UNITED STATES PRESIDENTS IN MY LIFETIME-59

The following is a thumbnail sketch of my evaluations of all the U.S. presidents in my lifetime. I trust that any reasonable reader will render the conclusion that my opinions of the individual presidents are neither overly censorious nor too encomiastic:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945) is widely credited by the public for ending the Great Depression with his greatly expanded federal spending by creating myriad of what were called “alphabet soup” agencies and programs (SEC, WLRB, TVA, NLRB, FHA, HOLC, PWA, CCC, LWA, WPA, NRA, AAA, USHA, etc.). Historians are increasingly coming to the conclusion that not only did this pythonically increased federal spending, regulation, and intrusion into the private sector (again contrary to population perception, this big government answer to the depression was started by Herbert Hoover) did not help to ameliorate the economic depression, but prolonged and deepened it. A recent historian of this persuasion is Amity Shlaes, a self described liberal, with her 2008 book, The Forgotten Man.

I rate the wartime Roosevelt differently. Leading up to WW II the country was in an isolationist mood, yet Roosevelt recognized that the totalitarian and expansionist regimes of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had to be confronted if the democratic nations were to preserve their freedoms. Roosevelt did as much as domestic politics would allow to aid Great Britain in its war with Germany. And once the USA got into the war, Roosevelt was an effective war time leader even if he trusted the Soviet Union, then an ally against Germany, a bit too much. By the summer of 1944 Roosevelt had serious heart disease and should not have run for a 4th term. After all, by that time the outcome of the 2nd World War was not really in doubt so he could have allowed another Democrat candidate to run for the presidency knowing that the war was essentially won. However, the downside was the likely outcome that the country would have been deprived of the services of Harry Truman as president (for much more on Roosevelt see my blog essay #23 titled FDR).

Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) left office with about a 25% approval rate owing mostly to the stalemated Korean War. Over the subsequent decades his rating has risen until now he is generally considered one of the best presidents of the 20th century. Truman’s recognition of the threat to the West from the Soviet Union and his Marshall Plan massive aid to Western Europe as well as his assistance to Greece in successfully opposing the Communists attempted takeover of that country have contributed substantially to his increased stature. Truman is now given more credit than formerly for being an honest plain speaking politician who said what he meant and meant what he said.

Dwight David Eisenhower (1953-1961) People really did “like Ike” not only in this country, but generally around the world, especially in Western Europe because of his position as Allied Commander in Europe during WWII. It has been suggested that his administration was a calm and tranquil one, which was exactly what the American people wanted after the dislocation and frenetic activity of WWII and the Korean War. Wartime taxes, especially individual income taxes, were kept too high during the Eisenhower years, a condition which would be corrected in the next administration. At the finish of his administration Eisenhower issued a valid warning about the “industrial – military complex.” Overall I would rate the Eisenhower administration a success, but not a particularly distinguished one.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy (1961-1963), the first U.S. president born in the 20th century, was one of the least experienced (although as we shall see experience is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a completely successful presidency), certainly of the more modern presidents. The Bay of Pigs fiasco was a near disaster; then there were the comedic plans and even attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, the dictator of Cuba. Also early in his administration Kennedy had a summit meeting in Vienna, Austria with the leader of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, who came away with the impression that Kennedy was weak which led him to make the irrational decision to put missiles in Cuba capable of launching nukes. Kennedy faced down the Soviets, forcing them to remove the missiles. For that reckless action it was Khrushchev who was replaced by the Politburo and sent into involuntary retirement.

Kennedy was a fast learner and recovered quickly after this shaky start of his administration. He pushed for much needed civil rights legislation for minorities, especially blacks, cut the high tax rates, and through his brother, Robert, who he had appointed Attorney General (JFK jokingly said to give his brother legal experience), took on organized crime with a good deal of success. JFK’s charisma (as well as Jackie’s) not only made him increasingly popular in this country, but also around the world, thereby enhancing the image and prestige of the United States. Despite his personal peccadilloes (not unlike Bill Clinton) I would rate Kennedy as a good president who might have become a great one had he not been so tragically assassinated by that loser and cretin, Lee Harvey Oswald.

Lyndon Baines Johnson (1963-1969) was an archetypal political hack. The Vietnam War did his presidency in, but not before he had damaged this country socially, economically, and in worldwide prestige. The sooner he is forgotten the better.

Richard Milhous Nixon (1969-1974). If he had not resigned in disgrace he would have been the only U.S. president to have been impeached and convicted – the votes were there in the House and the Senate. Nixon said that the American people had a right to know if their president was a crook and he said he was not a crook, which proved that he was a liar as well as a crook.

Gerald Rudolph Ford (1974-1977) was the only president of the USA not elected president or vice-president. Mediocrity seemed to be the watchword of his administration. One plus was that he was an innocuous person who was able to heal some of the ill will, which was extant in the country after the disaster of Richard Nixon.

James Earl Carter, jr. (1977-1981). Incredibly Jimmy Carter recently said that he considered his presidential administration a success based upon the amount of legislation he was able to get passed by Congress. Few Americans agree nor agreed at the time of his attempted reelected. Carter won only 6 of the 50 states and 49 electoral votes to 44 states and 489 electoral votes for Ronald Reagan in the election of 1980.

Not every position or decision Carter took was wrong headed. He led the effort to give sovereignty of the Panama Canal to Panama, which Reagan opposed. And the treaty even gave the United States government the right to keep the canal open, by force if necessary. Thus in turning over the canal to Panama one more contretemps with Latin America was avoided. Carter brokered an important peace agreement between Egypt and Israel that has stood up to this day, and for which he should have been given, but was not, the Nobel Peace Prize similar to President Theodore Roosevelt being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for his part in brokering peace in the Russo-Japanese War.

Carter’s being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize by the Norwegian Nobel Peace Price Committee during the George W. Bush presidency was more a repudiation of Bush and embracing of Carter because of his criticism of Bush than it was anything that Carter had accomplished in promoting peace around the world. In fact Carter has made it a habit of publically criticizing Republican presidents after he left office. This breaks with the tradition of former presidents not speaking ill of their successors and shows a distinct lack of character by Carter. Whatever faults one finds with Bush I & II, and that will be evident in what I have written further on, both of them had the class not to publically uttered any criticism of their successors.

Carter’s answer to the high inflationary conditions during his administration and accompanying high energy costs and shortages was to advise people to put on sweaters and to declare that the country was in a deep malaise. That was not what people wanted to hear or accepted. Carter’s inept and inherent weakness in responding to the Iran Hostage Crisis was the final dénouement in his defeat for reelection in 1980.

Ronald Wilson Reagan (1981-1989), similar to Barack Obama, inherited a horrible economic condition when he took office. Unlike Obama, however, Reagan reacted in an effective way to lead the country back to prosperity such that he was reelected by one of largest mandates in history, winning 49 out of 50 states and 525 electoral votes to one state and 13 electoral votes for Walter Mondale.

Reagan made people feel good about themselves and their economic future and proud of their country after the dour economic outlook and loss of standing in the in the world following the Nixon debacle and uncertainty of the Ford and, especially, Carter administrations.

One might argue, as I do, that Reagan convinced congress to spend too much money rebuilding our military, but what is abundantly clear is that the attempt to keep up with the United States spending on military preparedness, contributed mightily to the Soviet Union dissolution. Some credit also has to go to the Soviet leader and reformer, Mikhail Gorbachev, but clearly not all of the credit as the news media in the United States and elsewhere were wont to do.

I rate Reagan the greatest president of the 20th century. It is interesting that in the attempt to rebuild the reduced image of President Obama, the Main Stream Media have been describing Obama as “Reaganesque”, using it as a positive. Give me a break. During his presidency and for years after, the liberal media trashed Reagan, calling him a “dunce”, saying he delegated way too much, slept half the time he was in office, and was not very bright. Certainly not as bright as they were. These clowns must believe we will not remember what their description of Reagan was in the past.

George Herbert Walker Bush (1989-1993) convincingly proves my assertion that experience is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a successful presidency from start to finish. Bush was a U.S. Representative in Congress; the Director of the CIA; Ambassador to China; Ambassador to the United Nations; Chairman of the Republican National Committee; and two term Vice-President of the United States. How much more government experience could a person have? I would rate Bush a mediocre president. He was not defeated for reelection for nothing. Yes, Bush was brilliant in putting together a coalition of many countries including the Europeans, and the Arab countries of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates to expel the Iraqi army under Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Even with this great success, Bush committed a grave error by not giving his commanding general, Norman Schwarzkopf, 48 more hours to destroy Hussein’s army and thereby driving that brutal dictator from power. Bush compounded his error after the armistice by giving Hussein permission to fly his helicopters in the South of Iraq ostensibly to supply Iraqis with essential supplies, but actually to suppress the rebellious Shiites who were opposed to the regime of Hussein. Seemingly the Bush administration allowed Hussein’s army to do this because of the fear that the Shiites in the South of Iraq would align with the Shiite government of Iran to the detriment of the United States.

Then who can forget Bush’s infamous “Read my lips – no new taxes” statement? After getting the Democrat controlled congress to promise they would significantly cut expenditures, Bush agreed to raise taxes on the American people. Of course congress did no such thing as cut government spending. What good does all of that experience do if one can be fooled so easily?

William Jefferson Clinton (1993-2001) Unlike the previous Democrat president, Clinton was reelected. Presidents are doing something right if they get reelected. True, one could fault Clinton for not taking the threat of Islamic Terrorism seriously enough, but at least he did not get this country bogged down in foreign wars the way his successor did. After the midterm election defeats in 1994 suffered by Democrats, and therefore which reflected a repudiation of his policies, President Clinton made a course change to the right. Co-operating with the then Republican Congress, Clinton cut federal spending, including welfare reform and continued his cutting of military spending. Most conservatives were opposed to that;
not me however (for an explanatory view of my position on the United States military read my blog essay #55 The USA Military). Without factoring in the liabilities of Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, in Clinton’s first five years the budget deficits were relatively low and in his last three years and in the first year of Bush’s administration there were budget surpluses. In his entire eight years there was a modest $700 billion increase in the national dept. Owing to the growth of the GDP (gross domestic product) during that time this $700 billion deficit actually became a smaller percentage in relation to the GDP than previously. How appealing does that sound now in our current fiscal funk?

On the negative side Bill Clinton had the sexual morals of an alley cat (If one can attribute moral standards to animals.). For lying under oath about his escapades with “that woman”, Monica Lewinsky, the House of Representatives impeached Clinton – the Senate then proceeded to find him not guilty, at least his crime (lying under oath about a personal matter) was not considered significantly serious to remove him from the elected office of president. Republicans should give thanks for this outcome because it would have been highly likely that as the succeeding president, the insufferable Al Gone would have been elected president in his own right in 2000. What grade do I give the boy president (as R. Emmitt Tyrrell, jr. called him)? A low one for his first two years (again there is the inexperience factor owing to Clinton’s relative youth); considerably higher for the last 5 or 6 years thanks to the repudiation voters gave the Democrats in the mid term elections and the change of course for the president, even taking into account the impeachment verdict meted out to Clinton by congress.

George Walker Bush (2001-2009). Before I excoriate this president, justifiably in my opinion, I will recount a couple of positives for him. His income tax cuts, which he convinced congress to pass, were justified and highly stimulative for the economy through the proper mode; that is through the private sector rather than the government. Bush wanted to make the cuts permanent, but had to settle for a 10-year period in a compromise with congress. At least from a conservative viewpoint the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to SCOTUS were excellent choices, but who can forget the abortive nomination of his White House Counsel, the unqualified Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court where even Republicans in congress rebelled and forced Bush to withdraw his candidate.

Now to the objurgatory part of the evaluation of President Bush – and where to start? How about the circa $5 trillion increase in the national debt, from $5 ½ trillion to $10 ½ trillion, that occurred in the eight years of the Bush presidency? What caused this colossal doubling of the national debt? It was federal spending of course. The unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the unfunded prescription drug program contributed mightily to this debt and there were other expansions of federal spending. Many on the left are wont to say that the “Bush tax cuts” added to the debt because they look at it as a zero sum game. This is disingenuous and wrong. Every time federal taxes are cut the revenues to the government go up. You do not have to take my word for this – read what two of the preeminent economists in the country today, Drs. Thomas Sowell (for more on Dr. Sowell read my blog essay #20 titled Thomas Sowell) and Walter Williams, have written.

From about the year 2000 there was a housing boom where unrealistic prices for housing rose at an unsustainable rate and it should have been inevitable and predictable that a correction was overdue, but the correction, a housing bust, when it came, seemed to have been a Black Swan (for a definition and examples of a Black Swan see my blog #42, Black Swans). The worldwide economic downturn starting in 2007 was triggered by the housing bust and led to banks, other lending institutions, auto companies, Wall Street financial firms, and other businesses ostensibly to need government bailouts to keep them from going bankrupt and causing an even much more ruinous economic and social catastrophe. What would have happened without government intervention is a matter of speculation, so perhaps intervention was the better option to have taken. Was this economic collapse avoidable? I believe it was, but there were multi-varied factors involved in its cause too numerous to comment on here. For a cogent explanation and quick read of the whole mess I refer you to a 2009 book by Thomas Sowell titled The Housing Boom and Bust.

The charge by the far left that Bush (and Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al) had evil and rapacious intentions in invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan is absolutely bogus. Bush is and was a good and decent man who, in my opinion and many others, was tragically wrong in his attempt at “nation building” by use of military force. Although a final verdict is not in on the outcome of the type of societies and governments which will eventuate in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other counties in the Muslim world and therefore whether stability will ensue, at this juncture it appears that the sacrifice in blood and treasure was not nearly worth it. George W. Bush will not be considered a mediocre president like his father; he will be either a resounding success or a dismal failure.

Barack Hussein Obama (2009 - ?). As with his presidential predecessor, it is too soon to give Obama a final evaluation on his presidency, however, based upon what he has done so far, midway through his term, it does not portend positive for him. During his campaign for the presidency, Obama characterized himself as a new style politician, one that evoked the slogan of “hope and change” and he sold himself as a unifier, not a divider; bipartisan not partisan, and a post racial president (He did not say that, but his acolytes did). True, the president inherited a financial mess, none of which was his fault. Unlike Reagan, Obama chose the strategy of using the coffers of the federal government to bring the country out of the recession with massive (nearly a trillion dollars) stimulus spending, with no more success than FDR had in the 1930’s.

Obama’s first important legislative program after the abortive stimulus package was an effective federal takeover of the healthcare system in this country, representing approx. 1/6 of the U.S. economy. With the country stuck in an economic morass, Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, candidly said, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” Using overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate, Obama and the Democrat leadership were able to pass this legislation against the will of a majority of the American voters and increasingly so as more became known about this monstrosity of a healthcare bill. Much of the first year and one-half of Obama’s term was devoted to selling and passing healthcare legislation that has become the centerpiece of the first two years of the president’s term. The unpopularity this and the stimulus, as well as unrelenting deficits contributing to an ever burgeoning national debt combined with a high and intransigent unemployment rate were resoundingly reflected in the mid-term elections where Republicans easily recaptured the majority in the House and closed the gap in the Senate. Obama himself said that he and the congressional Democrats took a “shellacking.”

So has Obama learned anything from his historic midterm election defeat? Despite some early sounds that he had; apparently not. His proposed fiscal budget was a joke as far a trying to curtail spending thereby shrinking the deficit and lowering the national debt. Instead spending increases were the order of the day (what Obama and Democrats refer to as “investments”). In the four years of the Obama administration the national debt has expanded from $10 ½ trillion to over 16 trillion with yearly deficits of over $1 trillion as far down the road as can be forecasted. During the Obama presidency 200,000 federal jobs have been added while total employment jobs have diminished by 3.3 million. The Obama budget for the coming fiscal year is $3.7 trillion. “….O, that way madness lies; let me shun that; No more of that.” King Lear Act III, scene IV. Truly, the direction the country is going is madness. Further if this trend is not reversed the country will slide into second rate and worst status. The way Obama and the left wing Democrats in Congress (led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) are reacting it seems as if the mid-term elections never happened.

President Obama inherited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in a responsible way is trying to extricate the United States from these unfortunately conflicts after making naïve and unrealistic promises to do so during the election campaign and in the embryonic days of his administration. Personally I wish he would get on with the withdrawal, but I understand the political and security factors that have to be considered.

Nowhere, except perhaps with the economy, has Obama’s inexperience, arrogance, and naiveté shown itself more clearly than his attempts to negotiate with America’s enemies such as Iran and North Korea. Clinton was played for a fool in trying (partly through the uninvited auspices of the meddlesome Jimmy Carter) to deal unsuccessfully with North Korea and Obama learned nothing from that failure. When it comes to Iran, Obama failed even more miserably and with even greater negative consequences. Apparently fancying himself the anti-Bush, Obama seemed convinced he could successfully talk Iran into giving up their nuclear bomb ambitions. Of course he could not as any sensible person would have fathomed. The outcome was even more potentially disastrous than his dealings with North Korea. In an attempt to curry favor with the Iranian régime, Obama did not wholeheartedly support the Iranian people when they came out in the streets in the summer of 2009 to protest against the repressive, brutal, and fanatically fundamental Islamic government. Perhaps the overthrow of the Iranian government still would not have occurred even if the Obama administration had given overt and covert support to the rebellious Iranian people, but that is an outcome that will forever be unknown.

Starting in the presidential campaign and continuing into his presidency, Obama criticized past actions of the United States in a series of speeches in Cairo, Istanbul, London, and at the United Nations. When asked if he thought the United States was an exceptional country he replied that many countries believe they are, thereby strongly suggesting that he did not consider the United States exceptional. And as if to cement that belief he made a number of bows to foreign leaders from around the world when he first met them: He made a deep bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in April 2009 (It is true that President Bush held the hand of then Crown Prince Abdullah, who was the actual ruler of Saudi Arabia, at his Crawford ranch in April 2005, which was dopey, but not demeaning); He made a slight bow to Russian Prime Minister Putin in July 2009; another deep bow to Emperor Akihito of Japan in November 2009; and a pronounced bow to President Hu Jintao of China in April 2010. This obeisance by the president of the United States is demeaning to the presidency, the country, and to Obama himself. Why did he repeatedly do it? The answer may lie in Obama’s attitude toward this country as he implied in his statement about the USA not being exceptional which is in sharp contrast to President Reagan’s characterizing the United States as a “Shining City Upon a Hill.”

I will close with this quote from over 2000 years ago to show that the fiscal problems and their solutions we face at this time are hardly new or original:

“The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.”

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 – 43 BC)

LIBERTY AND SECURITY-58

“Those who can give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin, to the Pennsylvania Assembly in 1755. There have been attributions of this sentiment by various people over the centuries, but Franklin’s is the one most quoted.

I could stand it no longer so I have decided to weigh in with my own exegetic thoughts on the U.S. airports security screening brouhaha. As one could surmise from the foregoing quote, I am more than adumbrating that I am not in favor of what the TSA (Transportation Safety Administration) is doing to that portion of the American public who fly on commercial airlines. In fact I find these procedures of full body scans and intrusive body pat-downs highly offensive. Paralogistical bureaucrats asseverate, ipse dixit, the necessity of these outrageous practices which is so highly predictable: It is solely to make the flying public as safe as is possible. What offal! I would wager that the overriding concern of the TSA and the rest of the Obama administration, and Obama, himself, in case an Islamic terrorist blows up an airplane in mid-flight, is to claim they did everything humanly possible to thwart it. But did they? As has been stated myriad times, the Israelis have the best airport security system in the world. So what do they do? They profile. The passenger list is scrutinized before the flight to attempt to identify any potential terrorist; certain passengers are questioned; and all are observed to spot any nervous or peculiar behavior. Particular attention is paid to young Middle Eastern, Eastern, or North African looking types (after all where are these Islamic terrorists from, Muslim countries or Scandinavian countries?). Isn’t that profiling? Absolutely, and we should be doing the same thing, except political correctness is so rampant in this country that we put ourselves at risk and endure humiliating procedures just to avoid contravening it.

Amendment IV to the United States Constitution says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…..” Is what the TSA doing to the American flying public in violation of their constitutional right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches? I believe most of these flying passengers and certainly the airline flight crews would agree. If this issue would ever reach the U.S. Supreme Court, how it would be ruled on is problematic.

Far more liberals than conservatives do not object to the governmental enhanced airport screening techniques now being used. Many of those same liberals opposed every method used by the Bush administration to interdict the terrorist acts of the Islamic extremists including warrantless wire taps, rendition, and enhanced interrogations of known terrorists, especially, horror of horrors, water-boarding all of three high profile Islamic terrorist chiefs. The claim was always that the civil rights of these people were being violated by an overweening government. Yet with the civil and privacy rights of ordinary Americans now being violated by enhanced airport screening, these liberals have no problem with it. Let’s see, do you suppose that what is now being done by the Obama administration rather than the Bush administration has anything to do with the attitude of liberals?

A recent poll showed that 50% of the American public thinks the intrusive body pat-downs go too far and 48% do not think so. Who are these benighted 48%? In his play A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, scene II, Shakespeare wrote “What fools these mortals be.” The label fits those idiots perfectly. The poll also said that by a 2:1 ratio they were not troubled by the full body scans. In fairness to the American public I believe it highly likely that if only the flying public were polled the outcome would be considerably different in favor of more opposition to an overly intrusive government. As far as the non-flying American public is concerned when and in what society have the Plebeians ever been introspective or critically thoughtful?

Do these enhanced airport security methods actually make people in airplanes safer as the TSA and liberals who have no problem with an overbearing government claim? Ask yourself: How many terrorists have been apprehended with these “safety” procedures? The answer is zero, none, nada. The would-be “shoe bomber” was foiled by other passengers and the failed “underwear bomber” by his own ineptness after they were already on an airplane. The upshot was airline passengers were required to remove their shoes for inspection and have their underwear searched. It is always the same with these bumbling and fatuous government employees in their inchoate and always reactive, but never proactive response to the tactics of Islamic terrorists. If these Islamic Jihads start making buses and trains in the USA their targets of attacks will the federal government then expand their current “security” protocols in airports to bus and train stations? By what violation of apodictic reasoning could anyone doubt that the proven unimaginative and obtuse government bureaucrats would react any differently to that situation than they have to past threats? N’est-ce pas?

There was a Drudge Report headline that stated: The Terrorists Have Won. That may be a bit premature, but given the reaction of the U.S. government to the attempts (unsuccessfully) since 9/11 by Islamic terrorists to perpetrate acts of terrorism against the United States and given the cravenly acceptance by so many of the American people to these government actions then the direction in this war with terrorists is definitive. The airport so-called “security” methods which are gross intrusions of the civil and privacy rights of American citizens do not demonstrably make anyone any safer. It clearly is not necessary for these Islamic fanatics to success in their quest to bring down the West in general and the United States in particular by killing and maiming hundreds or thousands of people with violent acts. Once they have cowed a sufficient number of people such that the will to resist is gone and their spirits crushed, then the Islamic terrorists have indeed won. With the American public surrendering their liberty for a little perceived safety to an increasingly expansive government is to lose the first battle in the war with Islamic terrorists. If this trend continues can there be little doubt that the war will be eventually lost one step at a time?

PERCEIVED INCIVILITY IN POLITICS AND THE TRUE PERIL OF THE USA-57

Let me contribute a few cautionary comments from my perspective of decades of observing the contemporary scene and being a student of history that one need not fear for our country because of perceived incivility in the body politic today. The history of politics in our country is replete with more personal attacks, vitriolic discourse, and shameless slanders since the founding of the Republic than what takes place today. Two of the Founding Fathers, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were political allies and personnel friends in the revolutionary days and during the George Washington presidency. In the contest to succeed Washington, Adams and Jefferson became bitter enemies accusing each other of particularly unflattering calumnies and down right falsehoods. Fortunately, Abigail Adams, the accomplished and intellectually gifted wife of John Adams, had been a good friend of Jefferson and her persistence in trying to reconcile the pair finally allowed the two former friends, turned enemies, to resolve their differences during the last 17 years of their lives, after their political careers were over. Thus were created and preserved many priceless letters exchanged between them in those 17 years. As a matter of historical note they both died (Adams was 7½ years older than Jefferson) on the same day; the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Republic.

In 1856, leading up to the Civil War, antislavery Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts made an intemperate speech on the floor of the Senate criticizing proslavery Sen. Andrew Butler of South Carolina. Three days later Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina, a relative of Butler, walked up to Sumner who was seated at his desk in the Senate chamber and beat him with his cane so severely that Sumner was absence from the Senate for three years while recovering. The people of South Carolina sent Brooks dozens of canes to replace the one he had broken while he was pummeling Sumner. For weeks afterwards many of the senators and representatives carried pistols and knives on them while they were in the Senate or House chambers and in their offices. Still think there is relatively gross incivility in politics today?

Even, along with George Washington, our most respected, admired, and honorable president, Abraham Lincoln, was not above nasty politics in his youth as a politician in Illinois. As people were wont to do at that time, Lincoln anonymously wrote a scathing, not to say slanderous, parody in the local newspaper of one of his political opponents. Lincoln was soon discovered to be the author and his opponent challenged him to a duel. Friends of both of them interceded so that the dispute was settled without the antagonists resorting to shooting at each other – fortunately, else the country might have been deprived of one of its greatest presidents.

Historians have well documented that during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, what was called the era of “yellow” journalism, newspapers and politicians put forth the most outrageous and villainous descriptions of their opponents than anything that could be imagined today.

Audrey, a little advice from an old codger who has seen it all. If you use an example to illustrate a finer point make sure the example has validity. Other than former respected civil rights activist and now Representative in the House, John Lewis (D-GA) who allegedly said he heard the “N” word used against him by the Tea Party protestors in Washington D.C. there is no evidence that it occurred. Lewis would not go on any TV network, not Fox News or the other left leaning networks, and repeat that claim. Lewis himself had used over the top and therefore uncivil criticism during the presidential campaign, calling John McCain and Sarah Palin segregationists and comparing them to George Wallace. Prior to that Lewis was the first major House member to call for the impeachment of George W. Bush.

A website owner and conservative Jew, Andrew Breitbart, was suspicious of the claim that Tea Party participants had used foul or racist language toward black members of congress so he offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who could produce any camera cell phone recording or other evidence that it happened. He had no takers so he increased the amount to $100,000 and is still waiting. Given how ubiquitous camera cell phones are now (just consider what happened to the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, Jerry Jones. If you have not heard the story this past week I could relate it to you) one would think that someone would have recorded it. Also not one of the dozens and dozens of Capital Police has said they heard anything untoward directed toward black members of congress. I am just saying be sure your “facts” can not be reasonably disputed by someone like me.

There are always fringe people in any group and the current government protestors are no exception. These yahoos go beyond acceptable bounds and Bill Clinton was right to point this out a couple of days ago. However, if one is to be a moral arbitrator, then it is imperative to be consistent in this position. Where was Clinton a few years ago when some of the anti Iraq and Afghanistan wars protestors were calling George W. Bush a murderer, liking him to Hitler, and displaying signs with crosshairs on the forehead of a picture of Bush? It is necessary to be fair and consistent when impugning the character and motives of others in order to avoid the appellation of hypocrite.

Is there a reason to be concerned about the course of our country today? Yes there is, but it is not about incivility in politics – it has to do with the economic well being of the country. The vast majority of the protestors today are deeply concerned about the explosive growth of and expansion of the power of the federal government and the burgeoning, seemingly out of control, federal dept. The cause of the rapidly increasing dept is bipartisan and the solution to this grave problem will have to be bipartisan also.

During the first five years of the Bill Clinton administration the federal government ran what by now seem like exceedingly small budget deficits and during his last three years and the first year of the Bush administration (thanks to the Clinton and congress policies) there were budget surpluses. In the entire eight year Clinton administration there was a modest $700 billion increase in the national dept, which, because of the growth in the GDP (gross domestic product), actually caused the debt to became a smaller percentage in relation to the GDP. Whatever the moral failings of Bill Clinton and his under emphasis on the Islamic Terrorist threat during his presidency, there is no denying that the Clinton administration was fiscally conservative and responsible.

For the eight years of the Bush administration the national dept increased by circa $5 trillion, from $5½ to $10½ trillion. Much of this debt increase was due to the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the increase in the subsidies of the Medicare/Medicaid prescription drug program. In my opinion this was highly irresponsible because if wars are worth fighting and federal subsidies worth granting then they are worth paying for by either cutting other federal expenditures or raising taxes or both.

In the 21 months of the current presidential administration the national debt increased by $3 trillion, from $10 1/2 to $13 1/2 trillion. A severe financial crises and recession were inherited, true enough, yet instead of sensibly concentrating on improving the economy, lowering unemployment, and trying to control the rapidly increasing national debt, the Obama administration zeroed in on healthcare reform as its primary program.

The debt and its projected growth over the next ten years are unsustainable and if not reversed will do irreversible damage to our economy and society. As of Oct. 2007 the national dept has increased an average of $4.16 billion per day! This explains why the idea of a VAT (Value Added Tax) which means that in every step of the manufacturing or production of goods a tax is added. The concept of going to a VAT in this country is now starting to be bandied about by both liberals and conservatives, but for political reasons will not be proposed before the November bi-year elections. There is simply not enough money available from raising income taxes on the rich to have a significant impact on the dept. As it is, according to the latest figures from the IRS, 47% of the bottom income group of USA households does not pay federal income taxes. In fact the lowest 40% of income households actually receive subsidies from the federal government each year to the tune of $70 billion. The top 1% of income earners (making $390,000 or more per year) pay about the same amount of federal income tax ($450 billion) as the lowest 95% (making $150,000 per year or less). The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of all federal income tax leaving the bottom 50% paying only 3%. Thus the only realistic alternative of raising significant amounts of revenue for the federal government is the VAT which will be paid by everyone. The estimate is that every 1% of VAT in this country would generate about $100 billion in revenues. Therefore a 10% VAT would mean one trillion dollars for the government coffers. That is quite a temptation for politicians.

The European nations pay for their welfare programs with income taxes and a VAT. In Western Europe the top income tax rate varies from 40% to 54% with the average being 48% and the VAT varying from 16% to 25% with the average being 20%. In Eastern Europe the top income tax rate ranges from 10% to 45% with the average being 22½% and the VAT from 15% to 23% with an average of 19%. Do we really want to go down the road to European socialism?

In the United States the top federal income rate is currently 35%. When the so called Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 the top income tax rate will go back to 39.6%. What is a comparable tax in this country to the European VAT is the state and local sales tax. In Plano it is 8¼%, not quite at the 20% European level. If a VAT were enacted here it would be added to, not replace, the sales tax.

Is there any justification for the USA to have a VAT to help bring down our dangerously high and rapidly increasing national dept? I think yes – with several caveats. (1.) It should not be enacted until our economy and unemployment level have shown clear signs of improvement. (2.) It should be a temporary tax of “X” years where “X” is just long enough to have a measurable and significant impact on lowering our debt. (3.) It should expire after “X” years with a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress required to extend it. (4.) Congress has to enact legislation, signed by the president, for major reductions in government spending including the military and entitlement programs (Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid) as well as pork barrel spending so favored by the rascals in congress (Is it any wonder that congress has a 50 year high disapproval rating of 75% to 80%?).

I may be overly optimistic, but I believe when the ever increasing national financial peril of our country is at last appreciated by a large majority of the voters then our elected representatives will finally act to correct this dire situation. Not this year perhaps; still the way the national dept is mushrooming, not so far in the future that it will be too late to save this great nation.

MUSLIMS TAKING OVER EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA-56

There is a widely circulating video on the internet, titled demographic_problem.wmv, which shows the dire probability of Muslims taking over Europe and North America in a few decades on the basis of population expansion relative to the indigenous Europeans and North Americans.

Demographics is a subject I know something about so I will make this essay as concise and informative as I can. I have written on the subject before in the last third of my blog essay titled Energy (there is a link between population and energy requirements) so you may want to look at that; also one of the best sources around, as I noted in my essay, is the 2004 book Fewer by Ben J. Wattenberg who is recognized as a demographics expert and who has been following and analyzing population trends for the last 40 years or so.

That video is alarmist and extreme and illustrates how selected facts can be used to draw unrealistic, false, and even outrageous conclusions. The video says that action must be taken before it is too late (presumably too late to prevent a takeover of the world by Muslims), but what is the action that is recommended? It is not specified. The video is correct in stating that the replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman; anything less leads to population decline and of course anything more will cause population growth.

Before I start refuting the ominous conclusions of this video I will denote what some of the real concerns are for the coming worldwide and individual country population declines as anyone who is paying attention knows. Just as our Social Security system is now predicted to be in the red in 2010 because fewer and fewer workers are paying into the system and more and more retirees are collecting benefits, the Europeans have greater economic problems because of their even more severely aging population and concomitant falling total fertility rates (TFR). There may well be massive societal dislocations and reordering of priorities and possibly lowering of economic well being, in spite of technology advances, in the coming decades. As I noted in my essay, quoting Wattenberg, the world population will rise from approx. 6 3/4 billion in 2010 to 8 to 9 billion in 2050 and then may drop to between 2 and 3 billion by 2300!

Now let’s discuss the supposed Islamization of Europe and North America in the coming years. The figures for the TFR for several European countries given in the video are as follows with the figures given by Wattenberg in parentheses: Germany 1.3 (1.35); France 1.8 (1.89); Italy 1.2 (1.23); Great Britain 1.6 (1.6); Spain 1.1 (1.15); Greece 1.3 (1.27); and the average of 31 countries in the European Union 1.38 (1.38). As you can see these figures are practically the same so there is no dispute for these data. The claim in the video for an 8.1 TFR for the Muslims in France is highly suspect given the TFR for various Muslim and Arab countries in North Africa (where most of the Muslim emigrants to Europe come from) and in the Middle East as given by Wattenberg: North Africa as a whole 40 years ago had a TFR of 7.1 and now is 3.2 and sinking like a stone and Tunisia is now 2.0. In 40 years Syria went from a TFR of 7.6 to 3.3; Jordan 8.0 to 3.6; Iraq 7.2 to 4.8; Saudi Arabia 7.3 to 4.5; Iran 7.0 to 2.3; and Egypt, the most populous Arab/Muslim country in the world, went from a TFR of 7.1 in 1960-65 to 3.3 in 2004.

The total population of all of the Arab nations in the world is approximately the same as the USA with the world Muslim population being circa 1/6 of the total world population. The non-Arab country with the largest Muslim population in the world is Indonesia at about 230 million and is the fourth most populous nation after China, India, and the USA. The TFR of Indonesia went from 5.7 in 1960-65 to 2.35 in 2001. In addition to Indonesia, the TFR in Turkey, Bangladesh, and Pakistan are falling rapidly although the TFR is Pakistan was one of the world’s highest at 5.08; however it fell one full point from 1990.to 2000.

The oft expressed fear that the Palestinians would overwhelm the Jewish population in numbers is not materializing. The TFR for the Jewish population in Israel was 2.6 in 2002; the Arab women in the Occupied Territories went from 8.0 in 1970 to 7.0 in 1985 and 5.6 in 2002. The trend is favorable to the Jews.

A few years ago lawyer Alan Dershowitz and columnist Richard Cohen were lamenting that 1/3 and an increasing ratio of young Jews in the United States were marrying outside their religion. They were concerned that Jewish people in the USA were losing their culture and something needed to be done about it. Wattenberg’s comment was “Yah, and good luck with that.” In democracies, people, especially young people, are going to do what they want to do.

To quote Wattenberg: “The Catholic Rule is broken and so too is the Muslim rule. It would be remarkable if it were not so as it has happened everywhere else. Joseph Chamie, Director of the UN Population Division (UNPD) puts it this way: “There was the Industrial Revolution. There was the Information Age. Now there is the Demographic Revolution.” In his PhD dissertation in 1976 and his 1981 book, Religion and Fertility Chamie clearly predicted just what has happened.” This was in stark contrast to the inchoate and chimerical, ipse dixit, population predictions made by Paul Ehrlich in his 1968 book, The Population Bomb (see my blog essay Fools, Frauds, and Fakes).

Again quoting Wattenberg: “People are people; sooner or later Catholics behave like Protestants; and Muslims like Christians.” Some people react emotionally to what they perceive as alarming situations. As for me, I prefer to act rationally and be guided by what the data reveal.

THE USA MILITARY-55

This essay is not an anti USA military screed; rather it is an analytical and dispassionate conspectus of the current USA military encompassing its philosophy, budget, and the worldwide distribution of its personnel. The truly anti-military far left loons may agree with what I am initially espousing, but wait – they will violently (as only they can) oppugn my wrap-up. You may not accept my thesis completely; that is your prerogative. Still, I shall endeavor to make my case as logically and persuasively as I am capable of.

My premise is simple: I believe the United States of America should not be the world’s policeman and yet that is what we essentially are. There may have been justification in some people’s minds, although not in mine, that the USA needed to fill that role during the Cold War. During this War on Terrorism we should certainly co-operate with other willing nations to oppose and thwart the Islamic fanatics who want to kill us. On the other hand, I don’t think the United States would be abrogating any moral imperative by not shouldering the burden of large scale military action against the client states of the terrorists as we are now doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The nominal USA military budget is $664 billion of which $534 billion is the base budget. This represents 40% of all of military spending in the world. Total military spending for fiscal year 2010 will be between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion. In 2005 the military budget was 4.06% of GDP; the low in recent years was 1999-2001 where the figure was 3.0% of GDP. The high occurred during WWII in 1944 at 37.8% and during the Vietnam War in 1968 it was 9.4%.

There are 1,454,000 active duty people in the USA military and 848,000 in the military reserve. Only China has a larger standing active military, but their military expenditures are 1/9 of ours. That represents considerably lower pay and more modest benefits for their soldiers as well as a mere fraction of the complex military hardware developed and manufactured by the United States.

There are 820 USA military installations in 135 countries around the world. These vary from small scale observer sites manned by a couple dozen or fewer people to huge military army, navy, or air force bases with tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors, or air force personnel. The USA has 142,000 soldiers in Iraq; 56,000 in Germany; 40,000+ and increasing in Afghanistan; 33,000 in Japan; 28,500 in South Korea; 9700 in Italy and Great Britain. By geographic area these figures breakdown as follows: 85,000 in Europe; 78,500 in North Africa, the Near East, & South Asia; 70,000 in East Asia & the Pacific; and 2000 in the Western Hemisphere (excluding the USA).

A partial list of the countries that the United States has military personnel in is as follows: Aruba, Australia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Canada, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ghana, Greenland, Hong Kong, Iceland (one can never tell when hostilities are going to break out in Iceland requiring intervention by USA troops), Kyrgyzstan, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Saint Helena, Senegal, Singapore, Uganda, UAE, US Virgin Islands. How on earth can the citizens of the countries, possessions, or principalities other than the 135 the USA protects, sleep peacefully at night?

Never in the history of the world, not during the time of Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, the reign of the Mongols, the Mayans, or the Ottoman Empire has one entity spread its military might to more places on earth as the USA has currently done. It is not for conquest or subjugation of other peoples that the USA has done this. It was done with the best intentions. However, never let us forget what the “Road to Hell” is paved with. It is time, nay it is past time, the USA, however well meaning, solely occupies and protects its own land. Few other countries merit or, in fact, even desire we do this for them.

If we are to greatly curtail our overseas military, then how are we to protect ourselves? Here is what we should not do: give captured terrorists the same rights USA citizens get in civilian courts; so restrict our intelligence community that they can not monitor our ubiquitous enemies; impede communications between our domestic and foreign intelligence agencies.

What we should do is spend enough money and attract sufficient talent to ensure that we are in the forefront of nuclear weapon and delivery technology so that potential enemies such as Iran, North Korea, possibly Pakistan, and whomever are sufficiently deterred from even thinking of attacking us without the fear of themselves being completely destroyed by our retaliatory might. Let the nations who would appease the terrorists go down the path of nuclear disarmament. The modern “Better Red than Dead” crowd would be horrified and appalled by my assertion in this paragraph – so be it. I am for protecting this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

To accomplish this transformation of pulling in and reducing our military from around the world would take time, even a decade or longer, as a matter of simple logistics, treaty agreements, and so not to unnecessarily disrupt our economic equilibrium. What is the chance that this will be done? Likely in this decade, as the cliché goes, slim to none. Yet, done it must be, if only for economic reasons. As a people we are economically impelled to put Social Security and Medicare /Medicaid on a sound financial footing else the country will sink under unsustainable debt. There are several ways to do it: cut benefits, increase the fees for both the beneficiaries and working contributors, and increase medical services efficiencies by instituting tort reform and allowing interstate health insurance coverage. Likewise our military expense must share the cost reductions of Social Security and our health service. The voting public will insist upon it.

THE COPENHAGEN CONFERENCE – THE SUPREME IRONY-54

Before launching into the crux of this essay, let me settle a small point of pronunciation. Is the capital of Denmark pronounced Copenhāgen, with a long “a” or a short “a” as in Copenhăgen? The answer depends on whether one uses the American pronunciation or the Danish, and actually all of Europe, pronunciation. Columnist Charles Krauthammer brought up a rather picky point by scolding Barack Obama for using the European pronunciation of Copenhăgen when speaking to an American audience. Krauthammer asked if Obama would be telling us that he would be stopping in Paris (pronounced Părē) and Deutschland on the way home.

President Obama had to make a hurried departure from the Global Warming Conference in Copenhagen back to Washington D.C. because of the heavy snowfall which was accurately predicted for much of the Northeastern Coast. On RAI News (the Italian Worldwide TV Network) on 12/20/09, the headlines on the weather segment of the broadcast were: “Il Posto Piu Freddo d’Italia”(The coldest place in Italy); “Gelo Nord & Centro d’Italia”(Icy conditions in Northern & Central Italy”; “Tutta Europa Sotto la Neve” (All of Europe is under snow); “Washington, Nevicata Record” (Record snowfall for Washington D.C.). An added benefit of reading my essays is being given the opportunity of learning esoteric words or, as in this case, foreign phrases.

And of course the cold and snowy weather in Europe did not exempt Denmark. During a snafu for several hundred journalists waiting in a queue to enter the conference hall some conference official was handing out sandwiches and coffee to the waiting journalists. One of the journalists shouted out “I don’t want food, I want heavy socks, I am freezing my a** off!” We all know that during adversity, journalists are far less likely than normal people to suffer in silence.

This two-week Brummagem and paralogistic Global Warming Conference was attended by representatives from 120 or so countries. In order for these people to get to Copenhagen there were 1200 limos and 140 private aeroplanes used. In fact there was insufficient space for all of these aeroplanes in the Copenhagen airports so some pilots had to fly to neighboring countries and wait there until it was time to return to Copenhagen to pick up their passengers. A rather large carbon footprint was left for this event I would say, but then these crapulous G.W. enthusiasts never have worried about their own carbon pollution high jinks.

After all of this expenditure of money, time, energy, and pollution was anything of substance accomplished? The straight up answer is no and for valid and logical reasons. No country, industrialized or becoming so, wants to cripple its economy. China, India, Brazil, the European countries, and the United States, hopefully (although with the current administration I am not so sure), will not commit economic suicide just to appease the G.W. mob. By the way, the majority of the protestors at this conference are the same motley gang of hoodlums who protest at G-8 and G-20 meetings. They are self-avowed Communists and Marxists who are parasites living off the unearned fruits of capitalism. What a revolting and contemptible lot they are.

I have addressed the Global Warming issue in three previous blog essays (Global Warming; Global Cooling or Warming – Which the Heaven or Hell is it?; Beer Consumption & Other Little Ice Age Phenomena) so I will confine myself here to just a few ancillary remarks.

Is global warming occurring and is it anthropoidally caused? The answer to the first part is that it depends upon what time period you mean. From the late 1970’s to the late 1990’s there was perceptible global warming after cooling in the 1960’s to middle to late 1970’s such that the mainstream news media were all atwitter about how there appeared to be another Little Ice Age in the making. In the past 10 years there has not been any worldwide warming. This, by itself, does not prove anything – there could be CO² warming going on which is temporarily being overtaken by certain cooling factors.

The second part of the question is a decided yes. As I have stated previously (somewhere) Pittsburg, PA used to be known as the “Smokey City” due to all of the pollution from steel mills, but not anymore owing to anti-pollution devises and greatly reduced steel making. Los Angles had more pollution 30/40 years ago than now largely from automobile emissions which were greatly reduced over the intervening years. The topography (LA sits in a bowl) and wind patterns made the Los Angles area particularly susceptible to man-made pollution. London had fewer hours of sunshine 100 years ago and more, than now because of all the coal that was burned in factories and homes at that time.

Therefore if anthropoidic activity can influence weather and cause significant pollution locally, then surely more widespread pollution could conceivably affect weather on a broader worldwide scale. Having said that, the question, and a multi-trillion dollar question it is, is what is the evidence that man-made pollution is causing the globe to warm to increasing and dangerous levels to the detriment of the earth’s inhabitants? Given the myriad periods, on long term (1000’s of years), intermediate term (100’s of years), and short term (10’s of years) where mother earth (Gaia) has alternately been hotter and colder long before humans had initiated the industrial age or in fact were even around, what logical reasons are there to definitively assert that any current warming (especially since the end of The Little Ice Age, circa 1850) is caused by perfidious and unkind mankind?

Before committing to an international policy where the industrialized nations of the world cripple their economies, therefore retrograding to past decades the economic wellbeing of their citizens, and transfer 100’s of billions of dollars annually to third world nations, especially the so called kleptocracies, this whole subject of climate change needs to be thoroughly, honestly, and objective discussed and debated. Unfortunately the Global Warming “True Believers” clearly have no desire to engage in an exchange of data and discuss this singularly important question, as the infamously leaked East Anglia e-mails and previous refusal of Global Warming energumen such as Al Gore, Michael Mann, James Hansen, et al to debate the issue show.

Mid 1950’s Adventures in the Crawfish State-53

Yes, I know the official state name for Louisiana is the Pelican State; however nothing describes Louisiana better than the crawfish. Whether in gumbo or in étouffée, I developed a decided taste for the little critters.

In the summer of 1955 I worked for Shell Oil in Baton Rouge (French for Red Stick), Louisiana while still a student at Michigan Technology University. During this time the Democrat primary for governor was going on with the major opponents being Earl Long and the then mayor of New Orleans. The Democrat primary was tantamount to the general election because the Republicans and independents could put up only token opposition. Long was two years younger than his more famous or notorious, depending upon your viewpoint, brother, Huey (The Kingfish) Long who had been governor, U.S. Senator, and virtual dictator of Louisiana from 1928 to 1935 when he was supposedly killed by a political opponent, 28 year old Dr. Carl A. Weiss. There is uncertainty yet today whether Long was shot by Dr. Weiss or accidentally shot by his own overzealous bodyguards. There were a reputed 61 bullet holes in Dr. Weiss’s body. With that much lead flying about it would not be surprising if Long were hit by one of his bodyguard’s stray bullets. The state of Louisiana and the entire country were arguably better off with the early demise of the demigod, Huey Long, at the age of 42.

Earl Long had a poor formal education, but in his own right was a gifted politician who was a compelling stump speaker and his election record proved it. Long once joked: “Some day the people of Louisiana will get a good governor [i.e., an honest one] and they won’t like it.” His opponent, the mayor of New Orleans, was DeLesseps Story “Chep” Morrison, Sr. Where else but in Louisiana would there be a politician with such heterodox first and middle names and a plebian surname? The Long supporters called Morrison “Ole de la Soups” and Long said of him that “He never before saw a man who could speak out of both sides of his mouth, whistle, and strut at the same time.” According to author and magazine columnist A. J. Liebling, Louisiana politicians used to tell their political opponents and other people they did not like, “You ain’t nothin but a little piss-ant.” The expression apparently comes from the urine-like odor of certain ant’s nesting material of needles and straw from pine trees; especially the two genera of Forelius and Irydomyrmex. Louisiana politicians had an absolute talent for insulting their opponents with colorful metaphors.

In Baton Rouge I met a strange, but dapper and voluble little man (I don’t remember his name) who was an ardent supporter and hanger-on of Morrison and who seemed to be straight from the pages of the novel Guys and Dolls by Damon Runyon which became a musical on Broadway and was made into a 1955 movie of the same name starring Frank Sinatra, Jean Simmons, and Marlon Brando.

He tried to convince me that Morrison would be elected governor of Louisiana. He told me “Don’t you know that Chep Morrison will become the next governor of Louisiana? Don’t you know that this is the end of the corrupt Long regime? Don’t you know that Louisiana will finally get an honest governor?” And on and on. I suspect that part of his reason for telling me this was to practice his political oratory. I was not much interested in Louisiana politics, but I listened because of politeness and he was in fact an interesting speaker. He said that a day or two before he had attended a rally for Morrison. When he started to speak a couple of Morrison’s advisors tried to shut him up. Morrison himself said, “No, let him speak.” My little acquaintance seemed to derive a lot of pleasure in telling me this.

Came the day of the election and Long buried Morrison and the minor candidates so thoroughly that a runoff was not necessary. When I ran into my friend on the street the next day he had a large Earl Long campaign button pinned to his suit jacket lapel! I asked him ”What the hell are you doing?” He replied that one had to do what one has to do to survive in the political jungle that was Louisiana politics or some such nonsense.

Where else but in Louisiana and with the Longs would the situation arise that a sitting governor of a state would be put in a mental institution (perhaps in Illinois?)? During his last term as governor Earl Long was committed to a mental institution by his wife, Blanche Revere Long and her political allies. As governor, Long fired the head of the mental institution he was in and appointed a political ally who released him. Why did his wife conspire to confine him to a loony bin? He was having an affair with a stripper named Blaze Starr and when it became known to the public it caused her no end of embarrassment.

There was a true story making the rounds when I was in Louisiana. While he was governor, Earl Long was drunk in the best hotel in New Orleans, The Roosevelt. Because he was too lazy to find a bathroom or too stewed or crazy or all three, he urinated in a corner of the hotel lobby. It is now thought that Ole Earl was bipolar. That might have explained some of the craziness, but perhaps his wife was right – he may have been just plain nuts. Still think that Louisiana politicians back then even approached normalcy?

I met another interesting fellow during my sojourn in Baton Rouge; a young immigrant from Puerto Rico who worked as a draftsman for the state. He was an archetypical worrywart. He worried that his colleagues at work did not like him; he worried that he would lose his job; and he worried that he would get sick so that he could not work. As far as I could tell he was not only young and healthy, but personable and fun to be around with an increasing number of friends. One thing he did not worry about was the purchase of equities. His favorite was Fruehauf Trailer. He said that when you buy stocks and the prices go up you make money. I asked him what if the price goes down. He replied then he would buy more. Made sense to me.

He had a sister in San Juan, Puerto Rico who he showed me a photo of and tried to entice me to write to her. She looked alright, but I told him that she would not be coming here and I would not be going to Puerto Rico so what was the point.

While in Baton Rouge I lived in a boarding house which was just a couple of blocks from the Shell Oil office. It was a private home where the owner, a city policeman, and his wife took in a few male boarders who slept in the 2nd story of the house. The cost for room and board, with breakfast and dinner provided six days per week (only breakfast on Sunday), was the princely sum of $13/week! Seems like an outright steal doesn’t it? However, my starting salary the next year, after I graduated as a geological engineer, was $400/month ($4800/year), up from $250/month ($3000/year) four years earlier for the same job.

During the last month or so of my summer job I was transferred to Crowley, LA, to the west of Baton Rouge and into Cajun territory. I rented a room in a proper boarding house and was charged $15/week. When I complained at the Shell Oil office about having to pay $2 more per week for board and room than I had paid in Baton Rouge the people at the office laughed and said that it seemed like a good deal to them. They were likely right.

For a couple of months in the summer of 1956 as a permanent employee I worked in the district office of Shell Oil Company in New Orleans (Shell Oil USA was then a wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell in the Hague, Netherlands). I lived in a boarding house on St. Charles Avenue and rode the streetcar to work every day. This was the first time that this young man from Michigan was confronted with institutional racism. I was surprised and bemused at what I saw. The street cars had movable boards with pegs on each end that slid into the backs of each row of seats. On these boards was printed “For Colored Only.” The idea was to keep blacks and whites separated, with blacks literally sitting in the back of the streetcars, while making accommodation for economics. As the mix of black and white passengers changed, the boards on the backs of the seats were either moved forward or backward to allow space for either more blacks or more whites yet keeping the cars as full as possible. How do you like that? The philosophy was to maintain segregation while maximizing the economic income of the city through streetcar revenues. Talk about “deals with the devil.” What is even more unbelievable relative to the racial equality and mores of today is that the blacks themselves moved the segregation boards forward or backward.

I saw more of this and other discriminating racial practices in the South at that time than any black person under 40 today has ever experienced. Yet to hear some blacks whine about and accuse whites of racist words and acts one would think that the 1950’s in the United States was still with us. Author and longshoreman, Eric Hoffer, said it best 40 year ago that it is not when people are being oppressed that they make trouble and complain about it most - it is when they are well on the way to respectful and equitable treatment. The recent brouhaha between Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, jr. and the Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley as well as the addlepated and unjustified insertion of President Obama into the matter is but the latest bogus claim of racial profiling by blacks.

Working out of the Mobil Oil Exploration office in Dallas I made numerous business trips to the Mobil Oil office in New Orleans in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The difference in the treatment of blacks, both officially and personally was like night and day compared to what I witnessed 20 years earlier. And of course there has been further improvement in the status, treatment, and opportunities for blacks in the South as well as the North since then to the extent that discrimination against blacks and other minorities is now less prevalent that favoritism towards blacks and I suspect there is now more, on a percentage basis, racial animosity and resentment against whites by blacks than vice-versa.

Bernard Goldberg, erstwhile CBS Television newsman, current Fox TV commentator, and ten-time Emmy Award winning journalist and author, recently said that race relations in this country is a wound that never heals. C’est une pitié.