Vol. 2 No. 57 Feb. 16, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Presidents
With Presidents' Day coming up, I suddenly remembered what I thought of doing last Presidents' Day. While looking through last February's papers, although the number of column inches about bedding sales outnumbered articles about Washington and Lincoln by a factor of about five hundred, I found, tucked between the sheets so to speak, a couple of pieces about both men. It occurred to me at the time it would be a great idea to see how our present President (after all, it IS Presidents' Day) stacked up against "Honest Abe" Lincoln and George "I cannot tell a lie" Washington. I figured this could be interesting. The fact I didn't write it tells you something about my work habits. Let's try again.
There is a lot in common between our first president and our 43rd. For example, they both have the same first name. Both men led the country through war, although Washington had a little edge in actual combat experience. Both presidents were great champions of democracy - Washington for the colonies; Bush for Iraq. Both were good at chopping down trees – a hatchet for Washington; a chainsaw for Bush. Beyond this, we find some differences. For one, Washington's vice-president didn't request five deferments from the Revolution nor did Washington himself ever forget exactly where he served his enlistment requirements.
Both Georges were wealthy, but Washington spent most of his own money supporting troops under his command. When Washington spoke of sacrifice, he meant putting his life and property on the line. Mr. Bush also had experience with sacrifices while owning the Texas Rangers. He also learned a lot about bunts, fly balls and losing seasons.
Then there's what I call the Modesty Index. For instance, it's hard to imagine Washington saying "I am the decider," probably because it was so obvious. There is also no record after the Battle of Trenton of his galloping into camp in a twelve-horse carriage to announce the mission was accomplished. This could have been an oversight by Washington's advisors. Look what Washington advisors did to Mr. Bush.
More differences: Washington brought into being a country admired by the whole world for its commitment to justice and fair treatment, despite the cancer of slavery that still had to be overcome. Washington's loyalty, above all, was to the principles later embodied in our Constitution. He would have had trouble with John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales. Of course, he wouldn't have picked either of them in the first place any more than he would have chosen Donald Rumsfeld. Neither Scott McClennan nor Tony Snow would have qualified as Press Secretary on grounds of a seeming inability to compose a truthful sentence. Condoleeza Rice, being female, would not have been considered in those days even if she hadn't been able to look serious while constantly repeating a discredited line of reasoning.
Abe Lincoln, although he abolished slavery, wouldn't have had a chance to defeat George W. Bush in an election because Lincoln had big ears – a fatal blow to getting a nomination. If you doubt this, consider Dennis Kucinich, the congressman from Ohio who, in my judgment, has more brains and better ideas than most of the others running for president combined, but will probably never make the cut for two vital reasons - he has big ears and he's short. Americans don't vote for short. So, even though Lincoln was tall enough, his ears and a high, squeaky voice would have been enough to assure his defeat. Should you be tempted to feel this indicates a certain shallowness on the part of the electorate, check with Karl Rove.
In 2008, we're going to get another opportunity to select a leader. We're not going to have George W. Bush to vote on, but there will be several choices on both the Republican and Democratic sides. We may have a woman on the ballot; we may have an African-American. We may have a former POW, a former mayor of New York City, or somebody we haven't heard of yet. Although the chances of another Washington or Lincoln coming out of the pack are slim, we can increase the odds by ignoring how candidates look or how they sound and concentrate on how they think. Our record in this department isn't particularly good.
Please notice what I'm saying has nothing whatever to do with political parties or whether a person is on the right or the left There are smart, honest people of all political stripes. The trick is to listen carefully and try to find them. It seems to me the best way to honor Lincoln and Washington is to work like mad to locate, help finance and elect a person worthy of the office they so brilliantly held. If we want to be proud of our country, it seems like a good idea to start with pride in its leadership. Let's celebrate Presidents' Day, then, not as a salute to the past, but as a plan for the future. We need all of these we can get.
However, this doesn't mean there isn't time for us to go out and buy a few blankets and pillow cases. After all, they're on sale.
-30-
The Bogus Economist (c) 2007
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Vol. 2 No. 55 Feb 2, 2007
The Bogus Economist
P.A.D.
Part of being a senior at Toms River High School in 1945 was the privilege of taking a course other high schools called “Civics” or “Government” but which Toms River called “Problems of American Democracy,” or simply “P.A.D.” Since TRHS fancied itself at the forefront of New Jersey education - and therefore the world's - P.A.D. was a way of proving it by preparing its students for the rigors of democracy. The course's purpose was for us to discuss, debate, research and generally be aware of the constant challenges we faced in keeping the country as it was meant to be.
P.A.D. was taught by Margery Burd, probably the nicest, smartest and most popular teacher in the school, if not on earth. I looked forward to this class. I had a good time. I learned a lot. I also had a serious crush on Miss Burd.
Now, sixty-one years after my great unrequited love, the biggest Problem of American Democracy seems to be the number of people who are having problems with American Democracy.
Consider TV shows like “Law and Order,” where roughing up a suspect or two is met with cheers from people who presumably support the Constitution, including that thing about cruel and unusual punishment. Of course, some say when it's done often enough, it isn't unusual anymore. I don't think the Founding Fathers had that in mind.
I can hear people even now calling me a sissy and worse for not backing up efforts of law enforcement to teach the bad guys a lesson, even if it means banging their heads against the wall a few times. If we think the guy on the other side of the door is peddling pot, why let a little thing like no warrant keep us from breaking it down? If we're going to keep our citizens safe, then almost anything goes, right? As in many cases, the word “almost” can be tricky.
The Declaration of Independence talks about “inalienable rights” and “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” In those days, these rights were limited to white, relatively well-off male residents of the colonies. But the Founding Fathers said all men, which the courts in modern times have extended to include people of all races, sexes and incomes. I don't see an “almost” here. People picking grapes or being “enemy combatants” deserve the same right to life, liberty, etc. as the rest of us, even though they might not be citizens. This includes a fair hearing if they're accused of breaking the law. Certainly, putting people on trial might involve risk. Who said democracy was safe? Just thinking human rights are subject to debate is a P.A.D.
Moving on to the Constitution, we run into some major “P's” in P.A.D. - freedom of religion, for one. It's hard for many of us who believe our particular belief system is the one, true faith to go along with a government where Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist must be treated exactly the same. It says in the Constitution, “Congress shall make NO law respecting the establishment of religion” and that seems pretty clear. There are many upstanding Americans who'd be happy to see a manger scene with the baby Jesus on the courthouse square, but might oppose a statue of the Hindu elephant-headed god Ganesh or a dancing Lord Shiva. And how about that uneasy feeling some get when confronted with veiled women? Some get the heebie-jeebies when they see beards on Hasidic Jews or turbans on Sikhs. I used to be a little bit fearful of nuns in full habit.
A really big P.A.D. is thinking somebody who is “different” must be a type of subversive. This includes slapping “treason” labels on those who question unthinking actions or blind patriotism. The people who formed this nation spent months debating, questioning and listening before taking the dangerous - some called treasonous - step of breaking away from England.
Another example of a P.A.D. is the way some of us feel about laws. The thinking is, “”Laws are for the other (bad) guys.” I know I'm a good driver - it's that dumb slowpoke I passed who was only going sixty-five who should get pulled over.
Compared to living under a dictatorship, being a citizen of a democracy can be either much, much harder or an absolute piece of cake. People in dictatorships let others do the thinking for them. If we sit back and let things “happen,” don't bother to look at the actions of the people who make our laws and generally can't be bothered with voting, writing our representatives, being active in political affairs and learning about the problems confronting our country, nothing could be easier than being an American. Of course, we might wake up one morning and find our freedom's not there anymore, but at least we'll know we didn't overwork.
A long time ago, a guy named Voltaire said, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it.” In this age of insults and ideological myopia, we may have lost Mr. Voltaire's simple key to the secret of America. This is our greatest P.A.D.
Where are you, Margery Burd, when we need you?
-30-
The Bogus Economist (c) 2007
The Bogus Economist
P.A.D.
Part of being a senior at Toms River High School in 1945 was the privilege of taking a course other high schools called “Civics” or “Government” but which Toms River called “Problems of American Democracy,” or simply “P.A.D.” Since TRHS fancied itself at the forefront of New Jersey education - and therefore the world's - P.A.D. was a way of proving it by preparing its students for the rigors of democracy. The course's purpose was for us to discuss, debate, research and generally be aware of the constant challenges we faced in keeping the country as it was meant to be.
P.A.D. was taught by Margery Burd, probably the nicest, smartest and most popular teacher in the school, if not on earth. I looked forward to this class. I had a good time. I learned a lot. I also had a serious crush on Miss Burd.
Now, sixty-one years after my great unrequited love, the biggest Problem of American Democracy seems to be the number of people who are having problems with American Democracy.
Consider TV shows like “Law and Order,” where roughing up a suspect or two is met with cheers from people who presumably support the Constitution, including that thing about cruel and unusual punishment. Of course, some say when it's done often enough, it isn't unusual anymore. I don't think the Founding Fathers had that in mind.
I can hear people even now calling me a sissy and worse for not backing up efforts of law enforcement to teach the bad guys a lesson, even if it means banging their heads against the wall a few times. If we think the guy on the other side of the door is peddling pot, why let a little thing like no warrant keep us from breaking it down? If we're going to keep our citizens safe, then almost anything goes, right? As in many cases, the word “almost” can be tricky.
The Declaration of Independence talks about “inalienable rights” and “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” In those days, these rights were limited to white, relatively well-off male residents of the colonies. But the Founding Fathers said all men, which the courts in modern times have extended to include people of all races, sexes and incomes. I don't see an “almost” here. People picking grapes or being “enemy combatants” deserve the same right to life, liberty, etc. as the rest of us, even though they might not be citizens. This includes a fair hearing if they're accused of breaking the law. Certainly, putting people on trial might involve risk. Who said democracy was safe? Just thinking human rights are subject to debate is a P.A.D.
Moving on to the Constitution, we run into some major “P's” in P.A.D. - freedom of religion, for one. It's hard for many of us who believe our particular belief system is the one, true faith to go along with a government where Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist must be treated exactly the same. It says in the Constitution, “Congress shall make NO law respecting the establishment of religion” and that seems pretty clear. There are many upstanding Americans who'd be happy to see a manger scene with the baby Jesus on the courthouse square, but might oppose a statue of the Hindu elephant-headed god Ganesh or a dancing Lord Shiva. And how about that uneasy feeling some get when confronted with veiled women? Some get the heebie-jeebies when they see beards on Hasidic Jews or turbans on Sikhs. I used to be a little bit fearful of nuns in full habit.
A really big P.A.D. is thinking somebody who is “different” must be a type of subversive. This includes slapping “treason” labels on those who question unthinking actions or blind patriotism. The people who formed this nation spent months debating, questioning and listening before taking the dangerous - some called treasonous - step of breaking away from England.
Another example of a P.A.D. is the way some of us feel about laws. The thinking is, “”Laws are for the other (bad) guys.” I know I'm a good driver - it's that dumb slowpoke I passed who was only going sixty-five who should get pulled over.
Compared to living under a dictatorship, being a citizen of a democracy can be either much, much harder or an absolute piece of cake. People in dictatorships let others do the thinking for them. If we sit back and let things “happen,” don't bother to look at the actions of the people who make our laws and generally can't be bothered with voting, writing our representatives, being active in political affairs and learning about the problems confronting our country, nothing could be easier than being an American. Of course, we might wake up one morning and find our freedom's not there anymore, but at least we'll know we didn't overwork.
A long time ago, a guy named Voltaire said, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it.” In this age of insults and ideological myopia, we may have lost Mr. Voltaire's simple key to the secret of America. This is our greatest P.A.D.
Where are you, Margery Burd, when we need you?
-30-
The Bogus Economist (c) 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
