I'm just glad something got decided. I've always had concerns over the constitutionality of this approach but, at least, something (not quite sure what) has moved through the monolith.

aC

John Jay: Founding Father, Walter Stahr

John Jay: Founding Father is impressive. Considering that it is Stahr's first book, my regard increases. It has been collecting ether-dust on my "I am reading" shelf for some months. I didn't want to start it until I could give it due attention and other things were taking up my time and energy. Good thing I waited because once I read the first page, I didn't stop until I was done except for 5 hours of sleep and occasional required online activities.

Stahr, like his subject, avoids dramatization but somehow manages to convey the person of John Jay. Presented in a factual and time-line structure, the book still conveys the rigors of the time and the complexities of the struggle for independence.

The book is the result of significant research and well-balanced. It has an oddly defensive tone as if Stahr considers Jay's treatment by other biographers and historians to be if not negative, at least unduly dismissive. I do think that Jay is not given his true due for his contributions but, as with our society today, the nation at that time was more fascinated with the "stars" - Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and to a lesser degree because he suffered the same "lack of sexiness problem", Adams. I suspect that there were many "quiet heroes" during that period who were patiently and continually actually doing the work of the nation rather than just talking about it.

Jay appears to have been an intellectual, quiet, and steady man of firm principles and true devoted Christian belief. He said on one occasion when begged to push back against unfair practices that cost him his first run as New York Governor, "It will be of more importance to me to have governed myself than to have governed the state." He put honor above office. He proved this on many occasions.

A man of some contradictions, he absolutely believed that slavery was wrong but he, himself, owned slaves. He argued against admitting Missouri as a slave state but for existing states wanted slavery to be abolished slowly over time. He was averse to conflict and considered the behavior of the French Revolutionaries to be like that of animals but, earlier, when first meeting with officials of Britain during our own Revolutionary War, he refused to start negotiations until he was personally addressed as and the first drafts of the agreements indicated that he was the representative of the Independent United States of American - not of a colony. He was a devoted family man and absolutely faithful husband and yet several of his children were almost completely raised by others. This was not just due to the extensive traveling to which he was subjected and the reasons were never explained.

Very early in his career - well prior to the Revolution, he advocated a separate and independent judiciary and, in fact, forcefully argued for a 3-house government of the state of New York. He followed up with this in his awful time trying to be President of the Continental Congress. He was a man of great dignity and careful attention to detail always striving to not only directly avoid misconduct but even the appearance of it. Yet, he accepted George Washington's plea to be the Envoy Extraordinaire to Britain to forge an agreement - while he was the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Jay was first to state the premise of the Supremacy Clause - even though that label was applied later. He favored a strong National Government but wanted restraints. "The national government has only to do what is right and, if possible, keep silent." A primary contributor to the Federalist Papers, his words helped convince New York to support the constitution.

During the Revolutionary War, he was the "master" of an important American spy, Enoch Crosby. In his later years, Jay related most of Crosby's activities to James Fennimore Cooper who used it to write The Spy. A note from Stahr about this extraordinary part of Jay's contribution to the Revolution says, "The CIA recently honored John Jay by naming a conference room after him as America's first counter-intelligence chief." Who'd a thunkit?

The one part of Jay's history that did disturb me was his forceful support of Loyalty oaths and treatment of Tories. I found this very distressing and don't remember seeing much about this in the biographies of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson which I recently read. Was this more an issue in New York than elsewhere or was this topic just not deemed important enough to these other "stars' and their biographers? The other alternative is that I just missed any mention of it although I do clearly remember Flexner saying that Washington required his troops to be careful with Tories and forbade mistreatment of them. Curious.

Jay was always aware of the historically important events of the time. He instructed clerks during the Continental Congress to spend at least an hour each day recording events for posterity. He said, "Americans are the first people whom heaven has favored with an opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the form of government under which they should live."

The best quote, though, was about the constitution which he personally ensured that New York ratify: "...it is yet to be animated, and till then may indeed excite admiration, but will be of no use. From the people it must receive its spirit, and by them be quickened. Let virtue, honor, the love of liberty and of science be, and remain, the soul of this constitution and it will become the source of great and extensive happiness to this and future generations."

And so it has.

aC

Thomas Jefferson by Richard B. Bernstein

Well written. Well organized. Enjoyed this read very much.

Learned several things about the period and Jefferson's role in it. Learned very little about the man. This is a brief recounting focusing on Jefferson's political life. Despite the fact that the man wrote literally 1000s of letters, Jefferson remains one of the most, er, "hidden" figures in American History from a personal standpoint.

Bernstein acknowledges this with his closing paragraph in the book:

...whether he would even comprehend the United States in the first years of the twenty-first century, Jefferson's shadow looms large over us, thanks to the conflicting influences of his thinking, doing, and - most important - his writing. That truth alone requires each generation to reacquaint itself with the life and work of Thomas Jefferson, and to grapple with his ambiguous legacies.

If you are lookin' for a brief catalog of important events driven or influenced by our third president, this is a book fabulous for that purpose.

If you are lookin' for an indepth character evaluation and to learn more about the man himself, you'll need to look elsewhere. Good luck with that. From what I've been able to determine such a book does not exist. I have come to the conclusion that it never will.

The great enigma of the Revolutionary period. Thomas Jefferson.

aC

This woman is making a career out of being a loser.


Sarah and Her Tribe
by Jonathan Raban


She's back: reviving the book business in provincial towns from Grand Rapids, Michigan, to Richland, Washington; working on her keynote address to the Tea Party movement's national convention; tweeting daily, sometimes hourly, to her followers about the state of the nation; and everywhere parading her Down's syndrome son, Trig, along with her most photogenic daughter, Piper, as living testaments to herself as the model pro-life mother. What she's running for is not yet clear, but she's evidently running for something.

Read the whole thing.

aC

Source: The New York Review of Books - Sarah and Her Tribe

To all of you who have kept my mind sharp over the past year by posting such interesting information, providing such sharp analysis of the world's woes, and making me laugh...

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Joyeux Noel, Froehliche Weihnachten, Zalig Kerstfeast,

and a VERY Happy New Year!

aC

Another Shelfari group (not a new one) is

100 Classic Books You Must Read Before You Die

I haven't joined this one - it is well established and large. Would require too much time and effort from me. The list is interesting though. It is taken, as the group description found on the link says, Penguin Classics's "101 Best Books Ever Written". Although that link takes you to a much prettier site, it is designed to encourage you to buy a title, so the "list" approach is, again, better seen as part of the group description..

Here is my ranking of the books on this list. I haven't read as many of them and this is a VERY diverse list. Must strictly be based on sales by Penguin or something. The number indicates a position on the list but I don't know if that is the same as a ranking.

1. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - Ken Kesey – 3 Stars

4. Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoyevsky -3 stars

10. The Canterbury Tales - Geoffrey Chaucer 3 stars
11. The Karamazov Brothers - Fyodor Dostoevsky 3 stars
12. Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad 2 stars
13. Diamonds Are Forever - Ian Fleming 2 stars (Give me a break! Fleming on this kind of list?)

17. Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte 3 stars

20. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof - Tennessee Williams 4 stars
21. David Copperfield - Charles Dickens 3 stars

26. Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck 3 stars

29. Jude the Obscure - Thomas Hardy 3 stars

31. Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde - Robert Louis Stevenson 3 stars

43. The Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck 3 stars

46. The Great Gatsby - F. Scott Fitzgerald 2 stars

48. The Picture of Dorian Gray - Oscar Wilde 3 stars


53. Animal Farm - George Orwell 4 stars

61. A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess 4 stars

63. A Tale of Two Cities - Charles Dickens 3 stars

65. In Cold Blood - Truman Capote 4 stars

67. The Moonstone - Wilkie Collins 3 stars

71. Nineteen Eighty-four - George Orwell 4 stars

75. Death of a Salesman - Georges Simenon 4 stars

77. The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins 3 stars
79. A Study in Scarlet - Arthur Conan, Sir Doyle 3 stars

81. Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert 3 stars

84. The Scarlet Letter - Nathaniel Hawthorne 3 stars
85. Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy 3 stars

91. Treasure Island - Robert Louis Stevenson 3 stars

93. The Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas 4 stars
94. From Russia with Love - Ian Fleming 2 stars
95. War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy 3 stars

98. Pickwick Papers - Charles Dickens 2 stars

aC

Shelfari is feeding my book list edition.


One new group just started and, of course, I jumped right in...

Best English-Language Fiction of the Twentieth Century (Shelfari Group)

This group and its discussions are focused on the list and ranking of the best English language fiction of the twentieth century created by Brian Kunde. The list is a composite of four lists compiled by the Modern Library, the Library Journal, Koen Book Distributors, and students of the Radcliffe Publishing Course. A detailed explanation of this list and its ranking system can be found at this link:

The Best English Books by rank

This is a truly ugly web design - It is easier to read the list as part of the group description on Shelfari. (You have to use the little ">>more" link you'll see at the end of the first paragraph to see all of it.

I have read 51 on this list. Here is the posting where I indicated a ranking for those I have read along with a few comments.

(Shelfari doesn't provide permalinks for each posting on a discussion. I'm the one - Dog Lover - who started this one, though, so mine is first on the thread.)

Rating the entries in the list


aC

Perfect tbrmskss!

I was just trying to take the argument away from that "Oh YEAH? It ain't been proved! So there!" approach. It doesn't matter to me if it is "proved" or not because the good far outweighs the bad.

However, your post is most correct and welcome. Reminds me very much of that excellent book I just reviewed here on CD, 13 Things That Don't Make Sense, where Brooks even says that the theory of gravity is (oh - I just can't resist), er, "up in the air." LOL!

aC

This is true.



All of which is true regardless of the validity of the climate warming issue.



Possibly. Let's look at the other side of the abused coin: There is another part of the Scientific Inquiry Protocol - the "what if" question. That is where most scientific research begins anyway..."

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka!", but "that's funny..." - Isaac Asimov

So "that's funny" that we are broke, not due to any undue emphasis on environmental concerns but that we have squandered our wealth on disastrous policy that will take years of concerted effort to remedy. "What if" we had used those funds which were put into military action that not only didn't "make us safer" but actually ended up killing, maiming, and otherwise damaging so many of our people (who now need our help and aren't getting it) and, instead, had put together a Manhattan style Project to develop alternative energy sources.

So - if one of those remedies happens to be something that:

- moves us officially toward taking care of the planet that is our sole source of survival;
- moves us toward energy sources that loosens the soul-crushing bonds between us and unstable geographic regions and governments;
- puts emphasis on scientific research which historically provides as many if not more benefits in sideline or accidental discovery and products than the goal toward which it was heading;
- creates or encourages new industries and skill sets to be used by a workforce which has lost its way; and, oh, by the way,
- ensures that we no longer are the primary cause of any global warming even if that possibility hasn't been proven

then I consider it money well-spent. Where's the bad?

The alternative, regardless of its proof being scientifically valid which is considered very probable by the vast majority of professional scientists who, every day, use that "method" you are so certain of, is horrific.

So if we are going the "what if we are wrong?" route, I'd favor trying to save the planet.

Better saf(er) than sorry,

DL

Familiarity Breeds Contempt

As you know, I was so overwhelmed by the Cavett interviews with Richard Burton that I fairly gushed after each video became available via the NYT Cavett blog. We've talked here on CD about not only Burton's part but also how Cavett set a standard for interviewing.

Commenters to the NYT blog would bring up other guests and ask Cavett to scrounge up the videos for them as well. I took it a little further. I searched for and bought every video available via Amazon that I could find. They weren't all that expensive on an individual CD basis. Added up to about 40 or so hours of viewing. Amazon with its magnificent database quickly noticed my purchase and recommended Cavett's book called, well, Cavett. So. I bought that too.

This was a couple of months ago - at least October if not earlier. Don't really remember. About that time, I started entering my whole personal library onto Shelfari which had, in July, deployed a new "combine" feature for titles. Shelfari is a conglomeration of several book catalogs and because Amazon purchased them early this year, one of those is Amazon's vast book database. That database includes all the Amazon MarketPlace information as well. Why am I telling you this? Well, that combine feature means that all these catalogs need work to put the various printings and offerings of the same titles under a single umbrella. That is almost purely manual effort and Shelfari users do the work as they enter their books. I'm entering about 3000 or so books so I've been spending 8 -10 hours a day, every day, for the past several weeks on this activity. I suspect that it will require a couple more months at this rate too. I like it and I love actually putting my hands on each individual item in my library - brings back memories of the book. The point being that over this time, when I'd had enough Shelfari work for the day, I'd put on one of the CD's from the Cavett collection and, as I went to bed each night, would read a little of his book.

The CDs were just painful. This Cavett was just not the same Cavett that interviewed Burton. He was callow and awful in the interviews. The worst, though, were the more recent things done at the 92nd Street Y (labeled 92Y Series) which is (or was) some kind of theatre recognition series held at that location. One of the two with Cavett (the only 2 of this series I purchased) was a tribute to him and his TV shows and the other had him as a host interviewing that night's honoree, Martin Short. Both ended up having Cavett drone on and on and on and ON almost as if he was deeply into dementia already and using foul language that just doesn't suit him. At one point, Short even interrupted him as said something like, "Scuse me. I must have misunderstood. Isn't tonight supposed to be about me?"

In the other videos from his ABC series, some of the guests were magnificent and whenever I could do so without mauling the whole show, I'd just mute the thing when Cavett was talking to spare myself the discomfort. After the first two, I never listened to any of his opening monologues again.

My personal memories of Cavett were of his PBS series. I had never seen this network late show thing. The PBS series came later. Mid-seventies if memory serves.

The book was even worse. It is an "interview" of Cavett conducted by his close friend and roommate from Yale, Christopher Porterfield, in actual written interview format. There are a couple of prose offerings describing Cavett's life from almost birth up to the time of the book (1970 or so) but that was written by his coauthor and using that voice as well. One of the last CDs I watched had three authors interview Cavett about the book. They gushed over it. (why?) Anthony Burgess asked him why he wrote it and Cavett said he didn't really know that he just wanted to get some stuff out before journalists did. Then Burgess asked him if he DID, in fact, write it. Cavett said, "Well, I wrote the stuff I say I wrote." Sigh. I couldn't believe that Burgess drew stuff from this book as he implied. I certainly didn't see any of that in the book. I won't go into the details - look it up yourself. I didn't recognize the other authors, Barbara Hower and Jerzy Kosinski but Kosinski did, at least, try to actually discuss the book and the writing experience. Cavett spent the entire session looking like a deer caught in headlights.

The book shows Cavett obsessed with achieving fame. Every anecdote and memory has that as its point. Not obsessed with literature, performing arts, or any intellectual goal with which I had always associated him. He was a savant, in some ways, with language - reciting poetry at the age of 3 for example. His memory of this? The adulation of adults when he was reciting. He never talks about works of art in theatre or literature, he is the ultimate fan boy. He talks about the big names of both venues and how overwhelmed he'd feel around them.

In fact, even in that area, Cavett's memories are always about Cavett. After reading this book and watching all these CDs, I've come to the conclusion that Cavett is what Paris Hilton would be if she'd been a little better in school. I got the impression that Cavett reads fast and remembers words well - loves to play with words, in fact. What things actually mean holds little interest for him. He didn't become a show business personality because he was driven to perform or because great works of literature or theatre called to him. He did it because he wanted the fame as represented by those elegant and amazing characters of the Hollywood Golden Years. He wanted to be close to that fame and, perhaps, glean some of it away for himself. He is very straight about this - doesn't pretend otherwise.

In the middle of the book as the interview takes Cavett through the decision to go stand-up on his own (previously he was staff writer for Paar and Carson), I was rewarded with a hint that there might exist some introspection in this man. While being a staff writer, Cavett was able to swiftly develop jokes for whomever he was supporting. He could "envision the voice, the man, the persona" and write for that voice. Quickly too - he'd just rattle stuff off and most of it would be used. However, when he started writing for himself, he could not longer create material. Of this time, Cavett said

"Coming up against the problem was one of the greatest shocks of my career. I had always assumed that if ever decided to do an act, I would set aside a few hours, write it, and then perform it. ...There were times when the writing of a night-club act assumed the proportions of a personal crisis. I would decide that the reason I didn't know what to write about was that I had no personality. I decided that everything I said in real life was merely an imitation of people and things I had heard or read, and that down deep I was shallow, a cipher, a collection of imitated sounds and borrowed thoughts floating in front of a tabula rasa of a personality. At times this feeling got so intense that I would get up and look in the mirror to see if I would reflect."

There, I thought, we are finally getting to discover a person inside that collection of language skills. Not so. Cavett decided that this whole thing was just a phase and that he'd gut it out. Sigh.

You know, the man married a woman he met at Yale but that relationship NEVER shows up in this book. In fact, relationships aren't discussed at all. It wasn't until the last chapter that I was informed that Cavett and his wife lived with 2 dogs, a cat, and a parrot. I couldn't believe it. I don't see how he would even acknowledge the existence of something that wouldn't contribute to his fame. He certainly seems to have, at that time in his life, been concerned only with who was the most famous and how close he could get to them. Wasn't told and don't know if he actually had a relationship with the animals except that he did, on occasion, take the standard Poodle for a walk. Otherwise, they hired that activity out.

Except for his humour in expressing whatever obstacles he faced, there is no emotion at all. He doesn't discuss his father much and those few times he is mentioned it as a satellite to Cavett's own sun. His mother died when he was five and I learned about that near the end of the book and the mention of a step-mother acquired a year or so later than that death. That's all. Even when he describes what he says is a horrible temper, I still got the impression that he was "performing." He supposedly was active in American Indian affairs or, at least, very interested in them but he doesn't actually do anything. He'd make all the appropriate noises and show outrage about the Vietnam War, Watergate, and other events current to that time but I don't detect any heartfelt interest in any of it. Reminds me of Gertrude Stein's phrase: "There's no there, there."


His was proclaimed as the only intellectually serious and quality show of its type during that time frame and he wasn't particularly supportive of that reputation. He said:

"I have been misperceived as an intellectual. My mind rarely goes from the particular to the general of its own accord, and I sometimes think I am the least cerebratious - is that a word? - person I have ever met. I read fiction for the story, go to the movies to see how they come out, and believe that the essential, mystic value of sex is that if feels good. I like to read poetry for what it says to me and have learned to stop a good hundred yards this side of exegesis. If a poem raises a chill on my spine I do not need to trace its imagery patterns to know why. I had enough talk of imagery tracing, tension, ambiguity, and paradox at Yale to tide me over for a lifetime."

There you have it. I am guilty of foisting my own expectations on this man. He never pretended to be something he isn't. I let his facility with language and that one experience with Burton bloom into a full imaginary bouquet of my own design.

I understand that in later years he was diagnosed with and suffered through extreme depression. I don't think I'll try to learn more about it. I'll settle for the lesson I learned about myself: Familiarity does breed contempt - at least when a person was constructed from fantasy to begin with.

Won't be doing that anymore.

aC

13 Things That Don't Make Sense, Michael Brooks

4.75 "enthusiastic" stars!

I cannot remember when I have simply enjoyed a book so much.

The writing style makes one think of having a fascinating and enthusiastic dinner guest who starts a conversation with "Guess what!" and then proceeds to bring all the dinner guests into the discussion imparting to them that same enthusiasm.

If you are a Scientist of any field, you'll no doubt call this book "science light." However, I feel that Mr. Brooks showed an amazing ability to keep the integrity of the science while recognizing the limitations of his reader. This is no Bill Nye the Science Guy who I respected enormously. This is sort of his older uncle who expects the reader to grasp previously unconsidered concepts and ideas.

After all, the purpose of this book is to convince us that science hasn't all the answers... yet.

There are things that Mr. Brooks calls anomalies. Things that we may think are just absolute reality might not be when other evidence is considered. He shook me a bit when he put "gravity" on that level! I swear I thought I levitated for a second.

Brooks settles on 13 of the myriad anomalies in science: the Missing Universe, the Pioneer Anomaly, varying constants, cold fusion, "life", Viking, the WOW! Signal, a giant virus, "death", sex, free will, the placebo effect, and homeopathy.

One of the most charming aspects of this book is how Mr. Brooks transitions to the next anomaly as he finishes with one. In all cases save one, he keeps a scientific perspective and uses the scientific process of discovery and accepted protocols to both define the anomaly and its consequences. The one exception, IMO, was "free will."

I am open to a definition of this phrase but Mr. Brooks seems to have one he didn't share with me (at least.) He subsequently in later chapters would refer to this concept as the "delusion." That may be true, but this book didn't get me to that conclusion and, in fact, the chapter on that topic didn't even form the question very well for me. I absolutely agree that if our understanding of "free will" is ever scientifically proven to be in error, then our understanding of ourselves, our place in the universe, and our place in time will suffer an earthquake of readjustment. The language used in this one chapter just didn't move me in that direction. Brooks took a couple of examples that seemed, to me, to be reflex action based on fine sensory perception, as some dna-based instruction of body movement. As I said, that may be the case but Brooks' language in this one chapter didn't carry me to that conclusion. It seems as if he never investigated or reported on investigation about whether we have sensory perception currently unknown or measured. We may not have. This one part didn't carry me (repeating myself.)

Every other part did carry me to its intended destination. That targeted locale was a questioning mind that will never look at a glass of water in the same way again, that will never sneeze without thinking of Mimi, will always look at the stars and wonder if black matter is distorting my view, will wonder if pounding some lettuce into water and then diluting it 30 times will cure my hiccups, and, last but not least, will hope and pray that young people will become mesmerized by scientific query, explore new territories both cosmically and cellularly, make fabulous discoveries and, one day, enthrall fellow dinner guests by saying, "Guess what!"

aC

I'll bet almost anything that, in the privacy of her own home, this is EXACTLY what Rice has thought/said...


Rice re Palin

When a person talks only to those who agree with them, when a person socializes only with those holding the same opinions, when a person listens only to media that feeds the conclusions one has already drawn, then he is led to believe that the majority agrees with him too.

After all, he never hears anything to refute that assumption.

The "rabid" left considers it an obligation to seek out anything being said by those who disagree with them and fight about it. The "rabid" right considers any opinions that conflict with their own to be beneath their notice.

Those of us left in the middle have the power but we also get large headaches from the opposing ends of this ideological spectrum.

aC

Finally. Some good news out of Afghanistan!

sniffle, sniffle.

Lost and Found

Goldwater's Opinion of Today's GOP

What's that I see?

Is it... Could it possibly be..are my eyes deceiving me?

Why, I think it is a spine that them there Democrats are showing!

Senate ends GOP filibuster over judicial appointment

Democrats today crushed a Senate filibuster against a controversial appeals court nominee, demonstrating to Republicans they can't stop President Obama from turning the federal judiciary to the left.

The 70-29 vote limited debate over the qualifications of U.S. District Judge David Hamilton of Indiana, and assured his elevation to the Chicago-based appeals court. Sixty votes were needed to end the filibuster, but confirmation only requires a simple majority of the 100-member Senate.

Looks as if they had the help of 10 non-democrats too!

aC

Source: LAT - Senate Ends GOP Filibuster

Thought this item by Michael Tomasky might tie into this discussion...

Tell me what you think.

A crucial fact about today's Congress, and one that even many politically astute observers may not fully appreciate, rests in the vast ideological differences between the two congressional parties. I don't mean by this that the Democrats have become uniformly liberal and the Republicans uniformly conservative, which is the standard grievance issued by the press, but rather that only the latter has happened—and that it has happened with surprising speed. [Emphasis mine - aC]

aC

Source: NYRoB - Who are the Blue Dogs?

My view of the USA Presidential elections is coming to be that Democrats are chosen when the country just can't stomach the Republicans anymore. We give them one term (Clinton being the exception - in SO many ways!) and then get back to the flag-wavers.

Gary Wills is bringing some of this attitude into perspective with a great little essay in the most recent issue of New York Review of books.

Here is some of it:

I am told by people I respect that Barack Obama cannot pull out of both Iraq and Afghanistan without becoming a one-term president. I think that may be true. The charges from various quarters would be toxic—that he was weak, unpatriotic, sacrificing the sacrifices that have been made, betraying our dead, throwing away all former investments in lives and treasure. All that would indeed be brought against him, and he could have little defense in the quarters where such charges would originate.

These are the arguments that have kept us in losing efforts before. They are the ones that made presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon pass on to their successors in the presidency the draining and self-lacerating Vietnam War. They are the arguments that made President George W. Bush pass on two wars to his successor.

One of the strongest arguments for continued firing up of these wars is that none of these presidents wanted to serve only one term (even Lyndon Johnson, who chose not to run for a second full term). But what justification is there for buying a second presidential term with the lives of hundreds or thousands of young American men and women in the military?

I have great hopes for the Obama presidency, even in his first term, and especially if he could have two terms to realize the exciting new things he aspires to do in the White House. But I would rather see him a one-term president than have him pass on another unwinnable war to the person who will follow him in office.

I always read Wills because I just plain like his writing. Happen to also like and agree with this essay.

Read the rest of it,

aC

Source: NYRoB - A One-Term President?: The Choice

yet another list

Top 25 books of 2009 from The Atlantic

The format of the list includes links to reviews for each book so it is easier for you to read it yourself than for me to copy it here.

I'm glad they chose "the" Lincoln biography out of the numerous offerings that appeared this year. This will help us when the CROAH group has to select a book for the Lincoln read. Goodwin's Team of Rivals must have come out last year or something - it didn't make the list at all.

Of the listed books, I have none in the top 5. From the remaining 20 runners up, I do have Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic by Gordon Wood but (of course) have not yet begun to read it. I'm interested in THE THIRD REICH TRILOGY (Concluding With The Third Reich at War) by Richard J. Evans and The Hundred Years War, vol 3 by Jonathan Sumption (haven't seen vols 1 & 2 though). A few more of the historical books sound interesting. Won't be rushing to Amazon to buy any of them at this time. None of the other titles even taunt me.

Can you tell that I love book lists?

aC

OK (~smile~), I thought this very interesting.

aC

Source: Yahoo News! - What are the origins of the word "OK"?

Last Thursday, I received one news alert email from CNN:

The U.S. has filed suit to seize properties, including mosques, belonging to groups with alleged ties to Iran.

Usually, any news alert email will come to me from at least 6 news organizations. Not this one. In fact, even this lone alert didn't link to a story on CNN's website.

I waited, waited, and waited to see if this would be a big story. I never saw a headline or oped about it in any of the online news sources I track.

Today, I hit Google with the question. Very interesting response. Yes - there are some items in major news organizations but there are a LOT from foreign news organizations.

I'm still, pardon the expression, mulling the consequences. I'm still wondering why this isn't a bigger story. It would appear to me to be of vast import considering Obama's attempt to bring Iran into a more productive diplomatic relationship with us and the rest of the world. Could this be the warning shot in a strategy to force such participation? Doubtful as the few reports I read said specifically that this was not an action coordinated with or by the White House.

Although, considering the apparent dearth of investigation by the fourth estate into the matter, who knows?

aC

Source: Voice of America - US Moves to Seize Mosques, Properties of Group Linked to Iran
Source: LAT - Authorities move to seize U.S. properties allegedly tied to Iran
Source: NYT - U.S. Moves to Seize Properties Tied to Iran

In addition to the major "yuk" factor, the very thought of this is too frightening to be funny.

Talk about alien offspring!

I'm gonna go throw up now.

aC

You are in error. The predominant male appellation is "Joe Bob".



That IS the problem. Rather than going with the strength of the supporters, the Dem's courted the opposition. They could have (and should have) been very civil and demonstrated an interest in collaboration but, instead, they fought among themselves and fretted over whether the Repubs would "like" them. They didn't fire up the supporters - they waited for Obama to do that. Evidence is the health care bill. Such haggling as I've never seen. As soon as Mr. 60 showed up, the Dems should have rammed this thing through. Instead, they diddled and then complained that Obama wasn't helping enough. I lived in DC for 10 years - I know the congressional ropes (worked them mightily myself). The Dems had a chance and should have grabbed the ball and run with it. Instead they fretted about all the negative stuff and tried to appease the tea-baggers. There is something to be said for preferring to go out as a lion than be slaughtered as a sheep. Look at the news coverage. The Repubs and their associated acolytes held every story - even if they did it with out and out lies. They were able to do that because the Dems provided no story at all - they played defense the whole time.



I agree with that statement. The problem is that the voice of reason was under-represented. Failure to communicate and to set the "story" - this is PR and is Politics 101. Remember the Congressional Democrats are led by the same spineless people that sat virtually mute during the Bush arrogance. How can we expect them to all of a sudden show leadership?




Exactly my point - Obama is the ONLY Dem who is performing the sales job. There are too many issues to rely on a single voice especially since he has other, er, distractions such as the rest of the frigging world to deal with. Congressional Dems need to get their collective act together - that has been the problem with this party since the old stars died off. Being a conservative it pains me greatly to say that I miss Tip O'Neill.



Your mouth, God's ears and for better reasons than election results!

aC

Joe,

Did you happen to catch these two Cavett entries earlier this year?

When Updike and Cheever came to visit

A last look at Updike and Cheever

aC

I have a slightly different take on this.

I worked the polls (early election and 14 hours on election day) and witnessed a low turnout and those that DID turn out were angry.

My take on this is that Americans - especially Democrats - dropped the ball. I do not perceive from the results any overwhelming indicators of what will happen in 2010 from an ideological standpoint, I just see the typical USA result of being lazy. In most areas where there weren't sexy issues, turnout was very low.

The only result that stuns me is Maine's decision on gay rights - as framed by the "marriage" referendum. I simply can NOT understand this at all.

What I see is that the Democrats being Democrats squandered over the past 10 months the unity that had been demonstrated by Obama's election. I realize that we are all tired - the last three years have been enormously stressful politically. However, one of the energizing factors for me in supporting Obama was that fragile and apparently misplaced "hope" that the Democratic Machine had finally gotten its act together.

If the GOP led by such absolutely and incredibly worthless people was still able to energize voters, that particular machine was demonstrated to still be in fine form. It is an "inconvenient truth" that the "assault on reason" can be and is powerfully wielded by the GOP machine.

As long as the Democrats are willing to sit back and let Obama do all the work of keeping the masses focused, then I see no hope for things to improve or change.

Keep in mind, I am a conservative! I want a conservative party and the GOP AIN'T it! It will take a very organized and sophisticated Democratic strategy and plan of action to make that clear to the GOP. Until that happens, expect the GOP to retain its "I don't have to actually DO anything, I can just be obstructive and STILL win the war" strategy.

That is a proven and very effective approach with our "don't make me actually have to THINK about anything" society.

Personally, I am disgusted by most of yesterday's election results.

We have only ourselves to blame.

Not lookin' forward to next year,

aC