Over the last couple of weeks, CSPAN has been showing a series of broadcasts called “The Contenders.” The purpose of the program is to highlight some of the more notable presidential election losers whose contributions extend far beyond their failed presidential run. For those not entirely into history, there is also a comedic element, as callers trying to pose serious queries get turned around on the quality over quantity element to questions. Secondly, CSPAN does a great job finding historians who are experts on the person of the night, if not entirely comfortable in front of the camera. It makes for great television. However, watching the program, I was struck as to why Henry Clay has not received more attention in many history classes.
Henry Clay is often mentioned in conjunction with Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun as one of the “great compromisers.” He first rose to prominence in the debate over the admission of Missouri into the Union. Missouri represented the first state culled out of the old Louisiana territory and it wanted to join the Union as a slave state. At the time, the congressmen from the free northern states and the slave southern states wanted to maintain a balance of delegates in Congress to maintain the status quo. Missouri threatened that but with the admission of Maine as a free state, the efforts of Henry Clay, among others, a national crisis was diverted.
Over the next couple of decades, much of it as Speaker of the House, he worked to implement his “American System” – an improvement plan for the country that included protective tariffs, a stronger banking system and government paid-for infrastructure improvements. He also voraciously challenged President Andrew Jackson on the existence of a national bank. However, for all of his work, he was not terribly successful on the big moments. His American System fell to southern states suspicious of the federal government’s paying of projects within their states. That same group was also adamantly against tariffs, which traditionally, in U.S. history, favored New England industries and punished farmers. President Jackson was able to outmaneuver Speaker Clay and his congressional ally, John Quincy Adams. While impressive as the Speaker, the aforementioned incidents, not to mention his failed presidential run in 1824, kept him from the top echelon of American politicians.
His biggest moment, his biggest achievement was to happen towards the end of his life. California wanted to be a state but a free state. Southern congressmen were outraged and again, for the second time in forty years, the country was on the verge of devolution, possibly war. However, the now senator from Kentucky and two of his colleagues, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina and Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, rose to the occasion. Most of them near death, literally, they worked together to produce one bill after another to bring the two sides together.
The Compromise of 1850 is one of the most important pre-Civil War congressional measures. Senator Calhoun died shortly after its passage and the other two senators died a mere two years later. Henry Clay played a large role but beyond this compromise, little is spoken about in “regular” U.S. history classes. It makes one wonder who else is being overlooked in U.S. or world history.
Henry Clay's service to his country deserves greater recognition. I’m doing my part as a historical votary and teacher (and occasional blogger), CSPAN is doing theirs with this amazing collection of features (every Friday night at 8:00ET). If you are interested, Robert V. Ramini’s At the Edge of the Precipice is a great study on the 1850 compromise and worth your time.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
The Conscience of Daniel Ellsberg
In 2010, POV, a popular PBS program, produced a documentary on the reasons for and the impact of Daniel Ellsberg’s leaking of the Pentagon Papers – a thirty year study on U.S. involvement in Viet Nam. As published by The New York Times, it would prove a damning indictment of Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson on the grounds of the justification and progress of the war. Depending largely on interviews with Mr. Ellsberg himself, as well as many of his former colleagues and supporters, it tells of the transformation of the former foreign policy maker and colors the event through that paradigm.
As a historian, I’m left to wonder how to classify Mr. Ellsberg. From a purely objective point of view, he belongs in the category of Benedict Arnold, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Klaus Fuch. However, Mr. Ellsberg's crime cannot, in the strictest sense, be placed with those mentioned. The former Pentagon advisor revealed secret documents as an act of conscience and willing to deal with the consequences of his actions. On a certain level, he is nothing else if not admirable. However, as I hear the elderly man speak of his actions as a young man, I’m left with two overriding impressions.
One, he seems to suffer from an overactive sense of hubris. The notion that his ideas, in a democracy, should override the decision of an entire country is perplexing. He felt that his documentation as to the lies of past presidents with regards to Viet Nam invalidated them as leaders and should force the American people to rethink all future decisions. He placed himself as judge, juror and executor, as it were, in releasing the papers.
However, what strikes me most about his story is the sheer amount of naiveté that colors his rationale. Since the time of James Madison, who argued the necessity for governments to have secrets, there has been subterfuge and misdirection in the course of foreign policy. Such policy making cannot be made out in the open with the questionable characters that exist in the world today. Even more surprisingly naïve was Mr. Ellsberg's assertion that his turn in thinking during the mid-1960s occurred when he spent time in Viet Nam and saw the horrors of war itself. I’m left wondering how the former foreign policy advisor and Marine did not know what war was like and how horribly simple was his world view?
William F. Buckley challenged Mr. Ellsberg once on the idea that the pursuit of diplomacy and foreign policy was inherently in need of lies and by drawing out the latter’s sense of what is right or wrong with regards to lying, displayed the former policy advisor of having the moral view of a child and one incongruent with the more devious designs of dictators and strongmen around the world. Mr. Ellsberg is the standard bearer for the infantile belief that if we are just nice and transparent to the world powers, everyone else will follow suit. How can someone like him with his experience hold such an idea?
As an historian, how do I classify Mr. Ellsberg? He is a person whose actions went against the opinion of a majority of Americans at the time. It is easy to assume that the vast majority of Americans were against the war because those who opposed the conflict were also the loudest. He violated the trust that many people had in him to hold up his word, to perform his duty. The release of secret documents has consequences, not only for the goals of a country but for those who are tasked with carrying it out. Let’s hope that too many did not suffer for the vainglorious and naïve Mr. Ellsberg.
As a historian, I’m left to wonder how to classify Mr. Ellsberg. From a purely objective point of view, he belongs in the category of Benedict Arnold, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Klaus Fuch. However, Mr. Ellsberg's crime cannot, in the strictest sense, be placed with those mentioned. The former Pentagon advisor revealed secret documents as an act of conscience and willing to deal with the consequences of his actions. On a certain level, he is nothing else if not admirable. However, as I hear the elderly man speak of his actions as a young man, I’m left with two overriding impressions.
One, he seems to suffer from an overactive sense of hubris. The notion that his ideas, in a democracy, should override the decision of an entire country is perplexing. He felt that his documentation as to the lies of past presidents with regards to Viet Nam invalidated them as leaders and should force the American people to rethink all future decisions. He placed himself as judge, juror and executor, as it were, in releasing the papers.
However, what strikes me most about his story is the sheer amount of naiveté that colors his rationale. Since the time of James Madison, who argued the necessity for governments to have secrets, there has been subterfuge and misdirection in the course of foreign policy. Such policy making cannot be made out in the open with the questionable characters that exist in the world today. Even more surprisingly naïve was Mr. Ellsberg's assertion that his turn in thinking during the mid-1960s occurred when he spent time in Viet Nam and saw the horrors of war itself. I’m left wondering how the former foreign policy advisor and Marine did not know what war was like and how horribly simple was his world view?
William F. Buckley challenged Mr. Ellsberg once on the idea that the pursuit of diplomacy and foreign policy was inherently in need of lies and by drawing out the latter’s sense of what is right or wrong with regards to lying, displayed the former policy advisor of having the moral view of a child and one incongruent with the more devious designs of dictators and strongmen around the world. Mr. Ellsberg is the standard bearer for the infantile belief that if we are just nice and transparent to the world powers, everyone else will follow suit. How can someone like him with his experience hold such an idea?
As an historian, how do I classify Mr. Ellsberg? He is a person whose actions went against the opinion of a majority of Americans at the time. It is easy to assume that the vast majority of Americans were against the war because those who opposed the conflict were also the loudest. He violated the trust that many people had in him to hold up his word, to perform his duty. The release of secret documents has consequences, not only for the goals of a country but for those who are tasked with carrying it out. Let’s hope that too many did not suffer for the vainglorious and naïve Mr. Ellsberg.
The Showdown at the United Nations
There is movement in the United Nations to unilaterally grant statehood to Palestine without the territory accepting or respecting the right of Israel to exist. In a statement, former British prime minister, Tony Blair, stated that the process for statehood has been extremely slow, virtually non-existent lately and ultimately, not productive. Therefore, this is the best course of action. Mr. Blair has further encouraged Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, to present his application for statehood to the United Nations today. By all accounts, that will happen.
This is not just an argument against Palestinian statehood for the sake of arguing. The Montevideo Conference of 1933 laid out quite clearly what constituted a state, such as a defined territory and a government – some of which the Palestinians do not meet. However, my biggest concern is for Israel.
In 1979, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat signed the Camp David Accords in part to help guarantee some type of security for Israel, who had been on constant guard and under frequent attack since their independence in 1948. Since that time, the Israeli state has fought constantly for their right to exist and the agreement in 1977 was the first step towards normalizing relations with an Arab neighbor who foresaw the fruitless and expensive road towards perpetual war. Since that historic agreement, Israel has dealt with a new, less defined enemy that will not be satisfied until the Jewish state is driven into the sea.
In the years following the Camp David Accords, Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have entered into one agreement after another and ultimately, it has failed because of the PA's inability to control the individual and organized terrorists from launching frequent attacks upon their neighbor. Time after time, the guarantee of Israeli security has compelled the Palestinian government to back away from promises. Throughout it all, an influential U.S. and its allies have said that Israeli security must be guaranteed before a Palestinian state can be established. These latest moves would undermine all of that and put a weakened Israel once more under the threat of its Arab neighbors. In short, such a unilateral move is a prelude to war.
As I said, my concern lies with Israel. President Obama seems increasingly incapable of projecting an American presence on the situation, overturning decades of influence. Worse yet, Arab countries are talking more provocatively about their long-hated neighbor. It is only a matter of time before this situation grows untenable. Mr. Abbas’ application for statehood is not destined for quick passage. In the interim, let’s hope that other countries are intelligent enough to avoid the abyss.
This is not just an argument against Palestinian statehood for the sake of arguing. The Montevideo Conference of 1933 laid out quite clearly what constituted a state, such as a defined territory and a government – some of which the Palestinians do not meet. However, my biggest concern is for Israel.
In 1979, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat signed the Camp David Accords in part to help guarantee some type of security for Israel, who had been on constant guard and under frequent attack since their independence in 1948. Since that time, the Israeli state has fought constantly for their right to exist and the agreement in 1977 was the first step towards normalizing relations with an Arab neighbor who foresaw the fruitless and expensive road towards perpetual war. Since that historic agreement, Israel has dealt with a new, less defined enemy that will not be satisfied until the Jewish state is driven into the sea.
In the years following the Camp David Accords, Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have entered into one agreement after another and ultimately, it has failed because of the PA's inability to control the individual and organized terrorists from launching frequent attacks upon their neighbor. Time after time, the guarantee of Israeli security has compelled the Palestinian government to back away from promises. Throughout it all, an influential U.S. and its allies have said that Israeli security must be guaranteed before a Palestinian state can be established. These latest moves would undermine all of that and put a weakened Israel once more under the threat of its Arab neighbors. In short, such a unilateral move is a prelude to war.
As I said, my concern lies with Israel. President Obama seems increasingly incapable of projecting an American presence on the situation, overturning decades of influence. Worse yet, Arab countries are talking more provocatively about their long-hated neighbor. It is only a matter of time before this situation grows untenable. Mr. Abbas’ application for statehood is not destined for quick passage. In the interim, let’s hope that other countries are intelligent enough to avoid the abyss.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Tidbits
I don’t believe that Governor Perry is as dumb as others portray. In the debates, he seems quite nimble on his feet at times and while he stammers and seems unsure at other times, my overall impression is that his mental acuity is not as limited as others might hope…
Did I hear that Barry Manilow has endorsed Rep. Ron Paul of Texas? (Insert your own witty response to that one)…
I know that a couple of years ago, Don Imus was persona non grata for most and even today, some people continue to declare an innate racism with the septuagenarian former shock jock. However, being from the northeast, I’ve listened to him for some twenty plus years. I’ve not known him to be a racist – as much as one can know anyone through the medium of radio. Today, his audiences seem bigger than ever and his ability to interview political pundits and officials is as smooth as anyone else in the business…
I wish I could remember the source, but I read a commentator’s thoughts about the blown opportunity that MSNBC had in their broadcast of the Republican primary debate at the Ronald Reagan Library. Say what you want about Fox News, it is what it is. However, MSNBC comes from a fine journalistic tradition with NBC and to think that the memory and tradition of Huntley and Brinkley, John Chancellor, Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert are in the hands of Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews is a head-shaking thought. They could have righted that ship but when post-debate banter included a call for civility by the aforementioned Mr. Sharpton, I’m not sure how serious to take them…
I saw a video recently of Oscar Peterson and Andre Previn playing together and it was a magical experience. While Previn was a bit removed from his piano playing days, the little number between the two was quite something. Along the same line, I seemed to recall in the deeper part of my mind a drumming dual between Buddy Rich and Ed Shaughnessy of the Doc Severinsen Band. I remember as a child being mesmerized by their playing. If you can find that video and have any appreciation for drumming, or want an appreciation for drumming, you will find your satisfaction…
How old do I sound if I say that we recently had new, energy efficient windows put in and I’m so excited about it…
A group of Columbia University students have accepted a private dinner invitation from Iranian “president” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and are quite excited about the opportunity. Is this a part of a series of intimate meetings with those who routinely murder and oppress their own people? I wonder who is next in the dinner series. Not exactly My Dinner with Andre…
Education Secretary Arne Duncan is pushing the “Digital Promise” of President Obama, to ensure a push for more technology in the classroom. This is designed to help students improve testable academic success. Technology is not the answer. A commitment to the importance and value of education outside extrinsic incentives is the answer.
Did I hear that Barry Manilow has endorsed Rep. Ron Paul of Texas? (Insert your own witty response to that one)…
I know that a couple of years ago, Don Imus was persona non grata for most and even today, some people continue to declare an innate racism with the septuagenarian former shock jock. However, being from the northeast, I’ve listened to him for some twenty plus years. I’ve not known him to be a racist – as much as one can know anyone through the medium of radio. Today, his audiences seem bigger than ever and his ability to interview political pundits and officials is as smooth as anyone else in the business…
I wish I could remember the source, but I read a commentator’s thoughts about the blown opportunity that MSNBC had in their broadcast of the Republican primary debate at the Ronald Reagan Library. Say what you want about Fox News, it is what it is. However, MSNBC comes from a fine journalistic tradition with NBC and to think that the memory and tradition of Huntley and Brinkley, John Chancellor, Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert are in the hands of Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews is a head-shaking thought. They could have righted that ship but when post-debate banter included a call for civility by the aforementioned Mr. Sharpton, I’m not sure how serious to take them…
I saw a video recently of Oscar Peterson and Andre Previn playing together and it was a magical experience. While Previn was a bit removed from his piano playing days, the little number between the two was quite something. Along the same line, I seemed to recall in the deeper part of my mind a drumming dual between Buddy Rich and Ed Shaughnessy of the Doc Severinsen Band. I remember as a child being mesmerized by their playing. If you can find that video and have any appreciation for drumming, or want an appreciation for drumming, you will find your satisfaction…
How old do I sound if I say that we recently had new, energy efficient windows put in and I’m so excited about it…
A group of Columbia University students have accepted a private dinner invitation from Iranian “president” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and are quite excited about the opportunity. Is this a part of a series of intimate meetings with those who routinely murder and oppress their own people? I wonder who is next in the dinner series. Not exactly My Dinner with Andre…
Education Secretary Arne Duncan is pushing the “Digital Promise” of President Obama, to ensure a push for more technology in the classroom. This is designed to help students improve testable academic success. Technology is not the answer. A commitment to the importance and value of education outside extrinsic incentives is the answer.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
In Memoriam
Forgive me if this seems trite, but I would like to share a couple of thoughts on September 11, 2001. With the 10th year anniversary upon us, I’m taken back to the emotions that never fail, even ten years later, to bring on tears. I’m not a very emotional man and I guess, like many men, I was taught to keep those feelings in check. However, this weekend, I’m once more confronted with what that day meant.
I was teaching my first class of the day when a late arriving student told me, upon entering the class, that a plane flew into one of the World Trade Center towers. I seemed to recall a story of small planes flying into buildings before, causing minimal damage so my immediate reaction was, “Wow, that is horrible. The pilot must have had a heart attack or something.” The class continued as normal. After that first class, a teacher approached me and said that a second plane had hit the other tower and like most people, it dawned on me that we were under attack. Over the course of the next couple of classes, students were hearing one story after another – most of them false. However, at that time, we did not know what was true or not. I heard that the Pentagon and the White House had been hit. I heard other places were on lock down and that more planes were heading to various locations.
At some point in the morning, a local news broadcast suggested that parents take their children out of the school. To this day, I’m not sure of the reason for this but for the next couple of hours, parents flocked to our school and signed them out. Students, not fully understanding the event, began to see it has a way of leaving school and some expressed dismay as to why their parents did not check them out. Meanwhile, I struggled with my feelings. However, I pushed forward to hold class as usual, with no particular insight on what was happening. Yet, it is my experience that work can pre-occupy the mind and perhaps, that is what we needed. Upon the day's final school bell, I still had not seen any coverage of the event. By the time I made it home, the coverage would consume me. My then-girlfriend (now-wife) was in Germany at the time and with all air traffic shut down in the U.S., she would be there another week and a half. It seemed to me she was safer there than here.
To this day, rebroadcasts or documentaries of the attacks bring up strong emotions. It was an unprovoked attack and I’m grateful for Presidents Bush and Obama for keeping our country safe and free of additional attacks in the years following. I have little patience for conspiracy theories. As a historian, if you do not have facts, and very few of the conspiracy propagators do, then I can give no weight to the speculation that seems to excite the darker recesses of their minds. As with the Kennedy assassination, people cannot handle a lack of information and in the absence of understanding, others fill in whatever fits their preconceptions.
As a historian, it is understandable that our world is rapidly filling with people who have no concept of the attacks and therefore, no appreciation of the event. For those of us who remember that Tuesday, we might dismay at the lack of connection but that is the way of the world and we cannot take that personally. Still, we have a role to play in helping them understand what happened, why it happened and to remember the thousands that died. We can never forget and we cannot fail to pass along what is now a part of our national heritage.
I was teaching my first class of the day when a late arriving student told me, upon entering the class, that a plane flew into one of the World Trade Center towers. I seemed to recall a story of small planes flying into buildings before, causing minimal damage so my immediate reaction was, “Wow, that is horrible. The pilot must have had a heart attack or something.” The class continued as normal. After that first class, a teacher approached me and said that a second plane had hit the other tower and like most people, it dawned on me that we were under attack. Over the course of the next couple of classes, students were hearing one story after another – most of them false. However, at that time, we did not know what was true or not. I heard that the Pentagon and the White House had been hit. I heard other places were on lock down and that more planes were heading to various locations.
At some point in the morning, a local news broadcast suggested that parents take their children out of the school. To this day, I’m not sure of the reason for this but for the next couple of hours, parents flocked to our school and signed them out. Students, not fully understanding the event, began to see it has a way of leaving school and some expressed dismay as to why their parents did not check them out. Meanwhile, I struggled with my feelings. However, I pushed forward to hold class as usual, with no particular insight on what was happening. Yet, it is my experience that work can pre-occupy the mind and perhaps, that is what we needed. Upon the day's final school bell, I still had not seen any coverage of the event. By the time I made it home, the coverage would consume me. My then-girlfriend (now-wife) was in Germany at the time and with all air traffic shut down in the U.S., she would be there another week and a half. It seemed to me she was safer there than here.
To this day, rebroadcasts or documentaries of the attacks bring up strong emotions. It was an unprovoked attack and I’m grateful for Presidents Bush and Obama for keeping our country safe and free of additional attacks in the years following. I have little patience for conspiracy theories. As a historian, if you do not have facts, and very few of the conspiracy propagators do, then I can give no weight to the speculation that seems to excite the darker recesses of their minds. As with the Kennedy assassination, people cannot handle a lack of information and in the absence of understanding, others fill in whatever fits their preconceptions.
As a historian, it is understandable that our world is rapidly filling with people who have no concept of the attacks and therefore, no appreciation of the event. For those of us who remember that Tuesday, we might dismay at the lack of connection but that is the way of the world and we cannot take that personally. Still, we have a role to play in helping them understand what happened, why it happened and to remember the thousands that died. We can never forget and we cannot fail to pass along what is now a part of our national heritage.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
And In This Corner...
As summer folds into fall, our thoughts turn towards football, playoff baseball, cooler temperatures and occasionally, primary elections. The 2012 general election promises to be an interesting one. It is unlikely that someone within the Democrat Party will challenge President Obama as happened to President Jimmy Carter in 1980 when the late Senator Ted Kennedy entered the primary fray. So, in the interest of drama and a competition of ideas prior to the main event, let’s consider the men and women who seek the Republican nomination for the highest office in the land. Not mentioned will include the fringe candidates, exemplified by the likes of Jimmy McMillan representing the Rent Is Too Damn High Party – but, we appreciate the interjection of character into the mix.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) – George Will of the Washington Post said that the biggest question to be directed towards Ms. Bachmann is, if one of her advisors has not been fired for giving her false information that she then uttered throughout the campaign trail, why not? It is difficult to see her regaining any momentum now that Governor Perry, her ideological though more polished doppelganger, is in the race.
Herman Cain – He seems like a nice guy and with regards to the economy, he makes a great deal of sense but I imagine that many offices have pools as to when exactly he is exiting the race.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich – Easily one of the more articulate and informative people in the race but after so long away from the political scene and with enough personal issues to stun a mastodon, it is difficult seeing him stick around through the fall.
Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman – It has been said that former ambassador Huntsman is the Republican for self-hating Republicans. And, it is mentioned by the media, typically the left-leaning media that a centrist is what the Republicans need if they want to be elected. Personally, I find him quite engaging but the GOP tried a centrist with Senator John McCain and it did not work. Therefore, Mr. Huntsman will likely be gone by the end of the fall if not sooner.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) – No matter the level of commitment Rep. Paul’s followers have, his appeal is too limited to move beyond. He complains often about the lack of media coverage. While that may not help, neither will more television time. He has a long history of saying some rather peculiar things. He has suggested he might not be that interested in the job but he will stick around to drive the debate.
Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) – No one candidate has entered the race with such anticipation and impact as Governor Perry. However, the national stage might, ultimately, prove too bright for him. Despite his record in Texas, a state where the governor does not have much power, it will not be enough to win the nomination.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney – It will be Mr. Romney that will emerge as the Republican candidate for 2012 general election. I’m not sure if he is the right choice for the Republicans to win. He is milquetoast and is as likely to fill people with ennui than political inspiration. He does not approach the medical care program in Massachusetts the right way. He should embrace it as an example of states being the laboratories of democracy and this was an example of something that did not work. He should simply say that and move on. Other Republicans will not let it go, however, which could doom his run.
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum – If you know that he is running for president, it is a minor victory for his campaign. If he is not in the middle of a concession speech as I write this, I will be surprised.
And what about the 500 pound, albeit beautiful, gorilla in the room? Being president might be a pay cut for Sarah Palin. As it is, her ship may have sailed as she likely knows it.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) – George Will of the Washington Post said that the biggest question to be directed towards Ms. Bachmann is, if one of her advisors has not been fired for giving her false information that she then uttered throughout the campaign trail, why not? It is difficult to see her regaining any momentum now that Governor Perry, her ideological though more polished doppelganger, is in the race.
Herman Cain – He seems like a nice guy and with regards to the economy, he makes a great deal of sense but I imagine that many offices have pools as to when exactly he is exiting the race.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich – Easily one of the more articulate and informative people in the race but after so long away from the political scene and with enough personal issues to stun a mastodon, it is difficult seeing him stick around through the fall.
Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman – It has been said that former ambassador Huntsman is the Republican for self-hating Republicans. And, it is mentioned by the media, typically the left-leaning media that a centrist is what the Republicans need if they want to be elected. Personally, I find him quite engaging but the GOP tried a centrist with Senator John McCain and it did not work. Therefore, Mr. Huntsman will likely be gone by the end of the fall if not sooner.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) – No matter the level of commitment Rep. Paul’s followers have, his appeal is too limited to move beyond. He complains often about the lack of media coverage. While that may not help, neither will more television time. He has a long history of saying some rather peculiar things. He has suggested he might not be that interested in the job but he will stick around to drive the debate.
Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) – No one candidate has entered the race with such anticipation and impact as Governor Perry. However, the national stage might, ultimately, prove too bright for him. Despite his record in Texas, a state where the governor does not have much power, it will not be enough to win the nomination.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney – It will be Mr. Romney that will emerge as the Republican candidate for 2012 general election. I’m not sure if he is the right choice for the Republicans to win. He is milquetoast and is as likely to fill people with ennui than political inspiration. He does not approach the medical care program in Massachusetts the right way. He should embrace it as an example of states being the laboratories of democracy and this was an example of something that did not work. He should simply say that and move on. Other Republicans will not let it go, however, which could doom his run.
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum – If you know that he is running for president, it is a minor victory for his campaign. If he is not in the middle of a concession speech as I write this, I will be surprised.
And what about the 500 pound, albeit beautiful, gorilla in the room? Being president might be a pay cut for Sarah Palin. As it is, her ship may have sailed as she likely knows it.
Where is Mr. Blackwell When We Need Him?
I’m an avid sports fan – not of all sports but certainly enough to make my wife roll her eyes from time to time. Like many sports fans, I love the tradition and history in which many of the storied franchises are wrapped. However, there is one element that drives me a little crazy in the following of my favorite sports – uniforms. This might be an odd thing to get on one’s horse over but there are some offensive expressions of sports fashion out there that needs to be called out. We fans have to wear these colors and designs to support our team – how about some consideration? Here are a few of the worst – broken down by the sport.
Baseball – The Toronto Blue Jays used to have a great uniform (click here) but in the pursuit of trendy, edgy and new age, their look (particularly the dark colored ones seen here) are just wrong. The Diamondbacks/Marlins/Rays – any team whose years of existence are outnumbered by uniform varieties they’ve worn need to be disbanded at once. I know that the San Diego Padres wear the camouflage uniforms in honor of nearby stationed troops, but they look hideous – and I’ve worn camouflage utilities.
Football – I cannot stand the New England Patriots, whose uniform (here) looks like a holdover from the old USFL. What makes it worse; they used to have the best. The Atlanta Falcons have had a horrible uniform since the decided to go all black back in the 1990s (whoop, there it is). Why oh why won’t they return to the red and white? The Carolina Panthers must include the most awkwardly benign caricature of an otherwise fierce creature in sports (throw in Jacksonville Jaguars for much the same reason). Lastly, the Philadelphia Eagles color scheme is all wrong – their uniform is so monochromatic, I expect the helmet design to disappear soon (here).
Hockey – There are a group of teams with the most ridiculous mascot designs for their attire, including the Florida Panthers, the Columbus Blue Jackets (though, to be fair, the name of the team hampers the pursuit of good ideas), the Nashville Predators, the Phoenix Coyotes, the Pittsburg Penguins (here) and the Tampa Bay Lightning. You might say that the Penguins get a pass as an older team. No. I’m from the Baltimore/Washington area, I cannot stand the Penguins, and so they stay on the list out of principle.
College football – The reason for this article was a string of criminal uniform designs in the opening weekend of the 2011 season. The worst, and that is saying something, belongs to the Georgia Bulldogs who always sported a classic look. But the icing on the cake are my beloved Maryland Terrapins (here). What in the name of God was that they wore against Miami? A local radio personality brought up a good point – that uniform went through the approval of a host of board of directors, university officials, coaches and players. Not one of them, apparently, protested. What about the Oregon Ducks, you might ask? I’m sure others have said more eloquently than I could how hideous their various incarnations appear. How one university could screw up so often on something so simple is beyond me (here).
Baseball – The Toronto Blue Jays used to have a great uniform (click here) but in the pursuit of trendy, edgy and new age, their look (particularly the dark colored ones seen here) are just wrong. The Diamondbacks/Marlins/Rays – any team whose years of existence are outnumbered by uniform varieties they’ve worn need to be disbanded at once. I know that the San Diego Padres wear the camouflage uniforms in honor of nearby stationed troops, but they look hideous – and I’ve worn camouflage utilities.
Football – I cannot stand the New England Patriots, whose uniform (here) looks like a holdover from the old USFL. What makes it worse; they used to have the best. The Atlanta Falcons have had a horrible uniform since the decided to go all black back in the 1990s (whoop, there it is). Why oh why won’t they return to the red and white? The Carolina Panthers must include the most awkwardly benign caricature of an otherwise fierce creature in sports (throw in Jacksonville Jaguars for much the same reason). Lastly, the Philadelphia Eagles color scheme is all wrong – their uniform is so monochromatic, I expect the helmet design to disappear soon (here).
Hockey – There are a group of teams with the most ridiculous mascot designs for their attire, including the Florida Panthers, the Columbus Blue Jackets (though, to be fair, the name of the team hampers the pursuit of good ideas), the Nashville Predators, the Phoenix Coyotes, the Pittsburg Penguins (here) and the Tampa Bay Lightning. You might say that the Penguins get a pass as an older team. No. I’m from the Baltimore/Washington area, I cannot stand the Penguins, and so they stay on the list out of principle.
College football – The reason for this article was a string of criminal uniform designs in the opening weekend of the 2011 season. The worst, and that is saying something, belongs to the Georgia Bulldogs who always sported a classic look. But the icing on the cake are my beloved Maryland Terrapins (here). What in the name of God was that they wore against Miami? A local radio personality brought up a good point – that uniform went through the approval of a host of board of directors, university officials, coaches and players. Not one of them, apparently, protested. What about the Oregon Ducks, you might ask? I’m sure others have said more eloquently than I could how hideous their various incarnations appear. How one university could screw up so often on something so simple is beyond me (here).
Friday, September 2, 2011
The Specious Case of John Lewis
For those who do not know, Representative John Lewis (D-GA) is a walking history book. While most people talk about ideals, Representative Lewis threw his hat into the ring and suffered unimaginable abuse and repeated imprisonment. As a young man growing up in Alabama, he had a front row seat to segregation and terrorism and endured through personal moxie and courage. He joined the ranks of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, heading up the organization in the early 1960s. He stood toe to toe against the forces of hate and rose to the highest levels of American society as a U.S. congressman. There is much to respect about Mr. Lewis.
For those sensing a “but” coming, here it is. As much as I respect Mr. Lewis, I am mystified and saddened by his current behavior. Following in the footsteps of hyperbole and race baiting so treasured by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the congressman has thrown out the charge of racism on items he simply disagrees with politically as a cheap shot and in the process, cheapened his life’s work. In doing so, he has diminished the attention on real cases of racism.
A year ago, Representative Lewis and others levied the charge of racism at a Tea Party rally at the steps of the Capitol. He and others claimed the activists shouted the word “nigger” as well as other racial slurs. The problem was that, in all likelihood, no one said anything of the sort but the story was misrepresented or fabricated to marginalize and radicalize a group that represents, whether one likes it or not, the concerns of a significant portion of the country. With so many cameras and iPhones about, the fact that not one camera or microphone picked up such slurs makes the charge all the more unlikely. However, Mr. Lewis and his supporters have won because the charges of racism with regards to the Tea Party have been proliferated and repeated so often, the group and charge are synonymous. It is a shame because there are a great deal of decent Americans who want to affect change but they are labeled racists by people with more microphones and TV time. Mr. Lewis did a similar character assassination with the McCain/Palin ticket, declaring the two and their audiences similar to that of famed segregationist, Alabama Governor George Wallace.
Now, Mr. Lewis has targeted the Voter ID bill. Throughout the world and in most functioning democracies, it is common that some form of a national photo identification is required, among other reasons, for voting. With stories of voting fraud that Mr. Lewis attempted to dismiss as miniscule in a recent speech, there is a need for more secure voting procedures. And, as much as a photo identification is required on a daily basis, any complaints seem to teeter on the edge of contrarianism. Rep. Lewis took it one step further by suggesting that such a law would unfairly target African-Americans. This is where I feel the congressman drifts from reality. Why would he assume that any sizable portion of America’s black population would not have a photo id? Is it me or does that not sound a bit racist?
Representative Lewis is an American hero and I have a great deal of respect for his accomplishments both in the fight for civil rights and his service in the House. However, I would implore him to not use race in the debate against political opponents. Not only does it cheapen the true cases of racism but it also suggests he has nothing to argue, indeed, nothing to say.
For those sensing a “but” coming, here it is. As much as I respect Mr. Lewis, I am mystified and saddened by his current behavior. Following in the footsteps of hyperbole and race baiting so treasured by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the congressman has thrown out the charge of racism on items he simply disagrees with politically as a cheap shot and in the process, cheapened his life’s work. In doing so, he has diminished the attention on real cases of racism.
A year ago, Representative Lewis and others levied the charge of racism at a Tea Party rally at the steps of the Capitol. He and others claimed the activists shouted the word “nigger” as well as other racial slurs. The problem was that, in all likelihood, no one said anything of the sort but the story was misrepresented or fabricated to marginalize and radicalize a group that represents, whether one likes it or not, the concerns of a significant portion of the country. With so many cameras and iPhones about, the fact that not one camera or microphone picked up such slurs makes the charge all the more unlikely. However, Mr. Lewis and his supporters have won because the charges of racism with regards to the Tea Party have been proliferated and repeated so often, the group and charge are synonymous. It is a shame because there are a great deal of decent Americans who want to affect change but they are labeled racists by people with more microphones and TV time. Mr. Lewis did a similar character assassination with the McCain/Palin ticket, declaring the two and their audiences similar to that of famed segregationist, Alabama Governor George Wallace.
Now, Mr. Lewis has targeted the Voter ID bill. Throughout the world and in most functioning democracies, it is common that some form of a national photo identification is required, among other reasons, for voting. With stories of voting fraud that Mr. Lewis attempted to dismiss as miniscule in a recent speech, there is a need for more secure voting procedures. And, as much as a photo identification is required on a daily basis, any complaints seem to teeter on the edge of contrarianism. Rep. Lewis took it one step further by suggesting that such a law would unfairly target African-Americans. This is where I feel the congressman drifts from reality. Why would he assume that any sizable portion of America’s black population would not have a photo id? Is it me or does that not sound a bit racist?
Representative Lewis is an American hero and I have a great deal of respect for his accomplishments both in the fight for civil rights and his service in the House. However, I would implore him to not use race in the debate against political opponents. Not only does it cheapen the true cases of racism but it also suggests he has nothing to argue, indeed, nothing to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)