DoctorD's Observations

Temperatures rising!

I guess it will be 104 today when we are out and about.  Too much!

Free at last

We had a wonderful day (once we were out of the big city) driving cross-country on US highways, through farmland and often near Amish farms as well.  It is amazing how much there is to see--if you just get off of the expressway.  I think many more people would do it more often, if only they realized.

Lunch was at a nursery near a small Indiana town.  Perfect, and inexpensive--except for the customers who were smoking.  I am so surprised that is allowed anywhere anymore!

Saw several drive-ins, including one where the carhops were on roller skates.

I haven't seen any signs of politics.  Probably, for the Amish, there isn't even an "energy crisis"--unless their horse dies.

I did notice that there are an awful lot of BP gas stations, which of course we are avoiding.  It looks like Marathon is a main competitor in this region.  I'm still trying to form an opinion as to which energy companies or brands are worthy of my business.

Coast to coast on U.S. 50

This is one of the routes we hope to follow for a while on this trip.  Some of the eastern part, not the western section.  The latter may have to wait until after Labor Day.

My understanding is that all of the even-numbered highways with a zero in them are, or originally were, routed coast to coast.  20, 30, 40, 50, etc.

I'm less sure about north-south routes, but U.S. 41 goes all the way down from Lake Superior to Miami; we have driven it. U.S. 1 covers the entire Atlantic seaboard, starting in Key West.  We have driven a fair amount (but not all) of that, too.

To sleep, perchance to dream

Here again is another of my sleepless nights.  This has gone on many nights since sometime in January, perhaps before.  

I've seen the doctor twice in the last two weeks.  I think she is stumped.

We leave on our "vacation" on Sunday.

Thanks for nothing!

I have been trying (in all seriousness) to think of what significant accomplishments we owe to the Republican Party.  Here is my list so far:

--(1) the elimination of slavery (Abraham Lincoln)

--(2) the busting of the huge financial trusts (Teddy Roosevelt)

--(3) the interstate highway system (Dwight Eisenhower)

And that, honestly, is all I can think of, at least at the moment.  If you think of other things, please add them to this post.

I can think of a lot of Republican schemes that turned out badly, but really, what has been a significant contribution?  Or--is there something important that I am forgetting?

I thought that perhaps the national park system (Yellowstone was the first) was in some sense originated by Teddy Roosevelt, too.  He was a noted conservationist.  But actually, I am mistaken, as the law creating Yellowstone was signed by Ulysses S. Grant.  Grant was indeed a Republican, and has laid out his reasons fir being one--among them that at the Republican Party "tolerates no privileged class" and favors the education of all children, rich and poor.  (Actually, that sounds more like today's Democrats, to me).

That all I can come up with.  All of America's other greatest achievements, at least those I can think, are associated with the Democratic party.  Many of our greatest failures (excepting, I would say, the Vietnam war) were mostly Republican contributions.

As to the interstate highway system, well, God bless it I suppose, but I don't like those roads very much, and we will do all we can to mostly avoid them on our soon-to-be initiative trip.  We will see how the ones we select, mostly U.S. Highways, turn out.

Here is the problem for Republicans

It is the visuals.  The continuing photos and videos of oil streaming into the Gulf, pictures of globs of oil on the beaches and in the swamps and covering birds.  These play nearly all the time, even when someone "important" is speaking.  So there is no question that there is a problem at hand.

The 9/11 terrorist attack also provided shocking visuals, and those helped to mobilize the country.  George Bush's popularity soared, and we sent troops off to kill and die in the wrong place, for the wrong reasons.  But the visuals almost compelled action.

in contrast, the stock market crash and financial crisis did not produce good visuals, and so there have been no executives doing a perp walk, having to cough up money for the victims.  All there was really for a huge, huge crisis were frequent shots of "house for sale" signs.

The health care crisis didn't produce good visuals either.  You just can't get footage of a person dying from lack of health insurance and health care.  Similarly, there are no photos of government "death circles," since these are merely an imaginary figment.

But the opponents had a good idea, which was by spreading falsehoods and mobilizing health care companies and the uninformed but worried, they could create a very visual impression that "the people" were against Obamacare, that they feared it, that they thought they would lose access to their own doctor and perhaps to Medicare.  And so the crowds of the confused became the visual that was replayed endlessly, and it in turn attracted more "activists" to the cause.  That strategy worked very well, and it nearly worked totally, as the "Harry and Louise" commercials did during the Clinton years.

Anyhow, no matter what conservatives claim about the heavy hand of government, and how it might strangle, just strangle BP and the rest of the profit-making free enterprise system, there will always be those oil-soaked dead pelicans.  The problem is much harder to deny, and harder to treat as an abstraction.  So the tactics of opposition that the Republican conservatives have been employing quite effectively just aren't getting the same degree of traction in this current crisis.  

In the same way, the destruction by the Japanese of Pearl Harbor clinched the case of American involvement in the war that was raging in Europe and the Pacific.  Pictures are very powerful; they bypass many other parts of the brain (just like smell does) and they can have enormous influence on behavior and attitudes, in the arena of politics and public policy, as elsewhere.

Goal(s)

The most important goal for me is (a) staying well enough that I am able to travel, by car, just about anywhere.  If there are other items, they would be (b) to get my old house cleaned out and sold, and (c) to have my memory and health good enough that I can do some writing again.  Poetry, non-fiction, whatever.  I used to like to write.  Actually, I have a book contract, but no progress is being made.  I guess that project is a dead dodo.  The next would have to be somewhat less ambitious.

I don't really have a "bucket list."  I would love to see China, but it is never going to happen.  Perhaps Alaska.  Perhaps take the Amtrak train from Chicago to Seattle.  It passes very near my house.  You can get off and walk to the big lodge at Glacier National Park.

Amtrak's Empire Builder

Another thought

Even though I wrote earlier that the main political division in the U.S. can be seen as one between "the people" and "the corporations" (which under law are increasingly viewed as "people" too) there is another way to describe it.  And that is in the differing attitudes toward government.

On the (right) hand a conservatives, libertarians, the NRA, tea party agitators, tax protester, militia members, the KKK and the John Birch Society and pretty much Republicans and haters of every description.  And what they hate most is government, American government, and other government-like bodies, like the UN.  They definitely don't like Barack Obama, and that is at least in good part because he is black--worse, an "uppity niggra", too educated and too smart--but really, they just don't like government, the government, any government.  The Oklahoma City bombing for a federal building by disgruntled white soldiers took place while Bill Clinton was president.  That was worse than any terrorist incident we have had so far during the Obama years.

And, on the other hand, the left hand, are those who support government, at least to some degree.  In my childhood, this was so commonplace:  we saluted when the flag went by on parade, we sand "my country tis' of the and other patriotic songs.  We were proud that the U.S. had kept the Nazis at by during WWII, and protected England.  We appreciated the many efforts made by the CCC and a host of other alphabet agencies to help mitigate the harm caused by the Great Economic Depression of the 1930s.

We liked the interstate highway system, and the airline system, both developed chiefly by government.  We liked the National Park.  We were glad that governmental scientists were studying infectious diseases, and pleased to be able to land a man on the moon--actually on the moon, and then bring him back.  And on the whole we liked the idea of federal efforts to improve education, reduce poverty, provide health care services for the elderly, make automobiles safer and the air and water cleaner.  Desegregation of schools, lunch counters, and buses met opposition mostly on a regional basis.  About as far right as the "respectable right" went was Sen. Barry Goldwater, who is well known for saying "to disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable."  But for most conservatives now, being disagreeable is the essence of politics itself.

So, anyhow, that is another way of looking at our major political divisions.  It doesn't work perfectly, in part because philosophies are not consistent adhered to, and so many people are confused.  I'm remind of the ladies protesting during the health care debate that they wanted the government to "keep its hands off their Medicare," not realizing of course that Medicare is indeed a very important, very appreciated, and very costly government program.

I'm a pro-government person myself, and always have been.  I liked the public library in my home town, and the convenient and inexpensive #3 bus I road all over.  I liked that the city sent a jeep to plow the sidewalks--yes, the sidewalks!--clear of snow, and the streets were clear by garbage trucks.  Can you imagine how much work it would be if each of us had to do that for ourselves--and how many would fail at the task?

I liked the local public schools, and the public colleges and universities, even though for myself I chose a small private liberal arts school.

For a time, in high school, I took flying lessons, and I was glad that the government had carefully worked out all the requirements and procedures for flying an airplane safely.  So was my mom!

Of course, I have complaints.  One that quickly comes to mind is that the government hasn't been able to get rid of the damn highway billboards, even though Congress banned them 40 years ago.  But that is a gripe, not about government, but about ineffectual government.

Such lists could go on and on.  But I think the point is an important one.  We do have people, an increasing number and rather diverse group of people, who just hate "the government."  It is hard for me to not add that they are mostly ignorant and paranoid but, regardless, they do exist.

And then there are people who at least like the concept of government and find much to be proud of in American governmental values and institutions and programs.  There is quite a large number who contribute actively in military, civilian or civic roles.

You won't find them at the tea-party meetings, where they rail against this, that, and the other

You might find them helping to pick up oil sludge on Gulf Coast beaches.

You might find them volunteering at the library or fire department.

And you might be one yourself.

1776

I am not completely satisfied with my statement in the previous post.  However, I do want to add one particular, and to me, very important point.

On July 4th, 1776, the American colonies declared their independence of Great Britain.  The Declaration of Independence, written chiefly by Thomas Jefferson, explained the reasons:  

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 

Earlier that same year, Thomas Paine had published his revolutionary pamphlet, Common Sense, another (less temperate) but also important political document.

However, over in Scotland, in March of 1776, the moral philosopher Adam Smith published An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.  This is often considered to be the founding document of the modern field of economics, and has certainly been influential in urging a a "free market" guided chiefly by an "invisible hand," not by governmental intervention throughout the intervening decades and centuries.

The important point, though, is that these two developments were occurring simultaneously--new political thought and new economic thought.  But the former was occurring in America, while the latter was European.  And it appeared at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, which began considerably earlier in the "old world" than in the new.

So, at least to my way of thinking, Americans took the lead in developing important, new, and basically successful political doctrines and institutions.  New and important economic doctrines were chiefly devised elsewhere.

To some degree, this is a matter of emphasis. The idea of "political economy" has a significant history, too, and political events often have economic causes.  An important early document was Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures (1791) which, however, encouraged governmental subsidies for new industries, and not a "free market" system.   It definitely did not claim the existence of an "invisible hand" in markets.  I suppose the current tea-party crowd would term it "socialistic."

Anyhow, economic thought and practice was largely a European, and not a distinctively American, development.  Our genius, or at the very least our main contribution, is in the latter area.  There isn't much that can be pointed to as a significant American thought or policy in economics (other than Hamilton's Report) for many decades after our nation's Founding.  And our government, not Adam Smith's thoughtful but limiting ideas, became a very important force in helping the U.S. develop into the extremely wealthy and powerful nation it ultimately proved to be.

Hmmm, there goes the history

It is astonishing to me to see the extent to which conservatives and Republicans are rushing in to defend, not just the oil drilling industry, but BP in particular.  They want to make sure that the injured residents of the Gulf Coast don't "take advantage" of the huge energy conglomerate.  And they argue that the president, in getting BP to pay the costs of damage it has done, is essentially exercising dictatorial powers.  It is, they claim, the result of a "Chicago-style shakedown," not a fair payment by the corporation for damage that it caused.

(At the moment I am wondering why conservatives didn't think it was unfair to hold Afghanistan and Iraq collectively responsible for the 9/11 attacks, which after all were the work of a relatively small number of men--from one of our allied countries, Saudi Arabia).

Anyhow, this new development rather shows the extent to which the political division in America now has become between (a) the public at large, meaning human beings, or what BP chiefly unfortunately and I imagine unintentionally characterized as "the small people," and (b) the corporate sector (whether finance, health insurance, or energy).  On the one side we have we regular folks, and on the other (b) the spokespersons and multi-millionaires who get rich by taking advantage of us.

I don't like saying that.  I certainly am not a Naderite, and I won't contribute to Greenpeace, even.  But still, the battle lines seem to me to be ever more clearly drawn.

And, I would say, personally, that the "smart money" is betting on a victory for the corporate sector.  Already today I've received "junk" mail extolling BP as a good "buy" on the stock market, since (it argues) the proposed penalties that have driven down the price of BP shares will never really come to pass.  They didn't in the case of the Exxon Valdez accident, so they probably won't here.  That's the claim.

We did have eight years of a presidential administration that was a representative of Big Oil.  Now we have a Supreme Court that believes that corporations are fully the equal of people "citizens" and have a "right" to contribute whatever they want financially to candidates for office, completely uncontrolled.  Freedom of speech is for them, not especially for us.

But in some ways, what really bothers me most is looking at books at Border's, where it is clear that there is a major assault going on, not just against Barack Obama personally, which is a primary focus, but against the "historical narrative" of the U.S.  The line being sold is that America is great because of free enterprise, that its foundation is in economic "liberty," the right to buy and sell.

But the Pilgrims didn't come here because they wanted to set up shops and companies.  (Nor was it because they wanted the "right" to be heavily armed).  Mostly, they were seeking religious freedoms, not particularly toward being tolerant, but in being free from persecution by others.  The grandeur of America has been in creating an enduring government that was, on the one hand, powerful enough to accomplish essential public tasks and, at the same time not so "strong" as to impose itself in such areas as religion, speech, and other essential human rights.  Not, it should be noted, a right to "property."  The Declaration favors "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," not "life, liberty, and property."

And, let's remember too, that while the Declaration of Independence sparked a war with an intrusive foreign colonial power, and its hated taxes, including a tax on tea, the U.S. Constitution was designed to establish a stronger government--specifically a stronger national government--to create a nation and not just a bunch of very loosely-linked separate confederated states.  

Anyhow, there is an ongoing effort to change the Story of America in a manner that benefits corporate elites, Republican power-brokers, conservative wing-nuts, and the extremely wealthy.  (Probably you know that there is no estate tax on those who pass away this year, no matter what their wealth?  None at all).  There is an effort to wipe out the historical truth, just like there is an effort to wipe out evolutionary theory and global warming conclusions.  

Perhaps only those of us who are fairly old will even know the difference.  On the other hand, as others have commented, there always is a place for Hope.