Not Silence

Commons Sense

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Sun, 29 Jun 2014 15:15:00 +0000

We were off on one of our walks, a familiar circuit for the wife and me actually, in as much as we've walked it time and time again over the past seventeen years or so. We came upon this sign near the entrance to the park and something about the sign just got me thinking. It was one of those images, maybe not so obviously, but nevertheless posing the question 'what is wrong with this picture?'

There was the fact that the lettering was hand drawn for one. My wife observed that it put off some of the same basic vibe as when Calvin and Hobbes hang out a 'No Girlz Aloud!' sign on one of their very exclusive clubhouse tree forts. That was surely some of the problem, but not the whole of it. (I'm actually kind of fond of Calvin.) But crudely written there was the same message much more professionally rendered in a much more official and polished seeming piece of metal street signage just a bit further down the path, the message being that the park was for the use of Holliston Residents Only.

I don't much like that picture either.

I suppose I can understand the sentiment behind the signage. Lake Winthrop and the parks that give access to it are certainly resources to be cherished and preserved and protected. They are worth that public effort and expense. Maybe that's where the problem comes in. Maybe because there is some considerable amount of public effort involved in preserving and protecting these resources we come to think of them as public property —the town's property. And property is a term we tend to understand in terms of exclusion.

I think that is a mistake when it comes to regarding our public realm, our natural resources, our common wealth. Sometimes what you value in this life is a function, not of what you sell or choose to own and secure for yourself, but rather a matter of what you offer —what you share —like a blessing. I believe this is true for individuals and their gifts. I believe it is true for communities as well.

A while back I responded to the survey about Holliston's open spaces and I think I started to say the same thing there. I recalled that I first fell in love with Holliston standing at the edge of Lake Winthrop at Stoddard Park on a winter morning. Mist rising from the water. My wife and I had just started thinking we wanted to live with our two small children somewhere removed from city life, but not from a sense of community, a place with a sense of openness, woods to walk in, waters to swim. I'd come to Stoddard as an architect looking to respond to the town's request for proposals. They looked to make improvements to the park's facilities and gave us prospective respondents a tour of the site. I came home that night telling my wife I thought I'd really found something. I never got the design job, we did find a home for our family though.

I know what a resource the woods and waters of Holliston have been to me personally over the years. I know I'm not alone in that appreciation. It's because of those experiences, walking the woods alone with my thoughts or swimming the lake side by side with my loved ones, watching the lone heron take flight —it's because I so value those moments that I find myself so ill at ease with any signal to anyone that they should not share in them as well.

I know there are some practical arguments to be had on a subject like this. And I've not even begun to address them here. I don't mean to insult the signs or those who placed them. I just mean to suggest another mindset when it comes to how we regard our natural resources here in town. They are indeed a wealth worth our efforts to preserve and protect, but they are our common wealth, gifts and blessings and like any such we better honor them in the sharing. We can and should protect and conserve our woods and waters here in Holliston. We simply shouldn't pretend we merely own them.

The opposite of excellence

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:52:00 +0000

I'll harken once more to what is a standing premise of mine, that is that I don't know what I am talking about. I don't believe I am ready to argue for a specific policy or reform just now. But it's graduation season, the time for caps and gowns and commencement speeches. The President was in the area last week attending such a ceremony. So it is that the ideas and actualities of education in this day and age got turning in my cranial rock tumbler and got stuck upon a word: excellence.

"Excellence in education" —words that combine neatly on the tongue. It's a banner sentiment that flies on just about everybody's flag pole. Who on earth could ever be against excellence in education? Even question the notion? But, as is my wont, when I hear that turn of phrase I unpack the meaning in each of the words and I find myself asking "well... excelling who?" When politicians talk about education these days, one of the values they claim to see in schooling is the equipment it offers the "average American" to "get ahead." I start thinking of the down side of grading on a curve.

I might be a little glib and, as I said, I am not sure how this speculation leads to practical policy, but to get serious for a moment I wonder if there is something of spiritual importance I might be scratching at here. I've seen a lot of opinion on the sky rocketing costs of education as of late. There was the recent failed attempt in Congress to offer student debt relief. Could it be that one of the contributing factors to the dollar values going haywire is that we've mistaken the actual value of education, of information, of knowledge and wisdom? This could be another of those problem instances, like healthcare and housing, where we tell ourselves we want for a freedom from want, but always needing just a little bit more than the next guy.

I remember a while back when the movie "Finding Superman" was all the rage for the reform minded. "Schools should be run like businesses" was the signature slogan coming out of that one, that banner sentiment of excellence. I recall how saddened I was by the case study families that were shown in that film, all of them so desperate for their children to have better educations, better worlds, better than they had. But the dream wasn't about bettering the world at hand, the communities they lived in; the dream was of escape from the life and the environment that they knew. Who or what did they want to excel or escape? Their own neighborhoods. Themselves.

I guess I question the wisdom of this model.

I'll close with this anecdote, I came across it years ago browsing in a bookstore. I don't recall the book or the author, only that I was scanning through the pages and I came upon this story of a Native American, the noted elder of some tribe in the Southwest as I recall, who had learned a great deal about the Gospel courtesy of proselytizing missionaries who had tried and tried to convert him, promising heaven and eternal salvation. On his death bed he'd been offered once more and his reply was that, although this Jesus they told him of seemed wise and good and the promise of this place heaven seemed nice, his ancestors who'd gone before him, the many without salvation, would be too lonely for him. Thanks, he said, really, but no thanks.

I think of that old dying man so politely declining the sweet offer of salvation as maybe the better model, or at least a sane voice of caution in our world of always excellence. Getting ahead shouldn't always be our goal. As individuals —as citizens, we must also have some sense of belonging, not of what we own, but what we are a part of that we must nurture and better as a whole.

The word "vocation" comes to mind —literally the notion of a calling. I wonder if that's what I am talking about, the idea that we, all of us, should think of our education and the work we do, the citizenship we bring and the society we make as our answer to a calling. There's that old project about ever forming "a more perfect union" —maybe that's the call. And it's in that sense that perfection is the opposite of excellence.

If I had wings like Nora's dove

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Sun, 29 Dec 2013 14:29:00 +0000

"Though I do not believe that a plant will spring up where no seed has been, I have great faith in a seed. Convince me that you have a seed there, and I am prepared to expect wonders."

Henry David Thoreau

There's a beautiful moment in the Coen Brothers' new film 'Inside Llewyn Davis' (actually there are quite a number of beautiful moments, but I'll start here with this one). Llewyn Davis is a folk singer, down and out upon the scene —the Greenwich Village folk scene of the early 1960's. He's broke, bumming a place to sleep from night to night on the different couches of a small circuit —from patrons of the art to fellow folkies. Still the singer has his dreams of making it in "show business" —as he quaintly tries to appreciate the meaning of the term. His record label has allegedly sent a copy of his solo album 'Inside Llewyn Davis' to a promoter of some accomplishment in Chicago. As his desperate circumstances seem to grow more and more desperate the singer decides to set out for Chicago to take his fate by the horns. It's something of an epic journey getting there (encounters with John Goodman always succeed in bringing that epic dimension to a Coen Brothers' narrative) and at long last when the singer comes face to face with his hope for fame the promoter allows as how he hasn't heard or even seen this record."Play me something from 'Inside Llewyn Davis'," he asks of Davis.

They sit together facing each other out upon the floor in a darkened empty performance space, low light streaming in from a door left open. Davis shares a heart rending version of the traditional ballad 'The Death of Queen Jane'—the moment is a triumph, transcendent (and filmed that way). There's barely a second's pause as the promoter considers what he's heard.

"I don't see any money in it," he observes.

The story doesn't end there or resort to some scene of dramatic confrontation. Instead it is just this poetic instance of perfect failure. Quiet Llewyn Davis puts his guitar back in its case, at that moment knowing his dream defeated, over with, that knowledge plain on his face. He doesn't argue his case. His song had done that, stated his best. He'll resolve to resign his dream of fame and set out with the merchant marine, no more a folk singer by trade. (He'll fail at that, too —this is that dark a comedy.)

It's a dark scene in a dark and melancholy movie; but somehow it put me in mind of hope.

It's important, I think, to appreciate the historical moment of this dramatic moment. This Greenwich Village, this Chicago and the road between them was in the America of the early 1960's. Don Draper was sipping highballs, touting 'the new and improved' and screwing secretaries uptown in his high rise, just a few blocks from these cold water flats down in the village with their fire escape sense of address. Madmen advertised and Modern was the mainstream design aesthetic, Kennedy spoke of a 'New Frontier' and MacNamara ran the Pentagon —Mutually Assured Destruction was the very latest in political science.(Kubrick was just started working on 'Dr. Strangelove' about then). The very idea of progress had gone insane. Set against this backdrop, these young aching artists sang the old songs, ballads from Appalachia, blues from The Delta. For all their politics were Leftist and Progressive in name, these young singers and artists and poets were the ones standing astride the tracks of supposed progress and shouting 'Stop!'—or perhaps singing it sweetly.

Did they succeed or fail? That's a question you could answer a number of different ways, considering the movement, the aesthetic, the different artists as individuals. Did they find a receptive audience? Did they change the world at all? Have a lasting impact?

This is where I come around to the idea of hope. The very next day after I saw the Coen Brothers' film, and drove home trying to explain my reactions to it to my son, I came across this article by Rebecca Solnit in Salon.com —about hope of all things, something she describes as "an orientation that has nothing to do with optimism." As Solnit sees it, "[o]ptimism says that everything will be fine no matter what, just as pessimism says that it will be dismal no matter what. Hope is a sense of the grand mystery of it all..." That mystery and its large dimension allow for meaning and purpose even in failure, beautiful failure."[W]e don’t know how it will turn out... anything is possible."

You mightn't save the world with song —or even yourself, but there is something in the trying.

In Solnit's article she maps an aspect of hope that disappoints those who want to consider success or failure in obvious and immediate terms. She points to the example of Thoreau, dying in obscurity, owning more of his own books than he ever sold, yet long after he was dead and gone influencing the minds of men like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, changing the world that way. She shares an anecdote about Charles Black, how as a teenager growing up in Austin, Texas he had a chance encounter with music that changed him —and through him the world.

He was riveted and transformed by the beauty of New Orleans jazzman Louis Armstrong’s music, so much so that he began to reconsider the segregated world he had grown up in. “It is impossible to overstate the significance of a 16-year-old Southern boy’s seeing genius, for the first time, in a black,” he recalled decades later.

Charles Black would grow up to be a lawyer, dedicating his life to racial justice and civil rights. He would help reverse segregation nationwide, aiding the plaintiffs in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Draw that thread from the mournful horn blowing 'St. James Infirmary.'

That notion of the power of music to transform the world subtly and powerfully —even unknowingly, that hope surviving failure —to me that's what that gorgeous moment in the Coen Brothers film was all about. A little later in the film Llewyn Davis goes to visit his father who is failing in health at a nursing home. He wants to say goodbye as he'll soon be off to sea with the merchant marine —or so he thinks. The old man is non-responsive, practically catatonic but for how miserable he seems. Yet as his son sings him a few verses of Ewan MacColl's 'Shoals of Herring' —a song 'he always used to like' —a look of sweet ease and peace passes over the old sick man's face —only for a moment time and its weight and worry falls away for a father and his son. There is this tiny instance of timelessness (the same kind of eternity Solnit describes for hope). It's only another moment, gone the next, but that moment as captured in this sad dark movie speaks so eloquently of those songs and that time, the difference they were truly intended to make in this world.

Call Llewyn Davis a failure and I can relate to him (though he sings and plays guitar better than I ever dreamed). I, too, have taken my stabs at fame. There's a novel never published somewhere in the house, some poems and songs I've written and recorded. I wrote a speech once for a politician I admired which he never quite gave. (My CD collection is much like Thoreau's library.) I don't know what any of it amounts to at this point, but I think I know what I've tried, what my intentions were. They were stabs at fame, but also statements of belief, prayers of a sort, blind stabs at saving the world. I know that sounds grandiose and silly at the same time, but there is in the creative some amount of that instinct to save the world —to save ourselves —our each and every lonely soul. We so often fail in the attempt, forgetting ourselves, losing and leaving something behind. Bottled messages to wash ashore somewhere else if ever —or scattered seeds.

We mightn't save the world with song —or even ourselves, but there is something in the trying.

Solnit offers the notion of seeds to describe the hope in these arts and offerings —the trying.
(Thoreau would be proud of her).

I don’t know what’s coming. I do know that, whatever it is, some of it will be terrible, but some of it will be miraculous, that term we reserve for the utterly unanticipated, the seeds we didn’t know the soil held.

Somehow those seeds and those songs combine for me. Maybe it's some aspect of them carried on the wind like in Dylan's old song, the one with all those 'how many' questions answered with that resigned kind of refrain: "The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind." Something in the asking of those questions manages to matter in the end though —the singing of those songs does, too —all of them, though we might only notice the seeds that flower, the songs and the singers that become famous.

Separate and unequal

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Sun, 08 Dec 2013 15:15:00 +0000

"Now, the premise that we’re all created equal is the opening line in the American story. And while we don’t promise equal outcomes, we have strived to deliver equal opportunity — the idea that success doesn’t depend on being born into wealth or privilege, it depends on effort and merit. And with every chapter we’ve added to that story, we’ve worked hard to put those words into practice."

The subject of income and economic inequality has gained some notice recently —not that it's exactly a new problem —who was it that said 'the poor will always be with us'?— but both the Pope and the President have proffered thoughts on the subject in these last couple of weeks —the President with his bully pulpit, the Pontiff quite literally pontificating. We even had the one quoting the other in a recent speech.

“How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”

We've had that argument about outcome versus opportunity going on for a long time. The distinction or failure to distinguish between the two has been the stumbling block, the seeming insurmountable obstacle, to many many's the debate that might otherwise have been constructive.

What strikes me as I consider what I've heard from both the Pontiff and the President, as I consider the problem I am asked to, is that something other than outcome or opportunity is at stake, because there is something more meaningful than a game going on. There is more than process or result at issue. It's sure as hell more than politics. There is something we are being asked as Americans and as human beings about who we are.

When certain of the Cultural Conservatives in this country talk about this being a Christian nation it is supposed to be my obligation —as a Progressive —or a Liberal —or whatever the appropriate label, to object and react with horror and condemnation and/or a detailed historic argument about Enlightenment Era Deists et cetera, et cetera. I could certainly go there, but I won't just now. What with it being Advent and all, maybe it's alright to consider the term 'Christian' as it applies —perhaps as an adjective describing some quality or aspect, rather than a categorization —to consider the mythos and meaning implied with such a descriptor: The Son of Man, The King of Kings, born in such famously humble circumstance: a manger —were it today maybe it would be under a highway overpass or in the shelter of a garage attached to some hotel with 'no vacancy' burning neon bright in a darkened window. What should that tell us about our regard for the poor? for each other —each and every one of us? —the pluribus of our unum?

I wonder if we could reconvene our conversation with that notion of the ultimate human dignity centering things, if we were to accept that larger meaning in the founding premise of our national narrative —we might come back around to considering economic opportunities, even outcomes, but we might find something more meaningful than the whole of life considered a game or a contest with winners and losers. We might come round to a very basic respect for one another at least, where we are asked for reverence, where we are asked for love.

November 22nd

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:56:00 +0000

I am just barely old enough to be considered a baby boomer —still I'm not quite old enough to be one of those people who remembers where they were on November 22, 1963. I might have some sketchy fragments of watching the funeral I recall, but I am not even sure. Memory can be deceptive. What I do recall growing up —in an Irish Catholic family in the Boston area— was a common reverence for the man and a sense of identity with him. I saw the same memorial portrait of him —a pullout from the newspaper— framed and on the wall in both my grandparents homes, cousins houses too. For all he was a wealthy privileged man of power he was also somehow one of us. The grim fact of his murder, the majestic ceremony of mourning, they hung there on the wall, or upon our hearts, with moment not unlike the images of Saints and the Crucified Christ.

The first day of my education was at The John F. Kennedy Memorial Elementary School in Franklin, Mass. I came of age hearing his speeches telling me to "ask not" what my country could do for me, but what I should do —sending the word forth about torches passed forward to new generations. Those speeches —that voice and call— were a huge part of what formed my understanding of being an American. We landed on the moon remembering he'd sent us.

With time of course the worship wore off. The contrasting portrait of the womanizing rich kid whose dad bought him elections came along, courtesy of the iconoclasts. I learned of things like the Bay of Pigs fiasco. I heard the arguments back and forth about flaws and virtues. He was weak or he was clever in dealing with Kruschev —at Vienna —over Cuba —the Berlin Wall. He caused Vietnam. He would have ended it. He was a civil rights champion or a foot dragging, cautious and opportunistic politician.

Over time I've come to believe and accept a little of both narratives. JFK was a flawed man, both measured and inspired, craven and noble —a bit of both. He was one of us. And it strikes me that it was the terrible fact of his death that allowed us to love him, to allow his better angel a voice and hear him in a way we seldom listen these days —in our modern oh so skeptical state of mind.

"For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”

Those are the words that come to mind for me just now. From a speech he gave to college students, about the challenge, the promise, the possibility of peace. I woke this morning hearing that speech in my mind — I've heard those words all my life, tried in my own flawed way to remember them, words so very well said.

History

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Thu, 24 Oct 2013 22:30:00 +0000

"I am what time, circumstance, history, have made of me, certainly, but I am also, much more than that. So are we all."

~ James Baldwin

I grew up reading history. It was something we did in my family. My dad never understood why anyone would ever read a novel. Let alone poetry. He respected Shakespeare though, I think it was old enough material for him to pass muster. My easy readers when I was in the first and second grade were titles like 'Meet Abe Lincoln' (there was a whole series of them: Meet Ben Franklin, Meet Ulysses S. Grant — I collected them all —the first manifestation of a lifelong problem with book hoarding). And for a long time when I pondered history I was impressed with vast expanse of it behind us. Events I was told about happening a hundred years ago or two hundred possessed this awesome majesty and authority over the mere present. So many great ideas had already been recorded in the annals, the most important lessons taught, it was hard not to suspect the future of only unraveling, aging, winding down. I grew up believing the responsible citizen protected the past, honored it, even over his own experience.

Now I find myself in my fifties. I still find history a fascinating subject, but those measures of time that used to connote irrevocable monuments of established truth seem scant. More than half way to a hundred myself I suddenly have this different sense of the human scale of time. Fold my lifetime back twice in the opposite direction and the characters we've built awesome monuments to and enshrined in our sense of history were politicians navigating their own very human existences through bloody warfare or "politics by other means."

Read the histories of other cultures, hear their languages —or check out their wikipedia pages— and you get the same sense, or at least I do. People live with these assumed narratives that they afford great weight —senses of enormity and eternity —and seen just differently they are only the matter of a few lifetimes strung end upon end.

Living in our global village we can start to see these different narratives encounter and inform one another. I watch Swedish language crime dramas on Netflix and notice American idiom in the conversation where I no longer need the subtitles. All are changed and evolve. This is the kind of thing that drives cultural conservatives to climb the wall. Musty old academics rant that we no longer teach the classics and our standards are degrading, our culture becoming lost; angry mullahs countenance murder in defense of their traditions and truths. I wonder if they all aren't acting upon that same awful sense of history —the past with such meaning winding down to a future without. Blindness to the present truth and its future.

I was talking about this with my wife as we drove in the car the other night. We came to this formulation, that the older we get the younger the world seems. This is true of our country, our society, civilization as a whole. Humanity itself might still be in its adolescence. That could be a hopeful thought, but it's also a wistful thought really, knowing we'll only be around so long to watch it all grow and evolve —just possibly improve.

I think about the history our children's children will know and I pray they will love and cherish it —and at the same time not take it too seriously.

Casi-Know-Nothings

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Sun, 04 Aug 2013 18:39:00 +0000

The signs are all over town here in Holliston. “Casi-no!” with emphasis on the “no!” Folks put them on their lawns as a show of emphatic non-support for the idea of a casino, not here in Holliston but in Milford, the next town over. I’ve not partaken of the lawn sign business myself on a couple of accounts. I actually don’t have a lawn first and foremost and if I did I’ve got to admit I’m just not all that dead set against them having whatever they decide they want in Milford. I’m no expert in the details, but as I understand it the Milford development as proposed is to be located on land just over the line from Holliston with fairly direct access to Route 495. Thusly it seems relatively well situated for what they nowadays call a “destination casino resort experience” or some such. Not my cup of tea personally, but to each his own.

What any town does on one side of the line is going to have some impact upon the town on the other, I understand that. But with the Milford site’s direct arterial connection to 495 one could imagine the impact on Holliston being minor, even beneficial with some prudent planning decisions. To talk to some of the folks who oppose the casino, though, you would think this one proposal is the camel’s back breaking straw that will see our little version of Bedford Falls (It’s a Wonderful Life) start upon its sad decline into Pottersville —flashing lights, gunfire and floozies flouting feather boas in the streets —dead gangster’s clogging our scenic lake in their cement overshoes.

The first time I ever encountered this fervent opposition I was sitting in a room of like minded liberals. The book club discussion had wound down and the topic came up. One of our participants was selling the lawn signs. I admitted to not sharing in the zeal and I quick found myself surrounded and being accused of uncaring disregard for the plight of compulsive gamblers, crime run rampant in the streets, etc. I pointed out this is a Foxwood’s Resort Casino we’re talking about, that my mom —not exactly a gun moll for the mob— used to ride the Senior Center chartered bus to Foxwoods in Connecticut with her friends. A good friend of mine had told me about catching some pretty good music acts there. I was lectured then at length on the corrosive social costs of gambling. I had to ask at that point if anybody was prepared to stand at Town Meeting and move that the town not accept any lottery money from the state. About then I was told the lighting of this casino was such that to support it, or even not oppose it avidly enough, was to evince a craven disregard for starlight.

It was about then I concluded that there was some plane the Casi-No! crowd was operating on that I simply couldn’t fathom or navigate. And I swam for shore.

Then I came across this piece in my favorite local online community news site, There’s Nothing to Worry About: A Satire. The author waxes sarcastic at what he sees as the logical inconsistency in the traffic study and recent presentation of proposed roadway improvements involved in the casino proposal. That’s fine. I see some inconsistency in the logic of his critique just as well. Reasonable folks can disagree. But then came this little tidbit all wrapped up in the same swift sarcasm of the rest of this satire:

As for other impacts, frankly, they go under the heading of “None of Your Business.” Still, we can rest assured: our property values won’t go down, they’ll go up. Only a handful of employees’ kids will end up enrolling in grades K-12, and they’ll all speak the King’s English. Crime will actually go down, because there’ll be more police. And the project is quite modest in size, really. Tiny! You’ll hardly even know it’s there. According to the experts, all the bad stuff you might have heard about casinos, none of it is true. None of it.

I’d been seeking a concise retort to the lawn sign bumpersticker sentiment “Casi-No!” ever since that night I wandered out into the gorgeous jilted starlight from our book club. And this author’s satire may have offered up the analogy I was looking for. If all this pseudo-civic umbrage really boils down to fretting over property values and the wrong kind of people maybe coming to live in town —and what’s worse expecting to see their kids educated along side ours —well, the obvious parallel is with the Know Nothings of the 1850′s. They, too, had a mind for resenting outsiders and cloaking jealous spiteful bigotry in supposed high minded civic concern. Back then the scary immigrants were Irish and German Catholics, and the resonant political message was that these weren’t quite Americans showing up in our towns and cities to build things, they were maybe just a little foreign to our ways —to the King’s English, you might say. As one critic put it, the Know Nothings bespoke “the spirit which is forever carping about the foreign-born citizen and trying to abridge his privileges.”

“Casi-Know-Nothings” —that’s a lot to put on a lawn sign I suppose, maybe too subtle. Come to think of it, I don’t even have a lawn.

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Thu, 11 Jul 2013 11:04:00 +0000

It is only rain that falls
choosing nothing
nor the wind

we that thirst attribute grace
or wrath, claiming to know
a mind
belonging

to water and warming light.

Justice of the double edged sword

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Mon, 01 Jul 2013 12:34:00 +0000

The Supreme Court is in the news these days, handing down decisions left and right —if you'll excuse the expression. And both main stream and social media are breathless with their exclamations. One day the justices are "gutting" the Voting Rights Act and the howls of indignation go up. The next it would seem The Nine have made gay marriage the law of the land. Break out the the glitter and champagne and oh-so-tastefully decorated cake.

I'm thinking a little closer and more skeptical scrutiny might give rise to a little less outrage on the one count and a little less exaltation on the other.

I just recently finished reading"The Day Freedom Died: The Colfax Massacre, the Supreme Court, and the Betrayal of Reconstruction" by Charles Lane —harrowing stuff —the history is of an episode of brutal racial and political violence that, together with the court actions that followed it, signaled the basic collapse of Reconstruction in the South. In his narrative Lane points specifically to two landmark Supreme Court decisions that served to usher in and assure that collapse and I'm thinking their example might be instructive as we regard the current day. The first of these, The Slaughterhouse Cases involved a group of New Orleans butchers who found themselves compelled by state law to trade with a slaughterhouse that had been sited and licensed with an eye to protecting the public health, so said the state anyway. The butchers argued it was only carpet bagger crony capitalism run amuck. Thereto the Mississippi River had served as the open gutter for offal in much more of a free market arrangement. The butchers contended that, public health be damned, the state was compelling trade with state sanctioned monopoly. The appeal they took all the way to the highest court argued that the state was infringing upon the "privileges and immunities" due all free citizens —in this instance their right of free trade. They pointed to the newly minted Fourteenth Amendment of The Constitution and its guarantee of protection for those privileges and immunities. Though the amendment had been written with the rights of newly freed slaves in mind, its protections rightly should extend to all citizens, black and white, former slave and master alike—so went the argument of New Orleans' friendly neighborhood butchers anyway.

The Supreme Court didn't buy the argument. As it turned out, the justices deemed dumping slaughter refuse into the river upstream of your neighbor's favorite fishing spot was not a right the U.S. Constitution, even as it was freshly amended, was meant to protect. Looking back across the years who would complain about the state's protection of public health standing up to Constitutional challenge? Am I right? One can well imagine applause from the civic minded back in the day. But it was the logic the court announced in coming to its decision that would have the devastating effect upon Reconstruction and the cause of Civil Rights.

Justice Samuel Freeman Miller writing for the majority noted "there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual." The Federal Courts could not intervene in matters of state citizenship and could only act to protect specifically enumerated federal rights. As Jack Beatty put it, in his own brilliant and depressing history of the era, "Age of Betrayal: The Triumph of Money in America, 1865-1900," these rights included "access to ports and navigable waterways, the ability to run for federal office, and to be protected while on the high seas... they did not include what we call 'civil rights.'"

This reining in of supposed federal over reach would not go unnoticed. The federal prosecution of The Colfax Massacre would meet it head on.

The bloody violence and atrocity that occurred of an Easter Sunday in Colfax, Louisiana in 1873 had been in essence an open battle over who would hold the seat of local law enforcement. White Supremacist vigilantes and free blacks had each laid their claim. It was the Colfax Courthouse that had been burned to the ground, those defending it who had been murdered. Citing The Slaughterhouse Cases as precedent, the Supreme Court would hold that the mass murder at issue was not a matter for federal prosecution and jurisdiction, but a matter for those local courts, those same local courts now in the hands of the criminals. In essence, to the victors had gone the spoils.

Justice Stephen J. Field, a dissenting justice in the 5-4 Slaughterhouse decision, would later write that Miller's opinion and the unhealthy precedent it had set for cases like the Colfax massacre had effectively rendered the Fourteenth Amendment a "vain and idle enactment." The collapse of Reconstruction and the birth of Jim Crow would follow to prove his point.

I'm put in mind of this history as the various parties curse or applaud the blatant aspects of these recent Supreme Court decisions. First let's look at the rulings on marriage rights. Yes, DOMA was struck down, but reading the logic of the opinion once again you find the justices proffering that notion of distinct citizenships, state and federal. The court found that the federal government had no basis for curtailing rights that states had granted. This may have been an apparently pleasing result for advocates of marriage equality, but the decision most decidedly did not affirm same sex marriage as a federally protected civil right. Where the court might have done exactly that, the matter of California's Proposition 8, the justices instead demurred. They found the appellants had no standing before the court as aggrieved parties. The practical effect was to throw out their appeal and leave lower court rulings uncontested, as the California constitutional officers had chosen not to contest them. While I can applaud the progress made —or not unmade— on marriage rights, I am left with this disquiet. I fear the justices stopped short of a ruling that would set a clear path for marriage equality even in states where the notion is less than popular. There is an important difference between civil rights and popular rights.

With the ruling —or the non-ruling— on California's Prop 8, I am left wondering if the victory being celebrated isn't a hollow one. The appellants were told they had no standing as private citizens to appeal on behalf of their state's constitutionally enacted law. The state's constitutional officers had elected not to appeal—that was that. The practical effect in this particular case may be laudable, but is it so hard to imagine a case where a governor and a state attorney general act or fail to act counter to the people's rights and interests? Where this case might serve as a less than healthy precedent? Reading history, I think not.

Just as I fear some of the cheering for the court's rulings on marriage rights may be over loud, I also believe at least some of the anguish being expressed over the Voting Rights Act may be somewhat overstated. At the very least it is in the power of the American people to find a silver lining in this dark cloud of an opinion.

The VRA, passed nearly fifty years ago, can really be seen as something of an answer to the abuses and injustices that the Slaughter House Cases and The Colfax Case had so unfortunately enabled. States where the notion of state sovereignty had taken on the aspect of a white hood and a burning cross were confronted with federal law actively affirming —and enabled to enforce— the constitutional rights of citizenship —not the least of these, voting rights

"Pre-clearance" was the issue at point in the recent Roberts' Court decision. Particular states where past abuses had been most egregious were singled out for special requirements of the law. Any change to voting requirements or accommodations had first to be cleared with the U.S. Justice Department. In striking down the pre-clearance requirements justice Roberts cited the last fifty years of progress over the prior hundred in abuse. With the law in place and working so effectively it seemed we no longer needed it. We have a New South, “(n)early 50 years later, things have changed dramatically.” he said and the special scrutiny upon those singled out states was no longer equitable.

Justice Ginzberg compared the reasoning to abandoning an umbrella in a rainstorm —inasmuch as under the umbrella you're dry.

Don't get me wrong, there is plenty to be validly indignant about in the VRA decision of The Roberts Court. The same guys who profess that they are mere umpires calling balls and strikes for the lawmakers who define the batters box seem to have no problem with the fact that their discerning judgement on historical progress on civil rights in The South is counter to the opinion Congress had in renewing the pre-clearance provisions of the VRA as recently as 2006. But, just as what they didn't say bothers me with the marriage rights cases, here I take heart in what they did not strike down. For optimists and pessimists alike there is still something pretty important left in the cup. The court did not declare the entirety of the VRA unconstitutional, only the pre-clearance requirements as they were applied to some states and not all. As I think about that more and more, I take some comfort. The court did not say there is no place for federal oversight in Birmingham, Alabama or Colfax, Louisiana. It said there should be no more or less of that federal oversight and state accountability there than there ought to be right here in Boston, Massachusetts or outside Cleveland, Ohio. Thinking of our own Tom Finneran, I have to admit I'm almost okay with that.

It seems to me the court has left a decision to us in this case. It is up to us what we make of their opinions. Already, we're seeing states, where VRA Justice Department actions had previously counter ordered redistricting plans that disadvantage minority voters, dusting off the same old maps, testing the new/old limits of decency and democracy. It remains to be seen how the Obama Administration Justice Department will respond. We, the people can respond though, with a clear call for law and enforcement that protects the rights of every voter in every corner of this country. We can choose to wring our hands and see The VRA as "gutted" and rendered toothless. Or we can choose to see voting rights as a common cause for the entire country.

So it is I find myself urging against resigned despair on the one hand and cautioning against easy early celebration on the other. With marriage equality, just as it is with voting rights, it seems there's some American history yet to be written.

Thoughts on the senate debate

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 12:56:00 +0000

"Senators, we hear, must be politicians – and politicians must be concerned only with winning votes, not with statesmanship or courage. Mothers may still want their favorite sons to grow up to be President, but according to a famous Gallup poll of some years ago, they do not want them to become politicians in the process."

~ Senator John F. Kennedy, "Profiles in Courage"

The two candidates for the U.S. Senate, contending in a special election here in Massachusetts, will face off this week in a head to head debate for the first time. Whichever candidate wins the debate, or even if neither one does, one can only hope the episode wins some much needed attention to the contest. Maybe it's me and the unique and peculiar sampling of media I happen to take in at my house, but the one thing I've noticed about this election is how little notice it's been receiving. And how what attention there's been has been puddle deep, barely splashable.

Pond scum? We should hope for such depth.

Sure one can seek out coverage and always find the pundits on the opinion pages turning familiar soil. The partisans have affected their predictable postures. But what is striking is how precious little engaged discussion about differences of policy or political approach we've managed to hear thus far. We get the cartoons instead. The Democrat will unflinchingly champion the President and his side in the constant struggle that is Washington, D.C., except where maybe it's unpopular. The Republican promises... well, not to champion the President, but as far as the national GOP is concerned, folks like Boehner and Cantor and McConnell —let's just say there's an elephant in the room.

Asses and elephants: I'm thinking that maybe the reason I've seen so little discussion going on about the election is that there are a lot of citizens just plain sick and tired of both creatures and the game of mutual caricature that has become our politics. And maybe there's a clue there for both the candidates about how to win back our attention.

Gabriel Gomez, first let me say that I agree it was downright scummy to post ads with your image right along side that of Osama bin Laden. I'd have lost my temper as well, but please admit, too, that it was equally scummy when the group you were speaking on back when was doing the same to President Obama. The politics of attack ad anti-advocacy gets scummy. Let's get past that and on to the subject of the U.S. Senator you would be. In that regard I would be very interested to hear just exactly how you think you would improve and even reform the GOP Senate Caucus. Don't bother disparaging Democrats. That stuff is old hat from GOP candidates countrywide and Democrats do a good enough job of disparaging or embarrassing themselves most of the time. While you want to run as a Republican somewhat removed from the national party you will become a part of that caucus if you win and we here in Massachusetts want to know how you (and we) could change that caucus for the better. How would you change the dynamic from within your party, across the aisle, and throughout the senate chamber? Speak to that and I will be all ears.

Congressman Markey, I would ask you to answer a very similar set of questions. It might be tempting after more than three decades in the House of Representatives to suggest that your record speaks for itself, that your ideals and inclinations are plain. That might all be true, but this election isn't a referendum on your political personality, however well cultivated that may be. How will you change the U.S. Senate —not as one more rank and file member of your party's caucus, but as a singular voice? Where, why and how would you challenge Democratic leadership —even a Democratic president for the better fate of the country?

That's the ideal of the senate after all... that form of debate. It's not a body premised on procedures and partisan lockstep —the disciplined herding of coalitions and precounted votes. The senate's premise is principled and openly deliberate debate, asking hard questions even of our own, even of ourselves. Answering in candid earnest. That's what I'll be watching for this week, not the easy answers or push button politicking. There's that something a past U.S. Senator of Massachusetts once profiled as courage, that's what I'll be watching for.

Today the challenge of political courage looms larger than ever before. For our everyday life is becoming so saturated with the tremendous power of mass communications that any unpopular or unorthodox course arouses a storm of protests ... Our political life is becoming so expensive, so mechanized and so dominated by professional politicians and public relations men that the idealist who dreams of independent statesmanship is rudely awakened by the necessities of election and accomplishment... And thus, in the days ahead, only the very courageous will be able to take the hard and unpopular decisions necessary for our survival in the struggle with a powerful enemy...

Maybe our enemy these days isn't as singularly obvious as it was in the 1950's when "Profiles in Courage" was written. Maybe it wasn't even then. But are the challenges we face any less serious today? Any less about survival? Do we require any less courage of our statesmen? of ourselves?

Balance sheet blues

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Wed, 22 May 2013 11:59:00 +0000

The news this morning had some passing reference to the so called immigration reform making its way through congress. A senate committee had moved and various partisans to the debate were voicing their thought on the latest development, the balance struck between "protecting American jobs" and bringing in the talent American industry needs, and of course the temporary workers who would do for a living what "Americans" considered beneath them. Somewhere in there was mention of a path to citizenship.

The whole account left me wondering... whether to sigh, scream or whimper?

What struck me saddest was the afterthought aspect of the citizenship. The way the immigration reform debate is being framed for the public you wouldn't think we were a community, or a country. We would seem to be nothing more than an economy —a labor market processing people as a necessary commodity, like soybean and pork bellies. We are not concerning ourselves with citizenship in this debate, we are concerning ourselves with "workers" —highly skilled workers we want to lure here because we claim we are incapable of educating our current populace to do the work they do —and utterly menial workers because there are jobs we'd never ask "our own" to do. We want our economy to be a convenience to us and just now we need to tune a resource.

I shouldn't dismiss these practical economic concerns I suppose and I don't think I really mean to. But some part of me aches when I hear this discussion beginning and ending and never engaging upon the question of citizenship in human terms. What discussion there is of community focuses on jealous measure of what we can afford to allow immigrants in terms of resources and services like healthcare and education. We should be sure to structure the temporary work program to keep them temporary, there's always more where they came from and we don't want them settling into place where they might age and require medicine or have children to educate. Those high skilled types, let's assure ourselves their incomes and the taxes they pay on them will render us a net gain.

Is there nothing beyond this balance sheet?

I'd like to believe there is something. I'll admit It's hard to give it a name, let alone make it a part of this debate going on. But I really do think we need to. I think maybe we need to place citizenship at the heart of this discussion of reform. Citizenship as something we embrace and engage in, not a licensed membership of exclusive entitlement. What do we mean when we say the word 'citizen'? What place —of privilege and responsibility— do we afford the citizen in our community. Martin Luther King used to use the term 'beloved community' and when he did, as soon as those words formed in your mind you knew what it was about, exactly what he was after.

Is there such a thing as a 'beloved citizen'?

If there is, who would we offer that status? Who would we deny?

The punishment they seek

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Sun, 05 May 2013 22:07:00 +0000

Now and then a case comes along and we're compelled to examine the issue of capital punishment. Often the subject comes up in an instance where the guilt of the convict is in doubt, or the circumstances of the crime and the criminal give us pause. Perhaps the murderer is barely an adult or someone of such diminished capacity, such sorry chances in life, that we question our state disposition to simply dispose of them. We stop at the thought of what we are doing to the least —to the lowest— of our citizens.

It's right that these cases give us to deeply consider state slaughter, even in the name of justice. They serve as a premise for valid debate: whether the justice being dispensed is even handed or socially skewed, whether or not the prospect of ultimate punishment serves to deter ultimate crime —these are worthwhile questions. Those who would oppose capital punishment ask them and they turn to their statistical answers, that capital punishment is imperfect as justice, ineffective as deterrence. With each of these visits maybe some small progress is made towards further limiting the practice, and there is some satisfaction for the activists in making it that much harder for the state to simply execute its most undesirable persons.

I've long argued though that the true challenge in contesting capital punishment doesn't present itself with the plight of that occasional somehow sympathetic death row inmate. It's not to be found in some bloodless cost benefit analysis of the practice as a public policy option either. This question resides on another level. It might be a question about law and government and policy, but it's also a deeply personal one each and every one of us has to answer the hard way, honestly. How do we answer the question when we can stare it squarely in the very human face of one we've come to unabashedly despise?

These days we find ourselves presented with just such a face. The senseless murder of three innocent spectators at the Boston Marathon finish line with bombs that maimed and scarred so many more: within days we had the faces of the criminals and then their names. One of them would die in the manhunt that followed upon the atrocity, the other one we captured. But even before that capture it seemed we were set upon a special standing for this particular crime. These murders and maimings were "acts of terrorism," authorities told us, and the pressure cooker home made bombs were "weapons of mass destruction." This conception of the crime, as federal crime, so quickly offered, made way for one very specific possibility. Where the crime was committed here in a state with no provision for capital punishment, taking these crimes as federal crimes allows us to consider killing the man in our custody who committed them.

And who could fault us if we did?

Who can look at the faces of those innocents who died at the bombing scene, the young policeman gunned down days later, the many left so damaged they may never wholly heal —who could look there and not feel rage? —not demand justice? —and, yes, retribution? But this begs another question in turn. Should we feel any differently when the crime is one of lesser notice, on a smaller scale? Do we feel less for the victims of obscure more ordinary crime? What aspect of this atrocity justifies our killing the culprit where we would spare others?

The sharp and quick answer of course is the terrorism. There is a political or ideological color to this crime —we're told this by the surviving killer himself, that the bombs were our punishment for the wars we wage in distant Islamic countries— and with this what reservations we have about capital punishment are put aside. This is not a incident of criminality in a civil society, so the argument goes, this is an act of war. Certain politicians announce that even allowing the war criminal Miranda rights is a dangerously mistaken notion. This is an enemy combatant.

What's striking in all this is how the killer and those who would consider killing him happen to agree —that this particular crime was murder of a special stature. These deaths and dismemberments meant something more because of the ideology that motivated the perpetrators. We might rightly call the Marathon bombings senseless, but it is the sensibility behind them that we would consider punishing with death. One has to notice that in so doing we elevate the craven criminality to the level of warfare, the criminal to the status —as he might frame it in his own mind—of a soldier and a martyr.

This paradox where it comes to terrorism isn't exactly news. The core strategic objective of many a terror campaign over the years —throughout history— has been the severity of retribution elicited. Punishment for punishment is meted out and the fringe cause comes somewhere closer step by step to level footing with the power it challenges.

But with the Boston Marathon bombings we have something slightly but very importantly different. From what we've learned thus far it would appear this violence wasn't a part of some coordinated terror campaign. There was no mastermind calling the shots from some darkened cave. The "religious motivations" that drove the bombers were vaguely ideological. These weren't holy soldiers so much as they were sentimentalists, alienated young men hungry for a sense of meaning and consequence to their actions, to their existence. Anything to escape anonymity and a sense of purposelessness —anything to attain celebrity. Islam might might have seemed to offer a cosmic sort of celebrity, but one has to wonder if this was merely a choice of brand, not much different from the notoriety of spectacle slaughter to an Aurora, Colorado multiplex shooting spree —or the carnage of a Connecticut schoolroom.

The dead don't know the difference.

This is where the question of the punishment folds back upon itself for me. I am one of those who generally and statistically argues against the death penalty. As I consider them now I know these murders are not statistical cases. And I realize none of them ever are for those touched directly by crime. Just now I don't think I can frame this as a political argument with obvious sides. I've been more certain about this issue in the past. Words like mercy and compassion and redemption, what do they mean to us weighed against a word like justice? Who holds that scale to weigh them? I suppose we each of us have to. This is where it becomes personal.

I don't regret that we've made it difficult to execute even our most despicable citizens in this country. Yet there is the bind. It is with this that I worry what signal of meaning we give in those rare instances when we choose to do just that. As we render each state killing so carefully, deliberately —ritualistically even—we might unwittingly dignify the reckless crimes of desperately warped children. With our extraordinary punishment we might offer the notice and sense of importance they crave. We might punish with the very reward they seek. Wouldn't that serve to invite the next atrocity?

Snowfall, New Year's Day 2013

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:40:00 +0000

Snow from the placeless sky
Not falling but wandering here—
Perhaps journeying

To the scene,

The next day empty.

Tears spent like necessary coin
Achieve mere purchase.

There is that image of a child we are given
To represent the new year
Beginning.
In the wordless story The Old Man passes
And The Infant staggers
On from there to age in turn.

They are the same being.

This is the supposed consolation,
That place at the edge of a wheel turning
Without sense of travel
Only that weight gathering, then passing—
Gathering again.

Is it Faith that assumes purpose?

But this day with its damage cannot
and aches at what it evinces
In brokenness. The Innocents

Their names written, again and again
Until never is understood.

Until forgotten into meanings only others might entertain.

Is this then the light that becomes possible?
Ever real in this numb terrible knowledge?

Beneath this heaven's dull metallic shell
Darkening like a bruise

This moment seeming ashes become again the snow

Cold and pure —is this clear sight?

Grace

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 13:43:00 +0000

We fast approach the big day of the big meal,football games, and —for many— some awkward and/or contentious conversation. The different generations and different branches of the family tree pick this day to come together and, well... sometimes they differ. I was at first tempted to mark the day here by once again posting the lyrics to the great Lou and Peter Berryman song "Uncle Dave's Grace" just to poke some fun at the idea. The song tells the sad story of the time Dave is given the honors and with each blessing of the table he cites also the plight of the oppressed and the crimes of society that rendered them. From "grapes in my wine" picked by hunched back laborers to the salad bowl "hacked out of tropical trees" I've always enjoyed the deadpan comedy of the narrator as he notes each of Uncle Dave's many laudable ethical observations, folded so neatly into his prayer, as they slowly drain celebration from the feast —until with the last verse:

We felt so guilty when he was all through

It seemed there was one of two things we could do

Live without food, in the nude, in a cave,

Or next year have someone say grace besides Dave.

But putting that song forward put me in mind of another take on the subject of differences I've been mulling lately. Laughing at the differences that might arise over the dinner table might be one approach, but we all know I like to fancy myself a champion of reasoned debate. I don't mean to dismiss the importance of real differences we might have with one another. I don't mean to tell folks to shy away from issues and considerations that are important to them. But I do want to share the interview I heard a while back with Anthony Appiah on the radio program, On Being.

Appiah talks about the idea of "siddling up to difference" as a way, not of avoiding issues and differences, but as a way of approaching them with some other goal in mind, beyond contest. First you find that place where you can recognize the other as essentially human (thus, possibly flawed) —and you recognize the same in yourself and in your own views. Maybe across a table is such a place for that mutual recognition. Towards the end of the Appiah interview you find yourself gathered around a supper table (Julia Childs' table no less):

Mr. Appiah: ... As I say, I wish I spent more of my time around people that disagreed with me more about politics... years ago when I was living in Boston... Julia Childs. I forget when this was, but say this was about 10 or 15 years ago. She was older at that point and her husband had died. She was worried about the state of sort of race discussions in society. So what did she do, being Julia Childs, she summoned a group of people to come and have dinner and talk about it at her house in Cambridge. So there was kind of a mixed-race group around the table. You know, most of us can't do that. You can't just summon people.

Ms. Tippett: But we might be able to do our version of that.

Mr. Appiah: But we could do more of that. Look, one of the great privileges of a free society is that you don't have to spend all your time thinking about the government. So you can easily have a life in which you do almost nothing except vote to participate in the life of the republic. I understand why that is, but if we were to spend more of our time on the life of the republic not directly, you know, by focusing on having more and more political conversations in town halls and some, but by getting together with people in our communities and talking about these things in a way that brought us to a deeper understanding of each other, that would be well worth it, I think.

And the republic would work better because you would be thinking about Joe and Mary and not about conservative Republicans or liberal Democrats and you would know that you knew some awfully nice people who were, for some bizarre reason, not convinced that you are completely correct about every political question.

Amen to that... and pass the gravy.

What light we have

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 13:48:00 +0000

I'm sure it's not entirely coincidence that the new Spielberg film on Lincoln comes out this past weekend, what with the country having just chosen its president for the next four years. There's nothing accidental in the timing of a major release like this. For everything there is a season. No doubt there was some temptation to release a biopic about a president of such mythic status just a couple weeks earlier, into the midst of the campaign, such that each side in the contest could lay some claim to the character (and thereby boost the box office return) —and I'm sure some asked, if there's a political message to the movie, why not send the dog out to hunt?

But the decision was made to wait one beat past the confetti and falling balloons, and I think the decision was a good and purposeful one, because from what I've read —I haven't seen it yet— the film isn't exactly a simplistic homage. The character and the history at study are complex, deserving of sober consideration more than campaign spin. While Andrew O'Hehir, writing a review for slate.com, allows that the film is "an inspiring story of American greatness" —in the next breath he cautions "...if you say that, also say that it’s a cautionary tale of American mendacity and hypocrisy, the unfinished story of a cancerous evil that poisoned and divided America from its birth and does so still."

Some might have worried that Spielberg's picture would be simply more cultish adulation for Abraham Lincoln, The Great Emancipator posed against obvious evil, yet from what I've read the character depicted is a very human, very political man with some share his own of that mendacity and hypocrisy, mixed in with the admirable principle and courage. Lincoln the bold and noble statesman and Lincoln the careful and conniving politician stand in the same shoes, and upon no pedestal. In another earlier essay written during the heat of the campaign, O'Hehir noted the parallel between Lincoln's time and our own: "Indeed, the startling conclusion forced upon you by 'Lincoln' is that the more things change in American politics the more they stay the same." Just days before the election he observed "whichever man is elected on Tuesday faces a political landscape nearly as divided and poisonous as the one confronted by the 16th president."

It is in that context that we are now given to reflect, "Barack Obama won!"

Is there lesson in Abraham Lincoln's story for all of us as we gather ourselves just past the election? I'll admit I've enjoyed the last few days on the most base level, as one who identifies with the winner of a contest. I've learned a new word —schadenfreude— I'd heard it before but never bothered to look it up —and I must confess I have partaken of that "pleasure in the pain of others" —in the bitter tears of folks like Karl Rove, Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck. I do have the sense, though, that this is ultimately an empty pleasure and it is with this realization that I'm drawn to the historical example of Lincoln. It's not the victor over slavery and the champion of the union, for me though, so much as the humble and flawed —yet wise— man who advised his countrymen 'malice towards none' even in the moment of victory he addressed in his second inaugural. The charity of hope and healing towards all who had borne the fight —this was Lincoln's advice as war drew to a close.

Should we heed something of the same as an election is now behind us?

The other night President Obama gave his victory speech and, with perhaps some sense of symmetry —or irony, he harkened back to the themes of his first presidential campaign and the rhetoric of the first major speech of his career in national politics. Hope, he said, he had never been more hopeful about our country.

"And I ask you to sustain that hope. I’m not talking about blind optimism, the kind of hope that just ignores the enormity of the tasks ahead or the road blocks that stand in our path. I’m not talking about the wishful idealism that allows us to just sit on the sidelines or shirk from a fight." He closed alluding to that appeal to a larger and deeper unity that first placed him on the national stage. "I believe we can seize this future together because we are not as divided as our politics suggests. We’re not as cynical as the pundits believe. We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions and we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are, and forever will be, the United States of America."

I know there are some who argue that President Obama has practiced the divisive politics he complains about, just as there are some who argue it was Lincoln whose politics tried our union in a terrible war. Both contentions are arguable. I know I've argued with them. Me, I'm put in mind of that moment back during his first term when President Obama turned specifically to Lincoln for example. Recall that on the eve of the House vote to pass the Affordable Care Act into law he quoted from Lincoln's journal. “I am not bound to win, but I’m bound to be true,” he said. “I’m not bound to succeed, but I’m bound to live up to what light I have.”

"What light I have" —that light poses the complexity to us, doesn't it? On the one hand we are to regard it as profound and true, an absolute indication of what is right and moral and just as we are given the grace to see it. It illuminates exactly what we must do. On the other we are challenged to see by that same light that our enemies —those who would question or challenge what we've seen— those we would fight and hope to defeat to achieve our purpose— are not different from ourselves. They are, in fact, ourselves.

Naturally, we wonder about the result of this election, whether we are in for the status quo or out to find some better path. "Fondly we hope, fervently do we pray," as Lincoln said, back in the day. And maybe it was with some sense of symmetry —or irony that he noted, at the ending war "the prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."

Change

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 12:29:00 +0000

I’d like to think this moment changed something—that it could. I don’t want it to change the result of the coming election. I’m already wanting and wishing on that subject enough already. I don’t even want it to change the policy debate. We can go ahead argue about FEMA and whether federal resourcing and management are the best way to address disaster relief —once everyone is in where it’s safe and dry we can have that discussion. But the thing I’d really like to believe changed is on the level of mutual respect.

I can recall that Governor Christie of New Jersey was pretty darned forceful in his repudiation of President Obama back when he was addressing the keynote to the Republican National Convention this summer. What the country lacked in its president was leadership, he said, several times and several different ways. Again and again. It wasn’t a pretty speech (not in my book anyway) but it scored on the level of political invective —which is the game we play these days. And all through the subsequent campaign Chris Christie has been “the man with the pan” for the President, delivering mal mots for Mitt at the drop of a hat..

At a Romney rally not two weeks ago, the governor offered that President Obama was “blindly walking around the White House looking for a clue,” adding “he’s like a man wandering around a dark room, hands up against the wall, clutching for the light switch of leadership, and he just can’t find it.” Of course the putdown line got a good rise out of folks in attendance.

Then along came Hurricane Sandy and The Governor of New Jersey had to attend to the job he was elected to do by the citizens of his state —the President attended to his job as well— and to his credit, Governor Christie’s story changed.

“I have to say, the administration, the President, himself and FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate have been outstanding with us so far,” Christie said on Good Morning America reporting in the morning after the storm came ashore. “We have a great partnership with them,” he said. And as for the guy in the dark room fumbling for the light switch— “He worked on [early disaster declaration] last night with me, offered any other assets that we needed to help,” Christie said. “I want to thank the President personally for his personal attention to this.”

Touring the storm damaged area and appearing to speak to the press together, Christie and Obama made for all appearances like something of a mutual admiration society. “It’s been a great working relationship to make sure that were doing the job people elected us to do,” Christie enthused. The President answered “I have to say that Gov. Christie throughout this process has been responsive. He’s been aggressive in making sure that the state got out in front of this incredible storm and I think the people of New Jersey recognize that he has put his heart and soul into making sure the people of New Jersey bounce back even stronger than before. So, I just want to thank him for his extraordinary leadership and partnership.”

Damn— What’s a bile frothing bitter partisan hack to do with talk like that?

These last few days Governor Christie has faced some amount of nervous questioning and open criticism from folks of his own political stripe —a little like Dylan at Newport when he went electric, or when he started singing about his Born Again Christianity in the 80's —dude, his fans turned critics chime, we liked the old stuff. Christie's answer has been plain —whether it was answering George Stefanopoulus on GMA or the fine folks at 'Fox and Friends' —that the last thing on his mind, as he sets about doing the work he was elected to do by the citizens of his state, the last thing is the gamesmanship of presidential politics. Tweeted back in the general direction of his critics : "Today I'm touring NJ with President Obama. Yes, he's a Democrat, and I'm a Republican. We're also adults, and this is how adults behave."

Adults— now that would be a change.

Make no mistake. While I often opine from a Liberal and Democratic perspective, I know full well Democrats and Liberals can embrace some of the same dumb and divisive tactics they complain about when they are trained on them. And I don't want political differences to disappear. We'd be in real trouble if they did. It's the way we handle elections as blood sport contests is what we all have to work on changing. Instead of contests of caricature and invective, we should make our differences more substantive and candid —to borrow Christie's term— "adult." Then those differing ideas might actually be useful. That's the change I hope for in that moment you see pictured with this post, just something on that level of mutual respect.

In flight entertainment

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Sat, 06 Oct 2012 19:51:00 +0000

Found my self in something of an exchange with a conservative friend. I'd been watching him post exuberant status updates on facebook in the aftermath of Romney's debate performance (and President Obama's lack thereof) and I had to warn him that, much like in the NFL, in debate there's such a thing as excessive celebration. Careful or you guys will be kicking off the Biden/Ryan matchup from fifteen yards back, I told him. It was at about this point that I pictured him doing an exaggerated Michael Jackson backwards moon walk across the end zone of American public opinion, pantomime of a dance prop cane under one arm, sly grin on his face and winking as his hand traced the hat brim of his imaginary stylish fedora.

Then came the jobs report. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the best employment numbers in 44 months.

This had to be the worst good news anybody ever got. Unemployment back into the 7% range (albeit just barely) for the first time since Obama took office! It was positively galling. Then and there came the complaint that "The Press" was holding out this 7.8 % unemployment as positive news for Obama when the same number had served to describe what a mess Bush was leaving the economy in back at the beginning of Obama's term. How could this be?

Picture yourself in an airplane, I told him. When you are in a nose dive and your ears are popping and the ground keeps getting closer and closer and your engine is sputtering and belching smoke into your face and you're not sure the plane can handle the g-force of pulling out of the dive —it's then that "7.8" might represent a pretty scary altitude (or lack thereof). Once you have managed to break out of the dive and are maybe even on the slow —albeit too slow— ascent again —then suddenly "7.8" looks at least somewhat re-assuring.

No one should yet claim this economy is "all fixed" and we are rocketing for the heavens. My friend pointed this out and I had to agree with him there. I'm thinking of Snoopy in his Sopwith Camel as the more apt analogy. We still have to figure out how to engineer this aircraft —in flight. But as we face the decision we are all to make this November 6th, the question becomes not only what we think of the man with the googles and flowing scarf and his hands on the stick (and maybe aerodynamically problematic ears), but whether Air Cadet Romney —who wants his turn at the controls so very badly— isn't suggesting we play the exact same game with the throttle and ailerons that we were playing just before we went into the dive.

Prescription Dignity

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Sat, 29 Sep 2012 19:29:00 +0000

I received the state's "Information For Voters" pamphlet in my mail the other day. By this I mean the actual mail and an actual pamphlet —made of paper —the pulp matter of fallen trees: pages and pages of information on voter registration, how to obtain an absentee ballot, a statement of the "Massachusetts Voters' Bill of Rights" and —most importantly— full text and detail on the three ballot questions we'll all be answering in November. It was nice to receive the reminder that there is more to this fall's ballot than the matter of who will be our next president or senator or congressman. Aside from the personas to pick from, we are presented with a couple of very direct questions. To be more precise these "questions" aren't simply polls to gauge opinion or set the direction for future policy or law making. These are law proposed by initiative petition. We vote 'yes' and we make them law.

One that has me wondering is Question 2, referred to in the voter information pamphlet as "Prescribing Medication to End Life." That's the more careful prosaic name for the proposal that tries to avoid taking sides in the question, yes or no. It's not referred to as physician prescribed suicide as some might call it. That is too blunt. The folks advocating the proposed law will tell you it is all about Dignity. They entitle their law as drafted the "Massachusetts Death With Dignity Act" —and this is where I become skeptical.

Dignity... Who could be against Dignity? Right?

A 'yes' vote on Question 2 would enact proposed law allowing a physician licensed in Massachusetts to prescribe medication at the request of a terminally ill patient "meeting certain conditions" to end that person's life. To put it plain, the law codifies authority for a physician to prescribe the medicine one would use to commit suicide.

The actual word 'suicide' only appears twice in the full text of the law, which is reprinted in whole in the state pamphlet. The word only appears where we are told this is not what we are about here with this law, we are told "[a]ctions taken in accordance with this chapter shall not constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide under any criminal law of the commonwealth.” The sanctioned terminology is “ending life in a humane and dignified manner” —this turn of phrase appears no fewer than 14 times in the proposed 'Chapter 201G Massachusetts Death With Dignity Act.'

Question 2 not only assumes the citizen's right to directly author state law, it presumes to amend the dictionary as well.

Death with Dignity —if there's a way to prescribe this with a pill I think we should all be for it, but what bothers me is when I read this law as drafted, when I look past the embrace of the term, what I see is an outline focused upon administrative concerns, the appropriate witness, waiting periods and forms to fill out and keep on file. None of this seems to secure anything like dignity for the dying. Laws are for the living, and this law like most is about liability and litigation. We cover ourselves with a suffering person's signature on a form titled "REQUEST FOR MEDICATION TO END MY LIFE IN A DIGNIFIED MANNER" —duly signed by the appropriately disinterested objective witnesses. This, my friends, is paper work. I can picture the scene all too well. I can just see the clipboard.

I shouldn't be so sharp I suppose. I don't doubt that the people who have worked to put this legislation together and have it put before us as a ballot question have done so with the best of intentions. They seek to ease the suffering of the terminally ill and their families. Sorry, but it's the manipulative language that irks me. Over the past few years I've seen both my parents die and I've seen more and more of their generation passing, their families and loved ones dealing with the pain. None of those dying left this world in ways ideally scripted. Yet, I never saw anything in the death of any one of them that detracted from their actual dignity. There is suffering and pain and hardship. Strong men and women become vulnerable and weak and needy. The sentiment for easing that burden —avoiding that scene— is a strong one— one I can respect and understand. But I worry at the same time that the support for this legislation, at least some of it, is so driven by the intense emotion surrounding so many of these hard choices that come with the end of life. I've seen it argued that Question 2 advances a law about Dignity and Personal Choice and yet to read it in detail what one comes away with is the the procedural aspect of it all. What’s being described isn't so much an enabled free choice as an exhaustive protocol, not about the dying and their dignity so much as about the dispensaries and their exposures and liabilities.

There are a great number of problems with the way we regard death (and life) in this society. We've seen some progress in recent years in certain areas —with respect for Living Wills, hospice care —there are improvements we could still stand to make in pain management and palliative care for the suffering, in the support we lend to families of the terminally ill. We might improve the situation with political focus, and it is right that we try. I just question whether 'The Massachusetts Death With Dignity Act' serves to sustain that focus or neatly dispenses with it instead, like a pill. The law would establish means and methods for prescribing suicide as "medicine" and would serve to create a setting for posing the question to the suffering and vulnerable —and with a dramatically changed climate of expectation for the answer.

There are valid ethical reasons that the Mass Medical Society, a professional association of over 24,000 physicians and medical students, has publicly stated opposition to this law.

Might we simply be trying to streamline or contain death for convenience's sake, to tune it to the tempo of our neatly compartmented modern lives? I guess I am suggesting we stop and give that question some thought before we answer 'Question 2' — that we question the culture change this legislation would advance —or perhaps the climate change we might be signaling a surrender. The argument I saw cited recently, that I found especially sobering, was that the majority of those seeking this “medication” —in places where it is already legal like Oregon, were motivated not by pain or a diminished self, but by a fear of losing control, becoming a burden upon their loved ones. Maybe there is some dignity in that pride, something poignant, human and even beautiful. But, as we allow it, I wonder if we aren’t also mistaken, not to take our burdens and the last lessons life and love give us. I wonder if we shouldn't challenge the notion that Dignity is something anyone could ever prescribe with a pill.

And here we are having to judge

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 03:12:00 +0000

There's something strange I've noticed over the past few months, as our presidential politics have been playing out and I've found myself from time to time in exchanges with my more conservative friends, inclined to support Mitt Romney for president. Of course there's always chance to examine President Obama's many faults and failures. We can go over those at length and in depth, but when we try to see Mitt Romney examined or challenged on a point, the response almost always comes that whatever fault's found with Romney, Obama's done the same or worse. It just strikes me odd that, when it comes down to brass tacks, so often the assessment Romney's champions offer in defense of their man is that he's no different from Obama. I won't get into a long list of examples so as not to distract from my point about the latest. Suffice to say we've seen some strange and disparate things judged equivalent.

The latest example comes of Candidate Romney's musings on the composition of the American electorate so recently come to light, his letting out that there's a goodly percentage of the populace —47% I think he figured it— whom he estimates as beneath or at least outside his concern. “My job is not to worry about those people,” quoth he. "I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

The immediate response I saw from quite a few conservative friends was to reach for Obama's famous "cling to guns and God" comment from back in 2008 as a comparison. We all remember that one. (There's several of my acquaintances who like to remind me of it every now and then.)

"[I]t's not surprising then that they get bitter, and they cling to guns or religion," then candidate Obama said. The soundbyte was a big seller.

Wasn't this just the same kind of unguarded comment that Romney is now suffering over?

But I've got to counter that, while these may be similarly unguarded moments, the substance of what these men said is worth considering. And there is some awfully important contrast there.

Back in '08 Obama was speaking to campaign volunteers and allowing for some exasperation at demagogue appeals to "guns and God" (and the intimation that he posed a threat to them both) —how these served to distract from the substantive policy issues that actually do effect people's lives. (Look to Romney's pledge not to take God off of our coinage as a fine more recent example). While Obama was expressing frustration at the cultivated and ingrained skepticism he and his campaign faced, he still sought to reach the voters he was describing. His comments came as he urged his campaign to persist in trying to persuade."You know, we’ll have a series of talking points. But the truth is that our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's no evidence of that in their daily lives." What the candidate was telling his campaign was that every voter deserved attention, whether they appeared to be a part of some rival demographic base or not.

I don't think you can characterize Romney's remarks that way.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right? There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it... These are people who pay no taxes...

[M]y job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

There were whole segments of the population Romney was writing off as essentially not his concern with those words. Winning office would be about persuading some other "5 to 10 percent in the middle" (between the Lowly and the Ascendent) to side with him. That's what this campaign would be about.

Apologists now explain Romney was only talking candidly about political realities of the election contest. The candidate's wife tells us really he "does not disdain the poor" —for all his resignation about their sense of personal responsibility. Sorry, but Mitt Romney's apologists saying that he was only talking about the election strategy and not the governing —and that this somehow makes what he said more acceptable— misses the point, not just the point of my argument, but the point of the design to our political system.

There’s an important distinction between democratic debate and mere election strategy. In the former you make your case for the truth and the proper course for the country as you see it and you offer it even to people who might disagree with you or challenge you. Every now and then you might even improve your position by considering the criticism you receive. In the latter you’re no longer interested in engaged argument. The contest is all and the contest is about stirring your base and suppressing your opponent’s. You might win that contest, but you gain nothing in the process. You only expend resources. While you might secure the levers of power (until the next contest) you do not lead by the merit of consistent ideas.

I’m inclined to forgive Barack Obama for sticking his foot in it about "guns and God" back in the day, because the context he did it in was an argument about reaching past skepticism and appealing on the level of reason, even to those you might see as your opponent's base, those who might disagree with you. I’m less inclined to forgive Romney’s gaffe, as his argument was just the opposite. He described a mass of the electorate to circumscribe and dismiss, to work past rather than treat as fellow citizens to engage and respect.

The image that comes to mind is of Solomon from the old Bible story, with the two women and one baby before him: two women with apparently equivalent claims that he had to judge. One was willing to see the child cut approximately in half, the other not.

And here we are having to judge.

Sniffing at the sweet smell of success

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 23:59:00 +0000

Well, I went and did it. I sat down and gave a listen to Mitt Romney's speech to the GOP convention from last week. I hadn't found the time to give it a fair airing to my mind until this past weekend. (It was a busy week, last week.) So forgive me if I'm posting on the topic of old news.

I guess I have to say Romney's acceptance of the nomination wasn't a bad speech, all in all. I think it sounded the right sonics for the candidate as he moves into final campaign mode. There was a decent mixture of platitude and stirring stuff. I'll grant that and, smartly, at least at first, he toned down some of the Obama bashing and affected a more measured respectful —and potentially presidential— tone. With any election that involves challenging an incumbent, one of the things you have to allow for —and even actively pursue — is winning the support of voters who supported your opponent the last time out. Blaming them for voting in a guy who hates God and freedom and doesn't even understand what being an American is —well, let's say that's something of a hard place to do that from. Romney's speech at its core was about making that path from a vote for Obama in 2008 to a different place this year.

[As aside, I've always thought one of the things that cost John Kerry in '04 was the implicit message of his campaign that only a completely ignorant bigot and utter fool could ever have supported his opponent.]

So it was that instead of the usual harangue, Romney posed the picture of an America that had come to together despite party differences and with good wishes for the new president as he set out upon his term of office these three and a half years ago. We all wished the president well, Candidate Romney recalled, that's just the way we are —we wanted him to succeed as we wanted America to succeed —it's only fair if we're disappointed with him now...

Luckily, I was seated far enough away from my computer as I heard this that I managed not to spray the machine's delicate circuitry with the coffee that came spewing from my mouth and nose. I gasped at the notion: Wished him well? Wanted him to succeed? This from the same man who in January of 2009 —about, oh, a little over one week into the Obama administration— was complaining that he shouldn't be expected to support "failed policies" —the same political party whose Senate Leader announced at the very dawn of the administration that his 'number one priority' was going to be seeing to it that Barack Obama serves but a single term.

Succeed... ha.

But I suppose I shouldn't complain. Even the suggested conceit that this cooperative atmosphere once existed might be somehow useful. It could be the seedling sense that it could happen one day... "again." Could this be Romney's... hope? (Not that he'd ever use the term) at least if he's elected anyway?

Actually this word "success" has been turning in my own little stone tumbler of a skull ever since I watched Romney's speech (and wiped off my desk). There came another telling moment for me in the candidate's speech, it was when he let into President Obama for somehow being against success. Romney had given a brief listing (somewhat selective some might argue) of the "success stories" he could tell about his years at Bain Capital."These are American success stories," Romney said. "And yet the centerpiece of the President's entire re-election campaign is attacking success. Is it any wonder that someone who attacks success has led the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression? In America, we celebrate success, we don't apologize for it."

I'm going to go out on a limb here and posit that President Obama doesn't dislike, attack or apologize for success in itself. We could maybe argue over whether he too much dislikes, attacks and would feel awfully sorry to see Mitt Romney succeed at getting elected president, but that's another discussion I think. I'm wondering if maybe what is really at issue between our two candidates and their political parties, is how we define that term —success. The President doesn't attack or apologize for success, but he does challenge the selective narrative of Mitt Romney's "success stories." Should the same definition of success that a CEO uses in the corporate boardroom serve for the President of The United States? Do the Community Organizer and The CEO have different and equaly valid definitions for us to work with? Should we figure out how to best combine them?

That might be a discussion worth having.

Just maybe the problem of defining success cuts right to the heart of the matter. The bottom line is something we all have to be aware of, but a true accounting of whether that bottom line describes a success or failure —a moving forward or a sliding back— involves seeing it from the perspective of the whole, not the individual player —or even your team in the contest. The short term profit taking that dismantles and outsources industrial capacity might score as a success and a profit on the level of an investor transaction, while bearing only cost to the men and women who worked in that industry, to the communities formed by those men and women, to the society that had made a place for that work. Romney rightly remarked that pursuing success in business involves investing effort and taking risks and even accepting the occasional failure. But what I question is whether he sees beyond the loss that you enter in a ledger, that you shrug off in the working balance —or view philosophically as 'creative destruction'— to the loss that cuts deeper than that. I wonder if he has an answer for the whole, both those who profit and those who lose. To ask such a question isn't to attack success in general or even Mitt Romney in particular. It's to pose a challenge I want to see him meet, successfully.

Early on in the convention we heard Mitt Romney praised for the hard truths he would tell us —once we elect him president. It seems to me a little something more to this definition of success would be a good place to start. There's got to be more to his success stories than the aura of his estimable wealth —there's just a little complexity to that sweet smell of success. We would be remiss if we didn't sniff at it just a little.

Fine print

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 16:29:00 +0000

We all remember the ruckus when a while back the President let out with the comment that "the private sector's doing fine." The howls of indignant protest went up about a president who was out of touch, aloof, a man who did not feel our pain. Maybe some of the criticism the comment earned the President was warranted, while he was trying to parse a distinction worth noting (that what private sector recovery we do have is being factored back by the broad effect of austerity on public sector employment), he was losing the forest for noting the different species of tree. The big picture should be better. His job is to have some sense of that.

That said, I think it's almost poetic that President Obama's opposing number came out with words very much along the same lines this past week. Alex Klein writing for the Daily Beast describes "Romney's gaffe" this way:

Romney Thursday night declared—to a group of rich donors, no less—that “big business is doing fine in many places,” partly because these larger corporations “know how to find ways [to] save money by putting various things in the places where there are low tax havens around the world.”

Business doing "fine" —the political sonics of Romney's use of the word are every bit as ripe for exploitation in our political climate as when the President found himself excoriated for saying much the same thing. Klein points out:

Romney’s words on taxes play to practically all of his core, and major, political weaknesses. Highlighting “big business” success resonates with the corporate fat-cat caricature. Attributing that success to “low tax havens” is even worse: a reminder of Romney’s own vast global holdings – from Bermuda, to Switzerland, to the Cayman’s – which have allowed him to defer his tax burden and multiply investor wealth far from American shores.

But the worst part of "Romney's gaffe" —Klein notes— is that he is right.

“Big businesses” are doing disproportionately well in the slowly recovering economy. And those large corporations do take disproportionate advantage of complicated, compliance-intensive global tax deferral strategies and holding companies. The truth of Romney’s words–combined with their applicability to his own professional fortunes–only makes them more politically toxic.

I'll admit that when I first read Klein's piece my glib reaction was that electing Romney as a tax reformer to champion fairness would be a little bit like asking Howard Stern to head up the FCC... so as to restore tact and decorum to the airways. But in fairness, as Klein himself cites a Romney spokesman, "Governor Romney has long said we need to simplify the tax code, close loopholes and create a more level playing field for American businesses.” With his Bain resume´ (or should I say 'portfolio?) we can certainly allow that Romney knows the topography of that somewhat less than level playing field as it lies. Maybe he has some good ideas about how to level it. Maybe you could compare us asking Romney to reform our tax system with FDR asking a free-wheeling financier like Joseph P. Kennedy to head up the SEC back in the day.

But I would suppose this is where the fine print starts to matter. The question arises: what exactly does Candidate Romney propose?

The Tax Policy Center released a report earlier this month, a paper that "documented both the promise and the difficulty of base-broadening, rate-lowering tax reform," as Donald Marron put it in a piece for Forbes magazine:

[The TPC Report] found, subject to certain assumptions..., that any revenue-neutral plan along the lines Governor Romney has outlined would reduce taxes for high-income households, requiring higher taxes on middle- or low-income households.

In a kindly frame of mind, Marron hedges:

I doubt that’s his intent, but it is an implication of what we can tell about his plan so far. (We look forward to updating our analysis, of course, if and when Governor Romney provides more details.)

There's the rub, though... those details.

In the the most polite language possible, Marron's piece in Forbes qualifies The Tax Policy Center report:

"...the authors had to confront a fundamental challenge: Governor Romney has not offered a fully-specified plan... As a political matter, such reticence is understandable."

And if we let Romney get away with that reticence, right up to election day, well... that will be on us. It will be on the dumbed down nature of our own debate.

This past weekend the Obama camp was busy crying foul over Romney's inept attempt at standup comedy, at a bad birther joke that bombed. (On the very same day Romney was opining 'fine' about the current state of big business, he apparently announced, tongue in cheek, to an audience in Michigan that he had his birth certificate —or that he didn't need one —or something like that.) "We don't need a birther-in-chief" went up the silly umbrage of an instantly produced Obama campaign ad —so avidly missing the substantive forest for the silly-ass trees. I'd much rather have seen them challenging Mitt Romney to explain what exactly he means to do about the fine mess he seems to know so well... "big business doing fine" while so many others struggle.

It might not make for loud enough political advertising copy, or serve for a pithy post for your facebook page, but as voters we are going to have to get down to the fine print as we make this decision in November. What Mitt Romney means —what Barack Obama means to do about "the private sector doing fine" or "big business doing fine" while a lot of the rest of the country still staggers and strains for a fully realized recovery, that has to be our focus —that is the substance of the decision at hand.

I read the news today, oh boy

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:35:00 +0000

The other day I received a complimentary copy of a new local newspaper. It was Edition 1 of "The Middlesex Times" nicely tied off from the summer rain in a clear plastic bag and waiting there on my doorstep. Cool, I said to myself —I like to do crossword puzzles. But first there was the matter of the news stories, sizing up the whole of this new rag, maybe the publication even had an opinion page. It would be interesting to see if there was a new and distinct perspective in the offing —on current events, local, regional, national.

The top story, page 1 was an article on the announcement of a candidate for state rep in our area. Now, I'll admit this is a candidate I've already taken something of a dim view of —that's my bias. He ran for U.S. Congress recently, too, and I found him to be something of an empty sloganeer, someone who was big on selling disdain for the incumbent of the office he wanted, not so big on offering much coherent in the way of policy he would put into effect himself. He's struck me as something in the order of a Sarah Palin, but maybe without her level of intellectual rigor. But, like I said, that's my bias and news is news, so running with the headline about this candidate declaring his candidacy was fine.

I scanned the article though and found it was remarkably lacking in what a grouch like me might call journalistic integrity. It was the puff the candidate's campaign likely supplied. Hey, I said to myself, in a forgiving frame of mind, this sort of thing happens with small papers. They hunger for stories and sometimes pass stuff like this on as content without any real editorial scrutiny. Then I looked to the next story down, occupying the rest of the front page. That, too, was a story on this candidate and his agenda.

I opened to the center spread of the paper. This looked more like it. There was a "Letters to the Editor" section and a "Report from Beacon Hill" —oddly enough both were entirely focused upon the wrongs of the incumbent state rep that the candidate so prominently covered on page 1 was trying to unseat. There were a couple more stories on the opposite page, more of the same.

Just as I had hoped there was an editorial to be found there, too. But you had to be careful to notice it. Because if you just gave it a quick scan it didn't come off as an editorial at all, it looked for all the world like none other than U.S. Senator Scott Brown was endorsing this candidate. With a big headline reading that this candidate "Deserves Our Vote" and a picture of the candidate standing with Scott Brown, both of them grinning wide, the story reads very much as an endorsement concluding "we strongly believe" this candidate will be "the same type of leader for us at the State House." It's just that it is not signed by Scott Brown. He's not even quoted. The "we" who so strongly believe —these were the editors of this new paper. This was their editorial voice.

I turned to the last page of this new publication and found a full page spread of "People on the Street" supporting you'll never guess who for State Representative. And, maybe not surprisingly, on the bottom of the page was what was plainly an advertisement calling to elect this same candidate.

Alas, there was no crossword puzzle.

Nowhere on this publication is it stated that this material is campaign literature paid for by the candidate's election committee. Maybe it's not. Maybe there's some clever conceit here that allows for the slight of hand and it's all well and fine to pretend to be the local news, to blur and fog the line between journalism and vanity press. Maybe I shouldn't be bothered by this. I'm sure some of the philosophers among us will opine that the difference between this concoction —just some vaguely deceptive direct mail marketing— and the bought and sold media access of major campaigns is only a matter of degree and subtlety. Heck, maybe Scott Brown will eventually come around and endorse this candidate. Should we fault the dreamer (and "the editors" of the The Middlesex Times) for dreaming it first?

Who's to say?

Ryan shrugged

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 15:58:00 +0000

"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

~Ayn Rand

I'm okay with Mitt Romney's choice of running mate. I actually think Paul Ryan will bring something of substance to the fore in our debate and that is good. There is "The Ryan Plan" after all. I may challenge certain of its assumptions and proposals, but at least they've been made explicit such that they can be challenged, subjected to the critique our political process is premised upon.

From what I've observed, Ryan's conservatism appears to be deeply and consistently founded —it's genuine conviction for him. And he respects ideas. For a while now I've been hearing him referred to as "the intellectual leader of the GOP" (which you've got to admit is a little like being called one of the great chefs of Ireland —but let's not go there.)

None of that is to say that I am swayed to support a Romney/Ryan ticket. (I know that comes as a shocker.) I am reminded of that point a few months back when Ryan's Budget Proposals were up for detailed scrutiny and groups like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reported that Ryan's plans would eventually end "everything from veterans' programs to medical and scientific research, highways, education, nearly all programs for low-income families." Ryan found his ever so clearly stated budget priorities challenged on their substance —and on basic moral grounds.

Georgetown University Faculty "welcomed" his visiting lecture at about that time "as an opportunity to discuss Catholic social teaching and its role in public policy" —but also noted:

"...we would be remiss in our duty to you and our students if we did not challenge your continuing misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a budget plan that decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few. As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has wisely noted in several letters to Congress – 'a just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons.' Catholic bishops recently wrote that 'the House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.'

In short, your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love."

At the time Ryan didn't like being "pasted with the epistemology" of Ayn Rand. He quickly gave an interview to The National Review in which he stated, “I reject her [Rand's] philosophy. It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview." When it comes to epistemology, he said, "give me Aquinas." (Of course he'd already been given Aquinas and a Papal Encyclical or two to boot.)

There was just one problem with Ryan's avid disavowal of Rand's philosophy, the intellectual leader of the GOP was on record with past comments just a little less fulltroated in terms of rejection. Stuff like:

"Ayn Rand, more than anyone else, did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism."

That was one of his observations. And then there was this little testimonial:

“The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.”

Back in 2003 Ryan had told the Weekly Standard, “I give out ‘Atlas Shrugged’ as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it. Well… I try to make my interns read it.” [Ha Ha Ha]

Maybe there's some droll witticism to giving an overlong atrociously written novel by an atheistic philosopher whose ideas are antithetical to your world view as Christmas presents to your interns — a philosopher famous for lines like "What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty" or "Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction."

If there is some clever comment of understated complexity there I have to admit the humor is too subtle for me to understand. It goes beyond irony to the level of the absurd in my view.

I guess I'll just have to shrug.

The months ahead should be interesting anyway.

The joke

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 16:45:00 +0000

When I was at work Friday one of my coworkers tried to make a joke of the Aurora Massacre, something deadpan about equating the mass killing with a really bad review for the movie that was showing. I brushed aside the remark and changed the subject. I wasn't ready to make light of the tragedy, but I wasn't going to get all holier than thou about it either. I can understand that humor is sometimes an instinctive reaction to horror we can't quite comprehend or soberly consider, without weeping.

What struck me a day later, as more and more news came in of the bloodshed —and predictably our media circus took up the topic, with gun control and gun rights activists dispatching their talking heads, images of candles and teardrenched hugs —what struck me was that one of the most pointed poignant expressions I saw came from The Onion News, usually such a great source of round farce.

The headline read : Sadly, Nation Knows Exactly How Colorado Shooting's Aftermath Will Play Out. And the story began:

WASHINGTON—Americans across the nation confirmed today that, unfortunately, due to their extreme familiarity with the type of tragedy that occurred in a Colorado movie theater last night, they sadly know exactly how the events following the horrific shooting of 12 people will unfold.

The joke here, if you'll pardon the expression, is that we have settled upon a pattern, that will repeat and repeat. "It's like clockwork," as the invented expert in the Onion report admits. Then he shakes his head and walks away.

According to the nation's citizenry, calls for a mature, thoughtful debate about the role of guns in American society started right on time, and should persist throughout the next week or so. However, the populace noted, the debate will soon spiral out of control and ultimately lead to nothing of any substance, a fact Americans everywhere acknowledged they felt "absolutely horrible" to be aware of.

Maybe this isn't the kind of humor that helps you avoid weeping.

I have heard it reported that the killer in Aurora fashioned himself as 'The Joker' as he arrived upon the scene of the latest Batman movie premiere. Some even thought in the first moments of the attack that the violence was not real —that it was only some promotional gimmick — a part of some live entertainment prepared especially for the premiere.

The Joker, imagine that.

I may not be as up on my DC Comics cosmology as some, but I do have a few indelibly etched images of 'The Joker' in mind. He's a character who has a sense of himself as someone deeply wronged and his consolation is violence, a violence he practices as something approaching an artform, always with a twist of irony to accompany the rage, so as to laugh rather than weep. The violence is meted out even on the well meaning he sees as foolish and futile, do-good hypocrites who haven't experienced the same soul emptying horror that he has. There is something hilarious in watching as they finally do. Nothing constructive mind you, but it's justice. Hilarious nihilistic justice.

And now reality and fantasy bleed into one another. From what news reports I've seen it doesn't appear that the young man who murdered all those people, who wounded and scarred so many more, had any real cause or point to make —other than the very fact that he was capable of such atrocity.

There's some irony in that, no?

That it might all have simply been this one horrific joke?

A song in mind for Woody

noreply@blogger.com (Tom Driscoll, Profiled!) — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 01:14:00 +0000

It was my freshmen year in high school and I was in English class. We were doing a segment on poetry and had come to study a selection of more contemporary works. The editors of our textbook (and my English teacher, Mrs. Ligon) wanted to show us that poetry was not some dead art from the past, stilted and fallen from its stilts, but rather that it was still a relevant form of expression to understand and appreciate. In among the poetry there were even some songs of somewhat recent issue: Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen. (These were of somewhat recent issue when I was freshmen in high school I'm afraid.) I think Mrs. Ligon even brought out Paul Simon's 'I Am A Rock' and read it aloud to us, comparing it with John Donne's 'No Man Is An Island' which we had studied earlier.

But what I mean to consider here is this one particular song, by one particular writer. I don't believe we studied this one in the classroom, but it was there I was reading through the textbook and I came across it, 'Plane Wreck at Los Gatos' (Deportee) by Woody Guthrie. I'd heard just a fragment of the song only recently on the radio, I recognized that. My father had winced at the singers (Dylan and Baez) doing discordant harmonies and "singing about rotten vegetables" —as Dad put it.

But what really struck me, there in the classroom as I read the song lyrics, was the short footnote at the bottom of the page. It gave the story of how the song had come to be written, how Guthrie, back in 1948, had heard the radio reports and read the newspaper accounts of a tragic plane crash in Los Gatos Canyon in California. The crash had resulted in the deaths of 32 people, 4 American citizens and 28 migrant farm workers who were being deported from California back to Mexico. None of the migrant workers were named in the reports, only the flight crew and security guard —only the "real" Americans. As for the others, as Guthrrie said in his song, "the radio said they are just deportees."

I read the lyrics again. "The crops are all in and the peaches are rott'ning. The oranges piled in their creosote dumps." There was the part my dad had made light of. "They're flying them back to the Mexico Border to pay all their money to wade back again." This was the subtle more telling part. Who or what is flying who or what back? So you start with the workers juxtaposed with the crop itself, faceless objects on a par with the "oranges piled high in their creosote dumps" —but then the song does something amazing.

Goodbye to my Juan, goodbye, Rosalita,
Adios mis amigos, Jesus y Maria;
You won't need names when you ride the big airplane,
All they will call you will be "deportees"

This was my high school in the early 1970's and the '60's were just behind us. I'd heard about protest songs before and wondered about the form —what exactly was the point of politics that rhymed, that you sang, that got strummed along with on the guitar. (As you might have gathered it wasn't a genre greatly appreciated around my household.)

But 'Plane Wreck at Los Gatos' wasn't mere protest song. Or if it was protest, it was also something more. It struck me just then that this song didn't merely complain of the injustice and indignity of treating these "illegals" as nameless faceless objects who ended "scattered like dry leaves" lifeless on the canyon floor. The song pointed to and challenged that nameless fate —and changed it, with those names.

"Juan, Rosalita —adios mis amigos, Jesus y Maria."

Something powerful happened for me in that moment, in my high school English class, as I quietly read to myself, as I took in the song and the stories behind the song. I suppose I appreciated something of that import of poetry and song that my teachers wanted me to gather in, but I was also forever changed in my perception of "illegals" —I learned something of the meaning in a name —the difference between a name and a label. I learned how words can be powerful and terrible, inspiring and sobering. To this day whenever I find myself involved in or witness to some abstract discussion about "immigration reform" and someone uses that term "illegals" something of that song sounds inside of me. I think of those names. I am that much reminded of their human faces. And I take that as a gift —and I thank Woody Guthrie.

This July 14th is Guthrie's 100th birthday. Maybe for some the day will be just another Bastille Day —a day for The Rights of Man and red wine and soft cheese —a day to pause in the summer heat, hoist the tricolor flag and harken to La Marseillaise.

Not so for me. There's another song I'll have in mind.