Montana and Arcana

I'm writing this in a condo in Anaconda, Montana, on a week's vacation with my wife Kris, sister Jeanne and her husband, Dave. We're having a great time despite the inconvenience of a heavy duty cold we're passing around among us. Right now it's mine.

Last Thursday we made it as far as Sheridan Wyoming, where we stayed at a motel in a building that had once been a flour mill. Wyoming is the least populated state and driving across it you can certainly believe the census takers. Then on Friday we went on across northern Wyoming to Cody, through some light snow, and saw a family of moose (or possibly horses, they were at quite a distance). The Chief Joseph Scenic Highway was still closed for the season so we had to detour through  some other very pretty  country, but made it to Montana by nightfall.

Anaconda Montana was a very large town back in the days when copper was being extracted from the earth here. In fact, the town was to be called "Copperopolis," but believe it or not the name was already taken. Now the mines are largely gone and the town has shrunk, though still vibrant.   

Montana is wonderful, almost more scenery than we can stand. Yesterday we drove to Glacier National Park,  round trip nearly 500 miles. We saw mile after mile of rounded hills carved by glaciers now long gone, and pointy young mountains covered in snow. Part of the trip was through the Flathead Indian reservation, with roadsigns in both English and the local language, with an alphabet designed by Dr. Seuss, I think.

Montana has legalized casino gambling, so everywhere you look there's another gambling parlor. Some are surprisingly small. We peeked in the door of a casino at a gas station and saw about a dozen slot machines and a couple of weary-looking players. So, if you're ready to risk the monthly mortgage payment or the kids' college funds, there are people in Montana who will be more than happy to relieve you of your cash.

We haven't seen much wildlife yet, and that a little disappointing. Much of the Going-to-the-Sun Road is still closed at Glacier, and the portion of the park we drove on runs along the shore of McDonald Lake and is bounded on the other side by steep slopes. We did take a short hike up one of those slopes, constantly alert for grizzly bears, or other bears for that matter. I had purchased a small cannister of pepper spray in case we were confronted by a bear, so clung to it, ready to repel a man or woman eater, but no bears, and no sign of bears.

Dinner was in Missoula, a very attractive town with a restaurant that specializes in tapas, those mini-sized portions of food that always seem to be extremely tasty. Missoula appears to be the cultural capital of Montana, whereas Butte, near where we're staying, is described as a little "rough  around the edges." Whatever that means - possibly that you shouldn't order daiquiris in a bar there.

Did I mention that we took a scenic drive on Saturday that included a trek up rough dirt roads (very bad for the shine I had just put on the car, and nerve-wracking concerning the possibility we might get stuck) to an old mining town, now inhabited only by ghosts? Southern Cross was its name, and it was occupied in the late 19th century mostly by Swedish and Finnish immigrants. When the mines played out, the miners drifted away, just leaving their buildings behind. Most of the buildings are gone now, but a few remain and we enjoyed seeing them.

Later today we'll visit a nearby state park where mountain sheep and goats are said to be residents, and tomorrow we'll visit Yellowstone, confident we'll get to see the animals that have eluded us so far. Wednesday and Thursday will be our days for seeing the local sights before we cannonball back to Colorado on Friday. If it's not quite the vacation of a lifetime, it's certainly good enough for us.

Baseball, 2012

It's baseball season again, time for a comment or two about my two favorite teams. Like first love, my love for the Boston Red Sox will last as long as I do, but in the past half-dozen years I've also developed a liking for the Colorado Rockies. I can't say it's better the second time around, but it is fun to live among other people who share your passion for the same team.

Ah, Red Sox! You'd think after the World series wins in 2004 and 2007 that the angst and self-doubt so prevalent for so many years in Red Sox nation would have dissipated and we could be like other baseball fans - often rude and obnoxious but satisfied with our team's prospects and willing to accept an also-ran, at least on occasion. Like Rockies fans maybe.

But no, it is not to be. Two weeks into the season, with 150 games to go, we are weeping and wailing over a four and seven record, and a drubbing at the hands of the Texas Rangers. Normal fans might just look at a defeat of that magnitude and shrug - if the team isn't ready to play nose to nose with the big boys, then it simply isn't going to be a good year and we'd better get over it.

But Red Sox fans clearly expect things to straighten out right away. David Ortiz, Adrian Gonzalez and Dustin Pedroia are hitting, Ryan Sweeney has chipped in very nicely, Cody Ross has contributed, but where's the rest of the batting order? How long, oh Lord, must we wait for Carl Crawford? Will Jacoby Ellsbury's shoulder heal in time for him to contribute? What about Andrew Bailey's shoulder, come to that? Will the real Josh Beckett stand up? And what can we possibly say about a relief pitcher like Mark Melancon with an earned run average of 49?

Meanwhile, the opera that is the Sox churns on, with Bobby Valentine and Kevin Youkilis in the featured roles. Was Bobby trying to motivate Youk, or has he just lost confidence in him? Does Youk want out of Boston? Will they trade him to make room for Will Middlebrooks? Oh, the humanity.

And what of the Rockies? Every Coloradan  knows that miracle finsihes can happen after the wonderful September of 2007. But everything about the 2012 season points to mediocrity. There are two great stars on the team, Troy Tulowitzki and Carlos Gonzalez. The supporting cast includes Todd Helton, clearly on the downside but still a capable player, and Michael Cudyer, Dexter Fowler, and Marco Scutaro, all good major league talents. The pitching looks like a nightmare, however. Jeremy Guthrie will win a dozen and lose a dozen, strictly on merit. Jamie Moyer, the ancient one (thirteen years younger than I am) will provide some help but clearly is not a long term linchpin, and the younger pitchers in the starting rotation have shown little sign that they're ready for prime time. Jorge de la Rosa is due back from surgery by June, but it'll be too late to make much difference this year. The Rockies will sink like. . . you guessed it. They'll battle the Padres to stay out of last place.

So relax, everyone. Take a chill pill, as my students used to say. If it is not to be in 2012, there's always 2013. Or 2014. Or on and on until we're dead or no longer care, whichever comes first.

The NRA and Trayvon Martin

The National Rifle Association charges that the media attention paid to the death of Trayvon Martin in February has been sensationalized. Possibly they have a point, but it's in the naturer of the media to dwell on events that contain elements reaching into the hear tof the American experience. In the case of Trayvon Martin, the victim was black and the perpetrator Caucasian and Hispanic, there was a gun involved, Florida had recently enacted a controversial law that might shelter the killer, and the initial police investigation looked like a whitewash (no pun or allusion intended).

Something more than 31,000 people die in the United States each year from gunshots. Of these, over 11,000 are murders. That means about 20,000 deaths are the result of other actions: suicide, self-defense, and accidents. Still, 11,000 murders equals about thirty each day. All are tragic, but we don't see demostrations and media frenzy about them unless they're  multiple killings or involve some or all of the same circumstances as the ones involved in the Martin/Zimmerman case.

The NRA magazine, American Rifleman, contains a column each month summarizing incidents in which use of a firearm saved lives or was the result of a plain and immediate threat to the person who used the weapon. Typical stories are about people who thwarted home invasions, prevented robberies, or stopped violent crimes. I'm guessing that for every incident of that kind, however, there's at least another one along the lines of, "So and so, returning home earlier than expected, found her husband with another woman and shot them both," or "Juvenile boy, angry at his father, grabbed the family gun and killed his parent," or the traditional "He didn't know the gun was loaded." (The first funeral I ever attended was for a little kindergarten boy who found his father's gun and shot himself while playing with it. He was in my sister's class, and I was in third grade.)

My point is that, statistically, it's more dangerous to have a gun than not to have one. I wish someone had told George Zimmerman that.

Recent Supreme Court decisions have ruled pretty definitively that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The lavishly funded campaigns by the NRA to challenge gun control laws have paid off for them. There are still some restrictions on weapons possession that remain in effect - restrictions of juveniles, convicted felons, prohibitions on filing serial numbers or sawing off shotgun barrels, requiring a permit to carry a concealed gun, or taking guns into airports or schools, are some of them. Still, the individual right to bear arms is now settled law.

That being said, I would like to make one more point. The NRA has long offered courses on firearms safety. This is all to the good and commendable. What I would like them to do in addition is to emphasize that a person's handgun is for protection only - it's not what you reach for when angry or disappointed. And, if you have guns, secure them where others cannot easily gain access to them.

Gerald Ford and the GOP

Gerald Ford became president in August, 1974, when Richard Nixon resigned the office in disgrace. A month later, Ford pardoned Nixon for any crimes he committed while president. Ford's decision was extremely unpopular at the time, and is still subject to debate thirty-eight years afterward.

Ford's first press secretary, Gerald ter Horst, quit in protest. When asked his opinion of Ford years later, ter Horst said, "Gerald Ford was the kindest, most generous and most decent man I ever knew. He would literally give you the shirt off his back if he found you in need. Then he'd go into the White House and veto a bill that would provide hot lunches for indigent children because he felt it impinged on the responsibilities of the states."

I think that ter Horst's remark about President Ford applies as well to  many of the Republicans I have known. Kind decent friendly people individually, but as a group more interested in processes than in outcomes. I'm saying this having watched the local Fountain Colorado Republicans meet at the library where I work the last couple of weeks. Nice people, polite, seemingly enthusiastic about good government. Not like the churlish Tea Partyers in Florida who applauded the idea that people who can't afford medical care should just go without it, and die without it.

There was a certain irony about people whose political philosophy is intimately tied to tax reductions and privatizing services meeting at the public library, but never mind about that for now. Instead, I'll just note that there wasn't a black or a brown face among the Republicans I saw. About eighty perccent of them were men, and of the men a very generous proportion were older, retirement age or beyond. We'll also pass over the conundrum of people who are likely collecting Social Security championing the party that often wants to privatize the very program that assures they won't live in such poverty that they'd have to reside with their kids or endure serious hardships.

No, I'll just say that unless the GOP can expand its base dramatically they won't win many elections.

They were awfully nice though, the kind of folks who keep their lawns tidy, don't throw loud parties, and always say hello when you see them on the street. (I was going to say, "Buy Girl Scout cookies," but  perhaps they don't anymore.)

Socialism

"I thought we lived in an anarcho-syndicalist commune."



--from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"

Sarah Palin is quoted yesterday morning, calling President Obama a socialist. My first thought on hearing this was to think that Sarah Palin wouldn't know a socialist if she tripped over one, but then I figured perhaps she might benefit from a little lesson in the history of philosophy and economics.

Utopian socialism has been around almost from the time human beings evolved on this planet. In this sense, socialism is just about sharing, without too much reference to the merits or lack of merits of those receiving help. Examples abound in the Bible. One that comes to mind is the injunction to farmers not to harvest their fields too closely, but to leave something for gleaners, the people in need.

The term "utopian" comes from the fictional writings of Thomas More, who envisioned an ideal world where everyone did manual labor, and this allowed time for everyone to do other  things too - pray, paint, dance, read or whatever pleased them. The word supposedly means "nowhere."

By the early part of the nineteenth century, there were a number of attempts at creating model societies, notably in the United States. New Harmony Indiana is often cited as the prime example. People there associated voluntarily, shared food, lived in close proximity (but without shedding traditional family arrangements) and kept little as personal property. I guess the kibbutz way of living in modern Israel is similar to them.

These utopian communites usually didn't last very long. Bickering over the communal property and perceived infringements on personal matters caused people to abandon the concept. The Shakers were among the last relics of it in America.

Karl Marx thought the whole idea of utopian socialism was silly. Marx was interested in economics and in social justice, but assumed the separation of small numbers of people into voluntary  communes would never reform capitalistic society. Marx insisted that his analysis was scientific and would be the future of humankind because it is rational, not because people would change their hearts and voluntarily share with each other. Marx insisted that the illogicality of private enterprise would cause it to fall without much of a push from the downtrodden.

Marx's view of nineteenth century life was pessimistic in the extreme. Every person competed with every other person for the necessities of life, which were available in sufficient quantities, but only if profits - Marx always called profits "surplus value" - could be eliminated. But of course profit could not be eliminated because a steadily diminishing number of plutocrats were enriching themselves by squeezing labor in a more and more desperate effort to avoid falling into the ranks of the exploited. Every product must be offered at a lower price than competitors are demanding in order to be sold, but the owner of the factory, mill, farm or whatever business is being considered, can only charge a lower price for finished goods if  his labor costs are lower. Therefore, the owners must drive down wages.

Marx insisted that when working people became desperate enough they would rise in revolution, take over the property of their oppressors and institute a dictatorship of the proletariat, a truly unfortunate expression. In this communist future there would be ample amounts of everything because no surplus value would be siphoned away by private owners. There would be no further need for government, since governments protect the owners, and governments would wither away. (Why there wouldn't be a reversion to a private enterprise economy is a topic Marx didn't get around to addressing.)

Marx was utterly dogmatic about his theory. He fought ceaselessly through the rest of his unhappy life to prevent any revisions of it. But, of course, there were people who  accepted some but not all of Marx's propositions. Instead of simple common ownership of property, and to prevent a new concentration of wealth, that ownership should be entrusted to the government, which represents all of us in a socialistic world. Instead of a violent revolution, this public ownership can come about through the ballot box, and gradually if it cannot be achieved all at once.

Various parts of the American canon might be called socialistic under this rubric. The minimum wage, for example, is meant to prevent employers from compelling workers to accept less than a living wage for full time jobs. (Theoretically: a person making minimum wage could not possibly live a life of decency at the current time, unless bunking in with others, or receiving other help.) Social Security and Medicare might be called socialistic, as they supposedly benefit people of modest means at the expense of their wealthier neighbors. (Once again, I don't personally see much "income redistribution" going on there. The ceiling for Social Security contributions is still low enough that more affluent people are not unduly burdened by it.)

So, coming back to Sarah Palin and her charge that President Obama is a socialist. Not having heard her, I'm not certain of the specificity of her allegation, but guess it's involved with the Affordable Health Care Act. It strikes me that the act hardly qualifies as socialistic. Perhaps if it provided for single payer health care or there was a public option - either of which would have strengthened the act in my view - one could argue it's socialistic, but as it is, it just doesn't signify. Sorry, Ms. Palin. Thank you for playing and we have a lovely parting gift for you. (If only you'd go away.)

Ah, Politics!

The congressional district where I live is currently represented by Doug Lamborn. I had thought it would be impossible for anyone to get to the right of Mr. Lamborn, but he is facing a primary challenge from a man who criticizes the congressman obliquely as a creature of the Washington establishment. The challenger, who seems to be peculiarly well financed, runs television ads in which he says he wants to take America back before we are destroyed in the arc of history, whatever that means.

I'm posting about this because I also learned recently that the congressman where I used to live, Eric Cantor, House majority leader, and noted right-winger, also is being challenged for the Republican nomination back in Virginia. Once again, I thought Cantor was so far to the right that it would be impossible to criticize his record from a conservative perspective -  but it's happening.

What's going on? Has the radical right become so puritanical that they are dissatisfied with representatives who, even a few years ago, defined the limits of  right wing politics in our country? Has the Citizens United case opened the floodgates of anonymous campaign funding to the point where rich extremists think they can bankroll people with nineteenth century mentalities, and win elections? Are they so intolerant of any political compromises that they want only absolutely completely "drown the government in a bathtub" people in Congress?

I don't know, but I do know the irregular media sources, primarily on the Internet, are awash with extremist videos and polemics, and politicians are catering to the most extreme parts of  the electorate. Just to cite one example, one night last week I overheard a video of a man condemning any effort to raise taxes on people who make more than $250,000 a year, because it will stifle small businesses. He went on to excoriate President Obama and his family because the first lady has made trips abroad at taxpayers' expense. He used the phrase "unmitigated gall" to describe Mrs. Obama's travel.

My opinion is, if your business yields more than $250,000 a year it's not small, and you can afford to kick in some additional funding to help balance the national budget. Think of it as a purchase of kevlar vests for our soldiers if it helps you feel better. If you want my sympathy, talk about the plight of people who make $25,000 a year, not people who make ten times that amount. As far as the first family's travel is  concerned, all presidents use their spouses for travel as a means of building rapport and goodwill with the people of other nations. Michelle Obama is very effective in that regard. It's money well spent.

I'll close with one little irony. My congressman, facing a primary challenger and a Democrat in the general election - not much of a challenge here, where Republicans are a majority - is still sending out glossy news releases as mass mailings, prepared and printed by the government, and using his franking  privilege, to tell us how much he opposes government spending. You tell 'em, Doug!