Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
We spent some time in the glorious Smoky Mountains. Staying the night just east of Knoxville, we traveled down US 441 from I-40 the next morning. Mile after mile of tourist traps and outlet stores and real estate offices. Most of the time I despise such places, but that day they struck me differently. I saw the tackiness, but it seemed appealing: American opportunism and ambition at work. We even stopped at two of the outlet stores: the wife needed new sandals and I needed a new wallet--since we don't buy Made in China, we must make an effort to find such things, and that day were successful.
The commercial activity ceased as the terrain grew rougher and the ridges higher. Then into the National Park. No entry fee! A free wonder. Green comes in a lot of shades: ferns in the shadows, maples and hemlocks; water drips and flows and falls. We took a few short hikes: within fifty yards of the road the vegetation silenced the motors of our fellow tourists. Steep slopes, high ridges, shadowy ravines, clouds above, below, and all around with occasional rain. The view from Clingman's Dome was grey. When the sun did break through at lower elevations the distant views were blurred by the "smoke" of moisture from the vegetation.
And, "smoke" from pollution. The highest ridges of the park have trees dead from acid rain, much of it caused by automobiles. We are driving ourselves to death. Including my wife and I. Interstate highways are ribbons of individual freedom--get up and go--but do carry costs. We are no longer a nation tied together by steel rails. We really had no choice if we wanted to visit the Smokies and see our son in Georgia, drive we must. When I was a child my father would take my mother and sister and I to the train station in Brookfield, Missouri. We took an early morning passenger train to Kansas City, about a 120 mile trip. After shopping and seeing a medical specialist we returned in the evening. That passenger line runs no more.
The commercial activity ceased as the terrain grew rougher and the ridges higher. Then into the National Park. No entry fee! A free wonder. Green comes in a lot of shades: ferns in the shadows, maples and hemlocks; water drips and flows and falls. We took a few short hikes: within fifty yards of the road the vegetation silenced the motors of our fellow tourists. Steep slopes, high ridges, shadowy ravines, clouds above, below, and all around with occasional rain. The view from Clingman's Dome was grey. When the sun did break through at lower elevations the distant views were blurred by the "smoke" of moisture from the vegetation.
And, "smoke" from pollution. The highest ridges of the park have trees dead from acid rain, much of it caused by automobiles. We are driving ourselves to death. Including my wife and I. Interstate highways are ribbons of individual freedom--get up and go--but do carry costs. We are no longer a nation tied together by steel rails. We really had no choice if we wanted to visit the Smokies and see our son in Georgia, drive we must. When I was a child my father would take my mother and sister and I to the train station in Brookfield, Missouri. We took an early morning passenger train to Kansas City, about a 120 mile trip. After shopping and seeing a medical specialist we returned in the evening. That passenger line runs no more.
Category: General
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I am visiting the LA Bureau of the Bosque Boys this week. In the midst of on-shore breezes and swaying palm trees, I will do my best to keep my ear to the ground in re politics and such--but I make no guarantees.
Iowa straw poll?
Karl Rove?
LAX Computers?
Merv Griffin?
Perhaps some thoughts for public consumption by and by....
Iowa straw poll?
Karl Rove?
LAX Computers?
Merv Griffin?
Perhaps some thoughts for public consumption by and by....
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Driving from Nashville to Knoxville on I-40 I saw an information sign reading "Appalachian Center for Craft" at the next exit. We made the exit and drove the winding 6 miles to the small campus overlooking the Tennessee River.
The Center, a part of Tennessee Tech, brings together students, resident artists, faculty, and regional artisans, to learn and to produce. Web site. While traditional skills are taught and learned, many of the pieces on display and for sale have moved Appalachian artistry into the 21st century. Lots of wonderful stuff. A ceramic bowl from there now sits on our dining room table.
Schools can do wonderful things for communities, and for the nation. Our Land-Grant universities have had tremendous impact in agriculture and engineering. Law Schools shape future judges and politicians. Our national investment in education--going back to colonial days--has made our country a leader in most fields. There is a reason so many foreign students want to attend college in the United States.
But, education is broader than "book learning;" more than learning skills artistic or mental. Education, at least education that is worth while, is also about character formation. It is not enough to have an artistic eye. A student must learn the discipline of working the clay and shaping it. Rejecting attempt after attempt until a satisfying piece is made. Patience and determination as well as skill must be developed. Education cannot be value-neutral. What sort of boys and girls, men and women do your local schools seek to create?
The Center, a part of Tennessee Tech, brings together students, resident artists, faculty, and regional artisans, to learn and to produce. Web site. While traditional skills are taught and learned, many of the pieces on display and for sale have moved Appalachian artistry into the 21st century. Lots of wonderful stuff. A ceramic bowl from there now sits on our dining room table.
Schools can do wonderful things for communities, and for the nation. Our Land-Grant universities have had tremendous impact in agriculture and engineering. Law Schools shape future judges and politicians. Our national investment in education--going back to colonial days--has made our country a leader in most fields. There is a reason so many foreign students want to attend college in the United States.
But, education is broader than "book learning;" more than learning skills artistic or mental. Education, at least education that is worth while, is also about character formation. It is not enough to have an artistic eye. A student must learn the discipline of working the clay and shaping it. Rejecting attempt after attempt until a satisfying piece is made. Patience and determination as well as skill must be developed. Education cannot be value-neutral. What sort of boys and girls, men and women do your local schools seek to create?
Category: Immigration
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
For the record, I never suggested that we swallow whole the ill-fated comprehensive immigration reform package of 2007. However, I have consistently advocated engagement and compromise in the pursuit of a workable immigration solution.
No matter, I clearly warned that obstructionism and an unwillingness to take part in the process would lead to de facto amnesty and a continuation of the less-than-desirable status quo.
But, perhaps I had all that figured wrong. Something is happening.
From the President today:
A Press Release from the WH today in re "Improving Border Security and Immigration Within Existing Law."
The Plan?
--improve border security
--improve interior and worksite enforcement
--streamline and improve existing guest worker and immigration policies and procedures
--extra concentration on assimilation
More details from the WH website here.
Recently the three Republican amigos (Jon Kyle, John McCain and Lindsey Graham) offered tougher, non-comprehensive legislation aimed at meeting the immediate demands of cultural conservatives (story via the Washington Post here). Taken together with the President's policy, this new posture seems to indicate that Republican leaders now understand their mandate: secure the border and crack down on illegal immigrants. After that, anti-illegal-immigration conservatives say we can talk about ways to provide low-wage labor for business needs, carving out paths to citizenship, and humanitarian relief to our undocumented neighbors.
Has the President and Republican Party leaders submitted to the voice of the grassroots? Evidently.
A tougher question: will this new strategy succeed?
Attainment seems uncertain. I retain my doubts that hard-line bills without incentives for immigration liberals can ever gain passage. We'll see. Considering the short-term political climate regarding immigration, however, it is possible to imagine stampeding enough moderate Democrats from heartland congressional districts to vote for a tougher immigration regime. Possible--but still not probable in my view. Such a scenario would require a full-blown rebellion against Nancy Pelosi and an unlikely 60-vote consensus in the Senate.
On the other hand, even a failed effort at hardcore legislation forces rank-and-file Democrats to vote against a wall and other hot-button issues, which will be good politics (at least in the near term). However, that political advantage does nothing to solve the festering national problem.
Time will tell.
No matter, I clearly warned that obstructionism and an unwillingness to take part in the process would lead to de facto amnesty and a continuation of the less-than-desirable status quo.
But, perhaps I had all that figured wrong. Something is happening.
From the President today:
A Press Release from the WH today in re "Improving Border Security and Immigration Within Existing Law."
The Plan?
--improve border security
--improve interior and worksite enforcement
--streamline and improve existing guest worker and immigration policies and procedures
--extra concentration on assimilation
More details from the WH website here.
Recently the three Republican amigos (Jon Kyle, John McCain and Lindsey Graham) offered tougher, non-comprehensive legislation aimed at meeting the immediate demands of cultural conservatives (story via the Washington Post here). Taken together with the President's policy, this new posture seems to indicate that Republican leaders now understand their mandate: secure the border and crack down on illegal immigrants. After that, anti-illegal-immigration conservatives say we can talk about ways to provide low-wage labor for business needs, carving out paths to citizenship, and humanitarian relief to our undocumented neighbors.
Has the President and Republican Party leaders submitted to the voice of the grassroots? Evidently.
A tougher question: will this new strategy succeed?
Attainment seems uncertain. I retain my doubts that hard-line bills without incentives for immigration liberals can ever gain passage. We'll see. Considering the short-term political climate regarding immigration, however, it is possible to imagine stampeding enough moderate Democrats from heartland congressional districts to vote for a tougher immigration regime. Possible--but still not probable in my view. Such a scenario would require a full-blown rebellion against Nancy Pelosi and an unlikely 60-vote consensus in the Senate.
On the other hand, even a failed effort at hardcore legislation forces rank-and-file Democrats to vote against a wall and other hot-button issues, which will be good politics (at least in the near term). However, that political advantage does nothing to solve the festering national problem.
Time will tell.
10/08: Will Iowans heart Huckabee?
According to the conventional wisdom, the Iowa straw poll tomorrow for "Republicans only" is set to launch former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, into a higher echelon of the American consciousness.
I have no quibble with that analysis. In addition to his superior Iowa organization, Romney is the only top-tier candidate contesting the vote tomorrow. He will undoubtedly win the canvass handily. Afterwards, for a fleeting moment, all eyes will be trained on Romney. It is up to the candidate to make the most of that opportunity.
However, tomorrow is also an important day for virtually unknown Republican candidate Mike Huckabee.
If Bill Richardson is the best candidate for the Democratic nomination that you've never heard of, Mike Huckabee is his opposite number.
Kris Kristoferson once said of Billy Joe Shaver (before the Texas songwriter became quasi-famous), "if he were a TV show, he would come on at 4:OO AM." Mike Huckabee has taken over the time slot.
The former governor of Arkansas is funny, true-blue conservative, and engaging, but he is currently in the tall weeds of the GOP primary race.
Will Iowa be the place where Mike Huckabee emerges?
Crazier things have happened.
Why might Iowa be kind to the former governor?
Mike Huckabee, an Baptist minister turned politician, ought to play well in Peoria. He is an authentic son of the heartland and a candidate that genuinely embodies the values of evangelical America. Remember Iowa is the place that briefly created an air of viability for Pat Robertson in 1988.
If Huckabee cannot gain traction tomorrow in Ames, he most likely becomes merely an obscure footnote in American presidential election history. However, I would not be shocked if Mike Huckabee did well enough on Saturday to make him worth talking about on Sunday. A GOP electorate in search of an appealing conservative could do worse.
UPDATE: Sorry I missed this excellent profile of Huckabee from Roger Simon of the Politico (worth reading: here).
I have no quibble with that analysis. In addition to his superior Iowa organization, Romney is the only top-tier candidate contesting the vote tomorrow. He will undoubtedly win the canvass handily. Afterwards, for a fleeting moment, all eyes will be trained on Romney. It is up to the candidate to make the most of that opportunity.
However, tomorrow is also an important day for virtually unknown Republican candidate Mike Huckabee.
If Bill Richardson is the best candidate for the Democratic nomination that you've never heard of, Mike Huckabee is his opposite number.
Kris Kristoferson once said of Billy Joe Shaver (before the Texas songwriter became quasi-famous), "if he were a TV show, he would come on at 4:OO AM." Mike Huckabee has taken over the time slot.
The former governor of Arkansas is funny, true-blue conservative, and engaging, but he is currently in the tall weeds of the GOP primary race.
Will Iowa be the place where Mike Huckabee emerges?
Crazier things have happened.
Why might Iowa be kind to the former governor?
Mike Huckabee, an Baptist minister turned politician, ought to play well in Peoria. He is an authentic son of the heartland and a candidate that genuinely embodies the values of evangelical America. Remember Iowa is the place that briefly created an air of viability for Pat Robertson in 1988.
If Huckabee cannot gain traction tomorrow in Ames, he most likely becomes merely an obscure footnote in American presidential election history. However, I would not be shocked if Mike Huckabee did well enough on Saturday to make him worth talking about on Sunday. A GOP electorate in search of an appealing conservative could do worse.
UPDATE: Sorry I missed this excellent profile of Huckabee from Roger Simon of the Politico (worth reading: here).
While traveling through Nashville we stopped to see the Hermitage, Andrew Jackson's plantation home. Old Hickory built himself quite a house; a two-story mansion furnished Philadelphia furniture and French wallpaper.
On one level, Jackson's life is a classic American rags-to-riches story. Born poor in the Carolina's, moved West to seek his fortune, practiced law and traded and rose in local society until he became a planter; serving in the militia then the Regular Army, he became a national folk-hero for his courage and success. As a political leader he championed the ordinary man against the elites. Ironic, some might say, given that he had risen into elite status himself. Opportunistic, some more cynical might assert, using common-man rhetoric to further his own ambitions. I think, though, Jackson believed his own words, and truly wanted to keep America the land of opportunity.
When Andrew Jackson championed the rights and liberty of the common man, he meant, of course, the common white man. He owned slaves; their labor made his lifestyle possible. Field hands lived near the fields they tilled, and household slaves lived near the big house, ready to answer the bells from the back-porch summoning them to meet the needs of their masters. Champion of Liberty and Owner of Slaves: was he a hypocrite? Not in the context of his time. His generation, and those before, understood Liberty to mean different kinds of liberty for different kinds of folks, depending on their ability for self-government. White men with full liberty followed by white women then children with blacks below. Does that make Jackson a racist. Sure, by modern standards. Although I would call his racism a "soft" racism: that is, I know of no evidence that he hated blacks and practiced cruelty toward slaves because they were black. Indeed, the slaves at the Hermitage lived better than most slaves in the area, and probably not below the conditions of many poor whites. This is not to condone slavery, but to attempt to understand our past.
Jackson, the Indian fighter, also was the man who adopted an orphaned Indian boy. He and Rachel raised him like a natural-born son. Contradictory? Seemingly so. Jackson believed in American expansion, and forced the powerful southern tribes west of the Mississippi. Yet he himself seemed to believe that he was doing them a favor as well as gaining opportunity for whites; that the only way the tribes could be preserved was to remove them from contact with whites.
The irony that strikes me today is that Jackson, a hero in his home state of Tennessee and admired throughout the South, gave one of the mortal wounds to the idea that America was a nation of states rather than a nation-state. When South Carolina rebelled during his presidency over taxation, Jackson forced her to remain in the Union with believable threats of violence. "Our Federal Union, it must be preserved."
On one level, Jackson's life is a classic American rags-to-riches story. Born poor in the Carolina's, moved West to seek his fortune, practiced law and traded and rose in local society until he became a planter; serving in the militia then the Regular Army, he became a national folk-hero for his courage and success. As a political leader he championed the ordinary man against the elites. Ironic, some might say, given that he had risen into elite status himself. Opportunistic, some more cynical might assert, using common-man rhetoric to further his own ambitions. I think, though, Jackson believed his own words, and truly wanted to keep America the land of opportunity.
When Andrew Jackson championed the rights and liberty of the common man, he meant, of course, the common white man. He owned slaves; their labor made his lifestyle possible. Field hands lived near the fields they tilled, and household slaves lived near the big house, ready to answer the bells from the back-porch summoning them to meet the needs of their masters. Champion of Liberty and Owner of Slaves: was he a hypocrite? Not in the context of his time. His generation, and those before, understood Liberty to mean different kinds of liberty for different kinds of folks, depending on their ability for self-government. White men with full liberty followed by white women then children with blacks below. Does that make Jackson a racist. Sure, by modern standards. Although I would call his racism a "soft" racism: that is, I know of no evidence that he hated blacks and practiced cruelty toward slaves because they were black. Indeed, the slaves at the Hermitage lived better than most slaves in the area, and probably not below the conditions of many poor whites. This is not to condone slavery, but to attempt to understand our past.
Jackson, the Indian fighter, also was the man who adopted an orphaned Indian boy. He and Rachel raised him like a natural-born son. Contradictory? Seemingly so. Jackson believed in American expansion, and forced the powerful southern tribes west of the Mississippi. Yet he himself seemed to believe that he was doing them a favor as well as gaining opportunity for whites; that the only way the tribes could be preserved was to remove them from contact with whites.
The irony that strikes me today is that Jackson, a hero in his home state of Tennessee and admired throughout the South, gave one of the mortal wounds to the idea that America was a nation of states rather than a nation-state. When South Carolina rebelled during his presidency over taxation, Jackson forced her to remain in the Union with believable threats of violence. "Our Federal Union, it must be preserved."
10/08: In the Year 2525
It is August in the South--and it is hot. This week Atlanta is "hot-lanta."
Further evidence of global warming?
Not in itself. I heard Rush Limbaugh say yesterday that the hottest decade of the last century was the 1930s. Is that true? Perhaps. From what I read, it was evidently pretty hot and dry. The "Dust Bowl" and all that.
Bear Bryant's hellish mini-camp at Junction is a legend near-and-dear to the hearts of most Texas football fans (Aggies especially). The ten-day ordeal took place in 1954 in the midst of a horrific six-year heat wave and drought in the Texas Hill County. The temperature reached the century mark on every tortuous day of the football encampment, and, according to legend, several days saw temperatures in the one-hundred-teens.
Is it hotter this summer than ever before? Probably not.
What I hate most about the current global warming debate is the politicization and hysteria. That is, I just don't trust the people who are the most adamant and apocalyptic in their warnings that we face a crisis of epic proportions. They are the same folks who brought us the Great Society, social engineering, political correctness, and unilateral disarmament.
They are also persons who have cried wolf too often.
On the other hand, the basic concept of good stewardship and prudential long-term planning makes good sense. We ought to be concerned about the future. Perceptive thinkers have fretted about limited resources since Malthus and Benjamin Franklin.
The predicament: Finite resources and exponential population growth equals a problem at some point in human history. Thus far, dramatic advances in technology and an amazingly dynamic and productive economic system have outpaced the inherent difficulty --and made the Malthusian predictions of scarcity during the nineteenth century the butt of modern derision.
However, do we really think that this planet will sustain 10 billion people? Twenty billion? Thirty billion? Do we think the United States will sustain a billion? Two billion? Do we think the American Southwest can continue to meet its water needs in perpetuity?
Does it alarm anyone other than me that we have become accustomed to a luxuriously abundant lifestyle that is predicated on an expanding economy, which is dependent on a growing, building, and expanding civilization, which requires the creation and infusion of more and more inhabitants into an environment with finite resources. There are limits. Where those limits actually exist--perhaps no one can say with certainty. However, undoubtedly, there must be a point at which our demand for potable water, breathable air, and fossil fuels to run our modern world exceeds the planet's capacity to offer them up.
A question for another day: what happens when and/or if the lights go out for good?
Further evidence of global warming?
Not in itself. I heard Rush Limbaugh say yesterday that the hottest decade of the last century was the 1930s. Is that true? Perhaps. From what I read, it was evidently pretty hot and dry. The "Dust Bowl" and all that.
Bear Bryant's hellish mini-camp at Junction is a legend near-and-dear to the hearts of most Texas football fans (Aggies especially). The ten-day ordeal took place in 1954 in the midst of a horrific six-year heat wave and drought in the Texas Hill County. The temperature reached the century mark on every tortuous day of the football encampment, and, according to legend, several days saw temperatures in the one-hundred-teens.
Is it hotter this summer than ever before? Probably not.
What I hate most about the current global warming debate is the politicization and hysteria. That is, I just don't trust the people who are the most adamant and apocalyptic in their warnings that we face a crisis of epic proportions. They are the same folks who brought us the Great Society, social engineering, political correctness, and unilateral disarmament.
They are also persons who have cried wolf too often.
On the other hand, the basic concept of good stewardship and prudential long-term planning makes good sense. We ought to be concerned about the future. Perceptive thinkers have fretted about limited resources since Malthus and Benjamin Franklin.
The predicament: Finite resources and exponential population growth equals a problem at some point in human history. Thus far, dramatic advances in technology and an amazingly dynamic and productive economic system have outpaced the inherent difficulty --and made the Malthusian predictions of scarcity during the nineteenth century the butt of modern derision.
However, do we really think that this planet will sustain 10 billion people? Twenty billion? Thirty billion? Do we think the United States will sustain a billion? Two billion? Do we think the American Southwest can continue to meet its water needs in perpetuity?
Does it alarm anyone other than me that we have become accustomed to a luxuriously abundant lifestyle that is predicated on an expanding economy, which is dependent on a growing, building, and expanding civilization, which requires the creation and infusion of more and more inhabitants into an environment with finite resources. There are limits. Where those limits actually exist--perhaps no one can say with certainty. However, undoubtedly, there must be a point at which our demand for potable water, breathable air, and fossil fuels to run our modern world exceeds the planet's capacity to offer them up.
A question for another day: what happens when and/or if the lights go out for good?
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The other day, Barry-s Head intimated that I might have a man crush on the President. Today, Barry-s wonders if my "contrarian bent is at work here-- would [the Farmer] support 43 if he had a 95% approval rating? Or is it [Farmer's] inclination to support the President no matter what (as in the earlier post on his theoretical support for H-44)? Or is it because 43 is Republicanish?"
As I have said before, my affinity for the President is admitted and well-documented.
For a one-stop-shopping post that delves deeply into this subject, you might start here.
But, in a few words, Barry-s is on to something in re my natural "contrarianism." While I am a big fan of the combined wisdom of the ages, I am inclined to buck the conventional wisdom of the moment; it is often facile, myopic and hyperbolic.
If you listen to the mob, George Bush is:
--stupid
--another Hitler
--the worst president in US history
--prosecuting a war in the interest of Halliburton, big oil and revenge for his father
--filling the courts with right-wing jurists intent on taking away all our liberties
--sitting atop an administration intent on taking away all our liberties
--the puppet of corporate America
--unprecedentedly partisan
--unprecedentedly secretive
--presiding over the worst economy of a generation
I can prove empirically that none of those common accusations are valid. Nevertheless, these incendiary and patently false "truisms" define Bush's term as president for many Americans.
Whether on the playground, or on the blogosphere, I have always attempted to resist the "tyranny of the majority" and work toward a degree of objectivity and fairness.
Objective Analysis
The truth is Bush has made some mistakes and made some bad moves. The truth is that all presidents have always had vociferous opponents who believed that the Republic was in danger as a result of his excesses.
The truth is that this President--like the vast majority of his predecessors--loves America, is doing the best job that he can, and deserves our support.
The truth is that the Presidency is a very tough job (perhaps it has even become an impossible job).
The Good News for radical Bush-loathers: We get the chance to change leaders every four years. The Constitution says that this particular president is finished in less than seventeen months, at which time we will install a new head of state.
The Bad News for radical Bush-loathers: The next president is NOT going to be radically different from this one.
Post Script: In answer to Barry-s last query, of course, I possess an extra degree of understanding and sensitivity for members of my own political tribe. This is human nature. That is, I am inclined to give my guy the benefit of the doubt--and feel for him more.
But we can watch me in the years to come to see if I keep to my pledge to support the next president--regardless of her party affiliation.
As I have said before, my affinity for the President is admitted and well-documented.
For a one-stop-shopping post that delves deeply into this subject, you might start here.
But, in a few words, Barry-s is on to something in re my natural "contrarianism." While I am a big fan of the combined wisdom of the ages, I am inclined to buck the conventional wisdom of the moment; it is often facile, myopic and hyperbolic.
If you listen to the mob, George Bush is:
--stupid
--another Hitler
--the worst president in US history
--prosecuting a war in the interest of Halliburton, big oil and revenge for his father
--filling the courts with right-wing jurists intent on taking away all our liberties
--sitting atop an administration intent on taking away all our liberties
--the puppet of corporate America
--unprecedentedly partisan
--unprecedentedly secretive
--presiding over the worst economy of a generation
I can prove empirically that none of those common accusations are valid. Nevertheless, these incendiary and patently false "truisms" define Bush's term as president for many Americans.
Whether on the playground, or on the blogosphere, I have always attempted to resist the "tyranny of the majority" and work toward a degree of objectivity and fairness.
Objective Analysis
The truth is Bush has made some mistakes and made some bad moves. The truth is that all presidents have always had vociferous opponents who believed that the Republic was in danger as a result of his excesses.
The truth is that this President--like the vast majority of his predecessors--loves America, is doing the best job that he can, and deserves our support.
The truth is that the Presidency is a very tough job (perhaps it has even become an impossible job).
The Good News for radical Bush-loathers: We get the chance to change leaders every four years. The Constitution says that this particular president is finished in less than seventeen months, at which time we will install a new head of state.
The Bad News for radical Bush-loathers: The next president is NOT going to be radically different from this one.
Post Script: In answer to Barry-s last query, of course, I possess an extra degree of understanding and sensitivity for members of my own political tribe. This is human nature. That is, I am inclined to give my guy the benefit of the doubt--and feel for him more.
But we can watch me in the years to come to see if I keep to my pledge to support the next president--regardless of her party affiliation.
Recently my wife and I took a trip to Georgia to see the son in the Navy. This post and others to follow will offer random thoughts from our travel.
American radio is too homogenized. FM radio from Oklahoma to Georgia and back was pretty much the same. "Country" stations played the same stuff in Tennessee and South Carolina. "Urban" stations all sounded alike. "Classic Rock" (aka Geezer Rock) played the same rotations. Depressing. Coming into Memphis on the first night I vainly scanned the FM dial for some "Memphis Music;" you know, blues or even Rockabilly. No luck. AM radio has some regional variety: usually I could find one AM station playing music I associated with its locality--"Mountain Music" in the hills, older Country near Nashville, etc.
In only a couple of short stretches could I pick up no Spanish-language radio.
Along the Interstate we had to look for regional cuisine amid the McDonald's and Arby's and Flying J's. We were able to find local, independent places, but had to look for them.
When did we begin the process of eroding regional cultures in America? With the Sears & Roebuck catalog or the A&P Grocery? Later with the radio networds? Earlier as we developed from a nation of states into a nation-state? I am not so foolishly romantic as to wish for regional cultures to come back in all their details, but I think we are losing something.
I did find that regional accents remain. Tennessee has at least three. Viva localism.
American radio is too homogenized. FM radio from Oklahoma to Georgia and back was pretty much the same. "Country" stations played the same stuff in Tennessee and South Carolina. "Urban" stations all sounded alike. "Classic Rock" (aka Geezer Rock) played the same rotations. Depressing. Coming into Memphis on the first night I vainly scanned the FM dial for some "Memphis Music;" you know, blues or even Rockabilly. No luck. AM radio has some regional variety: usually I could find one AM station playing music I associated with its locality--"Mountain Music" in the hills, older Country near Nashville, etc.
In only a couple of short stretches could I pick up no Spanish-language radio.
Along the Interstate we had to look for regional cuisine amid the McDonald's and Arby's and Flying J's. We were able to find local, independent places, but had to look for them.
When did we begin the process of eroding regional cultures in America? With the Sears & Roebuck catalog or the A&P Grocery? Later with the radio networds? Earlier as we developed from a nation of states into a nation-state? I am not so foolishly romantic as to wish for regional cultures to come back in all their details, but I think we are losing something.
I did find that regional accents remain. Tennessee has at least three. Viva localism.
09/08: Fred Who?
The zeitgeist this week seems to be that Fred Thompson has tarried too long and perhaps missed his window of opportunity, while Mitt Romney is finally catching fire and coming into his own as a candidate.
Frankly, I have the same feeling.
In truth: We are just not going to understand the impact of Fred Thompson's entry into this race until he enters the race (assuming that he, indeed, will throw his hat into the ring, to which I am starting to have my doubts).
More significantly, the malaise hanging over the GOP race is a sense of impending doom in November 2008. This dread is not so much a result of inferior candidates; rather, it is the certainty that our electoral chances are inextricably linked to our success in Iraq. However, the glimmer of hope breaking across the Republican horizon in re Iraq may shine a more attractive light on our current crop of contenders.
A more successful Iraq would bode well for John McCain, if he weren't hopelessly damaged beyond all redemption with GOP primary voters--but McCain seems truly beyond resuscitation.
That leaves Rudy, who remains atop the national surveys among Republicans and continues to run strong in national polls among all voters.
Undoubtedly, Mitt Romney is finding his voice. His success in the upcoming Iowa straw poll will offer him his moment of maximum exposure. From what I can see--he is ready. It is conceivable that Romney might take this moment to emerge as the frontrunner and never look back. I must admit that I am increasingly sympathetic to him.
However, I continue to have serious doubts. Romney is running as an "outsider." I remain skeptical that the Republicans can win a national election as the party of new ideas. Will anyone buy that at this point?
For a lot of reasons, the Republicans remain in a fix.
Frankly, I have the same feeling.
In truth: We are just not going to understand the impact of Fred Thompson's entry into this race until he enters the race (assuming that he, indeed, will throw his hat into the ring, to which I am starting to have my doubts).
More significantly, the malaise hanging over the GOP race is a sense of impending doom in November 2008. This dread is not so much a result of inferior candidates; rather, it is the certainty that our electoral chances are inextricably linked to our success in Iraq. However, the glimmer of hope breaking across the Republican horizon in re Iraq may shine a more attractive light on our current crop of contenders.
A more successful Iraq would bode well for John McCain, if he weren't hopelessly damaged beyond all redemption with GOP primary voters--but McCain seems truly beyond resuscitation.
That leaves Rudy, who remains atop the national surveys among Republicans and continues to run strong in national polls among all voters.
Undoubtedly, Mitt Romney is finding his voice. His success in the upcoming Iowa straw poll will offer him his moment of maximum exposure. From what I can see--he is ready. It is conceivable that Romney might take this moment to emerge as the frontrunner and never look back. I must admit that I am increasingly sympathetic to him.
However, I continue to have serious doubts. Romney is running as an "outsider." I remain skeptical that the Republicans can win a national election as the party of new ideas. Will anyone buy that at this point?
For a lot of reasons, the Republicans remain in a fix.
