The Speech Post

When I was seven years old, Ronald Reagan became President of the United States. I remember going to school on a cold New Hampshire January morning and being told we would not have our regular class because we were going to see the presidential inauguration. I wasn't quite sure what an inauguration was, but the idea of watching television at school seemed pretty good to me.

At the time, New Hampshire was a solidly Republican state, and one of the 40 that had gone for Reagan over Carter in the 1980 election. There was no controversy over the idea that kids should listen to a speech by the president, not because New Hampshire was a Republican state, but because it was an American state and this was an American president. It seemed perfectly normal to put the kids in front of the tv in that circumstance.

While New Hampshire in 1981 was a very red state, I lived in a very blue household. The fact that my Dad quietly voted for Ronald Reagan didn't compare to the fervor with which my mother worked for Jimmy Carter's reelection. She voted for every single Democratic nominee from LBJ to Bill Clinton. In her lifetime, she voted for exactly one Republican, for governor of Louisiana in 1991, and only because I was working for him. A more dedicated member of the Democratic Party did not exist. As a small child, I didn't understand the antipathy adults had toward certain political figures. I certainly couldn't grasp the complexities of politics. I only understood that my mother was no fan of Ronald Reagan.

Two months after the inauguration, on March 30, 1981, President Reagan was shot. In the hours that followed the shooting, with no definitive word on the president's condition, I found myself confused by my mother's reaction. Why was she upset? I thought Reagan was "bad"?

When I expressed this opinion, I was told in no uncertain terms that whatever party Reagan belonged to, he was still our president. It was explained to me that while she didn't agree with his policies, he still deserved respect and certainly didn't deserve to be shot.
Looking back, I realize now that it would never have occurred to my mother to keep me home from school in order to prevent me from listening to a speech by President Reagan, or any president. She fiercely guarded my well being. But she was guided by a sense of patriotism, not partisanship.

The Driving Post

On June 13, 2009, four year old Diya Patel stepped into a crosswalk on Washington Street in Stoughton. As she made her way across the street, accompanied by her grandfather and two siblings, Diya was struck by a Toyota Camry driven by 89 year old Ilse Horn of Canton.

Diya, who was to enter kindergarten this fall, was thrown over 60 feet by the collision. Later, an investigation showed no evidence of pre or post crash emergency braking by the car.

Early the next morning, Diya died at the Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

What happened on that street in Stoughton is becoming far too common. Across New England and around the country, elderly drivers are causing accidents at an alarming rate. Just four days ago, Officer Michael Davey, a 34 year old veteran and father of three children, was killed when he was struck by a pickup truck driven by a 79 year old man, who now faces charges. This adds to a long list of elderly folks driving cars into crowds, through store fronts and into other cars.

Jacqueline Sorensen, 83, drove her Mustang convertible through the front of a liquor store in Natick, injuring the cashier. What's more out of place here, that you can't work in a store without being hit by a car, or that an 83 year old woman drives a Mustang convertible?

This sort of thing has been going on for far too long because no one has the will to address it. Any proposal of reform is immediately denounced by the AARP as age discrimination.

Age discrimination? Tell that to Diya Patel's family.

It's a question of basic freedom, we are told. Okay. Then try explaining to Michael Davey's children why they are free to grow up without a father.

Look, nobody wants to pick on old people. After all, we're talking about protecting them from harm as well. But we have do something about this. By the year 2025, one in four drivers on the road will be an over the age of 65. Public policy, however, is not going to solve this problem.

For example, here in Massachusetts, the governor is proposing legislation that would require annual driving exams for everyone over the age of 85. That age is too high. Hell, I'm 36 and I can feel my own skills beginning to decline. Why not set it at 65? That is usually the age at which people retire. Is it too much to ask that they take a half day to ensure that their driving skills have not eroded to the point of danger?

But this is really beside the point. The burden, and most of the blame, resides not with elderly folks, many of whom no longer know any better. It's not with the state, which is not the parent of its citizens. It's about the kids. Not the little ones in the crosswalk, but the middle aged children of these elderly people.

In time the child becomes the parent. It is inevitable, it is natural, and it is far more feasible than the government determining whether each individual is fit to drive. I have seen keys taken from senior citizens who were once fiercely independent. It hurts their pride, but it is far less harmful than a head on collision.

The Teddy Post

The Blog to Be Named Later returns for commentary on the news of the day, the passing of Ted Kennedy.

In 1968, at the funeral of Robert Kennedy at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City, Senator Edward Kennedy said, "My brother need not be idealized or enlarged in death what he was in life." Today, admirers will disregard Teddy's words as they mark his own passing. Detractors will bite their tongues because it lacks grace to denounce the recently deceased. And a great many Americans, disengaged from the world of politics and preoccupied with their own lives, will simply shrug at the news and go about their day.

For forty years, John and Robert Kennedy have, in fact, been idealized, and in a sense that is unfortunate. Not because they are unworthy, but because it's unworthy of them. What John F. Kennedy achieved is far more impressive when he is viewed as a flawed, imperfect human being, much like you and I. His life is more compelling as a person than as some remote idol or icon. President Kennedy is remembered for his youth and vitality. Yet a majority of the days he spent on Earth were ones of severe physical pain. His back was so weak from football and war injuries that he could not lift his children. After his death, aides wrote of Kennedy arriving for a public appearance, painfully making his way into the venue on crutches, agony etched on his face. At the edge of the stage, he would cast the crutches aside and stride confidently onto the stage as if in perfect health.

I suppose that your reaction to that story depends on your point of view. To me, it's a display of courage and triumph over adversity. To others, perhaps, it is an unworthy deception. However it is interpreted, it is nonetheless illuminating, because it's real. Similarly, I vastly prefer the real Robert Kennedy to the two competing images of him that are recorded in history. He was not a villain, he was not a messiah. He evolved during the course of his public life from someone primarily concerned with law and order to someone who was an advocate for the weak and suffering. This process was slow and difficult, and he made mistakes along the way. He was real. He was gifted, and he was flawed.

It is dangerous when a society fails to understand its own history. That is the country in which we live today. This is so partly because a vast majority of Americans live in ignorance of our nation's story and how it fits into the history of the world. Then there are those who read history, but misinterpret it. When public figures pass from the scene, as Ted Kennedy did today, it is important to see past the idolatry of the media, but also to disregard the whispered criticism, and find the middle ground in between, where some semblance of the truth resides.

Edward Kennedy spent more than half his life in the United States Senate, holding his seat from 1962 until last night. That is an enormously long career in public service, yet in some ways that reality is overshadowed, as ever, by the controversies provoked by his private life. That he endured enormous personal tragedy is well known, but perhaps not fully appreciated. It is not "merely" that John and Robert Kennedy were assassinated; Ted Kennedy buried sisters and nephews prematurely, endured his father's stroke and incapacitation, his son's cancer, a plane crash, and finally cancer of his own.

Just as he was defined by tragedy, Kennedy was known for a personal life that was, by all accounts (including his own), not up to the standard one might expect. There were episodes of womanizing and excessive drinking, but of course they all pale to what happened on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969.

All of these things obscure the daily grind of Ted Kennedy's life. He was no dilettante, no absentee senator. For forty six years he trudged up Capitol Hill to countless committee and subcommittee meetings. He was the last living symbol of the glory years of the Kennedy family, but there was nothing glamorous about the grind of paperwork and negotiations and drudgery of legislative work.

Why did he do this into his seventh decade? It could not have been ambition. Teddy long ago renounced any notion of the presidency. It wasn't to hold on to his Senate seat. Could he ever have been defeated in Massachusetts? No. He certainly didn't do it because he had to. He need never have worked a day in his life if he chose not to.

I can only conclude that his motives, in this instance, were pure. He wanted to help people. Kennedy was described this morning on NPR as a fine senator and a compassionate human being. I suspect he would be content to be remembered that way.

The Prison Post

This morning NFL player Plaxico Burress pleaded guilty to a weapons charge and will serve two years in prison. The Blog To Be Named Later returns to ponder the logic, or lack thereof, of sentencing guidelines in this country.

So Plaxico Burress shows up at a nightclub. Instead of hiring a security detail to protect him, he carries a gun. There is no evidence at all that Burress intended to use the gun in the commission of a crime, violent or otherwise. The idiot then proceeds to shoot himself in the leg accidentally. Now’s he is going to jail for two years. For what? Being an idiot?

How does this make sense? There is a shortage of jail space for actual criminals, many of whom get off on technicalities, but we’re going to spend $50,000 over two years to imprison a millionaire football player whose only crime was possessing a gun to protect himself? Yeah, I understand, it was an unregistered gun, he was in a state with strict weapons possession guidelines. Still, where’s the victim here?

Wouldn’t it have been far more productive to impose a stiff fine and use the money to educate people about gun safety? Wouldn’t it be better to give Burress 500 hours of community service and make him an advocate for the issue?

This reminds me of the Martha Stewart case.

In another instance of legal brilliance, Martha Stewart was sent to prison for insider trading because she sold stock to avoid a $45,000 loss. She’s worth $1 billion. The fine she paid? $30,000. Lovely. Let’s have the public spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to try, convict, and imprison a billionaire and then fine her $30,000. Well done.

I have a better idea. Next time Martha commits another victimless crime, let’s try MAKING some money off this deal. You take half of Martha’s money away. That’s $500 million, leaving her with only half a billion. Wah. Then you take that $500 million, and with an average cost of $14.5 million, build 34 schools with the money. Doesn’t that make more sense?

In my home state, former governor Edwin Edwards was sent to prison in 2002. He’s still there. His crime was taking $400,000 from the (then) owner of the San Francisco 49ers in exchange for assistance in getting a casino license in Louisiana. First of all, I’m not sure I see the crime here. Maybe it’s blackmail, or maybe it’s just a straight up business deal. Edwards was no longer governor when this happened. He took money in exchange for a promise to use his political influence to get public officials to do something. That’s called lobbying.

Second, if it is a crime, who’s the victim? DeBartolo, the owner? No. He wanted the deal. Actually, if he’s a victim of anything, it’s being pulled into court to testify, which eventually cost him his team.

The U.S. Attorney in the case identified the victim as the State of Louisiana, because of the damage to its reputation Edwards caused. Excuse me? How the hell do you damage the reputation of Louisiana?!? Is that possible? Consider:

-State Treasurer Edward Burke, who fled to Honduras in the late nineteenth century with $600,000 of the people’s money. (That’s about $130 million in today’s dollars)

-Governor Richard Leche, who famously said, "When I took the oath of office I didn't take any vow of poverty”, and then stole millions of dollars from LSU.

-The three consecutive Insurance Commissioners who went to prison over the last twenty years.

-Louisiana has more federal corruption convictions per person than any state in the country.

-Louisiana citizens elected the former Grand Wizard of the KKK to its state legislature. Later, he went to prison too.

Yeah, it was Edwin Edwards that made Louisiana look bad. Whatever the merits of the Edwards case, in the end the United States Government sent a 75 year old man to prison for ten years for a white collar crime. Instead of taking away an old man’s last few years of life, why not punish him financially and let the poor people of Louisiana benefit? Why not do this with all wealthy individuals convicted of a non-violent crime? Or does that make too much sense?

The Protest Post

Apparently, August is the silly season for protests. How do you protest the protests?
As Mitch Hedberg once said, “I’m against picketing, but I don’t know how to show it.”

Today in Portsmouth, New Hampshire the President of the United States, or as one advertisement sinisterly put it “Barack Hussein Obama” visited the region to have a town hall meeting about health care reform.

My understanding is that the event itself went okay, and the audience managed to remain civilized, even after the president asked for questions from those who were skeptical about his proposal. Outside, of course, it was a different matter. Police erected rope lines which separated protesters from supporters.
I don’t think it is any secret that I am a supporter. Maybe that disqualifies me from trying to write about this with some measure of reason. I don’t think so, however, and so the Blog To Be Named Later returns with a rebuttal of the signs and comments from today’s event:

#1 – “WE HAVE THE BEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD”
Um, no. I have heard this argument before: "Hey, if our health care system is so bad, how come people from other countries come here for medical treatment?"

Because there is a difference between having the highest quality at the very top, and having overall quality. You wouldn’t say based on the luxury boxes that Fenway Park has the best seats in all of sports. Not when you’re sitting in the grandstand in a seat designed in 1912 designed for a citizen of Lilliput. And to stretch this analogy, what if you’re one of the 50 million people who can’t get in to see the game at all?

The fact is that the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. health care system 37th in the world. If you’re happy with your health care, great. Guess what, under the president’s plan, you get to keep it just the way it is. No, wait, it could be cheaper. Sorry about that.

#2 – “Communism Kills, Freedom Works”
Okay, first of all, the guy holding the sign clearly needs better health care. He’s the best argument for reform I have ever seen. But we’ll take the point straight on. Adding a public option to the health care system is NOT COMMUNISM, IT IS CAPITALISM. It’s called “competition”.

I love how ultra conservatives have these deeply held beliefs that they cling to only until they become inconvenient. Remember devolution? For years Republicans wanted everything decided at the state level. States rights. On all matters. We insist. Wait, not presidential recounts!

#3 – “A Public Health Care Option will drive private insurers out of business”/”A government program will be awful, nobody will want it, and it will just be a big waste of money.”

Okay, fellas. I understand that you’re upset, but you’re going to have to pick an argument here. These are two completely contradictory statements being made by the same group of people. Make up your fucking mind.



#4 “I’ve Changed” – (Obama with Hitler mustache)

Ah, see, now you’ve finally hit on an argument that makes sense! Well done! I happen to be a student of history, and I well remember when Hitler and the Nazis conquered Europe so that they could make sure that everyone had decent health care! Those were the days!

By the way, just as a reference for this guy, Communism is extreme leftism, Fascism is extreme rightism. Obama can’t be both Stalin and Hitler. Again, you guys need to make up your mind which argument you are making.

#5 – “I don’t want the government to choose my doctor”

Oh My God. *slaps palm to forehead*

Please listen to me. Please. Just stop waving your cardboard and stick and listen. Nobody is going to choose your doctor for you. No one is talking about making you change your health care AT ALL IF YOU ARE HAPPY WITH IT. Health care reform is about adding a public option. Let’s break that down. Adding, not subtracting. Option, not mandate. Do you understand that? Or are you just pretending not to?

Here’s another simple analogy for the simple minded. Protesting a public option for health care is very much like going to your favorite restaurant, seeing something new added to the menu, and immediately becoming hysterical because you believe that the hamburger you’ve been ordering for ten years is going to be suddenly taken away by evil chefs that you are sure exist just behind the kitchen door. Calm down. In the meantime, let me replace those sharp things with some plastic utensils.

The Survey Post

C-SPAN recently conducted a survey of over fifty historians and observers of the American presidency, and have ranked the presidents on ten individual categories such as Public Persuasion, Economic Management, International Relations, etc. The scores were averaged and produced an overall ranking of the Presidents of the United States.

Of course, this is only opinion, but it’s the opinion of a pretty broad ideological range of qualified historians. When Richard Nixon was about to resign in disgrace, Henry Kissinger assured him that history would remember him more favorably than his contemporaries. Nixon’s reply was, “It depends on who writes the history.”

Here’s the link to the survey: http://www.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Index.aspx

In my view, there is much more right than wrong here. Lincoln is the obvious choice for number one. FDR, Truman and TR are ranked appropriately high. I tend to think that Theodore Roosevelt was the best president we ever had. He just didn't have the crises that Lincoln or FDR had to deal with. In any case, I take issue with some of the rankings. First of all, George H.W. Bush, as all distinguished historians would say, got jacked up. His overall ranking is 18th, which sounds okay, but the numbers that produced that average are grossly unfair. He received a 46 (out of 100) on economic management. No doubt this rating was fueled by memories of the recession that hit during Bush’s term, and his obvious discomfort debating economic issues with Bill Clinton in the 1992 campaign.

It should be remembered, however, that a recession after the growth stimulated by the Reagan years was all but inevitable. Bush should be judged on how he responded to the downturn. In 1990, he brokered a deal to lower the deficit which contributed greatly to economic recovery and the booming economy of the 1990’s that Clinton gets so much credit for.

Bush’s numbers are part of an overall underestimation of his performance as president. I tend to believe that in this survey, the father is being punished for the sins of the son. Here are some shorter observations of the survey:

-George Washington is too high for the relative lack of concrete accomplishments he achieved during his presidency. It’s not a list of greatest Americans, it’s a list of greatest presidents.
-Teddy Roosevelt is rated far too low in the category of “Pursued Equal Justice for All”.
-Jimmy Carter was a pretty poor president, but a 62 in “Moral Authority”? That’s all he had was moral authority!
-Given the catastrophe of Vietnam, I cannot in good conscience agree with ranking LBJ our 11th greatest president. I’m sorry to say that, because he had greatness in him.
-The guys who did no harm, like Millard Fillmore and William Henry Harrison, should not be ranked below George W. Bush. I’m not sure anyone should be.

I could go on, but again, it’s all opinion. There are no correct answers, and the best that one can hope for from surveys like these is that they provoke debate. For those who are well versed in presidential history, the debate is the thing. For others, it’s a chance to become better acquainted with these figures who impacted our country.