallaster stood before us, behind his lectern. He suggested we all sit silently and pray and meditate. After ten minutes, or so, someone knocked on the door and then opened it slightly. The messenger spoke in hushed words with the professor. He returned to his lectern to tell us that the President was dead. He began to speak in tones so tender and compassionate. I don’t remember what he said, but, whatever it was, it had healing qualities. Somehow he related it all to the great stories of the Old Testament, but nothing, in the end, really made sense.

Nothing would make sense to me for weeks. I knew that millions of people were feeling exactly the way I felt in these days following John Kennedy’s death. I was as low as I had ever been or ever would be in my entire life. I sat glued to the television for the funeral and burial. I remember the John-John salute to his father so clearly that it is as if it were yesterday. I cried like a baby and the pain and agony of the moment were overwhelming.

I was both stuck in desperate despair and terribly, terribly angry. Who was this miserable son-of-a-bitch who could do this to our nation? How could it happen?

Robert Stone, in the NY Review of Books, summed Oswald up brilliantly in his review the Norman Mailer’s book about the assassin [Oswald’s Tale].

“Lee Harvey Oswald, as he appears in Oswald’s Tale, was a loser’s loser whose chance of fame would always be proportional to his willingness to self-destruct. He would never prove a lover or a hero; his options were only shades of villainy, something which he naturally failed to understand. In the Marine Corps, he was just another one of those mouthy sea lawyers full of pseudo-intellectual yammer about their far-out politics, one of the revolutionaries who would go to Russia when they got out. The difference between Oswald and the rest was that he actually went. And then, instead of skulking home when his money ran out, he insisted on staying, even to the point of making a superficial suicidal gesture when he was asked to leave. He was determined to achieve the status of “defector.” This was a man whose only gift was the wit to compound his mistakes exponentially. A man to turn a personal fuck-up into a national disaster and make his problems everybody’s.”

Quite early in his book Mailer, almost regretfully, writes:

“It is virtually not assimilable to our reason that a small lonely man felled a giant in the midst of his limousines, his legions, his throng, and his security. If such a non-entity destroyed the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, then a world of disproportion engulfs us, and we live in a universe that is absurd. So the question reduces itself to some degree: If we should decide that Oswald killed Kennedy by himself, let us at least try to comprehend whether he was an assassin with a vision or a killer without one.”

Vincent Bugliosi, a successful prosecutor (Charles Manson) and an immensely successful writer [Helter Skelter] of the most successful crime book in publishing history (over 7 million copies sold), has an interesting take on Oswald. He talks about the man’s great desire to do this awful deed without help, with no support, as a way of showing up the American system for which he (Oswald) had absolutely no love.

Bugliosi also talks about Oswald’s great love for Fidel Castro. And, one must remember that Oswald was a declared communist. He had early defected to the Soviet Union. He wasn’t very welcome there during the short time he lived there, but it was clear that this was Oswald’s chosen political mode. Then one must remember that shortly before his assassination, Kennedy made an appearance in Miami and spoke forcefully to the Cuban people and urged them to rise up against the dictator. It angered Oswald to no end. This has been established by entries in Oswald’s journals and in interviews with his widow, Marina.

However, I think it is Norman Mailer [Oswald’s Tale] who catches the reasons for Oswald’s actions better than anyone else who has written about this strange and very insignificant little man: “It was the logic of his life!” Kennedy represented everything and everyone who Oswald hated. If he could bring down the man on his own, with no help and no support, it would be his crowning and defining achievement. It would be worth whatever happened to him as a result.

Indeed, Lee Harvey Oswald was “a loser’s loser.”

The odds that he could succeed that day were overwhelmingly slim. Nevertheless, the meaningless little prick was able to do it against all those odds. Because there were so many impossibilities in the story of this assassination, it would quickly birth all kinds of conspiratorial tales. It is almost, even now – fifty years later – impossible to accept that one low-down, slimy, and miserable little, nearly meaningless man could have done this.

In fact, he did! He did it fifty years ago today and there are some of us who have quite literally never gotten over it.

_________________________

Why not become a follower?
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it, send me an email if you’d like.

Monday, June 2, 2008

The Elitism Thing


Some thoughts on elitism
by Steve Burdette

I read the following essay about mid-week just past and found it both remarkable in its clarity and its thesis intriguing. It certainly has me rethinking my adoration for the caucus process. I frankly think Burdette's essay should be read by many, many people, so I asked Mr. Burdette to let me do my little part by publishing it here on my blog. I hope you'll pass it along to others of your thinking, caring friends. Mr. Burdette holds an MLS degree from the University of Minnesota. I have some news tid-bits for you following the essay. [Charlie Leck]

Having spent most of my "adult" life working for money, and loathing the experience all the way, I came to realize that it is labor (the effort, not the movement) which prevents us from reform. I cannot begin to sum the number of rallies, protests, or even simple events such as tours of the Capitol building that I was unable to attend due to work. As I advanced in my career, I eventually earned paid time off (PTO has replaced "vacation") but even then, I generally had to list a "reason" for using my PTO so that someone could determine how meritorious my request was in comparison to others. When I finally attained the level of "working professional," with enough income to not worry about paying my bills or living from paycheck to paycheck, my eyes turned to politics. I'll make almost seven times the "Federal Poverty Level" in 2008 before taxes, but it takes nearly that amount for me to feel as if I have enough money to not worry about losing my home, my car, or some other essential.


When I finally began my political awakening, I was astounded at the things that I could not do because of decisions made by my elected representatives. I wondered where I might find the grandiose politicians so reverently discussed during my primary school history classes: JFK, Bobby Kennedy, MLK, Rosa Parks (admittedly, not all active politicians, but activists to me) – where had these people gone? I saw Ronald Reagan as a president on the walls and wondered then what it was like to be president. Now I wonder how this country could have elected someone like Reagan when President Carter seemed to be doing so well based on what I had read. I then learned two lessons: public perception, and money. People liked Ronald Reagan, and didn't care how he could/should/would lead the country. The disillusioned Dixiecrats embraced Social Conservatism, and we began a steady march backwards in time. When the Iran Contra Scandal precipitated "I don't remember" as a valid excuse to a Congressional Committee, and Oliver North is now an expert frequenting FOX News, it has become clear that we have lost our way.


As I have advocated so many times, the Founding Fathers forgot to add the "Sanity" branch of government. I call it the missing Fourth Branch. They naively assumed that we would build upon the foundation they laid and create a country that continued to prosper. Certainly the Second Amendment's "Right to Bear Arms" clause made complete sense, even I agree with that notion. But the "strict constructionist" judges like Alito and Roberts are so flawed in their approach that they cannot fathom the notion that Founding Fathers never conceived a child carrying a semi-automatic weapon into an elementary school and killing or wounding dozens of his classmates. Or it happening again. Or again, perhaps instead of Columbine, at Virginia Tech. They would never believe that a political party would become so drunk with power it would convene at a cost of millions of dollars to the taxpayers to argue whether or not the Federal Government had a place in determining the fate of Terry Schiavo. They would have expected those millions of dollars to go for the common good. They certainly held their beliefs in God and faith closely, but they certainly could have established a state religion, and they not only elected not to, but phrased quite clearly that Congress was forbidden from doing so. Their error lies in assuming that we would understand their intent, a separation of Church and State, although not so specifically enumerated in the Constitution. I often tell my proselytizing friends that they should introduce an amendment at the Federal level repealing the second amendment. We undid prohibition, we can undo the separation. I have yet to see anyone take up the challenge.


Indeed, elitism seems most prevalent today amongst the most devout. My own experiences are that the more devout a person is to any faith, to the point of unquestioning loyalty, the more elite they become. It might be argued that Liberalism is a faith, as well. I agree entirely in the concept of Liberalism, and yet when I tell my liberal friends that I do not think we should have a law mandating seat belt usage for adults (call it my furthering of Darwinism) they get all ruffled about how people should be forced to protect themselves. "Those who are willing to sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both." My mother constantly harps about us slowly selling our rights in the face of the common good, and I am hard-pressed to defend or deflect her remarks. Yet I don't see anyone introducing legislation to repeal the "Seat Belt Law" in our statehouse. Instead, I see efforts to make it more draconian, all for my own protection.


Elitism is a word that must be used carefully, but we must guard against it, too. I do not tell someone who doesn't wear their seatbelt they are breaking a law: I call them a fool and agree it's their right not to do so. The same, in a circumspect way, appeals to "Susan." In her world, as in mine, my life is limited to the news and information I can gather driving to and from work, and maybe on an evening broadcast of the news. I try to catch up with online news sources, but I also need to eat and sleep. I have the luxury of watching near-real-time video clips over my high-speed Internet connection in a suburban home. I no longer worry about paying my electric bill, and when I look at it, my life and those of my peers borders on excess. My computer comes with an Operating System that contains games, while people in other countries, and even in my own, struggle to eat and work two jobs to put food on the table and keep the electricity and heat running for another pay period. Am I elite or an elitist because I enjoy my successes? No, but my experiences in life are certainly different than that of a black, single mother of three who lives in a poor, urban neighborhood who cannot take time off from either of her jobs (neither of which provide healthcare) to take her sick child to the doctor. If I feel sick, I call my manager and say I am not coming into work today, I'm "using a day of PTO" and that's the end of the discussion. She has no recourse.


Is it any wonder, then, that our society is so fractionalized? If not by monetary means, then by faith. If not by faith, then by class. If not by class, then by gender. I look at the open warfare between the Clinton and Obama camps and am saddened. Is anyone perfect? I think not. Did Hillary really mean to imply that she expected Barack Obama to be assassinated with her references to the tragic events of Bobby Kennedy's assassination? I don't think so. Did or does Barack Obama believe the rants of Jeremiah Wright? Doubtful. But we expect perfectionism from everyone nominated to public office. Ever had a mental breakdown? You're no good. Had a marital transgression? Clearly you can't be trusted to not do so again. Made a mistake or two in the past? We can't trust you with our future then, can we?


Has it never occurred to anyone that we learn from our mistakes, and that the best leaders our nation has produced are not models of exemplary lives, but ones who have experienced the horrors of war, the tragedy of personal loss, or the struggle under an oppressive government from which we sought our own independence. I often wonder what kind of conversation might ensue between the leaders whose faces we depict on Mount Rushmore, were they able to converse, about the state of our union now. Would they laugh, as sadly as I do, when George Bush says "The state of our nation is good" or that we aren't in a recession? Would they not be insulted that a man such as Bush was not only handed the election by the judicial branch, but then re-elected by the public after failing so miserably? Washington would be disappointed, unquestionably. This is not the America he envisioned.


Until we remove the litmus test of perfection from our leaders and our friends, family, colleagues, and until we realize that someone is bound to be offended by something we say almost any time we open our mouths to speak, we will live in a society where everyone is an elitist, or a condescending person. Everyone is a victim at some time, but some people are perpetual victims (think Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh) who are not only decrying their own status as a victim, but trying their damndest to ensure you believe you're a victim, too.


Until such a time as people turn away from such propaganda, and are free to actually learn about the individuals they seek to elect, I expect little progress on the front of Progressive Politics. Such a movement requires an active and informed electorate – and while the electorate is active, they are seldom informed. When the Right Wing stops trying to save my soul, and the Left Wing stops trying to save me from my own ineptitude, it is possible we will see movement on the progressive front. Until then, I can only echo the words of Edward R. Murrow in saying, "Good Night, and Good Luck."



News Tid-Bits


Obama will speak in Saint Paul on Tuesday evening – tomorrow. I imagine his campaign will try to pack the Excel Center. It is being promoted as a close to the national primary campaign. I'm guessing he'll announce his victory. It would be extraordinary if Hillary Clinton were to show up to introduce him and congratulate him. It would show the party is learning something about winning.

It appears Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas is in a bit of trouble. He has a fierce challenger in Rick Noriega, who is an Afghanistan vet. This is quite extraordinary. Cornyn was Bush's constant rubber stamp fellow in the Senate and it may now cost him. This is a race to keep your eyes on and
check out this Rasmussen report.

Scott McClellan's book is getting the cold shoulder and I find it interesting. Many columnists mention it without even giving its title. Nothing new the opinionators are saying. Read this
column by Kevin Cullen published today in the Boston Globe as an example. Actually, the impact of McClellan book, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception, will grow over the next month and it will convince many people, who have been on the fence, that Bush was a liar on the War in Iraq. What was the depth of the lying? Read this report by the Center for Public Integrity. Of all the reviews I've read, the Associated Press report on the book appears to be the most balanced and unbiased. McClellan says publically that Bush didn't actually lie. The book appears to say something else.

I'd suggest a better memoir to you. Why not read Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story, written by former commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez? It gives a better picture of what was going on inside the White House regarding the war.
There's a good article about it on AlterNet.

Minnesota Public Radio has an interesting little challenge going. It lets you decide how to spend 3.3 trillion dollars of the tax payer's money. Put the budget together and decide how much goes where. It's called
Budget Hero. Don't expect to play it in 3 or 4 minutes.

Thanks to Steve Burdette and come on back tomorrow.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Perry Plunges into the Pool


Texas Governor Rick Perry made a big splash over the weekend after jumping into the presidential campaign and the waters have not even yet calmed.
by Charlie Leck

Well, I think the 2011/2012 campaign for the office of President of the United States could be very interesting (or, as Sgt. Schultz, of Hogan’s Heroes, used to say: “Verrrry InTEResting!”).

What if we got Obama versus either Bachmann or Perry for the general election? Can you imagine the swift boat advertising we’d get out of the Republican candidates?

We’ve gotten a good taste of Bachmann’s style in the past here in Minnesota and we’ve also gotten a national glimpse of her lately. It’s shoot from the mouth and don’t worry about the facts!

Governor Perry has been bragging about the enormous advances in civilization in Texas. Well, there certainly has been an explosion in the population of that state. Companies are rushing there to set up national and international headquarters. Wonder why? Texas has the highest percentage of its population working for the minimum wage than any state in the union (other than Mississippi). The unemployment rate is well over eight percent. The rich do very well in Texas. The other end of the scale has problems.

Perry is in hot water now over his comments about what the Fed Reserve Chairman should or shouldn’t do. It’s been a tradition in America to keep the Federal Reserve isolated from politics and political pressure. Perry was warning Ben Bernanke about some of the things he’d better not do. If he did do these things, Perry indicated that “we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas!”

Now, is that class?

Bear in mind that Bernanke was first appointed as Chairman by that former Texas governor, George W. Bush.

Sounds to me like Governor Perry likes to ride wild bronco style! The Tea Party folks are going to like Mr. Perry and that may hurt Ms. Bachmann. Social conservatives (those opposed to abortion for any reason and crazily opposed to any consideration of gay marriage) are going to love either of these candidates and they will each have to work hard to win over the very same base of support. So, Perry’s entrance into the race may hurt Representative Bachmann.

There will be plenteous mention of God in the campaigns of both these Republicans. We’ll have to return to a discussion of Obama’s former pastor in Chicago. Sometimes their campaign speeches are going to sound like revival sermons.

Obama will need to hire a squadron of fact checkers to defend himself against these two politicians. Both of them are very loose with the facts; and they never seem repentant when their misstatements (to be polite) are uncovered.

_________________________

Why not become a follower?
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it, send me an email if you’d like.

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Vote for the Ranger



Last night I went to a fund raiser for a Democratic candidate for Congress. I was a bit stunned and somewhat at a loss for words!
by Charlie Leck

“Where the bleep did all these old goats come from?”
I posed the question to a friend who'd gotten me to come on down there. I whispered the question. I don’t use such language publicly (except occasionally on the golf course).

“That ain’t Dave Roe,” I said to this friend, shaking my head in disbelief. David Roe is a handsome, square-jawed, silver haired, bright eyed, tough son-of-bitch. My goodness! I called on Roe back in the 70s, when he was head of the AFL-CIO in these parts. He was one of the most powerful political figures in the state – and he knew it. Now you can go to a web site called the Political Graveyard and find Roe there, among the others who once had enormous influence (my goodness who has the time to come up with these web sites?).

“Yeh, it is,” my friend said. “That’s the same guy!”

I was with a firm that provided significant news alert bulletins to labor unions and provided up-to-date legal decisions that might impact projects in which they were involved. Nationally, of course, the AFL-CIO was a major buyer of our services. I called on Roe to make sure our services were satisfactory here in the Minnesota region.

Roe was a tough guy. He was always busy and on the run. He’d give you five minutes to tell him what you wanted, ask your questions, introduce any new services, and then get the hell out. His eyes were intense and they examined you for any sign of weakness. He listened keenly and without much interest until you told him something that ought to interest him.

“Don’t bullshit me! I haven’t got time for it!”

He was that kind of guy and you had to respect it in him – or don’t bother calling on him again. He had a certain amount of respect for me because I got him – I understood him – and I gave him what I had to say and then got to hell out of his way.

“Okay,” he’d say, “see Shorty (or was it Smitty), and tell him to sign me up for that. You say the national office is recommending it, huh?”

“Yes, sir, I have a copy of their bulletin right here!” I’d hold it out to him, but he’d wave me off.

“Got to go,” he’d say, rising from his chair and grabbing for his suit coat. “See Shorty (or was it Smitty).”

His body was trim and like steel. He dressed immaculately. His silver hair was coifed perfectly. His cheeks had lots of color and his eyes flashed with bright alertness.

“That’s Dave Roe?”

“Yup, that’s him,” my buddy said. “Same guy!”

Old now, and slumped a bit, he still looked like he owned the place – this old-time Democratic hang-out on the near Northeast side of town. Jeez, the number of times I took union leaders to lunch in that place. It brought back memories.

Rick Nolan was giving a speech to an attentive and adoring crowd. His hair was gray and his skin somewhat wrinkled. He looked healthy and strong, but not like the Congressman from the 70s. It was an old-style, political stump speech – one you could tell he’d give dozens of times in dozens of towns across the iron range in Northern Minnesota. He’s 69 years old now and running for Congress again. If he gets returned, he’ll pick up seniority where he left off. It’s something that appeals to those who listen to him. He reminds one of Jack, Bobby and Teddy. Nolan praises Bill Clinton in his speech to those gathered around him.


“Where are all the young people?” I turned to my friend, asking while I tried to continue chewing on my large bite of Kielbasa and sauerkraut.

“Don’t think they’re tough enough for stuff like this! Nobody seemed up to taking on an incumbent. It took a real ranger to do it.”

I looked down to the campaign button I had pinned to my chest – VOTE FOR THE RANGER, NOT THE STRANGER!

Nolan was shaking a finger at the crowd and, without a mike, speaking loudly to the people packed around him.

“I’m from the range and I know the range. I’m not a squatter who keeps his real home somewhere up there in New England. And, I’m an iron range businessman – a small businessman – who knows what it’s like to work and provide work on the range. I’m tired of the likes of the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson spending millions to buy a congressman up there on the range. No sir! I’m a ranger and not a stranger!”

Nolan took me on a time-trip back to the 70s, when I was active in the Party. It was a good trip; for politics was more fun back then. First of all, the money was more local. We raised a couple of hundred thousand and ran a good campaign. We didn’t have to worry about millions of dollars pouring in from Nevada or Texas to influence the vote. We couldn’t have dreamed there would be a decision like Citizens United back then.

“What’aya mean corporations are citizens too?”

“I’ll tell you what I’m gonna do if I get elected,” Noland was shouting out to us. “I gonna fight for the range and I’m gonna find a way to bring jobs and business back to the range because I know the range and I’m from the range and my own life-stake is on the range. I’m no outsider who doesn’t know beans about what it’s like in Northern Minnesota.”

A bunch of old timers, remembering what it was like in the 60s and 70s, were cheering and hooting like they were thirty-year-olds again; yet, we’re all too old to get out there and walk the walk. Now we can only talk the talk and, as someone hollered out last night, “add another zero or two to that number you’re puttin’ on that check!”

Yup! It was a return to yesteryear and the good old days of hearty and real local politics. There’s no local politics like that left today, but it was fun to pretend for awhile. I saw a glimmer in Dave Roe’s eyes when he turned to say good night to some folks with whom I was sitting. Of course, in spite of the fact that I looked exactly like I did back then, he didn’t even recognize me. He still looked like a tough guy to me – a no bullshit kind of guy who just wanted you to do your job and get out of his way.

I like these journeys back in time. If you wanted to be a big time politician back then, you had to be able to give a stump speech. Nolan had it down, brother, and he has a week to go. He’ll give that same rockin’ speech in a dozen more towns across the range.

Lord, I hope he wins!


_________________________
Why not become a follower?
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it, send me an email if you’d like.