News Items

Rachel Maddow reported last week that the Koch brothers, Charles and David, increased their net worth from about 32 billion dollars to about 50 billion dollars over the last three years. During that same time, the number of employees of Koch Industries fell from about 50,000 to about 32,000.

But we mustn't tax them any more, because that would inhibit their ability to create jobs.

The most recent ploy of people who would like to deny global warming is to allege there also is global warming on Mars, and therefore any planetary warming here is a natural phenomenon and we shouldn't try to stop it. And so, business as usual.

A quick check of Internet sources indicates that one (count 'em, one) climate scientist in Russia makes the claim about warming on Mars, and the consequent argument that warming on earth is nothing to be concerned about is refuted by all other climate scientists.

That's not to say the one scientist can't be right and all the other scientists are wrong, but we would be well advised to go with the preponderance of the evidence.

And whatever Governor Perry says, the idea that there's a conspiracy among climatologists and Al Gore to trumpet warming in order to win more government grants for climate study is just farcical.

President Obama was in Denver Tueday to campaign for his jobs bill. Yesterday's local newspaper here in Colo Spgs editorialized that the bill is a boondoggle and there must not be any tax law changes, because, "when you give money to some people, you have to take it away from other people." (Not an exact quote, but gives the spirit of what was written.)

Well, first of all, this is an odd argument coming from anyone who believes in supply side economics, and the idea that cutting taxes actually increases government revenues. Either it's a zero sum economy or it isn't guys.

Second, money has been taken from people of modest means for the last ten years and redistributed upward to the Koch brothers and others like them. If it's to be redistributed any more, I'd like it to be redistributed to people like myself for a change.

Finally, the president's job bill differs from the bailouts of two years ago in that it's aimed at public works rather than the financial apparatus of the country. Driving along local roads, I'm more than convinced that there's work to be done, even if it's nothing more grandiose than filling potholes. By the way, the same paper that bemoans the president's bill splashed a story this week, enthusiastically recommending widening Interstate 25 through our town at a cost of many millions of dollars.

No wonder people are confused.

Integrity

I was thinking recently about my life as a park ranger, and recalled an episode from about 1976, when I was still rather green and had little experience, especially in the law enforcement function.

I was at a party and two more experienced rangers were talking. One said, "If I need to shade the truth a little to get some dirtbag off the streets (or out of the park) I'm willing to do it."

The second ranger said he had two problems with that. First, if you don't adhere to the truth any defense lawyer worth anything will make a monkey out of you on cross-examination. And second, he said, "When you put your hand on the Bible and swear to tell the truth, you gotta tell the truth."

I agreed with the second ranger, for both reasons. Years later when I was a chief ranger, one of my best moments came when a clerk of magistrate's court approached me after a session and said, "Your rangers have the best reputation for honesty of any federal officers we see here."

I was gratified, naturally, but it worried me that other feds might be shading things to gain convictions.

And I'm relating this little story now just to say that honesty is the best policy and many of us learn that from bitter experience.

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Egghead and Blockheads

By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: September 17, 2011

• RECOMMEND
• TWITTER
• LINKEDIN
• COMMENTS (330)
• SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
• PRINT
• REPRINTS
• SHARE

WASHINGTON

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Go to Columnist Page »

Related

• Times Topic: Rick Perry

Related in Opinion

• Op-Ed Columnist: Rick Perry, Uber Texan (September 18, 2011)

• Editorial: Governor Perry’s Vaccine Tribulations(September 18, 2011)

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (330) »

THERE are two American archetypes that were sometimes played against each other in old Westerns.

The egghead Eastern lawyer who lacks the skills or stomach for a gunfight is contrasted with the tough Western rancher and ace shot who has no patience for book learnin’.

The duality of America’s creation story was vividly illustrated in “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance,” the 1962 John Ford Western.

Jimmy Stewart is the young attorney who comes West to Shinbone and ends up as a U.S. senator after gaining fame for killing the sadistic outlaw Liberty Valance, played by Lee Marvin. John Wayne is the rancher, a fast-draw Cyrano who hides behind a building and actually shoots Marvin because he knows Stewart is hopeless in a duel. He does it even though they’re in love with the same waitress, who chooses the lawyer because he teaches her to read.

A lifetime later, on the verge of becoming a vice presidential candidate, Stewart confesses the truth to a Shinbone newspaperman, who refuses to print it. “When the legend becomes fact,” the editor says, “print the legend.”

At the cusp of the 2012 race, we have a classic cultural collision between a skinny Eastern egghead lawyer who’s inept in Washington gunfights and a pistol-totin’, lethal-injectin’, square-shouldered cowboy who has no patience for book learnin’.

Rick Perry, from the West Texas town of Paint Creek, is no John Wayne, even though he has a ton of executions notched on his belt. But he wears a pair of cowboy boots with the legend “Liberty” stitched on one. (As in freedom, not Valance.) He plays up the effete-versus-mesquite stereotypes in his second-grade textbook of a manifesto, “Fed Up!”

Trashing Massachusetts, he writes: “They passed state-run health care, they have sanctioned gay marriage, and they elected Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Barney Frank repeatedly — even after actually knowing about them and what they believe! Texans, on the other hand, elect folks like me. You know the type, the kind of guy who goes jogging in the morning, packing a Ruger .380 with laser sights and loaded with hollow-point bullets, and shoots a coyote that is threatening his daughter’s dog.”

At a recent campaign event in South Carolina, Perry grinned, “I’m actually for gun control — use both hands.”

Traveling to Lynchburg, Va., to speak to students at Liberty University (as in Falwell, not Valance), Perry made light of his bad grades at Texas A&M.

Studying to be a veterinarian, he stumbled on chemistry and made a D one semester and an F in another. “Four semesters of organic chemistry made a pilot out of me,” said Perry, who went on to join the Air Force.

“His other D’s,” Richard Oppel wrote in The Times, “included courses in the principles of economics, Shakespeare, ‘Feeds & Feeding,’ veterinary anatomy and what appears to be a course called ‘Meats.’ ”

He even got a C in gym.

Perry conceded that he “struggled” with college, and told the 13,000 young people in Lynchburg that in high school, he had graduated “in the top 10 of my graduating class — of 13.”

It’s enough to make you long for W.’s Gentleman’s C’s. At least he was a mediocre student at Yale. Even Newt Gingrich’s pseudo-intellectualism is a relief at this point.

Our education system is going to hell. Average SAT scores are falling, and America is slipping down the list of nations for college completion. And Rick Perry stands up with a smirk to talk to students about how you can get C’s, D’s and F’s and still run for president.

The Texas governor did help his former chief of staff who went to lobby for a pharmaceutical company that donated to Perry, so he at least knows the arithmetic of back scratching.

Perry told the students, “God uses broken people to reach a broken world.” What does that even mean?

The Republicans are now the “How great is it to be stupid?” party. In perpetrating the idea that there’s no intellectual requirement for the office of the presidency, the right wing of the party offers a Farrelly Brothers “Dumb and Dumber” primary in which evolution is avant-garde.

Having grown up with a crush on William F. Buckley Jr. for his sesquipedalian facility, it’s hard for me to watch the right wing of the G.O.P. revel in anti-intellectualism and anti-science cant.

Sarah Palin, who got outraged at a “gotcha” question about what newspapers and magazines she read, is the mother of stupid conservatism. Another “Don’t Know Much About History” Tea Party heroine, Michele Bachmann, seems rather proud of not knowing anything, simply repeating nutty, inflammatory medical claims that somebody in the crowd tells her.

So we’re choosing between the overintellectualized professor and blockheads boasting about their vacuity?

The occupational hazard of democracy is know-nothing voters. It shouldn’t be know-nothing candidates.

And Now a Word from Our Sponsor

My sister Jeanne posted the other day to say an anonymous donor will match all contributions to the Valley Interfaith Child Care Center made before November 30.

VICCC serves the working poor of southwest Virginia by providing quality licensed daycare facilities for preschool children at low cost to their parents, enabling the parents to gain employment. This in turn allows the parents to break the poverty cycle that ensnares so many of our fellow Americans. The center serves children of all religious faiths or no religious faith and has been a boon to single parents for the better part of a decade now.

You can find their website at valleyinterfaithchildcarecenter.org. Remember, your donation will be matched dollar for dollar if made before November 30.

Make a donation. You'll like the reflection you see in your mirror if you do.

A Little Logic Lesson

Michelle Bachman says a woman approached her after the recent Republican presidential debate, claiming her daughter became mentally retarded after being vaccinated against cervical cancer as mandated by Governor Rick Perry of Texas. Ms. Bachman had excoriated Perry during the debate on this subject. According to Ms. Bachman, Perry forced little adolescent girls to undergo the vaccination, implying the wishes of the girls' parents were ignored by the governor.

This is an illustration of the difference between scientific and anecdotal information. Consider: the little girl had the vaccine, then became "retarded." (I object to the term.) Therefore, the vaccine must have caused the retardation. But we all know that other factors might have been the cause. The mere fact that two events occur does not mean the first event caused the second event.

Even if the vaccine did cause the girl's difficulties, that doesn't necessarily invalidate the vaccination program. If a million people undergo a process and one is affected adversely that doesn't mean the process is so flawed that it should be abandoned. How many cases of cervical cancer were averted by the vaccine?

My wife jokingly (I think) has established a "Married to Barils Support Group." I'm not sure if they're trying to support those of us who have that surname or if it's intended to support one another, but their motto is "We could have done worse!"

I bring this up thinking of the 2009 stimulus act and the president's new proposal for public works. All the Republicans chorus that the 2009 bill did nothing to right the economy because the unemployment rate rose even after the act was passed and the money was spent. Therefore, the stimulus package was a failure, and should not be repeated. Governor Perry insists the stimulus did not create a single job, without citing any statistics or other information.

Once again, if one thing precedes another thing, it doesn't mean the first thing caused the second thing.

So, I think President Obama should borrow my wife's slogan for his re-election effort. "We could have done worse!" Where would we be if the government hadn't acted to stimulate the economy in 2009?

1 Samuel

About a month ago I mentioned that I make a practice of reading a different book from the Bible each summer. This year, after some thought and soliciting opinions, I decided on 1 Samuel, a prequel if you will, to the story of David told in 2 Samuel.

1 Samuel begins with a rather lengthy account of Samuel's heritage and tells how he became a prophet of God. We then learn how the Ark of the Covenant was taken from the Israelites for a time before it was returned in the seemingly endless skirmishing between the Hebrews and the Philistines.

When Samuel was already an old man the Jews requested a king to judge over them and God acceded to their request, even though Samuel had his doubts about the wisdom of a monarchy. God reveals that his choice for king is Saul and Samuel duly anoints the big man.

Saul becomes king and all seems well. The Philistines are routed and Saul governs well, but swears an oath that his men will not eat on a day of battle. His son Jonathan innocently violates the prohibition and defends himself, saying the food made him stronger for the battle. Later, Saul violates God's command that the Israelites kill all the people of Amelek. Saul lets some of them go while he plunders their town and lands. For this, God rejects Saul, not for his lenience so much as for his disobedience.

Samuel then is dispatched to Bethlehem, to the family of Jesse, where God directs him to Jesse's youngest son, David. Saul retreats into melancholy and the Philistines rise again, folowing their huge champion, Goliath.

What happens next is one of the most famous stories in the Bible. You all probably know it, so I'll skip ahead to David's growing friendship with Saul's son, the same Jonathan already mentioned. Saul himself enters into a difficult relationship with David, twice trying to kill him, while David refrains from killing the old king though he twice has golden opportunities to do so.

Saul is mercurial, one day telling David he is the rightful heir and giving his daughter Michel to David and the next plotting to kill him. David for his part enlists Jonathan as a kind of spy in Saul's own house and artfully dodges all Saul's attempts to do away with him.

The story skips around in time somewhat. Samuel dies in Chapter 25, but is still around later to offer advice, whether it is requested or not. David spares the life of a miser named Nabal when his wife Abigail begs David not to kill him and brings cakes and other food offerings to David and his men. Nabal conveniently dies from heart failure shortly afterward and Abigail quickly becomes another wife to David.

Saul. distraught, and lacking God's counsel, goes so far as to consult a witch, after which Samuel appears to berate him again. Amelek and Saul's failure to be sufficiently bloodthirsty comes up in the conversation. Saul despairs but the Amaleks reappear and David, aided by an escaped slave, attacks and routs them, killing indiscriminately. Then the Philistines come back once again and in the battle that ensues Saul and his sons are all killed. The way is now finally open for David to take the throne of Israel.

Well, that's the story in brief. Reading it I was astonished by how the Israelites interpreted (I'd say garbled) God's will. The hard God who insists on merciless warfare is certainly at odds with the loving God I've always heard about.

Saul fascinates me, poor paranoid man. By any modern lights he hadn't done so badly, allowing some Amalekites to flee the battlefield, and for that God withdraws his favor and gives it to a kid, David. He likes David, complicating the situation, but resents him at the same time, to the point where he tries to kill the younger man. His relationship with Jonathan also is freighted with psychological meaning. We assume he loved his son as more modern fathers love their offspring. He must have been driven to distraction by what he could only have believed was his son's disloyalty.

Well, that's my reading of the story. I'd welcome any comments.

Home | Downton Abbey

Home | Downton Abbey:

'via Blog this'

Time and Thyme Again

And now, we once again present Grammar Guy, proof that I was paying attention in ninth grade English class, whatever Mr. Aiello tells you.

Today, Grammar Guy looks at objects of prepositions, those nasty little words that throw so many of us for a loop. Prepositions are the words that describe place.

Over, under, around and through are all prepositions. They must be followed by words in the objective case: ergo, objects of prepositions. Just between you and me, it isn't very difficult.

Or so you'd think. Many people have trouble with the whole thing. I, for one, almost always got it wrong, and was frequently chastised (yes, chastised!) by Mr. Aiello. Somehow, I just couldn't figure it out. So, here's a little way to cheat. Think of the the objects in plural form. You wouldn't say "between we," you'd get it right by saying "between us." Therefore, use the objective form when using singular objects - "between you and me."

Well, that's about it for today. I'm reminded, however, of an old wheeze about the convict who was told he could get an early release if he seduced the warden's wife, but decided not to try it because he didn't want to end his sentence with a proposition.

Next time (or thyme) I'll be ready to look at 1 Samuel, so gird your loins, find some pebbles for your sling and watch this space!

Corporate People

So, if corporations are people, does that mean a corporation can be charged with a crime? Lets say a company markets a product that injures or kills someone. Would that company be arrested and tried for murder, manslaughter, negligence, maiming or anything else? And if convicted would the company have to serve a prison term or, if in Texas, get the big needle?

Of course, you can't execute a company in the conventional sense, but you could put it out of business. Its assets and liabilities would be liquidated and its employees - all of them, starting with the CEO - would be fired.

If a company is a person, then shouldn't it be taxed at the same rate as any ordinary person, without all the incentives and deductions companies rely on now? No special deductions for "enterprise zones," no incentives to move into a new area, no depreciation allowances. For the record, I think I'm depreciating at a steady, sometimes alarming rate, and I want a depreciation allowance from the government myself. I know, I get a second exemption on my income tax when I turn 65, but as J.G. Wentworth's ads say, "I want it now!"

I'm just asking here is all.

Canadian Oil Sands (Part Two)

I am feeling very pessimistic today, almost in despair, so get ready for a rant.

President Obama, the Great Compromiser, will approve the pipeline through America's heartland. He might couch his approval with some kind words for environmentalists, but the fact is he's thinking so much about re-election that he can't even see the right thing much less do it. No Democrat will rise to challenge him for the 2012 nomination, so we'll be faced with Obama or a Republican who will be only too happy to sell our nation's future to the moneyed few to the detriment of everyone else.

The pipeline will be built, temporary employment will be provided for some construction workers and engineers, but afterwards they'll be cast right back into the pile of the unemployed, and any real effort to wean us from reliance on the slippery fluid will be postponed.

The price for our short-sightedness and outright greed will be paid by baby Violet and her many contemporaries, who will come to maturity as the oil runs out and no provision has been made for their future except an impoverished landscape and people without hope.

I salute the brave few who have put their bodies on the line, accepting arrest in front of the White House to dramatize our opposition to this fiasco. It almost makes me wish I still live in Virginia, so I'd be close enough to make my way to the capital and get arrested too.

But it will make no difference. Political power in this country is now wielded in boardrooms and fueled with campaign contributions from our newest citizens, our corporations. Any politician brave enough to contradict their plutocratic agenda is buried beneath an avalanche of unfair advertising, and President Obama knows it. So he will not, cannot, be bold.

To add insult to injury, the egregious editor of my hometown newspaper, noting that eight of the hottest ten summers on record here have occurred in the last ten years, now admits to global warming but claims it's all natural and therefore there's nothing we can or should do about it.

DOOM, DOOM, DOOM.