Strategy for a Presidential Campaign

In the Los Angeles Times Opinion section on Sunday, July 15, Frank Luntz proposes a "GOP comeback strategy. Actually, this approach might work well for just about any candidate for the Presidency:

1. Empathize with and embrace a nation of voters who are "fed up" with the current situation in Washington. Many voters are unhappy with both the executive and legislative branches of government. Congress has failed to deliver on tough ethics standards, elimination of wasteful spending, and fixing the immigration problem. And the President has the lowest approval score since Richard Nixon.
2. Develop a message of hope--offering a vision for what America can and should be. Don't tell us what is wrong. Tell us what you will do right. Don't talk about the past. Talk about the future.
3. Be authentic. Don't re-hash another president's theme. The "great society" and the "shining city on a hill" belong to other persons and to past times that cannot be copied or recaptured.
4. Win Ohio. This means, Mr. Luntz explains, articulate a culturally conservative message fused with government accountability and economic opportunity, tailored toward voters in the industrial heartland of the nation.

There is a lot of good sense here. A good campaign avoids ad hominum attacks, which are a scoundrel's substite for a well-articulated vision of the future. An effective campaign looks to the future, not to the past. It offers specific improvements in an atmosphere of respect, integrity and trust. It responds positively to the voiced requests of the majority of the voting public as opposed to the hidden agendas of the wealthy few.

Whether one takes guidance from Dr. Norman Vincent Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking, or Rhonda Byrne's The Secret, or just tries to Keep on the Sunny Side of Life, he will find that the greatest achievements are accomplished by concentration on a positive vision, not by constant criticism, complaining, and bickering.

When Jerks Break the Law

In a recent opinion, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court said words to the effect, "There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a person from being a jerk."

He's right, of course. There are a lot of jerks in our country. They are always right, and everyone else is always wrong. Jerks annoy, frustrate, and anger almost everyone they come in contact with.

About the only thing worse than a jerk is a jerk who breaks the law. Even after he is forced to comply with the law, or punished, the jerk insists that the law is wrong. And the people who enforced the law are wrong.

Moreover, the jerk insists on getting revenge against the "wrong" people who enforced the "wrong" law. The jerk always has to have the last word. A good example is running the email circuit these days:

A city councilman in Utah , Mark Easton, had a beautiful view of the east mountains, until a new neighbor purchased the lot below his house and built a new home. The new home was 18 inches higher than the ordinances would allow, so Mark Easton , mad about his lost view, went to the city to make sure they enforced the lower roof line ordinance. The new neighbor had to drop the roof line, at great expense. Recently, Mark Easton called the city, and informed them that his new neighbor had installed some vents on the side of his home. Mark didn't like the look of these vents and asked the city to investigate. When they went toMark's home to see the vent view, this is what they found...

The guy broke the law. The councilman had the city enforce the law. But the neighbor is a jerk--selfish, inconsiderate, pig-headed, and vindictive. But even a jerk has freedom of speech under our constitution.

I know of two places where jerks get there due. The first is the emporer in Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado: "My object all sublime/ I shall achieve in time/ to let the punishment fit the crime..." The second place where jerks got their due was in a comic strip. It was called Hatlo's Inferno, and appeared as the Sunday edition of They'll Do It Every Time, by Jimmy Hatlo. There, the jerks spent their eternity in Hell having their own bad acts performed on them over and over again by demons.

The irony is that the more upset you or I get about the actions of a jerk, the more enjoyment he gets out of it. So, I guess the best way to handle jerks is not to get angry, or at least not let your anger and frustration show. But I still yearn for a way to make the jerk suffer dearly when he does his evil.

Vice President Cheney

I just read the Washington post series of articles about Vice President Cheney. It was very enlightening.

Cheney deserves some credit for piercing through and working around the bureaucratic static that has rendered prior VPs virtually ineffective. He would probably be a valuable asset to a stronger and more intelligent president.

I strongly oppose Cheney's pro-big business agenda. Government policies should serve to improve life for all of us, not for just a few obscenely wealthy CEOs.

But it is all too easy for us to criticize Cheney. His critics harp incessantly about what we should NOT be doing. But few have the courage to spell out specific alternatives, and to explain how those alternatives would produce better outcomes. They seem to concentrate more on winning an election than on real problem solving.

My friend, Bruce, commented that "It may have nothing to do with courage. There may not be a clear alternitive to a course of action or a policy. But if one course of action or policy is seen and understood to be catastrophic, it is very important to say so. If you saw conditions on a train bridge that you understood would cause the bridge to fall down when the next train passed over it, it would be your responsibility to say so, even if you had no clear way of fixing the bridge. First and most important would be to prevent a wreck."

While I agree with Bruce, those are two very important conditions: (1) impending catastrophe, and (2) no clear alternatives. I can see how some topics can be viewed, and are viewed by many, as meeting both conditions. But I don't believe that ALL of these issues meet BOTH tests:

Health care
Government debt
Equitable taxation
Iraq war
Terrorist actions
Illegal immigration
Abortion
Stem cell research
Eminent domain
Global warming
Oil depletion
Air and water pollution
Corruption in Legislative Branch
Corruption in Executive Branch


Some politicians seem to view virtually everything as an impending disaster. They complain and complain that everything in life is terrible, and that the only solution is to "shoot the tsars." Just as in Orwell's animal farm, once these critics get the power, they abuse it as much or more than the tsars did.

By the way, once one has stopped a train, one must be prepared to deal with the foreseeable consequences of that action: getting the passengers, mail and freight to their destinations, dealing with the losses from missed meetings and delayed shipments, repairing the bridge, determining the cause of the bridge collapse, and finding ways of reducing the chance of another collapse, etc, etc. Also important, one must be convinced that stopping the train will not cause an outcome even more horrible than the train crash.

Fear is a frequent companion of the lust for power. Most solutions to a problem will be imperfect--they will have pros and cons. Fear that the cons of a specific proposal will lose him votes keeps a politician from making the proposal. And the politician assumes that the voters are both less informed and less intelligent than he is. So he finds it easier and more colorful to launch an ad hominum attack.

Income Inequality AND Immigration

The Senate could not come up with a bill that corrects the illegal immigration problem.

But the House of Representatives was able to vote themselves a $4,000 pay raise!

Just as I said, the wealthy continue to pad their own pockets. Poor performance does not go unrewarded!!!

The Senate Immigration Bill

So, the Senate Immigration bill has been killed. That's a real shame!! Now we are stuck with the ever-worsening problem.

It's time for some real leadership--the kind of leadership that President Bush will not and can not provide. Specifically, the executive and judicial branches should be rigidly enforcing our existing immigration laws. Secure the border, and punish the employers who hire illegal immigrants.

The Senate bill had some excellent elements, but also many flaws:

• It did not provide sufficient border security
• It did not deal strongly with the illegal immigrants who committed crimes after they arrived
• It provided a weak, convoluted 'path to citizenship' for virtually all illegal aliens--one that would require a very costly administrative staff
• It provided the illegal aliens with entitlement which should be available only to citizens
• It did not sufficiently penalize the law-breaking employers

I have said before that our country has too many laws; there are so many that the ones we have are not being enforced. Immigration law is the perfect example of that. If we are not enforcing our current border security laws, how can we possibly expect that the provisions in the Senate bill would be enforced?

Our legislators were playing political football with over 600 pages of paper that gave half of the farm to the law-breaking employers, and the other half of the farm to the illegal aliens. Some senators were actually voting for a bill that they have not even read!!

I have decided to support the Bill O'Reilly "no spin immigration plan." Not surprisingly, 87 percent of the visitors to his web site support it.

1. Secure the southern border with 700, not 300 miles of barrier, double the border patrol and back them up with 10,000 National Guards people. That would effectively shut down human and drug smuggling from Mexico.
2. Require all illegal aliens in the country right now to register at the post office with Homeland Security. After registering, they would be given a tamper proof ID card, designating their status and their right to work temporarily in the USA. If the illegal aliens do not register, it's a criminal felony. Right now sneaking across the border is a civil action. Remember that. Subjecting the person to immediate deportation or jail time. The criminal penalty goes way up.
3. Any business that hires an illegal worker who doesn't have a tamper proof ID card faces draconian fines and possible prison time for the executives.
4. Each illegal alien would have his case reviewed by federal authorities. And they would decide who would receive a Z-visa to stay and who would not. That takes the blanket amnesty, something many American hate, off the table. It also allows the feds to make rational decisions about who's helping America and who isn't.

We should not give away our tax money to criminals; instead, we should be using our tax money to prevent the crimes and to punish the criminals.

Income Inequality

I have been subscribing to The Week magazine for a couple of years now. It summarizes news articles from all over the country and all around the world on major issues and events. The diverse articles offer the closest thing I have found to "balanced coverage" on current events. But last week the magazine missed the mark on one topic.

Under the heading, Best Columns, the Business section of last week's magazine titled its issue of the week "What's causing income inequality?" The four columns summarized either glossed over the real causes, or missed them completely.

First, they quoted Roger Lowenstein of The New York Times Magazine, who defined the issue: "In 1979, the top 1 percent of the population collected 9% of the national income. In 2004, their share had jumped to 16 percent. Or look at it this way: Since 1979, the incomes of the bottom 20 percent of earners have grown only 2 percent, adjusted for inflation. But during that same period, the incomes of the top 20 percent have increased a whopping 63 percent...[W]hat may be the most pressing domestic issue of our time: 'Why isn't prosperity spreading more equally?'"

Next they excerpted an article by Tyler Cowen in The New York Times: "The most commonly cited culprits" are outsourcing, immigration, and greed. But those are "diversions from the main issue," and that's education--or the lack thereof...The focus should be on giving more people access to a decent education, at all levels.

Then they cite Jared Bernstein and Lawrence Mishel in Huffington post.com, who in turn point out that that the wage growth of college grads is no longer outpacing that of less educated workers. These authors blame the growing inequity on the Bush administration's tax cuts for the wealthy and on weak unions, aggressive outsourcing and offshoring. The lack of education, they say didn't cause the inequality, and while a more highly educated work force is a worthy goal, it won't reduce it.

Finally, they quote George Will in the Washington Post, who says that income inequality is not really an issue, because economic burdens and benefits have never been spread evenly. We should look instead at the fact that the economy has been growing at a robust pace with more than 8 million jobs created since the Bush tax cuts were enacted.

As I have said, the articles cited in The Week either understate the income inequality issue, or they overlook the true root causes. I will try to set the record straight.

FIRST, INCOME INEQUALITY IS A REAL ISSUE: Roger Lowenstein is right, and George Will is wrong. It's just fine that millions of jobs have been created since 2002. But you just cannot get away from the fact that roughly 5 percent of our wage earners received nothing because they are out of work, and 94 percent of the earners are struggling to keep even with inflation while that top 1 percent is receiving incomes of anywhere from $1 million to $60 million, or more. Frankly, there are very few individuals whose real contributions to society are worth anywhere near those values. The individual incomes are rightly referred to as "obscene."

SECOND, THE SUGGESTED CAUSES ARE NOT THE REAL CAUSES: Many of our wealthiest 1 percent do not even have college degrees. If I recall correctly, Bill Gates is a college dropout, as are many executives. And not many of our highest paid entertainers have college degrees. The IRS statistics on income show that since the Bush tax cuts, the wealthiest earners are in fact paying a larger portion of their total income in federal taxes. Unions may be weaker precisely because their revenue from union dues no longer gives them the political leverage they need against the obscenely wealthy corporations and executives. As much as our workers despise the use of outsourcing and immigrant labor, those business decisions are just a portion of the activities and schemes that the people who are obscenely wealthy use to increase the inequality. They too are symptoms, not root causes of the income equality problem.

THERE ARE JUST TWO REASONS FOR INCOME INEQUALITY-- GREED AND MIS-DIRECTED SOCIAL VALUES: We don't want to accept these reasons because we have no idea at all about how to abolish greed, and because we are in a state of denial with regard to the fact that each and every one of us has such distorted values.

Let's first look at greed. Has it ever occurred to you that many of our wealthiest people set their own salaries and benefit programs? Elected officials, whether they are city councilmen, county supervisors, state or federal legislators, set their own salaries. The salaries and benefits of CEO's and members of corporate boards set their own salaries because together they control enough stock to do so. So all of these wealthy folks are in a position to say, "I will have a 15 percent pay raise next year, but Joe the carpenter will have to accept a 3 percent raise so our company can stay competive. Not only that, but since the company's earnings dropped by 10 per cent last year, our CEO will only get a 10 percent raise instead of a 15 percent raise." The CEO will tell us that he earns the big bucks because he solves the big problems and takes they big risks. But if a CEO performs really badly, he is first paid, then asked to resign, and then given a juicy severence package." There is no risk for him in that, although hundreds of employees may have lost their jobs in the process. It's just as much fun for legislators. They can increase the minimum wage a few percentage points every 10 years or so while voting themselves much more lucrative increases in wages and benefits. At one time, average CEO salaries in this country were 22 times as great as the average employee salaries. Now they are 152 times as great. The workers in our country did not agree to that, but they have had to accept it. The greedy wealthy folks gave it to themselves. We have spent 40 years in this country devising legislation to outlaw bigotry. Maybe we realize that greed is as difficult to outlaw, or even more so.

The second cause, mis-directed values, is even harder for us to accept, and to deal with. An engineer spends a year designing a bridge that will take thousands of workers to and from their jobs everyday. For his one year effort, he may be paid $80,000. A heart surgeon saves the lives of 50 people one year, and is paid $200,000 for the service. A nurse helps hundreds of people to recover from illness or surgery and receives $50,000 for the effort. A lady sings ballads to an audience of two thousand people for 2 hours one evening and walks away with $2 million. A man throws a little white ball at another man holding a stick all year long and takes home $5 million. Another guy stars in one motion picture and gets $15 million. Folks groan every time I mention these examples. Just to be clear: I appreciate talent. Entertainment is an essential part of a heathy society. Singing, athletics, and acting are hard work. The final performances are good only because of the many hours of practice that precede them. These income disparities have nothing to do with tax cuts, weak unions, lack of education, outsourcing, or immigration. Instead, they are the logical results of the decisions that each of us makes with his wallet every day. Can we ever convice ourselves that a concert seat is only worth $65, and a visit to our doctor is worth $130, rather than the reverse? "The pursuit of happiness" has become so important to us that we short-change the basic fundamentals of survival to carry it out.

Are there any solutions to income inequality? Lenin had one, and it did not work. I don't have any right now. I can and do decide how many concerts and professional athletic events I attend (many fewer than I would like to), but I don't think that will affect the salaries unless everyone else does it too. We can't legislate peoples' buying habits any more than we can legislate away individual greed. Is it possible that, when it comes to income inequality, the cures are more painful than the disease? Maybe we just have to live with it. The wealthiest 1 percent of the people gave themselves a 63 percent pay raise over the last 25 years--they would sure like us to accept that, along with our own 2 percent.

Fathers' Day

I had a fine Fathers' Day. Bonnie bought me some Merlot, Amber gave me gift cards for Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf (I like their dark Sumatra), and Heather gave me slippers and a CD-ROM with a virtual tour of HMS Victory. So I can put on my slippers, and drink some coffee and some wine while I tour Victory. But the real blessing, of course, is the love that those tokens represent--it reminds me how worthwhile the journey through life can be.

Choral Music

Time sure gets away from me--a post is long overdue.

I just added a site to my list of recorded music sources: http://www.singers.com/choral/
This one specializes in choral music. It has not only CDs, but sheet music and profiles of many choral groups around the world as well. If you like choral music even half as much as I do, you will find an abundance of information on this site.

Highland Gathering

Bonnie and I attended the 75th annual Highland Gathering at the Pomona fairgrounds today. What a thrill that was! I guess I can claim 1/4 Scottish heritage; my maternal grandfather was a Graham.

We spent most of our time watching the pipe and drum competition. I think I heard enough bagpipes to last me for a few weeks, at least. It was a very colorful day, as the pipers and many of the attendees wore kilts.

They had several stages with different groups performing folk songs and such. And, of course, there were vendors selling all kinds of Scottish things.

We will probably go again next year and check out stage performances as well as the dancing competition and the athletic events.

Books and Libraries

I've been having a great time filling my bookshelf on shelfari.com, but I've got a long way to go if my virtual bookshelf is going to match my actual one.

In the process, though, I found a great web site for someone who does not necessarily want to buy a book, but would like to borrow it from a lending library for just one reading. It lets you locate a book in a library near you. You type in the name of the book and your zip code, and it gives you the names of nearby libraries that hold a copy. The libraries must first have registered with the site, of course. I tried it, and it seems to work pretty well. The site address is: http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/. I will add it to my side bar as well.

Happy hunting.

Reading Books and Sharing

I just registered on a site called Shelfari. Contributors create virtual bookshelves that display icons of their favorite books, then share their opinions and comments with other contributors and in discussion groups. It even has links that enable you to buy a book that you would like to read. I figure I will try to add a book a day. The site is still in beta, and has some glitches to work out, but I hope it catches on. Here is a link to my bookshelf: http://www.shelfari.com/TradeWinds/shelf. I have also placed a link in my sidebar for future use.

Rob Needs

I stumbled across another blogger who had Googled "(his name) needs." He published the results and suggested his readers might enjoy doing the same. So I gave it a try. The Google search produced 4,710,000 results. I only checked out the first 16. My favorites are No. 1, 6, 13, and 15.

ROB NEEDS:

1. Rob's Hard Hat--found at The Rob Store

2. A Hero

3. Therapy (You will too, after you spend a few minutes here--http://aotsrobneedstherapy.ytmnd.com/)

4. A Job

5. A Professional Profile

6. To shut his gob

7. A copy editor

8. Credit for stepping up and fighting the biggest guy on the show!

9. A Net Clued Lawyer, urgently.

10. To move his legs and he prefers to do such with a lady dance

11. Replacement

12. Medicine

13. Your support and donations

14. To ask "What permits are required for this site to operate?

15. To have a party in his honor

16. Help again

So, if I can get the above, along with the other 4,709, 984 things I need, I should be in pretty good shape. How about you?

A Different Kind of War

I frequently complain that President Bush has failed to mobilize opinion and support for the war against terrorism on the home front as Franklin Roosevelt did in WWII; instead, he has let us fall into a frenzy of anger over each setback, and a continuous and morbid count of each and every soldier that dies. It’s been pointed out that there is virtually no parallel between the war on terrorism and WWII--after all, Hitler's army marched in the streets of Paris and Japan occupied dozens of Pacific islands. Al-qaida had neither invaded nor occupied Iraq. There are no nations or territories to win back from enemy occupation. The war we should be fighting is against terrorists, not against Iraqis.

I accept that there was little or no Al-qaida influence in Iraq when we invaded in 2002. In effect, the invasion of Iraq diverted our war on terrorism to a war on Iraq's sectarian insurgents. But that can't be undone; we are there now, and so is Al-qaida. To stem the violence in Iraq will not only strengthen the Al-Maliki government; it will defeat an arm of Al-qaida. We do need to get out of Iraq and back onto the main targets as quickly as we can, but not at the expense of turning Iraq into another Pakistan. A key step in that process is to disarm the sectarian militias. That we and the Iraqi government have failed to do so in over 4 years is disgraceful.

We have made several tactical and strategic blunders in Iraq. But we and our allies made lots of blunders in WWII, and the resulting losses were orders of magnitude larger. What are disheartening are the attitudes of citizens and politicians at home who dwell on the mistakes instead of pressing us onward for the noble cause. It's partly because President Bush is incapable of communicating with us and motivating us to forge ahead the way President Roosevelt did. It's also because most people do not seem to understand how and why the war on terrorism is so different from WWII.

WWII was typical of the classic, or traditional, wars between nations. The Axis Nations sent large armies into the sovereign lands of the Allied Forces. Our enemy was tightly organized under central control, and they wore uniforms. Their weapons were thousands of tanks, squadrons of aircraft, and fleets of ships that were concentrated to gain physical possession of specific territories. The strongest guys won, and the losing nations signed peace treaties. In the war on terrorism, however, the enemy is not a specific nation. There is no large, uniformed, well-equipped army massing at the border of our nation with the intent to occupy. In fact, the enemies will not defeat us with military force and make us sign a treaty of surrender. Guns, bullets, and explosives are ancillary weapons; the real weapon is the psychology of fear. Soldiers without uniforms sneak into a country not to possess the land, but rather to gain possession of the minds and souls of the people, or else to kill them. Their strike is not merely against the country’s armed forces, but against all non-believers. They sacrifice their own lives in the attack, so there is no force to counter-attack. Eventually, they believe, the people of our nation will be so horrified, so confused, so dejected, so afraid, that they will embrace the true faith. Their government will fall and be replaced by a government of people who embrace the faith. The terrorists do not want our land, they want our allegiance, or our death. Victory belongs not to a man or to a nation, but to a belief.

Traditional military forces and tactics are not very effective to defeat this kind of enemy. New techniques must be tried, and some of those will fail. The public must be patient, accept some failures, but continue the struggle. To try to get the enemy after a strike is too late; the soldiers are dead. Fighting him at the time of the strike is extremely difficult; the attack is designed to be a complete surprise. While the terrorists are setting up the attack is a difficult time to capture them too, since the participants are scattered and secretive. What is left is to attack the places where they train their soldiers—in the countries that harbor and support the training camps. We can also disrupt their finances and their communications. We can attempt to identify terrorists in our midst and jail or deport them. The terrorists view our constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom from unlawful searches, and protection of prisoners from cruelty as weaknesses that they can exploit. But the terrorists have renounced our constitution--they are not playing by the rules of our game. Because of that, they should not receive the full benefits of constitutional protection. We can show them that we will not be defeated psychologically, nor by deceit; that we will take all actions necessary to foil their attempts to kill us.

A Government of Fools

In a letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times, a voter from Encino offers his description of the electoral process in the United States. Here I have paraphrased it:

• All of us have voted for a candidate's concrete plan, only to have the candidate do something completely different once in office.
• A modern campaign candidate must be cautious and speak in generalities, so that he will not be skewered by his opponents, or accused of making a faux pas.
• Any of the Democratic candidates would provide an enormous improvement over the current administration.

Virtually everyone I know takes one or more of those positions. Many people vote strictly along party lines. They refuse to listen to a candidate from the opposition party, assuming that nobody in the other party could ever have a better idea. Many believe that most politicians will say virtually anything to get elected and, once in office, will renige on their promises. I guess they just can't tell when a candidate is passionate about a principle. Most important, people don't want to be bothered with facts and detailed plans. They would much rather vote for someone who is charming and who promises us "a wonderful life," whatever that is. To me, this false and lazy attitude among the voting public is the main reason that we have so many incompetent clowns running for and serving in public offices.

When we limit our judgements to how likeable a candidate is, and to general platitudes like "We need to get out of Iraq soon," or "We must have immigration reform," we elect candidates without knowing how they will resolve the problems. When they implement their disastrous agendas, we feel betrayed, but we deserve what we get.

Obviously, to offer too much detail about a plan for dealing with one of those issues would make a candidate seem inflexible, boring, and even unappealing to one or more segments of the voting public. But a candidate who is both passionate and intelligent should be able to define and outline a middle ground between the empty generality and the crippling details. He should be able to propose a few objectives or purposes that he believes are essential elements or characteristics of the resolution of an issue. Then, he should be able to prioritize those elements and define the possible alternative approaches to implementing each. This technique is extremely difficult for a candidate. It requires that he be able to parse a problem, and to define solutions that will be attractive to the majority of voters and, at the same time, to offer acceptable compromises to the minorities. Then, he must present his plans in a manner that is clear, succinct, sincere, and (yes) likeable as well.

It's tougher for us voters, too. We need to eschew those candidates who constantly attack their opponents, and utterly fail to offer alternative plans with substance. We can't rely on rhetoric and flashy slogans. We have to gather a lot of facts about complex issues. We must analyze each part of a problem from two or more perspectives. To do that, we may have to discuss the problem with people who do not share our view of it. We must realize that the optimum approach to a problem includes the best solutions for the most critical parts accompanied by compromises on some of the less important parts.

If voters and the candidates are unable or unwilling to step up to these difficult tasks, we will have to be content with a government of the fools, by the fools and for the fools.

...And Baby Makes 3...

I discussed Alec Baldwin in my post Celebrities and Narcissism on Sept. 24, 2006. Some of his film performances have been excellent, but good acting does not make a good person. To hear him talk, Alec is more intelligent than all of us, and certainly a better person. But in fact, he is not very smart at all. He compensates for his insecurity by claiming to be smarter and better than everyone, and by being demanding, controlling, and vindictive.

The recent release by TMZ of a voice mail from him to his eleven year old daughter, Ireland, shows how these characteristics get out of control.

According to TMZ, "An enraged Alec Baldwin unleashed a volcanic tirade of threats and insults on his 11-year-old daughter, Ireland, calling her a "thoughtless little pig," and bashing her mother Kim Basinger...After Ireland failed to answer her father's scheduled morning phone call from New York on April 11, Alec went berserk on her voice mail, saying "Once again, I have made an ass of myself trying to get to a phone," adding, "you have insulted me for the last time." Switching his train of thought, Baldwin then exercised his incredible parenting skills and took a shot at his ex-wife, declaring, 'I don't give a damn that you're 12-years-old or 11-years-old, or a child, or that your mother is a thoughtless pain in the ass who doesn't care about what you do.' The irate Baldwin went on to say, 'You've made me feel like s**t,' and threatened to 'straighten your ass out.' 'This crap you pull on me with this goddamn phone situation that you would never dream of doing to your mother,' screamed Baldwin, 'and you do it to me constantly over and over again.' Before hanging up, Baldwin warned the child, 'You better be ready Friday the 20th to meet with me.'"

I am not sure how long this link will actually work, but you can try to listen for your self here: Alec Baldwin's message

This man, who claims to be so brilliant, demonstrates his utter lack of self control and his total ineptness in dealing with people, especially in being a parent.

On Wednesday, Los Angeles County Superior Court commissioner Maren Nelson heard the tape and temporarily suspended Baldwin's visitation rights. A hearing is set for May 4.

To his credit, Baldwin later called and apologized for what he said. It is evident that six years of a messy divorce from Kim Bassinger have frustrated and angered him. Apparently Bassinger, who can also be vicious and vindictive, has been trying to alienate the child from her father. In addition, she allegedly leaked the recording to the public in violation of a court order. They have placed little Ireland square in the middle of their selfish battle for power, control, and retribution . If Kim and Alec were able to acknowledge their own weaknesses, and were willing to believe that a counselor could give them the knowledge and skills to overcome them, the child might not suffer. But both parents are too consumed with anger and bitterness, and too narcissistic to accept the fact that someone else could help.

The real victim, of course, is Ireland. She has learned from her father how to be controlling. She has learned from her mother how to be vindictive. She has learned from both that rage and angry language are weapons to be used with no restraint or control. And Alec has imbued her with the self-doubt that will cause her to become a narcissist just like him.

Wages and Value: We Get What We Pay For

Parade Magazine just published their annual report on what people earn. The report shows us what professions are most important to us. By reviewing the numbers, we can see whose great intelligence, finely honed technical skills, and back-breaking labor are are making the most valuable contributions to the health, education, and general well-being of our society. Here are some examples:

College Professor $64,900...Pro Soccer Player $ 50 million
Lt., Fire Dep't. $64,000....Movie Actor $25 million
School Nurse $88,000...Author of novels $28 million
Probation Officer $45,000...Rock Singer $15.6 million
Police Lt. $64,000...Radio/TV Host $12 million
Respiratory Therapist $87,000...Pro Tennis Player $3.8 million
Children's Librarian $30,700...Singer/designer $175 million
Child Care Provider $24,000...Actor $3.3 million
Registered Nurse $76,000...Country Singer $75.9 million
Pharmacist $87,000...Baseball Player $18 million
Guidance Counselor $54,000....Actor $23 million
Medical Resident $45,000...Actor $3.5 million
Minister $9,000....Olympic Skier $5 million
Flight Inspector $61,000...Actress $8 million

When you add up the numbers in both columns and divide the results, you can quickly see that entertainment and sports are 570 times as valuable to us as health care, law enforcement, education. For some reason, I did not find some research scientists, construction workers, ice skaters, or pro golfers to put in the list. The value of their contributions must not be worth talking about.

I have been accused of saying that entertainers and sports figures are worthless, but that is not true. These people work very hard at playing their guitars, shaking their hips, and tossing balls with extreme accuracy. Moreover, we all need a certain amount of entertainment to relieve the stress and monotony of our depressing and arduous lives.

We all establish these values ourselves, when we attend a basketball game, or view and call in to American Idol, by seeing a movie or buying a DVD, or by voting down a measure to increase teachers' pay. So if the robbers and rapists have not been put in jail yet, if the roads are full of potholes, if our children cannot read or write, if we don't have a cure for cancer yet--it's because we find it 570 times more important to watch a rock singer on TV.

Weighing in on the Imus Story

It's been over three weeks since I posted to my Blog. I wanted to do a couple of postings each week, but recently nothing has spurred my desire to write.

The whole issue of the remarks by Imus about the Rutgers women's basketball team seems contorted and overblown to me. I decided to comment briefly on it though, primarily as a springboard for a couple of generalizations about our society:

• Despite the initial gut reactions of a few, it is only one small thread in the tapestry of life--one of many that together form one of the uglier images on the tapestry.
• I have never listened to the Imus radio show. I have seen a few minutes of a television interview with him, but aside from that, all I know about him is what I have read in the papers. So, I have no reason to defend him.
• The remark by Imus is utterly disgusting, rude, demeaning, derogatory and totally tasteless. But our Constitution does guarantee us freedom of speech. As one judge put it, nothing in the constition prohibits a person from being a jerk.
• It has been totally blown out of proportion by the hypocrites, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who seldom hesitate to denigrate white people.
• I don't think Imus had any specific intent to hurt or degrade the women on the team. His statement seems thoughtless rather than vicious. His public persona appears to be an "equal opportunity offender." He has been paid for years to say things that are disgusting, rude, and tasteless. He probably just repeated language that he heard from some rude and tasteless rappers.
• NBC and CBS erred in firing Imus. The punishment far exceeds the crime. After all, they hired Imus and paid him to be disgusting, rude, and tasteless. Therefore, if Imus should go, then so should the executives who hired him. The media executives also fanned the flames of the equally tasteless Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton by continually spotlighting their equally bigoted distortions.

Having looked at this single fiber in the tapestry of our society, we should step back for a minute and look at a larger area of the tapestry. Of the many images, this fiber weaves through two of interest: First, for as long as I can remember our society has embraced a double standard with regard to remarks that are made about people's race, religion, or ethnicity--a double standard that often leads to a "lose-lose" situation. Second, in recent years society has drifted away from a rigid structure of consideration, propriety, civility, and etiquette which demands that we respect other people and have concern for their feelings and needs. The latter trend has spawned entertainers of the ilk of Don Imus; the double standard has allowed them and other public figures to fall into the same ditch that Imus did.

We have all experienced the double standard. Al Sharpton can lie about Tawana Brawley, and he gets a pass. A rapper can record songs that calls women "ho's" and he gets a pass. A woman being arrested for domestic violence can call the policeman a fascist pig, and she gets a pass. A Pole can tell a Polish joke, and his fellow Poles laugh and give him a pass. A Jewish man can call his neighbor a kike, and he gets a pass. If a Dane publishes a derogatory cartoon about Mohammed, his life is threatened. Rosie O'Donnel makes absurd and baseless statements on television, and she gets a pass. But let a Michael Richards or a Don Imus do any of the above, and he will be labelled a racist and a bigot, and be forced to apologize. The fact is that all of those lies, slurs, and jokes are disgusting, rude, tasteless and hurtful regardless of who makes the statements. But we never treat them that way across the board. Anyone who calls attention to this double standard is immediately labelled a bigot and a racist. When Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and their ilk try to rationalize away the double standard, they are every bit as racist as the people they criticize. The double standard should have been abolished long ago, but it was not abolished, and I am sure that it will not be.

Many people have gradually concluded that displays of respect for others, civility, acts of respect, and the rules of etiquette are a waste of time and energy. We used to dress up when we went "downtown" to do our shopping out of respect for other shoppers; and when we went to church, out of respect for God. Now we wear t-shirts, cut-offs and sneakers to the malls and to church because we are lazy, and because we think both other people and God should accept us just as we are. Gentlemen used to stand when a lady entered the room. We used to hold the door open for the person following us through, but few people bother with the simple courtesies anymore. We used to learn and teach proper table manners and proper dinner conversation as a form of respect and consideration for those with whom we dine, but most folks can't be bothered with that. All of these formalities and constraints conditioned people to pause, to think, and to consider the feelings of the people around them before they spoke or acted. Now people do as they please; they eschew good taste and courtesy. They take pleasure in audacious art, in the brashness of the "shock jocks," and in the emphasis on violence, gore, and sex in both drama and comedy. The "line" that marks the boundary of acceptable behavior is moving farther and farther away from respectful, courteous, and ethical. But, as Imus learned, the "line" still exists. It is just so far from reasonable decency and respect that it is much easier to stumble across. And the "line" is drawn in a different place for each individual.

The Politics of Hate

Political dialogue and actions these days are saturated with a disgusting kind of hateful slime. This garbage is not unique to Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, or liberals. It emanates from the Maher's and O'Donnell's as well as from the Noonan's and Coulter's. They all shout, “Don’t bother me with the facts, I just hate this guy.” For some, “this guy” is George Bush; for others, “this guy" is Bill Clinton. Well, I don’t hate either president, even though I vehemently disagree with many of the actions that both have taken.

Scholars of history know that the politics of hate is not unique to modern society. A review of the campaigns of the nineteenth century reveals similar elements in the campaigns for and against Ulysses S. Grant, James G. Blaine, Grover Cleveland, Rutherford B. Hayes, Samuel Tilden, and others. But it seems more intense today, probably because of the pervasiveness and speed of electronic news media.

I try to set aside the internet jokes and the ravings of the asses and idiots in the media and entertainment industries. It's discouraging, though, that the politics of hate is not limited to commentators, entertainers, and election campaigns. It has spread to the meeting rooms of the Senate and the House. Too many of our (assumed intelligent) elected representatives expend their energy obsessively on hatred, vindictiveness, and character assassination. Instead of crafting legislation that will improve our society, our legislators waste hours and days investigating the activities of their hated political adversaries.

I am also angered by the pervasive application of dual standards by both politicians and commentators. That is, an action by a person from one party is investigated and prosecuted as criminal, yet an identical action by someone from the opposing party is ignored, rationalized, or even praised.

The very people who spew hateful political slime about their political opposition do not hesitate to criticize an individual who uses a word or phrase that they consider to be “offensive” or “politically incorrect.”

Our senators and representatives need to grow up. They should stop trying to fix the blame, and devote their energies to fixing the problems.

Too Many Laws, Part 2

I said it before, and I'll say it again: We have too many laws! The LA Times on Thursday had an item about some bills being drafted by California state legislators:

• Restrict the use of foods containing trans-fat in restaurants and public schools
• Ban smoking at state parks and beaches, and in cars carrying children
• Open a savings account, seeded with $500, for every new-born Californian to use at age 18 for college, a new home, or a retirement account
• Fine dog and cat owners who do not spay or neuter their pets by 4 months of age
• Require chain restaurants to list calorie, saturated fat, and sodium content of items on menus
• Phase out the sale of incandescent lamps, replacing them with fluorescents

In other states, proposed laws would ban the use of the "n__" word, or prohibit the use of "boo" at school sporting events.

But most folks are smart enough to figure out when a fluorescent lamp is the most cost effective solution for a light, and to buy one for that purpose. And in the past we have been able to use custom and social pressures to discourage inappropriate speech.

These absurdities are perfect examples of two major problems with our governments today:

1. We have no need for a full-time legislature. Because we pay these people to write laws year-round, we will get more and more laws--laws that are virtually impossible to enforce--laws that create more problems than they solve, laws that increase the manpower needed for administration and enforcement. Instead, these legislators should meet only a few months out of the year to clear the books of obsolete and unenforced laws, to plan the next year's budget, and perhaps to write one or two new or amended laws to deal with large emerging problems.
2. Too many of us think that government should solve everyone's problems for them. Instead of making the smart choices for ourselves, we are electing people to office who feel compelled to run everyone's lives (except, perhaps, their own). They want to tell us what to eat, what to buy, what to say (and what not to say), but they will retreat to their own mansions to spend and do as they please. And, because we are dumb enough to elect them, they assume we are too dumb to solve our own problems.

Let us heed the warnings we heard from the late President Reagan about the dangers of big government. Don't let our daily lives be micro-managed by full-time, power hungry legislators. Let us educate, not legislate.

I Once Was a Sailor

Bill Knight and I were shipmates on the USS Hoel (DDG-13) from 1962 to 1965. We were able to reconnect by e-mail a few years ago and continue to exchange notes. I served for only 5 years, but Bill made the Navy a career. However, we share warm feelings and fond memories of our days as sailors.

Today, Bill sent me an e-mail that paints a vivid picture of our shared experiences in the 20th century U.S. Navy. Bill tells me that he is not the author--it's apparently one of those anonymous pieces that gets passed around. Like Bill, though, I just had to share it--it deserves a wide audience.

I Once Was a Sailor

Sharing a glimpse of the life I so dearly loved...I liked standing on the bridge wing at sunrise with salt spray in my face and clean ocean winds whipping in from the four quarters of the globe.

I liked the sounds of the Navy - the piercing trill of the boatswains pipe, the syncopated clangor of the ship's bell on the quarterdeck, harsh, and the strong language and laughter of sailors at work.

I liked Navy vessels -- plodding fleet auxiliaries and amphibs, sleek submarines and steady solid aircraft carriers.I liked the proud names of Navy ships; Midway, Lexington, Saratoga, Coral Sea, Antietam, Valley Forge - - memorials of great battles won and tribulations overcome.

I liked the lean angular names of Navy "tin-cans" and escorts, mementos of heroes who went before us. And the others - - San Jose, San Diego, Los Angeles, St.Paul, Chicago, Oklahoma City, named for our cities.

I liked the tempo of a Navy band. I liked liberty call and the spicy scent of a foreign port. I even liked the never ending paperwork and the all hands working parties as my ship filled herself with the multitude of supplies, both mundane and to cut ties to the land and carry out her mission anywhere on the globe where there was water to float her.

I liked sailors, officers and enlisted men from all parts of the land, farms of the Midwest, small towns of New England, from the big cities, the mountains and the prairies, from all walks of life. I trusted and depended on them as they trusted and depended on me -- for professional competence, for comradeship, for strength and courage. In a word, they were "shipmates"; then and forever.

I liked the surge of adventure in my heart, when the word was passed: ''Now Hear This'' "Now set the special sea and anchor detail - all hands to quarters for leaving port," and I liked the infectious thrill of sighting home again, with the waving hands of welcome from family and friends waiting pier side. The work was hard and dangerous; the going rough at times; the parting from loved ones painful, but the companionship of robust Navy laughter, the "all for one and one for all" philosophy of the sea was ever present.

I liked the fierce and dangerous activity on the flight deck of aircraft carriers, earlier named for battles won but sadly now named for politicians. Enterprise, Independence, Boxer, Princeton, and oh so many more, some lost in battle, and sadly many scrapped.

I liked the names of the aircraft and helicopters; Skyraider, Intruder, Sea King, Phantom, Skyhawk, Demon, Skywarrior, Corsair, and many more that bring to mind offensive and defensive orders of battle.

I liked the excitement of an alongside replenishment as my ship slid in alongside the oiler and the cry of "Standby to receive shotlines", prefaced the hard work of rigging spanwires and fuel hoses echoed across the narrow gap of water between the ships and welcomed the mail and fresh milk, fruit and vegetables that sometimes accompanied the fuel.

I liked the serenity of the sea after a day of hard ship's work, as flying fish flitted across the wave tops and sunset gave way to night.

I liked the feel of the Navy in darkness - the masthead and range lights, the red and green navigation lights and stern light, the pulsating phosphorescence of radar repeaters - they cut through the dusk and joined with the mirror of stars overhead.

And I liked drifting off to sleep lulled by the myriad noises large and small that told me that my ship was alive and well, and that my shipmates on watch would keep me safe.

I liked quiet mid-watches with the aroma of strong coffee -- the lifeblood of the Navy permeating everywhere.

And I liked hectic watches when the exacting minuet of haze-gray shapes racing at flank speed kept all hands on a razor edge of alertness.I liked the sudden electricity of "General quarters, general quarters, all hands man your battle stations," followed by the hurried clamor of running feet on ladders and the resounding thump of watertight doors as the ship transformed herself in a few brief seconds from a peaceful workplace to a weapon of war -- ready for anything.

And I liked the sight of space-age equipment manned by youngsters clad in dungarees and sound-powered phones that their grandfathers would still recognize .

I liked the traditions of the Navy and the men and now women who made them. I liked the proud names of Navy heroes; Halsey, Nimitz, Perry, Farragut, John Paul Jones and Burke.A sailor could find much in the Navy: comrades-in-arms, pride in self and country, mastery of the seaman's trade. An adolescent could find adulthood.In years to come, when sailors are home from the sea, we still remember with fondness and respect the ocean in all its moods - the impossible shimmering mirror calm and the storm-tossed green water surging over the bow. And then there will come again a faint whiff of stack gas, a faint echo of engine and rudder orders, a vision of the bright bunting of signal flags snapping at the yardarm, a refrain of hearty laughter in the wardroom and chief's quarters and mess decks.

Gone ashore for good we grow humble about our Navy days, when the seas were a part of us and a new port of call was ever over the horizon.

Remembering this, WE stand taller and say, " I WAS A SAILOR ONCE."

A footnote to this posting: I received another copy via email on 13 January, 2008. In this version, the quotation was attributed to Captain Lew Thames, U. S. Navy (Retired).