Author: Peter

by

I Am a Real Pain In the Ass


I spent too many years trying to please people or trying to make people happy.  I have stopped all that as being a rather useless practice.  I am not trying to be a pain in the ass, it just seems to work that way.

What does that mean?  It means I do not opt for any dishonesty at all, even to save my own ass.  I do temper my responses.  If I know saying something will be hurtful and I have not been asked my opinion, I opt to say nothing.  But when asked, I will be honest even at the risk of friendship.  I have decided that you cannot comprise on honesty.  There are a lot of people who do not like that.  They say they wish I had said something a little less honest.

But sometimes I feel the need to speak up when I see something I think is wrong.  This is when my being a pain in the ass seems to maximize.  People do not like being corrected or being told something they do not want to hear.  This does not mean I go around correcting people all the time, I do not.  But if I see someone near to me doing something I consider harmful to themselves, I feel an obligation to say something.  The thing is, I say it once and not again.  It may cause hurt feelings but they will not come back at me and ask why I did not say something.  People get defensive very quickly.  A good pain in the ass, like me, does not take that personally, particularly when the person lashes out.  In a way, it is the price of doing business, the price of honesty.  When confronted about my being such I respond, “What kind of a friend would I be if I said nothing.”  And that is my belief.

There are times, of course, when I am quite wrong.  Times like that are simply an opportunity for me to apologize and move on.  I do not like being wrong but I have no problem admitting to being such.

My belief system today tells me to err on the side of caution.  I believe it is better to be wrong saying something than saying nothing when I am right.

by

America’s Next Recession Starts March 1


The Dow-Jones today topped the 13,000 mark for the first time since 2008.  That is a fact.   How, then, can I possibly be predicting a recession starting in a little over a week?  The stock market is one of the worst indicators of the future.  On March 9, 1929 the Dow Jones average was 381.70 but by the end of October in 1929 it had fallen to 198.69.  The market lost 48% of its total value, most of that happening in October 1929.  President Hoover looked at the economy he presided over in March 1929 and said that the warnings of upcoming trouble were worthless.

People are going to look at today’s stock closing optimistically.  But they need to look at a single indicator that directly feeds into imminent economic trouble.  Crude oil prices have risen over 30% since September 2011 and show no signs of retreating.  To the contrary, they show every sign of rising to historic levels.  The average person thinks of such a rise only with regard to what they pay for gasoline at the pump.  But all forms of transportation are equally affected.  This means the price of food, durable goods, clothing, and everything else goes up as well if only because they too have to be transported and that cost is reflected in the price of the item being sold.

But have you ever considered how much of everything in your life is petroleum-based?  Consider that everything that is made from plastic is petroleum-based.  That alone should give one pause to consider what rising crude prices mean.  Petroleum is also used in medicines, clothing, and construction.

I believe crude oil prices are going to keep going up because of the continued unrest in the middle east.  Lybia, Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Iraq are all in a more or less unstable condition.  And all are oil-producing countries.  Adding to this unrest are both Afghanistan and Pakistan, neither oil producers, but both home to radical Islamists who have every intention of continuing or raising the level of unrest in all the countries mentioned.

In today’s world economy energy drives those economies.  Whatever is happening to the price and distribution of oil affects all economies to one degree or another.  It is like throwing a rock in the middle of a calm pond.  The waves that rock creates moves outward in all directions, and the bigger the rock, the bigger the waves.  Right now we are feeling the waves of uncertainty in the market.  Consider that most countries in the world produce no oil at all, and two that do, the United States and China, both in the top 20 oil producers, export none of the oil they produce and import even more.  China will benefit from Iran’s decision to stop sending oil to England but of course England will suffer.  And so the rock Iran threw in England’s water will send its waves throughout Europe.

The unrest in the middle east is unlikely to settle down any time soon.  That means the market jitters are likely to continue as well.  That of course means oil prices will remain high with a high likelihood of their going ever higher.  I think it likely that the average price per gallon of gasoline will be at or close to $5 by summer’s end.  People will, of course, cut back on their purchases and with that the economy takes a hit, probably a big on.

by

What’s Wrong With Movies Today?


I recently went to see the movie “The Artist.”  I had heard all these raves about how it should get awards that would rank it up with “Gone With the Wind.”  Well, I saw it, and I would say it ranks right up there with Godzilla.  This movie is bad, really bad.  I am a movie aficionado and think I have a good feel for the worth of  a movie.  Well, if this movie gets so much praise why did I find it so bad.

You should know before you go to see it that it is a silent movie in its entirety.  I knew this going in but I think there were several people in the theater who did not know that.  They left within the first 10 minutes of the movie.  A part of me wishes I had left with them, but not for the same reason.  The premise of the movie is how two actors deal with the transition of movies from the silent era to the talking era.  That in itself could have made for a great movie but alas, Hollywood, as it tends to be, was so enamoured with itself thought it would be just great to leave out all dialogue.  Maybe that kept the script writing costs down?  Hard to tell.  The movie is not particularly funny, well acted, or riveting.  It was just sort of there.  You got the entire idea by the time the first 30 minutes had elapsed.  But that is not enough for Hollywood.  In their self-congratulatory way they had to continue for another hour or so of over-acting, mugging as they call it.  It got old, fast.  If you have a chance to see this movie on HBO or like television service, don’t bother.  It really is not worth it even on the small screen, let alone having to pay to go see it.

I truly get the idea of an “artsy” movie as “The Artist” attempted.  But the silent movie era died for a reason, and it needed to stay dead.  The reason many actors, mostly men, did not make the transition was their voices.  Screen legend of the silent era Tom Mix could not make the transition because of his high voice.  He did not sound like the masculine cowboy he had portrayed in the silent films.  Other actors were saddled with heavy accents that they were unable to overcome.  And some, like the male star of “The Artist,” simply did not want to make the transition.  For some unknown reason the producers of “The Artist” got this idea in their head that they could make this wonderful silent movie.  They failed.  They were so full of themselves that they failed to realize they were mostly full of shit.

Movies of the 1930s and 1940s were usually wonderful affairs.  In the naive presentations they seldom gave performances of over-acting.  They usually had a fair number of character actors who helped fill out the movie.  And their plots did not require a lot of thought to understand.  Those movies were made to be purely entertaining.  It was not often that movies of that era tried to make a point of some sort.  The truly cleaver of that era knew how to make a point and still be very entertaining.  The Marx Brothers’ move “Duck Soup” was a full on frontal attack of the land speculators of 1930s Florida.  The movie was very clever and very funny too.  You did not have to understand the back story to enjoy the movie.  It was not until the movies “Citizen Kane” in 1941 and “The Best Years of Our Lives” in 1946 that audience were confronted with truly thought-provoking plots.  But each of those movies was a masterpiece unto itself that endures to this day.  “Citizen Kane” was Orson Wells’ parody of publisher William Randolph Hearst and “The Best Years of Our Lives” visited the early after years of veterans who had just returned from World War 2.

The thing about the movies from that era is they did not take themselves too seriously.  They were never movies that said “hey look at us” but were either “hey look at this” or “have a good time.”

Another thing about that era is the actors.  I have a long list of actors from back then whose movies I will watch.  Present day actors who I will always go see is a short list.  Sadly, too many of today’s actors think they are a lot better than they are.  For example, I have given Will Farrell too many chances.  He has made one good movie as far as I am concerned, “Elf.”  In every other movie he has made I see him playing the identical character.  This says to me he is extremely limited in his ability.  At the other end of that spectrum are George Clooney and Meryl Streep who convincingly play a wide area of characters.  But who are today’s character actors?  What actors are not so full of themselves that they willingly play a particular sort of role in every movie?

I read a lot of books and I can name any number of really well-written books that have never made it to the screen.  There is no shortage of script material out there but there is an extreme shortage of good scripts in movies.  Why is that?  Is Hollywood so lacking in motivation that it choses not to go after these stories?  Is Hollywood itself so devoid in talent that it cannot either write a good script or bring a really well written book to the screen?  Maybe Hollywood is really lacking in the acting talent necessary to pull of some of these stories.  Whatever it is, the product Hollywood produces is mostly disappointing.  Wouldn’t it be refreshing if one year at the Oscars the Academy announced that for this year there were no great movies so there will be no “Best Movie” award!

by

Who Owns God?


If you went to church with me when I was a kid, you would have heard that God was properly defined by the Roman Catholics, and everyone else had an incorrect version.  And that was even after Vatican II.  While Catholics certainly have moderated their world view of their religion, it still reeks of “we got it right.”

In today’s world we hear a lot about the Moslem version of God.  I think it fair to say that their view is an extremely unpopular one here in the United States.  That probably includes most Moslems who live here as well, but that is just a guess.  I say that because it is my firm belief that most Moslems who live here have adopted a very moderate, or mainstream, view of God.  They certainly are not the ones yelling, “death to infidels!”  And they certainly are not advocating a jihad against America.

These most basic of feelings that all humans seem to hold, that of a person deity, are the very reason I speak up strongly for the separation of church and state.  We are the only country in the world, that I know of, that has this admonition.  Those Americans who want God worked into portions of our government would do well to ask themselves, which God.  That is, which particular religious slant on God are you in favor of?  You have to choose simply because there is no generic God that I have ever heard of.  That is because as soon as you evoke the name God, in each person’s mind this takes on a very particular point of view.  Hence, our forefathers understood that extremely well and they did not want a Church of England God, or even one of their homegrown versions to have any place in our government.

Since monotheism has existed there has always been a mix of God and religion.  For most of history men have been incapable of separating the two.  Mostly, they have had no desire to separate the two.  I believe that is because they have the notion that there has to be a mixed for a society to be successful.  For a long time that actually worked.  Prior to the 20th Century most societies lived almost entirely within themselves.  Tribalism, as sociologists call it, defined a religious belief and that tribe in turned formed a government for itself.  The people were monolithic, that is, all of one kind.  Until the 20th Century it was not at all unusual for a person to never travel more than 20 miles from where he was born.  That meant these societies were so homogenous that singular beliefs usually worked.

Still, certain groups of people decided even before the 20th Century that their take was the proper one and anyone not so defined was a “heathen.”  For Americans, a great example of this was the European view of the Native American cultures.  Even those Native Americans were mono-theistic, since the did not refer to “God,” and did not understand the European concept, it was clear to those European that the Native Americans were obviously heathens.  Many organized religion set out to bring Christianity to a group that neither wanted nor needed Christianity.  They were mono-theistic and it was Christian ignorance that brought on the problems.  Christians had a long history of such foolishness.  The Inquisitions of the 15th Century and before that the crusades to the middle east to ostensibly recover the Holy Grail.  I say ostensibly because the true reason was the European belief that old Christian churches were somehow being desecrated by the Moslems.  Just a little bit of education by the Christians about the Moslem religion would have shown them that nothing could have been further from the truth.  Even so, I doubt that would have stopped them.  Ignorance and passion have a way of getting together in mankind to bring death and destruction to anyone who has the temerity to believe something different.

I have serious problems with the way the Moslem religion is practiced in the Middle East.  Even in today’s world they are still little more than second class citizens in their own societies.  In Saudi Arabia they cannot drive a car.  Why?  I have not a clue.  In many countries in the Middle East, a woman found guilty, or even suspected, of infidelity to her husband is subject to stoning and death.  Most such countries also require her to wear a burka, to one extent or another.  Men, on the other hand, are not hindered by any such restrictions.  Even the adulterous husband does not fear for his life.

But I can allow for that a whole lot more than some of the practices that are going on right here in America.  These days in America there is more religious intolerance than I think we have had at any time in our history.  And I am a US historian by degree so I can say that with some conviction.  The native Americans of Massachusetts had a word for religious tolerance that bears remembering, “Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg,” which means, you fish on your side, I fish on my side, and no one fishes in the middle.  They were all about peaceful co-existence.

Conservative politicians in America have taken God hostage and are holding him over the heads of Americans.  They tell us how our morals need to be shaped.  They do this via their own religious background.  They are openly contemptuous of anyone who dares believe anything different as well.  They are smart enough to live the name God out of their discussions, but if you could nail one of them down on the origins of their belief, which I doubt you could, they would have to admit that it is directly tied to their God.  One of the great debates in America today is over gay marriage.  Those against it say it is somehow ruining the institution of marriage.  Really?  How is that a country that has literally hundreds of definitions for religion can only have one with regard to marriage?  I find that rather peculiar, and rather disingenuous of anyone to make such a claim.  For centuries in this country the acceptance of marriage free from all religious entanglements has been understood as an absolute right.  If two people desire only a judge or justice of the peace to declare them legally married does that not separate marriage from all religious views?  The corruption comes when people insist that when the marriage is between same-sex individuals somehow God has to be magically introduced into the equation.  That is some of the worst logic I have ever heard and yet, it is the conservative Christians of this country who had taken God and force-fed it upon our entire society.  They tell us that their version of God and marriage are the correct one and God help anyone who differs with that version.

I have many friends who have very conservative Christian views of the world.  I am happy for them.  Some I even admire in the way they practice their religion.  I think they know better than to tell me what is moral and what is not.  They simply are not interested in hearing my lash out at them, and they know they will.  But Americans have become extremely lazy about the separation of church and state.  Instead of finding abhorrent anyone trying to force via legislation morality upon them, they allow politicians, PACs, and religious groups to get away with exactly that.  They are allowing those groups ownership of God, and in doing so, allowing for a particular take on God to be foisted upon all Americans.  It is time for that to stop!  In fact, it is long overdue.  The death of this country is very likely to come from religious zealots who have little tolerance for opposing views.  They are still living in 16th societies that no long exist.

Americans gasp when they hear about the religious intolerance and excesses of the Middle East.  But Americans need to take a second look at themselves.  Are we not doing the same sorts of things?

by

Life is Really Good!


After my last post I am willing to bet there are a bunch of people who think I must be a pretty angry person.  Au contraire!!  I really love life, and if there is a God behind all of this then I am extremely grateful.

I have been through and seen some pretty horrible things during my life.  There are more beautiful things in nature than I can ever hope to see and experience.  Additionally, there are so many beautiful people in the world.  I do not miss these things.

There was a time that I had the feeling that “life sucks then you die.”  No more!  I discovered the universe and its wonders.  There is so much of it I still want to see, to learn about, and to discover.  There are more things than I have time but I am going to do my best to see and experience as much as possible.

by

Are Our Political Parties Killing Our Country?


The short answer to that question is “yes” and “no.”  Party politics in our country is historically rife with both questionable conduct and criminal conduct.  In the case of the latter, I am referring to Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts Republican being viciously attacked by Representative Preston Brooks, a South Carolina Democrat.  Brooks entered the chamber and beat Sumner mercilessly with his cane in December 1855 because of Sumner’s stance on the Kansas-Nebraska Act, “Free-Soilers” vs. Pro-slavery.  After his election, Andrew Jackson’s wife was openly referred to as a whore by opposition press because she was a divorced woman.  Political parties are not nearly so blatant today as these two examples but what they lack in being blatant they make up for, and then some, in subtle and not so subtle statements.

The Republican party is labeled by Democrats as the party of “meanness” and racism.  Republicans paint Democrats as the party of big government and entitlement.  But are these charges true, even a little bit?  Yes but for both parties.  Both are racist, both are for big government, both over-spend, both promote entitlements, and both are entirely motivate towards their own political expedience and very little towards the public good.

Let me start with the national debt.  Both sides say it needs to be reduced now although they of course differ in how that should happen.  A leading economist, who I believe has a somewhat conservative leaning, though not a lot, said the national debt is virtually meaningless.  He pointed out there are two huge debts that must be dealt with and that you cannot, in fact, deal with both at the same time.  The second debt, that no one is talking about, is private debt.  That debt that you and I hold.  He said that debt is far more important than public debt because it has a far greater effect on spending and our economy than the public debt.  He stated that the public debt can be carried forward for quite some time while the private debt is reduced.  He suggested a slow reduction of the public debt while the private debt is dealt with.

Now, as to big government, since 1933, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt first took office, the size of our government has been increased by each and every administration from then on.  And during that time both major political parties have been complicit in its growth.  The only question is, has it needed to grow?  Of course it has.  As public programs are added to government there is the necessity of administration over those programs.  Prior to World War 2 there was no Veterans Administration, now there is.  With the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, the Nuclear Regulatory Administration was formed.   In the mid-1950s NASA was formed when Russia entered space.  And that is how it has gone.  Without exception, the formation of these agencies has required the blessing of Congress.  Those Congresses have been led by one or the other party.  But since 1933 only one agency that I have been able to identify has ever been disbanded.  That was the CCC, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and that was only because it was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court after a Republican challenge to its existence.

What I am saying is that both parties are equally guilty, if there truly is guilt, in our government being as big as it is.  That brings to question what the role of government is.  By definition, “the administration  and control of public policy in a political unit . . . [the] exercise of authority in a political unit . . . the agency . . . [that] exercises authority and performs the required duties.” (Webster’s Dictionary, Riverside Publishing, 1988, p. 541).  Simply put, we need agencies to assist us in living in our defined society.  What both parties are trying to sell us is that we need to reduce the Federal Budget without reducing that actual size of its agencies except under the threat of diminished budgets.  That is unreasonable.  The first to take the hit, which I find particularly offensive, is the Dept. of Defense.  Right now the government is giving the appearance of being responsible with its latest incantation of the Base Closure and Realignment Committee.  That is 100% unnecessary, or at the very least, of a much lower priority in that domain. A military no longer engaged in a war will naturally need fewer dollars to continue.  Its demand for armaments will naturally reduce.  If anything, our military is already too small.  The Department of Defense has too long been an easy target.  That has got to end!

The next place politician looks to reduce the budget is entitlements, social security,  medicare, welfare, and other programs.  It would be far more expedient, and reasonable, if, with the exception of social security, these programs and their administration were turned over to the individual states to include their complete funding.  I think the entire Department of Housing and Urban Developement could be greatly reduced, along with Health and Human Services, were they turned over to the various states for funding.  The exceptions from those departments would be the regulatory portion that must be administered by the Federal Government, and, those portions that necessarily cross state lines as provided by the 14th Amendment.

We Americans, all of us, are allowing of minds to be manipulated by political think tanks and behind the scenes operatives.  Two such operatives are James Carville, Democrats, and Carl Rove, Republicans, have been allowed to wield too much power over us by spinning their messages without regard for the truth.  In recent years I was offended by Republican operatives putting into question John Kerry’s awards in Vietnam.  People who get silver stars are vetted extremely well prior to the award and to ever claim anyone received such an award without good reason puts all awards into questions.  But I found equally offensive the Democrats contending that George W. Bush somehow dodged military service by joining the Texas Air National Guard.  I know for fact that there were national guard members who served in Vietnam.  Bush did not dodge a thing, and in fact was honoring a commitment many others of his monetary level avoided.  In both cases politics tried to portray these individuals as being something less than honorable, and their actions as being highly questionable.  Also in each case, it was the desire of those behind the attacks to manipulate our feelings even though their statements were entirely without merit.  But we all have been complicit in these horrible allegations by not calling down those of our own political bent.  As a Democrat I defended Bush’s service when it was called into question.  As a veteran I look at all other veterans as brothers in arms and I never allow their political preference to make a difference in that feeling.

What I am saying in all that is, we as Americans have got to take back our political parties.  We as individuals no longer have any control what-so-ever over them.  Both political parties now only pay homage to the Super-PACs that fund them.  What each major party needs to do is to make a statement that all political statements not made by a candidate or their authorized committee is without merit, that we should ignore any statements made by such groups.  I do not want large environmental PACs telling me that drilling in Northern Alaska will kill indigenous life when in fact government can work out contracts that will allow for proper care nor do I want big finance PACs telling me that federal oversight of Wall Street at a greater level is unnecessary when all evidence says otherwise.  I believe before anyone should yell how they want government out of their lives, they should be yelling they want the power of PACs over our government reduced to something next to zero.

In the past election cycle I voted against all incumbents, and where there was no opposition, I wrote in “none of the above.”  I am so tired of the party I have generally supported, Democrats, coming off with all its self-righteousness.  I am equally tired of Republicans claiming they know what “Americans want” and being the patriotic party.  I have seen no proof recently that either political party has any clue what most Americans want.  I believe they are so out of touch with the average American that even a detailed account being given them as required reading would not allow them to see the light.  They would each likely dismiss out-of-hand what they were being shown as somehow being wrong.  To me, it looks like all 535 senators and representatives are some of the most clueless bastards to have ever walked the halls of Congress.  Congress has forgotten that it represents people, all the people who elected them.  It is not to consider the desire of corporations, PACs, foreign delegations, foreign corporations, or any other entity that cannot cast a vote.  Each and every one of them takes an oath of office to which they swear to “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution of the United States, and by extension, to the people who it is supposed to protect.

I ask any who read this to take the time to challenge any and all statements made by individuals who are running for office and any group that makes statements that purport to support a particular political agenda.  We must start thinking for ourselves or we will find ourselves victim to our own negligence.

by

Who Do You Love?


Today is Valentine’s Day and millions of women are getting roses, diamonds, and lots of other goods.  Men, well, we get a card.  There seems to be some inequity there but, there is not!  I do not have any idea how this day began but it is a pretty nice thing.  But, it also truly is something we should practice everyday.  I try.

I have a very special love for my wife, and a different, but equally as special love for my three daughters.  I have been able to reconcile that age-old question about loving one best.  I love them all equally but differently.  I do not have a favorite.  Each of my daughters is special in her own way and endears me to her in that particular way.  My love for each is shaped by how they endear me which means comparisons are ridiculous.  I sent each a Valentine’s Day card to each.  And my wife gets her own special treatment too of course.

But what about all those other people in my life who I love but do not send cards to?  Where it may be all right to give a card to some, it would be inappropriate to give one to the rest.  That does not mean I have misplaced love.  It simply means it is a different sort of love, one which attempts to respect boundaries.

For some reason my thoughts today went all the way back to when I was in the 8th grade and thought I was in love with one of my classmates.  She was a wonderful person then and is the same today.  I have seen her in recent years and although I do not feel that childhood love, I see her in a very kind light.  She was important at a particular time.  My high school girlfriend gets more consideration.  I know I loved her but I was never in love with her, an important distinction.  Her kindness, gentleness, and understanding have allowed me to keep nice memories of those days.

Then there was my first true love.  I was 21.  She was absolutely wonderful, and even though we were engaged, briefly, to this day there is no doubt that we had a mutual love that was really good.

After that there was a woman who came into my life briefly.  She was in it for only a year but it was a troubling time for me, and a time I was far from home.  She was not only beautiful in appearance, she was particularly beautiful inside.  Try as she might, she was unable to get me to stop taking myself so seriously and have a little fun.  Nevertheless, she stole my heart.  But the relationship was never more than friendship, and not one “with benefits,” as people like to say today.  That is, unless you consider having such a person as a dear friend a benefit, which I do.  She had a heart as big as all outdoors, and she had a personality that attracted nearly everyone she came in contact with.  Once our ways parted I lost contact with her, but that has changed with the advent of facebook, and we have reconnected.  That feels good, just to make that connection, again, with a really good person.

Then there was my former wife.  Even though I married her for all the wrong reasons, I married an extremely good person.  She is a great mother.   She has a huge heart, is generous to a fault, and is a great person to have as a friend.  We are still friends and I value her friendship much more than most other people I know.

There are other people in my life now, friends, who are very dear to me.  I value their friendship hugely.  Those particular friends are ones I consider special, and who I would do most anything for.

My point is, I love all these people.  Some of them even though many years have intervened.  And there are plenty more who I have not mentioned here who I still feel strongly about in one way or another.  All these people either have made a difference or are still making a difference in my life.  I love them, all of them.  Today is a good day to remember each of them and be grateful.

I suggest any who read this take a little time and consider those who have made a difference in your life and consider the idea of having some love for them.  Having well placed love for another person is never a bad thing.

by

America’s Ten Worst Presidents


This list is in the order they took office and not how badly a job I think they did.  I am certain at least one of my choices will cause some people to think me nuts.  But before you shunt aside any of my choices out of hand, consider the evidence offered.

1.  John Quincy Adams — Adams was seen by the Federalists as a natural to take office.  He was hugely popular in senate.  He was a successful Secretary of State under Monroe and held a number of other offices which seemed to make the case for his being president.  Once in office, however, Adams became impotent.  He had to fight sectionalism and factionalism that was rife in the congress of the day.  He did not take on either fight.  Charges of corruption were rampant during his term, and Adams proved to be entirely unfit for the office.  He was easily defeated by Jackson.  Adams was sent to the house of representatives in 1830.  His career as a U.S. representative was stellar and showed the initiative and statesmanship he lacked as chief executive.

2.  John Tyler — Most people in government did not take Tyler seriously.  Even though he was a Whig, he vetoed the entire Whig agenda.  He vetoed a bill that may have helped the country after the Bank Panic of 1837.  He was so hated by his own party members that he was expelled from the party prior to the next election cycle.

3.  Franklin Pierce — Pierce was in many ways like J. Q. Adams.  He was neither able to lead his party nor navigate the maelstroms of the day.  Issues like expansionism, states rights, slavery, the Kansas Nebraska Act, and a civil war in Kansas were his undoing.  Pierce found it difficult to gain a consensus on any issue and frequently found himself at odds with his own party, and Northerners in general, he was from New Hampshire.

4.  Andrew Johnson — The man Lincoln hand-picked to help bring the south back into the union failed in that respect, and many others.  When the Confederacy put down its arms it was the Johnson administration that oversaw the events that followed.  Northern men who saw a quick buck to be made at the south’s expense rushed to the defeated states and became known as carpetbaggers.  Johnson’s handling of the officers of the Confederate army was seen as particularly heavy-handed.  They were not allowed to hold public office and were forced to sign a pledge of allegiance.  Johnson’s rebuilding of the south was an abysmal failure.

5.  Ulysses S. Grant — Grant simply continued many of the failing programs started by Johnson, most of which are referred to as “radical reform.”  The radical spoken of is that of the “Radical Republicans.”  These were northern Republicans who were hell-bent on a continued punishing of the south for having started the civil war.  Grant was a scrupulously honest man but ill-suited for the office of the president.

6.  Warren G. Harding — Harding may have been the most corrupt president this country has ever had to suffer with.  Harding is best known for the “Teapot Dome Scandal.”  This scandal refers to the probably bribery involved with high government officials, possibly Harding himself, in the leasing of an oil field known as “Teapot Dome.”  But that was just one of many such charges pressed to the administration.  Well-known criminal elements were able to influence federal officials to make deals with them that helped them dodge probable arrests.

7.  Herbert Hoover — Hoover inherited the excesses allowed by the Coolidge administration.  These were excesses in the banking and asset trading community.  In March 1929 Hoover was warned that the stock market was in perilous danger of collapse.  But Hoover chose to ignore the warnings, possibly desiring to not anger industrialists he relied upon.  But even after the collapse of the market in October 1929, Hoover continued to insist that America stay the course, that recovery was near.  His intransigence was his ultimate demise.

8.  Jimmy Carter — One of the things Carter is accused of is having been too cerebral.  He lacked the ability to be pragmatic about the economics of the nation at the time.  Carter, for all his success with Israel and Egypt, was equally a failure in his handling of the economy.  Interest rates skyrocketed which greatly hurt the housing market as well as other markets.

9.  Ronald Reagan — People were so unhappy with what Carter had brought them they almost greedily embraced any change in economic course.  And Reagan offer just such a course.  Reagan started deregulation without any thought to its consequences.   Reagan put to flying public at immediate risk when he fired all the striking air traffic controllers and replaced them either with managers or poorly trained controllers.  Reagan, and his cronies, were responsible for the Iran-Contra affair which only LtC. Oliver North was convicted.   I can assure you a person at North’s rank does not have the power to pull off the deals done in Iran-Contra.  Reagan’s mishandling of economics and regulation almost brought the collapse of the stock market in 1987.

10.  George W. Bush —  Bush was not, in spite of what others may say, responsible for America’s lack of readiness on September 11, 2001.  Federal intelligence agencies have a long history of not sharing material, which still exists today, and that is what is most responsible.  But, Bush allowed falsehoods to be the reason we started a war in Iraq that eventually cost in excess of 4000 American lives.  There was ample proof that Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, and had nothing to do with 9/11.  There is no doubt Bush knew this.   This unnecessary war in turned cost America trillions of dollars.  The Bush administration was advised as early as 2005 of improprieties in the mortgage market but chose to take no action.  Worst of all, the Bush administration pushed into law the “Patriot Act” which was mostly a scam to get Americans to give up some of their constitutional rights in the name of Patriotism.  This act ranks right up there with the Dred Scott decision the Supreme Court made.

 

by

The Six U.S. Presidents Who Did the Most For America


This is, of course, just my opinion.  But, I hope I will show enough proof for you to consider them.

1.  George Washington — We all know that Washington more than any other commander during the revolution, helped America win.  But between 1783, when the English capitulated, and 1789 we really do not hear a lot about him.  That is because he felt his job was done and he wanted to go back to being the gentleman farmer.  But once Washington assumed the presidency he helped bring stability to the colonies.  His putting down the Whiskey Rebellion was his was of asserting the federal government as a central power.  There was doubt in the states that the federal government was strong.  The government needed income and put a tax on whiskey which brought about the insurrection.  Washington’s popularity with the general public helped reinforce the people’s trust in the government and its ability to act in their interests.

2.  Andrew Jackson — Jackson’s election set America on its ear.  People were outraged that a divorced woman would be the first lady.  Unfortunately, Rachel Jackson died before her husband took office.  Jackson also had to weather the dying Federalist Party that said a person of Jackson’s character would ruin the office of the president.  Jackson had been known for bar fights in his younger days and had an outstanding warrant for his arrest in the state of North Carolina from just such an event.  Jackson took on the powerful banking interests of the day.  A private bank, the Second National Bank, virtually had the nation’s finances hostage.  Jackson saw to it the charter of the bank was made null, and then oversaw the formation of the federal banks that exist to this day.

3.  Abraham Lincoln — It is difficult to imagine anyone would need to be convinced of his selection as one of the ten best.  Lincoln was a brilliant political tactician which is seldom talked about.  His first vice president, Hannibal Hamlin, was a safe partner for him.  He was a Maine Republican, who helped Lincoln balance his mid-west roots with Hamlin’s northeast.  But in the election of 1864 Lincoln chose Andrew Johnson, a Democrat.  Johnson’s Democrat affiliation along with his North Carolina heritage was done to appease Southern Democrats who Lincoln saw rejoining the government.

4.  Theodore Roosevelt — Roosevelt was arguably one of the most ambitious presidents this country has ever had.  Roosevelt was William McKinley’s assistant secretary of the Navy when the Spanish-American war broke out.  Roosevelt resigned his office so he could fight in the war.  He saw it as an opportunity to bring glory to himself, which he did rather successfully.  Once he became president after McKinley’s assassination, Roosevelt focused on American expansionism.  He was responsible for the assumption of the Panama canal and America’s overseeing it for the next 99 years.  He established the Hawaiian Islands and Guam as American territories.  He assisted Panama in becoming its own nation.  That territory had formerly been Colombia.  He established the National Parks System with his good friend John Muir.

5.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt — Roosevelt made more changes to the federal government than any president in history either before or since.  Roosevelt was key in establishing the FDIC after the bank failures of 1931, he established the social security system, he brought electricity to rural America with projects such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and others.  He put desperately poor Americans back to work with his Works Project America.  He also skillfully guided America through World War 2.

6.  Dwight David Eisenhower — During his time in office, Eisenhower was criticised for what was seen as excessive time on the golf course, and his propensity to back problems which kept him from the Oval Office many times.  But Eisenhower took his European experience, having seen Germany’s modern highways, and brought those ideas to American.  He was behind the formation of America’s Interstate highway system.

I really wanted a list of ten but none of the rest achieved nearly as much as these six did.  What I will do next is post a list of the ten worst presidents of all time.  That is an easy list, and I am sure, a controversial one.

by

Where is Home?


The poet Robert Frost answered that question by saying, “Home is the place where, when you have to go there,  They have to take you in.” in his poem The Death of the Hired Man.  I have always liked that line.  It is very comforting.  It says, there are people who will welcome you in when you have nowhere else to go and no one else to turn to.

I was brought up in North Andover Massachusetts.  Its population was around 11,000 when I was young.  It is about double that now.  My family helped settle the town when it was still known as Andover.  That was 1644.  To be clear, North Andover is now a town of its own having been separated from a much larger Andover.  I lived in a house that had been in my family from around 1790.  But when I was just 16, I was sent to a private school in New Jersey.  And so began my many years of alternate “homes.”  I lived in Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, and Hawaii, as well as Europe and Asia.  But my heart was always in North Andover.

Living in Hawaii was great fun for a while, but there came a time when I knew it was time to go home.  And so I did.  I was married and had one daughter.  We first lived in Leominster Massachusetts, then Lawrence Massachusetts, Manchester New Hampshire, and finally Methuen Massachusetts.  If you are wondering why North Andover is not among the towns the reason is simple.  North Andover has become a rather expensive community to live in if you are looking to buy a house.  Today I live in Cambridge Massachusetts which may sound all well and fine, Harvard and MIT and all, but it is not home.  It just happens to be where I live at present.

I have friends from all those years who have moved and lived in towns, some far distances, from where they were born.  I have on occasion asked why the move but I have never found a definitive answer.  I have one friend who was from Maryland and now lives in remote northwestern Montana.  Another who lived in North Andover and has lived most of her life in Arizona.  I could not do that!  But I truly do not understand the differences in our motivations.

I am moderately happy to at lease living within a short drive from my hometown.  I can visit there any time I please.  My family no longer owns the house I grew up in.  My sister lives about 5 miles from there in Methuen, and both my parents are deceased.  But I cannot get past this strong desire to return to North Andover and live out my life.

I do not have any notions of it being like it was when I was a child.  That is ridiculous.  But I do feel like I belong there.  I wish I knew why that pull is so strong, not to overcome the pull, but to explain it.

The pictures are a few of the scenes around North Andover.  The last is of the old Bell Labs in North Andover which, if you note, has my family name.  We also have a mill, a hill, and a pond bearing our name.  The black and white picture gives a hint as to why.  That was the home of Samuel Osgood who was the first Postmaster General of the United States in Washington’s cabinet.  Maybe that is why there is such a pull.

Well, if any of you who read this have moved quite a distance from where you grew up, share with me your feelings.  Is where you are home, or are you like me, longing to return to the place of your birth?