No, I did not watch the State of the Union address last night. It has been several years since I watched one of these extravaganzas. I think it was during one of President Clinton's SOTU speeches that I vowed I would never watch another one. The man never ran out of things to say, and he never read Shakespeare's advice that "brevity is the soul of wit." After an hour, it's time to rest your vocal chords and let your television audience go to bed.
My decision to ignore the live coverage of last night's speech had almost nothing to do with President Trump. Presidents come and presidents go, but State of the Union speeches go on forever (it seems) and rarely ever are consequential.
Having read various accounts of Trump's speech, I have a pretty good idea of what he said without staying up past my bedtime or sitting impatiently through applause lines, pauses and showmanship the annual address has become.
I feel sufficiently informed about what Trump said that I can confidently say that the president outdid himself. He did so by carefully sticking to the script on the Teleprompter and avoiding his habitual personal attacks, belligerence and insults to individuals or groups. Hooray for that. He has the capacity to appear presidential, which he has done before, but always before he has squandered his improved status by going on Twitter tirades that bring out his worst instincts.
I don't think President Trump has turned over a new leaf with this speech, but if he were able to parlay this mostly reasonable speech about policy and priorities, he might actually salvage his presidency and his party's chances in the 2018 congressional and state elections. Don't bet on it. Men in their 70s don't change their basic personalities and tactics.
It is Trump's caustic language, his profanity, his racial and ethnic insults and his endorsement of sexual misbehavior that most trouble voters. His policy endeavors, including taxes, deregulation and immigration, have substantial support among the electorate. Maybe not a majority, but substantial. But even many who agree with Trump on policy are disgusted by his profanity, his insults, his score-settling and his lack of sympathy for others.
Unless he can change these flaws — his basic makeup — his presidency and his party's future will be in jeopardy.
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Friday, January 26, 2018
Gardening has a different meaning now
These are difficult times for people who like to get outside and for those who feel an obligation to do yard work.
It's cold! A task as simple as walking the dog (one of my primary duties) is more difficult when the temperature drops to near freezing or below and when the north wind suddenly gusts through whatever protective layers you're hiding under. Really cold weather, as we had a couple of weeks ago, when the temperature stayed in the teens and twenties for weeks, is even more trying. Even with gloves on, my fingers went numb. Even with my heaviest coat and layers of clothing underneath, my torso shivered and my exposed nose and cheeks burned.
I find solace in the assurance that February arrives soon, and it will be time to cut back the liriope (monkey grass) so that spring's new growth will have space. If the weather is warm enough after I raise the lawn mower's deck enough to trim back the liriope without scalping it to ground level, I can also begin helping out with the natural areas and flower gardens, where much maintenance is needed. Winter's die-back leaves a depressing, brittle forest of undergrowth and an absence of healthy, appealing plants and flowers.
Getting the natural areas, the lawn and the planting areas back into shape will take all spring, days of work that end with exhaustion and aches in muscles and joints not accustomed to such bending and exertion. The reward, if we are lucky, will be a yard that is pleasing to the human eye and to butterflies and birds. We will hope to gather flowers and a few vegetables from our labors but not enough sustenance to supply us or even to compensate for the calories we burned in transforming the winter-damaged plants and soil.
Where I grew up, gardening was not a matter of flowers and shrubs and vistas that are pleasing to the eye. Our gardening was about eating. A large garden and work that consumed every day from April to September would supply the vegetables that would feed us all year long. Tomatoes, corn, butterbeans, peas, okra, cucumbers and occasionally other veggies, grew in the garden that stretched a few feet from our home's western wall to our neighbor's property line a few hundred feet away.
I learned to set a tomato plant in a small hole made by a hoe and filled with a dipper full of water, making sure it was upright and firmly secure. I counted the beans to place in each hole in what would become a row of butterbeans. The same drill prevailed for peas and corn. Okra required a trench slit into the plowed row between the furrows and a flow of tiny seeds. Cucumbers had to be planted in a wider row because its vines would reach out toward other rows of vegetables.
When the plants matured and their seed pods formed, small children (I was second youngest) were taught to judge the ripeness of beans and peas by feeling them with your fingers. The beans or peas should be firm inside the pod. Picked too soon, the immature beans would be too small and difficult to separate from their sleeve. We also learned to shell beans and peas, discovering the pain in your thumb after an hour of shelling. Harvesting okra required use of a sharp knife, and gloves to avoid the irritation of fiberglass-like "fur" on the okra pods. Only older children or adults were allowed to harvest okra.
We ate well through those weeks of harvesting, but the work was not finished. If we were to eat in the winter, the excess harvest would have to be canned or frozen for eating after the garden plants had turned brown. Open shelves in the kitchen quickly filled with quart jars of vegetable soup, tomatoes, corn, beans, peas and cucumber pickles.
I think of those summers 60 years ago as my wife and I settle in to bring our flower beds, shrubs, ground covers, lawn and natural areas back into shape. The flowers are beautiful, the butterflies are delightful and the green landscape is pleasing to the eye. But aesthetics cannot compare to the need, urgency and rewards of a vast vegetable garden in a country setting.
It's cold! A task as simple as walking the dog (one of my primary duties) is more difficult when the temperature drops to near freezing or below and when the north wind suddenly gusts through whatever protective layers you're hiding under. Really cold weather, as we had a couple of weeks ago, when the temperature stayed in the teens and twenties for weeks, is even more trying. Even with gloves on, my fingers went numb. Even with my heaviest coat and layers of clothing underneath, my torso shivered and my exposed nose and cheeks burned.
I find solace in the assurance that February arrives soon, and it will be time to cut back the liriope (monkey grass) so that spring's new growth will have space. If the weather is warm enough after I raise the lawn mower's deck enough to trim back the liriope without scalping it to ground level, I can also begin helping out with the natural areas and flower gardens, where much maintenance is needed. Winter's die-back leaves a depressing, brittle forest of undergrowth and an absence of healthy, appealing plants and flowers.
Getting the natural areas, the lawn and the planting areas back into shape will take all spring, days of work that end with exhaustion and aches in muscles and joints not accustomed to such bending and exertion. The reward, if we are lucky, will be a yard that is pleasing to the human eye and to butterflies and birds. We will hope to gather flowers and a few vegetables from our labors but not enough sustenance to supply us or even to compensate for the calories we burned in transforming the winter-damaged plants and soil.
Where I grew up, gardening was not a matter of flowers and shrubs and vistas that are pleasing to the eye. Our gardening was about eating. A large garden and work that consumed every day from April to September would supply the vegetables that would feed us all year long. Tomatoes, corn, butterbeans, peas, okra, cucumbers and occasionally other veggies, grew in the garden that stretched a few feet from our home's western wall to our neighbor's property line a few hundred feet away.
I learned to set a tomato plant in a small hole made by a hoe and filled with a dipper full of water, making sure it was upright and firmly secure. I counted the beans to place in each hole in what would become a row of butterbeans. The same drill prevailed for peas and corn. Okra required a trench slit into the plowed row between the furrows and a flow of tiny seeds. Cucumbers had to be planted in a wider row because its vines would reach out toward other rows of vegetables.
When the plants matured and their seed pods formed, small children (I was second youngest) were taught to judge the ripeness of beans and peas by feeling them with your fingers. The beans or peas should be firm inside the pod. Picked too soon, the immature beans would be too small and difficult to separate from their sleeve. We also learned to shell beans and peas, discovering the pain in your thumb after an hour of shelling. Harvesting okra required use of a sharp knife, and gloves to avoid the irritation of fiberglass-like "fur" on the okra pods. Only older children or adults were allowed to harvest okra.
We ate well through those weeks of harvesting, but the work was not finished. If we were to eat in the winter, the excess harvest would have to be canned or frozen for eating after the garden plants had turned brown. Open shelves in the kitchen quickly filled with quart jars of vegetable soup, tomatoes, corn, beans, peas and cucumber pickles.
I think of those summers 60 years ago as my wife and I settle in to bring our flower beds, shrubs, ground covers, lawn and natural areas back into shape. The flowers are beautiful, the butterflies are delightful and the green landscape is pleasing to the eye. But aesthetics cannot compare to the need, urgency and rewards of a vast vegetable garden in a country setting.
Monday, January 22, 2018
Shutdown is more about politics than budgets
The federal government's shutdown is in its third day today, and the only progress seems to be in the increases in partisan finger-pointing by congressional leaders and the White House. Today's problem is indicative of a much larger, long-range problem with the entire budgeting process, which, as a New York Times article says, is more about partisan sniping than budgeting.
Congress runs into these impasses on a regular basis — annually or more often. The leadership of both parties in Congress appears to be more interested in gaining political advantage than in doing the work they were elected to do. Congress' fundamental responsibility is to pass a budget and appropriate funds for the federal government to operate. In the current environment, this appears to be nearly impossible.
Political leaders and commentators are more interested in which party is winning the public relations battle than in providing the means for carrying out government functions. Major changes too the budgetary process will be needed to prevent the entire legislative process from dissolving into chaos. Changes have been tried before. I was employed by the federal government in Washington in 1974 when Congress extended the 1973-74 fiscal year to 15 months in order to give congressional committees and leaders more time to pass a budget appropriate funds. Instead of having budgeting and appropriations done by July 1, the traditional end of the fiscal year, Congress would have until Oct. 1 to complete the process. That has worked out really well, hasn't it?
Let me offer one simple proposal. Pass a law that cancels the salaries and other payments to all members of Congress any time the budget and appropriations bills are not completed by the beginning of the fiscal year, Oct. 1. I think that motivation might be sufficient to get members of Congress to "do something." The cancellation could even be extended to all elected officials, including the president and vice president, who have assumed roles in the budgetary process.
In the current shutdown, Democrats are hoping voters will rise up against President Trump and his party for opposing a permanent solution for the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) immigrants. Republicans are hoping voters will rise up against Democrats' DACA demands while declining Republicans' agreement on a six-year extension of the popular, bipartisan CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program). Democrats call it the Trump Shutdown. Republicans call it the Schumer Shutdown (after the Senate Minority Leader).
If there is no compromise, it appears to me that Republicans will ultimately gain the advantage. Republicans are offering a long-term deal on CHIP, which, they point out, benefits millions of American citizens, while Democrats are holding out for preferential treatment for less than a million (reportedly) resident non-citizens. The issues are more complicated than that, but most voters will not get into the nuances and will only see the broad outlines. On that basis, the Republicans have the more persuasive argument, as well as the catchier slogan: "Schumer Shutdown."
Congress runs into these impasses on a regular basis — annually or more often. The leadership of both parties in Congress appears to be more interested in gaining political advantage than in doing the work they were elected to do. Congress' fundamental responsibility is to pass a budget and appropriate funds for the federal government to operate. In the current environment, this appears to be nearly impossible.
Political leaders and commentators are more interested in which party is winning the public relations battle than in providing the means for carrying out government functions. Major changes too the budgetary process will be needed to prevent the entire legislative process from dissolving into chaos. Changes have been tried before. I was employed by the federal government in Washington in 1974 when Congress extended the 1973-74 fiscal year to 15 months in order to give congressional committees and leaders more time to pass a budget appropriate funds. Instead of having budgeting and appropriations done by July 1, the traditional end of the fiscal year, Congress would have until Oct. 1 to complete the process. That has worked out really well, hasn't it?
Let me offer one simple proposal. Pass a law that cancels the salaries and other payments to all members of Congress any time the budget and appropriations bills are not completed by the beginning of the fiscal year, Oct. 1. I think that motivation might be sufficient to get members of Congress to "do something." The cancellation could even be extended to all elected officials, including the president and vice president, who have assumed roles in the budgetary process.
In the current shutdown, Democrats are hoping voters will rise up against President Trump and his party for opposing a permanent solution for the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) immigrants. Republicans are hoping voters will rise up against Democrats' DACA demands while declining Republicans' agreement on a six-year extension of the popular, bipartisan CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program). Democrats call it the Trump Shutdown. Republicans call it the Schumer Shutdown (after the Senate Minority Leader).
If there is no compromise, it appears to me that Republicans will ultimately gain the advantage. Republicans are offering a long-term deal on CHIP, which, they point out, benefits millions of American citizens, while Democrats are holding out for preferential treatment for less than a million (reportedly) resident non-citizens. The issues are more complicated than that, but most voters will not get into the nuances and will only see the broad outlines. On that basis, the Republicans have the more persuasive argument, as well as the catchier slogan: "Schumer Shutdown."
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Iraq War was a "Fiasco" with lessons to tell
"Fiasco," a book I've wanted to read for a decade, finally came my way, and I found time to read it. The book is a history of the Iraq War by Washington Post reporter Tom Ricks (a Pulitzer Prize winner), and its title aptly describes the foolishness and incompetence of the political administration that blindly pushed the nation into that war and the military officers who wasted American, allied and Iraqi lives because they failed (with some exceptions) to plan strategically, to understand the country they invaded and to foresee the post-invasion chaos that their decisions caused.
At the end of 2002, members of the George W. Bush administration set their minds on invading Iraq, ousting Saddam Hussein and turning the large, diverse and moderately wealthy country into a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. To justify their plans, they claimed that Saddam had nuclear, chemical and biological "weapons of mass destruction," constituting a clear and imminent danger to the United States and its allies.
It turns out there were no such weapons. Saddam had given up his WMD program years earlier. Administration claims that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks carried out by Al Qaeda should have been clearly seen as false, but the warmongers were determined to take over Iraq for whatever reason, or no reason other than, "we can."
The U.S. military, by far the strongest on Earth, had little problem pushing through Iraq in a matter of days, but no one in the administration had a plan for what would then become of Iraq. Crucial errors were made. The Iraqi army was disbanded, leaving no infrastructure for an orderly transition. The Pentagon insisted that few troops would be needed to conquer and occupy Iraq, despite studies that said hundreds of thousands more troops would be needed. Huge weapons caches filled with artillery shells, mortars, rifles, etc. were bypassed by invading troops in their narrowly focused search for WMD. Those caches would serve as warehouses for insurgents who turned the explosives into improvised explosive devices. These IEDs killed and maimed thousands of U.S. soldiers. Oops! American commanders (with few exceptions) never won the trust of the Iraqi people, thus the insurgency grew more and more powerful.
Fiasco! Debacle! Call it what you will; it has been called the single worst foreign policy decision in American history. Iraq today is, by many measures, worse off than it was before the invasion and is not a "beacon of democracy."
Rick's book, though on used-book shelves (where I found a copy) today, still has lessons for American leaders and American voters. President Trump repeatedly says the U.S. military is in terrible shape and needs billions of dollars more in funding. Military units are suffering, but they are suffering because of the demands being put on our service personnel. We have had troops in Iraq since March 2003. U.S. involvement in the Afghan War has gone on for more than 16 years. Troops are getting out because they have tired of one deployment after another. Politicians and voters are demanding too much of our military personnel. The United States has become a nation that looks to war first, knowing that our wars will be fought by volunteers from low-income families and circumstances. The sons and daughters of the wealthy and powerful will not have to risk their lives. Generals who contribute to fiascos like Iraq are not fired (as several in World War II were); they are given presidential medals.
"Fiasco" is a book well worth reading, and well worth thinking about any time some politician suggests sending U.S. troops into some woebegone country to keep America safe.
At the end of 2002, members of the George W. Bush administration set their minds on invading Iraq, ousting Saddam Hussein and turning the large, diverse and moderately wealthy country into a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. To justify their plans, they claimed that Saddam had nuclear, chemical and biological "weapons of mass destruction," constituting a clear and imminent danger to the United States and its allies.
It turns out there were no such weapons. Saddam had given up his WMD program years earlier. Administration claims that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks carried out by Al Qaeda should have been clearly seen as false, but the warmongers were determined to take over Iraq for whatever reason, or no reason other than, "we can."
The U.S. military, by far the strongest on Earth, had little problem pushing through Iraq in a matter of days, but no one in the administration had a plan for what would then become of Iraq. Crucial errors were made. The Iraqi army was disbanded, leaving no infrastructure for an orderly transition. The Pentagon insisted that few troops would be needed to conquer and occupy Iraq, despite studies that said hundreds of thousands more troops would be needed. Huge weapons caches filled with artillery shells, mortars, rifles, etc. were bypassed by invading troops in their narrowly focused search for WMD. Those caches would serve as warehouses for insurgents who turned the explosives into improvised explosive devices. These IEDs killed and maimed thousands of U.S. soldiers. Oops! American commanders (with few exceptions) never won the trust of the Iraqi people, thus the insurgency grew more and more powerful.
Fiasco! Debacle! Call it what you will; it has been called the single worst foreign policy decision in American history. Iraq today is, by many measures, worse off than it was before the invasion and is not a "beacon of democracy."
Rick's book, though on used-book shelves (where I found a copy) today, still has lessons for American leaders and American voters. President Trump repeatedly says the U.S. military is in terrible shape and needs billions of dollars more in funding. Military units are suffering, but they are suffering because of the demands being put on our service personnel. We have had troops in Iraq since March 2003. U.S. involvement in the Afghan War has gone on for more than 16 years. Troops are getting out because they have tired of one deployment after another. Politicians and voters are demanding too much of our military personnel. The United States has become a nation that looks to war first, knowing that our wars will be fought by volunteers from low-income families and circumstances. The sons and daughters of the wealthy and powerful will not have to risk their lives. Generals who contribute to fiascos like Iraq are not fired (as several in World War II were); they are given presidential medals.
"Fiasco" is a book well worth reading, and well worth thinking about any time some politician suggests sending U.S. troops into some woebegone country to keep America safe.
Thursday, January 11, 2018
Trump doesn't understand libel law
President Trump has again threatened (or promised) to revise U.S. libel laws. He has been harping on this issue since early in the 2016 campaign.
He thinks U.S. libel laws are too lenient, that news media get away with printing falsehoods without having to pay damages to the plaintiff. On Wednesday, Trump again complained about libel laws: “Can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account.We are going to take a very, very strong look at that.”
The president's remarks shows how little he knows about libel laws. Although he has frequently complained about being libeled and has been accused of libeling others, he obviously is unaware that falsehood is one of the elements of a libel lawsuit. Without falsehood, there is no libel.
Four elements must be proven in a successful libel lawsuit: defamation, publication, injury and identification. That is, the plaintiff must show that the particular statement was false and defamatory; that the false statement was "published" to persons other than the plaintiff and defendant, that the plaintiff was injured by the statement (e.g., harm to reputation or business), and that the statement identified the person filing the lawsuit (not necessarily by name). A successful plaintiff must prove all of these elements.
Trump frequently complains that he has been defamed by the "fake media," but he seldom, if ever, tries to show that the contested statement is false. Truth has been a defense against libel judgments in this country since 1736, when printer John Peter Zenger's attorney, Alexander Hamilton, persuaded the jury that Zenger's criticism of the King of England was truthful and therefore exempt from prosecution for libel. Truth has been accepted as a perfect defense in libel cases since then.
The president should also be aware that unlike the Zenger case, which was a criminal libel trial, nearly all libel cases today are not criminal but are civil lawsuits brought by an aggrieved complainant. These lawsuits are ruled by case law, the findings of past courts up to the Supreme Court. Case law has expanded libel defense many times over the past 250 years. Significantly, the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public officials have to prove not only falsehood but also "actual malice" or "reckless disregard of the truth" to win a libel judgment. The Times had published a full-page advertisement (NOT a news story) that defamed an Alabama public official in an ad extolling the civil rights movement and Rev. Martin Luther King. This ruling gave the news media greater latitude to investigate and criticize public officials.
The Sullivan case made it more difficult for public officials to prove libel. Trump probably would like to change that, but he can't do that by executive order or even legislation. The actual malice standard is now constitutional law, and any attempt to change it would have to survive a Supreme Court challenge.
Trump should also be aware that it is very difficult for a plaintiff to win a libel suit over an editorial or other opinion. Courts have ruled that "there is no such thing as a false opinion."
He thinks U.S. libel laws are too lenient, that news media get away with printing falsehoods without having to pay damages to the plaintiff. On Wednesday, Trump again complained about libel laws: “Can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account.We are going to take a very, very strong look at that.”
The president's remarks shows how little he knows about libel laws. Although he has frequently complained about being libeled and has been accused of libeling others, he obviously is unaware that falsehood is one of the elements of a libel lawsuit. Without falsehood, there is no libel.
Four elements must be proven in a successful libel lawsuit: defamation, publication, injury and identification. That is, the plaintiff must show that the particular statement was false and defamatory; that the false statement was "published" to persons other than the plaintiff and defendant, that the plaintiff was injured by the statement (e.g., harm to reputation or business), and that the statement identified the person filing the lawsuit (not necessarily by name). A successful plaintiff must prove all of these elements.
Trump frequently complains that he has been defamed by the "fake media," but he seldom, if ever, tries to show that the contested statement is false. Truth has been a defense against libel judgments in this country since 1736, when printer John Peter Zenger's attorney, Alexander Hamilton, persuaded the jury that Zenger's criticism of the King of England was truthful and therefore exempt from prosecution for libel. Truth has been accepted as a perfect defense in libel cases since then.
The president should also be aware that unlike the Zenger case, which was a criminal libel trial, nearly all libel cases today are not criminal but are civil lawsuits brought by an aggrieved complainant. These lawsuits are ruled by case law, the findings of past courts up to the Supreme Court. Case law has expanded libel defense many times over the past 250 years. Significantly, the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public officials have to prove not only falsehood but also "actual malice" or "reckless disregard of the truth" to win a libel judgment. The Times had published a full-page advertisement (NOT a news story) that defamed an Alabama public official in an ad extolling the civil rights movement and Rev. Martin Luther King. This ruling gave the news media greater latitude to investigate and criticize public officials.
The Sullivan case made it more difficult for public officials to prove libel. Trump probably would like to change that, but he can't do that by executive order or even legislation. The actual malice standard is now constitutional law, and any attempt to change it would have to survive a Supreme Court challenge.
Trump should also be aware that it is very difficult for a plaintiff to win a libel suit over an editorial or other opinion. Courts have ruled that "there is no such thing as a false opinion."
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
Is it time for President Oprah?
I watched Oprah Winfrey's speech at the Golden Globes ceremony, and I have to congratulate her on a rousing, beautifully delivered speech. (I watched the YouTube version, not live.) I've never been mesmerized by Oprah or any other daytime TV star, but I've admired her business and entertainment savvy and appreciate her support for books and authors more than anything else she's done.
Monday's speech kicked off a groundswell, so it seems, for Oprah's presidential bid in 2020. The Democratic Party has no obvious consensus candidate for the next presidential election, so the path seems wide open for Oprah. Her speech shows she knows how to inspire and motivate others. I could vote for her, particularly if her opponent is Donald J. Trump.
But I have some concerns about an Oprah presidency. First of all, I don't think America needs another television celebrity with no governmental experience in charge of the Executive Branch. Sure, Oprah is not at all like Trump, but she shares some of his disqualifications: lack of government experience, lack of government service, and lack of deep knowledge of how to get things done in Washington. Some of the electorate will consider these "disqualifications" as the highest and best qualifications, but putting a novice in charge is highly risky in any venture.
Oprah would be the opposite of Donald Trump in policy making in areas such as civil rights, regulation of private business, immigration, taxation, deficit spending, judicial appointments, foreign policy and authority of the administration. These issues can and should be debated separate from the issues of presidential experience and capabilities. Issue debates will go on regardless of who is elected president in 2020.
One huge positive for Oprah will be her ability to inspire the country. American voters have become cynical, distrusting and dubious about the ability of the federal government to do anything right or do the right thing. An inspirational president could reverse this decades-long trend toward national cynicism and distrust. John F. Kennedy, the most inspiring president of my lifetime, said that he wanted to show young people that politics could be an honorable career choice. JFK was one of only a handful of great inspirational leaders to win the White House, following Jefferson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts and Wilson. (I'm not including Obama in this list; although he could be inspiring, his presidency failed to gain bipartisan consensus, and he is too recently out of office for history to fairly judge him.)
All of these presidents inspired with words, with lofty rhetoric that inspired the public and motivated them to support administration initiatives. Oprah clearly has the rhetorical skills to articulate inspiring messages that could marshal national support. She could be the singular individual who could reverse the long trend toward cynicism and distrust, but she will have to show that she is a skilled administrator as well as a writer and speaker.
Monday's speech kicked off a groundswell, so it seems, for Oprah's presidential bid in 2020. The Democratic Party has no obvious consensus candidate for the next presidential election, so the path seems wide open for Oprah. Her speech shows she knows how to inspire and motivate others. I could vote for her, particularly if her opponent is Donald J. Trump.
But I have some concerns about an Oprah presidency. First of all, I don't think America needs another television celebrity with no governmental experience in charge of the Executive Branch. Sure, Oprah is not at all like Trump, but she shares some of his disqualifications: lack of government experience, lack of government service, and lack of deep knowledge of how to get things done in Washington. Some of the electorate will consider these "disqualifications" as the highest and best qualifications, but putting a novice in charge is highly risky in any venture.
Oprah would be the opposite of Donald Trump in policy making in areas such as civil rights, regulation of private business, immigration, taxation, deficit spending, judicial appointments, foreign policy and authority of the administration. These issues can and should be debated separate from the issues of presidential experience and capabilities. Issue debates will go on regardless of who is elected president in 2020.
One huge positive for Oprah will be her ability to inspire the country. American voters have become cynical, distrusting and dubious about the ability of the federal government to do anything right or do the right thing. An inspirational president could reverse this decades-long trend toward national cynicism and distrust. John F. Kennedy, the most inspiring president of my lifetime, said that he wanted to show young people that politics could be an honorable career choice. JFK was one of only a handful of great inspirational leaders to win the White House, following Jefferson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts and Wilson. (I'm not including Obama in this list; although he could be inspiring, his presidency failed to gain bipartisan consensus, and he is too recently out of office for history to fairly judge him.)
All of these presidents inspired with words, with lofty rhetoric that inspired the public and motivated them to support administration initiatives. Oprah clearly has the rhetorical skills to articulate inspiring messages that could marshal national support. She could be the singular individual who could reverse the long trend toward cynicism and distrust, but she will have to show that she is a skilled administrator as well as a writer and speaker.
Monday, January 8, 2018
Freezing temperatures change behaviors
The unrelenting cold that has punished people from Maine to Florida the past week will recede a bit this week. Or so the forecasters say.
Mild winters have left us complacent and memory-deprived. We don't readily recall the painfully cold days of years past. We want to forget them. We want to forget the aching in our skin and bones, the numbness in fingers and ears exposed to too much cold, the ache in our lungs as we breathe in air so frigid and dry.
All of those aches and pains have shackled us these past several days. Outdoor activities have been canceled. Even walking the dog has been too awful to consider. Despite warm coats, hats and gloves we shiver whenever we venture outside. Even in a home with central heat, we bundle up with sweaters and blankets. We want to be warm!
Inevitably, climate change deniers insist that a cold snap of such intensity proves they are right, and the consensus of the world's scientists are wrong. But intense cold can exist on a warming planet, just as intense heat can exist on a cooling planet. One weather phenomenon says nothing about climate, which is a long-term regional, continental or hemispheric condition.
But this cold snap and the summer's next heat wave do have an impact on environment. Our environment can be inviting or forbidding, and it is changing. Alaska is cold; Florida is hot. But temporary weather conditions can make it feel warm in Alaska and cold in Florida. The environment of a particular place is what we're used to, but it can temporarily change, and that has an environmental impact that goes beyond the temperature of the air.
Consider the economic environment. The cold weather we've recently experienced has had an impact on retail sales and on government services. Few people want to venture out into the icy cold to go shopping, so retail sales lag. Governmental employees may not be able to get to their jobs because of iced-over roads, and services such as garbage collection or building permits or public schools suffer. The neighborhood might look like a "winter wonderland," but the dangers and discomforts of such weather are nothing to sing about.
As we take refuge indoors while the cold still lingers and the temperature remains below freezing, it helps to remind ourselves that the spring equinox is less than two months away.
Mild winters have left us complacent and memory-deprived. We don't readily recall the painfully cold days of years past. We want to forget them. We want to forget the aching in our skin and bones, the numbness in fingers and ears exposed to too much cold, the ache in our lungs as we breathe in air so frigid and dry.
All of those aches and pains have shackled us these past several days. Outdoor activities have been canceled. Even walking the dog has been too awful to consider. Despite warm coats, hats and gloves we shiver whenever we venture outside. Even in a home with central heat, we bundle up with sweaters and blankets. We want to be warm!
Inevitably, climate change deniers insist that a cold snap of such intensity proves they are right, and the consensus of the world's scientists are wrong. But intense cold can exist on a warming planet, just as intense heat can exist on a cooling planet. One weather phenomenon says nothing about climate, which is a long-term regional, continental or hemispheric condition.
But this cold snap and the summer's next heat wave do have an impact on environment. Our environment can be inviting or forbidding, and it is changing. Alaska is cold; Florida is hot. But temporary weather conditions can make it feel warm in Alaska and cold in Florida. The environment of a particular place is what we're used to, but it can temporarily change, and that has an environmental impact that goes beyond the temperature of the air.
Consider the economic environment. The cold weather we've recently experienced has had an impact on retail sales and on government services. Few people want to venture out into the icy cold to go shopping, so retail sales lag. Governmental employees may not be able to get to their jobs because of iced-over roads, and services such as garbage collection or building permits or public schools suffer. The neighborhood might look like a "winter wonderland," but the dangers and discomforts of such weather are nothing to sing about.
As we take refuge indoors while the cold still lingers and the temperature remains below freezing, it helps to remind ourselves that the spring equinox is less than two months away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
