Huckleberry Thinks

2008-10-24T17:31:00.008-07:00

Of Water and Stone

Behind stone walls the waters are pent
The stones are earthly demigods bent
On saving us all in their ghastly image
Of Carl and Joseph and Vladimir’s lineage
Those demigods fear that each man might think
For a moment to fetch his own water to drink
Lifted and cupped within each man’s own hands
So decreed it is that the waters be dammed
Each man is to get the same number of drops
Even those who are growing the crops
A few are more equal, like those at the top
But one thing is certain, the free-flowing must stop
So parted and parceled, parsed and partitioned
The water is clouded and roundly conditioned
As children are born in the dam’s shadow, gray
They age and they labor knowing no other way
Still the demigods fear for they know deep inside
The destroyer of stone in water abides
What fathers drank deeply, is dreamt of by their grandsons
To inspire their kin to seek out stone masons
And open a crack that each man may be blessed
The power of water on stone does the rest

Be well,

Huckleberry

2008-09-20T17:15:00.002-07:00

AIG, Ben Bernanke, and the Sympathies of a Free Market Capitalist

Did taxpayers REALLY just give AIG an $85 billion dollar bailout?

Turns out, not so much.
For those not in the know, American International Group (AIG) is one of the world’s largest insurance companies, and they insure, well…a lot of things. AIG’s primary and re-insurance policies cover everything from life insurance and annuities to financial securities. It is one part of this business—the part that insures a specific kind of financial security, mortgage-backed Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs)—that has them in so much hot water. It is not that the company is bad per se, and it is not even that the company is not profitable (it is). The problem is that the insurance on the mortgage-backed CDOs covered by AIG are in so much trouble that the credit ratings of the issuers are being negatively impacted. Well, in this sense, companies are just like individuals. If one’s credit rating heads South, then other people and banks that you use for loans will charge you a higher interest rate AND—very much to the point at hand—they will likely require you to put more down or have more equity at hand in case there is a problem. This is what is happening to AIG.

If you are a company with the reach and size of AIG and you pay just a little bit higher interest rate, then you end up with billions of dollars of increased costs and will be required to have tens of billions more in readily available capital assets overnight—corporate bonds, stocks, and real estate don’t count, they want you to have that in cash or US Treasury Notes. AIG has hundreds of billions of dollars in assets across the spectrum. It is, as they say, a balanced portfolio. To meet these newly minted capital requirements would require then to literally flood the market with sales of stocks, bonds, real estate, and even some of the businesses that they own within days. This fire sale would drive down prices on all those assets. Real estate and business units on this scale can take literally years to sell, so bonds and stocks would have to be the first to go.

Imagine the Unimaginable
In their current fragile state, imagine the impact of tens of billions of dollars in “sell at market” orders flying into the dimly-lit corridors of Wall Street. Ben Bernanke, Hank Paulson, and Christopher Cox imagined just this sort of thing.***

It must be stated that the patently extra-Constitutional (and therefore, in my book, atrocious) bailout of AIG comes in the form of a loan facility. A mustachioed and cloaked man did not show up at AIG headquarters with a handcuffed attaché' filled with blood diamonds while whispering, “Is it safe?” This is an important distinction. The much ballyhooed number of $85 billion is a loan secured by what amounts to a 79.9% “ownership” of AIG assets. They have to pay this loan back at an interest rate equal to 850 basis points over LIBOR (many readers will have home loans or credit card interest rates based on similar structures). If AIG does not pay the money back, the government gets the assets and the stockholders lose their investments (fair enough). This loan must be paid back in two years. Thought about in this way, this is a bailout of “time” rather than “money.” Two years will allow AIG to sell assets and cover obligations in an orderly way. Their other (very successful) businesses will continue to operate and earn a profit, assets and businesses will be sold over time at what they hope will be fair market values, the loan will be paid back with interest, and the impact to the overall economy will be minimized—though not eliminated. How much of the bill will taxpayers be on the hook for after all this washes out? No one knows, but—based upon estimated asset values—anywhere from a small net profit to a few tens of billions of dollars depending on how successful the overall economic recovery plan is.

The Empire Strikes Back
Do not get me wrong--I am structurally and philosophically against such government action. If we include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the others out there, the Federal Government now has substantial control over about 50% of the nation’s mortgages and the insurance that covers them. This is terrible for free markets, capitalism, the republican form of government, and freedom in general. A few years hence one wonders if the almighty heroes of Washington DC will set the markets free again or cling jealously to their new empires (I shudder at the possibilities). However, to be fair, we must recognize that we were at serious risk of having trillions of dollars in assets suddenly become un-insured and un-insurable for the short term as AIG flirted with the idea of bankruptcy to buy time. That very real possibility, coupled with a likely asset sell-off-driven market disruption, is probably the best definition of "uncertainty" that one can find outside of Schrodinger’s Cat.**

Markets--as we all know--hate uncertainty. As such, the economy was at a very real risk and I suspect that Ben & company looked into the depths of AIG's business structure and saw a spaghetti nest of deals and re-insured assets that could not be untangled in the time allowed—in their opinion—and therefore took what they believed to be the lesser of two very distasteful evils.

Not a Golden Parachute, More Like and Emergency Rip Cord
Thomas Sowell—noted economist and a true lover of all free markets—once postulated that if one were to fall out of an airplane, the price you would be willing to pay for a parachute would quickly escalate to your entire net worth, but there is no way that the market could react fast enough to deliver one to you in time. To his way of thinking, these types of things occasionally occur in nations and should rightly be the only times when we accept drastic governmental actions that interfere with free markets. Perhaps we should allow a little charitable reflection on this concept when we deride Mr. Bernanke and the actions of his economic team.

Be well,
Huckleberry

* Full Disclosure: I own about one hundred shares of AIG--now worth the equivalent of one high-quality steak dinner with cocktails.
** Yes, I know that Heisenberg is a better analogy to uncertainty, but the “alive/dead” paradox is far more prosaic under the circumstances.
*** Ben Bernanke is the head of the Federal Reserve Bank, Hank Paulson is the Treasury Secretary, and Christopher Cox leads the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

More information can be found in the MarketWatch article.

2008-09-08T22:08:00.005-07:00

Hype “O” crite? How Sarah Palin Exposed Oprah Winfrey

To Palin, or Not to Palin?
Oprah Winfrey is losing a few fans, probably for the first time in her career. She who is famous for bonding with her decidedly female-centric audience and calling every female guest “girlfriend” has discovered at least one lady she does not want to bond with; Sarah Palin, the nominated Republican candidate for Vice President.

Oprah’s Un-fairness Doctrine
Now it must be said that I am no proponent of the Fairness Doctrine; that misguided and elitist effort to force certain broadcasters and journalists to carry opposing opinions and representatives on their capitalistic and privately-owned programs. Just the opposite. In Oprah’s case, she most definitely owns her show and should be able to put anyone on it that she wishes, banish anyone that she does not, and to enjoy or suffer the consequences therein through the free market of her fan base. But her claim that she has decided to NOT have Sarah Palin (arguably the hottest interview ticket in town) on the Oprah Winfrey Show because, “I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates” is a bit hard to swallow.*

Oprah’s Favorite Candidate?
Is there anyone who has not heard Oprah calling Obama “my favorite Senator” or seen her hosting events and giving speeches on his behalf? Did she not arrange a gushing interview with Barak’s wife Michelle for O Magazine?** Has she not introduced and hosted and anchored events to no end for the Obama-nation? (The links are many—search YouTube and News)

Could it possibly be that Oprah knows who she wants to be president? Could it be that she also knows—all of those far too friendly “girlfriend” comments aside—that somehow having the opportunity for an exclusive interview with a successful, popular, stand-on-her-own-two-feet, truly strong, and independent woman who has a fair chance of becoming the first female Vice President of the United States without the need of riding on a man’s coat-tails—thus fulfilling the aspirations of over one hundred years of feminist promise since the days of suffrage—might just not be in the best interests of “her” candidate?

One can argue politics. One can argue freedom. I would not rise to criticize if Oprah said, “Hell no, it’s my show!” and got about filling her popular TV time-slot with segments on how to use common house-hold items in the creation of “Obama for President” posters for your kid’s kindergarten classroom. But to spend over a year campaigning for one side and then to obliquely dismiss a truly historic interview opportunity with some feigned notion of electoral objectivity is, at this point in the game, just silly, stupid, and “O” so hypocritical.

Perhaps some of her ardent fans are seeing these more unseemly traits for the very first time.

Be well,
Huckleberry

* http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/oprah-says-no-to-palin-and-gets-an-earful/?scp=2&sq=oprah&st=cse
** http://www.oprah.com/article/omagazine/ss_omag_200711_mobama/1

2008-09-04T21:44:00.002-07:00

Planted

Life is refined for us
Our love made more complete
As the generations planted
Spring up about our feet

As the summer rains and solstice
Quench their peaking needs
We determine by time and distance
If sown among grasses or weeds

For by our hands all manner are planted
And they will reap what we have sown
Within them the seeds we've planted
Bearing fruit once they have grown

Sow therefore with caution
Plant your lessons with great care
For the harvest of your sowing
Is the burden they will bear

Be well,
Hucklebberry

(tip 'o the hat to UJ)

2008-04-07T20:19:00.001-07:00

Hero

“Each one of them that heeds the call,
Veritably to the justice hall,
Ends not with a simple vote or tally
Reaching unto every street and alley.

Yet the pealing of the Liberty Bell
Makes low the gates of tyrant hell.
Ask I, ‘Who should ring it?’ and
None answers, save one outstretched hand.”

Be well,
Huckleberry

2008-04-06T14:20:00.002-07:00

Truth, Error, Lies, and Deception

No lie exists until spoken, therefore lies serve at the pleasure of the liar. Error exists only upon action, therefore errors serve as traps to the actor. Truth stands unspoken and without recognition or action. No deception exists until truth, error, and lie are in the hands of the deceiver—they are the raw materials with which he plies his craft.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2008-04-03T10:37:00.001-07:00

Tyrannus

A bit if meat, a draught of wine
A spoon of kingly porridge
Each rests within temporal reach
And within these we may forage

Tell me then which is not for me
From which I must refrain
Yank upon the steely bit
Place your hand upon the rein

You who say, “There be no God
And each man’s choices are his own”
Would make me pay another’s fees
And set yourself upon that throne

Can quorum pars enslave a man
By lot or plebiscite
Without risking rude awakenings
When the slaves don to unite?

Be well,
Huckleberry

2008-03-31T19:53:00.007-07:00

She Sleeps

Just a few hours ago she competed for my attention. As I wrote and thought at my desk—as I reasoned and argued privately with Augustine, Moore, and Emerson—she was there in the room wishing to flirt only with me. Occasionally I would grant her a glance and smile to recognize her presence before returning to my task. And even though she was somewhat steeped in jealousy against the preoccupations of my mind, she understood in her own way and let me do my work.

Hours have passed and my lust for work is satisfied for now. I can turn away from the lettered keys and set aside my reference books. Where now is the woman?

I find her asleep in bed. The room is dark, but not so dark that she is hidden from me. The temperature of the air is pleasant—so much so that, even as she soundly sleeps, she has pushed the sheets and comforter down below her legs and I can see her completely. And see her I do, with loving eyes.

During the day she is animated and quick to smile. She is fond of making comic faces and acting out her stock of characters for entertainment sake. In all of this she is attractive and vivacious—her red hair and opulent figure drawing many eyes as she enjoys her day. But I have long held that she is never more beautiful than when she is sleeping. She is a pretty girl at peace who is made all the more pretty by the lack of effort. She is beautiful and I have become the voyeur of her dreaming.

It is somewhat ironic that she who desired my attention now has it so fully and without effort. I can think of nothing else, nor do I want to. Do I arouse her from her sleep? It would seem only fitting since in my rapt adoration she has aroused me. Perhaps not, for I would be rousing her more for me than her, and a selfish motive might bring diminishment to the moment.

Earlier, as I set about my work, I could feel her loving and wanting me even as I drove on, compelled by my thoughts. Does she feel me now in her sleep? Does the velvet shroud of night that holds her eyes closed also diffuse that communication? Or rather, does she know, on a level only achieved by decades of companionship, that I love and want her too—making the force of my longing and love strong enough to press through consciousness and whisper my affection into her ear as she walks through the garden of dreams?

I feel so deeply that I must at least touch her. I reach out into the dark and gently lay my hand upon hers and I swear that I can feel the faintest, almost imperceptible movement as she grips mine in return. Hand in hand, we walk together in the garden.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2008-03-06T19:51:00.002-07:00

Frogs and Alligators

Left as I was in the garden of Frogs
Flicking at flies and croaking on logs
Mired in muck within sensual bogs
In the filtered light of sunset through the fogs

Loose in that swamp was nature’s debater
With a tear in his eye he might eat you later
If you say that he’s only a wry alligator
He’ll convince all that it’s only because you’re a hater

So I decided to leave the frogs in that place
I’d had enough of that amphibian race
Their duplicitous kind and duplicitous face
Have since been by alligator erased

Ribbit.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2008-02-28T18:54:00.011-07:00

William F. Buckley Jr., RIP

It might be said that a great man is indeed great if the lives of those around him would be different had he not lived. By this definition, William F. Buckley Jr. was a great man. Much has been said and written and no doubt much more will come—fitting tributes by his many admirers and friends, perhaps derision and scorn from his numerous philosophical opponents. But it might also be said that only truly great men have so many loyal friends and ardent enemies.

Godfather of "C"
Would we have had a Barry Goldwater, a Ronald Reagan, or the thriving and intelligent set of noble right-leaning minds of today had we not had a Buckley? Perhaps another intellectual godfather of the “Big C” Conservative movement would have stepped into the fore—and perhaps not.

But for today, we hopefully lay politics, economics, and religion aside and remember the man himself. Astute and intelligent, urbane and erudite, brilliant in debate and discourse, and possessing of a complex and extensive vocabulary for which he is well known. In fact, his command of the English language and lexicon were sufficient to send the most learned grammarian scurrying for an unabridged dictionary—one that Mr. Buckley himself might have edited.

That Accent
He also possessed a unique accent—often humorously imitated—that many thought affected. Rather, it was due to spending his formative years in Mexico City (his father was stationed there) and learning native Spanish—a language he adored his entire life—then French as a second language before attending school in England where he learned British English as his third. Cap this off with the distinct lingual influence of University at Ivy-league Yale and life in Connecticut…there you have it. But though certainly not affected, that unique accent proved effective in probative interviews and scintillating debates on his long-running “Firing Line” television show and upon the world stage.

An Interesting Life
He authored literally dozens of influential books—fiction, non-fiction, and instructional—and thousands of articles. We remember his ardent defense of Catholicism, his National Review magazine, the thousands of television appearances, his ever-present humor and willingness to laugh, the political candidacy and activism, military service and brief employment with the CIA, accomplished musicianship (harpsichord and piano)…this is an interesting life not done justice here.

Many of us were secretly concerned for Bill Buckley after the death of his loving wife and life-long partner Patricia last year. Their love and affection for each other was clearly profound and respectful. Buckley’s health had suffered over these last years and devoted souls are made more fragile when the object of devotion is lost. They are joined now in the heaven of their life-long Roman Catholic faith—and Saint Peter himself best mind his questioning at the gates.

William F. Buckley Jr., died on February 27, 2008, at age 82. He is survived by his prominent son Christopher, his extended family, and a very long list of colleagues and admirers. RIP.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2008-02-14T16:42:00.005-07:00

Rush is Wrong on McCain, and Obama is Not Carter
The bitter-sweet and conflicted case for a John McCain Presidency

Much has been made regarding John McCain’s now seemingly inevitable ascendency to the Republican nomination. Rush Limbaugh—famously or infamously—has been calling for a Republican snub of the apparent nominee on Election Day. Other radio hosts and notable, right-leaning pundits have joined the call.

Their frustration is plainly seen and understood. John McCain has—by many accounts—flirted with the idea of switching parties. Thinking back a few years it is not hard to imagine that he would have jumped had the Democrat offer been a bit sweeter. Mr. McCain now firmly calls himself a conservative, evidently forgetting that we can review his sponsored legislation and spotty voting record on the Web at our leisure. Most recently the “Snowy-haired Senior Senator from Arizona” tried to jam a truly horrible illegal immigration bill through the system—all the while hurling “racist” labels at all who dared criticize it. These are not exactly shining Reagan-esque credentials. But see—this is part of the problem , which I will get to in a minute.

Rush (et al) seems to believe that we should abandon John McCain at the altar and hope for Democrat victory in November because:

The economy—already on shaky ground—will be further hampered by the application of Liberal Dogma.
General governmental affairs and the military will suffer mightily under Liberal rule and this fact will be recognized by the people.
John McCain is NOT a Conservative and would therefore make many of the same mistakes as would either Hillary or Barak—so let the Democrats take the blame.
This will all set the stage for a triumphant return of a truly Reagan-esque Conservative candidate four years hence who will then sweep in and bring the country back into prosperity…and here is the real point…just like Ronald Reagan did after Jimmy Carter’s abysmal one-term stand.

Historical Rhyme
To my mind, this argument is flawed. As Mark Twain famously said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” Jimmy Carter was certainly elected in the wake of near universal discontent with Gerald Ford’s pardoning of Richard Nixon and the fallow state of the economy at the time (“Stagflation” had dragged on for a decade). President Carter—for all of his more charitable attributes—was, in most respects, a very poor President and leader in general. He was also a bit weak and uncharismatic. Ronald Reagan was truly a man of his time—right on economics (figuratively and literally), correct on Cold War conflicts, strong in character and personality, a solid leader…well, I could go on. His election marked a turning point for the country.

This Ain’t 1976
Today, our economy—though mildly imperiled—is many times more robust than it was in the late 1970’s. If we are destined for a Recession, most economists believe that it will be mild, and I tend to agree. Even if a Liberal Democrat is elected this time around it is likely the natural economic cycle will have ample opportunity to correct itself in four years time and position the incumbent as more hero than villain. Not that a Liberal would not do the economy harm, but Liberal policies take several years to manifest their growth-repressing inclinations.

Obama Has Never Been a Peanut Farmer
Further, the “Jimmy Carter” argument might have some standing if Hillary Clinton were the Democrat nominee. But this appears less and less likely the result. Hillary is no leader—she is an intimidator and controlling…well, let’s leave it at that. A Hillary Presidency would anger and frustrate almost as many Democrats as Republicans. But look at Barak Obama. He is polished, confident, well-spoken, carries almost no baggage that might hinder another candidate, and he can lead. He would lead towards Socialism and away from freedom—thus to our ultimate detriment—but he would lead well in those directions. An incumbent Barak Obama would be a formidable opponent in 2012. If Obama can keep his head about him and stay on track, I believe that he has the potential to professionally accomplish in office what the Democrat party had hoped to receive from Bill Clinton had Clinton been able to govern himself personally and professionally. This should make Conservatives lose sleep.

Give Me An “R”
Finally, we cannot gamble on the arrival of another Ronald Regan in four years. We are very fortunate to have had one of them in our lifetimes. To have a second is to bet against the house. We will have good men to be certain—our Conservative team is chock-full of good and intelligent men. But the too-soon sainted Ronald Reagan will be judged by history as one of the top four or five Presidents of the first quarter millennia of American History. Indeed, most lists already rank him rather high. The gap between “greatnesses” looks to be 40 to 50 years at a pop. We are not yet due for another. To expect any candidate to attain “Reagan-esqe” stature is to be unfair to that man.

With Jaw Clenched and Nose Held
John McCain is not my candidate. I feel personally (politically and philosophically) betrayed by him on several fronts and if he is elected we will have to keep an eye on him at all times (our RIGHT eye) to make sure that he does not create a legacy for himself that we would have to clean up later (amnesty, etc.). To his credit, he has remained stoically “correct” on completing the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, putting to the side all those who claim that he is “totally and completely” off the track.

To many, John McCain veritably defines the term “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) and I largely agree. But a R(h)INO trumps a Rabid Donkey when there are no Elephants in the room (or Bull-Moose, for that matter). I am not saying that we, as a philosophically-bound group, should grow accustomed to “settling.” Rather, I suggest that we should do a better job of finding and funding our candidates and that we will do better in the long run if we make “Reagan-ism” an objective instead of an entry-level qualification for our support.

Barring a shocking revelation or bizarre turn at the convention, I will cast my vote for John McCain on Election Day—but I may not feel good about it in the morning.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2008-01-27T11:32:00.000-07:00

George Soros – Financially Right, Reflexively Wrong in Davos
…and everywhere else for that matter

George Soros is an interesting man. He has made billions of dollars for himself in the capital markets of the United States and around the world. He himself credits much of this success to an investment philosophy called Reflexivity. Long story short—his Reflexivity approach dictates that the value or worth of any market is determined by the person or group that is doing the looking and, in fact, the market has no value at all until it is determined by the “looker.” Basically, it means that we bring biases to the table and that those biases amplify market fluctuations. This approach is based upon a European philosopher named Popper and shares several theoretical principles in common with Quantum Physics. Heady stuff indeed—but not a bad approach for a man who cut his teeth in the arbitrage cellars where exploiting perceived value discrepancies is the order of the day.

His biography includes some other notable entries including his support for the Polish Solidarity Movement (a good thing) and advocacy for the Revolution of the Roses in the country of Georgia (also pretty good) along with his successful and eponymously-named Soros Funds.

More recently, Mr. Soros has become notable for his unabashed financial support for Liberal causes, the Democrat party in general, and for various “we are the world” and “America is not very special” type causes. He is quite the celebrity in the halls of Davos.*

Last week Mr. Soros took the opportunity to pontificate in the Financial Times regarding the credit, stock market, and housing corrections taking now full shape. Fair enough. But in the mind of George Soros we are suffering not from a traditional series of market corrections. Rather, we are in the middle of “the worst market crisis in 60 years” and the “…relative decline of the US…” as an economic power. Hmmmm….

Certainly I do not wear rose-colored glasses—it is my firm opinion that the United States is to spend a little market-cycle time in the economic woodshed receiving our just due. And I have no doubt that China—with its 1.2 billion souls and pseudo-capitalist structure—will become an economic powerhouse. But the “end of the American era” was predicted to happen in the 60’s, all throughout the 70’s (stagflation), during the market crash of the late 80’s, during the pop of the Tech Bubble in 2000 and the ensuing post-911 recession, and at every point of currency fluctuation over the last century.

America left a decades-long period of raising interest rates and entered a decades-long period of declining interest rates in the early 1980’s (secular trend). By all accounts we are entering a long-term raising trend once again. This requires adjustment. Such transitions always do and always will. America’s dominance may one day end—but a few years of more difficult times will not be a factor when it does.

I think that Mr. Soros misses another key point. It is a reasonable suggestion that the rest of the world has not improved economically in spite of America, but because of it. China would likely be a nation of one billion starving peasants had it not adapted some of the capitalist structures we designed and then built products that we want to buy. Europe would likely be a fascist serfdom of economic repression without our military intervention, Truman-doctrine economic aid, the continuing blanket of our protection during the cold war, and current (mostly friendly) competition in the marketplace. The rest of the world is mostly in ascendency, yes; but America had a part in that and we will continue to do so. John F. Kennedy once famously said that “A rising tide lifts all boats.” The other ships of state would be wise not to curse that tide.

George Soros is no doubt a very bright man who has made his mark in the world. These days, however, his Liberal One-World’er bent is distorting the way he is looking at America. To put this in his own terms, Mr. Soros’ valuation of the US is deeply affected by his incumbent biases which feed on themselves and cause him to short-sell America’s place in the world. He will understand if the rest of us look beyond his biases and invest in the underlying strength.

Be well,
Huckleberry

* Davos is the traditional location of the World Economic Forum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Economic_Forum

2008-01-24T18:22:00.001-07:00

Rage, Thought I

"Rage, thought I to give to thee
Escaping when released by me
For who am I, that rage should I
Thus held within, a cage gone by

So vengence then, did I pursue
To lie within that cage for two
Taking back, what now I lack
Re-gift the favor of your attack

One way makes a slave of me
The other of both I and thee
Left only is that I forgive
So as a slave, I shall not live"

It is worth mentioning that the concepts behind this piece are self-focused--meaning that they apply when we seek our own satisfaction upon personal harm. He who seeks justice on behalf of others might justly be governed by concomitant philosophy.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2008-01-13T13:04:00.000-07:00

Iraq War a “Clean Shoot,” and History Will Be The Judge

Recently, a regular contributor to http://www.phxnews.com/, Frosty Wooldridge, rehashed a bunch of old rhetoric regarding the Iraq conflict ( http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=55839 ). Mr. Wooldridge’s comments are rather easy to sum up: “Bush lied and people died.” Certainly he will find a clutch of readers who will eagerly agree with those sentiments—no matter how threadbare they have become. It’s not the first time ‘Ol Frosty has pitched in this way, and not likely the last. Go get ‘em Frosty. But I am sure that his stated dedication to Constitutional principles will compel him to allow a bit of reasoned decent.

Picture, If You Will
Picture, if you will, a darkened alley late at night in the most gang and crime ridden part of town. This night has been especially violent with innocent citizens and police officers mowed down by the senseless violence haunting the area. You are a cop on patrol and come upon a known felon in that darkened alley. He has a long rap sheet, has dodged prosecution on a series of heinous crimes, and has even taken a shot at you once or twice in the past. He is a known fellow gang member of another criminal who, just earlier today, committed a mass murder—and now he is crouching behind a dumpster in a darkened alley on your beat.

You pull over your squad car and call out to this man. He rises from his hiding space—his hands firmly stuffed in his pockets and talking tough. You draw your service weapon and order the man to show his hands—he does not. You call out to him, “show your hands and get on the ground or I’ll shoot.” Your orders are ignored and somewhere in the next few moments of shouting and furtive gestures—within the context of the suspicious bulge in his pocket, the dangerous neighborhood, and the reputation of the man who opposes you—an invisible line is crossed and you fire your weapon.

Which brings us to a few questions
If we are to judge the character and professionalism of this officer:

Does it matter whether or not the suspect had an actual weapon at that time?
What if he had a weapon that was jammed or broken—whether he knew it was broken or not?
What if it was a toy weapon?
What if he had a pocket full of bullets and no gun? Or a gun with no bullets?
What if he had nothing but a pocket comb and a bit of loose change?
What if….

The Investigation
The Internal Affairs Department will undoubtedly investigate this shooting and everything will be reviewed in the glaring morning light that filters though the blinds of third-story legal offices as a fresh cup of coffee leaves occasional brown rings on the dog-eared pages of official reports. But one hopes that—after the posturing, positioning, and appeals have dogged the system through the process—only one determination will come from the juries and peer reviews. This was a “clean shoot."

Can one imagine a darker or more violent alley than the Middle East or a homicidal sociopath more unpredictable than Saddam?

There are those who will attempt to parse this analogy to suit their own opinions, but an honest reading must at least give pause to partisan blanket statements, character assaults, and ad-hominem accusations. The fullness of history shall be the jury and final review of our seemingly graceless times and all of us who lived in them.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2008-01-06T08:19:00.000-07:00

Where, Oh Where Has Good Old Huck Been
For the Last Two Months?

Glad that you asked....I've been working my literary and literal tail off, that's what!

Holy mackerel, but I have been busy. Just before the holidays we had tons of deliverable items at the office leading up to the end of the year and I had research baked up so I must have read nearly a million words over that 60-day period. We are still busy, but I should have time to post now and again because things are on a more even keel.

And just as I was about to post selections from my annual Christmas message to this little section of cyberspace, my PC saw fit to dampen the Holiday spirit by granting me the "blue screen of death" (yes, I am a Windows user) and thus freezing me out of the online universe until I gained access once again through my company PC and the new Sprint wireless broadband service (I like it--fast and stable).

For a brief time I considered returning to stone and chisel to carve out my rambling missives. At least if that method "crashed" I would have a pile of rubble to show for it (and likely a broken foot). There is something very depressing about having written a bit of content and then--when your technology does not work--it's just not there at all. I need a Prozac or something.

My PC holds all of my images and articles in process (for this blog and the news sites I regularly contribute to) so until that is finally repaired, there may be a few additional gaps in content production. These are all of my excuses and I am sticking to them.

On from here.

I promise that I will post again soon. Until then, be well,
Huckleberry

2007-11-01T10:18:00.001-07:00

Fed up with the Fed
The Federal Reserve May Be Hurting Us More Than They Think

Yesterday--Halloween--the Federal Reserve Board of Governors decided to lower the prime rate by an additional 1/4 point--bringing the total reductions to 3/4 point in merely six weeks time. This is a pretty dramatic and scary action in the realms of monetary management. Similar reductions have occurred in the Fed Discount Rate and the Fed governors have also seen fit to pump literally hundreds of billions of dollars into the money supply over the last few months. All the while, bankers, hedge fund managers, and traders clamor for more.

All of this gives Huckleberry some pause... and a little additional clarity is, I believe, in order (see previous post).

The Fed is not being encouraged to lower interest rates because they are too high. Rather, rates are being lowered because the spread between the cost of funds paid by financial institutions and the interest rates that they are charging their customers is too small.

This applies to Subprime Mortgages, Credit Cards, and all riskier loans. The subprime mess--arguably at the root of all this consternation--has been caused by banks, brokers, and hedge funds not charging enough to cover the amount of risk already incumbent upon the borrowers that they have courted--proving once again that denial of risk does not mitigate it. Since (in most cases) contracts prevent the unilateral and/or unscheduled raising of interest rates, the only way the Fed can bail out these select financial institutions and companies is by lowering the cost of funds to provide some room for them to absorb the losses that should have reasonably been expected in the first place. The Fed is the only available source for this bailout because those loans--once touted as the belle of the ball--now have their blemishes on full display and the private equity markets no longer think that they are very pretty at all. Again, this should have been fully expected with a little math and due diligence evidently missing from their efforts to date.

Credit cards are in the same boat, but are even riskier. As the economy worsens/slows credit cards are usually the first to feel the default pinch. Prime credit cards are likely to remain in the same interest rate range and the lower credit (riskier) credit cards are likely to push up a bit to protect the banks from losses (the only thing worse than less profit at a bank are more losses).

But Won't My Payments Go Down Now That Rates Are Lower?
Not likely. This current round of rate cuts is designed to protect financial institutions--not consumers--and therefore consumers should not anticipate interest rate relief will be felt in their monthly loan payments. In fact, consumers will likely suffer higher costs overall as the dollar concurrently weakens and inflation bares its teeth. Statistically the argument can be made that mortgage and credit card payments were not high enough to cover the inherent risks. The current reductions show every indication (to this author) of being earmarked to stem the flow of blood on Wall Street.

This little insidious protection racket shifts the costs back onto the consumer-at-large in the form of lost buying power (inflation) and economic turmoil. The prevailing thought seems to be that it is better to squeeze a few drops of blood from each of us rather than take the heads (and robust profits) from the subset of us who wear pin-striped three-piece suits. The Fed obviously believes that they are choosing the lesser of two evils. I think that they are incorrect and that a greater evil is being done on many fronts.

Certainly more to come....

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-10-17T13:34:00.000-07:00

Philosopoem

“Some find life and its marks to be feared
But the more life rimed upon the beard
The better the prose rhymed upon the tongue
Shaming the poet, once foolish and young.”

"For who can say they, be loose their mortal coil
And think that their flesh, will be saved from the soil?
Be you scoundrel or fool, prince or a poet
You walk over the bones of your past, 'ere you know it."

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-10-10T17:37:00.000-07:00

A Word from Huck – Syncretism

Syncretism, through strict definition, does not necessarily imply a negative. However, the root of the meaning we derive from the word is unquestionably negative. In a nut-shell, a syncretism is an effort to reconcile, merge, or balance disparate thoughts, philosophies, opinions, beliefs, and/or actions. Thus, the concept takes on significant gravity in philosophical, theological, and socio-political discourse.

In psychological terms, one might define Syncretism as “cognitive dissonance.” Rather, how one’s actions or thoughts are not in alignment with one’s beliefs, principles, or professions.

The term has often been used when describing various unifications of formerly conflicting factions or warring clans; however, I am not fond of this usage since a political or otherwise expedient negotiation of peace to fight a common foe or accomplish a common objective misses the point--in my opinion.

Bringing this nearly forgotten word quickly into modern times, we might suppose the following examples:

One who believes that it is definitely wrong to steal; but that taking office supplies home for personal use is not really stealing.
One who might vociferously profess that individual freedom is a higher calling; but may then actively support Socialization and the regulation of certain property rights.
Another who might profess that telling lies and cheating are reprehensible; but fudging deductions on your tax return is acceptable.
Consider the person who might believe that the death penalty for particularly heinous crimes is cruel and unusual punishment because human life is sacred; yet, actively supports abortion rights.
And lest the reader think that I gore my neighbor’s oxen with an uneven hand—Let us also consider the faithful who cherish the freedom of religion guaranteed by our American Constitution; yet want only one theological position be taught in public schools. Hmmmmm….

All of these are examples of individuals or groups acting in some way syncretisticly to justify their disparate wants and thoughts—one is in conflict with the other. This is not to say that they need be so. In each case a legitimate argument might be made to unify the concepts on sound grounds. But I am relatively sure that this hard work of cognition has not yet been completed. Thus the syncretism persists.

There is much to consider in this....

[New Text Added October 11, 2007]

I am struck by the notion that much of our personal and societal anxiety is rooted in our in ability to reconcile our syncretisms.

Marriages dissolve when love is tainted with by selfishness, narcissism, and solipsism.
Obvious self-interest is trumped by rebellion.
Future is disregarded at the alter of Now. One could argue that even the most preciousness of this Moment is forgotten by the sense of something even more immediately in mind and in another place.

As we are pulled and cajoled by other place, self, and now we end up floating in waters more uneven than mere relative-ness and subjectivity. That let's us off far too easy. Instead we drift through a life without firmament at all. Denying that laws and principles exist lest they be at any time or place inconvenient in the "then."

Blessed is the one who speaks, acts, and lives at one with himself and with God.

And still there is much more to consider in this....

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-10-08T18:53:00.000-07:00

Bruce Springsteen’s ‘Magic’ is a Trick of Craven Public Relations

I get it. My regular readers may note that—in addition to my contributions to this blog and other writings—I am a musician. No one tells me what to write, say, or sing. And the songs I write articulate my philosophies and beliefs. Sometimes people disagree with those philosophies and beliefs. Fair enough.

Bruce Springsteen has come out with a new album. He spent much of the last few years campaigning for Democrat candidates and at the behest of MoveOn.org (the left-iest of the leftist left). So far so good.

His new album professes his anti-war sentiment. Well, that’s not really fair. I know of no one who is “pro-war,” per se. But it is pretty clear that Bruce does not think that we should be in this war…or the one just before this one…or the one before that, come to think of it. Anyway—Bruce wants us out of Iraq. Again, we can agree and/or disagree—no problem. His art, his message.

It is one thing for the expression or performance of art to inspire outrage, discussion, or thought; and it is quite another to beat the drum of controversy first, in a craven attempt to generate sales. This is especially true when you are using our national divisions and the blood of soldiers to do so.

The new Springsteen album, titled “Magic” and released last week, has been getting a lot of press. Some of that press has been complimentary of the music itself, but most has been “controversy spin.” The Guardian’s recent article “Springsteen ready for criticism over ‘Magic’ words” is one such example. Note that there is, at this point, no criticism—but darn it, as the article title suggests, Bruce is ready for it. And the article takes a swipe at talk radio as well, quoting Joe Levy of Rolling Stone, ”Springsteen will likely be grist for the mill among conservative radio and talk show hosts who will likely rail against the record and its message.” “Likely,” eh? One cannot help but detect a bit of hope in Mr. Levy’s comments and Bruce’s “readiness” that a few talk show hosts and other folks will actually talk about the album.

All of this seemingly coordinated messaging smacks of a focused PR effort to not only “get in front” of the issue, but to literally drive the message and generate the hype. Real controversies generate themselves without artificial prodding. True art inspires its own discussions. Good music sells in spite of controversy, not because of it.

Remember—no one has yet criticized Bruce Springsteen or his message that I am aware of. And if there is any criticism, those authors have a right to their say as well. Freedom works. PR and advertising people do their job, and band’s and record companies sell music for profit.

Some record labels use Night-club frolics, love affairs, faux grudges, and rehab clinics to gin-up the publicity that their stars need when albums are released. We all cringe at such ploys and shrug our shoulders in dejected acceptance that this comes with the territory. The Springsteen team appears to be using their political media connections to do so. Hey—freedom of speech, I really get that, too. But as the fans are cheering “The Boss” and holding up signs at concerts saying things like “No Blood for Oil” they would do well to remember that this is a “profit” deal. Each attendee will have paid upwards of $79.00 per seat for the concert tickets, the album sells for $9.97 at Amazon.com, and you can download individual tracks off the album for $.99 each from Itunes.

Today’s Springsteen fans may not like the reasoning or execution of the Iraq conflict, but they must find a way to philosophically justify squeezing a few drops of that precious blood into a seemingly contrived controversy that revitalizes a music career and generates literally hundreds of million of dollars in revenue for…um…let’s just call them ”Big Music.”

I want all musicians to get paid for their performances and their product. I do not begrudge them that. And it is certainly not necessary that they agree with me on any counts at all. If any individual or group should attempt to silence a musician, I stand at the ready to defend them. But it is this writer’s (and musician’s) opinion that the intentional conjuring of pseudo-controversy on an issue that indeed is tinted by the blood of soldiers and patriots crosses a line. The Springsteen publicity machine should not be silenced, but perhaps they should be a bit ashamed.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-09-22T17:18:00.000-07:00

Thank You Hillary Clinton—Thank You for Proposing Universal Health Care

I could not be more grateful. Just when I thought that Hillary Clinton was going to be tough to beat on the campaign trail due to a divided and mildly disillusioned Conservative/Republican alliance, she has handed the Republican base a rallying point worthy of unification.

I was under the impression that Hillary was going to “run-to-the-right” in order to side-step her well earned Liberal and power-hungry reputation. The signs were all there. She had moderated her criticisms of certain Republican issues and had adopted a position on the Iraq conflict that—although certainly not supportive—was at least to the right of the kook-fringe Democrat surrender-monkeys of the Murtha-Kucinich ilk. That combined with her obvious fund-raising advantages (billionaire supporters), sleazy-yet-charismatic husband, and a moribund set of opposition candidates gave Hillary, in my opinion, a tough campaign one-two-punch. How do you screw that up?

Evidently you can screw it up by intentionally revisiting your greatest political defeat and dragging the rotting corpse of your rebuffed Socialist agenda back into the media spotlight before you get elected.

We Conservatives and Republicans may not like Rudy Giuliani’s family problems and certain policies, we may be angry at John McCain’s Illegal Immigration fiascos, some of the fringe among us may not trust Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, and Fred Thompson may be too new to rate; but I guarantee you that any one of them is worth voting for if the Democrat candidate is all a-titter about the possibility of Socializing 1/7 of our national economy in the form of Socialized medicine. I also think that there are millions of squishy middle-of-the-road-types who will get a bit concerned if there is a possibility that Hillary or her minions will have the power to determine who receives Viagra or how long they should wait to see a doctor if they are experiencing chest pains.

Some of the lefties themselves might start to feel squeamish once the Republican National Committee puts Hillary’s quotes on national television. Are you a small business worried about the potential health care costs for your employees or are you an individual trying to decide what kind of insurance is right for you? Hillary will help you decide, whether you agree or not. In an interview with the AP published on September 18th, Ms. Clinton posited her universal heath care goals and said, “At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed."

Let’s review that quote again, shall we? “At this point, we don’t have anything punitive….” Well then, “at this point” I feel so much better. Statements like those send shivers down the spines of people who understand Economics, those who have read the book “Witness” by Whittaker Chambers, and just about everyone to the right of Noam Chomsky.

In that interview Hillary also said that she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview—like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," and that the details of that would be worked out later. So, the arguably noble concept of “universal health care” slips quickly into the tyranny of “mandatory health care” where you will not be able to work at a job unless you do what the government tells you to do in the way that they tell you to do it. Thus presenting a new generation of complacent citizens with the object lesson that they so desperately need—confirming once again that all Socialism is rooted in tyranny and the loss of freedom.

[It is also worth noting that apparently Democrats believe that you should be required to show proof of insurance status in order to get a job, but that you should not be required to show effective proof of legal immigration status. Hmmmm….]

We always knew that Hillary Clinton was a Liberal-Socialist Trojan Horse. We just thought that she was going to be able to contain those related impulses until her hands were firmly on the reigns of power. But then, we have ample evidence that the Clinton clan is not so adept at restraining “impulses.”

The Clinton universal health care scheme is a thinly veiled Socialist power-grab that we on the right can effectively fight against. This is a debate we can win. Remember, we beat it before when everyone in politics believed that the Clinton Socialization schemes were a foregone conclusion. Rudy, Mitt, John, and Fred………are you paying attention at all?

Thank you Hillary Clinton—thank you for being you!

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-09-16T18:33:00.000-07:00

Alan Greenspan Dissected – What his New Book “The Age of Turbulence” Tells Us

Get ready for the coming week as former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s new book “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World” hits the shelves. Personally, I will watch with amusement as the pundits of finance and politics jump breathlessly to glean sage-like comments and observations from its pages. An advance copy of the book was leaked out (imagine that!) and selected tidbits are making the rounds already. Perhaps not surprisingly the leaked passages are on the order of criticism toward Republicans. One wonders if a leak would have happened at all had the reverse been so.

Never the less, Republicans do deserve a bit of criticism here and there and Mr. Greenspan is always good for an interesting comment or two. So even though an advance copy of the book has not been made available to this author, let’s take a quick peak at some the salacity flying about in Bob Woodward’s piece in the (Washington Post).

The Current Batch of Republican Leaders
With regard to President Bush, Greenspan writes, "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending. Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush presidency. . . . To my mind, Bush's collaborate-don't-confront approach was a major mistake." Later on Greenspan capitalized that thought by suggesting that the Republicans deserved to loose their legislative majorities last year, “The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan writes. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither."

The Maestro Greenspan was not done with his Republican colleagues yet. He went on to write, "House Speaker Hastert and House majority leader Tom DeLay seemed readily inclined to loosen the federal purse strings any time it might help add a few more seats to the Republican majority." In a later passage he continued that line of thinking, "I don't think the Democrats won. It was the Republicans who lost. The Democrats came to power in the Congress because they were the only party left standing."

Fair enough. The Conservative landscape is jam-packed with right-leaning pundits who have been criticizing the current administration in this regard for years (including yours truly)—so there is little new here that we know of yet. It will be interesting to hear how this is played out in the media, however. Read correctly, Mr. Greenspan’s criticisms seem to be that the Republicans were not Conservative enough in their approach and deeds and that this is his cause for concern. It is certainly not a ringing endorsement of the Democrat platform. I suspect that the tone of reporting will not reflect this important distinction.

What About Bill Clinton?
Evidently the book also reveals Greenspan’s fascination with Bill Clinton. There are a few telling passages we have available to us. In the first, Greenspan appears quite smitten with our most recent recalcitrant president, “Here was a fellow information hound. . . . We both read books and were curious and thoughtful about the world.” OK then, we all know that Bill Clinton is bright and can be very charming. But, like the rest of the nation, Alan Greenspan felt personally let down by that same charming façade.

Upon hearing about Clinton’s trysts with Monica Lewinsky (etc.), he could not believe it, writing, "I was incredulous. ‘There is no way these stories could be correct,’ I told my friends. 'No way.' " After learning that the reports were indeed accurate, he wrote, "I wondered how the president could take such a risk. It seemed so alien to the Bill Clinton I knew, and made me feel disappointed and sad."

Sorry Alan, we all had to live through that nightmare together.

The Iraq War
Alan Greenspan also makes a seemingly cryptic comment regarding the current Iraq conflict. Again according to the Post, Mr. Greenspan writes, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." We are told that Mr. Greenspan does not elaborate. If true, his lack of elaboration is disappointing because of its apparent pop-liberal sensibility. One would expect such a comment from the ignorant left—the Cindy Sheehans and Daily Kos’ of the world, et al.

The comment is too trite to be well thought out and would betray a naiveté one would find surprising in a man of Alan Greenspan’s education and credentials. Economics always makes up a large part of why any country goes to war. Getting caught up in an individually labeled commodity or a particular activity is far too easy. Historically speaking one could argue that our entry into World War Two was also about oil due to our embargo of Japan; that our Civil War was about labor costs in agricultural production; that all of the Greco-Persian conflicts revolved around the taxation of trade routs; or even that our own Revolutionary War was about the restriction of tea imports: but to do so is to miss literally everything about a country’s sovereignty, freedom, security, and economic prosperity. (Can’t you just hear the Revolutionary War critics of the day—“No more blood for tea!”)

It is perfectly valid that Mr. Greenspan might be for or against the current Iraq conflict for any number of reasons. It will be disappointing if the quotation we have been provided is solely a politically correct malapropism tossed in as media fodder to aid book sales. It would be even worse if the complexities and economic consequences of the Iraq War were, to Alan Greenspan, a literary afterthought not worthy of serious consideration and dissertation. For now I will grant him the benefit of the doubt.

The Man Himself
The book makes us privy to other passages regarding economic principles and summations of the world economy (I’ll give away the ending—according to Mr. Greenspan the United States does quite well). In these comments and revelations, he has been given mostly positive reviews by those who have read the actual text. The book also contains his personal memoirs and the telling of his life with his spouse, television correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

All in all I do not believe that the electorate will be unduly influenced by the release of Alan Greenspan’s long-awaited book—nor will the pillars of capitalism be shaken. Hopefully, we will all get a little bit more insight into the mind of who was arguably one of the ten most powerful men in the world for a very long time.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-09-09T17:31:00.000-07:00

Government Mortgage Bailout Betrays Conservative Principles and Common Sense

Risk = Cost, Always
President Bush has decided to ask for allowances in federal programs to “protect” home owners. According to a recent MarketWatch article, the President’s plans include allowing stressed borrowers to refinance into government-insured loans, a related change to the tax code, the potential creation of a new government agency (the oddly New Deal-sounding “Reconstruction Mortgage Corporation”), and allowing government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to provide greater liquidity in the mortgage markets. More proposals may be on the horizon.

One of the biggest problems facing contemporary economies is the public’s disassociation from the Free Market/Value/Risk/Return equation. It is a fundamental law of economics. In a way, it is the economic equivalent of forgetting that gravity works. If one is foolish enough to leap from the rooftop, nature will not care if you have neglected to study Newtonian physics—down you will go.

Feeling loss-risk of one's home or equity—or any loss really—reaffirms this vital principle (yes, I have personal experience). This is the same argument against most welfare policies in general. For example: The age-old principle of "If one does not work, one does not eat" has been worn down by the latent brand of American-style Socialism that is present in our society (yet is still somehow alien to our true selves). What we forget is that even if one does not work and We The People ensure that such still eats—someone somewhere is indeed still working to trade value for that service.

The danger here is well understood in the realms of economics. The Administration’s proposals would only serve to transfer risk from one party to another (us)—and substantial risk it is. To coin a phrase, Risk can be neither destroyed or denied—it can only be distributed or transferred. I dare say that, in reality, the home owner is not the intended party being protected. Rather, the home owner is the palatable "face" being placed in front of the media and teaming crowds to better protect the banks, hedge funds, and big-ticket investors.

It is important to understand those financial institutions and individuals we are thus protecting have been well compensated for the risk in that they have been paid higher interest rates than they otherwise would have, and the sub-prime loans at the center of today’s troubles carried significant, often onerous, fees and charges. The financial big-wigs were paid an amount commensurate with the chances of loss so that they freely accepted that risk in order to obtain the rich rewards that might have resulted.

They forgot that these rich rewards were not ever, in fact, guaranteed. Guaranteed rewards do not have the potential to generate large fees and interest payments.

It is my opinion that We The People are being prepared to swallow hard the incumbent risk (risk always = cost) to protect those who were aware of the risks and justly compensated for it—even if they are not so good at math or statistics. Funny how no one has suggested that the financial institutions return the interest rate premiums and other dollars they have collected in the mean time. As these spoiled and recalcitrant hedge funds dip their soiled hands into our collective coffers, they should well consider that a government willing to bail them out from such losses now will certainly return to collect a disproportionate share of the profits when the sun shines again. If we sell our souls for a little temporary financial stability now, we will all pay the price in freedom and tyranny later. This is another law of economics and politics.

I am glad that Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan are not here to witness the GOP abdication of the principles which ushered in repeated Conservative political victories and decades of economic success.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-09-09T13:09:00.000-07:00

Liberalism Causes Cancer, Study Proves
Air America and Daily Kos Implicated

In a stunning revelation, scientists have confirmed the existence of a definitive study proving a distinct and direct correlation between liberal ideologies and certain diseases—including, the most common types of colorectal cancer. In a first-of-its-kind survey of nearly 2000 Colorectal Cancer patients, 99% of them were either liberals or had recently been exposed to a liberal within days of their diagnosis. Never has such a definitive link—with a nearly one-to-one relationship—ever been established before.

Eminent research physician Dr. O. P. DeAd, author of this ground-breaking and controversial report, launched his research project based upon personal experience. “I was having dinner with my parents one evening and the TV was on in the other room,” said Dr. DeAd. “On the air at the time was Meet the Press and the guest panelist was James Carville, the Democrat strategist and campaign consultant. After hearing Mr. Carville speak for several minutes, my father exclaimed, ‘That Carville is a huge pain in the ass!’ That was the first time I put two and two together and wondered if there could be an actual correlation.”

After interviewing several of the patients in his family practice, Dr. DeAd noted that several patients expressed the same Carville-related symptoms. The good Doctor had a close scrape himself when applying for the Federal Grant he used to finance the study. Shortly after beginning the application process to access tax dollars for his research, he had a sudden bout of severe hemorrhoids that required weeks of treatments. “I was amazed at the incredible amount of rectal pain involved with the Federal Grant process. There was a real risk that I might lose my ass altogether. After this personal experience, I was even more convinced that my hypothesis was correct.” said Dr. DeAd.

After allowing for factors such as television programming and James Carville in particular, the research pointed to a broader pathogen. “Most of the patients found the TV show ‘Meet the Press,” and James Carville in particular, to be fairly irritating—but we soon discovered that the majority of sufferers had been exposed to a broad spectrum of Democrats and Liberals in general. Nancy Pelosi, Al Franken, the Clintons; exposure to any of these irritants appears to validate our hypothesis. It is the entire Liberal spectrum that brings disease to the rectum.”

Although many criticize the methodology used to gather data for this research, Dr. DeAd points out that he studiously followed the rigorous scientific statistical methods employed by Global Warming proponents, by the various studies which demonstrate the successes of Federal Welfare Programs, and by Dan Rather’s journalistic research team; among others.

Is there a cure? Dr. DeAd’s research points to hopeful signs. Many of his patients have experienced immediate relief by reading the works of William F. Buckley and noted economist Milton Friedman. Clearly more work needs to be done, but the public is advised to avoid exposure to NPR, the Democrat Debates, The Daily Kos Web site, and the tattered remains of Air America until more is known.

Be well,

Huckleberry

(sometimes, it’s just for fun)

2007-09-07T17:10:00.000-07:00

Luciano Pavarotti RIP

It is rare that one comes along who veritably defines his profession. Luciano Pavarotti was such a man.

Pavarotti was, in Operatic terms, an Italian Tenor. Close your eyes and think of that term; can any other image come to mind other than his bearded, cherubic face?

More than the special qualities of his voice, more than the range and the pop-culture duets, larger than the cultured il Divo persona—his passion for the music he sang so well is still unmatched. Find a video of Pavarotti singing the aria Nessun Dorma, from Puccini’s opera Turnadot (available on YouTube). Watch, upon completion of that magnificent and instantly recognizable piece as the rapture of the music itself falls across his face. We are moved equally by the quality of the performance and by Pavarotti’s passion for the music itself. It’s as if Giacomo Puccini wrote the piece just for him.

While most opera performers with lesser gifts cloister themselves away, Pavarotti was, in his own way, accessible to the masses. Perhaps it was his modest upbringing outside of Modena Italy that made him so. He sang with Beverly Sils and with Michael Bolton—with Placido Domingo and Aretha Franklin—with Jose Carreras and with Bono. Some will call attention to his obvious excesses and occasional scandals, but for today, let us only remember the music. And what truly great music it was!

The final line of Nessun Dorma translates “Vanish, night! Set, stars! Set, stars! At dawn, I will win! I will win! I will win!” Even in death, Luciano Pavarotti’s star will not set and we have all won by virtue of his life’s work.

Luciano Pavarotti, died September 6th, 2007, at 71. RIP.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-08-31T12:39:00.000-07:00

Two Voices

In 1833, Alfred Lord Tennyson wrote this work or poetry. In order that it not be cast in the endless shade of a failing educational system, I offer it up to my readers today.

Two Voices
A still small voice spake unto me, ‘Thou art so full of misery, Were it not better not to be?’

Then to the still small voice I said; ‘Let me not cast in endless shade, What is so wonderfully made.’
To which the voice did urge reply; ‘To-day I saw the dragon-fly, Come from the wells where he did lie.

‘An inner impulse rent the veil, Of his old husk: from head to tail, Came out clear plates of sapphire mail.

‘He dried his wings: like gauze they grew; Thro’ crofts and pastures wet with dew, A living flash of light he flew.’

I said, ‘When first the world began, Young Nature thro’ five cycles ran, And in the sixth she moulded man.

‘She gave him mind, the lordliest, Proportion, and, above the rest, Dominion in the head and breast.’

Thereto the silent voice replied; ‘Self-blinded are you by your pride: Look up thro’ night: the world is wide.

‘This truth within thy mind rehearse, That in a boundless universeIs boundless better, boundless worse.

‘Think you this mould of hopes and fears, Could find no statelier than his peers, In yonder hundred million spheres?’

It spake, moreover, in my mind: ‘Tho’ thou wert scatter’d to the wind, Yet is there plenty of the kind.’

Then did my response clearer fall: ‘No compound of this earthly ballIs, like another, all in all.’

To which he answer’d scoffingly; ‘Good soul! suppose I grant it thee, Who’ll weep for thy deficiency?

‘Or will one beam be less intense, When thy peculiar differenece, is cancell’d in the world of sense?’

I would have said, ‘Thou canst not know, ’But my full heart, that work’d below, Rain’d thro’ my sight its overflow.

Again the voice spake unto me: ‘Thou art so steep’d in misery, Surely ’twere better not to be.

‘Thine anguish will not let thee sleep, Nor any train of reason keep: Thou canst not think, but thou wilt weep.’

I said, ‘The years with change advance: If I make dark my countenance, I shut my life from happier chance.

‘Some turn this sickness yet might take, Ev’n yet.’ But he: ‘What drug can make, A wither’d palsy cease to shake?’

I wept, ‘Tho’ I should die, I know, That all about the thorn will blow, In tufts of rosy-tinted snow;

‘And men, thro’ novel spheres of thought, Still moving after truth long sought, Will learn new things when I am not.’

‘Yet,’ said the secret voice, ‘some time, Sooner or later, will gray prime, Make thy grass hoar with early rime.

‘Not less swift souls that yearn for light, Rapt after heaven’s starry flight, Would sweep the tracts of day and night.

‘Not less the bee would range her cells, The furzy prickle fire the dells, The foxglove cluster dappled bells.’

I said that ‘all the years invent; Each month is various to present, The world with some development.

‘Were this not well, to bide mine hour, Tho’ watching from a ruin’d tower, How grows the day of human power?’

‘The highest-mounted mind,’ he said, ‘Still sees the sacred morning spread, The silent summit overhead.

‘Will thirty seasons render plain, Those lonely lights that still remain, Just breaking over land and main?

‘Or make that morn, from his cold crown, And crystal silence creeping down, Flood with full daylight glebe and town?

‘Forerun thy peers, thy time, and let, Thy feet, millenniums hence, be set, In midst of knowledge, dream’d not yet.

‘Thou hast not gain’d a real height, Nor art thou nearer to the light, Because the scale is infinite.

‘’Twere better not to breathe or speak, Than cry for strength, remaining weak, And seem to find, but still to seek.

‘Moreover, but to seem to find, Asks what thou lackest, thought resign’d, A healthy frame, a quiet mind.’

I said, ‘When I am gone away, “He dared not tarry,” men will say, Doing dishonour to my clay.’

‘This is more vile,’ he made reply, ‘To breathe and loathe, to live and sigh, Than once from dread of pain to die.

‘Sick art thou–a divided will, Still heaping on the fear of ill, The fear of men, a coward still.

‘Do men love thee? Art thou so bound, To men, that how thy name may sound, Will vex thee lying underground?

‘The memory of the wither’d leaf, In endless time is scarce more brief, Than of the garner’d Autumn-sheaf.

‘Go, vexed Spirit, sleep in trust; The right ear, that is fill’d with dust, Hears little of the false or just.’

‘Hard task, to pluck resolve,’ I cried, ‘From emptiness and the waste wide, Of that abyss, or scornful pride!

‘Nay–rather yet that I could raise, One hope that warm’d me in the days, While still I yearn’d for human praise.

‘When, wide in soul and bold of tongue, Among the tents I paused and sung, The distant battle flash’d and rung.

‘I sung the joyful Pæan clear, And, sitting, burnish’d without fear, The brand, the buckler, and the spear–

‘Waiting to strive a happy strife, To war with falsehood to the knife, And not to lose the good of life–
‘Some hidden principle to move, To put together, part and prove, And mete the bounds of hate and love–

‘As far as might be, to carve out, Free space for every human doubt, That the whole mind might orb about–

‘To search thro’ all I felt or saw, The springs of life, the depths of awe, And reach the law within the law:

‘At least, not rotting like a weed, But, having sown some generous seed, Fruitful of further thought and deed,

‘To pass, when Life her light withdraws, Not void of righteous self-applause, Nor in a merely selfish cause–

‘In some good cause, not in mine own, To perish, wept for, honour’d, known, And like a warrior overthrown;

‘Whose eyes are dim with glorious tears, When, soil’d with noble dust, he hears, His country’s war-song thrill his ears:

‘Then dying of a mortal stroke, What time the foeman’s line is broke, And all the war is roll’d in smoke.’

‘Yea!’ said the voice, ‘thy dream was good, While thou abodest in the bud. It was the stirring of the blood.

‘If Nature put not forth her power, About the opening of the flower, Who is it that could live an hour?

‘Then comes the check, the change, the fall, Pain rises up, old pleasures pall. There is one remedy for all.

‘Yet hadst thou, thro’ enduring pain, Link’d month to month with such a chain, Of knitted purport, all were vain.

‘Thou hadst not between death and birth, Dissolved the riddle of the earth. So were thy labour little-worth.

‘That men with knowledge merely play’d, I told thee–hardly nigher made, Tho’ scaling slow from grade to grade;

‘Much less this dreamer, deaf and blind, Named man, may hope some truth to find, That bears relation to the mind.

‘For every worm beneath the moon, Draws different threads, and late and soon, Spins, toiling out his own cocoon.

‘Cry, faint not: either Truth is born, Beyond the polar gleam forlorn, Or in the gateways of the morn.

‘Cry, faint not, climb: the summits slope, Beyond the furthest flights of hope, Wrapt in dense cloud from base to cope.

‘Sometimes a little corner shines, As over rainy mist inclines, A gleaming crag with belts of pines.

‘I will go forward, sayest thou, I shall not fail to find her now. Look up, the fold is on her brow.

‘If straight thy track, or if oblique, Thou know’st not. Shadows thou dost strike, Embracing cloud, Ixion-like;

‘And owning but a little more, Than beasts, abidest lame and poor, Calling thyself a little lower

‘Than angels. Cease to wail and brawl! Why inch by inch to darkness crawl? There is one remedy for all.’

‘O dull, one-sided voice,’ said I, ‘Wilt thou make everything a lie, To flatter me that I may die?

‘I know that age to age succeeds, Blowing a noise of tongues and deeds, A dust of systems and of creeds.

‘I cannot hide that some have striven, Achieving calm, to whom was given, The joy that mixes man with Heaven:

‘Who, rowing hard against the stream, Saw distant gates of Eden gleam, And did not dream it was a dream;

‘But heard, by secret transport led, Ev’n in the charnels of the dead, The murmur of the fountain-head–

‘Which did accomplish their desire, Bore and forebore, and did not tire, Like Stephen, an unquenched fire.

‘He heeded not reviling tones, Nor sold his heart to idle moans, Tho’ cursed and scorn’d, and bruised with stones:

‘But looking upward, full of grace, He pray’d, and from a happy place, God's glory smote him on the face.’

The sullen answer slid betwixt: ‘Not that the grounds of hope were fix’d, The elements were kindlier mix’d.’

I said, ‘I toil beneath the curse, But, knowing not the universe, I fear to slide from bad to worse.

‘And that, in seeking to undo, One riddle, and to find the true, I knit a hundred others new:

‘Or that this anguish fleeting hence, Unmanacled from bonds of sense, Be fix’d and froz’n to permanence:

‘For I go, weak from suffering here: Naked I go, and void of cheer: What is it that I may not fear?’

‘Consider well,’ the voice replied,‘ His face, that two hours since hath died; Wilt thou find passion, pain or pride?

‘Will he obey when one commands? Or answer should one press his hands? He answers not, nor understands.

‘His palms are folded on his breast:There is no other thing express’dBut long disquiet merged in rest.
‘His lips are very mild and meek:Tho’ one should smite him on the cheek,And on the mouth, he will not speak.
‘His little daughter, whose sweet faceHe kiss’d, taking his last embrace,Becomes dishonour to her race–
‘His sons grow up that bear his name,Some grow to honour, some to shame,–But he is chill to praise or blame.
‘He will not hear the north-wind rave,Nor, moaning, household shelter craveFrom winter rains that beat his grave.
‘High up the vapours fold and swim:About him broods the twilight dim:The place he knew forgetteth him.’
‘If all he dark, vague voice,’ I said,‘These things are wrapt in doubt and dread,Nor canst thou show the dead are dead.
‘The sap dries up: the plant declines.A deeper tale my heart divines.Know I not Death? the outward signs?
‘I found him when my years were few;A shadow on the graves I knew,And darkness in the village yew.
‘From grave to grave the shadow crept:In her still place the morning wept:Touch’d by his feet the daisy slept.
‘The simple senses crown’d his head:“Omega! thou art Lord,” they said,“We find no motion in the dead.”
‘Why, if man rot in dreamless ease,Should that plain fact, as taught by these,Not make him sure that he shall cease?
‘Who forged that other influence,That heat of inward evidence,By which he doubts against the sense?
‘He owns the fatal gift of eyes,That read his spirit blindly wise,Not simple as a thing that dies.
‘Here sits he shaping wings to fly:His heart forebodes a mystery:He names the name Eternity.
‘That type of Perfect in his mindIn Nature can he nowhere find.He sows himself on every wind.
‘He seems to hear a Heavenly Friend,And thro’ thick veils to apprehendA labour working to an end.
‘The end and the beginning vexHis reason: many things perplex,With motions, checks, and counterchecks.
‘He knows a baseness in his bloodAt such strange war with something good,He may not do the thing he would.
‘Heaven opens inward, chasms yawn,Vast images in glimmering dawn,Half shown, are broken and withdrawn.
‘Ah! sure within him and without,Could his dark wisdom find it out,There must be answer to his doubt,
‘But thou canst answer not again.With thine own weapon art thou slain,Or thou wilt answer but in vain.
‘The doubt would rest, I dare not solve.In the same circle we revolve.Assurance only breeds resolve.’
As when a billow, blown against,Falls back, the voice with which I fencedA little ceased, but recommenced.
‘Where wert thou when thy father play’dIn his free field, and pastime made,A merry boy in sun and shade?
‘A merry boy they call’d him then,He sat upon the knees of menIn days that never come again.
‘Before the little ducts beganTo feed thy bones with lime, and ranTheir course, till thou wert also man:
‘Who took a wife, who rear’d his race,Whose wrinkles gather’d on his face,Whose troubles number with his days:
‘A life of nothings, nothing-worth,From that first nothing ere his birthTo that last nothing under earth!’
‘These words,’ I said, ‘are like the rest;No certain clearness, but at bestA vague suspicion of the breast:
‘But if I grant, thou mightst defendThe thesis which thy words intend–That to begin implies to end;
‘Yet how should I for certain hold,Because my memory is so cold,That I first was in human mould?
‘I cannot make this matter plain,But I would shoot, howe’er in vain,A random arrow from the brain.
‘It may be that no life is found,Which only to one engine boundFalls off, but cycles always round.
‘As old mythologies relate,Some draught of Lethe might awaitThe slipping thro’ from state to state.
‘As here we find in trances, menForget the dream that happens then,Until they fall in trance again.
‘So might we, if our state were suchAs one before, remember much,For those two likes might meet and touch.
‘But, if I lapsed from nobler place,Some legend of a fallen raceAlone might hint of my disgrace;
‘Some vague emotion of delightIn gazing up an Alpine height,Some yeaming toward the lamps of night;
‘Or if thro’ lower lives I came–Tho’ all experience past becameConsolidate in mind and frame–
‘I might forget my weaker lot;For is not our first year forgot?The haunts of memory echo not.
‘And men, whose reason long was blind,From cells of madness unconfined,Oft lose whole years of darker mind.
‘Much more, if first I floated free,As naked essence, must I beIncompetent of memory:
‘For memory dealing but with time,And he with matter, could she climbBeyond her own material prime?
‘Moreover, something is or seems,That touches me with mystic gleams,Like glimpses of forgotten dreams–
‘Of something felt, like something here;Of something done, I know not where;Such as no language may declare.’
The still voice laugh’d. ‘I talk,’ said he,‘Not with thy dreams. Suffice it theeThy pain is a reality.’
‘But thou,’ said I, ‘hast missed thy mark,Who sought’st to wreck my mortal ark,By making all the horizon dark.
‘Why not set forth, if I should doThis rashness, that which might ensueWith this old soul in organs new?
‘Whatever crazy sorrow saith,No life that breathes with human breathHas ever truly long’d for death.
‘’Tis life, whereof our nerves are scant,Oh life, not death, for which we pant;More life, and fuller, that I want.’
I ceased, and sat as one forlorn.Then said the voice, in quiet scorn,‘Behold, it is the Sabbath morn.’
And I arose, and I releasedThe casement, and the light increasedWith freshness in the dawning east.
Like soften’d airs that blowing steal,When meres begin to uncongeal,The sweet church bells began to peal.
On to God’s house the people prest:Passing the place where each must rest,Each enter’d like a welcome guest.
One walk’d between his wife and child,With measured footfall firm and mild,And now and then he gravely smiled.
The prudent partner of his bloodLean’d on him, faithful, gentle, good,Wearing the rose of womanhood.
And in their double love secure,The little maiden walk’d demure,Pacing with downward eyelids pure.
These three made unity so sweet,My frozen heart began to beat,Remembering its ancient heat.
I blest them, and they wander’d on:I spoke, but answer came there none:The dull and bitter voice was gone.
A second voice was at mine ear,A little whisper silver-clear,A murmur, ‘Be of better cheer.’
As from some blissful neighbourhood,A notice faintly understood,‘I see the end, and know the good.’
A little hint to solace woe,A hint, a whisper breathing low,‘I may not speak of what I know.’
Like an Æolian harp that wakesNo certain air, but overtakesFar thought with music that it makes:
Such seem’d the whisper at my side:‘What is it thou knowest, sweet voice?’ I cried.‘A hidden hope,’ the voice replied:
So heavenly-toned, that in that hourFrom out my sullen heart a powerBroke, like the rainbow from the shower,
To feel, altho’ no tongue can prove,That every cloud, that spreads aboveAnd veileth love, itself is love.
And forth into the fields I went,And Nature’s living motion lentThe pulse of hope to discontent.
I wonder’d at the bounteous hours,The slow result of winter showers:You scarce could see the grass for flowers.
I wonder’d, while I paced along:The woods were fill’d so full with song,There seem’d no room for sense of wrong;
And all so variously wrought,I marvell’d how the mind was broughtTo anchor by one gloomy thought;
And wherefore rather I made choiceTo commune with that barren voice,Than him that said, ‘Rejoice! Rejoice!’

2007-08-15T18:26:00.000-07:00

Dutch Bishop Urges Christians to Call God 'Allah'

Tiny Muskens, the bishop of Breda, Netherlands, asserts that the assimilation of Islamic citizens into the fabric of society would be facilitated by the rest of the good Dutch citizenry referring to God as 'Allah" in all manners and media. Of course, the good Bishop does not suggest that we mean it, necessarily. And we can trust his particular insights into the mind of God himself as we are assured by Fr. Muskens that it makes little difference what we call the divine creator.

While I am relatively certain that the Judeo-Christian God whom I have chosen to serve cares little for such labels (He who has no name and who even referred to himself solely through the declaration of his existence, "I Am"), it is even more certain that the Muslim population will not be convinced of my conversion if I continue to wear a golden cross about my neck. Surely this must go as well, for what does God care if a wear cross of crescent to express my faith?

And the uneducated terrorists are unlikely to spare me if I cry out to Allah whilst referring to the doctrines of mercy and forgiveness in the context of divine sacrifice, service, and the equality of all mankind. I do not believe that such concepts are properly taught in the Madrassas and safe-houses of Al Anbar'. Perhaps I should therefore only cry out references to the 79 virgins I will undoubtedly receive upon my death.

It seems that I have another problem--I am rather fond of Israel as a whole and that simply will not do. And further still, I regularly associate with known Jews. How thoughtless of me!

And to think that we, in our impertinence, have suggested that our Muslim brothers in arms simple adopt a policy of tolerance toward other religions! I will immediately remove the well-worn biography of Thomas Jefferson from my bookshelf and tear-up my hallowed copies of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. See...easily done!

Isn't this all a small price to pay in order to help the Islamo-fascists assimilate into our culture?

Be well,
Huckleberry

Read the 'World Net Daily' article for yourself.

2007-08-12T15:13:00.000-07:00

Church Scandals Shake Writer’s Faith
An open letter to William Lobdell of the Los Angeles Times

On July 21, 2007, William Lobdell, the religion writer for the LA Times, wrote an article expressing his frustrations with the subjects of his beat: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lostfaith21jul21,0,3530015,full.story?coll=la-home-center
Below is Huckleberry's response.

Mr. Lobdell -

Has the rancor diminished? I would assume that your July 21 article would raise quite a ruckus amongst your regular readers and the faithful—pro and con. I trust that the uproar has subsided a bit and that you will feel comfortable reading one more letter on the topic.

If it is true that, as Samuel Johnson once so famously stated, “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel,” then allow me to expand this wisdom to say that religion is the scoundrel’s safe-house.

It is worth noting that that the oft-quoted Mr. Johnson was not saying that patriotism was, in itself, a bad or ignoble thing. Rather, he was commenting on the common trait for such scoundrels, when cornered, to quickly run for cover under the flag. Thus, they turn noble patriotism into a weapon against justice. But true patriotism remains unscathed.

Similarly, the formalized religions are easy marks for the sophistry of scoundrels. Many religions—and especially the Christian ones—are founded on the concepts of forgiveness and redemption. These theological concepts are child’s-play for the disingenuous to manipulate into a means of diverting accountability and avoiding penalty. Thus, they turn noble faith into a weapon against justice. True faith, however, remains unscathed.

In your article you describe your journey from faith into disillusionment. Fair enough. I suggest that you and your readers remember that the disillusionment is with the men and institutions surrounding faith and not necessarily with faith itself. Not to be overly dismissive, but transferring one’s justified frustrations otherwise would be like abandoning your favorite sports team because the vendors charged you too much for warm beer.

We are cautioned repeatedly to avoid idolatry and graven images. It is not for God’s sake that we received these instructions. For how can a bronze statue or crystal cathedral properly represent what we understand to be God? And if we deign to do so, can our faith be as easily dented or shattered? The contemporary concepts of priesthood are especially vulnerable because such priests are placed, by ecclesiastic authority and the priest’s own desire, at the gateway between God and the flock—providing the sacrament, dispensation, forgiveness, and penance associated with their vocation. Priests and the magnificent structures they inhabit can therefore quickly become the idols of those they serve. It would indeed take a special man of unique character and divinely inspire gifts to hold up such a load properly. Unfortunately, such special, unique, and inspired men are few and the gap between their occurrence increases with the passing centuries. In the end, they are just men. It should therefore not be surprising that we find, on occasion, scattered piles of dented metal and broken glass about the landscape, for this is how all idols fall whether they are Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise.

We are right to seek justice. And it is good if we feel indignation and empathy for the suffering of victims. Should we hold priests and pastors to a higher standard? Certainly—that weeds out many of the disaffected and malingering scoundrels in search of a darkened corner to hide in. But we can only feel personally robbed of our faith if we have harbored some remnant of idolatry within us.

I wish you the best and ask only that you consider that your journey from faith into disillusionment is not yet completed and may one day return to faith once again.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-07-26T14:55:00.000-07:00

Fear
Your 'Ol pal Huckleberry posits some thoughts on human nature and one concept of Fear.

What is that characteristic that makes fear such a unique quality among mankind. It is true that animals have fear, but the fear experienced among animals is that of predator and prey; the shock of the unexpected; the tenuous and unfamiliar; and the anxiety that comes—like the Pavlovian ringing of the bell—from an associated experience or training. Mankind shares all of these petty fears with the animal kingdoms and then some. We develop fears of things where none would occur to the beasts of the field. And unlike the animals, we require no ringing bell or heavy-handed master to wring fear from our soul—we teach fear to ourselves.

Each of us can close our eyes and imagine ourselves. This is unique to us amongst all creation. As we do so, often we do not like what we see. There will be elements that we do like—other things we are unsure of. There are undoubtedly pieces that we see as simply bits of us that are neither good nor bad. All of these are jumbled up alongside other bits of baggage and treasures that we have carried along for the ride—imposed upon us through relationship and experience. But surely there is more. For none of us can ever be fully aware of how we understand ourselves fully. Just as there are unconscious pieces and bits that inform our peculiar tics and behaviors, there are unconscious bits and pieces of our definition of ourselves that we do not understand and may never be fully aware of. In any event, the mosaic of our self-definition only takes shape when viewed with some distance—like a fine mosaic of ceramic and glass, each shard of glazed clay and chip of stained crystal has sharp edges and smooth spots and various shapes and forms that are incongruous until one stands back from that whole. A few paces back, the colors blend and the shapes blur into form and an image appears. Many of those pieces were laid by our own had and are fraught with bits of denial and deception. This is, after all, our self-image—not necessarily our true image—and we added the denial and deception to fill in the gaps and missing pieces in vain attempt to see ourselves for ourselves. At some point then we think that we have a picture that is relatively complete.

We live our lives seeing all that happens to us in the light that bounces off of this self image. Eventually we convince ourselves that this image is reality--or at least it is "our" reality as if there were more than one.

There are those who then project this self image outward. They take their image and place its strictures onto the people and the world around them. Think of the man who cheats on his taxes or steals from, his employer because he believes that everyone cheats steals. He cannot accept the good in any man because he cannot find the good in himself.

There are others who project their image inwardly. Think of the person who believes himself worthless because he believes in conceit that others see him as worthless.

There are those who construct their opinion of themselves based upon this self-appraisal.

The captain of business who believes himself superior.
The master of a craft who sees himself defined by his skill.
The well-ordered mind that sees all within his control.
The disciplined athlete who sees himself as a physical sculpture of flesh.
The glutton who finds pardon and comfort in his girth.
The self-defeatist who satisfies his excuses in the vagaries of fortune.
The manic who justifies himself in his production of work.
There are so many more.

Each of us wraps the definition around ourselves as a blanket. We use it to shape our understanding of ourselves, our world, and all that we experience. In this it is comforting. But is it real or a distortion. Consider that each of us has anxiety, fear, despising, and dread of all things, experiences, people, and ideas that challenge this self-imposed mosaic of our soul.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-07-20T06:55:00.000-07:00

Mac Magruder Supersizes Ignorance in the Illegal Immigration Debate

Mac Magruder, prominent Arizona businessman and owner of several MacDonald’s franchises, appeared on NPR radio on July 6th, 2007, in an attempt to support his position against Arizona’s new law that toughens employer penalties for knowingly hiring illegal workers.

It is painful to hear Mac Magruder fumble and flail has he tries to make his points (listen for yourself- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11784006 ) If I may summarize, Mac says that this law is bad because

The verification pilot program mentioned in the law is flawed—because Mac says so.

If the dictates of the law are followed to the letter and even-handedly applied to every applicant, that’s profiling. (This comment does not make sense in any language.)

It is un-Constitutional now because if we change the law, it will then be unfair. (Um…excuse me?)

The Governor knew the law was un-Constitutional when she signed it because it usurps Federal jurisdiction. (State Business licensing usurps Federal Law?)

No business is knowingly hiring Illegal workers. (He actually said that.)

Businesses that are hiring illegal worker deserve to be punished. (But, didn’t he just say that…Oh, never mind.)

People and jobs will flee the state. (Perhaps only the illegal ones will flee.)

We have entrapped all of the illegal workers by offering them jobs. (If they are entrapped, how can they flee?)

It’s really a racial issue—because Mac says so. (Forget all that “rule of law” mumbo jumbo.)

“Most of the people we are talking about are brothers and sisters down South; that are hard-working, wonderful people…they came here to build a better life….” (Since no one is hiring an illegal worker, who do you think Mac is talking about?)

The economic benefits of illegal workers far outweigh some of costs people are associating with our “friends coming from Mexico.” (Where do I begin? Outweigh some of the costs?

The economic benefits of who, exactly…since there are no businesses hiring illegal workers? Mac thinks all the illegal workers come from Mexico?)

It seems that Mr. Magruder cannot decide which argument to use, so he is trying them all on for size—supporting none of them effectively—and contradicting himself most of the time in the process. Mac has followed up his performance on NPR with several additional interviews on radio and in print that have added only consistency to his comments—but not quality. His thoughts are ill-informed and poorly presented, and so they remain unsatisfying on every level.

It is fitting and a touch ironic that Mac Magruder is in the business of fast-food—because, like the products he sells, his thoughts are over-cooked and quickly thrown together in a way that is not really good for any of us. How can one man, ostensibly a successful and savvy business leader, twist so much double-speak, ad hominem, and non-sequitur into a four-minute interview? Doesn’t he know that this is what we have Senators for? On the plus side, if this burger restaurant deal doesn’t pan out in the long run, he appears to be honing his skills for a career in liberal race-baiting. But I digress.

Big Mac is serving up a super-sized helping of self-serving sophistry with a side order of unpleasantness that will carry a price for Arizona far beyond the limits of any Value Menu. He is harming our wonderful state and its citizens of every configuration by degrading the valid arguments of his opposition and dragging honest dissenters through the grease-trap so that we all come out sticky and smelling bad. This technique failed when the Senate tried it, it failed again when President Bush tried it—it will fail now as well.

If the quality of one’s position is truly to be judged by the quality of one’s argument, then Business leaders like Mac Magruder and pro-illegal politicians have very weak positions indeed. I challenge “Wake Up Arizona” to stand legitimately on the field of ideas and present their case without the quick-fried fluff. I await their reply. Mr. Magruder, I suggest to you that Arizona has already “woken up” and that is precisely what is causing you so much angst.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-07-12T17:05:00.000-07:00

Global Spider Monsters

In 1960's horror films, a normal creature--usually an insect or lizard--wanders helplessly into some man-made disaster and is transformed. Let's say it's a spider. Anyway, this spider gets blasted by nuclear radiation, lasered by angry aliens who think we are wasting our planet, or poisoned by a toxic chemical spill and the next thing you know...Bam! The spider is sixty feet tall and munching down on poodle-skirted contestants from American Bandstand. (I always was a bit suspicious that Dick Clark was an alien mutant--but I digress)

The sheer number of movies and TV shows that followed this template is daunting. To use the term "ubiquitous" would be an understatement. But the formula works and is rather simple: Man-made disaster plus recognisable yet mildly creepy animal equals a sixty-foot tall reversal of the food chain and box-office success.

But what if the horrible monster created by unfeeling and wasteful mankind was, say two inches tall? Would the theatrical President of the United States call out the military or seek out the female scientist (who is a bit too attractive to be a scientist in real life) to solve the unsolvable? Would anyone really care? If the spider that is normally, say...1/2 inch high were to mutate into a fearsome 3/4 inch high, it is likely that the heroine would have to save mankind with a rolled up Sunday paper and no one would ever know the difference. In fact, would anyone suspect that there was ever a monster or mutation at all? We have all seen big, creepy spiders and--if we saw one just a little bit bigger or mildly creepier, we would likely think that this was just another big spider in the normal context of the realm of spider-dom. But if the spider were just a little larger than average no one would get scared--which is, after all, the whole point of the exercise.

Fast forward to today. Global Warming is the big, sixty-foot tall monster that has been created by bad and evil mankind. It is going to eat us all unless the President calls out the Army and good-looking scientists get free reign to solve the problem...whatever the cost. Mother nature has innocently walked through the exhaust emissions of our SUVs and coughed-up a disaster of unimaginable proportions.....right?

The problem is that, just like there are big spiders and little ones, the Earth has been at times a very warm place and at other times it has been a pretty cold one. Even the most aggressive and extremist prognostications by green-tinted socialists projects a scenario that is within the normal range of Earthy temperature fluctuations. The Earth has been warm enough for Greenland to be very green indeed, for grapes to grow well in England at one point, and for Mammoths to roam the Siberian plains which are now frozen tundra. In addition, good 'ol Mother Earth has been so chilly at times that glaciers covered huge swaths of the landmass and the sea-levels were so low that early man inhabited caves now submerged dozens of feet below current sea-level. These types of climactic shifting are the norm for our dear planet. Sometimes the changes happened rather swiftly, indeed. And these are just the examples at the extremes. Science and history provide us with evidence of hundreds if not thousands of lesser fluctuations in average climate. Even these lesser climactic oscillations were on the order of dozens of average degrees--still a multiple of what the fringe Global Warming pundits conjure in their nightmares.

So this means that even if we were to turn off all "green-house gas emissions" tomorrow, the Earth may warm up anyway--and could go even hotter just to spite us. It also means that such an extreme warming (and by extreme I mean the most dire Global Warming prediction of 5 or 6 degrees) is not even a blip on the Earthly scale. This spider--even in its worst-case--is only a little bit bigger than the one uncle John squashed for Aunt Martha on the back porch.

Statisticians call this gap a standard deviation. In other words, the range that is normally expected to occur in a dynamic system. For example, when the weather man says that the "normal" temperature for the day is, say 90 degrees, what he is really saying is that the "average" temperature is 90 degrees--sometimes it's hotter and sometimes it's colder. In fact, it is rare that the actual temperature on any given day is the average temperature because MOST times it is either a little hotter or a little colder. As long as the temperature is within it's standard deviation, nobody should be surprised at all.

Well, welcome to Global Warming folks. Even the absolute worst sky-is-falling-chicken-little-scenarios of the Eco-tyranny Movement fall well within the standard deviations of good 'ol regular climate. In fact, it leaves one wondering whether Mother Earth has even noticed that 1/2 half of us drive cars a bit bigger than we really need. It might also be worth noting that, according to the Earth Sciences, Earth at one time had an atmosphere that consisted ONLY of so-called "green-house gasses" (CO2, methane, and ammonia) and that this was the cradle of life. But I digress.

Suffice it to say that, since all of the temperature forecasts are in the"normal-range" and the Climate could randomly decide to go all "warm" or "cold" on us at any time without consulting Greenpeace or Al Gore, is there really anything that we can or should do about it? The truth is that, even if there is a monster, it is only about 1/2" inch tall and it would be better to leave the President alone (he has a bunch of other issues to attend to). It may be more productive to whack Al Gore with a rolled up newspaper and call the issue done.

I'm not saying that we should ignore important issues. Far from it. But it is vital that we keep our perspective. If we were to adopt the positions and policies advocated by the Global Warming proponents, the world would sacrifice trillions of dollars in real value and productivity to effect a world-wide average temperature correction of +/- 3 degrees centigrade one hundred years from now in the off-chance that Mother Nature will not decide differently. Mother Nature (in the form of sun spot activity, water vapor, volcanic activity, plant growth, etc.) can--and often does--toss up changes to climate trends. It's not that she is trying to mess around with us, it's more like she is unaware that we are even here at all. Actually, Mother Nature has no conscience or reason--she just is.

In fact, recent history is full of examples. Just the other day another Woolly Mammoth was discovered frozen in time--wholly preserved because the last cold snap happened very quickly--and millennia before the first SUV rolled off the assembly line. Woolly Mammoths roamed the Siberian Stepps and ate trees and grasses because....drum-roll please.....the Earth was a much warmer place. Far warmer that a couple of metric degrees above today's averages. The ensuing cold snap caught them largely unaware and thus we occasionally find caches of Woolly Mammoth frozen solid and ready for defrost and a quick Bar-B-Q. (Mammoth; the other white meat!)

So, to sum up: It will be difficult to determine how much change--if indeed there is any--is associated with CO2 emissions because Mother Nature plays a shell game with the climate on a regular basis and--even if the climate were not a moving target--the amount of temperature change impact would be indistinguishable from normal temperature fluctuations. Everything else is just scary music and theatrics. It may sell movie tickets, but you do not set economic and environmental policy based upon a movie....Do you?

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-07-03T12:18:00.000-07:00

To Kyl or Not to Kyl?

(With appologies to the Immortal Bard and Hamlet himself, 'Ol Huckleberry struggles with the conservative quandry that Jon Kyl--a fine man--has put us in.)

"To Kyl, or not to Kyl: that is the question:
Whether ‘tis nobler in politics to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous legislation
Or to take arms against a sea of illegal immigration
And by opposing, defeat a Senator?
And by defeat to say we end
The heartache and the thousand taxes and lies
That politics is heir to, ‘tis a royal screwing!
Therefore devoutly we wish to defeat him,
In defeat, perchance, to replace him: ay there’s the rub;
For in the joyful replacement what sophistry will come
When we have shuffled off the offending cur
Must give us pause: there’s the respect
That makes calamity of so free a democracy
For who would bear the whips and scorns of the devil we know,
The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of interns coddled, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
Within the voting booth? Who would fardles bear,
To grunt and sweat under heavy taxation,
But that dread of something after tar and feather applied,
The unknown quality of Senator new from whose bourn
May put lie to election returns, puzzling the will
And makes us rather bear those Sophi-crats we have
Than to fly to others that we know not of?
Thus non-confidence makes consenters of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action. – Soft you now!
The fair Liberty! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all these sins remember’d."

Be well

Huckleberry

(read the related article at PHXNews here: http://phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=50140 )

2007-06-28T17:28:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the Main Event

Announcer: Ladies and Gentlemen! Welcome to the Main Event of the evening!

In this corner, weighing in at a sloppy 25,000 pounds; with swollen noses and wearing brown-stained Armani trunks are the 100 Senators of the United States…Senators! [boo, hiss, grumble]

In the opposing corner, weighing in at 300 million votes; carrying the rule of law, reason, and a well-defined sense of fair play upon their shoulders; and wearing Red, White, and Blue Trunks are the Citizens of the United States…Citizens! [yea!]

Referee: Alright gentlemen, I want a fair fight. No ad hominem arguments or name calling—just go out there and debate the issue at hand and do what’s right for the country.

Citizens: Hey…the Senator's boxing gloves are stuffed with cash and rolled coins.

Referee: Those are campaign contributions, questionable book deal revenues, and consulting contract income.

Citizens: Is that fair?

Referee: No,…what’s your point? At the sound of the Liberty Bell, come out swinging.

[Ding!]

Announcer: And the Senators make the first move!

Senators: It’s not really “Amnesty,” It’s more like a “Pardon!”

Citizens: That makes no sense.

Senators: What we have now is “De-facto Amnesty!”

Citizens: So we should go from “De-facto Amnesty” to “Actual Amnesty?”

Senators: It’s actually “Earned Citizenship!” Quick—someone get me a Thesaurus!!

Citizens: You’re not fooling anyone.

Senators: You're a Racist! You want to break up families! Hamburgers will be $20 each! Who’s going to pick my lettuce?? You just don't understand the issues! If we legalize them then they will vote for us!!!!!!

Announcer: A large cut has opened up in the Senators' position—the audience gasps as the Citizens come charging back!

Citizens: We tried the legalization thing before and you guys did nothing to enforce the laws. You passed a bill to build a border fence and then play political games with it so it won’t get built.

Announcer: Body-Blow! Body-Blow!

Senators: This is all the fault of talk-radio fear-mongers who have to be stopped!

Citizens: You mean those guys who helped you all get elected last time?

Announcer: The Senators are realing—bearly able to stand on their own two feet!

Citizens: Your plan doesn’t make economic, legal, or moral sense at all.

Senators: It’s the best deal we could make! It’s even Bi-partisan and everything!!

Citizens: You are running this thing like a game of Three-Card-Monte. No matter what we choose, we lose, because you are the guys dealing the cards and deciding what the choices are. I’ve had enough of this—we’re going to vote your deal-making, double-talking, legacy seeking, self-centered butts right out of office!

Senators: So you do not like this immigration bill? Why didn’t you just say so?

Announcer: The Senators have just run out of the ring and are sprinting for the door!

Referee: The winner, defender of liberty, and still champion of Constitutional Republican governance…The Citizens! [yea!]

Well, the good guys took this round with the defeat of the terrible Immigration bill in the Senate. But don’t forget, friends—the Senators will be back for another round of Sophistry and Mayhem. Let’s make sure that we are ready for them.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-06-25T17:24:00.000-07:00

Immigration--Where do Solutions Begin?
In fact, they begin right here! (With a little Milton Friedman wisdom thrown in for good measure.)

And it begins with the truth that we are still talking about illegal immigration--not "immigrants" or "migrants" or any others who might legally lay claim to opportunity in this country. Let's dispense will all the talk of racism, nativism, and the rest. We have all seen, heard, and read the dribbling rants of those who are racists out there. We know them when we see them. There are elements of that everywhere and on both sides of this debate. They are the fringe, the out-landers to the American Dream--but they are a noisy lot at times and ultimately cowards. Let us set the misanthropes aside as history undoubtedly will do and get ourselves on to the business at hand.

Arizona is the Huckleberry State
I am a native Arizonan (not of the "Native-American Tribal" variety, but still enough of a rarity) and have witnessed a great deal regarding illegal immigration first-hand. I have seen illegal immigrants who work exceedingly hard and generally within the context of legality (of course, excepting their immigration status) and I have been the victim of crime at the hands of....how do we now say this...."doubly illegals?" Again, I am not shocked by the fact that a societal subset contains elements of both. Any random set of humanity with sufficient scope would do the same.

Ideas--At Least I Know Where to Start
Only you can determine if you believe that 'Ol Huck has something constructive to offer on this matter, but let me give you a taste. It is my contention that:

The most important elements in any solution to illegal immigration are sequence, measure, and pacing. (Think of how the Fed manages interest rates to avoid "shocking" the economy.)
The most fearful aspects of the current legislation are that it was quickly negotiated in secret and, in fact, the most current version is unavailable for public review. (Never a good sign. The Heritage Foundation managed to review an early summary before they published their scathing account.)
It is vital to remember that any solution must take into account the relative incompetence of the Federal government in administrating such programs. (Milton Friedman once said, "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.").
It is also important to view the current proposal in the context of the failures of the previous attempt in 1986 and to not repeat those errors (Milton Friedman also said, "Governments never learn. Only people learn.").
Finally, incentives must be in place to induce lawfulness. It is clear to me that the Senators do not have a firm enough grasp of Economics to place these incentives in the correct locations. I would argue that the incentives, as I understand them, contained in the current bill encourage lawlessness. (one last Milton Friedman quote, "Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it." He was a pretty bright guy, eh?)

But What About the Families and the Children, etc.?
With regards to this issue it is also plain that many are leading from their heart. I do not fault them too much for this. Grace, mercy, and compassion are the hallmarks of my faith--political and theological. But we do not benefit those who wish to come to our country under noble goals and lofty aspirations if, by doing so, we lessen the quality or value of that which they seek to achieve. In so doing, the "economy" of Freedom is put into Recession and the sum total of "good" is diminished. If the mechanism is properly in place and the "market" for such remains governed by the rule of law, only then does each transaction (of immigration) add value to the whole. This is true of every system designed by the hand of man.

Enforcement Slander
Before I sign off, I would also offer that the majority of opponents to the bill (excepting a few) are not necessarily "pro-enforcement-only" as is commonly inferred. Rather, they are largely "Pro-enforcement-first" (not the same thing) and that any government unwilling to enforce current laws cannot be trusted to enforce any.

We keep hearing John McCain and other politicians parroting the party-line:

"Those who oppose this legislation have a duty to propose an alternative."

I would have hoped that the legislators involved might have asked this same question of us prior to their first, clandestine Drafting sessions. I assure you that I would have spoken up. Now, each attempt that I and my philosophical brethren make to contact our representatives is met with disdain, slander, and silence.

"You want solutions and alternatives?
Here I am John, but it appears that you will not take my call."

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-06-22T16:41:00.000-07:00

Immigration and Sophistry in America

“Truth, that’s it! For when a man lies he murders some part of the world...you should know that!” (1)

Good ‘Ol Huck is starting to get in a bad way about this whole mess—refering to the mis-named Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. It’s getting awfully lonely out here on the Intellectual Conservative front. Our evidence today comes from those previously claiming to profess Conservative Principles.

Did They Really Say That?
Is Huckleberry willing to name names? Why sure he is:

Trent Lott (You should hear some of the tragic interviews he has been giving—this will likely end his chances at further Republican Leadership. And did he really say that “Talk Radio is a problem” that needs to be addressed? Yes he did, to his lasting shame.)
Senator Jon Kyl (I am very sorry to include this fine man in this list of shame, but he has boxed himself into a rather ugly corner on this one. If he comes up with another “it’s more like a pardon, not amnesty” comment I may become ill.)
President Bush (Don’t get me started. When he is right, he is mostly right, though fumbling a bit. When he is wrong, he can be tragically, horribly wrong. Is it correct to say logarithmically wrong? Hurling accusations and name calling at your political base--one that is shrinking fast do to other concerns--because they disagree with you qualifies as being just that wrong.)
The Goldwater Institute (My email exchange with Clint Bolick, a staff member at the Institute, was equal parts enlightening, comic, and horrific. Did he really suggest in an Arizona Republic editorial that Republicans prostitute themselves upon this bill in order to improve their election chances? Yes he did; thus lowering the term “craven” to new depths and debasing the name of the Senator his employer is named for. By the way, ‘Ol Huck ain’t done with the Goldwater Institute just yet. They have done a bit of good work over the years and, if they can be saved from themselves, I will give them that chance.)
John McCain (Perhaps someone whispered in his ear that his support for this bill would augment his Presidential aspirations…and perhaps that person was James Carville…and perhaps even he didn’t think McCain would take him seriously.)

Lest you think that your favorite blogger has gone off the deep end, allow me to mention those few who so far are fighting the good fight on this critical issue:

Almost all of Conservative Talk Radio that I have heard (see: Trent Lott above)

The Heritage Foundation (Bucking the trend, they have attempted some scholarly research on the costs involved. By the way, pocket change won’t do it.)

National Review and the online incarnation of this relatively steady and philosophically sound magazine.

I cannot think of anyone else right now, but I felt compelled to add a fourth bullet so that it does not look like reasoned Conservativism is so greatly outnumbered—though that appears to be the case.

Sophistry Shuffle
Come to think of it, this isn’t really a Conservative or Liberal issue at all. In anything near its current form this bill violates sound economic principles, denies human nature, ignores the concept of the rule of law, twists the US Constitution into some pretty bizarre shapes, caters to a few special interests and select industries, incentivizes criminal behavior, and plays a shell game with the various extended implications (Health care, Social Security, and so much more). Is it any wonder that a signifcant number of us are outraged?

But perhaps worst of all it is causing the Republican leadership--who have been duped into supporting this travesty--to lie, twist, mangle, and dance the Sophistry Shuffle as they spit into the wind and tell us it’s raining.

Be well,
Huckleberry

(1) Quote from the character Merlin in the movie Excalibur, 1981, Orion Pictures Corporation

2007-06-09T11:46:00.000-07:00

Snow, Cement, and Ivory Young Towers (1)

Some eons ago mankind spoke one language. One may differ on which root language that was and whether the several “branch” languages were the result of geographic isolation after tribal migrations or the result of divine intervention into human hubris at—you guessed it—The Tower of Babel. It is interesting and instructive to note that modern linguistic science points rather decisively to a “Mother Tongue” for humanity and that a quorum of historical traditions and religions do so as well. So let us refer back, if we may, to our favorite Neolithic ancestor, Cousin Og. (2)

Good Cousin Og is sitting in his mud hut one day when the local leader walks up to him and says, “Hey buddy, can you make bricks?” Or one imagines such an exchange taking place (Cousin Og is a bit fuzzy on the conversation now, seeing as he is 10,000 years old and his memory is not quite what it used to be). The point being that by this time in human history, it seems we could all communicate with each other in one, unified language—Let’s call this language "Basic Rock." (3) Anyway, the request is made and appropriations allocated for another public works construction project.

So make bricks they do and up goes a tower. Now the story gets tangled a bit, but it appears their prehistoric intent was to (literally and metaphorically) build a tower so high that the locals could poke a stick into God’s eye. The Hucklebberry Legal Team tells me that I must warn you not to try this at home. Such impertinence is likely to anger deities from any and all religious traditions that I am aware of and—if you are an atheist—it makes you look like a jerk anyway.

You know how the story ends. Cut to the present day and we now have six-billion people in the world (more or less) who speak a couple-hundred different languages and one is left to wonder what could be accomplished if that were not the case.

Now, this author is a professional communicator by trade and I can assure you that I am the only one on the planet who speaks clearly, concisely, effectively, and correctly. If you do not understand me, then there is something wrong with you.

My point is that I would tend to argue that what we really have today are six-billion-odd humans speaking six-billion-odd dialects of a couple hundred languages. I speak, well, "Huckleberry English" and you speak "Whatever-English." Some words, concepts, inflections, and idiomatic expressions hold subtly different “meaning" for you than they do for me. I am reminded daily of the difficulties of being understood experienced by family members and close associates, let alone co-workers and complete strangers. Even people related by blood and raised in the same households come to each conversation with their own completely unique set of agendas, biases, conceptions, and linguistic relationships that compound the burden of clear intent. It is a wonder that we can understand each other at all. Communication is hard!

But did the pre-Babel folks have a more perfect system? Did they literally speak with the tongues of angels and understand each other perfectly? If so, I am jealous and would gladly trade my Ipod and plasma screen TV for a few happy days in mutual comprehensive bliss. That local leader who recruited Cousin Og to make bricks may have been able to communicate the request with a level of purpose, precision, and brevity that would astound us (please avoid the temptation at this point to contrast such linguistic efficiency with this blog entry). Imagine, a few words that not only communicated the desire to have bricks made, but detailed their composition, physical dimensions, method of construction, where they needed to go, and--perhaps--even their purpose and reason better than any set of architectural drawings. Cousin Og would have related to him the completeness of meaning distilled down to its most efficient form.

This idea of Babel and it's antecedent potentially "prefect" communication has stimulated many thoughts on my part and I have started referring to this concept as "singularity of meaning" (the irony of ‘Ol Huck venturing to coin a term in an attempt to define this is not lost on me). It is, if you will, the natural horizon of communications--the vanishing point at which the injection of one additional word, inflection, pause, or guttural sound would add nothing to the understanding. Conversely, the removal of any single element would bring loss. Unfortunately, this may be unattainable for us today. For us it is a mathematical limit--like the speed of light. With great effort and energy we can approach it ever closer, but we can never reach that pinnacle of meaning singularity. Ah, but the effort has given us some wonderful art, has it not?

On the more mushy side on the concept is the notion of the tortured artist--being so tortured by his or her inability to properly or fully express the desired "meaning." Just like an infant fusses at times due to his inability to communicate the specificity of his wants and needs, the artist storms about in frustration at the inadequacy of his medium, vocabulary, and talent to express the intended meaning. Thus art is often described as being "felt" and we defer to our "sense" of it.

Taken to its edges, one may find perfect communication--perfect language--to therefore define perfect art. But this is a bit of a digression. For the moment let's turn our attention to the concept of "language as repression" and step in to gently correct Sigmund Freud by suggesting that language is better understood as not the point of repression, but rather the point of limitation (not the same thing). Repression may be thought of as the internalized result of our frustration at our limitations. Repression is the humanistic and flawed response of man (the spoiled and frustrated child) straining at his/her own limits. That which we cannot express en veritas toto we either repress, transfer, or act out upon unproductively.

Returning to the singularity of meaning, we discover then that there is one more example that begs our address--Epiphany. Epiphany is the rare moment when meaning crystallizes for us in a brilliant flash of comprehension. We rush about looking for a note pad because even the act of starting up our computer would take too long. The "meaning" and comprehension are flying by us and we get but a glimpse of it. We are then limited by our ability to record such moments effectively and, ultimately, some portion of each Epiphany is lost to us every time.

Who could communicate so quickly, beautifully, and with such full and complete meaning....standing, if you will, at the point of singularity and...perhpas...at the speed of light? It is only God who speaks in such ways and can do no less.

Be well,
Huckleberry

(1) First line of the song “Tower of Babel” by Elton John and Bernie Taupin, from the album “
Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy,” 1975. This post has nothing to do with the religio-phobic and self-aggrandized homosexual diaspora intended by the song—but it is a solid cultural reference point for “Babel.”
(2) Yes, I know that I have referred to Cousin Og in previous posts as “Paleolithic.” He called me last week from his condo in South Boca to correct me and remind me that he is “not THAT old.”
(3) I stand on the shoulders of Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks (2000 Year Old Man)
* The graphic used in this post is that of a woodcut image by M. C. Esher titled “Tower of Babel

2007-06-02T08:27:00.000-07:00

Go Get'em Peggy

I do not always agree with her, but Peggy Noonan expresses the current sentiments amongst Republicans rather well in her June 1st, 2007 editorial.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

Be Well,

Huckleberry

2007-06-02T07:38:00.000-07:00

I Guess 'Ol Huck Just Doesn't Understand
An Open Letter to President George Bush

Mr. President -

It is relatively easy for me to understand and accept political disagreement. I am accustomed to such as I am sure you are. I also understand that my President may not, on occasion, completely agree with me on every position--this is one of the realities I am content to live with.

It is quite another thing for my President--and ostensibly the leader of my party--to lecture me on my need to accept diversity. Please understand, sir, that I do not intend to lecture you and I intend no disrespect. But I cannot support the current (and terribly mis-named) Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act in anywhere near its current form. I would further say that my reasoning's have nothing to do with fear of diversity or racism and that I have not been manipulated by fear-mongers. Quite frankly, sir, I resent your saying so. In rhetorical arguments, the first one to defer to ad homonyms and non sequiturs is usually the one with the weaker case. I am left to assume that this implies my arguments against this legislation are stronger indeed.

The current bill is mis-guided from the perspectives of economics (monetary and incentive), our established concept of justice, the establishment of unwarranted precedent, and quite frankly our American sense of fair play. Your support and defense of this bill should be abandoned and I have equally communicated this sentiment to my state Senators--Kyle and McCain. I will continue my resistance in the form of my vote, communications (my blog, letters, and related articles), and the withholding of financial and moral support from my Republican Party, you sir, and my Senators to make my position known.

Respectfully--Be Well,
Huckleberry

2007-06-01T10:42:00.000-07:00

Nature, Nurture, and……What’s Left

Recent discussions have recalled one of the oldest controversies since the dawn of the scientific age—are odds of our success in any endeavor more dictated by the genetic blueprint that forms the mortal coil (nature); or more by the conditioning and training of the environment we are dropped into.

Trading Places

The debate has raged for centuries and inspired the literati (novels and scientific papers proliferate) as well other media (theatrical productions and cinematic efforts included). In these, the debate is carried alternately by one side of the argument or the other, and sometimes the result is a draw. Ultimately, it seems, each of us is left to determine for ourselves that which is more formative in the development of the human animal.

Human Animal, eh?

There is certainly fodder for both camps. Statistics can be found that variously suggest that simple DNA and its vagaries control our destinies or that education, social status, poverty (or lack thereof), or some other environmental influence has a greater impact. The problem for both sides of the debate arises in the exceptions. All of us know of some personal story of success where an individual springs forth from hardship or poverty to reach the pinnacles of prosperity and status. We even cherish such stories and revere them enough to make more movies and books in celebration of their biography. It is equally true that as many (if not more) who are born to wealth, position, status, and fame have floundered and squandered such advantageous positioning unto nothingness and sometimes criminal acts. The exception, it is said, proves the rule. But there must come a point where the exceptions are so numerous as to make the rule moot.

Will You….Or Will You Not?

In such cases, it is incumbent upon those seeking truth to consider that the premise itself is flawed or that all options are not yet considered. Could it be that Nature and Nurture are not the only options and, further, that perhaps they are the lesser of the totality?

The Great Bluff

Let's imagine life as a great card game that comes down to the final hand—poker, it is. The players have their chips and sit at the appointed table across from a set of other players they had never met before, within a casino owned and operated by others, and playing a game whose rules were laid down centuries before this day dawned. The environment—Nuture—is so defined. The dealer taps the table and, with an experience flick of the wrist, deals the cards to each player in turn, thus granting a random set of attributes to each player's hand. Nature is equally blind and chaotic in its dealings, is it not. You? You are the great humanistic scientist who is given access to “see” each player's cards, examine the table and chips in play, and determine who will win the hand before the first bet is made or the first card is revealed. You have been trained that you can do this, but now you are not so sure.

Any reasonably good card player will tell you that this is a fool’s errand. Because, in the end, the winner is not always the one who has the most chips at the start, nor is it the person who is dealt the best cards—almost always, the winner is the one who does the best job of playing the game. The greatest influence is neither Nature nor Nurture, but what is done with them by……what unknown force?

What Force?
That force is a part of what puts lie to the term “Human Animal.” For we understand that even animals have Nature and Nurture. What we do, or do not, is the Human part of it all—the want and the will of it.

Be well,

Huckleberry

2007-05-21T18:16:00.000-07:00

Immigration Reform...NOT

Today, we have a topic from the Government Office Of Oxymorons (GOOO). The Senate has just agreed upon Compromise Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation. Each word of this mis-titled bill is severely mal-placed.

Compromise
When an issue is black or white, there is no such thing as compromise. In this particular debate, one side says that illegally crossing national borders, regularly taking payment under the table while here, and appropriating a false identity and/or social security number are crimes. The other side says, "well, not really." The current bill obviates the debate in favor of the latter. No compromise has taken place.

Comprehensive
One can only apply this word to the bill if one removes the topics of health care; criminal punishment; consequences to the nation under the interpretation of Clause one, section one of the 14th amendment to the Constitution; and the economic analysis of the migration incentives (a long topic by itself).

Immigration
We have long-standing immigration laws and restrictions in place. This bill seeks to circumvent such policy and the incumbent mandate to enforce it. If you are unwilling to prefix the word "Illegal" to the term, then "Migration" is probably a better choice of words as it infers a free, unrestricted, and perhaps seasonal flow.

Reform
I do not want to get all "word wonk-ish" on you, but I cannot see how our immigration policy will be reformed by this terrible little bill. We have, at the heart of all this, an enforcement problem. Jiggling around the periphery in order to avoid enforcement is not likely to solve or reform much of anything.

That group of Senators (normally stalwart Jon Kyl included) is trying to pull a David Copperfield on the nation--flash, bang, and dazzle abounds; but the illegal aliens didn't really disappear--they just hide under the sheets.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-05-18T18:11:00.000-07:00

Spiritu Ex Machina
(Charlie Stross has a blog: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/ . He is a writer and "futurist." I reply to his post of May 13.)

Millennia ago as our ancestors stacked one rock upon another to construct the first shelter in the first cluster of shelters in what would become the first town of the first civilization, one of the brightest in the group (let's call him Cousin Og) realized that rocks were pretty heavy and that there was a limit to the size rock that he could lift. (Coincidentally, this was also the first time that Mrs. Og gave that look of disapproval because the neighbor's house was built of bigger, shinier rocks--but I digress). This now henpecked and Paleolithic cousin discovered that when he wedged a stick under one side of the large rock and pressed down, he could then move that which he was incapable of with his directly applied strength. He thus discovered leverage (launching the first Hedge Fund, I imagine).

Futurisms and Techno-philosophy fail most when they fail to consider advancements within this context. Every device we build and every machine or process we design is a leverage upon what we already possess. Computers work because they run programs that we create. We work them over and over again--often thousands of times--until that set of instructions works well. Then we let that machine do it again for us efficiently. The computer and software that I am using right now is simply the leveraged millions of man-hours brought to efficiency to build my terminal, write the software, and link the whole mess together.

Specialization is a form of leverage. In the GPS world, specialization allows Garmin and Galileo to get very very good at mapping places and finding people (and saving a lot of trees and frustration in the process). This allows me to be very very good at......well, I'll think of something later; but you get my point.

As memory chips advance and becomes cheaper, we are simply finding new and unique ways to leverage our own memories and resources--to "remember" and access more; and to get more memory from whatever resources we already have, both physical and mental. Ken Burnes (the film documentarian) has made a career out of reading the letters and journals of Civil War era citizens into a microphone to record and display what, for those citizens, was memory. Digital memory is simply a more efficient version--it is leverage against what is for us a natural instinct--taking notes to communicate and remember.

Will we design a machine that thinks better than we do? The question is moot because such a machine would only be a leverage of the billions of combined man-hours and trillions of dollars in resources that are put into it. It will be an efficiency--a leverage of what we already do and have already created. It will be an expression....of us. And Cousin Og would be proud.

Be well,
Huckleberry

* The Cross image above originally appeared as the cover illustration for the DEcember 2002 issue of WIRED Magazine.

2007-05-17T17:19:00.000-07:00

The Wolves are Feasting Upon Wolfie

Well, today Paul Wolfowitz resigned as President of the World Bank. Lefties cheer and Bushies jeer. So we set aside all the cheering and jeering to see if there is anything to glean from the cacophony.

Cheers?
Paul Wolfowitz, you see, was assistant Secretary of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld at the start of the current Iraq War. Any time misfortune or evil befalls a so-labeled "Neocon" proponent of the invasion, everyone who disagrees thumps their chest in a display of voyeuristic victory.

Jeers?
As for the jeering, many respected journalists--even many without a political axe to grind--have labeled this a hit job that intentionally smears the good name and reputation or a decent guy doing a decent job on many fronts--including his cleaning up of much that is messy at the chronically corrupt World Bank.

Why is he stepping down?
Good question. It appears that Mr. Wolowitz likes the ladies. Normally that is not too much of a problem for an American male, but in Mr. Wolfowitz's case he apparently likes the ladies that are not necessarily his wife.........in a serial fashion, I might add. Worse, he gives the impression of playing favorites with the ladies he does like in matters of job position and salary when they happen to work with him. It appears that the Democrat Party is not the only harbor for marital scoundrels.

Now the World Bank has an Ethics Committee (I know, this shocked me too). This Ethics Committee approved his appointment; even though they were aware of his "relationship" with a current World Bank staffer; and were aware that Wolfie (that nickname has a whole new meaning for us now, doesn't it?) had stepped out in similar fashion previously on at least one occasion in 2001 (causing a permanent, though not formalized, rift with his wife); then murkily colluded to buy-off the World Bank staffer with a substantial bump in pay and a State Department reassignment. Yes, that Ethics Committee. They are now shocked and stunned that this conflict of interest might have interfered with Mr. Wolfowitz's duties (Gasp!).

Yes, He Is Our Problem
Well, what is President Bush to do now. He appointed the guy and will reappoint his successor. The Left is making quieter hay about this situation than usual because......think about it.

Setting aside whether you like the decisions and influence of Wolfowitz or not--or whether you like Republicans or Democrats for that matter--we have been taught over the last fifteen years that personal lives do not matter. Morally, I agree that serial infidelity can indicate a lack of philosophical and moral standing that should not be ignored. But how can the Democrats and the media (et al) now stand up and claim "If we had only known!" Remember that the left-leaning side of the media built a presidential campaign--and supported an entire Presidency--on the premise that it just didn't matter.

Well....whose pigeons are coming home to roost? Whose ever pigeons they are, it sure doesn't smell very good, does it......and I think that some of it is stuck to the media's shoes.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-05-15T17:44:00.000-07:00

The Riddle of the Sphinx Amongst Wistful Memories

Four Legs in the Morning
Early in our lives we are in awe of them. We hang in rapt attention upon their answers to all of our questions in total acceptance as if gospel. In fairness to our parents we must remember that they are humans--and as such they are more like us than we care to consider. Any mis-step or failing that we have had, it is likely they also failed and tripped many of the same ways and included a certain unique subset of their own. We become disillusioned with our folks usually to the extent that our expectations are unrealistic. This is compounded by the necessary inclusion of a measure of hero-worship and respect incumbent in the parent-child relationship. Otherwise, few of us would have ever gone to bed on time nor attended class when other interests beckoned.

Two Legs in the Noon
But as time advances, the hero-worship tempers into a different kind of respect. Sometimes one wonders how the folks managed to get through it at all--especially at the time when you are wondering for yourself if you will be able to endure. So--from the vantage point of this male writer--instead of gazing at Father as "Superman," we begin to look at him as the experienced soldier who has marched into battle ahead of you and cleared a little of the path. Instead of seeing mother as linen-wrapped saint and healer of all boo-boos, she morphs into a defining reference point of wife and care-giver.

Three Legs in the Evening
Later still, as one reaches the dreaded middle ages, your parents' role can feel inverted. The world you live in--the technology, speed, and standards experienced in your halcyon days--can be estranged from them. You are called upon to help them understand the world because certain aspects of it have left them behind. But help them you do, in much the same way as they helped you when for you the world was new.

Further, by your forties you have had the opportunity to see your parents fail; and in their failing you have seen them both shine and fail miserably. You realize that they are just like you--or, more correctly--that you are just like them, but different. Respect remains to a degree, but that respect is more focused on specific accomplishments and attributes rather than on the whole. All vestiges of hero-worship have faded with the years, and you may find yourself reciting the moral and philosophical lessons to the generation that came before you as often as you do to the one that follows.

Tell Me Soon
What remains for us as we don our temporal and temporary mantles--as we take our parents position as the caretaker of the generations--as we find our faith, sometimes lose it, and then hopefully find it again--is love. Our love for them and their love for us.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-05-11T17:18:00.000-07:00

Saint Cripsin's Day Falls in May This Year

Recent efforts and travels have kept me from my blogger's keyboard and dedicated to more wordly pusuits. The struggles of a friend have called to my mind one of Good Bill's most famous soliloquies. Forgive my lack of attention and read the better words of another.

"What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmorland. No, my fair cousin:
If we are marked to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will, I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It ernes me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God's peace, I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more.
Rather proclaim it presently through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart. His passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the Feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a-tiptoe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall see this day and live t'old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian":
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
Henry V, Act IV, scene iii

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-04-26T16:50:00.000-07:00

Amazing Fossil Discovery in Washington DC

HuckleberryNewsWire
Washinton DC, April 26, 2007
staff writer

The fossilized remains of a new species of human-like ape have been discovered under our Nation’s Capital.

Paleontologists have dubbed the new hominid species Hillarius Clintoni because of its unique political and evolutionary advantage of being able to kiss up to the minority co-species Jessimus Jackassicus and Judisicus Liberalis while storing its head inside of its rectum--much like a kangaroo carries its young in a pouch—thus protecting it from rational dissenting argument. Scientists speculate that Hillarius Clintoni accomplished this extraordinary maneuver through the use of two horizontally opposed faces and a great deal of unpleasant attitude.

Further evidence indicates that the new species would likely have met with rapid extinction without the direct support of an earlier, larger species—Williamus Clintoni—that had evolved long, coat-tail like appendages that trailed behind it and which Hillarius Clintoni rode upon as the larger species roamed about, in search of mating opportunities.

Both the Williamus and Hillarius branches of the Clintoni thrived in the swamp-bogs common to what is now the Washington DC area. Artifacts related to these primitive nomads have been found as far North as the Lower Catskill Mountains in New York State and as far West as the White Water River in Arkansas, though the evidence indicates that the Clintoni never set up permanent settlements in these remote areas—preferring instead to pass through them and return to the lowland swamps.

Tool marks and dental scans seem to point to a diet rich in interns, subordinates, and graft—though recent analysis of petrified Clintoni feces have indicated that the hominids, though relatively dim-witted, occasionally had the opportunity to feast upon cattle-futures contracts, and large chunks tax dollars have been pulled from the stool samples.

So what caused the eventual extinction of the Clintoni? No one knows for certain, but a poll of tenured college professors revealed that the ultimate elimination of the Clintoni occurred after a vast alliance of Humans—the Reaganites—arrived from the right-side of the continent driving SUVs. Thus, their extinction may be largely attributable to Global Warming.

Sometimes, just for fun.
Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-04-18T11:55:00.000-07:00

Evil in the Kingdom

Once again we are stunned by the actions that one insane man can wreck upon us. The damage to lives and property is only exceeded by the damage to our psyches. Virginia Tech is a university and community in mourning.

The calls of remedy and blame will invariably persist:

"Ban all firearms!"
"The university should have done something!"
"The teachers and administrators were suspicious and did nothing!"
And undoubtedly at some point we will hear, "It's George Bush's fault!"

Protect ourselves, we should. Plan and prepare, of course. Sensibly regulate and legislate, if need be. But it seems one of the highest forms of denial and ego to think that we as individuals, a people, or a nation can act, do, or prepare in any way sufficient to strip the world completely of evil and its effects. Were we to try, we would populate our land with closeted phobics devoid of freedom and will--but still evil would appear to stun us again, and again.

Serve Us Justice
Insanity is just that. To expect that the reasoning and methods of insanity would make sense or be controllable in the planning and rationale of the sane is itself .....well, insane. We should take what reasonable measures we must, and then accept the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune as are flung at us by those evil and insane. That is what justice is for. For if we truly have the power to prevent evil, we have no use for justice. It is the rational realization that evil exists somewhat on the fringes of our ability to plan for and cope that the concept of justice finds its meaning.

This is true if you seek justice in the corporeal or spiritual.

As for me, I send my condolences to the families of the dead and wounded--equally to those who witnessed that dreaded day and have had their confidences shaken. I offer only that they--and we--consider that the fault of such a tragedy lays solely with its perpetrator--and evil itself.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-04-05T17:56:00.000-07:00

Beware Strange Men Bearing Gifts

The Gift
So....How did he phrase it? Well, according to a transcription posted on The Independent (1), he said it thus:

"On the occasion of the birth anniversary of the great Prophet of Islam, and on the occasion of Easter and Passover, I would like to announce that the great nation of Iran, while it is entitled to put the British military personnel on trial, has pardoned these 15 sailors and gives their release to the people of Britain as a gift...."

The last time I saw such a gift, it involved Don Corleone and an unfortunate horse.

International pressure was certainly a factor--nobody believed that the British sailors were captured in Iranian waters. But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can rest comfortably in the knowledge that he accomplished his primary mission. Though in person he may be physically diminutive in stature, he was able to pull up to the grown-up's table using the booster-seat of this contrived crisis. That's what he really wanted. And he got what he wanted by stomping about and raising a ruckus like a spoiled child who has been spared the rod too often.

Imams, Ayatollahs, and Sheiks (Oh, my!)
Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insane? Maybe. But likely his madness is just enough to allow his adequate function on the world's stage. He will play his pawns and subsequently be played as one by the Imams, Ayatollahs, and sheiks. For rarely does one who plays humanity cheaply avoid getting played himself. It is the way of totalitarians and tyrants.

Ashes to Ashes
We will undoubtedly hear from the Iranian president again soon as he either creates another crisis or inserts himself into one. Ronald Reagan once famously consigned communism to the "ash heap of history." Certainly, Ahmadinejad will one day join his Islamofascist brethren in that smouldering pile. Let us pray that he does not take a city or two with him as he goes.

Be well,
Huckleberry

(1) Published: 05 April 2007;
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2422638.ece

2007-04-02T21:27:00.000-07:00

In a Tip to the Bard

It's a smack-down....really "old school"....in the Shakespeare style.

"You have the understanding of an infant--but this is very well, if a child you are--reliant on the willingness and care of those 'round about to hold their noses, gather your soiled garments, and wipe your bare ass. This is a task that all do quite willingly for the very young. But there have been decades since you sat up to your mother's breast; What then is your reasoning? You speak proudly of your manhood and erudition, then soil yourself in your naiveté' and crass calumny. Is there no hair yet upon your chest and arms? You wryly lay claim to a salient command of science and art, yet spout only childish philosophies.

Well it seems that you would have me run through your gates and traps once again; defend my faith yet cry "foul!" if I venture the slightest retort. Quite the fragile boy, you are!

But you are worse than a child, for a babe knows nothing more. You embrace your reckless ignorance like a drunkard does his wine. It is both shield and sword to you--but good for neither.

Fine then! As I have been the needy recipient of grace up til this very day, may the Lord in Heaven give me patience as I come 'round to mop up your filth once again, resist the temptation to strike your bare bottom with a cane in the process whilst it hangs out, and explain it to you one more time.

But remember this: I may be willing to wipe your ass, dear child, but dare not ask that I kiss it."

I giggleth, therfore I am.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-03-28T17:20:00.000-07:00

The Bones of the Past

"For who can say they be loose their mortal coil
And think that their flesh will be saved from the soil?
Be you scoundrel or fool, prince or a poet
You walk over the bones of your past, 'ere you know it."

Thirty years ago or so, a ragtag group of misanthropic Iranian students marched upon the US Embassy--taking it and capturing the staff as hostages. Rumored among this group, a youngish Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The more things change....
Apparently time and maturity have not diminished Mr. Ahmadinejad's appetite for hostages and chaos as he wets his pen to author his latest ransom demands--yet to be revealed. I think that his real demand has already been amply met. Attention and aggrandizement are what he craves. And get them he does, in spades and to the detriment of the people he purports to serve.

Scoundrels and Fools
The last time the world was thusly held at the point of Iranian scimitar, all it took was the raising of a leader to back down the Ayatollahs who appropriated the uprising. As I look to my right and to my left...well, the pickings may be slim. Ronald Reagan did his job, it is time for another.

We are told (often by Ahmadinejad himself) that he lives in prophesized times. I might tend to agree. But history has tended to demonstrate that scoundrels and fools are usually displeased by the eventual outcome of such struggles--goodness and freedom being, as they are, stubbornly triumphant. I will remain faithfully confident in Mr. Ahmadinejad's eventual disappointment.

To the British sailors now held without just cause I say, "Godspeed."

To Mr. Ahmadinejad I say, "You walk over the bones of your past, 'ere you know it."

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-03-23T19:08:00.000-07:00

Scooter, Scuttled

Lewis “Scooter” Libby has been found guilty. Asking the random passer-by what he has been found guilty “of” elicits some interesting responses.

Some say, “He ‘out’ed’ Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative, endangering her and in violation of law.” Actually no—that was Richard Armitage.

Others state that, “He leaked classified information to the press for political purposes.” Armitage once again, I’m afraid. In fact, Mr. Armitage actually admitted this to Patrick Fitzgerald (the Special Prosecutor in the case) quite early on in the investigation. One would have thought Case Closed! But alas, not. Mr. Fitzgerald had some more investigating to do, it seems.

Harry Reid (D), the current Senate majority leader, said that someone was finally being held accountable for the “campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics.” (1) What? I will double check, but I am rather certain that there is not a crime delineated in that chunk of political rhetoric—true or not.

The most common claim I seem to hear and read is that Scooter Libby was just the convenient “fall guy” for Dick Cheney (et al) and that they are the ones who really committed the crimes. Even the jury thought as much during the trial and deliberations. One jury member (coincidentally a former employee of The Washington Post) said in an interview, “We wish we weren’t judging Libby…This sucks.” (1)

When trying to determine exactly what Mr. Libby was convicted of we are faced with the uncomfortable realization that federal courts have determined that no crime occurred at all (this ruling survived several appeals and re-filings). The courts determined that Valerie Plame was not a covert CIA operative at the time her name was mentioned. Further, they determined that Richard Armitage revealed her name to reporter Robert Novak by accident in a fit of piqued bravado and that no violation of any state or federal law had occurred. What then of Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation and multiple grand juries? Well, Richard Armitage is no friend of the Bush administration and a bit of a buffoon—there is no sport in chasing him. But I am sure he found something for the investigators and juries to do.

So, while Mr. Libby sits in some half-darkened room with his attorneys vigorously preparing an appeal while contemplating the significance of his unfortunate nickname upon daily prison life, I ask you: What was he convicted of?

Answer?
The answer is that he was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice—serious crimes, to be sure. It seems that when the feces was hitting the fan (actually, more like the ACME Turbo Feces Flinger), Mr. Libby panicked a bit, dithered, obfuscated, delayed, laid claim to failed memory, and—the Granddaddy of all political parsing—“did not recall” as he strived to be loyal to those around him and figure out what to do. Turns out the paper trail and witnesses could reasonably testify that he should have recalled quite a bit. Thus, the jury is in and Mr. Libby leaves Washington….in stripes, pending appeal.

Even Handed Justice
Assuming the jury took to heart the task at their feet, we will trust that they were as fair as they could be. If the verdict holds, Scooter should by all rights scoot-off to the big house with our thanks for that which he did well, and the even-handed punishment justice delivers for his criminal failings. Hmmm…..Even handed Justice?

As Democrats and Liberals celebrate this verdict as a political victory, they would do well to remember the charge and conviction—perjury—as they cast their eyes up to the podium to see Bill Clinton standing at the side of their candidate Hillary….with Sandy Berger in the shadows, his pockets stuffed anew.

Be Well,
Huckleberry

(1) The Economist, March 10th-16th, page 27

2007-03-23T17:07:00.000-07:00

An Open Letter to The Reagan Foundation and Library

Please Assuage My Fear
I am concerned.

As I opened my mail--discovering the latest "Coming Events at the Reagan Library" flyer-- I was at first comforted by the listing of conservative speakers and family events planned. My eye then quickly fell to the scheduled Reagan Forum event of April 28th with...Senator Edward M. Kennedy?
( http://www.reaganfoundation.org/visitorguide/calendar.asp )

Now then; there are most certainly Democrats of national renown that might be appropriate for this event (Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman?). However, I feel safe in stating that if the entire universe of possible Forum presenters were to be drawn into a list with the most appropriate at the top, the current Senior Senator from Massachusetts would undoubtedly appear quite near the bottom--perhaps just below Jimmy Carter and one or two rungs above Muammar Khdafi (pardon the gentle hyperbole--but the mind reels).

As a long term supporter of both the Reagan Foundation and the Reagan Library I feel entitled to ask who made this decision and why? So often, fine institutions with noble purpose are segued into politically corrected prattlers by time and distance from those who honorably set out their bylaws and courses. It seems far too soon to have such a fate fall upon any institution with the name Reagan attached. Please keep my heart from breaking by defending the Kennedy decision.

Regards,
Huckleberry

2007-03-21T21:13:00.000-07:00

A Word from Huck - Diaspora

When capitalized, Diaspora is used to refer specifically to the scattering of Jews from their ancestral homeland. Used in lower case, it refers to a migration or movement of any group of people from their traditional, accustomed, or assumed area. The word comes to us from the Greek (as so many interesting words do)--but more on that in a moment.

In common usage, it has come to be a reference to the history of not just the scattering of a people, but to include their struggle to return. One can therefore be interested in the diaspora of nomadic tribes as they pursue new pastures. Further, I do not believe that the lexicographers at Webster's nor the grammatically prickly in Chicago would complain too awfully much if the word were used in the singular--referring to an individual or self. Thus I give myself the permission to refer properly to the scriptural passage as the "Diaspora of the Prodigal Son."

Prodigal Son....Hmmmm....

What was the original meaning? Well, the Greek prefix "dia-" had several uses. In certain instances it implied "through" or "from" among other things. Sometimes, dia- meant "apart," which is the case here. The root word "speirin," meant "sow" or "sown" as in seeds or grain. In this sense, diaspora means to sow or be planted apart.

Well, what which was planted has grown. And the fruits of that growth are made complete in their return--whole once again.

Recent events and family news have brought this to my mind as I celebrate the diaspora.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-03-07T16:37:00.000-07:00

Ann Coulter—Reexamined

An Open Letter to Jon Friedman of MarketWatch.com

Jon –

There is little to argue with factually in your recent article on Ann Coulter in response to her instantly infamous John Edwards comment (Ann Coulter’s the Paris Hilton of political coverage, March 7, 2007). Excepting that your effort is steeped in irony—and not just the “she wins because I am writing about her” variety of which you are aware.

Ann (the beautiful of face and intelligent—yet loud of mouth—right-wing pundit) enjoys a love/cringe relationship with much of the right. But her most common rants are against one-sided journalism. You are certainly free to rail against her harshness of temperament and voice, but where have you been? Where was your critical pen when Al Franken called President Bush a Nazi or when he challenged Richard Lowry to a fight (actual fisticuffs)—amongst other outrages? Where is your objective eye when the gals on The View ambush Dr. Laura Schlesinger (it was ugly)? Or when Karen Bates of the New York Times commented that the sound of Trent Lott’s voice called to mind the image of nooses hanging from trees? Or when Julianne Malveaux (left-wing syndicated columnist) openly wished in print that Clarence Thomas would die of a heart attack. Or when Nina Totenberg (PBS) hoped on-air that Jesse Helms would die of AIDS? Or when Harry Belafonte called our President the “biggest terrorist in the world” in a series of interviews with the foreign press? Could I not go on?

I regularly follow your MarketWatch columns—did I miss something or are you practicing selectivity in your disdain? Perhaps Ann Coulter believes she needs the outrage to be heard at all. Rail against Ann Coulter if you will—she may deserve it on occasion. But she is your creation and that of your journalistic brethren (themselves no strangers to outrageous statements).

Is Ms. Coulter in danger of becoming "obsolete" as you claim? Ask not for whom the bell of obsolescence tolls; for it may toll for thee.

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-03-06T16:40:00.000-07:00

Copybooks, Markets, and Tigers….Oh my!

The Gods
I am reminded of one of my favorite poems by Rudyard Kipling (first introduced to me by my father) titled The Gods of the Copybook Headings. The premise of the poem is that man falls and fails with each generation to the extent that the new generation fails to remember the hard-fought lessons and wisdom of the past. It is a great read—thought dated in its analogy—and reiterates a truth common to us all.

The Capital Markets
Over the last few weeks, the stock market—being the bastion of sanity and stability that it is—took a header. Billions of dollars in market-valuation were wiped out more quickly than they ran up and gains for the year turned into losses. Friends and business associates alike screamed in pain. Before the final tallies were taken each day, fingers were rapidly pointing at villains du jour—to the right and the left. Stock proponents blamed comments made by Alan Greenspan (“He has retired, now he should keep his mouth shut!”), the larger fall in China’s Shanghai indices (“Currency controls restrict the markets!”), and banks themselves (“Sub-prime mortgages are destroying value!”). Even perpetual Bears—who go through life expecting a market’s fall—were aghast that their hoards of hidden gold bullion did not rise in glorious counterpoint to the falling market they have been predicting, lo these many years (several articles and blogs are adequately represented by the following headline from MarketWatch: “What forces are trying to hold down the price of gold?”).

The Tiger and the Monkey
There are several versions of a good story involving a tiger who looks up into a tree and sees a small monkey. The tiger says, “Come on down from the tree little monkey and play with me.” The monkey says, “No, no. I shall not, for you shall eat me up.” The tiger replies, “My days of eating monkeys are over, dear friend. Besides, you are so small! A tiger like me prefers much bigger game. Come down from the tree and play with me.” The monkey say, “I cannot trust you because you are a tiger and will eat me up!” The tiger looks up longingly and proclaims, “You are wrong small friend. I am simply lonely and desire your company. Come down from the tree and play with me for just a little while.” The monkey jumps down from the tree to play with the tiger. Quickly, the tiger seizes the little monkey and as the monkey is about to be devoured, he cries, “But you said that I am your friend and you would not eat me!?” To which the tiger replies, “What do you expect? I am only a tiger.”

Markets are Markets
Markets go up and markets go down—sometimes quickly—taking their revenge upon those who have forgotten that the market is, after all, just a market. No doubt I will have regular occasions to recall Rudyard Kipling and his fine work of poetry again in the future. But that’s the whole point, isn’t it?

Be well,
Huckleberry

2007-02-16T16:53:00.000-07:00

Good 'ol Tommy A.

A good friend recently recalled Thomas Aquinas to my mind. Volumes have been written by this great thinker--and undoubtedly volumes more will follow. For today, I offer you all a few quotations--plucked from his vast corpus literi--by this most intellectual of saints in an attempt to introduce him to those of you who know him not, and inspire those familiar with his work to read him again.

"If the highest aim of a captain were to preserve his ship, he would keep it in port forever."

"It is requisite for the relaxation of the mind that we make use, from time to time, of playful deeds and jokes."

"It is possible to demonstrate God's existence, although not a priori, yet a posteriori from some work of His more surely known to us."

"Man cannot live without joy; therefore when he is deprived of true spiritual joys it is necessary that he become addicted to carnal pleasures. "

"Not everything that is more difficult is more meritorious."

"Perfection of moral virtue does not wholly take away the passions, but regulates them."

"Reason in man is rather like God in the world."

"Sorrow can be alleviated by good sleep, a bath and a glass of wine."

"The highest manifestation of life consists in this: that a being governs its own actions. A thing which is always subject to the direction of another is somewhat of a dead thing."

"The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."

"There are wars where no one marches with a flag, though that does not keep casualties from mounting. Our hearts irrigate this earth. We are fields before each other."

"Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought to believe; to know what he ought to desire; and to know what he ought to do."

"We can't have full knowledge all at once. We must start by believing; then afterwards we may be led on to master the evidence for ourselves."

"Whatever is received is received according to the nature of the recipient."

There is so much more. Discover him, if you will.

Be Well,
Huckleberry

2007-02-08T17:33:00.000-07:00

Anna Nicole Smith, RIP

In what feels like a fitting end to a twisted tale of fiction, Anna Nicole Smith has been found dead in her hotel room.

But Ms. Smith was not a work of fiction; she just played one on TV. Everything about her was...there is no other way to say it...larger than life. From her most notable physique, to her television series—from her stereotypical ditz-iness, to her marriage and subsequent widowhood with its incumbent oversized inheritance—the gal lived the vida loca in a way that virtually defined the self-absorbed media generation we live in. It is Anna Nicole’s world, and we just live in it.

Or is it better to say that we are a world of Anna Nicole’s? Her life certainly had its tragic moments and Hollywood glamour. Anna's tabloid appearances were marked by the excesses many crave, and seemed to be interrupted only by those who would "out-Anna" her. Paris and Brittany have certainly tried. We view their wretched experiences in slow-motion reply again and again. They are the court jesters of our age—the minstrels that entertain us and then move on, having failed to truly move us at all.

Today, however, we take pause. One of our clown-princesses has left the stage with a final, tragic bow as she follows her son, so recently departed. Regardless the excesses and comic faults, we find it is easy to believe that she did love her son--perhaps even cherished him. But it is evident that she lacked the ability to fully understand that love or communicate it through deed and sacrifice. Perhaps now, joined again—loose the mortal coil so fragile and flawed—mother and son may find peace in the arms of grace.

Now, Paris and Brittany (et al) will be forced to compete with Anna's bizarre mix of truth and calumny, the rage of media fervor that will no doubt drip red with the salacious details of her final days, and the coming conspiracy theories that will spare us not. Unfortunately, I suspect that they will compete very well indeed.

Anna Nicole Smith, dead at 39--Frebruary 7, 2007. She is survived by her four-month old daughter. RIP.

- Huckleberry

2007-01-28T19:09:00.000-07:00

A Word From Huck, for your consideration

Epistemology:"The study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity" Merriam-Webster

My favorite reference that communicates my understanding of this word is a quotation from Hamlet:"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet, Act 1, Scene V

Philosophy being the study, collection, and/or pusuit of all learning, wisdom, beliefs, and ethics; Shakespear was telling us that there are limits to what we do and can know. So we should not be surprised by what is new (to us) or mysterious. Nor should we instantly doubt that which is not within our personal experience.

I extend this thought a bit to say that embracing that which is outside our philosophy is the nature of inquest (inquisitiveness). However, we must be aware that there is the most common of traps amongst humanity--predisposition. For if we color our inquest by denying our epistemological limits--or worse, by only extending our limits where expedient in economy or pain--we interject fallacy into our philosophy and gain not. This is the better definition of prejudice.

Be Well.
Hucklberry

2007-01-11T19:40:00.000-07:00

Happy New Year - Michael Savage is an Idiot

I am sorry to kick the year off with such a negative posting, but under the cover of conservative talk radio Michael Savage has joined the lineup at my favorite station--KFYI in Phoenix. So what is wrong with Michael Savage you ask? Glad you did.....

Michael Savage is a blowhard with an uncomfortable tendency to praise himself.
But, but, but...You say...so is Rush Limbaugh! Yes, but Savage lacks Rush's talent and the wry wink and smirk you can hear in Rush's voice every time he lets loose with self-praise.

Michael Savage is rough and unpolished.
But, but,but...you say...so is Howard Stern and KFYI's morning guy, Bruce Jacobs. Correct on both counts. But one gets the impression that Howard is just naturally a nasty guy--the class clown. And a listener cannot help but believe that Bruce Jacobs is being, well...he's being Bruce. I think that if you played a covert recording of Bruce Jacobs as he went about his daily life--watching his dog chew the furniture, playing golf, cheering for the Jets--you would find his normal conversation virtually indistinguishable from his radio show, rantings and all, yet minus several FCC-banned words. Even if you consider Howard and Bruce to be the bookends of civil-less discourse, an honest listener cannot help but be at least modestly charmed by the honesty of their whole affair (what ever it is that it may be at the time). Michael Savage somehow manages to come off phony in his coarseness. He is able to edit himself into the confines of propriety a little too easily. And you can almost hear him thinking about his next semi-rough expression before he says it--measuring it in the hope it will provoke, just enough. It's like the schoolyards misanthrope who wants to be seen as tough, but cannot quite pull it off.

Michael Savage is not that funny.
Oh, the elements are all there. But his humor is formulaic, calling someone an idiot is almost never funny all by itself, and his timing is off--he gives no pause when one is needed and his inflections sounds asynchronous to his punch-lines. I hesitate to dwell too long in comparisons with other KFYI hosts, but there is a reason that Barry Young's show is so highly rated. Barry Young can talk about nothing in a circle for five minutes and end with his patented "canned" cheers and/or applause and all you know is that you are still laughing and have the latent belief that Barry actually made a point in there...somewhere. All of that is the anti-Savage, if you will allow the phrase.

I could go on, but will mercifully not. KFYI has been looking for a nighttime host to follow Joe Crummey (also solid, funny, and a good interviewer) for some time. I suggest that their search continue a bit longer.

Huckleberry

2006-12-06T08:52:00.000-07:00

A Christmas Message from Huck
Santa' Gift
A New Christmas Story

Dedicated to the T. M. Hardy Family

It was just before Christmas
You could see all the signs
There was tinsel and eggnog
And frost on the pines
But amongst all the hubbub
And the standing in lines
Little Tom Junior
Was trying to find
A gift for young Matty
His brother, just five

As he shopped through the stores
He thought long and hard
Maybe Matty would like
A ball to play in the yard
Maybe a toy train
Or a soldier that guards
Why is choosing the right
Gift always so hard

Tom Junior decided
To try a new store
Maybe the right gift
Means searching some more
As he stepped outside
And looked 'cross the street
Young Tom caught a glimpse
Of a face he should meet

There on a bench
Bundled up from the cold
Was a man in small glasses
Who looked pretty old
His beard was all gray
White, truth be told
Maybe this nice man knows
Were good gifts are sold

Tommy stepped up
To give him his name
When he said, "Hello Tommy,
It's nice to see you again."
Tommy was surprised
At the extent of his fame
How could this old man
Know his name just the same?

The old Man just smiled
And said, "I know many things
I know the toy wishes
That this season brings
I know the meaning
Of the five golden rings
I hear every time
The church choir sings
'O Holy Night'
And I've met the Three Kings."

Tommy was a brave
Precocious young child
And there was something familiar
When this old man smiled
Beneath all the gruff
The old man’s spirit was mild

So Tommy spoke up,
“I need the perfect gift
Something my little
Brother Matty can lift
A toy he enjoys
And plays with, so if
You have a suggestion
I will give him that gift.”

The old man leaned back
And squinted his eyes
Saying, “The best gift at Christmas
Is a word from the wise
And is not purchased with money,
You may be surprised.”

Tommy cried, “What is this gift
And where is it found?
I’ve searched in every
Store that’s around.”
The old man said, “It’s not
In any store” as he frowned.

“Make sure you remember
And to your brother pass on
Christmas has meaning
That goes far beyond
Trees and tinsel and garland
And presents at dawn

It’s more than reindeer
More than the good food
It’s bigger than carols
And the holiday mood
It’s even more, than your
Gathered family brood

Christmas exists
For only one reason
That has little to do
With the time, place, or season
It is the joy we are given
By the birth of the Son”

“Now I am an old Saint
And there is but one thing I fear
That young children forget
To hold Christmas so dear.”
Tommy nodded and whispered
Into the old man’s ear
“I’ll never forget
The meaning won’t disappear.”

The old man smiled broadly
And patted Tommy’s head
He rose quickly up
To his feet as he said,
“Your gift is for me,
Because I no longer dread
That Christmas is lost
To Songs, Stuffing, and Sleds.”

Tommy smiled back
And turned to move on
The worry he had
About gifts was now gone
His thoughts were now
On the Christmas beyond

As he looked again for the man
To wave him goodbye
The old man had vanished
In the blink of an eye
Tommy now understood
And said with a sigh,
“Merry Christmas Santa
I’ll remember my whole life.”

A Gift to Remember
Merry Christmas

- Huckleberry

2006-10-25T17:41:00.000-07:00

The Root and the Stem
You Gotta Serve Somebody

The political season is in full swing and the mud and muck fly about. Through the artifice of carefully dissected and tested phrases and freshly defined terms, politicians seek to slice and dice the voting demographic into pieces big enough to carry the day. All we are left with is a philosophical gerrymandering without core, principle, or cohesive ethos. My home state of Arizona has enough of its own—I do not normally need to look beyond the state borders to find examples of this craziness worthy of comment. But an ad put out by Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill and starring (if indeed “starring” is the correct term) Michael J. Fox certainly gives us pause for a whole slew of reasons beyond the stains left by election year rhetoric. The topic? Embryonic Stem Cell Research (see the video).

As most everyone knows by now, Mr. Fox suffers from Parkinson’s Disease for which Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) is claimed to hold some promise. He is certainly sincere in his beliefs and he demonstrates a superior ability to deliver the message that, in Mr. Fox’s opinion, the good people of Missouri should unseat their current senator, Jim Talent (a Republican who generally opposes at least the ‘embryonic’ part of ESCR) and put Claire McCaskill in his place (as ostensibly she supports it).

By now I should think that a great majority of the voting public has some sort of an opinion about ESCR. The quality and make-up of those opinions is a different matter. This is not the fault of the electorate. Much has been done by the various interest groups to distinguish and/or blur the lines (rather, blur the genes) between the different types and methods of harvesting and researching stem cells. And, depending on who you speak to, the potential of the medical research is either enormous or hardly worth the effort. I think that each of us now probably has one ‘bucket’ of thought in their heads labeled “Stem Cells, Misc.” into which all related tid-bits are tossed regardless their nuance. The contents of this bucket are blended into a semi-homogenous pool of thought that tastes like an opinion, but lacks the substance to fully satisfy intellectually or otherwise.

On the “pro-ESCR” side we are asked to consider the promise of therapeutic benefits for those of us who suffer greatly—lives saved, horrible symptoms diminished, diseases cured, organs regenerated. We are given the complimentary assurances that embryos are not yet life and that they will, in most cases, be discarded anyway as the by-products of in vitro fertilization, etc. To deny such things, we are told, is to deny science itself. This is the “all flesh is the malleable mechanics of life” argument. Certainly this position is a little solipsistic—marginally cannibalistic—but it is still a tenable argument in a cold, Darwinian sense.

On the “anti-ESCR” side we are told that we will be creating an economic “market” for the better embryos. After all, if there is a market, there will be those who are discerning as to quality. One can therefore imagine special and/or custom orders—perhaps the equivalent of a designer label version for the well-healed sufferer. We hear that the benefits of ESCR are questionable at best and that, in any case, we can use stem cells from other, non-embryonic sources with little or no detriment to the quality of research. This is the “all life is sacred and begins at conception” argument. This position suffers from the strong perfume of religiosity that surrounds it (the closest thing we have to a sin of public discourse these days) and the seeming unwillingness or inability of most proponents to take a stab at a more intellectual defense.

So the general confusion persists. The only things that we can say with any relative certainty are that we want to cure vial diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, but we don’t really want to kill any anonymous third party in the process. It gets muddier still. Clear philosophical thought is always—I repeat, always—hampered by money and emotion. There is most definitely money to be made in all this. I can speak first-hand that there is no amount of money or effort that a loving family would not spend in order to restore Grandma’s or Grandpa’s ability to count through the names of their progeny one more time with knowing and recognition. This is a higher level of opacity—our emotions. Our love and humanity are themselves Sirens that obscure our view and call us to sacrifice a few thin layers of principle to ease the emotional and physical pains. The pharmaceutical giants know this and the promise of lucrative cures is a Siren that they are not practiced in resisting. Thus we step forward into the brand new world in a tentative alliance of inharmonious, yet parallel objectives.

It’s a shame, really. Because there is something deeper here that needs our attention. It is far too easy to get ourselves caught up in resolving what amount to our deepest of philosophical ponderings by staking our claims solely in the realms of temporal specificity. By this I mean that we can spend so much time arguing about those damnable nuances and specifics that we lose sight of the whole. There is a whole here, after all. And it is a whole that lies at the root of many of our evils, some of our sanctities, and many of our most controversial topics.

What are we willing to do—and not do—in the service of ourselves?

Who Do You Serve?
Bob Dylan famously wrote and performed a song called You Gotta Serve Somebody that distilled this question down nicely. We, individually and collectively, must decide if our comfort, convenience, and even our individual survival is, in itself, the ultimate good.

Veal may serve (so to speak) to make a point. Unless you have kept yourself in a state of abject denial you are aware that veal is the meat of young cows. The tradition of “slaying the fatted calf” is biblical and stretches back literally thousands of years. This is, obviously, because young cows plumped by a steady diet of grain generally provide more tender and better tasting meat than their older, range-fed counterparts. But the Israelites also abided by a strict set of laws that not only dictated what and how they ate, but also stipulated how the animals were to be treated in life and the manner in which they were to be slaughtered in death—namely, they were instructed in the manners providing the least amount of distress and discomfort as possible to the animal.

Reflect this forward to the present day. Some veal ranchers discovered that young cows kept largely immobile in small pens produced an even better end product. However this treatment is indisputably unpleasant for the animal. Society is rebelling against such treatment. Many people have thus determined that there is a portion of their desires that is transcended by the moral. An animal—though good for food (unless you are a Vegan)—should not be treated in a manner that causes unnecessary suffering even if there is a personal benefit to the consumer.

To a varying amount, we as a society agree. We have determined that, in the case of veal and animals in general, complete and totalitarian service to self is wrong….Here, here.

Amongst humanity, we hail our highest heroes as those who have offered up life and limb in their service to others. Police, Firemen, Soldiers, other professions, and even the common everyday citizen daily provide us with fresh examples of self-sacrifice. Hostages are rescued, total strangers are pulled from burning buildings, and soldiers charge into terrorist enclaves—all at great personal risk and often real loss for them and their clan. We honor those who fail and those who succeed—those who escape unharmed as well as those who pay the price—because we recognize that it is indeed the highest order and calling of man that he lay down his life for his brother (scriptural references become unavoidable in discussions of morals and ethics). This holds true even if the “brother” in question is a total stranger. And honor them we should.

If we focus on the specific meal or on a particular animal (in the case of veal) or if we try to appraise the value of a particular human life against the heat of a particular fire (in the case of a fireman) we will befuddle ourselves with so many specifics that we will become paralyzed well beyond the window of decision. So the decisions are no longer decisions. Our greatest heroes are the ones who hear an anonymous cry for help and leap into the flame with a diminished self regard.

So now we have real-world examples of the exaltation of moral values when we do (the fireman) and do not (veal). A bit simplistic? Yes—especially considering the complexities of ESCR. But then there is much emotion and money in our path.

Perhaps Sometime soon…
As we come back around to the topic at hand, we once again confront this philosophical demon in the blinding glare and white walls of an operating room, perhaps not far into the future. In this starkly white and sanitary environment, a neurosurgeon is preparing to implant stem cells into the correct portion of a patient’s brain in the hope that these cells will learn or decide to buttress the patient’s ailing hypothalamus to produce more dopamine, thus easing those terrible tremors associated with Parkinson’s Disease. The procedure sometimes works, often fails and must be attempted again, and occasionally results in a blossoming tumor that carries its own crisis and additional surgery. As the patient is being efficiently prepared for the procedure, he is asked to sign several pieces of paper from a full clip board containing all the usual insurance forms, medical disclaimers, and legal releases incumbent with 21st Century medicine. Maybe that patient will be Michael J. Fox himself as he has becomes further dissatisfied with the level of relief afforded him by medications alone.

Whoever that patient is, I wonder if he will think back upon the day he placed the order for his stem cells a few months back and try to picture the young coed who regularly contributes to the tissue bank in order to fund her classes. Perhaps he will be grateful for the tissue-match and the coed’s history of successful stem cell extraction. Maybe our patient will think the whole affair to be a noble capitalistic exchange—one being relieved of the symptoms of a terrible disease, the other financing her college tuition with less debt and trouble.

Or perhaps the patient will wonder if the capitalistic exchange contained much nobility at all and cringe at the market for human flesh. He may remember that several cloned embryos were created—most failed—and a few have been kept as spares pending the success of the procedure. If the procedure is successful, the remaining will be destroyed and the doctors and egg donors will move on to the next case. Perhaps the patient will marvel at the miracle of modern science within the context of the miracle of life itself to realize his personal lot with a different perspective. In so doing, he may well know that medical science had found a cure for his ill, but in this new light he may wonder if it should have found another way as he sets the loaded clipboard aside, runs his fingers across the rosary left by his mother at the bedside, and remembers the heartache his sister felt as she miscarried her first child—his own niece or nephew—at the time only a few short weeks older than the cells he is about to receive.

The First of Many
This is neither the first or last time we will bump up against our medical ethics and self interests to see that they are not aligned. Time and again the specific cases and anecdotal evidence clouds our decision making and the loudest, richest, or most photogenic interest carries sway. I am pressed to find evidence that we, as a society, even agree that there are some things—anything—that we should not do to prolong or improve our own individual lives. Left unresolved, we will continue to be cursed with a series social constructs that form a socio-philosophical tradition with a schizophrenic bent—possessing multiple, often disconnected and opposing ethics. A tradition so formed is quickly recognized by new generations as holding no traditions at all. What remains for them is to recognize only the self and selfish as they make their own choices.

Is the potential of medical research such as ESCR enormous? Well, it may be Pyrrhic in that what we gain may be equaled or outweighed by what we lose—even if we are too busy staring into our mirrors to understand the loss. We can say with certainly that politicians like Clair McCaskill will cynically continue to ensure that we do not.

- Huckleberry
Read the Lyrics to: You Gotta Serve Somebody By Bob Dylan, circa 1979

2006-10-13T14:27:00.000-07:00

A Play in Three Acts — Election 2006

Muck-raking is a time-honored political tradition. The muck this year is already up to our necks and there are still three weeks remaining before the election. Most recently, CNBC—with some apparent glee—grabs onto Rep. Kolbe of Arizona in some sadistic attempt ride the coat-tails of the Foley affair (pardon my word choice, read for yourself). It appears that some ten years ago Mr. Kolbe invited two former (at the time) pages on a rafting trip along with other staff and family members. On this openly discussed, non-secret trip, the following is alleged to have occurred:

Rafting
Not much else

So we must ask, why is this news?

Well, the answer is that Mr. Kolbe is guilty of being a gay Republican during an election year in which another gay Republican sent communications to Congressional pages with narcissistic indiscretion and childish naiveté—ergo; Mr. Kolbe is a convenient target in a climate where desperate Democrats are grasping for the brass ring. There are two places where it is particularly unsafe to be: One—between Michael Moore and a buffet table; and Two—between unscrupulous liberal minions and the halls of power.

MSNBC suggests a “federal investigation.” To which the natural reply is, “Of what?” Nothing has even been alleged. Evidence? There is none—and, again, of what? But there is, however, much to question in the origins of this seemingly contrived pseudo-controversy. Is this another Foley? Only in the cynical political fantasies of election-year operatives seeking to perpetuate a story with mal intent. I would much rather we investigate the entire Congress for failing to restrict Federal spending—but I digress.

My message for Mr. Kolbe? Find a local dry-cleaner specializing in political muck removal (it is far stickier than normal BS). Shake off these desperate election-year antics and rally to the conservative cause. Rest assured that we will be watching for real wrong-doing and malfeasance (Harry Reid, anyone?). When and if we find it amongst Republicans, we will clean out our own house.

- Huckleberry

2006-10-10T17:54:00.000-07:00

BOOM!... or Rather (boom?)

So it appears that North Korea either fired off a small nuke or they shoved a couple of M80 Firecrackers into the nuclear toilet to make a big noise. The scientific data over the next few days will tell the tale for certain. But making a big noise was point of the whole exercise, wasn't it?

And make a big noise they have. For those who practice moral equivalency out there (Example: Let's just say that Ted Turner is an ass. I mean if you are so "out there" that Jane Fonda can't take it anymore--then you are a real ass.), this is a good thing. After all, we have nukes, so why shouldn't Kim Jong Il (aside from the fact that his name is Kim Jong Il)?

I will, for now, side-step the us vs. them mentality of the election cycle. We flagellate ourselves every two years at the polls. Fair enough. For those who may be reading this that call themselves moderates or undecided, let us make a balance of the scales.

Who do we want to have Nukes or other Weapons of Mass Destruction?

On the Right side of the scale we have your choice of recent American President: Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (GHW), Clinton, or Bush (HW). You also have certain foreign leaders such as Blair (or his immanent successor), Chirac, other Euro, et al.

On the Left side of the scale you have Ahmadinejad, Jong Il, Saadam (thankfully in a cell), Castro, al-Bashir, Quaddhafi, etc.

As the scale teeter-totters back and forth in your imagination, decide for yourself if there is any difference or if the scale is better when balanced by nukes on both sides. If you hate our current president--I don't really understand that, but OK for you--decide who you would prefer holding the nuclear football. Do you see a difference?

In the meantime, North Korea is making noise. The timing of which seems un-naturally close to our bi-yearly exercise in messy democracy. It is as if the rush to pop that cork was to be in some way a distraction. Hmmmmm......

In the final analysis, let me just say that I see a difference between the likes of the United States and the Nuttier Korea--and Iran, and Sudan, and the rest. And even if you think that the term "Axis of Evil" is a stretch, at least the expression is on the Right side of the scale. Take a look at a picture of Kim Jong Il and decide if you are comfortable with his finger on any button more important than a PlayStation (I hear his favorite game is DOOM). Further…ask yourself if we should be doing something about it.

- Huckleberry

2006-10-06T02:24:00.000-07:00

Mr. Foley

What more is there to say? Although I am rarely known to be at a loss for words, the events of the last week cause my jaw to hang slack and agape. Suffice it to say that if there was any coddling amongst the Republican leadership—for personal difference, professional courtesy, political expediency, or any other form of complicity—there will be hell to pay. I do not wish ill upon the Grand Ole Party. Far from it. But repercussions will have been well earned and will no doubt be enthusiastically netted out by the media, the left, and (our normal and natural allies) the righteous. I will remain confident in the long standing GOP tradition of taking out our own trash and dealing relatively swiftly with those who stray too far into kook-ery, crook-ery, and vice (oh, my). If only the left side of the aisle had such decorum and sense of propriety. Rather, they think us fools that we cling to such things and constantly attempt to use our own morality and--at times as this--shame against us.

It is yet to be determined what number of victims and/or underage collaborators there may be. They will need healing as well and a measure of justice appropriate to the offence. As for the wayward Mr. Foley? I do wish him peace and healing. But it will be a long time before we can forget and recover from the damage he has so foolishly wrought upon individuals, his office, and his party through his narcissism and self-destructive tendencies.

- Huckleberry

2006-09-25T19:11:00.000-07:00

Bubba Doth Protest Too Much, Y’all

Well, well. It appears that we all get to finally see the beginnings of one of former President Clinton’s famous “purple rages” for ourselves. Fox News has the scoop and Chris Wallace (son of the famous Mike) does a fine job holding the interview together. Fox has posted details and clips.

Incoherent babbling aside, Mr. Clinton let’s fly with a few mis-statements and half truths that others have covered ever-so-well. I will let their comments covering the historical accuracies (and/or lack there of) and logical refutations suffice.

We all have our hot-buttons. I expect that every leader—and former leader—will have theirs. But as we watch Bill Clinton defiantly wag his finger at Chris Wallace and go about his self-serving tirade, I cannot help but transpose the image of his famous speech (referenced in an unrelated blog a few days ago) where he promises us, with great concern and firmness, that he “did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski. (And he) never asked anyone to lie, ever….” Deja’ vu all over again, I think.

If you have not read enough about this already, here are more links for your reference:

Rush
Little Green Footballs

- Huckleberry

2006-09-22T15:12:00.000-07:00

The Devil Is In The Details

The most recent dust-up at the UN gives us pause. Hugo Chavez, the erstwhile President of Venezuela, calls our President “The Devil” to applause and school-girl giggles from the crowd. The day before, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran gave us his best Bill Clinton impersonation (“I do not intend to make weapons with that enriched uranium. I never lied about it and I didn’t inhale.”). President Bush takes his opportunity to speak before this world body to call for freedom and liberty for all of mankind.

Who are we to trust and believe—Hugo, Mahmoud, or George? Perhaps the details can shed light upon our choices.

George?
Among certain circles George Bush is best known for having committed the crime of “Presiding While Christian” (the punishment for which stirs no debate among the otherwise anti-death penalty crowd as all lefties agree it is a hanging offense). He is also known for his dedicated prosecution of The War on Terror. There are those who disagree with his methods (some obviously believe that saying “War on Terror” is sufficient and actually conducting a War on Terror is disproportionate and unfashionable). It is reasonably allowed that some reasonable folks might be able to arm-chair quarterback mis-steps and plausible improvements as the rear-view mirror allows. Other rather extreme lefties concoct theories that Mr. Bush or his alleged “cronies” are profiting by the whole mess, though none has been able to demonstrate a financial or economic tie.

Hugo?
Hugo Chavez is best known for being a Socialist rabble-rouser. Perhaps he is best thought of as Fidel Castro’s understudy—waiting in the wings for the star to become ill (or die) so that he can get his big break on the world stage. He is also known for suppressing free speech in his own country—not in the American media sense of suppressing free speech by snubbing at parties or (gasp!) criticizing the press—we’re talking about the threats, imprisonment, and mysterious “disappearances” kind of totalitarian suppression. Definitely “old school.” Where the George Bush Team is regularly harangued for having an understanding of the Oil Industry and having loosely defined “ties” to the companies that pump it up form the Earth, Hugo Chavez wields his country’s government-confiscated oil reserves as a political bludgeon—giving it away here, over-pricing it there, and generally using it to stay in power by exploiting the limited inherent wealth of the Venezuelan people.

Mahmoud?
Where do we begin? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is well known for:

Denying the Holocaust—definitely, partially, with equivocations, and then definitely again.
Desiring Israel to be “wiped off the map” —moving it to Europe if we must. Since most of the rest of us would at least marginally object to killing all of the remaining Jews, he has compromised into sort of a “no Jews in my neighborhood” anti-Semite. Perhaps he is worried about property values in the Middle East?
He has what I would call an “unhealthy” affinity for calling for the end of the world during his tenure as leader of Iran and as an out-growth his brand of fervent religiosity.
It is alleged by some of our former embassy hostages that Mr. Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage-takers back in the day. I do not consider this to be a resume’ enhancement or qualification for civilized international diplomacy.
This is getting far too long for our Blog format so the above listing will have to suffice.

My opinions are made plain. But any attempt by reasonable folks to sift through the details should help us easily determine who the Devils at the UN are.

- Huckleberry

2006-09-14T14:28:00.000-07:00

Iraq--A Clean Shoot

Intelligent people of good character are free to quibble over details and incidentals. But now, five years after 9/11 and four years into armed conflict with Afghanistan and Iraq--amongst all off the rancor and rhetoric--reasonable people should come to one conclusion:

The invasion of Iraq was a clean shoot.

Let me explain by analogy.

When a police officer approaches a suspicious person, the officer will order the suspect to "show his hands" or something to that effect. The officer may give further directions to the suspect to provide reassurance that there is not an immanent threat. If the suspect makes threatening gestures; if the suspect conceals (or reasonably appears to conceal) something in his/her hand; if the suspect makes statements that cause the officer to believe that the danger is mounting; if an innocent is coming into supposed danger; if the suspect commits further crimes or other actions that escalate the situation: any or a combination of these circumstances may cause the police officer to use force--even deadly force. This use of force is justified under these circumstances.

Bush lied? Come now. The word lie infers conscious intent. We can reasonably agree that the minds within the administration were wrong (whatever your estimation of the quality of those minds). However, we have much to say that the Bush Administration made a call based upon the information that they had at the time and came to a conclusion--one that was shared by most of the free world at the time--that Iraq posed a WMD threat. Saddam was evasive, brash, had used WMDs previously, and there is evidence that he himself believed that he had some WMDs at his disposal (he may have been deceived by corrupt scientists and military men within his own government).

Think that America is prosecuting the war poorly? Let's talk. Think that the whole affair was the wrong call to begin with? Fair enough--your opinion is as good as mine. Think that the police analogy I have constructed is apt and we should not be the police force for the world? OK--I can understand your argument. Want to spend your time as the Administration's perpetual "armchair quarterback" second-guessing every move from the intellectual safety of hindsight? Not fair.

You may not like the call made by the Bush team and you may dread the result, but in the dim light, stress, and trauma of the seedy back-alley that is the Middle East--the Iraq invasion was a clean shoot.

Huckleberry

2006-09-03T19:56:00.000-07:00

Katie Couric--A Sign of the Times?

It may be a bit too much to ask, but couldn't we have found a journalist? I am not a "Katie Basher" per se. But how does a cute, hair-bobbed, cherubic, dilettante go from cooking segments and good morning wishes (which she did arguably very well) to anchoring the evening news? Even the word "Anchor" implies a sense of weighted intellect, experienced judgment, and even-handed repose sufficient to form the nucleus of serious journalism. For all of Katie's talents--real, supposed, or imagined--there is little to convince us that she has the right stuff.

Well, the answer is an easy one and a common lament--ratings. Katie has been an early morning ratings juggernaut and the brass at CBS are hoping that Katie's debut at the helm of the evening news--long after the effects of morning coffee have worn-off the bleary-eyed viewing public--will drag a subset of her loyal followers into CBS's prime-time lineup. Actually, this is pretty good marketing. But it is not good journalism at all.

There will be unending hype and a slew of underappreciated "producers" who will serve as her galley-slaves--rowing the ship of serious news (or as close to serious news as CBS can muster) while Katie wears her new string of serious pearls, a new "do", and a wardrobe of carefully chosen "grown-up" clothes which still feel and look a little foreign on her. Maybe she will even succeed. But the measure of success is not likely to be taken in real journalistic achievement. Rather, it will be measured in rating-book basis points and market share.

All of those folks doing all of that rowing--and so the word "anchor" takes on a whole new meaning.

I cannot resist one parting dig before I sign off: It is not that Katie Couric and CBS look at the world through rose-colored glasses. It is that their glasses are missing a lens on the right side--and the left one needs to be cleaned. Good luck Katie.

2006-08-30T13:05:00.000-07:00

Katrinic Nostalgia

I get a sense from the papers and the television that the proverbial Talking Heads are wishing for another Katrina. Maybe this is to be expected. The Heads make their living off of news. The bigger and splashier the item the better the ratings. This creates a classic imbalance of incentives. Since tragedy and misery love ratings as well as company, the Heads have an incentive for such things to be--and therefore a natural inclination to perhaps inflame what they are charged with simply reporting (does anyone else remember the reporter-in-canoe-in-four inches of water?).

Katrina was bad enough all by itself. Still, the hyperbola persists as we are barraged by reports on the "One Year anniversary of the Greatest Disaster in American History." Greatest Disaster? Hardly--not by any measure that I can think of. Still it was bad and it was the biggest story of last year. What is worse, there has not been a bigger story (In the media sense, that is. I would argue that the proxy war with Iran is a more potent drama, but the fact that it is a "proxy" war dims the headlines. But I digress).

Ernesto? A mere blip of a rainmaker captures the imagination of all of the "Stone" wanna-bes hoping for a seminal event to make or brake their journalistic careers. We are left to sift through this drek and egotistic pandering and play-acting. Nothing short of another "Real" disaster will satiate the medias appetites--red in tooth and claw as it is. So they sit, haplessly waiting for tragedy to come to us again. Feeling glee when others face hardship and encouraging them to suffer more.

2006-08-28T15:44:00.000-07:00

Hello. This is the first post of my new blog. There is not an author around that does not possess at least a bit of ego. Bloggers are no exception. Readers of this blog will accompany me as I attempt, on a daily basis, to "rise above the noise and confusion, just to get a glimpse beyond this illusion" (Kansas)--to bring some order to the media chaos--to shine a bit of my unique insight into the matters and issues that surround us. There is certainly a need for it, and I think that I am the right guy for the job.

I have chosen a crowded field to be sure. But I think that there is enough room on the Web for me as well. I welcome comments and suggestions--but be prepared for a response. I will generally be polite and fair, but that doesn't mean I will suffer foolishness easily.

Let's start, shall we?

Huckleberry