OK – with this one I’m going to
try to solve more than half a dozen major problems in one single post, with music,
and jokes. We can do this America!
When I started writing about
this year’s campaign I did so with a set of principles in mind. The primary motivation for them was to keep
my record of never having “unfriended” (either in the real world or the
“Facebookian” universe) anyone because they disagreed with me politically. I think I’ve done OK so far.
Still, as the week dragged on, the
wait for the election to finish continued interminably and I found myself pulled
in to a back and forth with a Facebook troll who had jumped in to a thread to
add his two cents worth. When another
friend of mine (we’ll call him “PT”) brought up QAnon things got even more
bizarre as the troll defended the group, evidently on the basis of their
ongoing efforts to combat “Peadofilia” (sic)…
The transcript of the exchange is
set out below – I haven’t heard back since my last post, which, I have to say,
I still count as one of my better Facebook moments…
TROLL: The Democrats are
that desperate They're not even trying to hide They're cheating, it's
incredible, and not a word on any of these media platforms, interesting, along
with the scam virus…
ME: For people “not trying
to hide” they’re doing a great fucking job at keeping it hidden...
PT: you’re
late for the QAnon meeting.
TROLL:
seems Peadofilia is accepted in a American now, as they say, only in
America
PT: As
is poor spelling and conspiracy theories.
TROLL: Nothing wrong with my spelling pal,
but its ok to be a Peadofile in America now??? Yes
ME:
- why do you ask? Did you forget to pay your dues?
TROLL: so its ok to be a Peadofile in
America now??
ME:
- hard to take you seriously man. Turn your spell check on, catch a clue
and google "Trump" and "Epstein".
TROLL:
Michael Shea wouldn't believe a word what Google says anymore, trump
hated epstein he even had him barred from his nightclubs because of his filth,
, ,never mind spell check, are you not smart enough to work a letter out
…so its ok to be a Peadofile in America now,
what you reckon???
…The
vote was a sting operation ,the next week will be interesting you'll see
ME: Can't wait. Hope you get back on your meds.
TROLL: ! Who would
have thought about QFS block coding all the legit ballots like they do money,
ITS GENIUS!!!! But you think its ok to be a Peadofile ,Don't you
ME: no,
of course not. I don't think anyone under the age of consent, either mentally
or chronologically should have sex. That's
why I assume you're a virgin.
That was a bit mean and comes pretty close to breaking my
rule. Then again, Mr. Troll was never a
friend and, by that time, it had been a long, long week. I mean a really long
week. We all went through the process of
watching the counting, getting all excited when CNN announced “We have breaking
news!” only to be followed by such earthshaking pronouncements like “the count
in Harrisburg is still proceeding” (you don’t say), “Arizona is really hot” or
“They have just delivered a tray of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to the
Gwinnett County election board!”. I’m
gonna go out on a limb here and say that coming up with a subject for the next
“breaking news” alert was probably almost as annoying for the people who had to
make it up as it was for those of us who had to listen.
Almost.
By the way –
Gwinnett County is named after Button Gwinnett, whose claim to fame is that his
signature is among the world’s rarest and most valuable autographs. A signer of the Declaration of Independence
Gwinnett only lived about a year after that event, didn’t leave many signed
documents behind and was killed in a duel after a failed attempt to invade
Florida. I was about to make a joke about Manuel Lin Miranda never doing a
musical named “Button”, but, of course, he already has. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhFeQSBZUSk
So, as we went through the week, waiting for the morning
after the election to actually be “the morning after the election” everything seemed
to be running in slow motion. In
addition to the endless stream of unbreakable “breaking news” updates there
were the increasingly contentious back and forth allegations of “something”
being wrong with the voting process. Of
course, there was “something” wrong with the voting process – namely that the
United States continues to cling to the electoral system which reduces the
possibility of the election being won by, you know, the person who gets the
most votes. Other than that there was
“something” wrong with the election only if you are using the word “something”
to indicate, ummmm… “nothing”.
But that is not why I am writing today. I do not want to troll the conservatives out
there. In fact, I think it is critically
important to remember to respect the fact that there were an awful lot of
conservative votes out there. I never
have been one of the type of people who simply dismisses anyone who opposes them
as a bunch of out of touch morons who are only following a cult figure and have
no ability to think on their own. Not
that there aren’t out of touch morons who are only following a cult leader and
have no ability to think on their own out there. I just think they are rather more evenly
distributed across the political spectrum than people would like to admit. No,
I’m an equal opportunity gadfly so, today, I want to troll the liberals. It’s just what I do – after all, what fun is
it to go after the losing side?
Seriously – the most difficult thing for the majority of
Biden voters to do over the coming days, weeks, months…years – will be to
remember that their candidate won because he ran as a moderate. I’ve never been shy about embracing that
label, mostly because it is true.
However – as triumphant Democrats took to the streets I doubt very
seriously that many were doing so because the candidate they put forward
refused to embrace Medicare for All, refused to endorse the “Green New Deal”,
refused to chant “Defund the Police” – but I have news for them – that is why
he won.
Of course, it’s not like I have given up on health care
reform, addressing climate change or police reform – it’s just that I don’t
embrace the rather simplistic solutions put forward under these tags. To me they seem the political equivalent of
memes – something presented under the guise of being profound that is actually rather
foolish (and maybe dangerous).
And anyone who reads these posts knows how I feel about
memes.
But there seems to be an appetite for such things, so I’ll
try – I will try – to make shorter attempts at solutions. Instead of catchy little bumper sticker
philosophy slogans I’ll cap each off with a little reward. I’ll post a compromise solution for every day
of the week (sorry Mick) – and at the end each day I’ll include a link to a
song with that day in the title.
Woo-hoo! Won’t this
be fun?
I know that technically the week begins on Sunday but the
work week begins on a Monday so let’s jump right in on that one and start by
cleaning up the whole mess surrounding the planet burning up.
This should be easy…
Monday – Climate Change
First off – about that “Green New Deal” – it’s a bad
approach to this issue. Not because
there is any reason to deny climate change (you might as well deny the tides),
not because of a debate over causation (a classic “who cares” in many instances),
not because of any difference of opinion over possible solutions (there will be
plenty of time for that). I oppose the
GND for two simple reasons. It is
intellectually dishonest and politically unworkable.
To the first point – it is intellectually improper to
attempt to “sell” the GND in the manner that it has been presented. The key proponents of the plan would have you
believe that the GND is the way to go because it treats global warming as a
means to fundamentally change our approach to energy, infrastructure and trade
and thereby create vast economic opportunity.
To hear tell Ed Markey thinks that the Greenland ice sheet will slide
into the sea, end up in Cape Cod Bay – and won’t it be great because we can all
make lots of money selling shaved ice off Sandy Neck Beach.
Look, sometimes a crisis is simply a crisis. There may be some people who can make money
off the response to climate change, there may be some opportunities out there –
but the reason to respond to this situation, and respond QUICKLY, is not
because there’s a buck to be made – it’s because the planet is melting. To try to sell this as a chance to address
every perceived problem from coastal erosion to wage disparity is simply an
attempt to market a broad political agenda as a response to a narrow and
specific apolitical problem. You want to
know why people don’t trust science? – one very clear reason is that they see
it as camouflage for positions that people would rather not defend on the
merits. The GND only plays into those concerns
– it does not negate them.
It is also a political dead end. I guarantee you, and if there was a means to
bet I would be putting a rather sizeable one down, that the GND approach will
do more to terminate worthwhile climate legislation than it would ever do to
further it. The simple truth is this –
the battle to address climate change is going to cost a hell of a lot of
money. If you want to do it right there
are going to be times that this cost will be incurred without a discernable
return. (Yes, I know, preservation of the planet is an economic benefit, but
it’s hard to buy the kids an ice cream cone with that). If your “plan” to battle the impact of global
warming is predicated upon there being a positive economic benefit associated
with those measures – I can tell you EXACTLY what will happen each time you
propose a new law. Someone will stand up
in the House or Senate and say “your GND promised that there would be an
economic benefit to these type measures – I don’t see any advance to the bottom
line here – why should we vote for this?”
Before you start – yes, I know there are a number of reasons
to “vote for this” even if it doesn’t immediately pay off. But, if you have presented the GND as an economically
positive response and there ain’t no positive – you have just set yourself up
for a political loser.
I’m not eager to do either of those things. I don’t want to be intellectually dishonest
and I don’t want to wear the GND like a political anchor around my neck. I do think that there are measures to be
taken that can work to all sides’ advantage – but only if compromise is made.
So, as a first measure in favor of the right – I would drop the Green New
Deal. It’s gone.
Now, in return I believe the country should be allowed to
re-enter the Paris Accords and re-engage internationally. This is simply the only way that the U.S. can
hope to have anything near the influence it wants worldwide. Beyond that – both sides should come up with
compromises that will allow carbon limitation goals to be met. One small example – extensive tax credits for
the purchase of electric vehicles so long as they are manufactured in America. Less carbon and more jobs, right there.
OK – that gets us started and makes for a decent Monday
morning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z2E37iNV0w -- Monday
Tuesday – Appointments
I’m one of the few Democrats who has no great problem with
the fact that Amy Coney Barrett was nominated and approved by the Senate. Don’t get me wrong – I never would have nominated
her and feel her judicial theories are entirely suspect – but the fact she was
nominated and approved was entirely acceptable from a constitutional
standpoint. Most who objected to the
process did so because Mitch McConnell had previously withheld Senate action
from Merrick Garland when he was nominated by Barack Obama. I agree with the objection to the way Garland
was treated – but I fail to see how that strengthens the argument against how
the Barrett nomination was acted upon.
I’ve written about this before: https://sheamonu-granfalloons.blogspot.com/2020/11/as-ive-touched-on-many-times-i-hate.html
and it basically comes down to this – the Senate acted incorrectly with regard
to Garland, however the Senate is already bad enough at its job so that I would
not wish to make it worse by making that colossal mistake into precedent.
As a result of McConnell’s game playing concerning Presidential
nominations there was a great deal of pressure brought to bear on Joe Biden to
expand (or “pack”) the Court if he was elected.
Now that this has come to pass that pressure will continue – and will be
a major point of contention in the mid-terms two years hence. Biden is not, by his nature, in favor of
expanding the SCOTUS – but is equally upset by McConnell’s actions. In order to address this he promised to
appoint a bi-partisan commission on the judiciary.
Like any such commission this could be a really good idea, a
really bad idea or (most likely) completely useless depending on who gets
appointed. Personally, I think it’s a
useful tool in the age of gridlock – but maybe not for this topic. Instead, I think the following should be
offered as a compromise. No attempt at
court packing will take place – Biden should assure the Republicans that this
will be taken off the table – as long as the Senate agrees to accept and adhere
to a schedule for handling Supreme Court and certain other designated judicial
appointments in line with that used for Amy Coney Barrett. That went smoothly –
there’s no reason others can’t as well.
The Senate needs to get better at doing its job – and this is one very
reasonable way to start down that path.
The last one we got done by Monday morning, now this one is
finished by Tuesday afternoon. Good work!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xvb9Udzc6M -
Tuesday
Wednesday – Guns
Well this should be another piece of cake.
Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, excites the ire of larger numbers
of American conservatives than the suggestion that someone may wish to take
away their ownership of firearms. They
firmly believe that right is enshrined in the 2nd Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution.
And I firmly believe they are correct in that statement.
Here’s how I put it some seven years ago:
As someone who grew up in a region that strongly supported the right of the people to keep and bear arms I’m probably a bit biased when it comes to interpreting the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I’ll be blunt – I think it allows citizen’s to own guns. Not just a militia, not just a police force – any ordinary person has the right to purchase and keep a firearm. That said – I don’t hear anyone advocating that it allows citizens to own and keep bazookas – so there are limits on what rights are enshrined in the constitution.
But the
whole idea of a constitutional right is to grant it to the extent that
maximizes its effect without infringing on other rights or other people’s
exercise of those rights. You should not set out to limit a right –
the goal should always be to expand it to its reasonable limit. So,
with this in mind I believe that any measures taken to cut down on gun violence
should only be done in a manner that preserves the gun ownership rights of the
American populace.
I wrote that because, yes, I believe it to be correct. But I also wrote it because I believe that
too often the assumption is made on the right that anyone who ever votes
Democratic wishes to take their guns (not true) and on the left that anyone who
supports the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms opposes any
attempt to improve gun safety (also not true).
So, instead of creating a scenario where, for four years, both sides
simply butt heads and accomplish nothing – why not revisit a proposal I made in
2013? That involved a way in which to
improve gun safety and promote personal responsibility without infringing on
gun ownership.
Essentially the proposal is to start incentivizing
manufacturers and gun owners to improve the technical specifications on weapons
in order to negate any criminal black market, unauthorized use or gross
negligence. The full article is
here: https://sheamonu-granfalloons.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-modest-proposal.html
To this I would add one additional proposal. In order to incent people to own and use
safes or lockboxes for the storage of firearms I would require any insurance
policy written to cover “firearm accident” to give a generous reduction in the
premium for proof of ownership.
There you go. Hump
day is here and we’re well on the way to solving the problems of the world.
Let’s just chill for a bit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzmgJ_ZOqrE
– Wednesday
Thursday – Infrastructure
This is one of those topics that makes you wonder what the
hell everyone is fighting about. We all
know that our bridges, roads, levees, airports, water mains – shit, probably
our sidewalks and national monuments are falling apart. We know that one way to make sure that a hell
of a lot of people who need jobs will have one would be to just start fixing
the things that are broken. We know that
with interest rates as low as they are municipalities could probably borrow at
a very low rate and could therefore contribute matching funds to much of this
work at a low cost. We know that money
spent wisely here will both act as a stimulus AND provide long-lasting benefits – certainly
much better than just cutting someone a check to stay at home. We know we are going to need exactly just
such a stimulus coming out of COVID. Both parties are constantly claiming that
“improving our infrastructure” is at the top of their to do lists.
What’s the fucking problem?
Here is what the problem is – and it’s not entirely down to
politicians. The problem is that we are cheapskates.
That’s right – the current era of citizenry is like Ebenezer
Scrooge on steroids when it comes to investing in the country’s future. Not just millennials, Gen-Xers, late term
baby boomers or “the elderly” – all of us.
We are all like the guy who puts retreads on his car and then wonders
why his tires shred to bits on the highway.
Consider this for a moment.
When I was a kid almost everywhere I went I was surrounded by things
that the generation who went through the Depression and fought World War II had
bought for me. You know the ones, the
“Greatest Generation”. When I lived in
Springfield I went to a place called Tiffany Street School, which was a brick
school building that had a gymnasium attached to it, a courtyard in the middle,
ample space for playing fields and playgrounds and was built solidly enough to
stand up to a medium level nuclear blast.
Then I moved to the small town of Blandford – and just about the same
kind of school stood there. All bought
and paid for by the taxes of that generation.
When I got on the school bus to go to my early 1960’s era
High School (which was a regional) I passed through other towns, all of which
had built the same type schools. The
regional type high school had first come in to vogue in the postwar years (my
mother was in the first four year graduating class for hers, in Sheffield) –
all of which were also built by these people who had already sacrificed so
much. When I would visit relatives in
other parts of Massachusetts – we would travel on interstate highways and
across bridges which they had also paid for.
In the event someone would fly it would be out of airports the Greatest
Generation had built or expanded. Our
lights came courtesy of electrical infrastructure they had bought, we watched
Sesame Street on public television they had set up, paid our parking tickets at
municipal building they built and probably went home to neighborhoods that they
had laid out in the hopes that we would have a decent place to grow up.
To a great extent we are still using all of those same
buildings now, graduating from the same schools, traveling those same roads
(just patched up), crossing their (now crumbling) bridges, sit in their same
city halls, fly out of their airports, survive off their same energy
grids. Sure – we “upgrade” every once in
a while – but let’s face it – when it comes to sacrificing in order to make our
mark on the future – we are not doing a very good job living up to the example
set by people who really had already set quite an example in other ways.
How did they do this?
Here is a harsh truth – they did it by paying a huge amount of tax and
then making sure that the money was used to improve their country. The top tax rate then was (get this) 90% and
the median rates were pretty high as well. Much higher than now, when we all
bitch and moan about how high our taxes are.
Here is the thing – if you want nice things – you have to
pay for them. If you want to invest in
the future (like maybe by reviving the train system) you have to, you know,
invest. Am I in any way saying we should
go back to the rates paid by our grandparents (or great grandparents) when they
built the country we know today? No – I’m not.
But I am saying that the proposals made by Joe Biden for tax increases
should not be treated as “crippling” by the right wing because, honestly, they
are not. They are modest proposals that
will allow for rational revenue growth.
But I do understand that “tax increase” is not the type of
thing that conservatives will want to hear – so this is the compromise I would
propose. Let the tax increases go
through – but you get to designate the infrastructure repair that gets
prioritized out of the proposed new revenue.
The spending of those funds can then be used to do what you have said
you want to do all along – provide American jobs to improve American life. Any project you wish (other than a border wall).
The time is coming when improving our infrastructure will no longer be a
choice, but a necessity. In some areas
that time is already here. It’s time to
follow the path shown us by people who built the country we grew up in, to
water the lawns they laid out and turn the ground to green again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qadKIvx3mc
– Thursday
Friday – Health Care
To quote the prophet Matthew “All right, all right, all
right”, here we are, thank God, up to Friday and already we’ve solved problems
around climate change, appointments, guns and infrastructure. TGIF!
Now we’ll just take care of healthcare and be done with the work week.
If you read between the lines of the opening day’s oral
arguments in the Supreme Court, the decision regarding Obamacare will not
terminate the underlying legislation.
The swing votes to maintain ACA as it currently exists appear to be
coming from John Roberts (again) and Brett Kavanaugh (!) – but they are based
on bedrock conservative judicial beliefs.
Both appear (and this is just an initial impression) to be saying that
the decision on whether to roll back legislation is a matter for the legislature,
not the judiciary, and that they are being asked to do Congress’s job for them. If this turns out to be true liberals should
contain their joy – while it would be cruel to take health care away from
millions during a pandemic – everyone knows that the ACA as currently
constituted is nothing like a long term solution to the health care crisis.
Remember the Biden idea for a bipartisan commission to
review the makeup of the Supreme Court?
We already solved that problem on Tuesday, but that type of commission
might be better served operating in this sphere. In return for a commitment to take “Medicare
for All” off the table as a proposal Republicans should commit to actual engagement
on such a commission – made up of both sitting legislators, medical
professionals and economists. I’d propose
Mitt Romney as the chair, since Obamacare is really “Romneycare” (adopted in
Massachusetts when he was governor) writ large. The job of this group should
then be to come up with a series of real proposals for improving and “fixing”
Obamacare in a way that at least a majority of the Congress, made up of
Democrats and Republicans, can get behind.
Why, you might ask, should liberals like Bernie Sanders agree
to drop (at least for now) the Medicare for All concept?
Simple math – they can never win a vote for that proposal,
and this is an area where getting coverage for as many people as possible is
the critical result required. Liberals
have a history of refusing to acknowledge this – of insisting on being 100% certain
they have won when they are, to be honest, dealing in the world of insurance –
where percentage numbers, in the form of actuarial tables, NEVER DO THAT. It is well known that a proposal for
something very close to enhanced Obamacare was ready for passage in the
mid-1970’s when Ted Kennedy rejected it in favor of his own plan. That means that 45 years ago the country
could have started to cover vast numbers of people – but did not do it because
liberals insisted on intellectual purity on this topic. Was Kennedy’s plan better? Probably.
It is also non-existent, because it was never passed.
If the commission I propose is assured from the beginning
that it will not have to consider Medicare for All, but can simply work on
revamping plans that have already been developed BY REPUBLICANS – then they
should be able to accomplish a mandated report within six months of being
seated which should not be guaranteed passage but which should be guaranteed a
vote in both the House and Senate.
I know, I know, this doesn’t really solve health care by Friday – it only gives us a chance to solve it. Hopefully, we finally take the chance to make some progress – because this is the COVID virus:
And this is The Cure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGgMZpGYiy8
– Friday
Saturday – Energy
There is a huge desire on my part to make this nothing but a
discussion about fracking. Not because I
think there is much point talking about the use of hydraulic fracturing as a
means of solving the long-term energy problem, but just because I love the word
“fracking” so much. What
possibilities.
If there were a group of married women who supported this
type of energy extraction there is a good chance that many of them are “motherfrackers”. If a population of lizards lived over a
geographical area where high pressure water was used to extract oil they would
be “cold blooded frackers”. Comedians in
favor of pumping H2O into shale would be “silly frackers” while those who think
that this practice DOES offer a long-term energy solution would, of course, be “fracking
morons”.
I could go on, but that’s enough for now.
You know what? - the “energy crisis” has been around since I was ten years old. I remember the day it started. Really – it was a Saturday. The 6th of October in 1973 to be exact. Prior to that day, when my dad drove in to a service station to get gas there was a good chance he would have his windshield washed, the oil checked and walk away with a special souvenir “New England Patriots souvenir mug” which he would probably throw away since back then, and for the next quarter century or so, the Patriots sucked.
Oh, and there was a good chance he’d get change back from a fiver
after topping up.
Not long after that date he was driving into a line to wait
for gas, which he would likely have to pump himself, and then would have to come
up with twenty bucks to pay for.
No Patriots glasses.
On the 6th of October 1973 Egypt and Syria attacked
Israel beginning the Yom Kippur War and triggering the Arab oil boycott which
exposed America’s (then) vulnerability to foreign control of petroleum. Gas prices, gas lines, oil speculation and
the energy crisis all leapt into public awareness from that moment. The “energy
crisis” has gone through many stages since then, America has searched through the
geological equivalents of couch cushions and old pocketbooks to find enough oil
to become less dependent on foreign supply (for now) and we’ve even begun to
explore electric vehicles, solar solutions and discuss windpower. All of which, we are assured, will in the
long term NOT solve the incessant need we have for energy.
For some reason, which I swear to God I will never
understand, building and using wind and solar reserves has become something vigorously
opposed by conservatives. Donald Trump
even suggested that the noise from windfarms causes cancer. He also seems extremely concerned with the
health of birds flying near the turning blades of windmills. This evidently explains the historic collapse
of Holland’s indigenous parrot population.
Regardless of the silly reasons for opposing its expansion
the use of wind and solar will, for now, not offer a solution to the long-term
energy crisis as it currently exists.
That crisis revolves around two main prongs – supply and environmental
concerns. The supply side is the same as
it was in 1973 – we all know that oil is going to eventually run out. The environmental concern largely has to do
with carbon and addresses why coal is not a viable solution. Among many other things (such as you can’t
run your car on it) coal is carbon based, and as covered on Monday – carbon is
killing us.
So, what is left? In order to answer I’m going to pretend I’m
on vacation. We (at least until this
past year) take our holiday by the shore in New Hampshire, in and around
Hampton Beach. I’m imagining fried
clams, lobster, beers on the deck of a seaside bar across from our cottage, paddling
in a canoe under the peaceful shadows of a nuclear power plant…
Wait – what?
Well, yeah. After I
was introduced to the energy crisis in 1973 the next big energy issue involved
nuclear power, which was opposed by a large number of (mostly liberal) groups
and supported by an equally large number of (mostly conservative) elements. One of the key battlegrounds in this struggle
was Seabrook, New Hampshire which was proposed as the site for one of the
largest nuclear plants in the country. After
significant back and forth the project was cut in half, but a plant did open in
1990 and is now the single largest electrical generating unit on the New
England grid.
And, of course, we all know what happened after THAT.
Nothing.
When I go up to New Hampshire now I hardly even notice the
plant. I really do paddle around the
inner harbor under its shadow, watching the birds, fish and picking up shells,
basically killing time until I go back to the deck and drink more beer.
I know there have been accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl
(entirely different plant design), I know there were huge concerns in Japan
because of a tsunami, I know there are problems with waste disposal. I also know that there were about 40 hurricanes
this past season and that much of the west coast now burns like a Halloween
bonfire every summer. In the aftermath of
the nuclear power controversies of the 1970’s and 80’s we more or less gave up
on constructing new plants or developing nuclear technology at a commercial
level. There were lone voices on the
Democratic side of the aisle, including then Senator Paul Tsongas, who warned
that this was a mistake.
As with many of the other things he said – on this one I
think he was right. Others have expressed the same opinion – including the man
who wrote the definitive history of the making of the atomic bomb.
Look – let’s separate the global warming and fracking
controversies from the rest of energy policy, particularly in this area. A commitment to reinvigorate the nuclear
industry should be something the right and left can agree on. I’m not
advocating a rush to throw nuclear plants up in every state where there is a
town or city called Springfield (Homer is busy enough) – but let’s begin to
reopen a field that, whether we wish to admit it or not, is actually one of the
cleaner energy options we have. Look –
sometimes we have to acknowledge that even though we may not be the biggest
fans of something there is always a different perspective and it’s not unusual for others to get some
value out of what may not always be your cup of tea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFNZXaBcXkA
– Saturday
We’re almost there now.
Made it to Sunday without too much trouble and only about 5500 words
(not counting all the links). That’s
nearly a record for me. All we need to
do now is get through Sunday. There are
a hell of a lot of good Sunday songs out there – read this section and you’re
nearly guaranteed a good listen.
I had thought about doing “policing” for this day but I’ve
already written a good bit about that and there is one other area that I think
ties in very well with Sunday. So, for
our final topic, I think I’ll try to solve the complex area of what we choose
to memorialize and celebrate.
Sunday – Monuments
At one point this summer it seemed that every day would
bring news of another statue being pulled down, beheaded or dumped into the
nearest waterway. Maps were rendered
obsolete as street after street was renamed.
Flags, insignia, nicknames and product brands were redesigned or
abandoned overnight. Hands were wrung,
editorials drafted, petitions signed, plastic surgeons were on 24 hour call as
noses everywhere were bent out of shape.
I sound like I’m treating this as unimportant – and there is
a reason for that.
It’s kind of unimportant.
But Sunday is a day often used for worship, reflection or
celebration – and so it’s fitting that we talk about what we should celebrate in
this part of the article, even if maybe the best thing we can do when contemplating
this particular topic is remember that the world will not end based upon what
we decide here, no one is going to die if an announcer slips up on air and refers
to the D.C. football team by its former nickname.
Look – I’ve said for years that calling a football team the Redskins
is per se offensive, certainly generating more offense than said team has been able
to for about the last twenty years. But
I can’t pretend that changing that will solve much of anything. I’m glad it’s
gone but we’ve certainly got bigger problems. (By the way – my vote for the new
nickname would be the “Washington Photons” as sort of a contraction of “Washington
Football Team”).
Other movements I simply disagree with. The street next to Fenway Park was named
Yawkey Way after the late Red Sox owner, who died in 1976. Tom Yawkey had been one of the truly great
charitable influences on the Greater Boston area – even the country – as he
tirelessly built hospitals and promoted the Jimmy Fund to combat childhood
cancer. He had also been, at one time,
an avowed racist, keeping the Red Sox from fielding a black player until every
other team had done so, and staging fake “tryouts” in order to misdirect the
local press.
So, Boston recently renamed Yawkey Way, returning it to the
original name of Jersey Street. Case
closed, right?
Sort of. You see – there is a
great deal of evidence that Tom Yawkey evolved substantially as he aged. There was a decisive purge of many of his
prior cronies from the organization in the mid-1960’s (a lot changed in the ‘60’s),
he hired an aggressive recruiter of African American and Caribbean based talent
in Dick O’Connell and the team fielded (and developed) black players like
Reggie Smith, George Scott, Cecil Cooper, Joe Foy, Jim Rice and Rogelio Moret
during Yawkey’s final years. Arguably
the team’s most popular player during this time was Luis Tiant, a black man
whose father was prevented from playing in the majors because of his
color. That same father was released
from Cuba to see his son pitch in the 1975 World Series largely due to the
efforts of Yawkey. Tiant’s verdict on
Yawkey is one that I think you have to respect – and Luis says “He was a good
man”.
Do you still feel great that
Boston renamed that street? I don’t. I think maybe we decided that someone’s worst
qualities were their primary qualities – and that isn’t always true.
That said – sometimes it is. Christopher Columbus, for all his sailing
prowess, was pretty much a dick. I don’t
know how many streets, squares, circles and statues we should rename or pull
down – but I think it’s a pretty good idea not to create any more. Nathan Bedford Forrest – pretty good general,
decent horseman – created the KKK – I’d yank that guy’s statue down. But those are easy – and what I’m trying to
do here is create some rules to deal with some tougher calls.
Here’s one that I would propose –
let’s agree a difference between a “memorial” and a “designation”. One is
subject to change, the other much less so. The example I’m most immediately
aware of is again in Boston, right next to my old office. I’m speaking of “Fanueil Hall”.
Fanueil Hall is the fourth most
visited tourist site in America and is used as a marketplace and visitor center. It was built and used by Peter Fanueil, a
merchant whose trade included transporting, selling and buying slaves, who then
donated the hall to the City of Boston.
It is not named as a memorial to Fanueil, but is called “Fanueil Hall”
because, well, it was Fanueil’s Hall.
Same as you might call Paul Revere’s house “Paul Revere’s house” –
because, you know, at one point if you were looking for Paul that’s the door
you would knock on.
That is a designation – it is not
a memorial – and renaming it is, in my way of thinking, inappropriate. You are not devaluing something that is
celebrating a wrong, you are obscuring history.
The same would apply to the house
that overlooks the graves of JFK, RFK and the other Kennedy’s. There is talk about no longer referring to
this as the “Lee-Custis” mansion. This is because the “Lee” referred to is
Robert E., who owned the house at one time and lost it following his enlistment
on behalf of the Confederacy. I understand
why Lee is a controversial figure, and why you might wish to see the house
renamed after someone else – like Frederick Douglass. But the fact remains – if
you had stopped Frederick Douglass on the streets of Washington and asked the
way to the “Lee-Custis mansion” he would have pointed towards the house sitting
on the hill across the river in Arlington.
That was how the place was designated – he wouldn’t have been opining on
the character of Lee – just saying where he lived.
The same is not true when you
raise a statue in Lee’s honor. That IS a
memorial – and that is properly objected to.
Pulling such a thing down and placing it in a museum is not “erasing
history” since the purpose of the artwork is not to act as a designation but a
tribute. I often think that street names
already in existence, mountains that were named for someone, rivers (such as
the “Columbia”) tend to become more in the nature of designations over time,
while monuments like statues, tributes like holidays or symbols like flags or
nicknames tend to skew the other way towards memorial side of the ledger. Here’s the general rule - designations,
neutral and can stay; memorials –
subject to scrutiny and removal.
While I don’t think these names
are, in and of themselves, that important – I do think that the tendency that
has developed to start busting each others’ heads in the street over these
sorts of things is. That’s why I thought
maybe adding some context and rules to the debate might help. It won’t eliminate the controversy but should
assist in framing it and taking the heat out of what is at stake. After all, wouldn’t it be nice to get on with
your neighbors?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXeRB-3nDR8&list=PLgAhU6-qvc8cNiwmhdYZP1K2YSorTXYFA&index=2
– Sunday
Ah, to hell with it – there are
lots of great Sunday themed songs and if you read all the way through this you deserve
to listen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuM3SteeAgY&list=PLgAhU6-qvc8cNiwmhdYZP1K2YSorTXYFA
– Sunday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED5s1-Fe9FA&list=PLgAhU6-qvc8cNiwmhdYZP1K2YSorTXYFA&index=6
– Sunday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wqw1MGEHKNE
– Sunday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM4vblG6BVQ
- Sunday
There is one other thing.
The results of this election were close, they are no doubt disappointing
for some – but they are definitive. Let’s just use some common sense here. Why would the Democrats steal an election at
a level LESS than all public opinion polls showed them winning? Why would they steal an election in a manner
that left them at risk of losing the Senate and with less House seats than when
they started? Why (and how) could they
steal an election where the elements required to do so would leave the
perpetrators subject to criminal sanctions far in advance of any benefit they
could anticipate? Do you seriously think
that someone who is an unpaid ballot counter is going to risk ten years behind
bars so that they can become a slightly less unpaid ballot counter? That a second assistant county clerk is going
to risk time in a county lock up in order to (maybe) become first assistant county
clerk?
Joe Biden won, Donald Trump lost – and for those who feel
that their voices had not been heard over the past decades – trust me – if your
goal was to shake things up you succeeded, even if in this one election you
fell a bit short. That is an
accomplishment you should be proud of, even if there are other things
associated with that which you should not be.
But there has to be an end to the dispute and an acknowledgment
of the reality that the time for the next step has arrived. The matters outlined above are legitimate
attempts at finding common ground – but there is no way to plow that ground if
you don’t get out of the way and let the work begin. Even after the biggest disaster, where the
world seems turned upside down – there has to be a morning after. I mean – it said it right there in The
Poseidon Adventure. So, let’s close
with this one, and move on to the next stage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KClpLzFftU
