As my readers know, I write a great deal about political
change. This is not always just in terms of the political
parties, nor limited to existing contemporary ideologies.
Even as I attempt to understand the current forces of
international politics, I am simultaneously trying to do the
same in terms of domestic U.S. politics. Before continuing
a discussion I recently have begun about the former, I would
like to begin a new one about the latter.
I believe there is little doubt that American national politics
is going through the throes of another pivotal transformation
of its voter decision-making. Conventional wisdom has the
contending forces to be Republicans vs. Democrats, and
conservatives vs. liberals. I have also always paid attention
to those voters who consider themselves independents or
centrists. These latter voters are not much in journalistic
fashion today, as so much discussion is about the “polarity”
of voters to the left and the right, and because so many
elected officials who hold varying degrees of centrist views
are increasingly wary of self-identifying themselves as such.
Not only that, we can observe objectively that many such
persons in the U.S. house and senate have recently been
defeated either for re-nomination and re-election as the
so-called polarity to the left and the right continues to
escalate.
Throughout American history there have erupted, and
then subsided, third parties, but in spite of some short-term
influence of these parties, they have not becoming national
institutions. The U.S. is a majoritarian nation and society,
and although this sometimes provokes tensions and
problems, majoritarianism is inherently a feature of our
American republic.
Behind this discussion of polarity are certain commonplace
assumptions. Some leading advocates on the left call
themselves “progressives,” and believe that the U.S. is
moving, and should continue to move, to the redistribution
of wealth, imposed forms of equality, and an increased role
of government in the private lives and choices of American
citizens. Some leading advocates on the right believe that
the time has come, not only to halt the current drift to the
left in national politics, but to restore the nation to many
previously-held views about the most controversial issues
of the day, including immigration, healthcare, taxation,
government spending, education and the status of family
life.
The polarity suggested by the above does not frequently bear
much resemblance to the aspirations and beliefs, stated and
unstated, of many other Americans. But this polarity has been
taken up by the media and academia in such a way that often
shuts out a larger and more innovative discussion on both the
left and the right.
As much as an outspoken few might wish it, the U.S. is not
going to welcome a socialist (redistributionalist), or even a
European social welfare, state. This “progressive” view is in
a bit of a fashion just now, but every two and four years the
American voter expresses his or her view on these matters,
and fashions by definition do not last long.
At the same time, there is a view held by some on the right
that we can go back to the way it was in terms of immigration
policy, health care, education and family life. The world,
whether you are on the left or the right, is always changing,
and so must politics.
On the left, there are many articles trumpeted by “experts”
that federal deficit spending, taxing the rich, abolishing the
traditional family unit and status quo education systems
are the way of the future. I do not think any of these are
sustainable.
On the right, there are many articles trumpeted by “experts”
that we can ignore the consequences of past immigration
policies, and even “expel” millions of persons now living in
the U.S. There are advocates, as well, of returning the family
unit and its relationships to what they were in the past by
some (unstated) form of imposition, that taxation can be
virtually eliminated, and that the government has no role
at all in regulating and enforcing public health and education.
These, too, are not truly sustainable.
Meanwhile, discussions of what would be workable,
sustainable, and, dare I say it, even advisable are almost
non-existent in the Old Media and by most in the current
leadership of both parties.
It cannot go on this way without consequences,
consequences, I might add, I don’t think most Americans
on the left or the right would welcome if they actually came
to pass.
I lamented the fact, in discussing international affairs,
that we have Neville Chamberlains today, but no Churchills.
Alas, on domestic policy today we have many on the far left
and the far right shouting down the useful national
conversations, but too few voices of the kind who really
changed our country, and made it the political light of the
world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2013 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Power In The World - Past, Present and Future
Before we can assess the dynamics of international matters
of economy, and of war and peace, both in the present and in
the imaginable future, it would be useful to know who are the
meaningful players, who might they be, and what do we know
about those who, in the immediate past, were major parties in
the events which have occurred in the past century.
One hundred years ago, the major military powers were
Great Britain, France, Germany, Austro-Hungary, Russia,
the Turkish empire, and (only coming into its own) the
United States of America. China was in a chaotic
pre-revolutionary state; Japan had surprisingly defeated
Russia in their 1904 war, but was isolated; and although
Argentina had the 9th largest economy in the world in 1900,
it was absent from the world stage. Brazil and India, two
nations whose populations and economies would grow
enormously in the next ten decades were in post-colonial
or (in India’s case) still a colony of a world power. The
Persian empire was a force of the distant past, although oil
had been recently been discovered on its lands.
The above powers, many of them still ruled by self-involved
autocrats, managed to stumble their way into a colossal world
war in 1914, set off because a chauffeur took a wrong turn on
a downtown Sarajevo street and his royal passengers were
shot by a lone anarchist assassin who happened to be on the
spot. Such are the vagaries of history, that the immense
violence and suffering of a whole ensuing century could be
ignited by such a small accidental mistake. It might be argued,
of course, that World War I would have eventually happened
anyway. There was already in place not only an arms race
between several of these powers, but also even more critically,
a pathology of naked territorial and economic expansionism,
a rabid spirit of militarism, blatant religious intolerance and
rivalry, and a scandalously historic misappreciation of the
intrinsic value of the tens and hundreds of millions of persons
who made up the individual nations of that time.
One hundred years later, the world’s major military and
economic power, the United States of America, is being
challenged and checked by a new set of aspiring powers.
Great Britain and France are no longer major powers, although
each have a sizable army and nuclear weapons. Europe, as the
European Union, is a world economic and military power,
but does not easily act in a unified manner. Turkey, now a
smaller secular republic, is only a regional and unstable player.
Russia has gone from a despoiled autocracy to a Marxist
dictatorship, and then to a nominal republic. Russia has played
a significant role in both world wars, and was the antagonist in
the ensuing Cold War. Although its territory and population has
now been drastically reduced, its natural resources and natural
ambitions, and its renewing military forces, have again made it
a major power. China, following the world wars, became a
Marxist dictatorship with a huge population. When the socialist
model failed, as it did in the Marxist Soviet Union, the current
regime has adopted a modified capitalist economic model. It has
military and economic resources which, while not yet matching
the U.S. and other western powers, make it a major player in
Asia and on the world stage. Ancient Persia has become modern
Iran with a society more advanced than most other Middle
Eastern states, but controlled by a fundamentalist Islamic
leadership that is hostile to Europe, the U.S. and those Asian
nations influenced by the West. Its nuclear (and other) ambitions
are currently at the center of major international dispute.
Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, and India’s
population at 1.1 billion matches China, but its fledgling
capitalist economy, complicated with its perennial conflicts
with neighboring Pakistan, prevent it from playing a more
suitable global role at the present time. Other nations hold
large populations (Brazil, Indonesia, Japan, Nigeria, Mexico),
others possess nuclear weapons, and still others contain
undeveloped resources which might dramatically increase
their power in the world in the future.
Indeed, if the size of potential economic markets come to define
“power” in the century to come, India, Brazil, Indonesia and
Nigeria might well be world powers in a later era.
Reconfigurations of Europe, in the Middle East, central Africa,
South America and in the Pacific Rim, now unanticipated,
could also emerge as unified world powers. It might be of
interest to speculate about some of these, but I think a more
pressing need is to understand the endlessly changing dynamics
of the present time when population size is not nearly as
important as national and regional ambitions, strategic location
and level of industrial (and military) development.
These latter conditions, and those who are the major players
with them, are of more urgent interest. The experiences of the
recent past, and its major powers, should be instructive, but as
the human species now walks through contemporary time with
all of its promising and stunning technologies, its atavistic
depravities, and the intrusive vagaries of Mother Nature, we
just might need to be prepared for much more than our history
has so far has led us to believe lies ahead,
__________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2013 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
of economy, and of war and peace, both in the present and in
the imaginable future, it would be useful to know who are the
meaningful players, who might they be, and what do we know
about those who, in the immediate past, were major parties in
the events which have occurred in the past century.
One hundred years ago, the major military powers were
Great Britain, France, Germany, Austro-Hungary, Russia,
the Turkish empire, and (only coming into its own) the
United States of America. China was in a chaotic
pre-revolutionary state; Japan had surprisingly defeated
Russia in their 1904 war, but was isolated; and although
Argentina had the 9th largest economy in the world in 1900,
it was absent from the world stage. Brazil and India, two
nations whose populations and economies would grow
enormously in the next ten decades were in post-colonial
or (in India’s case) still a colony of a world power. The
Persian empire was a force of the distant past, although oil
had been recently been discovered on its lands.
The above powers, many of them still ruled by self-involved
autocrats, managed to stumble their way into a colossal world
war in 1914, set off because a chauffeur took a wrong turn on
a downtown Sarajevo street and his royal passengers were
shot by a lone anarchist assassin who happened to be on the
spot. Such are the vagaries of history, that the immense
violence and suffering of a whole ensuing century could be
ignited by such a small accidental mistake. It might be argued,
of course, that World War I would have eventually happened
anyway. There was already in place not only an arms race
between several of these powers, but also even more critically,
a pathology of naked territorial and economic expansionism,
a rabid spirit of militarism, blatant religious intolerance and
rivalry, and a scandalously historic misappreciation of the
intrinsic value of the tens and hundreds of millions of persons
who made up the individual nations of that time.
One hundred years later, the world’s major military and
economic power, the United States of America, is being
challenged and checked by a new set of aspiring powers.
Great Britain and France are no longer major powers, although
each have a sizable army and nuclear weapons. Europe, as the
European Union, is a world economic and military power,
but does not easily act in a unified manner. Turkey, now a
smaller secular republic, is only a regional and unstable player.
Russia has gone from a despoiled autocracy to a Marxist
dictatorship, and then to a nominal republic. Russia has played
a significant role in both world wars, and was the antagonist in
the ensuing Cold War. Although its territory and population has
now been drastically reduced, its natural resources and natural
ambitions, and its renewing military forces, have again made it
a major power. China, following the world wars, became a
Marxist dictatorship with a huge population. When the socialist
model failed, as it did in the Marxist Soviet Union, the current
regime has adopted a modified capitalist economic model. It has
military and economic resources which, while not yet matching
the U.S. and other western powers, make it a major player in
Asia and on the world stage. Ancient Persia has become modern
Iran with a society more advanced than most other Middle
Eastern states, but controlled by a fundamentalist Islamic
leadership that is hostile to Europe, the U.S. and those Asian
nations influenced by the West. Its nuclear (and other) ambitions
are currently at the center of major international dispute.
Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, and India’s
population at 1.1 billion matches China, but its fledgling
capitalist economy, complicated with its perennial conflicts
with neighboring Pakistan, prevent it from playing a more
suitable global role at the present time. Other nations hold
large populations (Brazil, Indonesia, Japan, Nigeria, Mexico),
others possess nuclear weapons, and still others contain
undeveloped resources which might dramatically increase
their power in the world in the future.
Indeed, if the size of potential economic markets come to define
“power” in the century to come, India, Brazil, Indonesia and
Nigeria might well be world powers in a later era.
Reconfigurations of Europe, in the Middle East, central Africa,
South America and in the Pacific Rim, now unanticipated,
could also emerge as unified world powers. It might be of
interest to speculate about some of these, but I think a more
pressing need is to understand the endlessly changing dynamics
of the present time when population size is not nearly as
important as national and regional ambitions, strategic location
and level of industrial (and military) development.
These latter conditions, and those who are the major players
with them, are of more urgent interest. The experiences of the
recent past, and its major powers, should be instructive, but as
the human species now walks through contemporary time with
all of its promising and stunning technologies, its atavistic
depravities, and the intrusive vagaries of Mother Nature, we
just might need to be prepared for much more than our history
has so far has led us to believe lies ahead,
__________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2013 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Friday, November 29, 2013
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Is It "Obamacare, Stupid!" Or "Time For A Woman President" in 2016?
As the 2012 presidential campaign began to form seriously
in 2011, some conservatives suggested that the by-then
commonplace slogan “It’s the economy, stupid!” would be
replaced by a new slogan “It’s Obamacare, stupid!” as the
emblematic theme of the Republican attempt to replace
the president, then in his first term, the next year.
It was based, quite understandably, on the performance of
the 2010 mid-term elections when the Republicans regained
control of the U.S. house with a pick-up of 60-plus seats,
and a significant pick-up of U.S senate seats, primarily due
to negative voter reaction to the just-passed medical care
reform law known as Obamacare. Republicans, it should be
remembered, became increasingly confident that they could
win the 2012 presidential election, and they nominated
someone who, because of his support of a comparable program
when he was governor of a northeastern state, was going to
have a difficult time making Obamacare a dispositive issue.
Mitt Romney had other political problems, to be sure, and
the election was close, but the GOP slogan did not materialize
as the difference.
Going into the 2014 mid-term elections, Obamacare is once
again driving voters away from Democratic candidates. In
fact, it is potentially more serious than in 2010 because the
legislation is now being implemented --- with disastrous early
results.
I am suggesting that a focus on Obamacare by Republicans
beyond 2014 is a very bad strategy. The reasons are simple.
If voter dissatisfaction with the legislation does resonate in
the 2014 elections, it will be repealed or dramatically altered
whether or not President Obama agrees to it. Members of
Congress of his own party, having seen the writing on the
electoral wall of 2014, will vote to override any veto. It will be
a matter of political survival, and Mr. Obama will be a very
lame duck. If, somehow, Obamacare miraculously succeeds
suddenly in 2014, including getting by its inaugural technical
glitches, and its implementation is not put off until 2015,
there will obviously no issue. In either case, Obamacare will
cease to confront voters after 2015.
At the same time, Democrats are developing, as their prime
slogan for 2016, “It’s time for a woman president!” This, of
course, presupposes that the current Democratic frontrunner,
Hillary Clinton, is their nominee. There are two problems
with this slogan-as-strategy. First, in spite of her huge lead in
current polls, the election is almost three years away. Mrs.
Clinton enjoyed a similar “insurmountable” lead in 2005, and
three years later, she came up short when Mr. Obama won
the party nod. Second, and perhaps more important, relying
on an abstraction, albeit a sympathetic one, is a very risky
strategy, and not ultimately complimentary to Mrs. Clinton’s
qualifications.
I happen to believe it IS time for a woman (from either party)
to be elected president, but I certainly would not want to vote
for a woman primarily because of her sex. The nation leads
outstanding leadership, now more than ever, and the only true
major consideration should be a vote for the best person, either
liberal or conservative, to serve in the nation’s highest office. It
was theoretically time for a Catholic to be president in 1928
when Al Smith was the Democratic nominee, but it did not
happen until 1960 when John Kennedy was elected. It was time
to have a Jew on the national ticket in 2000 when Joe Lieberman
was the Democratic vice presidential nominee, but he did not
win. Jesse Jackson ran twice for president, and many said that
Republican Colin Powell could have won if he ran, but it was
Barack Obama who was the first black president.
Today, notably more women already vote Democratic, and
notably more men vote Republican. It is illusory to think that
primarily just because she is a woman, Mrs. Clinton will win
in 2016. Nor will her “resume” alone give her victory.
American voters historically don’t vote for “resumes,”
including most recently in 2008. If she is her party’s nominee,
Mrs. Clinton will have to give voters very good reasons to vote
for her, especially after two terms of a president of her own
party, the inevitable Obama-fatigue that will exist in 2016, and
despite her own many controversies, personal and political.
It is, of course, a long time until 2016. In addition to the 2014
elections, many events, most of them unanticipated, will occur.
Hillary Clinton could indeed be elected president in 2016, but
I suspect the main reason will not be simply that she is a
woman. (What if, for example, the GOP nominee chooses the
talented New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez as his running
mate?) A Republican might indeed be elected president in 2016,
but I suspect the reason will not be only voter dissatisfaction with
Obamacare.
Slogans, or other short rationales, do not often win national
elections. Long before it was verbalized by the Bill Clinton
campaign, the “economy” was almost always was the major
factor in a presidential election.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2013 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
in 2011, some conservatives suggested that the by-then
commonplace slogan “It’s the economy, stupid!” would be
replaced by a new slogan “It’s Obamacare, stupid!” as the
emblematic theme of the Republican attempt to replace
the president, then in his first term, the next year.
It was based, quite understandably, on the performance of
the 2010 mid-term elections when the Republicans regained
control of the U.S. house with a pick-up of 60-plus seats,
and a significant pick-up of U.S senate seats, primarily due
to negative voter reaction to the just-passed medical care
reform law known as Obamacare. Republicans, it should be
remembered, became increasingly confident that they could
win the 2012 presidential election, and they nominated
someone who, because of his support of a comparable program
when he was governor of a northeastern state, was going to
have a difficult time making Obamacare a dispositive issue.
Mitt Romney had other political problems, to be sure, and
the election was close, but the GOP slogan did not materialize
as the difference.
Going into the 2014 mid-term elections, Obamacare is once
again driving voters away from Democratic candidates. In
fact, it is potentially more serious than in 2010 because the
legislation is now being implemented --- with disastrous early
results.
I am suggesting that a focus on Obamacare by Republicans
beyond 2014 is a very bad strategy. The reasons are simple.
If voter dissatisfaction with the legislation does resonate in
the 2014 elections, it will be repealed or dramatically altered
whether or not President Obama agrees to it. Members of
Congress of his own party, having seen the writing on the
electoral wall of 2014, will vote to override any veto. It will be
a matter of political survival, and Mr. Obama will be a very
lame duck. If, somehow, Obamacare miraculously succeeds
suddenly in 2014, including getting by its inaugural technical
glitches, and its implementation is not put off until 2015,
there will obviously no issue. In either case, Obamacare will
cease to confront voters after 2015.
At the same time, Democrats are developing, as their prime
slogan for 2016, “It’s time for a woman president!” This, of
course, presupposes that the current Democratic frontrunner,
Hillary Clinton, is their nominee. There are two problems
with this slogan-as-strategy. First, in spite of her huge lead in
current polls, the election is almost three years away. Mrs.
Clinton enjoyed a similar “insurmountable” lead in 2005, and
three years later, she came up short when Mr. Obama won
the party nod. Second, and perhaps more important, relying
on an abstraction, albeit a sympathetic one, is a very risky
strategy, and not ultimately complimentary to Mrs. Clinton’s
qualifications.
I happen to believe it IS time for a woman (from either party)
to be elected president, but I certainly would not want to vote
for a woman primarily because of her sex. The nation leads
outstanding leadership, now more than ever, and the only true
major consideration should be a vote for the best person, either
liberal or conservative, to serve in the nation’s highest office. It
was theoretically time for a Catholic to be president in 1928
when Al Smith was the Democratic nominee, but it did not
happen until 1960 when John Kennedy was elected. It was time
to have a Jew on the national ticket in 2000 when Joe Lieberman
was the Democratic vice presidential nominee, but he did not
win. Jesse Jackson ran twice for president, and many said that
Republican Colin Powell could have won if he ran, but it was
Barack Obama who was the first black president.
Today, notably more women already vote Democratic, and
notably more men vote Republican. It is illusory to think that
primarily just because she is a woman, Mrs. Clinton will win
in 2016. Nor will her “resume” alone give her victory.
American voters historically don’t vote for “resumes,”
including most recently in 2008. If she is her party’s nominee,
Mrs. Clinton will have to give voters very good reasons to vote
for her, especially after two terms of a president of her own
party, the inevitable Obama-fatigue that will exist in 2016, and
despite her own many controversies, personal and political.
It is, of course, a long time until 2016. In addition to the 2014
elections, many events, most of them unanticipated, will occur.
Hillary Clinton could indeed be elected president in 2016, but
I suspect the main reason will not be simply that she is a
woman. (What if, for example, the GOP nominee chooses the
talented New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez as his running
mate?) A Republican might indeed be elected president in 2016,
but I suspect the reason will not be only voter dissatisfaction with
Obamacare.
Slogans, or other short rationales, do not often win national
elections. Long before it was verbalized by the Bill Clinton
campaign, the “economy” was almost always was the major
factor in a presidential election.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2013 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Future Potpourri
The new year approaches, and the usual (brief) quiet news
time has arrived. The world, however, seethes with activity,
change and uncertainty. Here is a potpourri of news stories
gestating to the new year ahead:
CHINA FLEXES HER REGIONAL AMBITIONS:
Having declared a flying zone over disputed
territories with Japan, the U.S. air force has ignored
a “requirement” that the planes of other nations
register with Chinese authorities. Japan has likewise
said it will ignore the “declaration.” A Ukrainian
ship refashioned into a primitive “aircraft carrier” for
the Chinese navy is also cruising around the Pacific,
presumably for self-congratulatory public relations
on TV back in China. At the same time, when the huge
typhoon disaster hit the Philippines, China only sent a
tiny donation for relief while many other nations
poured in food, other supplies, medicine and
personnel. The new Chinese leadership apparently
has not formulated a lucid foreign policy.
A “DEAL” BETWEEN THE U.S. AND OTHER POWERS
WITH IRAN IS A DUBIOUS SHORT-TERM TRIAL:
A six-month arrangement intended to slow down
Iranian development of nuclear weaponry capability
has been signed over the protest of Israel, Saudi Arabia
and other Middle East nations not allied with Tehran.
Ignoring its long-time Israeli ally, the U.S., led by President
Obama, is apparently rearranging relationships in the
region. Very few observers expect Iran to keep its end of
the “deal” in which it has received some relief of the
economic blockade from which it has been reeling. By
executive order, Mr. Obama also released about $8 billion
in Iranian assets seized previously by the U.S. Some
unintended consequences, however, are bringing Israel into
potential cooperation with “enemy” Saudi Arabia, as already
exists between the Jewish state and the new military regime
in Egypt (another former ally of the U.S. apparently being
abandoned by the Obama administration). Turkish ambitions
combined with the ongoing Syrian civil war, as well as
emerging Kurdish assertions, should make the Middle East
region quite eventful in 2014.
MEDICAL CARE REFORM KNOW AS “OBAMACARE”
CONTINUES TO FACE SERIOUS PROBLEMS AT THE
OUTSET OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN THE U.S.:
Website and computer sign-up “roll-outs” were, and continue
to be, a public relations disaster. Assuming that these technical
problems will be “fixed” by early next year, the program itself
faces inherent economic contradictions as reactions from
insurees, drug companies, hospitals, physicians and other
institutions could threaten the sustainability of the legislation.
Beyond that, the political aftermath already is signaling a
negative election “wave” against the national Democratic
Party which pushed the legislation through. Their plan has
not ever enjoyed public popularity. Almost overnight, and
following a government shutdown forced by the Republicans
(which caused GOP prospects in 2014 to fade), incumbent
Democratic senators thought to be “safe” for re-election are
seen as suddenly vulnerable in polls. Initial conservative
hopes that its party could pick up 6-7 senate seats, were
subsequently scaled back to 2-3, but now that the focus in on
Obamacare, the number of pick-ups could reach 10-12 seats.
(Recent polls in Colorado [Udall] and Virginia [Warner] are
signaling the dimensions of the potential disaster for the
Democrats at the polls in 2014.)
ALMOST INVISIBLY, THE U.S. IS DEVELOPING A
REMARKABLE SELF-SUFFICIENCY IN GAS AND OIL
BY FINALLY DEVELOPING ITS RESERVES.
The impact of this likely will alter the American previous
dependency on Middle Eastern, Venezuelan and Mexican
supplies, the geopolitical consequences of which could be
enormous.
MEDICAL AND OTHER TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT QUIETLY IS ABOUT TO
CHANGE THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT ONCE AGAIN:
Nanotechnology, graphene development, genome research,
and numerous other areas of innovation are about to
“change the world” once again, and at a much faster
velocity than earlier patterns of change. How this change
can be absorbed and integrated in so short a time might be
the greatest challenge. At the same time, precipitated by
earlier innovation, new dangers and threats have arisen,
including most seriously, the so-called “post-antibiotic”
era in which the ability of antibiotic medicines are no longer
able to control or cure disease. As humans develop
resistance to virtually all the antibiotic medicines of the
past, the possibility of serious outbreaks of hitherto
curable diseases and plagues become problematic. The
question to be answered: Will the developed world, with its
immense scientific resources, be able to develop and
distribute “post-antibiotic” medications in time?
FINALLY, THE “NEWS” WHICH USUALLY CANNOT
BE PREDICTED:
In the year coming, and beyond, there is ALWAYS the
“unexpected.” Sunspots? Comets heading our way?
Earthquakes, volcanos, typhoons, hurricanes, tidal waves,
even the shocking possibility of global cooling (in place of
its now ballyhooed opposite), national revolutions in unlikely
places--- there are always surprises which our little planet and its
inhabitants manage to spring on us.
All we can do, then, is be thankful for the many blessings we
now have and enjoy. Hope and resolve are the best antidotes
to fear of the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2013 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
time has arrived. The world, however, seethes with activity,
change and uncertainty. Here is a potpourri of news stories
gestating to the new year ahead:
CHINA FLEXES HER REGIONAL AMBITIONS:
Having declared a flying zone over disputed
territories with Japan, the U.S. air force has ignored
a “requirement” that the planes of other nations
register with Chinese authorities. Japan has likewise
said it will ignore the “declaration.” A Ukrainian
ship refashioned into a primitive “aircraft carrier” for
the Chinese navy is also cruising around the Pacific,
presumably for self-congratulatory public relations
on TV back in China. At the same time, when the huge
typhoon disaster hit the Philippines, China only sent a
tiny donation for relief while many other nations
poured in food, other supplies, medicine and
personnel. The new Chinese leadership apparently
has not formulated a lucid foreign policy.
A “DEAL” BETWEEN THE U.S. AND OTHER POWERS
WITH IRAN IS A DUBIOUS SHORT-TERM TRIAL:
A six-month arrangement intended to slow down
Iranian development of nuclear weaponry capability
has been signed over the protest of Israel, Saudi Arabia
and other Middle East nations not allied with Tehran.
Ignoring its long-time Israeli ally, the U.S., led by President
Obama, is apparently rearranging relationships in the
region. Very few observers expect Iran to keep its end of
the “deal” in which it has received some relief of the
economic blockade from which it has been reeling. By
executive order, Mr. Obama also released about $8 billion
in Iranian assets seized previously by the U.S. Some
unintended consequences, however, are bringing Israel into
potential cooperation with “enemy” Saudi Arabia, as already
exists between the Jewish state and the new military regime
in Egypt (another former ally of the U.S. apparently being
abandoned by the Obama administration). Turkish ambitions
combined with the ongoing Syrian civil war, as well as
emerging Kurdish assertions, should make the Middle East
region quite eventful in 2014.
MEDICAL CARE REFORM KNOW AS “OBAMACARE”
CONTINUES TO FACE SERIOUS PROBLEMS AT THE
OUTSET OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN THE U.S.:
Website and computer sign-up “roll-outs” were, and continue
to be, a public relations disaster. Assuming that these technical
problems will be “fixed” by early next year, the program itself
faces inherent economic contradictions as reactions from
insurees, drug companies, hospitals, physicians and other
institutions could threaten the sustainability of the legislation.
Beyond that, the political aftermath already is signaling a
negative election “wave” against the national Democratic
Party which pushed the legislation through. Their plan has
not ever enjoyed public popularity. Almost overnight, and
following a government shutdown forced by the Republicans
(which caused GOP prospects in 2014 to fade), incumbent
Democratic senators thought to be “safe” for re-election are
seen as suddenly vulnerable in polls. Initial conservative
hopes that its party could pick up 6-7 senate seats, were
subsequently scaled back to 2-3, but now that the focus in on
Obamacare, the number of pick-ups could reach 10-12 seats.
(Recent polls in Colorado [Udall] and Virginia [Warner] are
signaling the dimensions of the potential disaster for the
Democrats at the polls in 2014.)
ALMOST INVISIBLY, THE U.S. IS DEVELOPING A
REMARKABLE SELF-SUFFICIENCY IN GAS AND OIL
BY FINALLY DEVELOPING ITS RESERVES.
The impact of this likely will alter the American previous
dependency on Middle Eastern, Venezuelan and Mexican
supplies, the geopolitical consequences of which could be
enormous.
MEDICAL AND OTHER TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT QUIETLY IS ABOUT TO
CHANGE THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT ONCE AGAIN:
Nanotechnology, graphene development, genome research,
and numerous other areas of innovation are about to
“change the world” once again, and at a much faster
velocity than earlier patterns of change. How this change
can be absorbed and integrated in so short a time might be
the greatest challenge. At the same time, precipitated by
earlier innovation, new dangers and threats have arisen,
including most seriously, the so-called “post-antibiotic”
era in which the ability of antibiotic medicines are no longer
able to control or cure disease. As humans develop
resistance to virtually all the antibiotic medicines of the
past, the possibility of serious outbreaks of hitherto
curable diseases and plagues become problematic. The
question to be answered: Will the developed world, with its
immense scientific resources, be able to develop and
distribute “post-antibiotic” medications in time?
FINALLY, THE “NEWS” WHICH USUALLY CANNOT
BE PREDICTED:
In the year coming, and beyond, there is ALWAYS the
“unexpected.” Sunspots? Comets heading our way?
Earthquakes, volcanos, typhoons, hurricanes, tidal waves,
even the shocking possibility of global cooling (in place of
its now ballyhooed opposite), national revolutions in unlikely
places--- there are always surprises which our little planet and its
inhabitants manage to spring on us.
All we can do, then, is be thankful for the many blessings we
now have and enjoy. Hope and resolve are the best antidotes
to fear of the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2013 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: "Dictators" And Demagogues Ahead?
For whatever else he is, Democratic U.S. Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid is not stupid. So when he set into motion
the “nuclear option” of removing the more than 150- year-old
tradition of the filibuster from the senate rules, he had to have
a very good political reason to do so.
I think the Daily Caller’s Mickey Kaus said it best when he
pointed out that the partial elimination of the filibuster was
in large part designed to get through President Obama’s
appointees to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals,
the powerful court that decides issues of federal regulation,
and is second only in its impact to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Kaus points out that bureaucratic regulation is now the largest
employer in DC, surpassing lobbyists and congressional staff.
Mr. Obama’s appointees have been blocked so far the
conservative majority on this Court, but when his appointees
are confirmed, the liberal members will have the majority.
This will ensure for some time that the current “progressive”
regulation mania perpetrated by the Obama administration
will likely be upheld, and that the thousands of regulation
lawyers now working in DC and environs will be at their posts
long after Mr Obama and his cohorts leave office.
Although Mr. Kaus mentions it, I want to stress the insight that
Mr. Reid has inevitably come to the conclusion that the future
is not bright for his party and his philosophy past the 2014
elections, and that time was running out to have the president’s
appointees confirmed and at work on the Court.
The political truth is, and Mr. Reid knows it, there is now no
short term recourse to having a “progressive” majority on the
DC Court of Appeals. For the time being, the filibuster is still
operative for Supreme Court nominations, but as many have
pointed out, should a vacancy occur between now and 2016,
Mr. Reid and his “progressive” comrades will be tempted to
change that, too (if they still have a majority), especially if it
is becoming clear that a Republican will likely be elected
president in 2016.
Federal court appointees are “life” appointments, and this
circumstance works to the advantage of whichever party
controls the White House. When a Republican is president,
he or she will also work to put his or her choices on the various
federal courts, low and high.
This brings us to the central point that elections matter VERY
much (in spite of the complaint by many on the right and left
that their vote doesn’t really count). It is also a rebuke to those
in both parties who want to vote only for candidates who agree
more or less completely with them, and in so insisting, cause
their party’s candidates to lose otherwise winnable elections.
There are “right wingers” and “left wingers” in both parties
today who are intent on sabotaging their own real interests by
defeating incumbents and candidates who are not “pure,”
who (Heaven Forbid!) seek to legislate and lead by compromise,
negotiation, and conciliation with the support and interests of
the nation’s always largest constituency, the political center.
Elections count. Winning elections counts. Harry Reid has been
the “dictator” of the senate of the past few years, but now as his
power begins to recede, he is trying to add tools to his power. If
the political center, both right and left, does not reassert itself
next year and in 2016, “dictators” and demagogues will continue
and increase their domination of the national political
conversation at a time when, in this observer’s opinion, we will
need primarily critical problem solvers in the nation’s capital.
___________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2013 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Leader Harry Reid is not stupid. So when he set into motion
the “nuclear option” of removing the more than 150- year-old
tradition of the filibuster from the senate rules, he had to have
a very good political reason to do so.
I think the Daily Caller’s Mickey Kaus said it best when he
pointed out that the partial elimination of the filibuster was
in large part designed to get through President Obama’s
appointees to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals,
the powerful court that decides issues of federal regulation,
and is second only in its impact to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Kaus points out that bureaucratic regulation is now the largest
employer in DC, surpassing lobbyists and congressional staff.
Mr. Obama’s appointees have been blocked so far the
conservative majority on this Court, but when his appointees
are confirmed, the liberal members will have the majority.
This will ensure for some time that the current “progressive”
regulation mania perpetrated by the Obama administration
will likely be upheld, and that the thousands of regulation
lawyers now working in DC and environs will be at their posts
long after Mr Obama and his cohorts leave office.
Although Mr. Kaus mentions it, I want to stress the insight that
Mr. Reid has inevitably come to the conclusion that the future
is not bright for his party and his philosophy past the 2014
elections, and that time was running out to have the president’s
appointees confirmed and at work on the Court.
The political truth is, and Mr. Reid knows it, there is now no
short term recourse to having a “progressive” majority on the
DC Court of Appeals. For the time being, the filibuster is still
operative for Supreme Court nominations, but as many have
pointed out, should a vacancy occur between now and 2016,
Mr. Reid and his “progressive” comrades will be tempted to
change that, too (if they still have a majority), especially if it
is becoming clear that a Republican will likely be elected
president in 2016.
Federal court appointees are “life” appointments, and this
circumstance works to the advantage of whichever party
controls the White House. When a Republican is president,
he or she will also work to put his or her choices on the various
federal courts, low and high.
This brings us to the central point that elections matter VERY
much (in spite of the complaint by many on the right and left
that their vote doesn’t really count). It is also a rebuke to those
in both parties who want to vote only for candidates who agree
more or less completely with them, and in so insisting, cause
their party’s candidates to lose otherwise winnable elections.
There are “right wingers” and “left wingers” in both parties
today who are intent on sabotaging their own real interests by
defeating incumbents and candidates who are not “pure,”
who (Heaven Forbid!) seek to legislate and lead by compromise,
negotiation, and conciliation with the support and interests of
the nation’s always largest constituency, the political center.
Elections count. Winning elections counts. Harry Reid has been
the “dictator” of the senate of the past few years, but now as his
power begins to recede, he is trying to add tools to his power. If
the political center, both right and left, does not reassert itself
next year and in 2016, “dictators” and demagogues will continue
and increase their domination of the national political
conversation at a time when, in this observer’s opinion, we will
need primarily critical problem solvers in the nation’s capital.
___________________________________________________________
Copyright (c) 2013 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Ten Amazing Facts You Probably Didn't Know About
THE WORST MARINE DISASTER OF ALL-TIME
WAS THE SINKING OF THE WILHELM GUSTLOFF
ON JANUARY 30, 1945.
The Wilhelm Gustloff, built as a Nazi passenger
cruise ship (and named for a Swiss Nazi demogogue)
in 1937, had been stranded in the East Prussian port
of Gotenhofen on the Baltic Sea since the outset of
World War II. As Soviet troops overtook East Prussia
in early 1945, over a million ethnic Germans, whose
families had lived in East Prussia for centuries,
attempted to flee to the German mainland a few
hundred miles away via the Baltic sea route to avoid
the pillaging and raping by the Russian soldiers as
they reconquered the area. The Wilhelm Gustloff,
built to accommodate 1500 passengers and 500 crew,
was overloaded with about 11,000 men, women and
children (some of whom were German soldiers), and
began a 200-plus mile sea trip in a storm. (The trip
was no longer possible by rail or truck.) A Soviet
submarine spotted the ship, and sent four torpedoes
at it, sinking the ship in a brief time. Approximately
9400 persons died in the sinking, making it it the
largest loss of life from one ship disaster in history.
[Further reading: Death in the Baltic by Cathryn J. Prince.]
THE FATHER OF THE AMERICAN ENGLISH
LANGUAGE WAS NOT A LITERARY PERSON,
WROTE NO BOOKS, AND DID NOT EVER
ATTEND A SCHOOL.
Although his name is a household word in the United
States and in much of the rest of the world for his
role as president of the United States during the nation’s
Civil War (1861-65) and his assassination, it is much
less known that Abrham Lincoln is considered by
some today as the father of the modern American
English language. This role is usually assigned to
a major literary figure (e.g., Shakespeare in British
English, Dante in Italian, Cervantes in Spanish,
Pushkin in Russian, et al). The only American writer
who even comes close to Lincoln, and came after
him, was Samuel Clemens (“Mark Twain”).
Lincoln’s major speeches are still considered today
as the finest examples of their kind by an American,
and his collected speeches and letters form a unique
body of the English language spoken and written in
the U.S. as it was being transformed from its British
origins. Lincoln’s language, almost alone among his
19th century contemporaries (including Hawthorne,
Emerson, Melville, Longfellow, et al) remains fresh
today without the “dated” quality of almost
everyone else in his era. Amazingly, Lincoln was
entirely self-taught, and did not ever attend a school
in his childhood.
[Further reading: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln,
Rutgers University Press]
THE FIRST MODERN NOVEL WAS WRITTEN
MORE THAN A THOUSAND YEARS AGO by a
Japanese noblewoman know as “Lady Murasaki” (but
whose real name is unknown). A lady-in-waiting to the
Empress Shoshi of the Heian period of 11th century
Japan, she wrote her extraordinary fictional account of
life, manners and personalities of the contemporary
Japanese court in an unprecedented work entitled The
Tale of Genji. It is also described today as the first
psychological work of fiction. The novel form did
not truly emerge until more than 500 years later in
the West. Remarkably, The Tale of Genji is even
today a highly readable, fascinating masterpiece.
[Further reading: Tale of Genji by Lady Murasaki (trans.)]
THE GREATEST AMERICAN NATURAL DISASTER
was the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 which
inundated most of the mid-Mississippi River Valley
following an unprecedented period of rain beginning
in August, 1926. At its peak, months later, the flood
covered 27 thousand square miles and dislocated
millions of persons. More than 240 persons are known
to have died (although the total death toll is not known).
Cities such as Nashville and Memphis were under water.
Damage estimates at the time were approximately half
a billion dollars (in today's dollars, many hundreds of
billions). The Flood changed the nation in many ways.
Large numbers of black residents, many of them
descendants of slaves, were put in concentration camps,
and subsequently emigrated to large cities in the North.
President Coolidge did not visit the area, but put his
secretary of commerce, Herbert Hoover, in charge.
(When Coolidge decided not to run for re-election in
1928, Hoover, as a result of the publicity he received
overseeing flood relief, was elected president.) Contending
that the individual states could not adequately deal with
the disaster caused by the Mississippi River which ran through
them, the federal government assumed overriding powers
through the Army of Engineers, and this marked the
beginning of the rise of federal bureaucratic power in the
U.S. The whole story of this disaster, now largely forgotten,
is filled with colorful and extraordinary figures, many of
whom became major national figures in the years that
followed.
[Further reading: Rising Tide by John M. Barry]
THE LANGUAGES OF THE FINNS, ESTONIANS
AND HUNGARIANS HAVE THE SAME ROOTS
BUT COME FROM ASIA NOT EUROPE.
Known as the Uraic family of languages,
Magyar, Finnish and Estonian have no roots in the
much larger Indo-European family of languages
which are spoken in most of the nations near them.
Although their exact origins are not yet fully known,
philologists, in fact, trace these languages partially
back to Siberian Asian (Chuvash) roots and to those
who came to the region more than two thousand
years ago. Magyar, the official language of Hungary,
is the largest non-Indo-European language spoken
in Europe.
[Further reading: The Story of Hungarian by Geza Balasz]
THE GREATEST LIVING POET CAN’T
SPEAK OR WRITE .
The Swedish poet Tomas Transtromer suffered a
stroke in 1990, and has since been unable to speak
or write. Nevertheless, he received the Nobel Prize
for literature in 2011, and is considered by many
to be the greatest living poet in any language.
His short and austere poems, critics say, create
stunning images and spaces. Before his stroke,
he worked professionally as a psychologist in a
prison while at the same time writing poems and
publishing several books of Swedish poetry. He has
since been translated into many languages.
[Further reading: Twenty Poems by Tomas Transtromer,
and Windows & Stones by Tomas Transtromer; (both
translations)]
ONE OF THE WORLD’S GREATEST
SCULPTORS HAD NO TRUE HANDS.
The 18th century Brazilian sculptor Antonio Lisboa
was the son of a Portuguese carpenter and a slave
mother. While relatively young, he developed either
leprosy or sclerodoma, and lost all the fingers of his
hands as well as his feet. He became known as “O
Aleijadinho” (or “The Little Cripple”). Most of his
scupture in the Brazilian province of Minas
Gerais were created after he was disfigured, and
through truly remarkable efforts, he created many
masterpieces, most of which survive today.
[Further reading: O Aleijadinho by D.G. Ferreira (in
Portuguese]
SAUDI ARABIA DID NOT EXIST UNTIL
1924, OIL WAS NOT DISCOVERED THERE
UNTIL 1937, AND THE GOVERNMENT DID
NOT MAKE A REAL PROFIT FROM OIL
UNTIL AFTER WORLD WAR II.
Until 1924,the Arabian peninsula had no fixed
national boundaries, no formal nation states, and
was inhabited primarily by nomadic Bedouin tribes
that went back thousands of years. It technically was
part of the Ottoman empire under its sultan who then
ruled the Islamic world. Ibn Saud, a young leader
of the Wahhabi tribe and 6 foot 4 inch warrior prince
who grew up living in tents and moving about the
southern Asir region of Arabia with his family,
began his unification of the various tribes in 1902
by seizing the ancient Wahhabi capital of Riyadh,
and then by systematically eliminating in battle the
usually more powerful rival sheikhs in the region
over the next two decades. After the sultan was
deposed and the Ottoman empire dissolved
following World War I, Ibn Saud was declared king
of the new Saudi Arabia. Short of cash, he made
deals with the British, and then the Americans, to
allow exploration for oil and gas in the peninsula
which led to major discoveries in 1937. Because of
breakout of war in Europe and Africa in 1939-40,
the huge profits from the oil fields did not appear
until after World War II, when Saudi Arabia became
the world’s largest producer and seller of oil.
[Further reading: Ibn Saud by M. Darlow & B. Bray]
THE AMERICAN SPY WHO FOUND OUT
THAT THE GERMANS WERE NOT
WORKING ON THE ATOMIC BOMB
WAS PREVIOUSLY A CATCHER IN MAJOR
LEAGUE BASEBALL FOR 15 YEARS.
Morris “Moe” Berg played for American League
teams for most of his 15-year baseball career, and
was called “the brainiest man ever to play baseball.”
Casey Stengel, of all persons, even once called him
“the strangest man ever to play baseball.” An
impoverished son of European Jewish immigrants,
he received degrees from Princeton and Columbia
law school, and became famous early for his highly
successful appearances on the national radio quiz
show “Information Please.” He spoke seven
languages, and when war broke out, he became a
U.S. spy sent to Italy and Central Europe to assess
the Nazi atomic bomb program. After World War II,
he worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. In
spite of his extraordinary and colorful career and
life, he died in obscurity in 1972.
[Further reading: Heisenberg’s War by Thomas Powers]
THE SMALLEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD
IS LOCATED ON THE UPPER FLOORS OF
A VILLA IN DOWNTOWN ROME, HAS EXISTED
FOR ALMOST 1000 YEARS, HAS DIPLOMATIC
RELATIONS WITH MORE THAN 100 NATIONS,
IS AN OFFICIAL OBSERVER AT THE UNITED
NATIONS, COINS ITS OWN MONEY AND PRINTS
ITS OWN STAMPS.
The (shortened) name of this country is officially
Sovrane Militare Ordine di Malta or S.M.O.M.
It is an important worldwide Catholic philanthropic
entity known traditionally as the Knights of Malta,
and it once ruled the island nation of Malta, and was
a major European naval power. Today, its size has been
reduced to two villas in the city of Rome and some land
in the outskirts of the Italian capital. It has an official
population of three persons. Only the upper floors
of one of the villas is considered the sovereign territory
of S.M.O.M. It is therefore the only nation on earth which
can only be entered by elevator.
[Further reading: Report From Practically Nowhere by
John Sack]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2013 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
WAS THE SINKING OF THE WILHELM GUSTLOFF
ON JANUARY 30, 1945.
The Wilhelm Gustloff, built as a Nazi passenger
cruise ship (and named for a Swiss Nazi demogogue)
in 1937, had been stranded in the East Prussian port
of Gotenhofen on the Baltic Sea since the outset of
World War II. As Soviet troops overtook East Prussia
in early 1945, over a million ethnic Germans, whose
families had lived in East Prussia for centuries,
attempted to flee to the German mainland a few
hundred miles away via the Baltic sea route to avoid
the pillaging and raping by the Russian soldiers as
they reconquered the area. The Wilhelm Gustloff,
built to accommodate 1500 passengers and 500 crew,
was overloaded with about 11,000 men, women and
children (some of whom were German soldiers), and
began a 200-plus mile sea trip in a storm. (The trip
was no longer possible by rail or truck.) A Soviet
submarine spotted the ship, and sent four torpedoes
at it, sinking the ship in a brief time. Approximately
9400 persons died in the sinking, making it it the
largest loss of life from one ship disaster in history.
[Further reading: Death in the Baltic by Cathryn J. Prince.]
THE FATHER OF THE AMERICAN ENGLISH
LANGUAGE WAS NOT A LITERARY PERSON,
WROTE NO BOOKS, AND DID NOT EVER
ATTEND A SCHOOL.
Although his name is a household word in the United
States and in much of the rest of the world for his
role as president of the United States during the nation’s
Civil War (1861-65) and his assassination, it is much
less known that Abrham Lincoln is considered by
some today as the father of the modern American
English language. This role is usually assigned to
a major literary figure (e.g., Shakespeare in British
English, Dante in Italian, Cervantes in Spanish,
Pushkin in Russian, et al). The only American writer
who even comes close to Lincoln, and came after
him, was Samuel Clemens (“Mark Twain”).
Lincoln’s major speeches are still considered today
as the finest examples of their kind by an American,
and his collected speeches and letters form a unique
body of the English language spoken and written in
the U.S. as it was being transformed from its British
origins. Lincoln’s language, almost alone among his
19th century contemporaries (including Hawthorne,
Emerson, Melville, Longfellow, et al) remains fresh
today without the “dated” quality of almost
everyone else in his era. Amazingly, Lincoln was
entirely self-taught, and did not ever attend a school
in his childhood.
[Further reading: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln,
Rutgers University Press]
THE FIRST MODERN NOVEL WAS WRITTEN
MORE THAN A THOUSAND YEARS AGO by a
Japanese noblewoman know as “Lady Murasaki” (but
whose real name is unknown). A lady-in-waiting to the
Empress Shoshi of the Heian period of 11th century
Japan, she wrote her extraordinary fictional account of
life, manners and personalities of the contemporary
Japanese court in an unprecedented work entitled The
Tale of Genji. It is also described today as the first
psychological work of fiction. The novel form did
not truly emerge until more than 500 years later in
the West. Remarkably, The Tale of Genji is even
today a highly readable, fascinating masterpiece.
[Further reading: Tale of Genji by Lady Murasaki (trans.)]
THE GREATEST AMERICAN NATURAL DISASTER
was the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 which
inundated most of the mid-Mississippi River Valley
following an unprecedented period of rain beginning
in August, 1926. At its peak, months later, the flood
covered 27 thousand square miles and dislocated
millions of persons. More than 240 persons are known
to have died (although the total death toll is not known).
Cities such as Nashville and Memphis were under water.
Damage estimates at the time were approximately half
a billion dollars (in today's dollars, many hundreds of
billions). The Flood changed the nation in many ways.
Large numbers of black residents, many of them
descendants of slaves, were put in concentration camps,
and subsequently emigrated to large cities in the North.
President Coolidge did not visit the area, but put his
secretary of commerce, Herbert Hoover, in charge.
(When Coolidge decided not to run for re-election in
1928, Hoover, as a result of the publicity he received
overseeing flood relief, was elected president.) Contending
that the individual states could not adequately deal with
the disaster caused by the Mississippi River which ran through
them, the federal government assumed overriding powers
through the Army of Engineers, and this marked the
beginning of the rise of federal bureaucratic power in the
U.S. The whole story of this disaster, now largely forgotten,
is filled with colorful and extraordinary figures, many of
whom became major national figures in the years that
followed.
[Further reading: Rising Tide by John M. Barry]
THE LANGUAGES OF THE FINNS, ESTONIANS
AND HUNGARIANS HAVE THE SAME ROOTS
BUT COME FROM ASIA NOT EUROPE.
Known as the Uraic family of languages,
Magyar, Finnish and Estonian have no roots in the
much larger Indo-European family of languages
which are spoken in most of the nations near them.
Although their exact origins are not yet fully known,
philologists, in fact, trace these languages partially
back to Siberian Asian (Chuvash) roots and to those
who came to the region more than two thousand
years ago. Magyar, the official language of Hungary,
is the largest non-Indo-European language spoken
in Europe.
[Further reading: The Story of Hungarian by Geza Balasz]
THE GREATEST LIVING POET CAN’T
SPEAK OR WRITE .
The Swedish poet Tomas Transtromer suffered a
stroke in 1990, and has since been unable to speak
or write. Nevertheless, he received the Nobel Prize
for literature in 2011, and is considered by many
to be the greatest living poet in any language.
His short and austere poems, critics say, create
stunning images and spaces. Before his stroke,
he worked professionally as a psychologist in a
prison while at the same time writing poems and
publishing several books of Swedish poetry. He has
since been translated into many languages.
[Further reading: Twenty Poems by Tomas Transtromer,
and Windows & Stones by Tomas Transtromer; (both
translations)]
ONE OF THE WORLD’S GREATEST
SCULPTORS HAD NO TRUE HANDS.
The 18th century Brazilian sculptor Antonio Lisboa
was the son of a Portuguese carpenter and a slave
mother. While relatively young, he developed either
leprosy or sclerodoma, and lost all the fingers of his
hands as well as his feet. He became known as “O
Aleijadinho” (or “The Little Cripple”). Most of his
scupture in the Brazilian province of Minas
Gerais were created after he was disfigured, and
through truly remarkable efforts, he created many
masterpieces, most of which survive today.
[Further reading: O Aleijadinho by D.G. Ferreira (in
Portuguese]
SAUDI ARABIA DID NOT EXIST UNTIL
1924, OIL WAS NOT DISCOVERED THERE
UNTIL 1937, AND THE GOVERNMENT DID
NOT MAKE A REAL PROFIT FROM OIL
UNTIL AFTER WORLD WAR II.
Until 1924,the Arabian peninsula had no fixed
national boundaries, no formal nation states, and
was inhabited primarily by nomadic Bedouin tribes
that went back thousands of years. It technically was
part of the Ottoman empire under its sultan who then
ruled the Islamic world. Ibn Saud, a young leader
of the Wahhabi tribe and 6 foot 4 inch warrior prince
who grew up living in tents and moving about the
southern Asir region of Arabia with his family,
began his unification of the various tribes in 1902
by seizing the ancient Wahhabi capital of Riyadh,
and then by systematically eliminating in battle the
usually more powerful rival sheikhs in the region
over the next two decades. After the sultan was
deposed and the Ottoman empire dissolved
following World War I, Ibn Saud was declared king
of the new Saudi Arabia. Short of cash, he made
deals with the British, and then the Americans, to
allow exploration for oil and gas in the peninsula
which led to major discoveries in 1937. Because of
breakout of war in Europe and Africa in 1939-40,
the huge profits from the oil fields did not appear
until after World War II, when Saudi Arabia became
the world’s largest producer and seller of oil.
[Further reading: Ibn Saud by M. Darlow & B. Bray]
THE AMERICAN SPY WHO FOUND OUT
THAT THE GERMANS WERE NOT
WORKING ON THE ATOMIC BOMB
WAS PREVIOUSLY A CATCHER IN MAJOR
LEAGUE BASEBALL FOR 15 YEARS.
Morris “Moe” Berg played for American League
teams for most of his 15-year baseball career, and
was called “the brainiest man ever to play baseball.”
Casey Stengel, of all persons, even once called him
“the strangest man ever to play baseball.” An
impoverished son of European Jewish immigrants,
he received degrees from Princeton and Columbia
law school, and became famous early for his highly
successful appearances on the national radio quiz
show “Information Please.” He spoke seven
languages, and when war broke out, he became a
U.S. spy sent to Italy and Central Europe to assess
the Nazi atomic bomb program. After World War II,
he worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. In
spite of his extraordinary and colorful career and
life, he died in obscurity in 1972.
[Further reading: Heisenberg’s War by Thomas Powers]
THE SMALLEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD
IS LOCATED ON THE UPPER FLOORS OF
A VILLA IN DOWNTOWN ROME, HAS EXISTED
FOR ALMOST 1000 YEARS, HAS DIPLOMATIC
RELATIONS WITH MORE THAN 100 NATIONS,
IS AN OFFICIAL OBSERVER AT THE UNITED
NATIONS, COINS ITS OWN MONEY AND PRINTS
ITS OWN STAMPS.
The (shortened) name of this country is officially
Sovrane Militare Ordine di Malta or S.M.O.M.
It is an important worldwide Catholic philanthropic
entity known traditionally as the Knights of Malta,
and it once ruled the island nation of Malta, and was
a major European naval power. Today, its size has been
reduced to two villas in the city of Rome and some land
in the outskirts of the Italian capital. It has an official
population of three persons. Only the upper floors
of one of the villas is considered the sovereign territory
of S.M.O.M. It is therefore the only nation on earth which
can only be entered by elevator.
[Further reading: Report From Practically Nowhere by
John Sack]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2013 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Monday, November 18, 2013
THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Timing
There are certain ironclad corollaries in U.S. political lore
that are reinforced again and again in the saga of American
politics. One of the most enduring is that notion that timing
often trumps most everything else.
Two months ago, the nation was caught up in a government
shutdown brought on by some Republican members of the
U.S. house and senate seeking to express themselves about
the impending implementation of the new healthcare reform
legislation known as Obamacare. President Obama and
Democratic leaders in the Congress welcomed this exercise
in futility from the opposition because they knew that the
public would blame their opposition for the shutdown, and
turn attention away from the disaster of their “progressive”
handiwork on healthcare reform, the poorly formulated new
legislation.
The shutdown came and passed. Polls showed that indeed the
public blamed the conservatives for the shutdown.
Then came Obamacare, the reality not the hype and promises.
It is an unmitigated economic, political and public relations
disaster. That we already know. But what are the consequences?
I have said for some time that the big prize for the conservative
party in 2014 was control of the U.S. senate. Control of the the
U.S. house, barring the unforeseen, was not likely at stake because
of the redistricting advantage of the GOP across the country.
Impatience from some conservatives forced the shutdown, hurt
the Republican Party generally, and specifically reversed a
promising trend for the GOP to take back control of the U.S.
senate. But it was not only the shutdown action by some factions
of the conservative party; it was also visible in efforts in various
senate races where incumbent Republicans were up for re-election.
These incumbents, headed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell (Kentucky), but also including Senators Lamar
Alexander (Tennessee), Mike Enzi (Wyoming), Susan Collins
(Maine), Lindsay Graham (South Carolina), and potentially a few
others.
As 2010 and 2012 demonstrated clearly, defeating your own
incumbents, especially with ill-prepared ideologues, is an
invitation, even in so-called “safe” races, for defeat. But, as if
nothing had happened in those cycles, some extreme factions of
the Republican Party continue their “crusade” to purify their
senate caucus. During and immediately after the shutdown, it
appeared that these factions might have some success not only
against GOP incumbents, but also by placing inferior nominees
in races against vulnerable Democrats. This virtually guaranteed
that the GOP would not take control of the senate in 2014.
End shutdown. Begin Obamacare. Suddenly, races that seemed
out of reach for the GOP, in North Carolina, Louisiana, Alaska,
Michigan, Iowa and New Hampshire are back in play. Montana,
South Dakota, and West Virginia continue to look like GOP
pick-ups. Other “safe” Democratic seats could become
competitive as the consequences of Obamacare continue to
unfold.
Nothing of this sort and magnitude exists in a vacuum, however.
Democrats, like everyone else, want to survive politically, and in
the case of the senate, to maintain their control. Current
conditions of incessant bad news about Obamacare will not
likely be allowed to continue without some actions by the liberal
party.
What might the Democrats do? What can they do?
They could make the problem go away by agreeing to repeal
Obamacare, but the prospects for that are close to zero.
They could attempt to “repair” Obamacare, but that would
require the cooperation of the Republican majority in the
U.S. house. Very unlikely. They could also attempt to delay
implementation, now underway, until after the 2014 elections.
Again, they would need GOP cooperation. But President Obama
has been trying to do some of this via executive order (which is
probably illegal, and which is certain to be challenged in court).
Any unilateral effort by the president to “fix” Obamacare
almost certainly would make matters worse for his party.
With Democratic senate candidates, including incumbents,
challengers and those running for open seats, in virtual panic,
the “progressive” leadership may not be able to control the
senate on this issue. After all, we are speaking about basic
survival.
Of course, certain Republicans might want to have another
confrontation over the debt ceiling (coming up in January)
that could lead to another shutdown. That would be an
enormous gift to the Democrats for 2014. Again, this is not
very likely, considering the hard evidence of what happened
only recently when this occurred.
After several years of docility under Pelosi and Reid, there
still are many center-left Democrats in Congress who do
not seem to share the full philosophy of the far left Obama
administration, including Joe Manchin (West Virginia),
Mark Warner (Virginia), Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota)
Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota),
Tom Carper (Delaware), Ron Wyden (Oregon), Mark Pryor
(Arkansas), Mark Begich (Alaska), Angus King (Maine
independent who votes with the Democrats), Bob Casey, Jr.
(Pennsylvania) and others. Facing elimination by the voters,
however, and a lame-duck incumbent president, watch for
many of them begin to speak out not only in opposition to
Obamacare, but also on a variety of energy, education and
foreign policy issues. (Their first real impact might come
in the run-up to the 2016 election.)
There are also those Democrats who still strongly favor
Obamacare, and want to “tough it out” on the issue,
believing voters will come to love the healthcare reform.
President Obama is showing no signs of ay willingness to
abandon this “legacy” of his terms of office. Mrs. Pelosi
and Mr. Reid are saying to their members, in effect, “we
will go down with the ship, and you will go with us.”
The Democrats have been much more self-disciplined
recently on their issues in the Congress than their GOP
opposition have been. Yet there are unmistakeable signs
of this coalition collapsing during the next ten months as
the GOP moves in to surround the wagons of those who do
not give up.
The upcoming battles will take place in the “Old” New
West, as well as in the Midwest, South and East. It is almost
certainly going to be quite a spectacle.
Get your tubs of popcorn now (before they ban them.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2013 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
that are reinforced again and again in the saga of American
politics. One of the most enduring is that notion that timing
often trumps most everything else.
Two months ago, the nation was caught up in a government
shutdown brought on by some Republican members of the
U.S. house and senate seeking to express themselves about
the impending implementation of the new healthcare reform
legislation known as Obamacare. President Obama and
Democratic leaders in the Congress welcomed this exercise
in futility from the opposition because they knew that the
public would blame their opposition for the shutdown, and
turn attention away from the disaster of their “progressive”
handiwork on healthcare reform, the poorly formulated new
legislation.
The shutdown came and passed. Polls showed that indeed the
public blamed the conservatives for the shutdown.
Then came Obamacare, the reality not the hype and promises.
It is an unmitigated economic, political and public relations
disaster. That we already know. But what are the consequences?
I have said for some time that the big prize for the conservative
party in 2014 was control of the U.S. senate. Control of the the
U.S. house, barring the unforeseen, was not likely at stake because
of the redistricting advantage of the GOP across the country.
Impatience from some conservatives forced the shutdown, hurt
the Republican Party generally, and specifically reversed a
promising trend for the GOP to take back control of the U.S.
senate. But it was not only the shutdown action by some factions
of the conservative party; it was also visible in efforts in various
senate races where incumbent Republicans were up for re-election.
These incumbents, headed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell (Kentucky), but also including Senators Lamar
Alexander (Tennessee), Mike Enzi (Wyoming), Susan Collins
(Maine), Lindsay Graham (South Carolina), and potentially a few
others.
As 2010 and 2012 demonstrated clearly, defeating your own
incumbents, especially with ill-prepared ideologues, is an
invitation, even in so-called “safe” races, for defeat. But, as if
nothing had happened in those cycles, some extreme factions of
the Republican Party continue their “crusade” to purify their
senate caucus. During and immediately after the shutdown, it
appeared that these factions might have some success not only
against GOP incumbents, but also by placing inferior nominees
in races against vulnerable Democrats. This virtually guaranteed
that the GOP would not take control of the senate in 2014.
End shutdown. Begin Obamacare. Suddenly, races that seemed
out of reach for the GOP, in North Carolina, Louisiana, Alaska,
Michigan, Iowa and New Hampshire are back in play. Montana,
South Dakota, and West Virginia continue to look like GOP
pick-ups. Other “safe” Democratic seats could become
competitive as the consequences of Obamacare continue to
unfold.
Nothing of this sort and magnitude exists in a vacuum, however.
Democrats, like everyone else, want to survive politically, and in
the case of the senate, to maintain their control. Current
conditions of incessant bad news about Obamacare will not
likely be allowed to continue without some actions by the liberal
party.
What might the Democrats do? What can they do?
They could make the problem go away by agreeing to repeal
Obamacare, but the prospects for that are close to zero.
They could attempt to “repair” Obamacare, but that would
require the cooperation of the Republican majority in the
U.S. house. Very unlikely. They could also attempt to delay
implementation, now underway, until after the 2014 elections.
Again, they would need GOP cooperation. But President Obama
has been trying to do some of this via executive order (which is
probably illegal, and which is certain to be challenged in court).
Any unilateral effort by the president to “fix” Obamacare
almost certainly would make matters worse for his party.
With Democratic senate candidates, including incumbents,
challengers and those running for open seats, in virtual panic,
the “progressive” leadership may not be able to control the
senate on this issue. After all, we are speaking about basic
survival.
Of course, certain Republicans might want to have another
confrontation over the debt ceiling (coming up in January)
that could lead to another shutdown. That would be an
enormous gift to the Democrats for 2014. Again, this is not
very likely, considering the hard evidence of what happened
only recently when this occurred.
After several years of docility under Pelosi and Reid, there
still are many center-left Democrats in Congress who do
not seem to share the full philosophy of the far left Obama
administration, including Joe Manchin (West Virginia),
Mark Warner (Virginia), Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota)
Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota),
Tom Carper (Delaware), Ron Wyden (Oregon), Mark Pryor
(Arkansas), Mark Begich (Alaska), Angus King (Maine
independent who votes with the Democrats), Bob Casey, Jr.
(Pennsylvania) and others. Facing elimination by the voters,
however, and a lame-duck incumbent president, watch for
many of them begin to speak out not only in opposition to
Obamacare, but also on a variety of energy, education and
foreign policy issues. (Their first real impact might come
in the run-up to the 2016 election.)
There are also those Democrats who still strongly favor
Obamacare, and want to “tough it out” on the issue,
believing voters will come to love the healthcare reform.
President Obama is showing no signs of ay willingness to
abandon this “legacy” of his terms of office. Mrs. Pelosi
and Mr. Reid are saying to their members, in effect, “we
will go down with the ship, and you will go with us.”
The Democrats have been much more self-disciplined
recently on their issues in the Congress than their GOP
opposition have been. Yet there are unmistakeable signs
of this coalition collapsing during the next ten months as
the GOP moves in to surround the wagons of those who do
not give up.
The upcoming battles will take place in the “Old” New
West, as well as in the Midwest, South and East. It is almost
certainly going to be quite a spectacle.
Get your tubs of popcorn now (before they ban them.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2013 by Barry Casselman. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)