McCain could learn from McKinley

There is a precedent of president’s whose last name begins with ‘Mc’: McKinley was elected in 1897

McKinley is best known to me for having a mountain misnamed after him. That big ol’ alaskan mountain, you know.

And McCain has an alaskan running mate, you know.

But McKinley is also known for being killed in office. He died early. And his VP Teddy Roosevelt, was touted as being inexperienced. But McCain has said in speeches that he admired Teddy Roosevelt.

I’d just like to say, McCain. Take your vitamins and keep your eye out. We wouldn’t want anything to happen to the POTUS.

Obama must overcome the vowel ending barrier

So, Barack Obama has a unique name in the ranks of presidents. He has said “I don’t look like other presidents”

But I the fact is, there has not been a president in living memory whose name ends in a vowel.

Perhaps americans like the security of names which end in the finality of a consonant. It’s reassuring.

Excepting the ‘sometimes y’ from vowel status, the last president with a vowel at the end of their last name was Coolidge.

But let’s be honest, that is a SILENT vowel. There is only one president whose name truly in a vowel sound:

Monroe: elected in 1817, he is the lone vowel ending president.

I’m not sure Obama will be able to face the challenge.

Ben Folds and the suburbia experience

My sweetheart husband burned a mix CD for me. It is things like this that let me know the honeymoon isn’t over yet.

Before he determined do to this thing, we were listening in his office to some CDs. He had Ben Folds on. I said “You know, I love him, but I he is best known for “Brick” which I can’t stand. It’s a song that could make you kill yourself!”

So, the husband decided to make me a mix of cool Ben Folds songs that were not Brick, and he finished it in time for my day of driving. He’s so Cool.

Ben and Chris, that is.

Ben Folds is a white guy with enough jade in his eye to be clever. I was driving the company van down the road that I take every day back and forth to get to work. The first song on the CD:

Rocking the Suburbs

I was bopping along listening to him, and thinking I should play the piano more and do more songwriting myself. And I thought, man, I am so not this guy. I’m from WASILLA, for pete’s sake.

However, I am a lot like the suburb zombie now. I take this same stretch of freeway again and again and again. I have often thought that there is a special me-shaped groove in the road.

I looked at the highway. It did not have any grooves in it. It is a synthetic and flat slab of granite. The anti-yosemite, really.

Maybe it’s me that has the road-shaped groove. I am softer material than this societal infrastructure.

And the two hemispheres of my brain held two thoughts:

‘that’s a cool poetic thought’

and

‘how cringingly depressing.”

And maybe those two thoughts are the best way to describe the experience of listening to Ben Folds.

My favorite song so far:

All U can Eat

Can the main stream media go lower?

I’ve been watching so many news channels and listening to so many different radio stations, I can’t say which one said it. But I heard it more than once:

the house needs to pass this bill; they can’t cave into their constituents

I can hardly believe this is happening. Like the people they are representing are the bad guys?

It seems I can’t be surprised often enough this week.

anti-americanism on the left

I just listened to this, an interview with Bernard Henri Levy regarding his book Left in Dark Times.

Levy points a stern finger at American leftist, who he says gage the suffering of the oppressed only in terms of whether it matches the leftist anti-american stance. He says that lefty types are all worked up over the suffering of the Palestinians–who are indeed suffering–but fairly indifferent to the suffering of the Chechens who are probably suffering more.

Why sympathy for the Palestinians and not for the Chechens?  Shouldn’t suffering wherever it happens be a cause for sympathy and action?

He says that liberal americans are only motivated to sympathize when the suffering upholds their anti-american opinions. Chechnya’s suffering is not caused by america, so it’s not interesting.

 Larry Mantle, the host, also points out and Levy agrees, that the left has a ‘cult of the underdog’ that gives importance to the oppressed people that does not require factual support.

I appreciate that this very passionate lefty liberal guy is willing to criticise his group. He seems willing to look at the man in the mirror, at the group he is part of, and say plainly that something is wrong.

I don’t agree with him, that the state has the responsibility to take care of all social problems. I think that individuals can come together and do it better than a big government entity. But we agree that social problems should be addressed.

It made it easier to listen to him with an open mind when he affirmed  “Capitalism is a good thing. There is no better than capitalism, but not the jungle…”

And he dismissed the system of communism, declaring that no one can take it seriously except a few fringe crazies.

I wish that he could go talk with some college professors.

I like that he is willing to point to the self-destructive elements of the left. I think that a willingness to grapple with the present realities is a first step towards finding a path towards improvement.

700,000,000,000

11 zeroes and all for what?

There are three pages that started this, and now there are 110 pages. Even though my office has CNN playing all day, I still don’t know a single point that those pages make. I have heard no definition of the problem, and no delineation of the solution.

I don’t know what that 700 billion dollars is supposed to do, for whom and for what.

I fell asleep Saturday afternoon to Bloomberg telling us that the market was very sensitive to what would happen with the bailout. I heard Palin tell Couric that the bailout should not reward mortgage misconduct.

But I have not heard what it SHOULD be doing. Or what it THINKS it’s doing.

I know that it’s unpopular. And somehow the TV pundits (who are these people, anyway?) and Nancy Pelosi seem to be implying that it’s shameful and irresponsible to not support it.The representative who are  listening to the many many voters  calling in to  say “DON’T YOU DARE DO THIS! THINK!” don’t really coalesce with Pelosi’s opinion.

The word from the capital is “Don’t listen to your constituents! Just vote yes on the bill in front of you!”

The bill did not pass. In a remarkable bi-partisan move, most of the house republicans voted it down and almost 100 democrats went against their “leaders” to reject this bill.

I am glad it did not pass. I believe that congress should take some action, since it is a certainty that federal agencies and regulators have been and will continue to be called upon during this mess.

McCain said:

“We won’t solve a problem caused by poor oversight with a plan that has no oversight,”

In the same article, Obama said congress needed to:

 “work quickly, in a bipartisan fashion, to resolve the immediate crisis and avert an even broader economic catastrophe.”

Before the vote, both candidates seemed to agree on what it should have in it to pass.

Obama seems to want credit for crafting the bill, and McCain seems to want to emphasize the effect of the bailout on average people.

In another odd twist, MoveOn has decided that the Bush-delivered and Democrats-backed bailout bill, limply endorsed by both Obama and McCain, is BAD and therefore must

BE MCCAIN’S FAULT!

I am finding this process to strain credulity. Opinions and actions in this matter are unmoored from facts.

I remember thinking that when McCain asked Obama to stop campaigning and go deal with this issue, it was an act of integrity. The fact that he backed down and went forward with the debate did not impress me.

But in this empty cupboard, I’ll take the crumbs that he at least had the impulse.

I don’t know. I’m starting to regret paying attention to this election after all. It’s just too tiring.

What the heck is going on around here?

 

John McCain: Honor and the Presidency

Time did an article back in August giving some history for John McCain.

McCain ran for President before, remember? back in 2000, and he was highly entertaining to all the reporters. He gave straight talk. And he lost.

Now, he’s not straying from his talking points. And he won the republican nomination and is at least tied if not ahead of Obama.

The article focusses on McCain’s sense of honor. And they say: “McCain stops short of drawing the line. He tends to bend institutions without breaking them”

I can’t tell if the authors consider that a flaw; it is possible they consider him a poser who is not willing ot really sacrifice everything for honor.

I come away feeling like this is a good thing. The willow can outlast the oak, because of bending, and live to strive on another day.

Politics is hard. Skilled politicians know that it takes lying in wait to accomplish things sometimes. Back off and come at it again. Eyes on the prize, and you will get there.

 

Review: Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

By this time, Gone With the Wind is better known as a movie than as a book. But on the principle that the book is usually better than the movie, I picked up the novel.

As big as the movie was it seems that when the book arrived, it was even bigger. Some books take on an importance that’s hard to explain after the fact. Uncle Tom’s Cabin, as any student that’s had to read it can attest, is not really great literature. But it resonated with the readers of its time in such a profound way that it changed history. I thinkGWTW was similarly recieved.

First of all, it’s a pretty good book. The story is exciting, and the Scarlett is really an interesting hero. It fits nicely into the genre of historical romance. Mitchell pays careful attention to the historical timeline, and the battles and strategies portrayed are really accurate.

But it’s not beautiful prose. For gorgeous writing about the civil war, I much prefer Cold Mountain. They were both made into movies. But GWTW got a Pulitzer and was a much bigger deal when it came out.

So, what’s going on?

Mitchell published the book in 1936, seventy-one years after the Civil War ended. The Civil War has had an astonishing half-life. Mitchell knew that, but It took 15 years and another Southern author, Faulkner, to put it unforgettably:

The past is not dead. In fact, it’s not even past.

I look at the story of this book from two perspectives. First, I see it through the eyes of the characters in it. Scarlett, her father Gerald, Ashley, Melanie, and Rhett–we meet all these people in the impossibly gorgeous plantation lifestyle in Georgia. Oh! The balls and the dresses!

I cannot help but think of those other ball-and-dresses books by Jane Austen. Austen lived in the time that these were the norm, and she cast her ironic eye at the whole proceeding. She wrote in the early 1800s, and GWTW begins in 1861. Although Scarlett is not a reader of literature, many others in the story are. In their balls, social conventions and obsession with propriety I see an America once again desperate to emulate Europe. The chaperoning, the marrying off for social advantage is all very well-known territory.

The desire to be like the Old County begins even before the start of the story. Gerald O’Hara came over from Ireland with a dream of becoming landed. He wanted to be like the landed nobility of his despised Ireland. The culture and aspirations of the fathers and the children were plucked and planted into this new world.

But it crumbled. The lifestyle of luxury could not be maintained after the Civil War. In the timeline of the novel, the culture falters almost immediately. All the eligible young men are off to war, and the rest of society is left to fend as best they can.

Fending gets harder and harder. But for the people caught in the nightmare, there is a sustaining thought: how very good they used to have it. The possibility of having it that good again fades further and further beyond reach. The Southern gentry are left without the gorgeous dresses. They salvage what they can. If they can’t be rich and waited upon by scores of servants, at least they will maintain the morays and propriety.

Her friends and family cling to the memories. Scarlett, however, knows what she wants. Propriety was never that interesting to her; she wants the dresses back. She succeeds, but in the end discovers that her heartlessness has a cost.

Mitchell wrote about the origin of the customs of the South because she learned them growing up in Georgia. The customs were cherished and passed down with fondness. There is a romantic nostalgia for the plantation life that still lingers on for many. Mitchell learned from people who lived through the hard times of the war and the aftermath.

Now I come to my second perspective on the book: the times that the first readers were living through. Mitchell was born in 1900. She was in her 20s during the roaring 20s. When the Depression arrived, she felt all the lack of her former times. When Black Tuesday hit in 1929, all of America got a chance to feel the grinding hardship of survival. And pretty much everybody knew what it was like to be nostalgic for better times.

When GWTW came outin 1936, the Depression had been going on for 7 long years. It is easy to see how the story of Scarlett, belle of the county but reduced to scrambling for food in the ground and vowing “I will never be hungry again!”, would resonate with the people who watched the hobos and maybe stood in the soup lines.

401K plans, Upward Mobility and Free Market Forces

From WSJ “How Well Do You Know…Your 401(k) Plan?” by Leslie Scism and Jennifer Levitz

In the 1970s, some corporations asked the government if they could put aside retirement money, tax-free, for their executives. Officials gave permission, provided the companies  offered the opportunity to all workers, never expecting the plans to take off….The 401(k) plan slipped in “under the radar,” says Teresa Ghilarducci, and economist at the New School for Social Research in New York. The idea was that this new plan–in which workers set aside pretax earnings in investment accounts–would supplement the rank-and-file’s old fashioned pension plan, the type that sends out a monthly check.

But as companies sought to hold down costs, more and more froze the old-fashioned plan and went solely with a 401(k). “What [the government] didn’t anticipate was the erosion of well-defined benefit plans,” she says. “They never conceived that the 401(k) would be the only retirement plan that companies provided. That’s what we economists call ‘unintended consequences’ of a law.”

The 401(k) is replacing pension plans. And it’s easy to see why. Pension plans are a real albatross around the neck of companies.  Pension plans support people who don’t work for these employers anymore.

The employer-sponsored pension plan was a market driven phenomenon to begin with. It appears that railroads were some of the first to provide the pension in America, to attract good workers and keep them.It was the Free Market at work. The Free Market inspired compaines to add pensions to wages and motivate workers to start working and stay working for them.
So what did that mean? Mr. Railroad Worker would put up with crap in what we TODAY might call a dead-end job. If he put up with crap he would have a pension at the end, and he’d have money after he was too old. His wife and kids would be taken care of.
“Career path” wasn’t part of his vocabulary.
But suppose his buddy down the street had an idea of a new business they could start and Mr. Railroad Worker would be in charge.  Mr. Railroad Worker would say, “What are you kidding? I only have 15 more years before I get my pension. I can’t quit and start a new venture with you!”
The system put a damper on innovation and job creation.

Now, with this new portable pension, each worker has ownership of their retirement money. All of us are able to change careers and start any kind of business we want.

HOORAY! The individual is in charge!

But wait..

OH NO! the individual is in charge!

Most 401(k) plans require that the individual actually put some money in. The employer will match funds, but you have to ante up. It’s your own fault if your 401(k) is empty. And you are free to screw it up.

Old-style pensions were managed by the employer and doled out a set amount each month. Pension plans could go under if the company went under, and the individual is powerless to do anything.

Pensions and 401(k) plans are both subject to the market. But the employer swallowed the risk in pension plans. With the 401(k), the risk and the reward is on the individual. The individual has the power with a 401(k).

It started out that the muckity-mucks in large companies wanted a way to feather their own nests. But in the end, all of us are more free to move around, improve ourselves and our careers and maybe even find our own path to muckity-muckhood.

It just shows how it’s best not to over-regulate market forces. If the government gets out of the way, things can shake down in positive ways. No one predicted how this would happen, but it’s resulted in a lot more freedom for everybody.