Gold Says

Horns? Really?

2009-08-12T22:27:00.003-05:00

Quite amazingly, there are some people in this world, after sinking about as low as a person can go, suddenly acquire the ability to go lower. Here's this tidbit:

Then there's Barry Lynn, alleged "Christian minister," whose stock in trade is to denounce any mention of religion anyplace, anytime. Look, I'm a Christian minister, but even I have to admit that the sight of a kindergartner praying is terrifying to most folks. (The first person to post Barry Lynn's bar mitzvah photos or birth announcement (mazel tov!) wins a free copy of my latest book...

So let's see, since Mr. Lynn is not the type who would be part of, say, an Inquisition, he must be damn Jew or something -- is that what you're trying to say, Ms Coulter? (If it weren't for the fact that I'm reasonably sure that there's at least one person out there who's reading her screed and saying, "Yup, that's right. Uh-huh." I might not be so offended. But I am.)

Ms Coulter, I implore you to attempt an action that's generally believed to be physically impossible. But please do try.

Time to Kowtow!!!!

2009-03-06T14:54:00.003-06:00

I am so damn tired about the perceived need to kowtow to the people who explicitly make their money off other people's labor.

Yes, such folks serve a necessary function in our economy -- indispensable, even. But still...

Stock markets are bad indicators of the overall health of an economy. Essentially they are at their highest when two things occur in tandem: Growing corporate revenues and growing corporate margins. The first of these does indicate health; the later, not so much. The two times when the percentage of corporate revenue that went to the bottom line (profits) were the highest? 1929...and 2007.

...and another thing: When the usual suspects complain about how much of the tax bill the top 1% shoulders, why is it that they don't complain about the amount of the overall stuff they have?

The Paranoid Style in American Politics -- always worth a read.

2009-02-25T13:03:00.003-06:00

This article, first published in the November, 1964 edition of Harper's Magazine remains as timely today as on the day it was written.

The Paranoid Style in American Politics

Looking Backwards -- and Forwards....

2009-02-24T14:04:00.003-06:00

Though it is clear that we need -- and will likely continue to need -- some significant government spending in order to avoid the direst of potential consequences, that is at best a medium term fix. What really needs to be repaired (at least once we get past neglcted bridges and tunnels and roads and schools and all the rest) is the way the fruits of labor are distributed within our society.

Consider the loud, triumphant headlines much of the past decade, for example: "Productivity rises again!" "Corporate profits up!" Now step back for a moment and consider what this really means. We'll start with productivity. Let's see. When productivity rises, it means that more "stuff" is produced for a lower cost. Naturally, some of this can be attributed to the efficiencies created by investments in technology, but almost certainly not all.

No, there's something else at work here.

Real wages have effectively remained static at best over the course of the last several decades -- all during a time when the economy, in aggregate terms, has grown rather significantly. Even worse, the "real wages" mentioned above are aggregates themselves; for many within our society, to have kept up -- or even close to it -- would have been a great improvement.

Now what has increased greatly over that time? Two things, mostly: Asset values in general (even when you take the last several months into account, for example, the overall price of housing in real terms has increased greatly). The kinds of things that enable the kind of class mobility that is so loudly and often said to be at the root of the "American Dream", things like healthcare, college tuition and the like.

No wonder we're leveraged to the hilt as a society -- and no wonder the blip in home values has brought us down so low, so fast.

It's really simple. When an ever larger proportion of the overall income of a country is placed in ever fewer hands it can't all go back into the economy. So it goes into assets, raising the demand for same, and hence raising their relative valuation. Since homes are the one kind of such asset that a significant percentage of people own -- and the only thing that kept up with the expansion of the overall economy (as opposed to wages) -- people will tap that asset to maintain a lifestyle. And then....

"Creative destruction" is the oft-heard term, something that is important for a capitalist system to keep on developing. And it's true. But, just as it is healthy for the growth of aggregates within an economy, the insecurity it produces among people is destructive. And, at a moment like this one, where unemployment rates are rising, the natural (and correct) inclination is to rein everything in, which, of course feeds upon itself. Given the dominant business philosophy of the recent decades, one where labor is a necessary evil at best, all this is unsurprising.

There's plenty of work to be done. Increasingly, there are plenty of people to do it. Unless and until those people find themselves in a situation where there's some reasonable confidence that they can make ends meet, put a little away and be able to do so on a consistent basis, every little bump in the road has the potential of turning into a large-scale calamity.

It's time to renew that American Dream -- again for the many, not just the few.

The Two Commandments

2009-02-23T10:44:00.001-06:00

It's pretty simple.

1. Be a mensch.

2. Don't be a chazer.

The rest? The rest we'll get to.

Curse of the Bourbons

2009-02-23T09:04:00.003-06:00

They still don't get it. And it amazes me.

I'm watching Gov. Sanford of South Carolina continuing to spew the same old line about how government should tighten its belt when things get a little bit tough economically. It's as if the kind of social spending that states (typically not exactly the most progressive of institutions; in general they can't be, it's too easy to move across state borders) engage in is some kind of luxury. You know all that over-the-top stuff: Libraries. Firefighters. Health clinics.

No, as I've stated before, the way for government to behave is exactly the opposite; when things get tough it is government and only government who must step up to the plate. When things improve, that is the time to start cutting.

Explicit government for "the gots" -- coming to a state near you.

Being a Fan

2009-02-17T23:54:00.006-06:00

[A friend of mine on Facebook, posed a question about why one might be a fan of one team but not another; the following was my reply. I kind of liked it, so I reproduced it here (oh, and just for context, I'm a Yankee fan)]

Ah. What makes someone a fan of team A and not team B...one of life's eternal questions.

For me, I think it was two things: First of all, I became aware of baseball in 1961, when there WERE no Mets. The other thing, as time went on, was the fact that the Mets were sort of the suburban team, the urban redneck team; they played way out in Queens, almost Long Island, out where city folks had run to to escape the changing demographics. It was the whole, "Well you can't go to Yankee Stadium, it's in the SOUTH BRONX!!!" thing.

Later, of course, as they became successful again (remember, they won no pennants between '64 (when I was 7) and '76 (when I was nineteen and in my senior year at Columbia) the Yankees had become a strange amalgam of NY high class and distinct urban funk while the Mets had remained, well, the Mets. The former, for many reasons was more attractive.

The Dodgers played their last game in Brooklyn right about the time I turned nine months old, so my only connection to them was that the greed of O'Malley had stolen what should have been a significant part of my youth -- and the soul of the place of my birth. Strangely, as I cried my way through the '63 World Series sweep, the old relatives would say, "What's wrong....the home team's winning!"

Also a quick note - both of my uncles on my mother's side, Brooklyn boys both, were Giants fans.

In early days I was a Jets fan; I liked the "upstart" nature of the AFL. Once they lost that and became more part of the Mets kind of universe, I went to the Giants.

The main thing about it, though, is that the beauty of being a sports fan is rather like the beauty of playing the game -- it's the most important thing in the world and utterly meaningless at the same time.

...but despite the fact that intellectually I know well what George Steinbrenner and now, his sons represent, the NY and the pinstripes just brings me back to first seeing them on the old black and white and then on the hallowed departed grounds (7/28/62) in full flesh and color against what seemed like more green than I'd ever seen...

In these times of performance enhancing drugs, billion dollar franchises and centimillionaire ballplayers can I justify it? Of course not. Fortunately, I don't have to.

I can sit back and share the same thing with my boys that my father shared with me...times at the ballpark watching some improbable occurrence or another, great performance or unimaginable blunder, times in front of televisions or by the radio either cheering for or yelling at men who can't hear you trying to do their jobs, playing a game at a level I never could -- at least if you exclude my dreams, day- or otherwise.

Does that sum it up?

Opposite behavior

2009-02-06T22:22:00.003-06:00

I realized something. The right way for government to act in terms of spending is simple: Just do the opposite of what would be prudent for individuals! When things are good, rein it in, cut it back. When things are not so good, go to town!!!!

And it's that simple.

And some people will never get it. You know, the "a government should be run like a business" types. There's another name for them. But I won't use it here.

Shhhhh. It starts with an "R".....

Phrase of the Day

2008-11-29T14:26:00.002-06:00

Today's Phrase of the Day refers to those folks who see the bogeyman of "class warfare" whenever anyone dares to bring up the maldistribution of wealth in our society, the ones that willfully ignore the fact that much of the economic progress we made as a society in the decades after WWII has been lost, the ones who believe that human toil is nothing but a commodity to be used and abused as those who take (typically false) risks see fit.

In the spirit of Safire and Agnew, I offer today's entry:

Beware the Enemies of Economic Equity!!!!!!

The Whole World is Watching....

2008-11-05T16:04:00.002-06:00

A little over forty years ago, the whole world was watching the events taking place in a park in Chicago. I know I was. And it profoundly changed me.

Last night, the the whole world was also watching the events taking place in park in Chicago. The difference is that this time they were smiling.

I was, too. And with any luck it will change all of us.

Bombings, History, McCain, Ayres and all that...

2008-10-04T11:31:00.003-05:00

from the New York Times, October 3, 2008:

"In a televised interview last spring, Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama’s Republican rival, asked, 'How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people?'

Of course, at the time he was referring to William Ayres, a founder of the Weather Underground nearly forty years ago, now a long time Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

Hmmm. Let's see. "Someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people." Does Bill Ayres fit that profile? Yes. Undoubtedly. Though exactly which bombings he actually participated in is something known only by Professor Ayres himself and likely a handful of others, the likelihood that he was involved in bombings that had the possibility of killing innocents is at least reasonable.

Strangely, though, the exact same phrase describes one of the candidates for president as well. After all, what exactly was John McCain doing in the summer of 1967? Say what you will about the intentions of the war in Vietnam, the Cold War and everything else; looking at it through the lens of history is not my intention here. Still, given his commentary, there's an obvious question: What, after all, is the likelihood that, in his twenty three bombing missions over North Vietnam, no innocent was killed?

What have they done with John McCain?

2008-09-29T11:29:00.003-05:00

Back in the day, though it was clear that he "played for the wrong team," John McCain at least seemed to have a basic integrity. Yes, he was always clearly a Reaganite (not even remotely a compliment in my book), but he was also more than willing to buck the Republican base orthodoxy when conditions required it. In the 2000 primary campaign he was viciously pilloried for that lack of orthodoxy.

Then it happened. He decided that, as an old man, he wanted to add "POTUS" to his resume. And the only way to do that in the world of the GOP was to kiss the rings of those who comprise the darkest of the dark side. And kiss he has.

In watching a campaign appearance just now, there he was, spewing lies and half-truths, giving a speech that seemed to come directly from the Rovian playbook (page 27, I believe). When in doubt, as the playbook goes, go directly to the fear card. Truth is secondary. Say it often, say it loud.

In referring to Barack Obama, the following tidbits (all paraphrased):

"He's naive. He doesn't understand the world stage!" (As if the realpolitik/neocon bunch have been so amazingly successful.)

"He's going to raise your taxes!" (Well, yes, if your income is over $250,000 -- in other words, if you're among those who have benefitted most from the gutting of the middle class during the current administration -- you're going to pay more to assist in getting our national finances back in order. Since this was not a fund raising gathering of what President Bush used to refer to as "his base", I suspect a suitably small percentage of those present fall into that category.)

Who is the "man behind the curtain" to whom we are to pay no attention, anyway?

Vapidity Rules

2008-09-15T10:29:00.004-05:00

I'm listening to Sarah Palin doing a stump speech in Golden, Colorado -- and the vapidity is absolutely stunning. There she goes, talking about the current financial turmoil -- and railing against the effects of all the financial deregulation that has been the mantra of Republicans for decades now. Of course, after mentioning that, she spent an equal amount of time celebrating sports figures who ply their trade in Colorado who have Alaska roots. At least.

It's amazing. Can anyone actually buy this nonsense? How long can the lies continue?

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

I know I am.

War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. And more....

2008-09-08T11:47:00.005-05:00

In my several decades of following the political scene (I got an early start on that one) I have never been moved to rage quite as quickly as has been the case over the last week or so. And I mean rage -- unbridled, vocabulary limiting, screaming rage. The abject lies and mischaracterizations that have been flowing from the newly anointed St. Paul duo have been just astounding. "Change!" they bellow. "Change!" What kind of change are they proposing?

We have an economy that's rapidly declining. Why? How could this possibly be the case when we continue to hear stories of how the productivity of the American worker keeps rising? Wouldn't that "rising tide raise all boats," as the three decade Republican mantra says? Well, no. Think of what "productivity" really means. It means that goods and services are delivered with less labor cost. Hmmm. "Less labor cost." In other words, people are getting paid less to do more. the increased number of overall dollars are being funnelled to fewer and fewer pockets. And we wonder why "the consumer" is tapped out?

Of course, at the same time, we've experienced a time when exactly the kinds of monies that are flowing into the fewer pockets are taxed at a lower rate than regular income.

Have they said word one about how they're going to change that? Well, no. Of course not. That's exactly the kind of thing they believe in. There will be much talk about "earmarks", with easy candidates like basic science ("three million dollars for studying the DNA of bears.....") -- and making the assumption that all earmarks are things like that.

One more point: In a speech by Gov. Palin, she says something along the lines of: "Our opponents say they will fight for you. Well, of the four of us, only one has truly fought for the American people...." alluding to Sen. McCain's military record. Fine. We respect his service. But "fought for me"? Dropping bombs from great height, many of which fell on innocents? All in the name of fighting a nationalist movement halfway around the world? No. I'm not buying that one either.

Celtics Win!!!

2008-06-18T16:36:00.002-05:00

I am not a Celtics fan.

Back in the day, when I was growing up, you were either a Russell fan or a Wilt fan. I was a Wilt fan.

Then in the 'eighties, you were either a Bird fan or a Magic fan. I was a Magic fan. Besides, outside of his wonderfully arrogant artistry on the court, every time I see that white "33" on a green tank top, I think of the white guy in "Do the Right Thing" saying "I was born in Brooklyn!" (I was, too, by the way.)

But that embrace between Kevin Garnett and the aforementioned Bill Russell (who won his first championship 51 years ago) -- well, that was good stuff!!!

I do, however, continue to not be a Celtics fan...

It was the horse!!!!

2008-06-11T12:01:00.002-05:00

I have a theory about the Belmont Stakes last Saturday. Sad to say, I have to make the assumption that some kind of chicanery was going on. Yup, it was crooked. The race was thrown.

Neither the ownership, the trainer nor the jockey was involved. Nor was any other human.

Yes, I have to say it. Big Brown threw the race all by himself. Faced with the prospect of making a lousy quarter on every dollar he bet, he tanked. Gave it up. Took a dive. Basically, he bet the field and made a mint.

There was another reason; had he won the race, he would have hit a track just once more, at the Breeders' Cup in the fall. Now he gets one additional start, in Saratoga later this summer. After all, once his racing career is over what does he have to look forward to at the tender age of three? An endless supply of high strung athletic fillies? What's the fun in that?

[note: No research was done in preparation for his post.]

Fish and fowl and....

2008-06-10T16:53:00.003-05:00

Can it be done?

Can John McCain be fish and fowl and beef and tofu and whatever other protein food group you might care to mention? Can he be a "maverick" and adhere to what has become the standard Republican mantra all at the same time? Can he simultaneously satisfy the religious hard right and the swing voters? Will perceived "national security" issues trump choice? Can a traditional Republican "spend less" (and tax rich folks less) approach fly in a time when rising prices and the lack of the old-time union "wage floor" will be putting a serious squeeze on the largest swath of the American public?

I sure hope not.

"Can't vote for the brother?" "No, gotta vote for the sister!"

2008-01-09T08:03:00.000-06:00

Much has been made about the fact that the late poll numbers -- both the independent polls and those conducted by the campaigns themselves -- were way off the mark on the Democratic side of yesterday's New Hampshire primary. The answer, it seems, is really quite simple.

It was not the Bradley effect. It was not a case of primary voters walking into the voting booth, closing that curtain and saying to themselves, "Here in the booth, alone with my thoughts, I cannot pull the lever/mark the box/whatever for the black man." [note: This is in contrast to the more public forum of the Iowa caucuses.]

So it was not a case of "can't vote for the brother." What it was, on the other hand, was a case of women going into the booth and thinking: "Gotta vote for the sister!!!" Simple as that.

I'll admit it: I've become an Obama supporter. Not a hugely strong one, but that's the button I would push were the Texas primary to be held today. I like his resume (community organizer, president of Harvard Law Review). I like the break with the past.

Realistically though, from a policy perspective, the differences are not huge. And, given the history, I can certainly understand the late Hillary vote. [It's not anything like voting for "one of your own" who's clearly a member of the "other side" -- the prospective "Condi effect" as it were.]

It's early -- and the beat goes on. As John Edwards said: "Two states down, forty-eight to go!"

Clearance Time!!!

2007-12-28T15:08:00.000-06:00

For some strange reason, I get all the "offer" emails that NewsMax sends out. [I suspect at some point I signed up for one of their somewhat interesting financial newsletters -- from the "Gold bug" subsidiary].

They're having a big clearance on various items; it's an end of year thing.

The most startling thing I saw, however, was the "George W. Bush Mug" -- a list price of $14.95...and a clearance price of....wait for it... $.99!!!

Hmmm. Tells ya something...

Odd Synchronicity

2006-02-18T17:48:00.000-06:00

I've always been fascinated by combinations of events that are totally unrelated, yet share a bit of a common theme. Today I had just such an experience.

Around noon time, I was sitting in my living room with CSPAN-2 on the television and my nearly ten month old doing his Robo-baby act on the floor. Two unrelated events, right? Nope.

The CSPAN-2 piece (it's Saturday, so it's BookTV) was a rather predictable Cato author with the rather predictable complaint about dastardly federal regulation of business. As is usually the case these days, the regulation that was drawing the ire of the author and his syncophants was Sarbanes-Oxley.

While all this was going on, Robo-baby was busy trying to stuff a little board book into the microwave of the little toy kitchen in the corner of the room -- with limited success. Finally, with virtually no fanfare, he gave up and moved on to the next little bit of discovery.

So there you have it: A baby boy trying to cook the books, failing and moving on and an august group of principled businessmen complaining that regulations were not allowing them to do the same thing.

Gotta wonder...

The big guy!

2005-08-12T14:23:00.000-05:00

This is the big guy. A remarkable, thoughtful kid.

To give you an example, the other day, while we were eating dinner he asked, "How far away is Saturn?"

I said, "Oh, I don't remember exactly, but I think it's about seven hundred million miles." (Actually, it's closer to nine hundred million, but I digress.)

His reply?

"That has eight zeroes!"

Sometimes, you just have to sit back and smile. And not get too teary.

Finding Reality

2005-08-05T23:58:00.000-05:00

Your humble correspondent... (ahem; let's start again)

It took me a long time -- and it was a great run while it lasted -- but, finally, it's time for me to put whatever skills and talents I have to work. And when I say `work', I mean something for which I will be remunerated sufficiently to keep this ship afloat. Toward that end, as of late I've been involved with all manner of networking, figuring it may be one of my best chances to see if anyone's buying.

Yesterday, I took a country drive (well, more or less once you get off the Interstate) to Dripping Springs, attending the "Wizard Academy" free seminar. I'm not fully sure why I went, marketing and advertising being as far from both my experience and inclination as you could imagine, but someone I'd met along the way recommended it. Besides, it came with freebies and lunch (and nothing that resembled a sales pitch) -- so I went.

I went and it was intriguing.

Very intriguing.

Relating neurophysiology, demographics and sociology with a little bit of (tastefully done, though a little off-putting) scripture, Roy H. Williams does his schtick. And it's great schtick. What's scarier, is that it recognizes what the small retailer knew for years, when that scale of business for general merchandise (i.e. the stuff you can get at any mall) was still feasible. You take good care of your good customers, the ones who buy regularly -- and often buy something extra -- and don't give you trouble. The ones who say, "I can get it a buck cheaper at such-and-such's a mere bus ride away", well, you're not terribly sad when they go. And then he goes on to give a `brain geography' lesson in explaining why radio -- or specifically sound -- is, in general, the most effective way to make the greatest possible impression.

He runs this Wizard Academy, a school for marketing and communications, in a facility carved (and being carved) out of a sloped piece of land in Dripping Springs, Texas. I'm not sure what any of this means yet, but maybe I'm half a step closer to my goal.

Fears for the Future

2005-08-03T13:16:00.000-05:00

Austin, Texas -- 08/03/2005

The world today has me uneasy. I particularly fear for my two sons.

Do I fear terrorism? Well, not particularly. I've always been an adherent to the "small, finite chance" theory, i.e. there's always a small, finite chance of the most horrific possible thing happening. So I fear terrorism the same way I fear things like meteorites, pieces of forgotten communication satellites, lightning strikes -- all the, erm, stuff that, well, happens.

After the events of September 11th, 2001, I've likened the battle against terror to the battle against roaches in an old New York City apartment (or my house in Austin, for that matter). Taking a certain series of simple actions -- whether it's taking the garbage out or actually washing the dishes that have accumulated in the sink -- will take care of most of the problem. Sealing possible entry ways will help further. Sure, there'll be the occasional scurrying exoskeleton, the occasional surprise, but significantly fewer.

The problem comes in when you try to completely eliminate them, kill every last roach in the place and never see another. There's only one way to do that: Poison. Lots of poison. Enough poison to get into every crevice, every crack. Enough poison to kill every roach as soon as it hatches, no matter how well hidden or protected.

Of course the problem with this kind of regimen is that not only does it alter the behavior of the creatures you're trying to protect, i.e. the humans, but the effect upon the environment boomerangs as well. Roaches are both hardy and unconcerned with the plight of the individual. If a million die, there are a million more, just lurking deep within the walls. Eventually, if, indeed, the total elimination of the pests is the goal, it becomes necessary to make their world -- and the world of the humans with which they share space -- pretty toxic.

On September 11th, approximately three thousand perished. An act of terror, to be sure. A tragedy of unimagined proportions. An event that some say has changed things forever. In the same year, however, how many died on the nation's highways? Could we eliminate all of those potential deaths? Probably not. Could we reduce them to a mere handful? Well, sure -- all you'd have to do is reduce the speed limit on the roads to, say, ten miles per hour. That would pretty much do it. Well, why wouldn't we do such a thing? I think the answer is obvious.

When it comes to terrorism though, my fear is that the equivalent approach may take hold, piece by piece. While more -- and better -- intelligence gathering would be a good thing, where does it stop? A little more surveillance? Sure. But how much?

At the end of 2001, I picked my wife up at the airport; it was the first time I'd been in such a facility since the 9/11 attacks. No longer could you get near a gate to greet a loved one. And there, at the top of the escalator, was some crew cut kid, decked out in the finest the DoD can muster, with a watchful eye and a gun that could certainly have wreaked more than a little havoc. And my first reaction was, sadly, "They've won."

Things have not, however, become that drastic -- with the moderation of time passing. Well, not yet, anyway. Recent events in London -- in effect, another `It CAN happen here' moment -- have begun the institution of an increasingly intrusive security regime. Random searches on the New York City subway system is but one example.

There are two forms of security, the immediately obvious and the inherently covert. The former only works when it's visible; think the `cop on the beat'. The latter only works when it's invisible; the undercover cop who's visible isn't undercover at all -- and thereby fundamentally useless. When you get to the in between state, the idea that at any moment you could be being watched, things get a little bit uncomfortable. Despite assurances that it's only the `bad guys' who need to worry about it, the echoes of `If you have nothing to hide...' are hard to ignore. Once the infrastructure is in place, the kinds of things being looked for can begin to shift, imperceptibly at first, but shift nevertheless.

Once that shift occurs, the natural thing is to look out for anything that threatens the status quo. Defending the status quo becomes paramount. And, given just how good we've gotten at looking -- with the advent of ever more effective technologies -- the status quo will be defended. Change will be supressed. Ultimately, virtually all of us are the poorer for it.

Imagine if J. Edgar Hoover had modern surveillance techniques at his disposal. Consider the effect it sould have had on, say, the civil rights movement of the early sixties. Consider the effect it would have had upon any engine of social change.

Finding `bad guys' is hard. They are typically well disciplined and specifically aware of both the people looking out for them and the techniques likely to be used. This makes the rest of us, those without any directly destructive intent, the low hanging fruit. And, after all, if the security regime doesn't find someone it considers to be `dangerous' once in a while, it can't sustain itself. Ultimately, freedom for most suffers more than the (relatively) few with true bad intent.

So what do I fear? It's obvious. I fear the coming police state. Just like the frog in the pot of water that's slowly heating up, the changing conditions are easy to ignore -- at least until you're cooked.

A Gesture of Assent

2004-12-20T16:11:00.000-06:00

Austin, Texas 12/20/2004

In our culture -- in most cultures -- we have numerous ways to wordlessly express our displeasure at the actions of another. Whether it be the one finger salute, the knife hand in the crook of the opposite arm or the forward stroke of the fingers along the bottom of the chin (or countless others) the gestures are unambiguous and well understood.

On the other hand, sometimes people are civil; the oft-maligned `random acts of kindness' are more common than we sometimes think (or perhaps we've heard the whole `it's all going to hell in a handbasket' argument so often we just assume that they're rare). As an example, my family and I was merging into a local expressway during afternoon rush hour and a BMW -- yes a Beamer -- moved over a lane to let us in. This was quite appreciated; unfortunately there is no single gesture of thanks in response that would be unambiguously understood.

A peace sign? No, some people might read it wrong. A simple `thumbs up'? No, not 'round these parts (it could be interpreted as `Gig 'em Aggies' so it wouldn't work here; in some places the interpretation would be even more challenging). A simple wave? Perhaps, but not sufficiently unambiguous.

Maybe if we had a way of expressing, "Gee, thanks. Your simple kindness is appreciated," we'd treat each other better. Just a thought.

Mourning Has Broken

2004-12-05T09:36:00.000-06:00

Austin, Texas 12/4/2004

In Jewish tradition there are two primary levels of mourning for a deceased member of one's immediate family. The first, lasting for seven days after the funeral is shiva, during which the mourner retreats from day to day life and is cared for by friends and other family members. The second, lasting until thirty days have passed is shloshim, when the mourner begins the process of getting back to normal responsibilities but avoids things like wearing new clothes or atending social gatherings.

And so has it been since the recent presidential election. The shiva period was -- as is always the case -- difficult and disorienting; months of hope, culminating in borderline euphoria as the initial exit poll results began to leak, had crashed down in the matter of a couple of hours as we watched helplessly. The future had suddenly become too bleak to contemplate. How could it be? How could it have happened? Had someone failed to speak the right incantations? We'd all (well, almost all) agreed to put specific concerns aside; there'd be plenty of time to deal with that later, after the moving vans had departed Washington for Crawford.

It was no time for thinking clearly.

Shloshim -- as expected -- was characterized by a more sober evaluation of what had transpired, as well as a more sober evaluation of what we might expect in the near future. The thinking was clearer, if not yet entirely clear. Recriminations, respectfully held back in the first days, were voiced. Major players blamed or were blamed, mostly both. Tactics that had been regarded as positives were considered to be negatives and vice versa. But the time for useful reflection had not yet arrived.

Now, finally, it has. And, as mourning has indeed broken -- and none too soon, I might add -- it is time for useful reflection. Bury the recriminations in a little box. Hide the blame under the stairs. If it's about strategy or tactics, shred it. There's time for all that; it's just that that time is not now. As the great lurch toward the incumbent's second term continues, slowly but surely the mask will begin to come off. Political debts will be repaid. And the creditors will be quite clear about the kind of currency they will accept.

The reflexive response will be to rail against these creditors. Again, now is not the time. These debts will be repaid. There's nothing that can be done about it. And the current reaction to it does not matter either. What does matter is what happens in twenty three months. Without the specter of (artificial) gains generated by further partisan gerrymandering, the next series of congressional elections will presage the state of politics in America for years to come.

Toward that end -- and at this particular time -- there are only three things that matter: Message, message and message.

Did I mention message?

Though there are two competing basic worldviews that dominate the current political landscape, the nearly down-the-middle split that could be inferred from the recent vote counts is an illusion. The fact is, we're winning. A large majority wants to be left alone in their personal lives while protected from the raw power of the few. It is only through the great skill -- all right, make that great political skill; this game is called politics, after all -- of the other side in terms of crafting its message and image (though not in that order) that it's even a contest. Well, that and the fact that we tend to have an unfortunate habit of playing nice -- as well as a general inability to do a terribly good job at playing nasty (when it seems to be indicated). That can be overcome, but only by directing the major effort at message, as opposed to tactics or strategy.

Why hasn't that been done up to now? Because it's hard, particularly because the things we stand for do not easily admit to seven word phrases screamed at the top of one's lungs. Subtlety is a curse.

So what is that message? Ah, if only I knew...

In any event, I shall hope to make some progress toward defining it in this space as time goes by.