The USA in Volleyball Jerseys

We spent the Presidents' Day* weekend watching our granddaughter and her team compete in the Capital Hill Volleyball Classic. It was the usual three days of excitement and ear-splitting noise, marked at one point by the high-speed volleyball I took to the side of head that bent my glasses out of shape, ensuring that the action was more of a blur than usual. We cheered our team, ate overpriced concession food, and generally had a good time doing the grandparental thing.

But I was struck by one thing that says a great deal about the America we're losing, despite the empty slogans about making it great again - volleyball jerseys.

Each player wears the team jersey with her number and last name on the back ... and those names say a lot about what the United States of America used to stand for. 

Only in the United States would you see amateur athletes with names representing every conceivable national origin serving together on one team. Irish names, African names, Oriental names, English and German names, Hispanic names, Indian names, Italian names ... you name it**. The players themselves represented a racial color palette that ran from the whitest white to the blackest black, and everything in between - all united in an effort to win the game. And those of us on the sidelines cheered on those players regardless of their name, color, or origin - because we're all part of one team, and we support each other.

And that's what we're losing as Der Furor and his racist and misogynistic followers attempt to reshape the nation into something it was never intended to be.

Just a thought for a sad time, inspired by volleyball jerseys.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* A national holiday set aside each year to honor presidents worth honoring, which eliminates Der Furor right out of the box.

** Sorry.

Could We Do D-Day Today?

CNN anchor Jim Scuitto posed a very interesting question on Twitter last Sunday, the 77th anniversary of D-Day, the allied attack on Normandy during World War II ...

Question: would/could the US mount and lead a #DDay today? Defend faraway allies? Impose an expansive draft? Accept the shared national sacrifice in blood and treasure? Fight until unconditional victory? I’m asking without prejudgment - curious what you think.

I'd like to say "yes," but I think the real answer is, sadly, "no."

Considering that many Americans today are far more focused on their rights than their responsibilities, and that we have to actually bribe adults (with giveaways of beer, guns, lottery tickets, donuts, etc) to get a free vaccine for a deadly disease that has killed over 600,000 of their fellow citizens, I think it's a stretch to think that any significant portion of us would rally to risk their lives in support of anyone else ... much less a (gasp!) foreigner.

Americans supported (at least, at first) the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because they represented a response to a clear and provable threat at home. They grew less inclined to support those wars when the threat of terrorism from Islamic militants receded and the emphasis of the military operations changed to supporting foreign governments and "nation building." 

And it's tough to imagine World War II-style "shared sacrifice" when so many Americans rage against simply wearing a cloth mask to prevent the spread of disease.

There's no doubt in my mind that our armed forces would give their all, but I doubt that the spoiled and self-indulgent Americans of today would support them, or flock to the banners. It's easy to imagine you're heroically protecting yourself and your neighbors by ostentatiously packing your AR-15 to the local Starbucks, but it's tough to actually put your life on the line in a combat zone in service of a goal larger than yourself.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Why Do Americans Smile So Much?

Staff writer Olga Khazan at The Atlantic published an interesting article back in May of this year titled "Why Americans Smile So Much." Ms Khazan begins her article by quoting a comment made by a Reddit user in Finland: "When a stranger on the street smiles at you: (a) you assume he is drunk; (b) he is insane; or (c) he’s an American."

It's true: generally speaking, we Americans are noted around the world for the degree to which we smile, even though we are no longer as open and friendly a people as we used to be. One reason may be the diversity of our population which, unlike many other countries, is made up of immigrants from all over the world. The results of a study cited in Ms Khazan's article suggest that "when there are a lot of immigrants around, you might have to smile more to build trust and cooperation, since you don’t all speak the same language." Another theory holds that Americans value high-energy, happy feelings more than some other countries.

Perhaps there's an element of what the Germans would call Schadenfreude - the pleasure we feel at the discomfiture of others ... in this case, a sense of superiority at being from the United States*.

Or maybe it's just gas.

Big, happy smiles are also big business in America**: how many ads do you see every day for toothpaste, teeth-whitening treatments, and cosmetic dentistry?

All theories aside, though, to listen to our news and to all the political snarkery and to observe the prevalence of road rage and gun worship*** in this country, one might rather ask why Americans still smile at all.

Have a good day. Smile.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Not necessarily applicable in the age of Trump.

** For those who can afford dental insurance, anyhow.

*** You may remember the often-quoted (and misquoted) line from Owen Wister's classic Western novel The Virginian in which, after the villain Trampas calls him a "son of a bitch," the titular Virginian lays his pistol on the table and says quietly, "When you call me that, smile."

Fixing What's Broken

The other day my friend Ed posted a commentary on Facebook in which he discussed reactions to a story about a woman who, after the death of her husband, relied on Medicaid to provide medical care for her children. The story generated an ever-downward-spiraling swell of anger and vituperation, accusing the woman of being lazy, demanding she get a job, accusing her of living large at the expense of others, and worse. Ed's commentary on the story and the online reactions to it ended with this paragraph:

"At one point in the discussion, someone asked, how did we get here? That's what I am wondering about. What has gone wrong in our culture that so many people are filled with this anger, looking for something to be offended at, and so bereft of the simple human virtues of kindness, civility, and empathy? How did rage and contempt become successful marketing tools, while compassion and kindness are looked on as weakness? What got broken with us, and how do we fix it?"

How, indeed? There are a lot of reasons our society has become more coarse and uncivil.

One of them is the lack of good examples set by parents. When I was growing up in the 50s and early 60s, my parents were loving, but strict. We were expected to be polite and courteous, and to reserve anger for the few times it was the only reasonable response to a bad situation. Nowadays, it seems that parents ignore foul language and bad behavior on the part of their children, whether because they're too busy with work and their own recreation to pay attention to it, or because of a misguided belief that their children should "express themselves honestly," even at the expense of common courtesy and civility.

The comforting anonymity of the Internet is another, allowing despicable trolls to spew hatred and propagate the most ridiculous lies, wrapped in the warm blanket of anonymity provided by a screen name and an opaque IP address. It's much easier to act badly when you don't have to face the target of your bad behavior.

Yet another is the belief of many present-day Americans in the absolute primacy of individual freedom over responsibility to others. When the individual is considered supreme, it isn't much of a stretch to believe that one has not only the right, but the obligation to say and do whatever one wants, without regard to the rights and feelings of others. It represents the erosion of empathy and compassion - two things that once were hallmarks of America and its people.

An outgrowth of this attitude is the belief that if another person has fallen on hard times, it is their fault for not accepting personal responsibility for their own lives. If a person loses his or her job as a result of economic decisions made by their employer, is it their fault? If they try to find a new job and discover that all the jobs for which they're qualified have been sent to India and China where workers are cheap, is it their fault? If they try to get the training and education that will qualify them for other jobs, only to find that it's priced beyond their reach, and their governments - in the sacred interest of cutting spending - have eliminated the assistance that might have helped them, is that their fault, too? Yes, we each have an obligation to be responsible for ourselves and our well-being ... but we also have an obligation to understand that sometimes there really are circumstances beyond our control.

Finally (for now, at least), we have elected to the presidency a boorish and utterly unqualified individual whose personal behavior is in many ways the opposite of what we once found admirable in our leaders. His total lack of gravitas, crass behavior toward women, proud ignorance of public policy, jingoistic attitudes, cavalier jettisoning of decades of international agreements and norms, and crude, 140-character Twitter attacks on those who disagree with him demonstrate the sort of person many of us were ready to put in the chair once occupied by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. Our children look at his execrable behavior and assume it must be okay because, hey, he's the president ... and why should they be expected to act any differently? And why did we decide things were so terrible that a person like this seemed like a good option to so many people?

What got broken with us?

How do we fix it?

They're excellent questions. I think the first one is easy enough to answer; the second, much harder. We can fix it only by returning to the qualities that really did make America great: not just individual determination and self-reliance, but on a sense of community and a shared understanding that we all have a role to play in making the country great by working together and helping each other.

Unfortunately, I don't see that realization dawning on much of America any time soon.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

What Are We Thinking?

Agnes and I have a lot of friends and relatives living in Europe, and we communicate with them often by phone, e-mail, and the occasional ink-on-paper letter. One of the most common comments we hear from them is some variation on what are you people thinking? Here's an example from one of our friends in Switzerland, who last week wrote,

"Ja, über eure neue Regierung spricht wohl die ganze Welt! Vielleicht wäre es wirklich besser, die ganze Welt würde den Präsidenten und seine nächsten Berater ganz einfach ignorieren, und niemand würde mehr das getwitter von Herrn Trump lesen! Wir fragen uns oft, wielang dies weitergehen kann????"

Translation: "Yes, the whole world is talking about your new government! Perhaps it would be better if the whole world would just ignore the President and his closest advisors, and nobody would read Mr Trump's tweets! We often ask ourselves how much longer this can go on????"

It's a question I often ask myself.

I must admit, with a certain amount of embarrassment, that I cannot bring myself to say, write, or type the words "President" and "Trump" together. I know he was legally and Constitutionally elected, and I know it sounds small and petty, but Mr Trump is a small and petty person who has made not the least effort to act presidential or look like a statesman and who, rather than reaching out to try to heal the nation's divisions, has spread gasoline on the fires with his baseless accusations, insults, and blatant lies and evasions.

Most observers believe Trump won the election because voters were angry. I get that. I'm angry, too. But never was the old adage about cutting off one's nose to spite one's face more appropriate. Why would you hire someone with absolutely no experience in government to fix the problems ... if there's a problem with the airplane you're riding in, would you want someone with no flying experience to land you safely? If your doctor has a heart attack in the middle of your open-heart surgery, would you want someone who'd never been to medical school to take her place?

There are a lot of very interesting articles out there about the psychology of the American voter, and why so many of them are willing to support a pathological liar like Donald Trump. All those theories are fine, but the bottom line remains what are you thinking?

I wish I knew. And so does the rest of the world.

Have as good a day as you can in this environment.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Constitutional Heresy

Let us begin, Dear Readers, with these stirring words from the preamble to the Republican Platform 2016 -

"We believe the Constitution was written not as a flexible document, but as our enduring covenant."

With all due respect to those who view the Constitution as Muslims view the Quran - that it is absolutely true and perfect in every detail - I think you're wrong.

I'm getting ready to lay out the heretical case for updating the Constitution, so if you are one of those people whose heads explode at the very thought of tinkering with The Most Perfect Document Ever Devised By Man*, you may want to read something else. But if you are willing to consider some alternatives to the belief that the Founders delivered the Constitution like Moses coming down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments, read on.

First of all, consider this: if the Constitution were not written to allow some flexibility and adaptiveness to changing times, why did the Founders make provisions for its amendment (Article V)? The amendment process was made cumbersome and difficult to discourage frivolous changes (such as amendments to outlaw flag-burning or to define marriage according to religious dictates), but it nevertheless reflects the Founders' understanding that the United States would grow, develop, and change over time, and that the Constitution would need to be able to evolve with it.

Now, consider the issue of "states' rights." Leaving aside for a moment the politically and racially-charged interpretations of the term, let's look back at the document the Constitution replaced: the Articles of Confederation. Here's what Article II says -

"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

This is echoed in somewhat watered-down tone in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which says -

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This reflects the delicate balance the Founders struck between the Federalists, who believed a strong central government was necessary to hold the country together, and the Anti-Federalists, who wanted to centralize power at the state and local level. The Federalists won the day, more or less, because the experience of trying to mold thirteen squabbling, quasi-independent states into a single nation required establishment of a government that could force them into some semblance of united action at the national level. We see the end result of the Anti-Federalist influence today, in the form of 50 states with a patchwork of uncoordinated and often conflicting laws and regulations that frequently inhibit interstate commerce and sow confusion in national decision making ... consider the wide variety of state laws governing elections as one example. Should we rethink the division of power between the federal government and the states? It's worth discussing.

And while we're at it, how are powers reserved "to the people?" Individual states have governments that can assume powers, but how do "the people" take on and execute powers of government?** And who are "the people," anyhow? Citizens? White citizens? Christians? It depends on who you ask, and the Constitution doesn't seem to be too clear on it.

Of particular interest in an election year, the Constitution does not allow for the direct popular election of the President, but rather by the electors of each state (Article II, Section 1, as modified by the 12th Amendment). This arrangement was created by the Founders because they didn't completely trust in the wisdom of "the people," and wanted to ensure that the nation was not governed by a tyranny of the majority. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68 that

"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." ***

Is this still a valid concern? Should the Constitution be revised or amended to provide for direct popular election? I don't know, but the question comes up every four years, and is probably worth debating.

The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech ... but are campaign contributions "speech?" It also says Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," but is limiting the rights of one person because of the religious beliefs of another allowable under the Constitution?

The Fourth Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." What is an unreasonable search in an era of signals intelligence, GPS tracking, warrantless wiretaps, data mining, and imaging drones?

As long as we're making hamburger out of sacred cows, how about rethinking the Second Amendment? The amendment as written is confusing in one part (what does "a well-regulated militia being necessary" mean, anyhow?) and perfectly clear in another ("shall not be abridged"), and the courts that conservatives hate so much have come down fairly consistently on the most generous^† interpretation of the language. Political and social pressures combine to make any discussion of limiting gun rights all but impossible, but there is precedent for amending amendments - consider that the Eighteenth Amendment established Prohibition as part of the supreme law of the land (the Constitution), but the Twenty-First Amendment repealed it just 13 years later ... recognition that Prohibition might not have been a good idea after all. One of my more conservative friends recently commented on Facebook that the way to approach "gun control" would be to propose a Constitutional amendment and work through the amendment process to see if it could get enough support to be adopted. This is, of course, the right way to do it ... but in the America of 2016, where there are more guns than people, Congress has gone so far as to specifically forbid even the study of gun violence as a public health issue, and the gun lobby views any discussion in apocalyptic terms, it's not likely to get off the ground. You might as well get used to kevlar as a fashion accessory and active shooter drills as part of the education of our children.

I think it's time to recognize that it's 2016, not 1789, and call a new Constitutional Convention to update our founding document. Unfortunately, the times are such that it would probably be impossible to gather a group of well-informed, thoughtful citizens willing to calmly discuss issues of such critical importance ...

But compared to some of my other fantasies^††, I think it's worth a try.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Well, except for those parts about slavery that were in the original.

** Yes, yes, I know ... by voting to elect the government that exercises the power on their behalf. But that's not quite what the Tenth Amendment says, is it?

*** I wonder what he would make of Donald Trump.

† From the gun advocates' perspective, anyway.

†† Trust me, you don't want to know.

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, 2015

In the biblical book of Revelation, verses 1 through 8 of Chapter 6 introduce the figures we know today as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Only one of them (Death) is actually named; the others are simply described - War, Famine, and Pestilence.

But the Bible was written more than a thousand years ago, and things change. The traditional Four Horsemen certainly are still with us, but I contend that they are slowly being displaced by the updated Four Horsemen - Vanity, Ignorance, Demagoguery, and Denial.

Vanity is exemplified by self-important celebrities and political figures interested only in their own self-aggrandizement. Many televangelists, and rabble-rousing community leaders like Al Sharpton follow the Horseman of Vanity.

Ignorance is exemplified by those who deny evidence and blindly follow their prejudices. Those who choose to ignore common sense, compassion, morality, and established science in favor of blind religious belief follow the Horseman of Ignorance.

Demagoguery represents political blowhards who rage endlessly and irresponsibly, without regard for the consequences of their ravings. Right-wing TV and radio gasbags like Rush Limbaugh, and irresponsible politicians like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz follow the Horseman of Demagoguery.

Denial is the twin brother of Ignorance, and represents those who blindly follow their chosen beliefs, regardless of all evidence to the contrary, refusing to admit or acknowledge objective reality. Climate change deniers and Second Amendment zealots follow the Horseman of Denial.

America is a free country, although there are those who would play upon our basest instincts and fears in an attempt to take those freedoms away. Nobody will ever take away the hundreds of millions of guns now in the hands of people who take counsel of their worst fears, but our other fundamental freedoms - of speech, peaceful assembly, and religion - are on the block*. We are afraid of the wrong things.

Look around you. Think. And if you're going to follow a horseman, do it at the track.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Look under "p" for Patriot Act.

The Vehicle Option We Really Need

I ran across this interesting article the other day: 10 Illegal Vehicle Options You May Not Be Able to Enjoy. It discusses a series of options, some of them potentially quite useful, which are actually either completely illegal or illegal in some states or countries.

Some of these options seem to me to be pretty useful, such as Aspherical Side View Mirrors which curve away toward the outer edge so as to cover the car's blind spot. They are apparently only illegal because of bureaucratic and legislative delays in Washington*.

Another potentially useful, but illegal option (if you live in Europe) is Remote Starting, which allows you to start your car and let it warm up while you remain in your house ... a wonderful feature in miserably cold winter weather. I have no idea why this should be illegal anywhere, but I suppose there's some political issue that makes it hard. Go figure.

Strobing Brake Lights are another option that has been vetoed by regulators here in the states. They flash stroboscopically when the brake pedal is pushed with sudden force, theoretically making the suddenly-stopping car easier to see. I suppose they are considered illegal because of their potential effect on drivers suffering from epilepsy, but who knows?

Now, these and the other options listed in the article are interesting, but I believe they are missing out on the most important and useful option of all: .50 Caliber Machine Guns. This option would be strongly supported by the NRA and other advocates of the open carry of firearms in all venues. The argument would be the same as that made by open-carry advocates: it would encourage good behavior for fear of the potentially deadly outcome of bad behavior**. After all, who would cut you off in traffic if they knew you could hose them down with machine gun fire?

Even better than that, why not forget the guns as an option on your Beemer - go all out and hit the highway in your own World War II era halftrack with not two, but four .50 caliber machine guns on it! Couple it with your Gadsden Flag license plate and no lily-livered commiepinkoratbastard liberal pussy is gonna screw with you on the highway!

Drive with confidence and safety! Park where you want! Go for the option that defines 21st century American manhood - the Big Gun!

Have a good day. Drive ... defensively. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* I know ... it's hard to believe, isn't it?

** After all, as Robert Heinlein once wrote, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." That must be why there have been so few gun deaths in Washington, DC, since the gun restrictions there were struck down by the Supreme Court, ha, ha.

Sex, Marriage, and Hysteria

Since there obviously hasn't been enough written about the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v Hodges that marriage between same-sex couples is legal in all 50 states, I thought I'd weigh in with my two cents. Stop reading if you're sick of the whole thing ... I'll be off on another tangent tomorrow and you can come back then.

Let me begin by saying that I'm not gay. I'm as straight as they come, and I find the idea of sexual attraction between men or between women to be ... well ... unsettling, if not actually distasteful*. But I also understand that there are people in this world who, for whatever reason, are attracted to persons of the same sex. I don't know why this is so ... if the reason is chemical, psychological, or whatever. I accept that there are such people. I don't have to think or feel the same way, and it's certainly not my place to pass judgment on them when even the Pope says it's not his place to do so. As it happens, I have a great many friends who I know are gay or lesbian, and probably others who are, but haven't "come out." That's fine. If they don't make a fuss about my being straight, I won't make a fuss about them being gay. There are too many worse problems that divide us to waste time on this one.

However ...

I don't believe that a marriage between two adults of the same sex is the right environment in which to raise children. I believe that a child grows and benefits from having loving parents of both sexes, and while a same-sex couple can certainly love a child, they cannot give that child the lessons of life and the points of view that can be taught by a father and a mother. Same-sex marriage is wonderful for adults ... not so good for children.

That's all.

Have a good day. Grit your teeth and accept that not everybody thinks and acts the same way you do ... you'll be happier. More thoughts tomorrow, when we consider something we really ought to worry about.

Bilbo

* This has nothing at all to do with religious beliefs and everything to do with what I personally feel comfortable with. 

P.S. - I doubt that the issue of marriage - gay or straight - ever crossed anyone's mind while they were writing the Constitution.

Names

I apologize to those of you who came here expecting to find the report on our trip to Germany that I promised you. I'll run that post tomorrow. Today, I want to talk about a more important topic that arose over the weekend.

You have probably seen the news reports from New York City about two NYPD police officers who were murdered last Saturday afternoon as they sat in their patrol car. The killer ... who apparently committed suicide rather than face arrest ... had posted numerous online messages threatening to kill police officers in retaliation for the deaths earlier in the year of two black men who had been killed by police in Ferguson, MO and New York City. I find this justification a bit shaky, as he had apparently also shot his girlfriend in Baltimore (who likely didn't have anything to do with the other incidents) before traveling to New York to murder random police officers, but I'm sure he'll have his apologists.

One aspect of this terrible crime that no one has commented on is one that struck me right away: the names of the murdered police officers - Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu.

Think about that for a minute.

I think it says something about America that police officers of Chinese and Hispanic descent were on patrol together. America has traditionally been a country that welcomed people from everywhere, and although we've gone through cycles of discrimination based on racial, national, religious and other factors, we are still the refuge of choice for those fleeing bad conditions in their home countries. The phone book of any town in America is a compilation of names reflecting virtually every race, color, religion, and ethnic origin in the world.

I remember a cartoon from Mad Magazine many years ago that lampooned movie stereotypes with an imagined scene from a World War II film in which the unit sergeant was selecting men for a patrol ... "Okay, listen up! Jones, Perez, Chan, Goldberg, Pulaski, Schmidt, Yokuda, Giordano, and Wegryzynowicz, come with me! Oh, yeah, I almost forgot ... Olafsson, you, too!" The point, of course, was that America's army was supposed to be made up of people from everywhere, brought together by the common ideal that allegiance was owed to an idea - the principles of the Constitution - not to a king or an emperor or a dictator. No matter where you or your parents were from, if you embraced those ideas, you were an American.

Nowadays, of course, the idea is wearing a little thin. Conservatives worry that all immigrants (not just the illegal ones) are ruining the country and need to be kept out at all cost. And some immigrants, to be fair, don't come here because they believe in American ideals ... they arrive here and want to retain (and impose upon others) the very hatreds, customs, and beliefs that created the conditions from which they fled. "Honor killings" and the desire to implement Sharia law come to mind.

I don't have the answer to the problem. I wish I did. But one thing I do know is that we need to stop viewing each other with hatred and suspicion and start working together to build the better future the Founders imagined.

Much like officers Ramos and Liu were trying, in their own small way, to secure.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Revocation of Independence Day

Today we celebrate the most uniquely American of our national holidays – the Fourth of July, otherwise known as Independence Day - the day in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Second Continental Congress. Adoption and publication of the Declaration of Independence marked a watershed moment in the movement by many (although not all!) in the thirteen American colonies to break away from Great Britain and establish the United States as an independent nation.

It’s a day marked by picnics, family reunions, and displays of patriotic fervor including parades, the prominent display of flags, consumption of large amounts of hamburgers, hot dogs and beer, and the launching of millions of fireworks.

In honor of this year’s Fourth of July, and in acknowledgement of how well and truly our elected reprehensives are trying to screw up the nation, here is a classic piece of what-if satire, edited by yours truly to bring it up to date (I first saw it back in the early 2000’s) ...

NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE

A Notice from Her Majesty's Government to the Citizens of the United States of America,

In the light of your demonstrated failure to adequately govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories, except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The Right Honourable David Cameron, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded, and a questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition of the former United States to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. Look up “revocation” in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up “aluminium.” Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter ‘U’ will be reinstated in words such as “favour” and “neighbour;” skipping the letter ‘U’ is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell “doughnut” without skipping half the letters. You will end your love affair with the letter ‘Z’ (pronounced “zed,” not “zee”) and the suffix “ize” will be replaced by the suffix “ise.” You will learn that the suffix ‘-burgh’ is pronounced ‘burra’ e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to respell Pittsburgh as ‘Pittsberg’ if you can't cope with correct pronunciation. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up “vocabulary.” Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as “like” and “you know” is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed.” There will be no more bleeps on live television. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary then you won't have to use bad language as often.

2. There is no such thing as “US English.” We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter ‘u’ and the elimination of “-ize.”

3. You should learn to distinguish the various English accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to “Cockney” and “Upper-Class Twit,” and you will also have to learn how to understand regional accents. While we're talking about regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is “Devon.” If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become “shires” e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire.

4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. British shows such as “Fawlty Towers” and “Sherlock” will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience with short attention spans, a limited vocabulary, and an aversion to political incorrectness.

5. You should relearn your original national anthem, “God Save The Queen.”

6. You will stop playing American “football.” There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American “football” is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays “American” football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football, which for some reason you insist on calling "soccer." Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls, as it is a difficult game and they will be able to teach you. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American “football,” but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by 2015. You should also stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the “World Series” for a game which is not played outside of America*. Since only 2.15% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a children's game called “rounders” which is baseball without fancy team strip, oversized gloves, collector cards or hot dogs.

7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde**.

8. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because we don't believe you are sensible enough to handle dangerous weapons, you will require a permit if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts. You will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

10. You will be required to learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips. Fries aren't even French - they are Belgian, though 97.85% of you (including the chap who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium. Those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called “crisps.” Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be served warm and flat. Waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers.

11. Speaking of beer, the cold and tasteless stuff you insist on selling under that name is not actually beer at all, it is lager. From November 1st only proper British Bitter will be referred to as “beer,” and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as “lager.” The substances formerly known as “American Beer” will henceforth be referred to as “Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine,” with the exception of the product of the American Budweiser company whose product will be referred to as “Weak Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine.” This will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in Pilsen, Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion.

12. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

13. Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will correspond with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your cooperation.

Have a good day. Be of good humour, and be safe on this happy holiday. Don't drink and drive. Or drink and play with fireworks. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Other than in Japan, which does not count.

** The French word for excrement.

Bad Times a-Comin'?

It's no secret that we're living in an America that is very different from the one in which many of us grew up. Incivility and irrational anger have skyrocketed, the level of slime and nastiness in politics is at near-historic levels, and there's a general my-way-or-the-highway attitude that has taken hold among political parties, religions, and just about everybody but the local chess club*. Society has gotten more insensitive, more crass, and more violent, and the voices of reason and civility are being drowned out by the drumbeat of argument and unreason for its own sake.

So, Dear Readers, if we follow this miserable condition to its ultimate conclusion, where do we end up?

A very sobering possibility is suggested in this fascinating article by Natalie Wolchover from the online science news magazine LiveScience: Will the US Really Experience a Violent Upheaval in 2020?

It's not an outlandish or trivial question.

Dr Peter Turchin, an ecologist, evolutionary biologist and mathematician at the University of Connecticut, uses the new science of cliodynamics to extrapolate mathematical modeling data from the historical record. Using his methods, the article points out his conclusion that "the (historical) data indicates that a cycle of violence repeats itself every 50 years in America, like a wave that peaks in every other generation. This short-term cycle is superimposed over another, longer-term oscillation that repeats every 200 to 300 years. The slower waves in violence can either augment or suppress the 50-year peaks, depending on how the two cycles overlap." The data can be seen on this chart, which accompanies the article:

On this one, from Professor Turchin's cliodynamics website, which presents the data with a bit more color and explanation:

And on this larger chart, from LifesLittleMysteries.com, which adds still more detail (click it to see the entire thing):

Extrapolating from the historical data, we could see a spike in the level of violence in this country somewhere around 2020 ... just eight years from now.

This is not an unreasonable fear. The level of political polarization and irrational anger, the growing disparity among economic classes, the ready availability of high-powered weapons, and a culture centered on the rights of the individual rather than the benefit of the larger society all suggest that the prediction could be correct.

Of course, cliodynamics has its detractors. Massimo Pigliucci, a social scientist who studies pseudoscience and skeptical thinking, comments about Turchin's theory that,

"The database is too short: the entire study covers the period 1780-2010, a mere 230 years. You can fit at most four 50-year peaks and two [long-term] ones. I just don't see how one could reasonably exclude that the observed pattern is random."

Well, random or not, it provides food for serious thought. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the present level of heavily-armed irrationality in this country could lead to a spasm of violence in the coming years. Unfortunately, the people who most need to understand the role of their behavior in leading to this unhappy future are those least likely to pay any attention to the message.

What do you think? Is Dr Turchin being an alarmist, or are you running down to the local gun shop to stock up your arsenal for the coming explosion?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* And even there, the queens are demanding the right to kiss each other at Chick-fil-A restaurants.

President Obama's Speech

I just finished listening to Barack Obama give his inaugural address. I love a good speech, and I thought this one was one of the best. He spoke firmly, yet humbly of the challenges facing us as a nation, and the need to meet them with unity, purpose, humility, and an eye toward those freedoms and responsibilities that make us Americans. His tone and delivery were masterful.

And I loved this line:

"This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed — why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath."

I am proud to be an American, thankful for the freedom and the way of life bought and paid for by the sacrifices of those who came before me. As I watched Mr Obama take the oath of office today, I was reminded yet again - as if I need to be reminded - that I live in the greatest country on earth.

I don't know what the next four years will bring, but I think we're off to a good start.

God bless us, every one.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Good Luck, Mr Obama

The time is now 5:26 AM, and there are six hours and 34 minutes until President-elect Obama becomes President Obama. I wish him well in a job I don't know why anyone would want to have.

Not since Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933 has the country faced such daunting problems. Mr Obama inherits two wars, an economy in ruins, a foreign policy in shreds, and domestic problems that would have driven Solomon to tears. He has a loving and supportive family that will watch him age before their eyes as he tackles the smoking wreckage left after eight years of failed policies and arrogant hubris.

Expectations are high, but Mr Obama enjoys a significant advantage: a vast reservoir of goodwill on the part of an American people anxious for inspirational leadership. His challenge will be to channel this goodwill into support for policies that will be painful but necessary. In this, he can draw on two other advantages: his status as the nation's first black president and his gift for inspiring oratory.

Much has been made of Mr Obama's role as the first black president. Black citizens are justly proud of this moment. But it's useful to remember that Mr Obama is not the black president...as he himself has said, there is not a black America and a white America - there is the United States of America. It's useful to remember that although Mr Obama had virtually unanimous support of black voters last November, that support alone did not make him president. He was elected because he also attracted the votes of millions of white Americans who voted not for a black man or a white man, but for the man they thought was the better candidate. Race is still, and will remain, an issue in 21st century America...but the historic election of a black man to the nation's highest office is a slap in the face of those who have made an industry of fanning the flames of racial division.

Mr Obama's gift for oratory is well-known. The man gives a great speech. Unfortunately, we live in a time when we've been conditioned to listen for sound bites rather than well-constructed speeches, and to have legions of talking heads talk down to us to explain what we've heard, as if we're too stupid to understand it on our own. It's been a long time since we've had a really good public speaker in office. Mr Obama will need all of his legendary communication skills to rally the support he needs to move the nation forward. It's been a long time since there's been a President I really wanted to listen to. I'm ready.

Time will tell whether I made the right decision when I cast my vote for Mr Obama last November, whether he can rise to meet the fearsome challenges he inherits, and whether he can unite Americans of all races, economic levels, and political philosophies to do what's necessary to fix the country.

I'm cautiously optimistic, and I wish Mr Obama well as he takes on a job I would never want to have. He will need all the goodwill, all the support, all the love of his family, and a lot of luck to succeed. The nation needs an inspiring and dynamic leader. I think we've found one. I hope he is able to capitalize on the optimism of this historic day to move us forward.

Good luck, Mr Obama.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Return on Investment

In the roiling political soup that is today's America, there appear to be two kinds of people: those who think president-elect Obama is the Antichrist who will bring horror and ruin to the country; and those who think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread, beer in bottles, and edible panties. Well, maybe not the last one. But there's not really much of the Bilbo-style view, which may be summarized as "he's not the best possible guy for the job, but after the stellar performance of the present administration, why not give him a chance to prove himself?"

I got a blast of this divide yesterday when I was talking with my Dad.

Dad is 83 years old, and is the man I respect and admire above all others. We don't see eye-to-eye on everything, of course, but who does? Anyhow, after we'd exchanged the latest jokes, shared the latest news on the family, and discussed the weather, Dad launched into his weekly can you believe what that Obama's doing now? segment. This week, the focus of his ire was Mr Obama's proposal to spend many billions of dollars on a WPA-like program for national infrastructure projects (road and bridge repair, improving the energy efficiency of Federal buildings, expanding access to broadband internet, etc). "Where's he going to get that kind of money?", Dad wanted to know.

Where indeed?

In line with my amazing and well-documented ability to come up with the perfect rejoinder several hours after it is needed, I just mumbled an incoherent question back about where Mr Bush is coming up with the hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue banks, investment houses, and the auto industry. But as I replayed the conversation in my mind later, it occurred to me that - regardless of where the money for infrastructure repairs and corporate bailouts is coming from - we ought to be thinking about what we're getting for it.

When the money has been raised, distributed, and spent, what will remain?

- Money invested in infrastructure projects will help repair aging bridges, fill potholes, build new roads and repair old ones, and generally yield visible, useful results while actually putting people to work.

- Money invested in bailing out banks will yield ... what? The money distributed so far doesn't seem to have loosened up the credit constipation or put anyone to work.

- Money invested in rescuing the Big 3 automakers will yield ... what? Will people actually go back to work? Will the Big 3 start building reliable, fuel-efficient cars that people actually want to buy? How long will it take?

So...

If we're going to throw money at problems, we may as well throw it smartly. Instead of giving it to banks who appear to be recycling it into dividends and corporate salaries, why not use it to put people to work doing things that need doing?

There's no doubt in my mind that there are reinforced regiments of lawyers already preparing the lawsuits to fight any effort to start up a WPA-like program, and that the government will end up spending money that should be used to rebuild the country and put people to work on lining those lawyers' pockets. It's always easier to run down someone else's ideas than to come up with one of your own...or, as Lyndon Johnson once said, "Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one."

So let's not kick down the barn just yet. If the government is going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of our taxes for "economic stimulus programs," let's be sure they invest it on the right things, the things that will yield jobs and visible results. Let's see the return on the investment.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Bilbo Endorses Barack Obama For President. Sort Of...

Just about 48 hours from right now, I will vote in one of the most important and historic elections in American history.

Those of you who regularly and loyally (if in head-shaking exasperation) read my rants and grumblings know that I am hugely soured on both parties, both candidates, and the entire miserable political system which has driven us to the current perilous state of affairs. I am furious at the vast amounts of money which have been spent by both sides to smear each other...dollars which might have been spent improving education, fixing our roads and bridges, and providing health care. I am appalled at the depths the representatives of each side - official or unofficial - are willing to plumb in search of bogus, racist, and downright stupid accusations against each other, and at the willingness of many Americans to swallow this venomous swill whole. I'm tired of robo-calls and endless television ads that do nothing more than heap accusations against the other candidate, rather than explaining what their candidate will do, and why it's better. I'm tired of empty-headed endorsement of change, long after the word has lost any meaning amid the proliferation of wild, unfulfillable promises and dark, unfounded accusations.

But I'm an American. I love my country, warts and all, and I have a duty and a responsibility to express my opinion not just by whining and bitching to groups of people who probably agree with me, anyway, but by exercising my right to vote.

In this bitterly-fought and incredibly important election, I wish we had two candidates and two parties that offered me a clear and compelling choice. I wish could dance a waltz with Edyta Sliwinska, too, but that's not going to happen, either.

I have decided to vote for Barack Obama.

This is not to say that I am a wild-eyed, ardent supporter of the junior senator from Illinois. I believe he is a good and decent man with a history that is quintessentially, if not typically, American. He provides an image of steady, calm leadership at a time when such leadership is sorely needed. I wish he had some proven, tested executive experience, had traveled more, had more of a history of Senate service, or had served in the military...but he doesn't. I believe his long and unquestioning association with his openly racist pastor is a question mark against his judgment. But I think he's the better man.

I respect and admire Senator McCain. He is a true American hero who has shown leadership in the Senate, as well as an ability to take unpopular stands in the face of political pressure to do otherwise. But the longer the campaign has drawn on, the more I have come to question his readiness to be president. The selection of Governor Palin as his running mate was the final straw.

If you want to read one of the best, most nuanced and well-written political endorsements I've ever seen...one that captures my thoughts better than I probably could have captured them myself...read The Washington Post's editorial endorsing Senator Obama for president.

And so, on Tuesday morning I will walk up to the machine and cast one vote out of the tens of millions which will be cast across the nation. I will vote for the person I expect will be the first black man ever elected to the nation's highest office. I don't care that he's black. I don't care what his middle name is. My biggest concern as I vote for Senator Barack Obama is that he resists the pressures of the most extreme wings of the Democratic party to replace the stupid things the Republicans have done with the stupid things they wish to do.

The Republicans, with their economic plans that rely on elimination of regulation and tax benefits for businesses and the wealthy, have played a major role in bringing the nation to the brink of economic collapse. But it was the Democrats, with their well-intentioned but utterly stupid championing of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, that lit the fuse on the mortgage crisis bomb by pressing banks to make mortgage loans to those least able to pay them back.

I could go on, but you get the idea. I support Senator Obama as the better man for the nation's highest office, even if I can't support the full agenda of the Democratic Party.

The Republican administration of President Bush has led us into a needless war while turning away from the real threats posed by radical religious fundamentalism. It has ignored the middle class while championing benefits for big business and the wealthy and eliminating laws and regulations designed to protect the citizens and the environment. It has squandered the good will and friendship of a world horrified by the events of September 11, 2001. It has shown itself to be morally obtuse, ethically challenged, and economically bankrupt.

Can the Democrats do better?

They can, if they reject the most extreme liberal ideas and work with those Democrats and Republicans who represent the beliefs and ideals of the Great American Center.

This is not a time for wild swings of sociopolitical experimentation. It is a time for calm, steady, decisive leadership.

I believe Barack Obama is the man who can provide it.

And now it's up to him to prove me right.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Who Am I?

Well, it looks as if Hillary Clinton has finally bowed to the inevitable and conceded the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama. This allows the Democratic party to stop bickering internally and begin bickering at the Republicans, led by John McCain, the presumptive nominee of the GOP.

Yippee.

I hope I didn't embarrass you with that unseemly display of raucous celebratory glee.

If you've been reading my moaning for the last year or so, you know that I am about as disgruntled a voter as can be imagined. Neither of the major parties and none of the minor ones speak for me, none of the candidates are qualified to be president, and I'm looking forward to an election season marked by shouted oversimplifications and a lack of policy specifics. It's sad, but it's the modern American way.

I don't know what to call myself any more. I consider myself an Independent because there are some elements of both the Republican and Democratic philosophies that appeal to me, and very many that don't.

I could be a Republican because I'm a fiscally conservative retired military officer who believes in a strong defense, I'm almost 60, and I believe taxes should be held to the minimum necessary to perform essential functions that "provide for the common defense (and) promote the general welfare." I couldn't be a Republican because the party panders far too much to the single-issue partisans of the Religious Right and the NRA, and is far too deeply in the pockets of Big Business.

I could be a Democrat because I'm a socially liberal individual who believes the government has certain responsibilities to its citizens, that paying taxes is a civic responsibility, that government policies must balance the good of business and the welfare of the citizens, and that prosperity is not inconsistent with protection of the environment. I couldn't be a Democrat because the party takes too many positions on too many issues which are overly simplistic if not downright silly. And who needs a bunch of dumbasses like moveon.org?

I'm not whiny and simplistic enough to be a Democrat, and not arrogant and self-righteous enough to be a Republican.

So who do I vote for?

Barack Obama may be a fine man, but he is utterly unprepared to be president at this point in his life. This has nothing to do with his race; in fact, his race and the possibility of bringing black and white citizens closer together, is about the only thing I believe he has going for him.

John McCain is a true American hero, but he's too closely tied to the failed political and economic policies of George Bush. I admire him, but I can see what eight years of Republican administration has done to the country, and don't think the country can stand four or eight more years of the same.

Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate, isn't even worth mentioning.

I hope you have more luck than I do reconciling your personal beliefs with the available political parties and candidates and the reality of the modern world.

I think I'll move to Australia. Maybe Amanda has a spare room in Brisbane.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Lions, Lambs, and Venn Diagrams

One of the blogs I enjoy reading every day is “Indexed,” a very clever blog which reduces both simple and complex ideas to Venn diagrams or simple graphs on 3x5 notecards. It’s an interesting concept that is often funny, thought-provoking, or both.

This past Monday, in a post titled “But Mom, He Seems Really Nice,” the blog's author published this diagram:
My first reaction on reading it was outrage at what I viewed as a slur against military people. But after thinking about it for a while, my final reaction was sadness, mixed with a little irritation at oversimplified thinking.

Americans have had a schizophrenic relationship with their armed forces as long as there's been an America. It’s worth remembering that the framers of the Constitution, having had the experience of being oppressed by the army of King George III, made a special point of ensuring that their new nation’s army would be kept firmly under civil control. Article II, Section 2 makes the elected civilian president the commander in chief of the army. Within the Bill of Rights, many interpret the “right to bear arms” enshrined in the Second Amendment as allowing citizens to own weapons so that they could fight off their own government’s forces if necessary. And the Third Amendment specifically forbids the government from quartering soldiers in private homes in peacetime, and in wartime only as prescribed by law (King George’s quartering of soldiers in Americans’ homes was one of the actions listed in the Declaration of Independence as a reason for the break with England).

Today, as always in the past, there is a loud and vocal segment of American society which believes that peace is the natural state of mankind, and that military forces of any kind are both an abomination and a waste of money that could be used for better things. The members of “Code Pink” in California, for example, dedicate themselves to harassing military recruiters and forcing them out of their towns. I think these people are well-meaning but misguided at best, and ignorant and stupid at worst.

Much as we might wish it, the world is not a peaceful place (someone once said that the lion may lie down with the lamb, but the lamb won't get much sleep). Over the centuries evil leaders have arisen who could be dealt with only by war. Napoleon was not defeated at Waterloo by people waving “give peace a chance” signs, nor was Hitler vanquished by the wishful thinking of those who would have peace at any price. Ethnic cleansing in the Balkans was stopped only by force. The religious maniacs of al Qaeda murdered nearly 3,000 people (almost including me) on September 11, 2001. And the list goes on. Unfortunately, some people are so evil, and some threats so dangerous, that war is the only answer. And when war is the only answer, an army trained and ready to wage it is the only tool worth having.

So it may be clever and funny to equate military recruiters and perverts. It may be satisfying to poke a stick in an unpopular administration’s eye by protesting against the military. But there are a few points to remember when you do:

The armed forces of the United States don’t decide who to go to war against. The Constitution gives that authority to the President and Congress. You can rail against the military all you want, but you’re wasting your time and energy – the people you should be protesting against are in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

If you are attacked or taken hostage by terrorists, or if the country is attacked or invaded, who is more likely to save you: Code Pink, or the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines of America’s armed forces?

Is your ability to protest against your government’s policies without fear protected by Code Pink, or by the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines of America’s armed forces?

The answer is pretty clear. But only if you actually engage your brain…which, sadly, many people just won’t take the time and effort to do.

Lucky for them that America’s armed forces are full of brave men and women who listened to a military recruiter. And those brave men and women are willing to make the sacrifices to protect them no matter how ignorant and ungrateful they are.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

A Pain In the Gas

The Mistress of the Dark has twice in the last week blogged eloquently about the price of gasoline, the lack of attention to it by the presidential candidates, and the silly American penchant for buying huge cars that drink lots of that expensive gas. There is, naturally, lots to be said about the price of gas.

First of all, in world terms, our gas is still pretty cheap. In Germany and England, gas costs about $9.00 per gallon, so we have a way to go. That doesn't make the economic pain to the American consumer any less, but it illustrates that we've gotten by well for a long time relative to the rest of the world.

The Government Accountability Office has published several reports examining the price of gasoline. One, "Motor Fuels: Understanding the Factors that Influence the Retail Price of Gasoline," was published in May 2005, but provides still-relevant background on the issue. You can download and read this report (GAO-05-525SP) at the GAO website (or e-mail me and I'll send you a copy); you can also find there numerous other studies and reports dealing with energy policy...none of which anyone in the government appears to be using for anything other than doorstops.

According to the study cited above, the cost of a gallon of gasoline breaks down roughly as shown:

Crude Oil - 48%
Taxes - 23%
Refining - 17%
Distribution and Marketing - 12%

These percentages are not fixed, and vary over time. Today, I would expect that the cost of crude oil is a much higher percentage of the total, as the price charged per barrel is wildly out of line with the actual cost of drilling it. Taxes are still about a quarter of the total, and provide the money to keep roads repaired (although if you live in Northern Virginia, or in my home town of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, you'd never know it). The owner of the local gas station doesn't make much on the $3.50 per gallon he's charging you...he gets a few cents of this, and makes most of his profit on auto repairs and the snacks, drinks, and other things he sells in addition to gasoline.

We are, of course, paying the price for the way we've chosen to develop the country. We are a nation wedded to the automobile, with sprawling urban areas, widely-spaced neighborhoods, and poor public transportation. Europe, in contrast, has wonderful public transportation: when I lived in Germany, I took the bus to work almost every day, and the train for longer-distance travel whenever possible. In addition, European towns are much more compact, and it's easy in most places to walk to all the basic things you need: you are seldom not within walking distance of all the stores and other services you might need. In contrast, where I live in Northern Virginia, it's a bit more than a half-mile to the nearest shopping center...not a long walk, but if you're elderly, or it's pouring rain or the snow is coming down, it's long enough.

Big cars are an American tradition, but one that may slowly change as the price of gas continues to rise. Most people don't need an SUV or a huge pickup truck to commute to work...the cost of gasoline may gradually drive those who really don't need such big vehicles to smaller cars, but it'll take a while. In any case, people in this country love their cars - every day when I ride the bus or Metro train to work, I can look out the window and see long lines of cars creeping up I-95 toward DC, most of them with only one person on board.

The skyrocketing cost of gasoline may lead us to improve mass transit, although I'm not holding my breath. It will almost certainly drive higher real estate prices for properties closer to the urban centers, and may lead to a change in where we live - today, in order to afford a decent house, many people live a great distance from DC and accept a very long commute; as the price of gas rises, that may no longer be an acceptable trade. Future suburbs may be built more along European lines, with compact development around a commercial and service center.

Where is all this going? I don't know. But it is, to use the terrible pun, a real pain in the gas.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Bitter Anniversary

This week the newspapers and airwaves have been full of reporting tied to the fifth anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq. Much of Washington was tied up yesterday by people demonstrating against the war, talking heads have pontificated ad nauseum, the President says everything's fine and victory is just around the corner, and on the other side of the world, the war grinds on.

As you regular readers know, I think the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a terrible mistake. Unfortunately, now that we've punched this tar baby, we're stuck with it with no particularly good options for getting out. Despite what many demand and Mr Obama and Ms Clinton advocate, we can't just pull up stakes and leave...well, actually, we could, but the resulting maelstrom would be truly horrifying and would likely be worse than anything we're seeing now. The only difference is that, having wrecked Iraq and destabilized the region, we'd just hunker down at home and ignore the consequences.

Perversely, the war is going fairly well from a purely military standpoint. Mr Bush has finally found a general who understands the war he's fighting, and the much-maligned "surge" strategy has begun to pay dividends in bringing the country under control and providing the tenuous security the Iraqi government needs to exert its authority and begin rebuilding the country. Unfortunately, the country as a whole doesn't seem too interested. Sunnis and Shia still hate each other, graft and corruption are endemic, and religious passions still outweigh practical day-to-day issues.

As long as the Iraqis fail to take advantage of the security provided by American sacrifices, the country will never pull itself back together, and we'll remain stuck to the tar baby, covering it with more and more layers of blood and treasure.

There was a very interesting and sobering feature article in the Washington Post yesterday titled "Iraqis and Americans Offer Perspectives on the War," and I'd like to share two excerpts from it with you.

The first looked at Army Captain Derek Bennett, who has chosen to leave the Army after his second combat tour in Iraq. After detailing the reasoning behind his decision, he asked the rhetorical question, "What have we been doing? This isn't like World War II. There's no VJ Day, no sailor kissing a girl when he comes home. This is somebody saying that trend lines indicate a sustainable level of violence. That's not a great feeling."

The second looked at another Army officer who "...spent nearly a year walking patrols as an infantry officer in Baghdad. He saw soldiers dying, his squad leader lost his legs, and he witnessed problems with missing supplies. But when he returned to the United States in 2004, the biggest news story was that Janet Jackson's breast was exposed during the Super Bowl halftime show." This officer, Paul Rieckhoff, who joined the Army Reserves in 1998, volunteered for active duty after 9/11, and went to Iraq in 2003, went on to say: "The lack of involvement on the part of the American people is unprecedented. And it's my biggest criticism of the president: He has never asked the American people to do anything."

And so here we are, five years into a war nobody quite knows why we started. The war's architects are now publishing their books which defend their actions and blame the problems on each other. American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are still dying and suffering horrific injuries for an Iraqi population that isn't interested in reconciling its internal differences and moving forward to build a thriving new nation. And, as has often been said, the Armed Services are at war, but America is at the mall.

Have a good day, and thank the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines who protect your ability to have it. If you choose to exercise your right to free speech by blocking traffic and acting silly in the streets of Washington, remember it's their sacrifices that enable you to do it.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo