Category Archives: Politics

Donald Trump and the Hell’s Angel

Bernie Sanders, the replacement Democratic nominee in 2016? (Can you say “October Surprise?”)

* * * *

Have you heard? Hillary Clinton is so concerned about her slipping poll numbers that she’s had secret talks with Bernie Sanders. It seems that if it starts looking like Donald Trump will actually get elected, she’s prepared to abdicate. She’ll see to it that Bernie becomes the Democratic nominee. That’ll be her version of the 50-year tradition of “October Surprises.”

By the way, I just made that up.

On the other hand, you are now free to say “I read it on the Internet, so it must be true!” (Bonjour!) Which brings up the fact I was originally going to call this post, “Hillary wins in a landslide!” But recent events put the kibosh on that idea.

My idea was: The “landslide” could occur in one of two ways. First of course Hillary might – might have? – get or have gotten elected this November. (Even if only in the Electoral College. See The Electoral College – 2016. ) The other possibility – I thought – was that if “The Donald” really got elected, Hillary could go back to the Senate in 2018, repair her image, and in 2020 re-appear as the Democratic candidate. (Heck, she might even do the “I told ya so” dance…)

But of course, that’s assuming Donald Trump turns out to be as bad a President as his political enemies expect. For myself, I’m trying to take the broader view. (The broader view that “the Republic” will survive, no matter who becomes the next president.)

Put another way, no matter who wins the election, he or she won’t be able to do nearly as much damage as his or her political enemies say. (Mostly because whatever the outcome, the next president will face rabid opposition from at least 35 to 40 percent of the American electorate.)

Taking that broad view – the Republic will survive no matter who wins – is admittedly hard.

But for one thing, consider this: We’ve survived an actor as president, not to mention another actor as governor of California, and a professional wrestler as governor of Minnesota. (See Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Jesse Ventura.)

So how bad could it be to have a businessman as president?

And incidentally, here’s what Wikipedia said about Ventura’s term as governor: “Lacking a party base in the Minnesota House of Representatives and Senate, Ventura’s policy ambitions had little chance of being introduced as bills.” But that’s a whole ‘nother subject.

Getting back to the possibility of Trump as president, consider the Federal Bureaucracy:

Over 16 million full-time workers now administer federal policy, including 1.9 million federal civilian workers, 1.5 million uniformed military personnel, and 850,000 postal workers.

Oddly enough, that thought gave me great comfort back in 1974. That was during the dark days of Richard Nixon’s impeachment. I knew Nixon was inherently paranoid, and it worried me no end that he was the one man in the country with his “finger on the trigger.” (Especially faced with the possibility of going down as the first president to be impeached and convicted.)

What gave me great comfort was the sheer size of the Federal Bureaucracy. I figured that with so many Federal employees bent on protecting their own turf, that massive bureaucracy would act as a sort of ongoing, self-perpetuating mechanism – if not a self-guided mechanism – no matter what kind of wacko the president turned out to be.

Which brings up the connection between Donald Trump and that “Hells Angel.”

Years ago I read a book by Hunter Thompson: Hell’s Angels: A Strange and Terrible Saga. The original version was published in 1966, long before Thompson became a caricature of himself. And I’ve long considered it both a classic of pure investigative journalism and a fertile source of mind-jangling metaphoric connections. (See for example, On the wisdom of Virgil – and an “Angel.” )

And so it was – just the other day – when I read some stories about Hillary’s slide in the polls. That raised the possibility that Trump might actually be “our” next president. (See also That OTHER “Teflon Don.”) For whatever reason, that possibility became associated – in my mind – with an episode in Thompson’s book on the Hell’s Angels.

Chapter 16 started off with a lengthy quote from Rebel Without a Cause. (More precisely, the quote was from the book on which the James Dean movie was based. Specifically, Robert M. Lindner‘s book published in 1944. Thompson quoted Linder’s definition of psychopath.)

The main text of Chapter 16 started with, “On a run everybody gets wasted.” Then – among other things – Thompson talked about habits “widespread in outlaw society,” including “tricks you pick up from drinking in bars when you’re broke.”

As an example, Thompson told the story of a Hell’s Angel who visited a non-Angel friend, and while there went to use the bathroom. While in the bathroom, he looked through the medicine cabinet. He found a bottle of orange pills “that looked like Dexedrine,” which he promptly gobbled up. Later he confessed to his host, but only after he started feeling sick:

[H]e had taken a massive dose of cortisone, a drug well known for [its] unpredictable reactions and weird side effects. The man whose pills had been eaten was not happy and told the Angel he would probably break out in a rash of boils and running sores that would keep him in agony for weeks. On hearing this, the outlaw nervously retired to whatever bed he was using at the time. The boils never came, but he said he felt sick and week and “queer all over” for about ten days. When he recovered, he said the incident had taught him a valuable lesson: he no longer had to worry about what kind of pills he ate, because his body could handle anything he put into it.

When I first read that – 30 or 40 years ago – I was flabbergasted by the “lesson learned.” To me that lesson should have been: Don’t take the &^%$ unknown pills in the first place!

Which leads me to this lesson on what will happen if Donald Trump is elected. Some people will say: “We shouldn’t have elected him in the first place!” But others will likely say this: “We learned a valuable lesson. We no longer have to worry about who we elect as president. No matter what kind of clown we elect, our body politic will be able to handle it!”

For that matter, some may say the same thing if Hillary gets elected…

* * * *

Hobbes‘ metaphor of a “body [politic] formed of a multitude of citizens…”

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Bring Back Bernie Sanders. Clinton Might Actually Lose. (Huffington Post.) Which means that I wasn’t the first to come up with this idea of “Sanders as replacement.” See also It’s Time To Bring Back Bernie (September 12, 2016, 9:30 p.m).

Re: “Self-guided mechanism.” The phrase is based on the book by Maxwell Maltz, first published in 1960, Psycho-Cybernetics. See also On sin and cybernetics, in my companion blog.

For a related story, see On the wisdom of Virgil – and an “Angel.”

Re: Hells Angels. See also the Wikipedia article.

Re: “October surprise.” I Googled that term and got over 16 million results. (16,400,000 to be exact.)

Re: “Internet … must be true.” The “Bonjour” image is courtesy of ‘French model’ turns heads as hottest TV-ad star du jour. See the full commercial at French Model Commercial … YouTube.

Re: “‘Told ya so’ dance.” See the one I’m referring to at Will & Grace: Told Ya So Dance. – YouTube.

The “Ventura” image is courtesy of Jesse Ventura 2016 For President.

Also re: Jesse Ventura. According to Wikipedia, Ventura “had no respect” for Vice President Dick Chene: “a guy who got five deferments from the Vietnam War. Clearly, he’s a coward. He wouldn’t go when it was his time to go. And now he is a chickenhawk… And he’s the guy that sanctioned all this torture by calling it ‘enhanced interrogation.'” He added, “it’s a good thing I’m not president because I would prosecute every person that was involved in that torture,” during the “Bush II” administration.

Re: The movie Rebel Without a Cause. Wikipedia noted the “title was adopted from psychiatrist Robert M. Lindner‘s 1944 book, ‘Rebel Without a Cause: The Hypnoanalysis of a Criminal Psychopath.’ The film itself, however, does not reference Lindner’s book in any way.” From Thompson’s book:

The psychopath, like the child, cannot delay the pleasures of gratification… [H]is egotistical ambitions lead him to leap into headlines by daring performances. Like a red thread the predominance of this mechanism runs through the history of every psychopath.

If that sounds familiar, see Former Obama aide calls Trump a ‘psychopath.’ But consider this from the “other side of the aisle:” Donald Trump’s Simple Solutions to Tough Problems: “Trump is an example of the Stupid Psychopath Problem.” That was posted last March in the National Review.

The lower image is courtesy of Body politic – Wikipedia. The full caption: “The cover of Hobbes’ Leviathan famously portrays the metaphor [of a ‘body politic’] by showing a body formed of a multitude of citizens which is surmounted by a King’s head.”

On the Chilkoot &^%$# Trail! – Part 1

Leave a reply

As noted in my last post, I just got back – last August 29 – from a trip that began on July 26.

That’s when my brother and I started the drive from Utah to Whitehorse, Yukon Territory. Four days later – on Friday, July 29 – we met up with my nephew, fresh out of the Army.

In due course, my brother and I – alone and aged 70 and just-turned-65 – paddled our canoes “‘up’ the Yukon River.” (440 miles in 12 days.)

But first, we two brothers – joined by our nephew-son – hiked the Chilkoot Trail. (See Naked lady on the Yukon.) And to hike the Trail you have to start in Skagway, Alaska. (Above left, the day we arrived.) I also noted that people call the Chilkoot Trail the “meanest 33 miles in history.”

Also in Naked lady on the Yukon, I posted this news flash:*

There’s a reason [why] they call it the “meanest 33 miles in history.” I’ll be detailing that little jaunt in a later post. (To be titled, “On the Chilkoot &$%# Trail!”)

And so, here it is – drum roll please – my blog-post on the Chilkoot &$%# Trail!

First of all, note the picture at the top of the page. It includes an easy-to-miss orange pole. (You see them marking the “trail.” The one in the photo above is to the hiker’s right – the viewer’s left – and “up the trail” a bit.) Note also: There doesn’t seem to be a “trail” anywhere around, either in the top photo or the ones below. Just one big pile of &$%# rocks after another.

So now you’re getting a feel for “hiking the Chilkoot.”

More background: Before doing the hike I learned that the trail actually started in Dyea, Alaska. (It ends in Bennett, British Columbia.) I also learned that Dyea is actually pronounced “DIe-eeee,” perhaps prophetically. (As in, “that’s what you feel like doing once you get on the &$%# Trail!”)

Further, the Chilkoot was a major access route – from “DIe-eeee” to the Yukon goldfields – in the Klondike Gold Rush of 1896–99. That gold rush “transformed the Chilkoot Trail into a mainstream transportation route to Canada’s interior.”

And I learned that the only other route to the gold fields was through White Pass. (Up to 1899, when a railroad was built from Skagway to the Yukon.) As to which route was better, a pioneer – Mont Hawthorne – said there really was no choice: “One’s hell. The other’s damnation.”

13 Dead Horse Gulch A side note: White Pass was also called “Dead Horse Trail,” apparently renamed by Jack London: “Nearly 3,000 pack animals died. Drivers rushing over the pass had little concern for beasts. Exhausted horses starved, were hurt on rough ground, became mired in mud and fell over cliffs.”

Which also gives you a feel for “hiking the Chilkoot.”

And finally – after the fact and back at the Westmark Hotel, Whitehorse – I saw a plaque about the Trail. It noted that every Klondike “stampeder” had to haul a year’s supply of food – 2,000 pounds – up and over the Chilkoot Pass. “This often took 35 to 40 trips up and back down.” Further, the last 1,000 feet of the climb “took an average of 6 hours with a loaded pack.”

Which made me feel better about my performance – detailed below – but only after the fact. (On Tuesday – August 2, the day we climbed over the pass itself – we averaged a little over half a mile an hour. Which turned out to be not too bad, historically speaking.)

By then I’d already developed a host of blisters, one of which – a blister-on-a-blister on my right heel – got infected. It was still throbbing – from time to time – and didn’t fully heal until well after two weeks of canoeing and then six days driving back home from Dawson City. (I’m sure the 12 days of feet being wet and cold 11 or 12 hours a day canoeing on the Yukon didn’t help.)

But we digress…

I packed a notebook for the hike – which lasted four days – and duly made an entry at 8:32 p.m., August 1. (Day 1 of the hike.) But then I didn’t make any more entries until August 4, when we finally got to the railroad station at Bennett. There I noted: “I wrote no more until we reached Bennett, on the 4th day. Too [&$%#] tired and late arriving on the 2d day. And the 3d.”

There’s more on those second and third days below.

But on the first day we made Sheep Camp: “13 miles or so – nobody seems sure of the miles – by 7:30 p.m.” That included crossing the swaying footbridge, à la Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. (There’s a picture from the movie in the notes below.) There’s more on that in Part 2, but unfortunately, I’m now approaching the limit of the ideal length for a blog-post. (No more than 1,200 words.*) So, I’ll wrap up “Part 1” with a story relating to the photo below.

I took the photo on Day 4, when we finally reached the railroad station at Bennett. But it relates back to an incident that occurred on the second – the worst – day of the “Trail.”

We were approaching the summit of the Chilkoot Pass. (Slowly in general and especially slowly for me.) What with my lack of depth perception, going over “one big pile of *&$% rocks after another” was like negotiating a minefield. I wore heavy hiking boots, but they felt like ballet slippers. Every step was sheer torture, and brought new pain to each aching foot.

I had just taken one of many missteps – especially bad that day – and let loose a string of pungent epithets. Then I looked behind me and there – climbing “personfully” behind me – was this sweet young thing. Sheepishly I apologized, noting that I had “no depth perception.”

She went ahead and passed me. (And probably rolled her eyes in the process…)

A short while later I had another misstep – again, the “Trail” is sheer torture for someone with only one good eye – and let loose another string of pungent epithets. I looked behind me again, and there was a young couple, including another “sweet, innocent young thing.”

So I said to myself, “Hey, I may be on to something here!”

Unfortunately I tried it a few times later on the trail, but my magic formula didn’t work. (On the other hand there I did see that “Naked lady on the Yukon,” 10 days later, on August 12…)

The point being that on the forth day of the ordeal, most of the people who’d been hiking the Trail met up on again at the railroad station in Bennett. There was only one train, at 3:15, so all us hikers had a chance to sit on something besides rocks, and pitch our tents to dry out. (It had rained the night before.) Including the young lady I’d insulted on Day 2…

But before we got to the end of the trail, I had to experience the phantom pack phenomenon – weaving and rolling like a drunken sailor – and slip and slide down a glacier or two. Then I got to the point where “if I could have cried I would.” (Hey, I’m secure in my masculinity.)

And finally, we got to take part in a little parade. (See On the Chilkoot &^%$# Trail! – Part 2.)

* * * *

One of many happy hikers who finished the Chilkoot Trail at Bennett, B.C.

* * * *

Unless otherwise noted, the images in this post – including the photos at the bottom and top of the page – are ones I took during the aforementioned “hike.” (More like sheer torture…) Also, an asterisk (“*”) in the main text indicates that a word or two of explanation will be made in these notes.

For example, the “news flash” image is courtesy of www.dralionkennels.com/newsflash.

Re: “One’s hell. The other’s damnation.” The quote is from The horror of the White Pass Trail | Yukon News. Also, “Dead Horse Trail” was also known as Dead Horse Gulch. The photo accompanying the paragraph is courtesy of the Yukon News.

Re: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. See also happyotter666.blogspot.com, which included the image at left, of a bridge like the one we crossed on the Chilkoot’s second day of hiking.

Re: Ideal length of a blog-post. See How Long Should My Blog Posts Be? (Suggested length, 800-1,200 words.) But see also The Ideal Length for All Online Content – Buffer Blog, indicating a preferred post-length of 1,600 words.

Re: “The end of the trail.” The link-quotation notes that the “trail is the thing, not the end of the trail. Travel too fast and you miss all you are traveling for.” I could have used that quote both on the Chilkoot Trail and again on the Yukon River, when I was always “slow ship in the convoy.” See e.g. The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Convoys: “The convoy can only advance at the speed of the slowest merchant ship in the convoy, which negates the speed advantage of the faster ships.”

I could have used that little quote too, if only to ease my own own mind…

On the Chilkoot &^%$# Trail! – Part 2

Leave a reply

* * * *

Okay, it wasn’t quite as bad – crossing that “swinging bridge” the first day on the Chilkoot Trail – as it was for Indiana Jones in the photo above. (For example, we hadn’t been “cornered by Mola Ram and his henchmen on a rope bridge high above a crocodile-infested river.”)

But that second day on the Trail was pretty &^%$ bad… In case you hadn’t noticed, this continues Part 1 of “On the Chilkoot &^%$# Trail!” We left Part 1 with we three – brother, nephew and I – all having made Sheep Camp by 7:30 p.m. on the first day of the hike.

13 miles or so – nobody seems sure how many – by 7:30 p.m… That included crossing the swaying footbridge … à la Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

(Reprised in the photo above right.) Part 1 also included the tale of a “young thing” I managed to insult on the second day of the hike – approaching the summit of Chilkoot Pass – and how most or all us hikers met up again – on the fourth day – waiting for the 3:15 train back to Skagway.

But I had to cut it short – and make this a two-parter – because I was “approaching the limit of the ideal length for a blog-post.” (About 1,200 words.) So now, back to Day 1 of the hike.

On Monday August 1, we left the trailhead – near “Die-eee” – at 9:00 a.m. We made Sheep Camp by 7:30 that night, and after getting situated I managed to write a little something in the notebook I’d packed. I wrote: “I’m shivering as I’m writing. I’ve been sweating all day despite the cool 68-degree temps. And now it’s turning cool, so I’m shivering.” I then added:

There were many times – many times – today when I wondered what the hell I was doing here. And that this was just too far to go in one day. And I like hiking at my own pace. Rather than always bringing up the rear… So today was the tough one, as far as miles traveled. “Only” eight miles, but we’ll be climbing the Pass [tomorrow]. BTW: I just had my fifth swallow of “O be joyful.”

So here’s another side note: “O Be Joyful” was our code-word for ardent spirits. We started packing them – in past canoe trips, like down the Missouri River from Fort Benton, MT – as a way of following in the footsteps of Lewis and Clark, and other American pioneers.

You see, back in the old days of our country, whiskey – for example – was used instead of hard currency:

One of the first media of exchange in the United States was classic whiskey. For men and women of the day, the alcohol did more than put “song in their hearts and laughter on their lips.” Whiskey was currency. Most forms of money were extremely scarce in our country after the Revolutionary War, making monetary innovation the key to success.

See Why Whiskey Was Money, and Bitcoins Might Be. So it was in that spirit – primarily – that I took a flask of “O be joyful” along on the Chilkoot. Be that as it may, after I wrote, “I just had my fifth swallow of ‘Oh be joyful,’” I then added, “Which helps a lot.”

(I wasn’t so sure about the “song in my heart and laughter on my lips…”)

Also on the evening of August 1st, I wrote that the campground was more crowded than I expected. And that in the audience – listening to a lecture by a ranger when we arrived – there were some cute women, but “romance is the last thing on my mind tonight.”

(Which itself was telling…) I concluded, “Altogether a good day. I had my doubts, which were justified in a way, but ‘we’ came through. Albeit with me bringing up the rear the whole day.”

On that note, I “brought up the rear” the next day as well, and for pretty much the rest of the hike.

Which brings up the fact that hiking the Chilkoot Trail is sheer torture for someone – like me – with only one good eye and and thus no depth perception.* And that applied even on the relatively smooth parts of the trail, like the section shown at right.

Also – as mentioned in the notes – anyone hiking the trail is advised that if they have to get airlifted out, the cost will be a cool $28,000.00. Which brings up another point rangers make in the process of getting your permit to hike the trail: Watch out for the bears!

For one thing, the general rule is “no chow in your tent.” Each camp has a tented-in dining facility,* and there – and only there – are you supposed to eat. Eating on the trail can be messy, and the usual solution for crumbs or spills is to wipe the stuff off on your pants. But bears have an extremely keen sense of smell, and so some crumbs in your pocket or syrup from a snack-cup on your pants could lead to an extremely unpleasant midnight visit.

But for me the message distilled down to this: You don’t have to be faster than the bear. You only have to be faster than the others in your party. (Which of course spelled trouble for me…)

But once again we digress… The point is that eventually – in our case, the second day – we got past the smooth parts of the trail and began approaching the summit. It got so bad for me – after we got up and over the summit – that first my brother and then my nephew left their packs ahead and came back and carried my pack for a while. Which led to its own problems. Much like the phantom limb phenomenon, the “phantom pack” syndrome leaves you disoriented. Especially when negotiating “one big pile of *&^% rocks after another,” you end up walking like the proverbial drunken sailor, weaving to and fro.

Finally – after much anguish – you get to and over the summit. But as noted, things don’t get any easier. There – on the other side of the summit of Chilkoot Pass – were at least three “glaciers,” or ice-fields. (Like the one at right.) My first reaction was: “Great! Nice smooth snow to walk on!”

But these glacier-slash-ice-fields were just as treacherous, though in a different way. My fellow hikers hadn’t relieved me of my pack yet, so walking on the slippery snow led to several falls.

It got so bad that finally I stayed down – on the snow-slash-glacier – and slip-slid to the end. That got my pants and boots thoroughly wet in the process, but at least – for a moment or two – I wasn’t struggling over “one big pile of &^%$ rocks after another.”

Somewhere in there I slipped and fell on some rocks, banging my right knee enough that by Thursday, at Bennett, that area of my jeans was covered with crusted blood.

Which leads to my confession – I “do not deny, but confess” – that there were times on the Trail when if I could have cried I would. (But that wouldn’t have helped the pain in my feet, or made the journey any shorter.) Which brings us to the late afternoon and evening of the second day.

Along with the usual “one big pile of &^%$ rocks after another” – and the three “glaciers” noted above – the other side of the pass featured a seemingly-endless series of streams and/or rivulets like the one at left. They too were beautiful, but treacherous. (I was going to say “like some women I know,” but decided against that.)

I know my brother took a spill or two – and got an infected elbow as a result – but mostly because he told me so later.

And as far as I know my nephew did okay crossing the many “beautiful but treacherous” streams, but not from any personal observation. He – and my brother as well – were usually so far out in front of me that I often lost sight of them.

Then it started getting dark.

Back at the hotel in Skagway – before we left – it was still light as late as 10:00 p.m. Therefore – I deduced – we should have plenty of hours to hike on the Trail. But for some reason it got darker earlier on the Trail, which meant that by 7:00 p.m. or so my brother started getting worried. The result was that in the fullness of time – just in time – we had a little parade.

To make a long story short, my brother went ahead the couple of miles to Happy Camp, dropped his pack and hiked back to where I was. He carried my pack for a bit, then some strapping young lad showed up. He – the strapping young lad – had heard someone at Happy Camp talk about my struggles, and decided to come back and help. (Apparently we – or at least I – became quite a conversation piece around Happy Camp that night…)

So the strapping young lad carried my pack a while – “jabbering all the way,” my brother said – and finally my nephew came back. He had also dropped his pack at Happy Camp and then he carried my pack the final mile and a half. That was my brother’s recollection.

All I remember is that along about 7:30, I could see some people on the Trail ahead of me. Eventually I limped up to where my brother and nephew were. Also there were the aforementioned “strapping young lad,” along with a nice white-haired Canadian ranger lady who called me by my name. (They keep tabs on all hikers on the Trail.)

From that point, we all set off toward Happy Camp. The nice ranger-lady followed behind me, engaging me in conversation. (Probably trying to keep my mind off my aching feet.) So, eventually we all made it to Happy Camp, and that’s how we “had a little parade.” But this time I wasn’t bringing up the rear. (For once.)

On that note – and as described in Campgrounds of the Chilkoot Trail:

Happy Camp is the only campground on the Chilkoot Trail in the alpine… Happy Camp owes its name to the relief prospectors (and hikers) experienced from arriving at the first outpost after the pass. The camp is situated in a true alpine ecosystem and receives heavy use because of its location.

Personally, I can vouch for the “relief” part. And it got better. (At least for that night.)

Happy Camp shelter Apparently the nice white-haired Canadian ranger lady felt sorry for us. (Or at least for me.) So she let the three of us use her personal shelter tent. That is, she said she had to get up early the next morning for some meeting elsewhere on the Trail, so she’d stay in main – wooden – shelter at Happy Camp, shown at left.

That meant the three of us didn’t have to set up our tents in the waning light of that second day on the Trail.

It also meant that two of us got to sleep on cots. (My nephew slept on his air mattress on the floor, despite my saying I’d sleep on the floor. But I made it up to him – for carrying my pack – by splitting two six-packs of beer once we got back to Skagway, as described elsewhere.) And finally, the nice white-haired Canadian ranger lady brought us each a juice-box.

And a sweeter nectar I’ve never tasted.

Wooden tent platforms among trees in front of a lake From that point the rest of the hike is a blur. I know we made it next day to the campground at Bare Loon Lake. (Which included numerous tent platforms like the ones at right.)

And I know that that left only four miles to do the next day, Thursday, to get to the railroad station at Bennett. And that rangers and other hikers kept saying the Trail would get easier and smoother “a mile or so further along.”

But it never happened. At least not until a mile or so from the station, when the Trail got wide and sandy. In fact the Trail at that point was pretty much like walking on the beach. Which of course presented its own different challenges, but at that point I wasn’t complaining. (Much.)

Thursday, August 4, 1:20 Alaska Time. We’re at the Bennett railroad station. Got here at 12:05 AT. I’ve set up my tent to dry it off – it rained last night – and heated up some water… Spilled some walking back across the tracks. (“No open fires.”) But there was enough left over to make hot coffee. For the first time since Monday morning. The right knee of my jeans is covered with blood. The ankle areas are dried mud. I have two or three large blisters, one each inner heel, that have already popped. And one large blister on the right big toe that looks about to pop. Huge! But right now the world looks great!

That’s what I wrote in the notebook I’d packed, writing in it for the first time since Monday. So there – at the railroad station that would remain unmanned until the 3:15 arrived – the right knee of my jeans was crusted with dry blood. And my feet were blistered and beyond sore.

Which is another way of saying they don’t call the Chilkoot Trail “the meanest 33 miles in history” for nothing. Meanwhile, I had one final point to be made. I made it via email – to the folks back home – once the three of us got back to Skagway: “I used up my quota of expletives for the next couple of years, so any prayers in my direction would help immensely.”

So now, to paraphrase that great philosopher, Forrest Gump:

“That’s all I have to say about the Chilkoot &$%# Trail!”

that's all i have to say about that - that's all i have to say about that Forrest Gump

* * * *

Unless otherwise noted, the images in this post – including the photos at the bottom and top of the page – are ones I took during the aforementioned “hike.” (More like sheer torture…)

For example, the image at the top of the page is courtesy of happyotter666.blogspot.com. See also Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom – Wikipedia, which provided the “cornered” quote.

Re: “O be joyful.” See also Definition of oh be joyful – Online Slang Dictionary, and/or O-be-joyful – 17 of the Finest Words for Drinking.

Re: Whiskey and other “ardent spirits” used as currency. See also TTB.gov Alexander Hamilton And The Whiskey Tax: “small farmers on the young Nation’s western frontier in the Appalachian Mountains, often distilled whisky from their surplus corn crop. This whisky was then often used as a form of currency on the cash-strapped frontier.”

Re: “No depth perception.” As illustrated by the image at right – courtesy of lookfordiagnosis.com – imagine trying to negotiate “one big pile of &^%$ rocks after another,” with no depth perception. And while trying maintain enough speed to keep up with your brother and nephew, while seeing the “piles of &^%$ rocks” as a blur. (As in the background at right.) And with the full knowledge that one bad move – one twisted knee or ankle – will cost you a cool $28,000 to get airlifted out. (That’s what they told us in Skagway when we got our permits. Meaning it’s happened often enough that they have the figures down pat.)

Re: “No chow in your tent.” The photo at left – courtesy of Campgrounds of the Chilkoot Trail – Wikipedia – shows both a “dining shelter” in the background, and in the foreground a ranger at Sheep Camp giving a lecture like the one in the main text. Also, “Rangers recommend 7.5 to 10 hours for a group to travel from Sheep Camp to Happy Camp.” We took longer than that…

Re: “Called Me by My Name.” The allusion is to a song by David Allan Coe. (Which – incidentally – is one of my signature karaoke songs.) The photo shows Coe on stage in 2009. It is not intended to refer in any way to the “nice white-haired Canadian ranger lady.” That nice white-haired Canadian ranger lady should – in my estimation – be elevated to sainthood, along with Mother Teresa.

Re: The juice boxes and “sweeter nectar.” My brother said his was grape juice, but I could have sworn that mine was “raisin.” I remember thinking that it was such an odd flavor for a juice box, but I couldn’t find any such flavor on the internet. (Or maybe I was in a state of delirium.) One thing I do know: No matter what the flavor, that juice box – at that point in time – was delicious!

The lower image is courtesy of that’s all i have to say about that – Forrest Gump – quickmeme.

On the Electoral College – 2016

Leave a reply

Here’s how the the U.S. looked in 2012, according to votes in the Electoral College…

* * * *

Did you know that a candidate for president could get only 40% of the popular vote, yet get 59% of votes in the Electoral College? (Thus “winning?”) It’s happened before, as noted below.

Which brings up some confusion I felt a few mornings ago, after the first day of the Republican convention. The confusion was about just who is leading in the polls, Hillary or Donald?

For an example, see Pick a poll: Is the race tied, or is Clinton beating Trump? As that article noted: “It all depends on which national polls you believe.” Which makes this as good a time as any to bring up the subject of the Electoral College:

Citizens of the United States do not directly elect the president or the vice president; instead, these voters directly elect designated intermediaries called “electors” … who are themselves selected according to the particular laws of each state.

(See Wikipedia.) Which is another way of saying the candidate who gets the most popular votes doesn’t necessarily become president. (Think “President Al Gore.”)

President Harry Truman holds up the Chicago Daily Tribune headline trumpeting his "defeat" in the 1948 presidential election. Then there’s the fact that polls aren’t necessarily accurate.

For example, in 1948 “every major political poll predicted a landslide victory for Thomas Dewey.” (For the history-challenged, Truman won.) See also the article about such electoral colleges in general, which added:

In the 19th century and beyond, it was usual in many countries that voters did not directly vote the members of parliament. In Prussia for example, in 1849–1918 the voters were Urwähler (original voters), appointing with their vote a Wahlmann (elector)… Such indirect suffrage was a means to steer the voting, to make sure that the electors were “able” persons… The left wing opposition was very much opposed to indirect suffrage.

Which could be another way of saying the powers that be – which for America includes some Founding Fathers, like at right – “didn’t trust the average voter.” (And some would say – from recent trends – that they had a point. See Founding Fathers, Trust Issues and the Popular Vote.)

But we digress… So just in case I’m being too subtle, there are a couple points here. One is that those “popularity polls” don’t necessarily mean very much. The other is that what really counts is – are? – the votes in the Electoral College.

The problem is: Determining the votes in the Electoral College can be a bit tricky.

On the other hand, the present situation in the Electoral College does seem to favor Hillary. See for example Welcome to the general election: Where did Hillary’s cakewalk go?

Democrats looking for a cakewalk win over Trump in November may eventually get it. The electoral college strongly favors Clinton. And Trump is always a step away from a total meltdown. But in an election in which Americans are disgusted with their choices, anything can happen and a Trump presidency is a real possibility.

The key passage – emphasized – is that the “electoral college strongly favors Clinton.” Which seems to be true even though the election may come down to which candidate the voters dislike least. In other words, the election may come down to choosing “the lesser of two weevils.” (As noted in Independent Voter.)

For another take on the problem, see Don’t Worry About The Electoral College Math. Among other things, that article noted that while the Electoral College effectively votes “state by state,” there are few if any purely state polls which can reliably show how a state’s electoral delegates will vote.

On the other hand, there’s 270toWin.com, with the trademark, “This isn’t a popularity contest.”

That site shows electoral votes by state. (Which is – after all – what really matters.) And that brings up the time in American history where one candidate for president got only 40% of the popular vote, yet won 59% of votes in the Electoral College.

That guy’s name was Abraham Lincoln, and in the presidential election of 1860, he won only 40% of the popular vote. (The rest were split between John C. Breckinridge, John Bell and Stephen A. Douglas.) However, Lincoln won 180 Electoral College votes, out of a possible 303. (Thus his “magic number” was the152 electoral votes needed to win.)

The amazing thing in that election is that Lincoln lost the Solid South – updated at right – but won what might be called the “Solid North.” (In 1860, those states generally above the Mason-Dixon line and/or the Ohio River.)

And a side note: Back in 1860, Lincoln’s “for sure” votes in the Electoral College included New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Those three states had 35, 27 and 23 electoral votes, respectively, for 85 of the total 152 needed for victory. Which means that those three states alone accounted for almost 60% of the total Abraham Lincoln needed to become president in 1860.

For purposes of comparison – and as updated to the present time – New York state seems “solidly blue,” along with Pennsylvania. Ohio seems to be one of those swing states, but one big difference – compared to 1860 – is California. In 1860, California had only four votes in the Electoral College, but today that state has 55. And it too seems “solidly blue.”

Which means that Hillary seems to start out with a solid 104 votes in the Electoral College. (29, 20 and 55, respectively.) Which – along with the beginning – is a “very good place to start.”

That in turn seems similar to the beginning of that other American Civil War. (Where one side “looked much better on paper. But many factors undetermined at the outbreak … could have tilted the balance sheet toward a different outcome.”) But once again we digress…

I’ll be exploring the 2016 presidential election in future posts. In the meantime, one final note:

This may be the last post I’ll publish for awhile, or the next five weeks. Next Tuesday – July 26 – I’ll be heading north to Skagway, Alaska. From there I’ll spend four days hiking the Chilkoot Trail. (The “meanest 33 miles in history.”) Once that’s done, my brother and I will spend 16 days canoeing down the Yukon River, from Whitehorse to Dawson City.

Assuming I survive all that, I should be back in business some time after August 29.

But stay tuned. There may well be “further bulletins as events warrant!”

(See the cartoon below…)

This guy got 40% of the popular vote, but 59% of the electoral votes…

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Electoral College (U.S.) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. BTW: There is a movement afoot to pass a “National Popular Vote” bill. That would “guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the entire U.S.” See National Popular Vote.com

The “news flash” image is courtesy of www.dralionkennels.com/newsflash.

Re: “Pick a poll.” The article said – among other things – that “Trump’s negatives remain sky-high and higher than Clinton’s, and the GOP brand is horrible (and much worse that the Democratic brand).” See also Myra Adams: How Does Trump Win 270 Electoral Votes?

If we do see Donald Trump push the white vote up into 63-64%, it suggests that as whites move towards minority status that they become more aware of their whiteness, and it plays into politics. It is a disheartening and dangerous trend, but it might be something we don’t have any control over… He has no other path to victory.

The “Dewey Defeats Truman” image is courtesy of the link 5 Historic Presidential Campaign Collapses, in the web article How the Electoral College Works | HowStuffWorks. (“Dewey Defeats Himself.”)

Re: President Al Gore. See also Al Gore: Electoral College System Needs National Popular Vote Plan. But see also Would Al Gore Have Won in 2000 Without the Electoral College? (Not to mention Famed third-party candidate [Ralph Nader] accused of ruining election for Al Gore in 2000 says Bernie [Sanders] shouldn’t run as independent.)

The Founding Fathers image is courtesy of quotesgram.com.

Re: “Left wing opposition … opposed to indirect suffrage.” They might be changing their minds now…

The “lesser of two weevils” image is courtesy of pinterest.com. See also Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World – YouTube, Lesser of Two Evils – TV Tropes, Reader Opinion: Clinton v Trump and “the lesser of two weevils, Master and Commander: A Movie Review – Maccabee Society, and/or Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World – Wikipedia.

The actual expression of course is the “lesser of two evils.” See Idioms …Free Dictionary.

Re: “magic number.” That term is also defined online as a “figure regarded as significant or momentous in a particular context.”

The comparison in Electoral College votes – between 1860 and 2016 – was gleaned from sources including 270toWin.com, and RealClearPolitics – Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls.

Re: The beginning of the Civil War, in which “one side ‘looked much better on paper,'” etc. See Strengths and Weaknesses: North vs. South [ushistory.org]

Re: “Further bulletins as events warrant.” See Calvin and Hobbes Comic Strip, October 25, 1986:

Calvin and Hobbes

The lower image is courtesy of United States presidential election, 1860 – Wikipedia. The caption: “Black and white portrait photograph (bust) of Abraham Lincoln taken immediately after Lincoln’s nomination.” The article noted that voter turnout was 81.2%, “the highest in American history up to that time, and the second-highest overall (exceeded only in the election of 1876).”

For some recent historical perspective, voter turnout in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections was 61.6% and 58.2%, respectively.

Other notes from the presidential election of 1860: To be precise, Lincoln won only 39.8% of the popular vote. His closest competitor – in terms of popular votes – was Stephen Douglas. Douglas got 1,380,202 popular votes, or 29.5 percent of the total, compared to Lincoln’s 39.8%. However, Douglas’ million-plus popular votes translated to only 12 votes in the Electoral College.

* * * *

And speaking of voter turnout, see The Americans: The National Experience, by Daniel J. Boorstin. Boorstin indicated that political parties were originally designed – in part – to increase voter turnout, though the blessings of that change seem to be mixed.

Near the end of his book, Boorstin wrote about the “novel institution of a party ticket.” (429) The idea – of voting along party lines – originally stirred opposition from political idealists. For example, one editor in 1790 wrote, “We want no Ticket Mongers.” (Emphasis in the original.) And in 1800 a Connecticut Federalist “attacked the whole ‘detestable practice of electioneering.”

But the practice – which eventually led to our two political parties today – proved “too useful for office-seekers, and too entertaining to voters.” (E.A.) Which brings up the matter of political conventions. Boorstin wrote that in its original form – before today’s system of voting in primaries – political conventions “concentrated party strength” and increased the chances of victory. Also in their original form, party conventions were held only at the state and county level. It was not until 1832 that national conventions – like we have now – “were for the first time held by all the major parties that offered candidates for president.” See page 430, which also included this thought:

So long as problems of American political life remained compromisable, the political parties were the great arenas of compromise. When this ceased to be true, the nation itself would be on the brink of dissolution; and then the political parties, like the nation itself, would have to be reconstructed.

And it seems that we may be seeing that Reconstruction “even as we speak.” See Sick Of Political Parties, Unaffiliated Voters Are Changing Politics.

See also Five myths about independent voters – Washington Post. Among the findings: “Independents are more turned off than partisan voters by negative campaign ads;” “Most independents are socially liberal, fiscally responsible centrists, but some are also libertarians and far-left progressives;” and 60% of Independents “agree with the Republicans on some things, such as the economy and national security, and with the Democrats on social issues.” (The red-blue voting booth image is courtesy of the Sick Of Political Parties article.)

“The Coming Fury?”

Leave a reply

NY Post's Shameful 'Civil War' Cover On Dallas

Did someone mention The Coming Fury – first book of Bruce Catton‘s Civil War Trilogy?

* * * *

My last two posts noted a recent 10-day family road-trip north, via “convoy:”

Three cars, carrying five adults and seven younger folk, ranging in age from 10 to 22. Among other places, we’ll be visiting Valley Forge, the Liberty Bell and Philadelphia in general… Last but not least we’ll see Hershey PA … “The Sweetest Place On Earth.”

7096 For five nights of that 10-day trip, we all stayed with my aunt in Wilmington. Her three-story house is pretty much a museum, and a much-loved place to visit. (By nephews, great-nieces and -nephews, and other relatives through marriage.)

Nowhere is that “museum-ness” more evident than on the third floor. The third floor was pretty much my aunt’s private “penthouse” when she was young. (My grandparents stayed on the second floor.) She was an avid reader then, and a great collector of books. Which means that now the third floor of her home resembles nothing so much as a library.

And so, late one night that last week of June, in Wilmington, I sat relaxing on the third-floor bed – topped by an air mattress – sipping a bottle of Rolling Rock. It was then that my eyes lighted on a Bruce Catton book I hadn’t read. I have read – and pretty much loved – all his other CW books. But that night, I saw “Bruce Catton,” on a thick, hard-cover book, and the unread title, The Coming Fury.

I was hooked from the first page.

Catton began by describing the first of two 1860 Democratic National Conventions, with the arrival of William L. Yancey. (At left.)

It seems that certain “fire-eaters” – like Yancey – didn’t care if they caused a “split convention.” The result? A host of Democrat-delegates walked out of the convention. (In essence, a revolt that split the party.) That virtually guaranteed the opposition candidate – Abe Lincoln – would be elected.

All of which may sound familiar to modern ears. That is, what caught my eye – in reading the beginning of The Coming Fury – was the way Catton’s writing seemed to foreshadow some of the surprises that may well be coming at this summer’s Republican convention:

The delegates might look for a safe middle ground [and] work out some sort of compromise that would avert a split in the party and nation; or they might listen to extremists, scorn the middle ground, and commit all of America to a dramatic leap into the dark.

In 1860, it was the Democrats who saw their party literally split in two. (Thus virtually guaranteeing the election of a candidate they didn’t want.) In 2016, it may be the Republicans who experience a delegate revolt, and thus a split party. (See also karma.)

The first 36 pages of Coming Fury led up to Part Four of Chapter One, “The Party is Split Forever.” (A quote from Alexander Stephens – at right – after a friend said “things might be patched up” at the second, “rump” Democratic convention in Baltimore.) Then at pages 78-80, Catton explored some of the reasons behind the split in the party.

He began by saying the choices made at the two competing Democratic conventions “came at least in part out of a general, unreasoned resentment against immigration and the immigrant.” (E.A.)

[By 1860,] Americans both North and South could see that something cherished and familiar was being lost. Looking back only a few years, it was easy to see a society where … everyone thought, spoke and acted more or less alike, living harmoniously by a common tradition.

Which is being interpreted: “Some things never change.” Aside from that, if anyone in 1860 had thought about it, they might have come up with a catchy slogan like “Make America Great Again.” (That is, a call to “return the country to its previous glory.”)

However (as Catton wrote), that cherished vision of the past – “singularly uncomplicated and unworried … simple and self-sustaining” – seemed to be on the verge of disappearing:

Revolutionary change was taking place everywhere … and people who liked things as they had been found the change abhorrent. Furthermore, it seemed possible that newcomers were at least partly responsible for the change… Germans, Irish, French, Italians, men of new tongues and new creeds and new folk ways, cut adrift from Europe… It was easy to feel they were corrupting the old America. (E.A.)

(79-80) Which may be another way of saying that a large group of people who hadn’t been free – before – were about to get freedom for the first time in their lives.

But then and now, such a change in the status quo scares a lot of people. As Catton wrote, “To fear change meant to fear the alien – the man who looked and talked and acted differently, and who therefore was probably dangerous.” (80) Which helped give rise to the fire-eaters noted above. (Defined in part as “extremists who did much to weaken the fragile unity of the nation.”)

Which brings up the subject of “splitting” in another context.

In Independent Voter, I noted the phenomenon of “splitting,” a personality disorder also called “black and white thinking:”

Splitting … is the failure in a person’s thinking to bring together the dichotomy of both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism used by many people. The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual’s actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground).

It’s also known as cognitive distortion, or or “all-or-nothing thinking.” And as noted, it’s a common defense mechanism that seems to be getting commoner and commoner these days.

joe-walsh-defends-tweet Which means that in times of great stress, people are more prone to say really hurtful, unproductive or downright stupid things. (Like ex-congressman Joe Walsh, at right.)

But my personal theory is that resorting to cliches, canned responses, and/or downright stupid remarks – in times of great stress – simply “beats the heck out of having to think!”

So in times of great stress – like we’ve seen in the last week or so – one option is to say something really stupid and/or counterproductive, like “This is now war!” Or you can sheathe your sword – metaphorically or otherwise – and stop adding fuel to the fire.

After all, who wants to start another American Civil War?

Or as that great philosopher Henry Ford once put it (offering a better solution):

Don't find fault, find a remedy... poster

In other words, “Be a part of the solution, not part of the problem…”

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of NY Post’s Shameful ‘Civil War’ Cover On Dallas | Crooks and Liars. (Although there was a literal plethora of internet sources available: See for example New York Post Recklessly Hypes ‘Civil War’ After Dallas Shooting (Huffington Post), and New York Post Blares Dallas Police Killings Set Off ‘CIVIL WAR‘” – from the Talking Points Memo website – which described the Post as an “infamous tabloid, known for its inflammatory headlines.”)

The book-cover image is courtesy of The Coming Fury by Bruce Catton — Reviews, Discussion. References to the text are from the are from the 1961 hard-cover Doubleday and Company edition, “The Centennial History of the Civil War, Volume 1.”

Re: “Fire-eaters.” Here’s a quote I found working on this post, but misplaced the cite:

James M. McPherson suggested in Battle Cry of Freedom that the “Fire-eater” program of breaking up the convention and running a rival ticket was deliberately intended to bring about the election of a Republican as President, and thus trigger secession… Whatever the “intent” of the fire-eaters may have been, doubtless many of them favored secession, and the logical, probable, and actual consequence of their actions was to fragment the Democratic party and thereby virtually ensure a Republican victory.

The “success-failure” image is courtesy of Why Black or White Thinking May be Keeping Keep Your Clients Stuck: “I don’t know about you, but ‘Black or White’ or ‘All or Nothing’ thinking is one of the commonest issues I see with my coaching clients. When a client is stuck – it’s often because they are looking at the world through this Black or White thinking filter…”

(“The Coaching Tools Company.com is based on Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada. Launched in March 2009 … our goal is to inspire coaches and help spread the positive impact of coaching throughout the world. We do this by helping coaches get established, grow their clients, grow their skills and grow their businesses.”)

On that subject, see also All or Nothing’, or ‘Black and White’ Thinking and Depression.

Re: Ex-congressman Joe Walsh. See Ex Congressman tweets of war against Obama, Joe Walsh defends tweet threatening “war” on Obama, Ex-Congressman Walsh on Dallas shootings: “This is now war,” and/or Ex-congressman threatens “war,’”warns Obama to ‘watch out.”

And by the way – Joe Walsh – the Bible clearly says, “You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.” (See Exodus 22:28 and the beginning of Acts 23.)

Re: “sheath your sword.” See also Sheath Your Sword | Duke Today.

The lower image is courtesy of Don’t find fault, find a remedy… poster | Zazzle. See also Quote by Henry Ford: “Don’t find fault, find a remedy (Goodreads). As to the phrase “You’re either part of the solution or you’re part of the problem.” it is generally – and most recently – attributed to Eldridge Cleaver. However, a guardian.co.uk article on the subject included one reader who said this was a “misquotation.” Another reader wrote: “Eldridge Cleaver was hardly being original. ‘Those who are not for us are against us’ is in the Bible – and had probably been said before that.”

Note that the Bible-quote is from Matthew 12:30 “Whoever is not with me is against me…” Note further that this was part of Jesus’ sermon on A House Divided. See also the “House Divided” Speech by Abraham Lincoln, given in 1858, when he was running for the office of Senator from Illinois. (Two years before the original American Civil War.) And finally, see the post from my companion blog, On Jesus: Liberal or Fundamentalist? That post compared Matthew 12:30 with what Jesus said in Mark 9:40: “For whoever is not against us is for us.”

On the Independent Voter

Leave a reply

“Washington Crossing the Delaware” – which he managed to do without “rocking the boat…”

* * * *

In the last post, I noted that I was about to take a 10-day “family trip north:”

Three cars, carrying five adults and seven younger folk, ranging in age from 10 to 22. Among other places, we’ll be visiting Valley Forge, the Liberty Bell and Philadelphia in general… Last but not least we’ll see Hershey PA … “The Sweetest Place On Earth.”

I’m now writing two days after that family vacation ended, on Sunday, July 3d.

CB Terminology and Trucker Slang Which means we all managed to get home – in our three-car convoy – on the eve of July 4th.

(It also meant that we had to drive home through FOJ-Weekend traffic, thought without the use of CB lingo, as shown at left. We used cell phones…)

The three-car convoy lasted until Sunday, the 3d, when one of our three cars “peeled off” after a stop for gas – and fresh peaches – in Spartanburg SC. The remaining two cars split up near Commerce GA, at Exit 149 on I-85. (After dropping off a niece and her two kids.)

That left me alone, in my car, for the first time in 10 days. But by the time I got back on the road – after getting some iced coffee – there was yet another traffic jam, further down I-85, closer to Atlanta. (Thank you ATL.) So I ended up getting home about 8:30 Sunday night. And as noted, this was after a grueling two-day, thousand-mile-plus drive from Doylestown PA.

(A lot of those “grueling traffic jams” had to do with the fact that – in the America psyche – It’s Not Just Your Car, It’s Your Freedom. But “too many dang cars” is a whole ‘nother topic entirely…)

Getting back to the grueling drive home: Saturday we left our family reunion about 1:30, then got to drive down through Independence-Day-Weekend traffic. (Especially heavy around Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, Washington D.C., and Richmond VA.)

That left us with 550 miles left to drive on Sunday. (Two days ago.) But the good news is that – even after all that “quality time” together – we’re all still speaking to each other. (Mostly.)

graves-img Turning to more pleasant topics: On Friday afternoon – July 1 – we visited the Washington Crossing Historic Park. (The one on the Pennsylvania side, as seen at right.)

Which of course makes this a perfect time and place to bring up Independence Day in the U.S.:

Independence Day is a day of family celebrations [with] a great deal of emphasis on the American tradition of political freedom… Independence Day is a patriotic holiday for celebrating the positive aspects of the United States… Above all, people in the United States express and give thanks for the freedom and liberties fought by the first generation of many of today’s Americans. (E.A.)

Which brings up the fact that – somewhere along the line – I intended to make this post more about the recent road trip than about Independence Day itself.

For example, I was going to mention what John Steinbeck wrote, about how “We don’t take a trip. A trip takes us.” (See also Quote by John Steinbeck.) I also planned to cite a year-ago post – A Mid-summer Travelog – from my companion blog, along with “I pity the fool!”

The latter post was on Ralph Waldo Emerson – at left – and his saying, “Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist.”

Which raises two timely topics for this July 4th.

One topic is Independence Day itself. The other is the growing number of Independent Voters in this country. And according to Wikipedia, Independents are those voters who don’t align with either major political party, Republican or Democrat:

An independent is variously defined as a voter who votes for candidates and issues rather than on the basis of a political ideology or partisanship; a voter who does not have long-standing loyalty to, or identification with, a political party; a voter who does not usually vote for the same political party from election to election; or a voter who self-describes as an independent.

And their numbers seem to be growing, which could be either good or bad.

For example, Wikipedia noted first that the definition itself is “controversial and fraught with implications.” And that according to one theory, the growth of Independent Voters is a bad sign for the country. (For reasons including but not limited to: “independents may be more susceptible to the appeals of third-party candidates,” and that “the more independent voters, the more volatile elections and the political system will be.” Which could explain our present political situation…)

But personally I have my own theory.

My theory is that the American political system was designed to keep “moving back toward the middle.” That is, once a party becomes dominant – for the moment – it tends to pay too much attention to what we might call its lunatic fringe. Put another way, if one party dominates too long, it tends to move too far away from the middle. (Left or right, as the case may be.)

5d5d8f10f87f013014e9001dd8b71c47

And so – traditionally – In response to being out of power, the other party has – generally speaking – tended to move back toward the middle of the spectrum. It does so primarily to reach out to those voters in the middle. (Those voters who decide elections.)

But that hasn’t happened lately.

One or both parties – it seems – have refused to compromise, and compromise is the keystone of a American democracy. (See The Spirit of Compromise: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It, and/or The Spirit of Compromise.)

In other words, one or both parties have moved toward black and white thinking. Psychologists call that splitting, or “the failure in a person’s thinking to bring together the dichotomy of both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole:”

It is a common defense mechanism used by many people. The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual’s actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground)… Splitting creates instability in relationships because one person can be viewed as either personified virtue or personified vice… [This] leads to chaotic and unstable relationship patterns, identity diffusion, and mood swings.

So one solution to today’s political-party black-and-white thinking – it seems to me – is the growth in the number of voters who identify themselves as Independents. The problem there is that Independent or Moderate Voters are losing power in the process of one or both parties deciding on a particular candidate. (As for President of the United States.)

Which brings up the biggest problem of being an Independent Voter. That problem is:

“One must always choose the lesser of two weevils!”

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Washington Crossing the Delaware – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Washington Crossing the Delaware is an 1851 oil-on-canvas painting by the German American artist Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze. It commemorates General George Washington’s crossing of the Delaware River on the night of December 25–26, 1776, during the American Revolutionary War. That action was the first move in a surprise attack against the Hessianforces at Trenton, New Jersey, in the Battle of Trenton.

I also used the image and related information in my companion blog. (See On Independence Day, 2016.) There I noted that “Wikipedia listed inaccuracies” in the painting – by Leutze, working in Germany in 1850 – which included: The American flag in the boat “did not exist at the time of Washington’s crossing;” The boat was the wrong model, and much too small; The painting showed “phantom light sources besides the upcoming sun,” while the crossing itself “took place in the dead of night;” and finally: “Washington’s stance … would have been very hard to maintain in the stormy conditions of the crossing[, and] would have risked capsizing the boat.” (See also artistic licence.)

“And speaking of rocking the boat, Washington and his fellow Founding Fathers did in fact rock the boat, according to the British during the Revolutionary War. (In the sense of causing “trouble where none is welcome; to disturb a situation that is otherwise stable and satisfactory.”) See also John Paul Jones’ CLOSEST call, in my companion blog. It included a British caricature of the man they called “the pirate Paul Jones.” (To us of course he’s the Father of the American Navy.)”

Re: Cars representing freedom. For a different take, see The Car Once Symbolized Freedom… ← The Urban Country, which noted in part: “Things have changed. We took it too far.”

The image of flags on gravestones is courtesy of Washington Crossing Historic Park – Official Site. The caption and original image can be found under the “Soldier’s Graves” link:

From the parking area at the Thompson-Neely House, it’s a short walk across the Delaware Canal to the memorial cemetery where an unknown number of Continental soldiers who died during the December 1776 encampment in Bucks County are buried.

The article noted that no American soldiers were killed during the crossing or the First Battle of Trenton, but that “others did succumb to exposure, disease or previous injuries.” The article also noted a second battle, on or about January 2, 1777, involving Lord Cornwallis:

General Lord Charles Cornwallis of the British Army had been looking forward to a trip home to England… In fact, on December 27 he had sent his baggage aboard the HMS Bristol. But after the disaster at Trenton, his leave was promptly cancelled and he was ordered to Princeton. A very unhappy Cornwallis took command of the British forces there on January 1, 1777. He had one clear mission: to find the American army and destroy it.

In this second Battle of Trenton, Washington held off the attacking British forces until the evening of January 2, then withdrew north from Trenton, which led to his victory in the Battle of Princeton, on January 3, 1777: “Washington’s timely withdrawal set the stage for a successful engagement with the enemy at Princeton the following day.”

The full Quote by John Steinbeck on the uniqueness of individual journeys:

Once a journey is designed, equipped, and put in process, a new factor enters and takes over. A trip, a safari, an exploration, is an entity, different from all other journeys. It has personality, temperament, individuality, uniqueness. A journey is a person in itself; no two are alike. And all plans, safeguards, policing, and coercion are fruitless. We find after years of struggle that we do not take a trip; a trip takes us. Tour masters, schedules, reservations, brass-bound and inevitable, dash themselves to wreckage on the personality of the trip. Only when this is recognized can the blown-in-the glass bum relax and go along with it. Only then do the frustrations fall away. In this a journey is like marriage. The certain way to be wrong is to think you control it. (E.A.)

Re: “Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist…” I freely translated that to: ““I pity the fool who doesn’t do pilgrimages and otherwise push the envelope, even at the advance stage of his life.”

I used the “lunatic fringe” cartoon in Is this “deja vu all over again?” The cartoon itself is courtesy of Peanuts Comic Strip, April 26, 1961 on GoComics.com. Wikipedia said the term was “popularized by Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote in 1913 that, ‘Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe.’”

The lower image is courtesy of pinterest.com. See also Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World – YouTube, Lesser of Two Evils – TV Tropes, Reader Opinion: Clinton v Trump and “the lesser of two weevils, Master and Commander: A Movie Review – Maccabee Society, and/or Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World – Wikipedia.

“Thou shalt not insult FOREIGN leaders?”

Leave a reply

One idea of how you might end up, bad-mouthing the ruler of Cameroon…

* * * *

At lunch the other day I glanced at the “Trending” section, on page 8 of the April 25 issue of Time magazine. (The first issue – from 1923 – is at right.) As noted in an earlier post, I get the magazines hand–me–down.

The middle item was about German authorities being pressured to prosecute a comedian, under a law that “forbids insults to foreign leaders.” For reasons noted below, that piqued my interest.

It seems there’s a comedian in Germany – a “satirist and television presenter” – named Jan Böhmermann. He’s the host of a popular German TV show, Neo Magazin Royale. Last March he aired a poem, Schmähkritik. (Which translates, “abusive criticism.”) The poem – “full of profanity and criticism” – was about Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

After the fact, the comedian himself admitted that his attempt at humor was “unfunny, beyond crude and hardly worthy of the name.” Among other things, the poem called Erdogan “the man who beats girls,” and also loves to “suppress minorities, kick Kurds, hit Christians, and watch child pornography.” (Other “accusations” are not fit for mixed company…)

Then – it can be safely said – came the firestorm. (As in “a firestorm of controversy.”)

The law at issue – which first appeared in the “Prussian legal code of 1794” – was designed to keep German citizens from insulting foreign leaders. Somewhat ironically:

The United States tried to make a complaint against a shop owner in the city of Marburg in 2003. The shop owner called then-President George W. Bush, a “state terrorist.” But the German government decided this did not go against the law.

In turn, Turkish president Erdogan is trying to get Böhmermann prosecuted under the same law.

What piqued my interest was the contrast between the German law and Exodus 22:28. That Bible passage says – in the English Standard Version – “You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.” However, it doesn’t say anything about “bad-mouthing the ruler of another country.”

Apparently, under the law of the Bible you could insult “foreign leaders” all you wanted.

That seems to be par for the course in other countries around the world. You can insult foreign leaders all you want, but don’t dare “curse the rule of your people.” See This is how these 12 countries will punish you for insulting their heads of state. That site noted:

It may be par for the course in the United States, but in dozens of nations around the world, badmouthing your commander-in-chief will earn you fines, imprisonment or even a flogging.

One of those countries is Cameroon. (And that’s where the top image came from.) That country is one of several in Africa which “have laws against ‘sedition’ (read: saying stuff your ruler doesn’t like) left over from times colonial, and continue to make enthusiastic use of them.”

But don’t think I’m picking on Cameroon. Lots of countries have penalties just as bad, if not worse. But the notes on that country featured the interesting image at the top of the page.

And don’t think that Germany is alone in having laws – at least laws on the books – that punish citizens for insulting the leader of another country. See No Insulting Foreign Leaders In Iceland, Either:

Iceland has enforced this article in the past. On both occasions, it was to prosecute Icelanders who mocked the Third Reich in some capacity. In 1934, Þórbergur Þórðarson was charged under the law for an article he wrote about Germany at the time, wherein he called Adolf Hitler “the sadist in the German chancellor’s seat.” Further, Icelandic poet Steinn Steinarr was charged under the same law, when he and a group of others who torn down a Nazi flag flown by the German consulate in Siglufjörður.

So why – you might ask – would one country prosecute its citizens for insulting the leader of a foreign country? The answer? International relations.

As noted in The Guardian [on] Böhmermann, the only way to “make sense of this prosecution is to set it in the context that the law’s 19th-century drafters probably envisaged:

In the specific case of Germany’s section 103, about slighting foreign states, the government must expressly approve the prosecution, presumably because the whole original purpose was to deploy the criminal law as an instrument of foreign policy.

And incidentally, this business of punishing your own citizens for insulting a foreign leader is nothing new. One notable example from history is Sir Walter Raleigh.

“Sir Walter” was a court favorite of Queen Elizabeth I. (She knighted him in 1585.) But then came a change of regime, in the form of Elizabeth’s successor, King James I. (The guy who created the King James Version of the Bible, but was “not favourably disposed” toward Raleigh.) And Raleigh pushed his luck too far.

Between bouts in prison, Raleigh was famous for establishing colonies in the New World and “also well known for popularising tobacco in England.” But in doing all that he made the Spanish king very angry. (Mainly because he stole lots of gold from Spanish ships.)

Things went well as long as his forays produced some income. But finally, his luck – and King James’ patience – ran out. In 1618, “to appease the Spanish,” he was arrested and executed.

The good news from all this is that Jan Böhmermann won’t be hung or beheaded. (Like Raleigh, above left.) In fact, the “archaic law” now seems so ridiculous – “in the light of day” – that it’s on the path to extinction. See Germany to Scrap Law [against] Insulting Foreign Leaders.

But the point I’m trying to make – in case it’s too subtle – is the marked contrast between those laws that punish citizens for insulting foreign leaders, and Exodus 22:28. Whatever else you can say about the 12 countries [that] punish you for insulting their heads of state, they’re at least “following the Bible.” I noted another marked contrast – between that Biblical commandment as practiced and as preached” – in On dissin’ the Prez. (In my other blog.)

Another aside: The Apostle Paul was reminded of Exodus 22:28 in Acts 23. He was on trial – for “preaching” – before the Sanhedrin. (The “Hebrew Supreme Court.”) High priest Ananais told a guard to “strike him on the mouth,” and Paul responded as shown in the image below:

Those standing nearby said, ‘Do you dare to insult God’s high priest?’ And Paul said, ‘I did not realize, brothers, that he was high priest; for it is written, “You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.”’

(Which brought up Conservative Christians who say the Bible must be interpreted literally.)

But getting back to the subject at hand: In Turkey, over “1,800 people – including schoolchildren – have been prosecuted for comments posted on social media that insult Erdogan:”

In Istanbul, opinions are divided on the move against the comedian… “The president [Erdogan] has his own rights,” said one man. “When someone insults the German president they put him into the prison, also the American president. (E.A.)

Oh really? Apparently that guy hasn’t watched Fox News or listened to American talk radio…

“God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!”

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of not bite your tongue about some world leaders – GlobalPost. (Cited in the text as “This is how these 12 countries will punish you for insulting their heads of state.”)

Sources used in writing this blog-post include: Turkish President Wants German Satirist Jailed, German Comedian May Face Prison, CORRECTION BACKGROUND German law: When does insulting a foreign leader become a crime, Calls grow to scrap law on insulting foreign leaders [Germany], Germany to Scrap Law that Prohibits Insulting Foreign Leaders, Jan Böhmermann – Wikipedia, and The Guardian view on the Jan Böhmermann affair.

Re: firestorm. See “F” Metaphors, including Firestorm.

Re: Raleigh and Spanish gold. One example: When his fleet captured an incredibly rich prize— a merchant ship (carrack) named Madre de Deus (Mother of God) off Flores.

The lower image is courtesy of wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Angelico,_niccolina_02.jpg. The caption: ““Fra Angelico, Dispute before the Sanhedrin (1449).” The painting is based on “Acts 23.”

Is this “deja vu all over again?”

Leave a reply

This post tries to answer the musical question – “Is there a new Maverick in town?

* * * *

This post follows up the last one, “Is there a new ‘Maverick’ in town?”

The inspiration for both these blog-posts came when I found an old – November 1998 – copy of Rolling Stone magazine. (At the bottom of a dumpster.) The cover showed Bill Clinton – looking “befuddled” – in the middle of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. (She’s at left.)

But inside – starting on page 92 – I found an article “much more relevant to today’s political scene.” It noted a candidate – 18 years ago – who showed a “malignant understanding of how angry words, more than real ideas, can be deployed as weapons of power:”

He knows that repetition – invoking the same foul claims over and over – can transform outrageous lies into popular understandings. He blithely changes his facts, positions and personae because he is making it up as he goes along and assumes no one will catch up with the contradictions…

But here’s the strange part: It wasn’t Donald Trump!

So here goes: Page 92 of the 11/12/98 Rolling Stone featured two headlines. The larger one read, “The Stink at the Other End of Pennsylvania Avenue.” (That is, the stink from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House.)

Page 97 included this tidbit, about that 1998 presidential candidate: “The man sounds delusional, and probably he is. He sounded the same twenty years ago…” (Which seems to verify that history repeats in cycles.) Also on page 97:

The demagogic style of politics is still present in the man… A lot of [his] harsh rhetoric has the quality. It may sound loopy at first… But if you assume [his] eye is really on the White House, reckless declarations may make sense for advancing his agenda.

Page 97 also featured a side note about an assistant – on the campaign staff – who quit “as the [candidate] got more and more detached from reality.”

So just who was this guy?

Who was this arguable precursor to Donald Trump? (With his take no prisoners style of campaigning?) You could see the answer in the smaller headline. (Just above the lead “Stink at the Other End of Pennsylvania Avenue.”) Just above that lead headline, in slightly smaller type, read these words: “The Real Scandal in Washington is Newt Gingrich.”

Which brings up the subject of “The Newt’s” powers of prophecy. In 1998, Gingrich meditated on one thing quite often. (Aside from his own presidential run.) That one thing?

How will America look – in 2017 – “after two consecutive two-term Republican presidents (possibly including himself) have transformed America.”

As to how Newt’s powers of prophecy turned out, try an experiment.

Type “newt” into your search engine. One result that I got quick was: “newt gingrich scandal.” That “other teaser” led to links like Newt Gingrich Lacks Moral Character. (According to “second ex-wife Marianne.”)

Another link: Newt Gingrich’s Congressional Ethics Scandal Explained. (According to both Mother Jones magazine and – in 2011 – the “pro-[Mitt]-Romney super-PAC Restore Our Future,” which said “Newt has a ton of baggage.”) A third link-title read, Newt Gingrich Affair – Huffington Post. That third link led to a host of other links on this apparently-robust topic.

Then there’s the fact that we didn’t have “two consecutive two-term Republican presidents.”

But we digress!

Getting back to the Rolling Stone: Page 124 noted that Newt – in 1998 – “will become anything and ruin anybody else in order to achieve his goals.” That page also featured a quote from one victim – a Democrat – who noted ruefully: “Gingrich developed a vocabulary of poison, which he injected into the political dialogue.” (All of which sounds eerily familiar…)

Then came page 125, with this note: “Sure it’s difficult to imagine the nation electing someone disliked by two-thirds of the electorate. But it’s easy to imagine Gingrich scoring well in Republican primaries, where right-wingers can crowd out moderates.” And this:

Newt Gingrich poses a greater threat to the Republican Party than to the republic itself. The GOP will not become the governing party as long as leaders like Gingrich hold the reins. And more and more reasonable Republicans are beginning to realize this.

One response to that “reasonable Republicans” comment could be: Apparently not! All of which arguably leads to this prophetic cartoon, by Charles Schulz back in 1961:

5d5d8f10f87f013014e9001dd8b71c47

One response to that 1961 prophecy could be: “There seem to be plenty of openings in the lunatic fringe, and more and more of those openings are being filled these days!”

But once again we digress. The topic at hand is whether Donald Trump’s appearance – as the darling of a large segment of the conservative electorate – is something new under the sun? Or is it instead just a case of deja vu all over again…

Interestingly enough, the 1998 article noted – on page 125 – that Newt Gingrich was the “Bill Clinton of the GOP. He’s a manipulator – flexible and malleable, willing to grab any opening to be a winner.” (Which also sounds chillingly familiar.)

But on the page before – page 124 – there was some wisdom the “Grand Old Party” may want to pay more attention to. The page noted that the party’s “intramural crosscurrents are fierce and difficult to manage.” On the other hand, the Democratic Party’s ability to manage just such fierce crosscurrents did allow them to be the “governing power for decades – a willingness to deal and compromise among its contending blocs and interest groups.”

Sarah Palin says Paul Ryan's failure to endorse Donald Trump is unwise On that note see Sarah Palin vows to campaign against Paul Ryan. As an aside, Ryan is the current Speaker of the House. The article noted Palin’s decision was “sparked by Ryan’s bombshell announcement … that he wasn’t yet ready to support Donald Trump, the Republican presumptive nominee. Palin endorsed Trump back in January.”

On a related note see Devouring Their Own. But again getting back to the subject at hand: Is “The Donald” indeed something new under the sun, or just deja vu all over again?

Which leads us to one last quote:

One result of these tactics [by many conservatives, back in 1998] is the brittle, bitter climate of distrust in national politics today: the loss of civility amid endless personal accusations, the stalemates that develop on issue after issue when both sides are unable to approach the grounds where reasonable compromise can occur. Possibly this nasty atmosphere would have developed anyway… But Newt is the guy who poured poison in the stream.

Then of course comes the real kicker. Donald Trump is considering Gingrich as his vice-presidential candidate. Or that Gingrich is actively seeking the post. (Or both.) See for example: A Trump-Gingrich Ticket: So Crazy It Just Might Make Sense?

Failure to Communicate - 'Cool Hand Luke'.jpg So “what we’ve got here” is either something new under the sun, or deja vu all over again. Or maybe – instead – it’s just another failure to communicate.

According to Rolling Stone, Newt Gingrich sounded the same in 1998 as he did – politically – in 1978. And what Newt said – and how he said it – seem eerily similar to Donald Trump’s style of campaigning today. So whatever “problem” there is with Donald Trump goes back at least 40 years.

It may have been for that very reason that there weren’t “two consecutive two-term Republican presidents,” 16 straight years with a Republican in the White House.

Maybe it was the scandals, or maybe it was the ton of baggage.

Or maybe it’s just easier to win a local Congressional race with a “vocabulary of poison” than it is to win the presidency. And who knows? Maybe Donald Trump is the new “Bill Clinton of the GOP,” a master manipulator “flexible and malleable, willing to grab any opening.”

But is Donald Trump willing “to deal and compromise” enough to navigate the “contending blocs and interest groups” within the Republican Party? (If not the country itself?)

History seems to show that Newt Gingrich was not able to do all that. Which makes Trump’s flirting with the idea of Newt as his VP candidate all the more intriguing.

And all of which leads to another set musical questions: Is Donald Trump simply another case of deja vu all over again? Or is he “crazy?” Or is he instead crazy like a fox?

Charley Chase in Crazy Like a Fox.jpg

* * * *

The post-title alludes to the phrase “taken from a famous (attributed) quotation from Yogi Berra: ‘It’s like déjà vu all over again.'” See Deja Vu All Over Again – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Déjà vu is the “phenomenon of having the strong sensation that an event or experience currently being experienced has already been experienced in the past.” So Yogi Berra’s saying “its like deja vu all over again” would be similar to saying something was “redundant redundant.”

The upper image was borrowed from the last post, “Is there a new ‘Maverick’ in town?” In turn the image is courtesy of Maverick (TV series) – Wikipedia.

As for the phrase “answers the musical question” see e.g. Carol Brady – Quotes – imdb.com: “Carol Brady: ‘Yeah, the show that asks the musical question: Can eight average people make it in the big time?'” See also “Bibliographia” – Verbatim, Vol. 29, Issue 1, Spring 2004 (“A Decade-by-Decade Guide to the Vanishing Vocabulary of the Twentieth Century”), which included this:

In the postwar years, young people became increasingly anti-authoritarian in their behavior. Blame it on Marlon Brando in The Wild Ones. One way to keep the old folks at bay was to cut them out of your communications… “Kids,” a song from the 1960 musical Bye, Bye Birdie, asks the musical question, “Who can understand anything they say?”

You could also Google the term “‘answers the musical question’ phrase.”

The article at issue – starting on page 92 of the November 12, 1998 Rolling Stone – started:

The obsession with Bill Clinton’s scandal covers up a stink at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue – that other Washington scandal known simply as Newt. If Clinton were forced from office, the House Speaker, Newt Gingrich – a man loathed or distrusted not only by the public but by his own Republican colleagues – would be a heartbeat from the presidency.

The next sentence: “‘President Gingrich.’ Not likely to happen, but truly frightening to contemplate.”

The Donald Trump image was featured in On Reagan, Kennedy – and “Dick the Butcher.” In turn the image is courtesy of businessinsider.com/donald-trump-has-been-fired.

Re: Mother Jones magazine and the “pro-[Mitt]-Romney super-PAC Restore Our Future,” agreeing that Newt Gingrich has baggage. See also Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Re: Lunatic fringe. Wikipedia noted that the term was “popularized by Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote in 1913 that, ‘Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe.'” See also Lunatic Fringe, the “song by the Canadian rock band Red Rider from their 1981 album.”

The “lunatic fringe” cartoon is courtesy of Peanuts Comic Strip, April 26, 1961 on GoComics.com.

The Sarah Palin image is courtesy of “aol.com/article/2016/05/08/sarah-palin-says-paul-ryans-failure-to-endorse-donald-trump-is-unwise/21373081.”

Re: “devouring their own.” The link in the text is to Saturn Devouring His Son – Wikipedia. That article told of the Greek god who, “fearing that he would be overthrown by one of his children, ate each one upon their birth.” For other examples see Republicans Begin Devouring Their Own – LA Progressive, and Republicans devouring their own – Democratic Underground. But see also COMMENTARY: Democrats are devouring their own, a website headquartered at 1400 East Nolana, McAllen, TX.

The “What we’ve got here” image is courtesy of the Wikipedia article noting the phrase “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate,” featured in the 1967 film Cool Hand Luke.

The lower image is courtesy of the Wikipedia article, “Crazy like a Fox (1926 film), a 1926 film starring Charley Chase.” The caption reads: “Charley Chase as Wilson, the groom:”

Crazy like a Fox is a 1926 American short film starring Charley Chase. The two-reel silent comedy stars Chase as a young man who feigns insanity in order to get out of an arranged marriage, only to find out that his sweetheart is the girl he has been arranged to marry… The film features Oliver Hardy in a small role filmed shortly before his teaming with Stan Laurel.

Which may bring up the fact – again – that sometimes history repeats in cycles.

“Is there a new ‘Maverick’ in town?”

Leave a reply

Is there a new Maverick in town? (Or just another “nothing new under the sun“?)

* * * *

I’m working on a new piece. It’s based on an article I found in an old (November 12, 1998) issue of Rolling Stone.

Strangely enough, I found the old magazine at the bottom of a dumpster. (Like the one seen at right.) And that – you may come to agree – will turn out strangely appropriate.

I decided to keep the old Rolling Stone as a souvenir. (Based on the cover photo.) It featured a photo of Bill Clinton, looking rather befuddled, with the headline: Sex, Power & The Presidency: The Clinton Conversation. (See also Monica Lewinsky.) But inside – starting on page 92 – I found an article that seemed much more relevant to today’s political scene.

The article noted a presidential candidate who showed “a malignant understanding of how angry words, more than real ideas, can be deployed as weapons of power:”

He knows that repetition – invoking the same foul claims over and over – can transform outrageous lies into popular understandings. He blithely changes his facts, positions and personae because he is making it up as he goes along and assumes no one will catch up with the contradictions. Beneath the mask of conservative idealogue is an amoral pragmatist.

Sound familiar? Or is this instead a matter of: “Can you say prescient?”

And here’s another hint: It wasn’t Donald Trump!

Anyway, the project-piece turned to be out a bit more complicated than I expected. So – in the interim – I offer up this blog-post. It’s both a look at the past and a teaser.

Nick Adams The Rebel.JPG One thing some politicians bring up a lot today is “how great things used to be.” I agree. That was pretty much my point in Whatever happened to … Cassidy? But I made the same point much earlier in “Johnny YUMA was a rebel.”

The title of that post was a take-off from an old Seinfeld bit: “A rebel? No. Johnny Yuma was a rebel. Eckman is a nut…”

Which also seems strangely appropriate to politics today.

But take a closer look at that blast from the past:

[Johnny] Yuma faced down intolerance, distrust, greed, confusion and revenge. Despite his rebellious nature, Yuma respected law and order and despised abuse of power. He stood up for the weak and downtrodden. He traveled alone and was often forced to work alone because he was the only one willing to stand up to the bad guys. (E.A.)

Which – I suppose – brings up the subject of mavericks in general.

Originally the term referred to “Texas lawyer Samuel Maverick, who refused to brand his cattle. The surname Maverick is of Welsh origin, from Welsh mawr-rwyce, meaning ‘valiant hero.”

As an adjective the term applies to someone who shows “independence in thoughts or actions.” As a noun the term means someone “who does not abide by rules.” Either that, or someone who “creates or uses unconventional and/or controversial ideas or practices.”

But to those of us of a certain age, the more-familiar connection is to Maverick, the “Western television series with comedic overtones” that ran from September 22, 1957 to July 8, 1962, on ABC.

(The series starred “James Garner as Bret Maverick, an adroitly articulate cardsharp.”) Which – I suppose – brings us back to the subject at hand.

So: Is there indeed a “new Maverick in town?” Or are today’s politics just another example of nothing new under the sun? (For the original thought, see Ecclesiastes 1:9: “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”)

I’ll have the answer in the next post. That post in turn will review more fully the Rolling Stone magazine I found at the bottom of a dumpster. (Which I expect to turn out as a great metaphor.) In the meantime enjoy this other blast from the past:

* * * *

HOPALONG CASSIDY:

“Reserved … well spoken, with a sense of fair play,” and:

“His drink of choice being sarsaparilla.”

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Maverick (TV series) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Re: “Dumpster.” Here the proper term would be “roll-off,” a specific type of dumpster. “Roll-offs” – as I know them – are used in recycling. (Converting “waste materials into reusable objects.”) See also Dumpster diving … Dictionary.com. Note that when I found the “last century” copy of Rolling Stone, I wasn’t “foraging in garbage.” I was “stomping down” paper products in the paper-recycling roll-off. Such stomping-down insures that the roll-off will contain more material to be recycled. (In this case paper products, which in turn will Save More Trees.

The lower image is courtesy of The HOPALONG CASSIDY Poster Page, WILLIAM BOYD.

On Gerrymandering and political “costiveness”

Leave a reply

The original Gerrymander – a political ploy from 1812 – courtesy of Elbridge Gerry …

* * * *

Today at lunch I finished the rest of the February 8, 2016 issue of Time magazine. (The first issue – from 1923 – is shown at right.) I get the magazines hand–me–down from my brother and sister-in-law, and sometimes it takes awhile to read them through.

Specifically, today I read The Apprentice Voter, starting on page 32.

(See for example How Trump and Sanders Voters Are Upending U.S Politics, which noted that – online – “This TIME Magazine article is only available to subscribers.” See also RE: TIME “Apprentice Voters” … Medium, and Meet the First-Time Voters Who Are Changing the Election. For an “on the other hand” – or update – see New model finds 1 candidate surging in general election, dated 4/13/16: “Hillary Clinton would secure massive victories in the general election against both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.” The article also noted that Republican candidate John Kasich could “block [such] a victory.”)

Naturally the article focused on the upcoming 2016 U.S. presidential election.

For example, the two lead photos featured a 22-year-old Bernie Sanders supporter, and a 31-year-old Donald Trump supporter. The Sanders supporter said that everyone “is tired of politics as usual,” and “frustrated with income inequality.” He added, “We were told in kindergarten that we could do anything. I don’t think that’s true.”

The Trump supporter said this: “We’re becoming weakened in the face of the world. We’re not the global superpower that we used to be.” And Time added this summary:

From opposite ends of the spectrum, both [ – Sanders and Trump – ] have promised to remake the nation with a populist revolution. You could call their supporters the Apprentice Voters: the fed-up, the tuned-out, the frustrated flock who want their elected leaders to feel their pain, reflect their fury and actually do something about it.

Which is all well and good. However, it does bring up a pet theory of mine.

My theory is that real political change will only come about when we re-make the U.S. House of Representatives. (BTW, costiveness is defined alternately as “causing constipation,” “suffering from constipation,” being “slow” and/or “sluggish,” or “stingy.”)

Which pretty much describes the political situation today.

My original thesis was that the problem could well be due to gerrymandering. (That is, the “practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan-advantaged districts.”)

But one website indicated that may not be the case. See As Swing Districts Dwindle, Can a Divided House Stand? (I used the search-term: “congressional district entrenched.”)

That article said most Congressional representatives “now come from hyper-partisan districts where they face essentially no threat of losing their seat to the other party.”

The article said the issue is a one of shrinking swing districts, where an incumbent stands a chance of losing an election. (As opposed to landslide districts, where the incumbent is virtually assured of re-election.) In a nutshell, “the number of swing districts has been on a steady decline since at least 1992, and the number of landslide districts on a steady rise.”

On the other hand, it seems there has a bit of gerrymandering: For example, the Congressional redistricting “that took place after the 2010 elections.”

Republicans were in charge of the redistricting process in many states, and they made efforts to shore up their incumbents, while packing Democrats into a few overwhelmingly Democratic districts. In the few large states where Democrats were in charge of the redistricting process, like Illinois, they largely adopted a parallel approach.

Which brings up the issue of Congressional redistricting itself.

Wikipedia noted that seven of our 50 states don’t have that issue at all. (Their population is so small they only have one representative for the whole state. Like Wyoming, with the city of Casper shown at right.)

Seven other states have their congressional districts decided by an “independent or bipartisan redistricting commission.” (“To reduce the role that legislative politics might play.”) But that still leaves plenty of room for political ploys, such as – for example – gerrymandering:

Partisan domination of state legislatures and improved technology to design contiguous districts that pack opponents into as few districts as possible have led to district maps which are skewed towards one party. Consequently, many states including Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Texas have succeeded in reducing or effectively eliminating competition for most House seats in those states.

Then there was another ploy – in 2003 – by Texas Republicans. They “increased their representation in the U.S. House through a controversial mid-decade redistricting.” (For another view see Mid-Decade Redistricting, Abuse of Power, by Texas Democratic Congessman Gene Green.)

Then too, in some other states – like California, New Jersey and New York – legislators have protected incumbents of both parties. (Which reduces the number of competitive districts.)

On the “other other hand,” the Supreme Court recently offered some hope.

See for example Why Monday’s Supreme Court decision on redistricting is an important victory over conservatives. Dated April 6, 2016, that Raw Story lead paragraph went like this:

As the composition of the Supreme Court remains in flux following the death of one of its most outspoken justices and as the executive and legislative branches continue to battle over the timing of his replacement, the eight-member Court spoke in one voice today to affirm a bedrock democratic principle.

That bedrock principle was representational Equality: “the longstanding principle of one-person one-vote.” (Formerly known as “one man, one vote.”) See also Supreme Court ruling on Texas redistricting cheers Democrats. (About liberal groups applauding the ruling that bolsters the power of “Texas’ booming Latino population,” in areas long dominated by conservatives.)

Which brings up a caveat. Don’t think – from the last sentence – that I’m one of those flaming liberals. (But as Seinfeld might say, “Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That!”) Instead – and as noted in Blue Dogs and the “Via Media” – I try hard to follow the “Middle Way:”

Via media is a Latin phrase meaning “the middle road…” Aristotle [urged] his students to follow the middle road between extremes [and] the via media was the dominant philosophical precept by which Ancient Roman civilisation and society was organised… The idea of a middle way [also] goes back to early in the Protestant Reformation…

See Via media – Wikipedia. However, we digress!

We were talking about gerrymandering and other symptoms of the political costiveness so prevalent today. And possibly about whether there’s any hope for the future.

Personally, I think there is. And that you can sum it one word.

Remember that scene in 1967’s The Graduate?

Where Mr. McGuire takes Dustin Hoffman (Benjamin Braddock) aside and says – about his future – “I want to say one word to you. Just one word.” (See The Graduate “One Word: Plastics” – YouRepeat.)

Well, here’s my one word about hope for our political future:

Millennials!

See for example The “Millennials” Are Coming – CBS News, about the impact on corporate America by and from “the demographic cohort following Generation X.”

But since we’re talking politics, here’s what Wikipedia had to say about Millennials:

According to a 2013 article in The Economist, surveys of political attitudes among Millennials in the United Kingdom suggest increasingly liberal attitudes with regard to social and cultural issues… The Economist parallels this with Millennials in the United States, whose attitudes are more supportive of social liberal policies and same-sex marriage… A 2014 poll for the libertarian Reason magazine suggested that US Millennials were social liberals and fiscal centrists more often than their global peers.

So to sum this all up: On the political front there seems to be good news for some and bad news for others. Or to sum it up paraphrasing something Bob Dylan said back in 1964:

“The times they WILL be changin.'”

A black-and-white close-up of Dylan's face looking down

The original album cover, released on January 13, 1964…

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Gerrymandering – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The caption:

Printed in March 1812, this political cartoon was drawn in reaction to the newly drawn state senate election district of South Essex created by the Massachusetts legislature to favor the Democratic-Republican Party candidates of Governor Elbridge Gerry over the Federalists. The caricature satirizes the bizarre shape of a district in Essex County, Massachusetts, as a dragon-like “monster.” Federalist newspaper editors and others at the time likened the district shape to a salamander, and the word gerrymander was a blend of that word and Governor Gerry’s last name.

Re: representatives. See also the general article, House[s] of Representatives.

Re: Wyoming. See also Wyoming’s at-large congressional district – Wikipedia.

Re: “On the other other hand.” The link-citation – Give me a one-handed economist! – referenced the practice of economists (for example) to keep saying, “On the other hand… On the other hand…” The first time I heard that joke it was about lawyers who kept saying pretty much the same thing, when asked a question by a client. (Who was no doubt looking for a straight answer.)

Re: “the Supreme Court recently offered some hope.” But see Redistricting – Wikipedia:

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Pennsylvania gerrymander effectively cemented the right of elected officials to select their constituents by eliminating most of the grounds for disenfranchised constituents to challenge gerrymandered lines.

That article apparently hasn’t been updated since Evenwel v. Abbott. (4/6/16.) See also How Supreme Court stood up for democracy for minorities, about the Evenwel case.

Re: “One word. Plastics.” See also The Graduate – Wikiquote. The “one word” quote is in the second set of dialogue, right after the exchange between Benjamin and Mr. Braddock, his father.

Re: “Millenial” political views. Wikipedia added that they were “less supportive of abortion than Gen X were in the early 1990s,” and that The Economist predicted that “millennials would become more conservative on fiscal issues once they started paying taxes.”

The “Graduate” image is courtesy of Amazon.com: The Graduate (video and DVD).

The lower image is courtesy of The Times They Are a-Changin (album).

The Georgia Wasp

A blog of life-reviews by an old guy who still gets a kick out of life.

Category Archives: Politics

Donald Trump and the Hell’s Angel

On the Chilkoot &^%$# Trail! – Part 1

On the Chilkoot &^%$# Trail! – Part 2

“That’s all I have to say about the Chilkoot &$%# Trail!”

On the Electoral College – 2016

“The Coming Fury?”

On the Independent Voter

“One must always choose the lesser of two weevils!”

“Thou shalt not insult FOREIGN leaders?”

Is this “deja vu all over again?”

So just who was this guy?

But we digress!

“Is there a new ‘Maverick’ in town?”

On Gerrymandering and political “costiveness”

Millennials!

“The times they WILL be changin.'”