OPINION: Getting Old is not the Worse Alternative

By Bruce L. Brager


When you reach a certain point in life (e.g., at least somewhat old), you begin to look at things differently, or at least somewhat differently. Maybe, with luck, you bring a sense of humor as well as a sense of honest realism. I did not stop growing when I was fourteen. I stopped getting taller. Alas, I kept growing.

You are faced with a different reason for things that might go wrong. Back pain can no longer be explained by helping a friend move a piano. Shoulder pain is no longer throwing too many sliders – or is that wrist pain? I forgot. A torn rotator cuff is not what derailed my major league pitching career. It was not just the lack of even a hint of athletic ability. Knee pain is not an old football injury – American football or soccer, take your pick. The meniscus in my dominant knee did not tear on a Super Bowl winning touchdown run. Would you believe it was saving the game by robbing the opposition of a “walk off” home run?

I am no longer prematurely balding, and not because my hair grew back. Captain Picard becomes more and more good-looking in my eyes. When I get sloppy and skip shaving for a while, I look like a famous figure from history. General Robert E. Lee would not be my first choice to resemble, though I suppose if I don’t try to lay off the fresh ground peanut butter, it beats looking like Santa Claus.

I recently had cataract surgery. Though it beats glaucoma by a mile, it does seem like old guy surgery. To show that my sense of humor – a more and more useful tool – is not dead, I found myself appreciating the irony of my second eye problem, strabismus, (crossed eyes) which rhymes with meniscus. (Are those things in the back, which cause the pain, called “discus”?) This problem usually plagues little children.

An adult pain followed. I tried to get the insurance company to pay for glasses, though without success when I didn’t follow their exact claims procedures – primarily the sin of going to an optician I trust rather than one in their “network.” I feel so ashamed. Actually the insurance company paid most of the other medical expenses for my eyes, so complaining is unfair. But, then again, self-centered complaining is the American way.

When I met with someone from this company to see about transferring from my Obamacare plan to a Medicare supplement plan, I went to a nearby hospital to meet with a representative. While I was waiting I noticed a sign a few offices down, “geriatric outpatient services.” That would be me.

My latest age culture shock occurred with the last few days. I went for a walk on an exceedingly hot day in New York. I walked up 70th street to get the walk along the East River, instead of 71st. Rather than totally backtrack, I cut through the covered entrance of the David M. Koch entrance to the Hospital for Special Surgery. (Apparently the Koch brothers use money for things other than buying elections.) This hospital, world famous for orthopedics, was founded in 1863 as The Hospital for the Relief of the Ruptured and Crippled. The first patients were admitted on May 1, 1863, the first day of the American Civil War Battle of Chancellorsville.

They have a current ad campaign showing how active one can be after surgery. One shows an attractive woman, 40-something, jogging along a beautifully scenic ocean front route, 84 days after meniscus surgery. Does this mean if I have knee surgery I can jog with an attractive woman in a beautiful area, or become a successful jazz drummer, or a champion water skier? Doctor, after surgery will I be able to play the violin? Of course. Funny, I can’t play the violin now.

When push comes to shove, I try to remember the words of a 93 year old woman on a promo for a local hospital, “Don’t complain about being old. If you are not old, you are dead.”

---

All opinion pieces reflect solely the views of the writer(s) and do not reflect the opinions or views of CAB News Online.

OPINION: Cowboy Diplomacy

By Bruce L. Brager

In these days of same old stupidity coming out of Washington, one newly elected Republican senator has come up with a new wrinkle. Tom Cotton, the junior senator from Arkansas, has managed to set himself apart from the drastically unimpressive group of Republicans elected in the Democratic disaster of 2014.

This group includes the gentleman from North Carolina, Senator Thom Tillis. He has called for eliminating the federal regulation that requires restaurant workers to wash their hands after using the bathroom. He would replace this with a regulation stating that the food service institution would have to post a sign stating that they were not requiring hand washing. Even if you favor decreasing regulations, I’ll bet you are wondering why replace a health regulation with another less useful regulation.

This group also includes Senator Joni Ernst, the gentlewoman from Iowa. She thinks states should be allowed to nullify federal laws they don’t like, particularly, what else from a Republican, gun control laws. I’ll bet you thought nullification went out the window in 1832, when Andrew Jackson made South Carolina back down – over a tariff, not over slavery – not to mention the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. She is currently a Lieutenant Colonel in the Iowa National Guard, presumably someone who understands chain of command and the proper role of the branches of the federal government. The President conducts foreign policy, and has since the days of George Washington. The Congress has a role to play, starting with paying for the foreign policy. Individual senators do not, outside of legitimate commentary and debate. There actually are other parts of the Constitution, aside from the second part of the Second Amendment on the right to bear arms.

Both these folks were among the 47 Republican senators who signed the recent – and briefly, with the short American attention span — infamous letter to the Iranian government. These 47 bright bulbs thought it a good idea to publically tell an adversary not to trust the President of the United States during critical negotiations. Years from now historians will wonder “What were they thinking?” “Were they even thinking?” Substantively, the letter was a mistake. Tactically, it was a great mistake.

Opponents of negotiations have argued that the Iranians cannot be trusted; not an illogical conclusion. But let the Iranians brand themselves as the untrustworthy party. Let them do your work for you. This idiot letter, for want of a better term, Senator Cotton’s brilliant idea, takes the onus for lack of trust from the Iranian government and religious leaders, and puts it on us. Normally, when Tehran says it is sunny out most people want to carry umbrellas. However, this genius letter reverses the equation. It increases the chance that we will be held responsible for failure, not the Iranians.

Eventually we may have to take military action against Iran. But the realities of today’s world make it necessary to take preliminary steps before resorting to war. Morally, war should never be the first option. Politically, baring the immediate threat of attack, war cannot be the first option. These 47 have damaged the pre-war options, damaged the chance to avoid war, and made it harder to make the case before, or after, if military action is necessary.

So what should Democrats do? First of all, don’t throw around the term “treason” like some news media. Anger at the letter is justified, anger at Senators trying to cut off the President in a delicate moment of foreign policy. Remember not to attribute to malevolence what can be explained by politically motivated stupidity and an obsessive dislike of a president. The law against private citizens conducting diplomacy would be confusing to apply. Did the Senators, 47 individuals as opposed to the Senate as a whole, try to conduct foreign policy? Are they so intent on destroying the Obama presidency that nothing stands in their way, even engaging in cowboy diplomacy (I apologize to the hard-working cowboys) seemingly designed to wreck an American, and allied, diplomatic effort? Or, did they just pick a very bad way, a virtually unique bad way, of debating policy? Don’t get them any sympathy by prosecution, but don’t let voters forget their action.

The simple part is to make sure the public does not forget the blunder, what we might call “lettergate.” Let their actions be the best argument against them, the best political message, and the best proof of how far so many Republicans are willing to go for political advantage at the expense of the national interest. But that is the easy part.

The hard part is to come up with a verifiable agreement with the Iranians; hard enough without sending in the clowns. The agreement must decrease the chance the Iranians can cheat, ensure that they will be caught if they cheat, and ensure they will pay a severe price for any cheating.

The bizarre action of the senators should not be a reason to back a bad deal. Remember the lesson of TV mysteries — you set up someone else to take a fall, not yourself.

---

All opinion pieces reflect solely the views of the writer(s) and do not reflect the opinions or views of CAB News Online.

OPINION: American Energy Policy – Déjà Vu All over Again

By Bruce L. Brager

The decline in oil prices is an interesting sensation. However, we are seeing the same mistakes in the current energy policy debate as in the debates three decades ago – the same mistakes, and the same shorted-sighted, politically motivated, arguments being thrown about. Damn the complex reality, full speed ahead.  Déjà vu all over again.

The best known examples of the energy debate today are the Keystone Pipeline and fracking. I love hearing all the conservatives, normally appalled at government “make work” programs, stressing the job creating aspects of the pipeline. They conveniently forget any potential environmental problems.  Opponents stress only the environmental issues, and the fact that some of the Canadian oil may be sent overseas – though this has always been uncertain – limiting the payoff for the risk. They conveniently forget the continuing national security need for energy sources as close to home as possible. They also forget the complexity of the oil trade; that Keystone oil may stay home as well as be sent abroad.

Fracking engenders continuing debate, but the opponents focus on its environmental problems.  Both sides calls for “yes or no,” spending far too little time on seeing what the problems are and how they might be fixed.  How can fracking be made safer?  Can any environmental danger from the Keystone pipeline be decreased?  This was done with the then – the controversial Alaska pipeline.  We stopped shouting and looked for a way to solve a problem.

Debating whether something should be done is the American way.  Looking for how something can best be done is also the American way.  Neglecting the how, in the search for simple answers, is part of the déjà vu I am feeling.

Thirty years ago, during the Arab oil boycotts, “experts” said it would take several decades for alternative fuels to meet a substantial part of American energy needs.  So I guess we don’t have to worry about fracking starting earth quakes and the Canadians can ship their own dirty oil through their own country?  Use of alternative is growing, however, though far slower than it should be growing.  Nuclear energy is staging a mild comeback – both mild and comeback are good in this case.

One problem in American energy policy has been in assuming that the private sector is always best at determining energy needs, rather than just usually best at meeting these needs.  This is the most familiar part of déjà vu all over again.  Oil prices have been cut in half recently. And we are already relaxing our energy development efforts.  We should be using some of the energy cost savings to speed up research into alternatives, into making fracking safer, into seeing if we can answer the arguments against the Keystone Pipeline.

Energy companies with an eye to the future, and to future long term profits, should be in the forefront of these efforts – not doing their best to sabotage the growing use of solar panels. And if they do not want to, perhaps because they don’t want it to affect their stock price tomorrow – legitimate, if short-sighted business decisions – let the government do it.  More efforts should be made to use the probably brief breathing spell to prepare for the inevitable, and probably short term, future. Basically, oil prices are going back up. The question is when.

Back in the day, American energy policy reminded me of a classic horror film.  It still does. The monster had ravaged the village but it was chased off.  Things were peaceful again.  But the monster had not been destroyed.  The monster was coming again.  The villagers had to listen to the voices saying to get ready.  We need President Obama, who tends to act well when he acts, to use his rhetorical skills to make the case that the energy monster still lives.  We need Congressional Republicans to lay off their social agenda, to lay off trying to make the President look bad, and at least consider long term energy development actions.

The energy monster is not dead.  It is just sleeping, and it is coming back.

---

All opinion pieces reflect solely the views of the writer(s) and do not reflect the opinions or views of CAB News Online.

OPINION: Working Man’s Jeans

By Bruce L. Brager

I bought a new pair of work jeans a few months ago, the day before Cyber Monday, the day after Small Business Saturday, two days after Black Friday. In fact I have been wearing them for the past two hours, as I write this. I work at home and wear them, so it is appropriate to call them work clothes.

Judging by the inspection stickers, these pants seem to have been inspected 6 times:

• Proudly inspected by 11 (I would hate to have someone not proudly inspect something I use to cover my behind), and 13.
• Proudly inspected by 20 – twice.
• Inspecciondo por 23 and 74.

I hope all five (remember, 20 looked twice) did their jobs.

The only address listed on the pants label gives the address of the company, still in Michigan where the company was started in 1889. No “made in …” label, which it really should have. Three of my other products from this company fess up to their Latin American origin. Ideally, I prefer made in the USA, but this is not always possible with today’s production realities. Americans also have a certain interest, though we may not always realize it, in having good, or at least decent, jobs in Mexico and Latin America. Globalization is a reality of modern life; and people usually don’t emigrate if they have good jobs at home.

This company has not made the news, so I have to assume their Latin American employees are treated reasonably well.

Anyway, as I write this the jeans are sitting above a pair of Australian made shoes. All of them were purchased from small businesses, though not on Small Business Saturday.

I have bought four pairs of pants from this company, which I still have, so they seem to make a good product. My three shirts are holding out well also. Two past shirts lived satisfactory life times.  Basic realities of salesmanship are you sell what the product does for the customer, what needs it meets, product quality and price. People, even me, pay less attention to the deeper meaning of the purchase. My need was for clothing. I wanted good quality for a reasonable price.

The company originally made clothing for railroad workers, but apparently became popular in this country because “the boys in the hood” saw them being worn by crack dealers. These “small businessmen” have to keep warm at work, on the streets, and carry a lot of “work materials.” The company seems to be gaining popularity with “hipsters” – I think this means the same thing as it did circa 1960, fashionable, trendy, independent, counter-culture but not absurdly so, etc. “Hippy” has a somewhat different, and a less pompous, meaning. The clothing is still aimed at people who work with their hands – their carpenter pants tend to be worn by real carpenters -- rather than with computers, but I guess this is expanding to include artisans and related “new” professions. Today, though, even those who make artisanal food still use computers for something. Even independent carpenters will likely do book keeping and scheduling electronically. I suppose people who wear these pants identify with the various cultures who first wore them – though I hope not too many identify with crack dealers. It’s an image. It’s the same way country singers, particularly men, favor jeans when even those with less money than Garth Brooks can dress quite well. I don’t recall seeing a picture of Hank Williams in blue jeans. His generation of country singers dressed up.

Does “casual Friday” in Nashville mean three pieces suits?

Actually, people make too big a deal about how other people dress. One should be able to dress comfortably at work, so you can concentrate on the work. My old job, at a large DC international agency had it right. Wear what you want, unless you are meeting with clients. The desirability of showing respect for a client trumps comfort. As a freelance writer, in some ways I work for an idiot. But at least he is liberal on the dress code and lets me wear what I want.

My experience is that this company makes good clothing. The pants are quite comfortable. If my fashions show the desire to identify with previous wearers, I have to admit I prefer railroad workers and carpenters to drug dealers. I wish they were made in the United States, but will live with Latin America. At least I was able to buy them from a small local business.

The personal needs they meet are well made, comfortable, and not costing too much. No message, no political points. Can one ask for better results?

---

All opinion pieces reflect solely the views of the writer(s) and do not reflect the opinions or views of CAB News Online.

OPINION: Another View of Robert E. Lee

By Bruce L. Brager

Appomattox Court House

We are just a few weeks from the 150^th anniversary of the effective end of the American Civil War, April 9, 2014, when Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of North Virginia to Federal forces under Ulysses S. Grant.  The general mainstream media is almost totally ignoring the anniversary, but the chance it gives us to examine the degree to which we have learned the lessons of the war.

Slavery is gone, never to return, as least in this country. However, in some ways civil rights seems to be moving backwards. In an irony, considering the party which most strongly advocated civil rights, Republicans in their controlled states are making it harder to vote. They claim to be fighting voter fraud, regardless of the fact that virtually no people have voted illegally in recent years. In this country, just under half of Americans do not bother to vote at all. Many Americans don’t care enough to vote early or to vote in elections at all.

Our dear Supreme Court, showing flashes of the perception which gave us the Dred Scott decision, invalidated parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, helping states limit minority voting. I guess we will just have to rely on the Fifteenth Amendment, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,”  

Secession is dead; though counties trying to secede from states seems to be the newest in thing in some western states – such as in Colorado and in California.          

Federal law trumps state law, according to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution found in Article VI, Paragraph 1. Missouri thinks this does not apply to federal gun laws.

Didn’t you think this ended in April 1865? Lee’s surrender at Appomattox ended a nasty and bloody war. For this alone, it is a good thing.  Lee’s surrender at Appomattox also provided an opportunity for true sectional and racial unity, a chance to live up to the promises of the Declaration of Independence. This chance was blown, needing the “Second Reconstruction” of the 1960s to come close. Elizabeth R. Varon’s new book, Appomattox, points out that Robert E. Lee laid the groundwork, probably intentionally, for the century of little progress on giving true freedom to the freed slaves.

I had always wondered why Lee was so admired. He fought against his country – there no better way of putting things. Every indication is that he was not opposed to slavery, or was at least happy to live with the benefits.  He can probably be described as a white racist. But, sadly, this did not make him unique. Lee’s prestige did, however, make him unique.

Lee ended the war being compared favorably to Ulysses S. Grant, forgetting that Lee lost a greater percentage of men under his command than Grant lost of men under his command.  Lee was by most measures a good general, but with an uncertain understanding of the best national strategy for the South. Actively defeating the North was unlikely, but using the Confederacy’s huge territory, larger than the North east of the Mississippi, provided a real chance to hold out until the North grew tired of the war. Lee preferred to attack and to raid the North. He ended up with the strategic defeat at Antietam, and the clear tactical defeat at Gettysburg.

Lee surrendered his army when they were cut off from any direction they could move with any chance of escape. He was outmaneuvered by Grant. His farewell address told his men the army had been crushed by overwhelming numbers; apparently this came as a surprise. The number of 8,000 was accepted as the final combat strength of the Army of Northern Virginia. Of course, Lee asked Grant for 25,000 rations. The claims of overwhelming odds ignored the sizable number of Confederate soldiers killed or taken prisoner at the battles of Five Forks and Sailor’s Creek, when Grant’s forces sliced large chunks off the Confederate Army like one might slice a holiday ham.  I wonder if anyone even knows how many Southerners deserted this lost cause in the last week.

Lee agreed to stop a bloody war that he could no longer win. He discouraged his men from feeling to fight as partisans. He encouraged the other main Confederate armies to surrender. He deserves credit for all of this, probably major credit. However, as wager, as HoHoVaron makes clear, Lee deserves blame for failing to put his prestige behind true racial and social reform in the South. Lee was by no means alone, but he might have done a lot more to earn his reputation as a symbol of national reconciliation.

A review essay on:

Elizabeth  R. Varon

Appomattox: Victory, Defeat, and Freedom at the End of the Civil War

New York: Oxford University Press 2014

---

All opinion pieces reflect solely the views of the writer(s) and do not reflect the opinions or views of CAB News Online.