October Atlantic Monthly Nails Bush and His War

I hadn’t read the Atlantic Monthly in years, but when I heard James Fallows discussing his article, “Bush’s Lost Year” in the October issue, I had to subscribe immediately so that I could read the full article on-line. It is a truly damning indictment of our War President and supports my contention in a previous post that Bush is a failed president.

For example, this war has benefited the terrorists more than us. Read this from the article (emphasis added here and subsequently):

“But among national-security professionals there is surprisingly little controversy. Except for those in government and in the opinion industries whose job it is to defend the Administration's record, they tend to see America's response to 9/11 as a catastrophe. I have sat through arguments among soldiers and scholars about whether the invasion of Iraq should be considered the worst strategic error in American history—or only the worst since Vietnam. Some of these people argue that the United States had no choice but to fight, given a pre-war consensus among its intelligence agencies that Iraq actually had WMD supplies. Many say that things in Iraq will eventually look much better than they do now. But about the conduct and effect of the war in Iraq one view prevails: it has increased the threats America faces, and has reduced the military, financial, and diplomatic tools with which we can respond.”

Nothing has been done to face down our energy problems. Again, I quote.

“At the beginning of 2002 the United States imported over 50 percent of its oil.
In two years we have increased that figure by nearly 10 percent. The need for
imported oil is the fundamental reason the United States must be deferential in its relationship with Saudi Arabia. Revenue from that oil is the fundamental reason that extremist groups based in Saudi Arabia were so rich. After the first oil shocks, in the mid-1970s, the United States took steps that reduced its imports of Persian Gulf oil. The Bush Administration could have made similar steps a basic part of its anti-terrorism strategy, and could have counted on making progress: through most of 2002 the Administration could assume bipartisan support for nearly anything it proposed. But its only such suggestion was drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.”

The current so-called strategy is a one trick pony. There is no long range planning. Get Saddam out and the Islamic world will love us – that was the belief.

"Worst of all, the government-wide effort to wage war in Iraq crowded out efforts to design a broader strategy against Islamic extremists and terrorists; to this day the Administration has articulated no comprehensive long-term plan. It dismissed out of hand any connection between policies toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and increasing tension with many Islamic states. Regime change in Iraq, it said, would have a sweeping symbolic effect on worldwide sources of terror. That seems to have been true—but in the opposite way from what the President intended. It is hard to find a counterterrorism specialist who thinks that the Iraq War has reduced rather than increased the threat to the United States.”

Forget Afghanistan. We can use Iraq as a model for the new MidEast. Sure we can.

"The Administration later placed great emphasis on making Iraq a showcase of Islamic progress: a society that, once freed from tyranny, would demonstrate steady advancement toward civil order, economic improvement, and, ultimately, democracy. Although Afghanistan is a far wilder, poorer country, it might have provided a better showcase, and sooner. There was no controversy about America's involvement; the rest of the world was ready to provide aid; if it wasn't going to become rich, it could become demonstrably less poor. The amount of money and manpower sufficient to transform Afghanistan would have been a tiny fraction of what America decided to commit in Iraq. But the opportunity was missed, and Afghanistan began a descent to its pre-Taliban warlord state."

And, of course, the wonderful results we’ve achieved in Iraq will convince other rogue nations of our effectiveness.

"How will history judge this period, in terms of the opportunity costs of invading Iraq?" said John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, when we spoke. "I think the opportunity cost is going to be North Korea and Iran. I mean, in 2002 it became obvious that Iran has a full-blown nuclear-weapons program under way, no ifs or buts. For the next eighteen months or so, before it's running, we have the opportunity to blow it up. But this Iraq adventure will give blowing up your enemies a bad name. The concern now has to be that the 'Iraq syndrome' will make us flinch from blowing up people who really need to be blown up."

Even military minds realize we’ve screwed up big time.

"Are we better off in basic security than before we invaded Iraq ?" asks Jeffrey Record, a professor of strategy at the Air War College and the author of the recent Dark Victory, a book about the Iraq War. "The answer is no. An unnecessary war has consumed American Army and other ground resources, to thepoint where we have nothing left in the cupboard for another contingency—for instance, should the North Koreans decide that with the Americans completely absorbed in Iraq, now is the time to do something."

Does Fallows prove the assertion “They hate us for who we are” is, in his words, dangerous claptrap?

“There may be people who have studied, fought against, or tried to infiltrate al-Qaeda and who agree with Bush's statement. But I have never met any. The soldiers, spies, academics, and diplomats I have interviewed are unanimous in saying that "They hate us for who we are" is dangerous claptrap. Dangerous because it is so lazily self-justifying and self-deluding: the only thing we could possibly be doing wrong is being so excellent. Claptrap because it reflects so little knowledge of how Islamic extremism has evolved.

"There are very few people in the world who are going to kill themselves so we can't vote in the Iowa caucuses," Michael Scheuer said to me. "But there's a lot of them who are willing to die because we're helping the Israelis, or because we're helping Putin against the Chechens, or because we keep oil prices low so Muslims lose money." Jeffrey Record said, "Clearly they do not like American society. They think it's far too libertine, democratic, Christian. But that's not the reason they attack us. If it were, they would have attacked a lot of other Western countries too. I don't notice them putting bombs in Norway. It's a combination of who we are and also our behavior.”

We’re proving our enemies right.

"I have been saying for years, Osama bin Laden could never have done it without us," a civilian adviser to the Pentagon told me this summer. "We have continued to play to his political advantage and to confirm, in the eyes of his constituency, the very claims he made about us." Those claims are that the United States will travel far to suppress Muslims, that it will occupy their holy sites, that it will oppose the rise of Islamic governments, and that it will take their resources. "We got to Baghdad," Michael Scheuer said, "and the first thing Rumsfeld said is, 'We'll accept any government as long as it's not Islamic.' It draws their attention to bin Laden's argument that the United States is leading the West to annihilate Islam."

Just think back 2 ½ years.

"To govern is to choose, and the choices made in 2002 were fateful. The United States began that year shocked and wounded, but with tremendous strategic advantages. Its population was more closely united behind its leadership than it had been in fifty years. World opinion was strongly sympathetic. Longtime allies were eager to help; longtime antagonists were silent. The federal budget was nearly in balance, making ambitious projects feasible. The U.S. military was superbly equipped, trained, and prepared. An immediate foe was evident—and vulnerable—in Afghanistan. For the longer-term effort against Islamic extremism the Administration could draw on a mature school of thought from academics, regional specialists, and its own intelligence agencies. All that was required was to think broadly about the threats to the country, and creatively about the responses."

Investing in Growth Is Not Always Good For You

“Grow or Die”. That was the mantra I heard as a young entrepreneur and, I suspect, you hear it, too. I was young then and, like most young people, unaware of my own mortality. Now retired, I am well aware that my time here is limited. So, I’d like to share a lesson I learned only when I was in my 60s.

Most things on this earth grow, it is a certainty that all things die. Why should a business, a living organism, be different? It doesn’t matter the industry or whether the company is a manufacturer, distributor or service business; growth stops, death arrives. True, death comes later to stronger companies and may be postponed by mergers and acquisitions. But come it will. The smart businessperson understands this reality and adjusts accordingly.

As death is a reality, so it is that many of us will not build billion dollar businesses, no matter how hard we work, how much capital we raise, how smart we are, how brilliant our idea. It’s a fact of life that not all of us will be superstars. But there is nothing wrong with building a “nice, little business”, one that supports several families in relative comfort, provides a useful product or service to the community, enables its employees to use all of their talents, is fun to work at. For most of us in our rational moments such a business would represent something close to nirvana. However, ambition often blinds us. We must build another factory, establish a London office, raise millions from venture capitalists.

I’m not saying that one accepts the status quo and does not strive for the stars. Without ambition, drive and hard work you won’t start, let alone build, a business. However, there comes a time in life (yours and your business’) when you have to accept and live with reality. It’s easier to do so if your business caters to a local market. But, many companies are after a national and, even, a global market where the stakes and rewards can be much higher. That makes the task of accepting reality harder, but also more important to yourself (and to the economy in general, as it is likely that better use can be made of assets deployed in a futile attempt to be a superstar).

Yes, it’s not easy abandoning one’s dream, to recognize or admit that your creature, born amidst such great hopes and dreams, has not turned out to be the barn burner you expected. Nor is it easy to see that additional investments of time, money and talent will not be rewarded by the marketplace. But, if one does have the presence of mind and courage to see the world for what it is, the rewards – not necessarily financial rewards – can be considerable. When you stop beating your head against the wall trying to overcome the judgment of the marketplace, you sleep better, are less stressed, can devote more time to your community, can explore your whole self. You’ll find that reality is not so bad after all.

We Are Certainly Not Being Served

Let’s look at the presidential campaign with respect to two observations of the 9/11 Commission:

From pages 363-4 of “The 9/11 Commission Report”
But long-term success demands the use of all elements of national power: diplomacy, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy, and homeland defense. If we favor one tool while neglecting others, we leave ourselves vulnerable and weaken our national effort.

I’ve added the emphasis. Does either candidate measure up?

From page 365
But the American people are entitled to expect their government to do its very best. They should expect that officials will have realistic objectives, clear guidance and effective organization. They are entitled to see some standards for performance so they can judge, with the help of their elected representatives, whether the objectives are being met.

Again, emphasis has been added. Is either candidate meeting these rather basic expectations?

We need a new way to select our leaders. We need rational dialogue, not sound bites. We deserve a clear statement of just why we should vote for either one of these guys. We’re not buying soap; we’re supposed to be electing someone to run the country. If these two clowns are the best we have to offer, we’re in serious trouble.

East Cambridge 40 Years Later 

Last of the pre-war babies

It’s the big war I’m talking about, Charlie. WWII. The last good war. The war that 98+% of the country supported. The villains were obvious and we really were the good guys.

I’m one of those pre-war babies born between 1936 and 1941. We pre-war babies of East Cambridge gathered the other night after 30 and more years of not getting together, not even writing, just hearing of each other from relatives.

The war was our first real memory; we didn’t play “cowboys” or “cops and robbers”; we shot Nazis from the trees and killed Kamikaze pilots (Japanese suicide bombers). We walked to the corner market with our mothers and wished she could buy something without using ration cards. We rolled up aluminum foil gum wrappers into large balls that, we were told, helped the war effort. Our sisters made bandages for the wounded. We shut the lights and closed the blinds when the air raid siren wailed. We learned a lot of geography reading the headlines in the daily newspaper. Our Saturday movie was preceded by newsreels of the battles our brothers, cousins and fathers were fighting. East Cambridge housed several Gold Star Mothers, whose sons had been killed in the war. I suspect that our being war-time youths has had a life long effect on us.

There were once twenty-five of us, but four have died; they succumbed to the typical twentieth century killers – cancer, heart problems and alcohol. Last night at our 21st century reunion the rest of us claimed to have lived fairly decent and interesting lives. I don’t mean to use the word ‘claimed’ pejoratively. Hell, we’ve all experienced the heartbreaks of living and loving (loss of loved ones, the breakdown of the body, loss of a job, etc.), but those were not the things we dwelt on last night; we noted them and moved on. We accept our humanity but, by and large, feel blessed. We celebrated the past. We laughed at the stupid and the funny things we did and realized how lucky we were to have survived for sixty and more years. We welcomed the future with the full knowledge that our time here is coming to a close.

Perseverance – perhaps the sine qua non of the war effort - was very much in evidence. Guys worked thirty and more years at the same place. Most of us are still married to the person who was the girl of our dreams in 1960. Most of us who graduated from college completed school when we were married. A few of us started businesses that made us a few dollars, but more importantly, gave us a sense of independence.

Talent abounded. Plant manager, CFO, foreman, CEO, master craftsman, teacher, salesman, engineer, musician, store manager, government worker. I don’t think we knew back then just how much talent we had. But, thank the Lord, we’ve all exercised whatever it was we had. Again, I go back to WWII in which so many seemingly very average guys excelled at saving this country and the world by using all the talents they had.

Yes, we’re slower now, but the energy is still there. We retirees are working part time, helping our church, golfing, learning who our children really are, baby sitting our grandkids, rooting for the Red Sox. At least one is still playing ball! Not only did this country need perseverance and talent in WWII we needed the energy to make things happen.

It was a helluva night!!

The Vineyard 

The Hate Campaigns

What’s behind all the vitriol of this presidential campaign? Fortunately, I was not in the States for the 2000 campaign, so I don’t know how bad that one was. But, this is ridiculous.

Neither Kerry nor Bush is the devil incarnate. Yet their supporters act as though it were so.

I know that I’ve changed over the past 35 years and did some stupid things when I was younger that I would not want to be called on the carpet for now. Are Bush and Kerry any different?

We are in more than one major mess today - Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorism, the deficit, the economy, international relations, health insurance, education, the environment, energy, etc., etc. The issue should be who is willing to address these issues and guide us to a better, safer world tomorrow. Although they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and most of the past almost two years, neither candidate has really said what they think should be done.

These are sad times for this country. We need to find a better way to select our leaders. The current way is not working very well.

The Faded Silver Ball

It’s just a ball of rolled up gum wrappers. It’s not very big. Nowhere near the huge balls of aluminum foil we rolled during World War II. But, every time I pick it up I recall the first stages of my life. Since Pearl Harbor is my very first memory, the war was really the beginning of time for me.

World War II was a totally different war than all we have fought since. First of all, everyone knew, really knew, in their innermost selves that we were at war – and knew it virtually every waking moment. There was no way to avoid it; the newspapers, magazines, radio, movies were full of it (think of CNN on steroids). We all used ration books and, most importantly, we all had brothers, uncles or cousins in the armed forces.

For a kid removed from any possible physical danger the war was an exciting time. The movies, which included newsreels that reported the US view of the war, were filled with gallant Americans fighting the evil enemy. Movie stars were dragooned into the war; some saw combat, many sold war bonds. Daily entertainment was largely over the radio. “The FBI in Peace and War” and similar programs warned us constantly of the chicanery of the enemy. Posters, such as the famous “Loose lips sink ships”, appeared in many places. But thoughts of death and mutilation were far from my mind until the brothers of kids down the street came home damaged or dead. Still the excitement remained. They were not family. I was not close to them.

Even the newspapers were exciting: the huge headlines, the maps of places with exotic names, photos and stories of the heroes in combat. My reading skills and knowledge of geography improved considerably during the war

What could be more exciting to a little kid than an air raid drill? The sirens blaring, the closing of the curtains, the dowsing of the lights. But, maybe because you were a kid, you knew it was only a drill. It couldn’t be real; the enemy was very far away. Wasn’t he? Whether he was or not, when the horns blew, my father, an air raid warden, put on his helmet, picked up his flashlight and went to check that there were no lights shining from any homes or businesses in the neighborhood.

My little faded silver ball most immediately recalls the long summer days my cousins and I spent rolling the aluminum foil into a giant ball. Where this ball went I know not, but it was a patriotic thing to do. As it was patriotic for my sisters to knit sweaters and assemble bandages.

Despite our being 3000 miles from the front, the war was our life then. It was our constant companion. It so captured America’s imagination, thoughts, fears and dreams that even kids did their bit to help. It united America as little has since. As I roll the ball slowly in my hand, I dream of a day when our country will be similarly united in a peaceful cause as equally just and right as the bellicose cause history calls World War II.

Can Vineyard Time Survive In The 21st Century?

Can you imagine a time long ago when there were no traffic lights? No McDonalds? No WalMart? That time still exists on Martha’s Vineyard, my home forty-five minutes off the coast of Massachusetts. We jokingly refer to being on Vineyard time when someone is late. Perhaps it’s because tourists and newcomers don’t understand Vineyard time that we have one of the most dangerous intersections in the state – at least in the summer. They think they have to be on time for appointments and so speed through the intersection of Barnes and Edgartown-Vineyard Haven Roads, which, until this summer, has been guarded by a blinking yellow light and stop signs on Barnes Road. This has proven inadequate, so the selectmen have made what they call a temporary solution: a four way stop.

The resulting traffic jams at peak times have resulted in front page articles in the local newspapers as well as a raft of letters to the editor. The letter writers are irked by the massive delay, which at peak times during the peak season of the year is all of two minutes. Some have even proposed the installation of traffic lights to speed up the traffic!

The powers that be, however, frown on this intrusion by the twenty-first century. They have convinced the state, when its coffers once more become full, to pony up $300,000 (about $299,000 more than the four way stop) to fund a “roundabout”, or what used to be called a rotary. This, they are convinced, is the perfect solution. It will speed up traffic at all times of the day and night, even in winter when, perhaps, 100 cars go through the intersection each hour. The traffic processing will be so fast that no more will we be able to use the excuse “I’m operating on Vineyard time”. But, at least, we won’t have any of those infernal traffic lights.

One Island, Six Towns, Many Angry Voices

Living on an island is a new experience for me, as is living in a small town. Maybe that’s why my adjustment to full time life here in West Tisbury (population 2612) on the island of Martha’s Vineyard, a mere forty-five minutes off the Massachusetts coast, is taking a while. It’s not because of the inability to satisfy a whim, such as getting in my car and driving into Boston to see a decent movie; living on an island, I have to make sure I have a car reservation on the ferry first and then be willing to drive an hour-and-a-half (if the traffic is light) each way. No, it’s not the inability to live spontaneously. I’ve become accustomed to calling the Steamship Authority a week before I want to leave the island. Nor is it the high prices here. I can usually avoid paying $2.50 a gallon for gas by filling up when I’m off-Island. My wife visits Costco just about every trip to the mainland, so our food costs are reasonable.

And, it’s not for lack of contact with the rest of the world. We now get NPR without static and fadeouts. CNN fans can get their daily fix. The NY Times, Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal can be delivered to your mailbox daily. My laptop lets me communicate with friends and relatives around the world. Stock market quotes are available instantly via the Internet. Of course, in summer it seems that a good part of the rest of the world comes to visit us. Yet, judicious scheduling of my trips to the store, bank and post office keeps me out of most traffic jams.

It’s not boredom, either. There is a fair amount of intellectual and aesthetic stimulation in the winter as well as the summer. The Vineyard Playhouse operates year-round. The Sinfonietta and Community Chorus give rousing winter as well as summer performances. The Bunch of Grapes book store has author’s talks every Friday, summer and winter. The Senior Centers offer a wide variety of attractions, including trips to Symphony Hall. And, I’ve only scratched the surface.

So, what’s the problem? Well, if one judges by what appears in the two local newspapers, particularly the letters to the editors, then no public official here and elsewhere ever does anything right. I swear if God were a public official here on the island someone would find fault with his actions and, of course, let the island know about it by sending his thoughts to both local papers and, if the opportunity arises, speaking at a public meeting, more and more of which are shown on the local television channels. I find the level of this venting, this need to criticize, this nay saying disconcerting, to say the least.

It doesn’t seem to matter what the issue is - a new golf course, another gas station, the entrance to the library, a sick horse, mopeds, the Steamship Authority, our relationship with Nantucket, wind turbines, house sizes, affordable housing, stop lights, the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, where buses stop, the size of signs, the salaries of public employees, piping plovers – someone wants to tell you where and how someone else screwed up.

This need to vent is exacerbated by what appears to be the condoning of conflicts of interest. At least that’s what many of the newer “wash ashores” (i.e., not native Islanders) see when they look at town boards of which town employees are influential members, planning and zoning boards having developers as members, high paying town positions filled by relatives of town officials, etc.

The venting seems to increase in winter. Whether this is due to people not having the time or energy in the tourist season to register their opinions or issues coming to the fore when the summer visitors have left, I’m not sure. But in winter it’s not surprising to see 10 – 20 issue-oriented letters in each newspaper each week; this with a year-round population of 15,000. If this same rate were maintained in Boston, for example, the Globe would print 1000 and more letters per week.

Of course, every other city and town in America has disputes and disagreements. But, at least in the places I have lived, they are not as frequent nor is the level of participation by ordinary citizens as high as it is here. ….AHA! Reread that last sentence. Note the phrase “level of participation by ordinary citizens”. It’s high! People here are not apathetic, they care. Isn’t that – caring about your town – what voters in a representative democracy are supposed to be? True, there may be overkill here on the Vineyard, but too much participation is better than too little. I just wish they would lower the volume.

A Proven Failure Or Take a Gamble?

At this time of year my father always said, “ In most elections, but especially presidential elections, you have to choose the lesser of two evils.” I didn’t accept his premise when I first started to vote, but as I aged his words rang more and more true. This presidential election is kind of a capstone to my father’s thesis. Our choice today is between someone who has failed as president and an opportunist who may get us back to a more rational, more centrist form of government.

In my view Mr. Bush has failed in at least three primary areas, all of which are interrelated: combating terrorism, international relations and the economy. True, the initiation of the current wave of global terrorism cannot be laid at his door. But, his war on Iraq has certainly been a primary recruiting mechanism for the terrorists of the world; they could not have asked for a better motivator to staff their cause. On September 12, 2001, virtually every nation on earth extended their sympathy for our loss; most joined us in attempting to combat terrorism. In two-and-a-half years, the Bush administration dissipated just about all of that goodwill, so that we have only England by our side in what may be the major battleground of the twenty-first century. Partly because of his war the deficit has reached new heights. If other nations stop buying our bonds, we’d be out of business. There has been only one other president whose administration saw more unemployed workers than this administration; that president was Herbert Hoover, who was overwhelmed by the Great Depression.

And, I don’t have to stop my list of his failures here. There’s the rape of the environment, the merging of church and state, the Medicare fiasco, the unwillingness to fund No Child Left Behind… It goes on and on.

Yes, Kerry is an opportunist. He has not been a leading senator. He has failed to articulate a program that the average Joe can understand. But, compared to the unbelievably bad record of the Bush administration, Kerry is a small beacon of hope. He can’t be worse than Mr. Bush. We’re down close to as far as we can go. We need hope if we are to get out of the slough of despond.

A 36 Day Presidential Campaign? Impossible!

This is something I wrote after the last presidential election. Things have not gotten better.
________________________________________________________________

When the polls closed on November 7, I thought that our long national nightmare - another lengthy presidential campaign - was over. The events of the past few weeks have proved me wrong. The campaign continues.

Even before the current fiasco, I found this presidential campaign especially interminable. Whether it was the flatness of the candidates or my increasing age I know not. I suspect the campaign of 2004 will be even more so, as the way things are going they’ll begin active campaigning as the next president is being sworn in on January 20, 2001.

At the risk of offending the political consultants and the media who derive so much revenue and story material from the permanent campaign, there has to be a better way, one that is less costly and less time consuming. Over the past few years I have become somewhat familiar with at least one better way – the way practiced by our neighbor to the north, Canada.

On October 22, Prime Minister Chretien announced that a federal election would be held not years hence but on November 27, thirty-six days away. While this announcement was anticipated by many, there was no real campaigning until the day of the announcement. No talking heads on television pontificating about the campaign, no political ads. All the speculation was about when the election would be held.

A thirty-six day campaign certainly dramatically cuts the costs of campaigning. The sixty million dollars Bush had raised relatively early in his campaign would have paid for two national elections of the 301 members of parliament. That is, just a portion of the funds raised by Bush would be adequate for each member of parliament – all 301 of them – to run two separate campaigns. It boggles the mind.

You could argue that a thirty-six day campaign prevents the rise of a previously unknown candidate. There is some merit in that argument. However, the leader of the major opposition party, Stockwell Day of the Canadian Alliance, was really unknown nationally until he was elected party leader earlier this year. He did not need the 2+ years our candidates seem to require to make themselves known, a few months were enough.

How can voters come to know the candidates and the issues in thirty-six days? It’s simple really. In Canada there is a real distinction between political parties and, by and large, members of parliament follow the party platform and/or the party leaders. So, attention is focused more on the party than the person who plays better on television or has a more effective ad campaign.

Had Nader and Buchanan run in Canada, they very likely would have participated in the debates. Sure, you did not see the Canadian Marijuana party at the televised debates, as a party needs to have a base of support of roughly 2% of the popular vote at the previous election. But you had a chance to evaluate five (that’s right, 5) national parties: the ruling Liberals who appear to have the chameleon-like attributes necessary to have been the ruling party in 80 of the last 100 years; the Canadian Alliance, an attempt to reinvigorate the rather conservative policies of Canada’s West; the left leaning New Democrat Party (incidentally led by a woman for the past several years); Progressive Conservatives, who last ruled under Brian Mulroney, a friend of Ronald Reagan; and the Bloc Quebecois, who, while espousing the uniqueness of Quebec and the need for separation from Canada, want Canada to pay most of their bills. It’s quite a change from the vapid, one-on-one Bush-Gore debates.

Yes, we in the States do not have a parliamentary form of government. True, political parties have become anemic and virtually indistinguishable from each other. But I can’t see that the calibre of the presidential candidates produced by the primary system is any better than that produced in the smoke-filled rooms of the past. I haven’t seen a Roosevelt or Eisenhower emerge in the past thirty years. Have you?

Despite the different form of government we can learn something from the Canadian style of elections. At a minimum we can learn to keep it shorter, to get the campaign season back to just that – a season, not a permanent state. Doing so will lower our costs and our boredom quotient. Maybe then we’ll see a growing number of people actually voting for president.

Maybe a madeline is needed.

Maybe it shouldn't be surprising as it has been three years since 9/11, but I was struck by the general non-observance of today, Sept. 11, 2004, here on the Vineyard. We at the Unitarian church were the only ones to offer a service on the Island.

Some stout believers would not consider it a service, as it consisted primarily of readings from the 9/11 Commission Report. The readings recounted the events of that day. We also had a reading from Jeremiah's Lamentations about the destruction of the city of Jerusalem 2600 years ago; this was especially powerful as read by Nancy Cox. Although we selected 'popular' music, it added to the solemnity; the songs were America the Beautiful by Ray Charles, Bridge Over Troubled Waters by Simon and Garfunkel, Spirit of Life by the Chancel Choir and Amazing Grace by Judy Collins.

A couple of the people who lit candles at the end of the service had powerful tales to tell of friends and relations lost.

Let's hope that someday we can stop and remember days of peace and happiness, rather than days of violence and hate.

Coping with Tragedy in Marriage

Yesterday was a day to consider people's different coping styles in marriage. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal (henceforth WSJ) about a couple whose marriage was strained when the wife first developed breast cancer and then, as a result of her treatments, heart problems serious enough to require a transplant. At night, we saw The Door in the Floor, a movie about a couple having to live after being in the same car in which their two children, one of whom was driving, died.

In both cases the husband and the wife used different strategies in order to continue living. In the real world, the wife did not want to discuss her condition extensively, her husband did. In the fictional world, the wife withdrew from life, the husband became a womanizer.

Trying to cope with these types of deus ex machina events is a lot more difficult than facing the usual problems of marriage centering around money, sex and in-laws. These problems are, in general, caused by something you have a degree of control over. Whereas, disease and death are your masters.

Day 1

Well, Greg, my youngest son, has suggested I begin this blog. I guess he figures I have little to do in my retirement. We shall see.

As we all know, starting something is often easier than keeping it going. Boredom sets in.