Test blog
Wednesday, April 14, 2021
Monday, March 16, 2015
Passwords Revisited
I posted a blog entry on passwords a few years ago and I think I need to update. Everywhere I turn I am asked for a password or my childhood best friend or the name of my first dog. I think we have reached the stage of overkill on passwords. Everything I do in life seems to require a password now. I am not tidy enough to write them all down and keep them where I can find them quickly. I'm also not convinced that we even need to have passwords for a lot of stuff. What's going to happen to me if somebody hacks my Facebook account anyway? The hacker might "poke" a former girlfriend, still a FB "friend" due to my lack of diligent policing of my "friend" list? God forbid such a thing. I usually use my kid's name if I can get away with six letters. 8 letters and a requirement for letters and numbers gets you my kid's name and his current age. Gosh, I guess I've given away the store. All the hackers out in the blogosphere now know that my kid is between 10 and 99. These entrys are normally followed by a notice that my "security level" for my password is low, sometimes I get rated as fair. I used to use the name of my great uncle's coon dog as my password but that was hard to type. "Xavier" is harder to type than my kid's name. My computer guy says that AT&T needed the name of my favorite superhero this morning to get into my DSL line file. Honestly don't remember having a favorite superhero or telling AT&T his/her name, for that matter. I seem to get asked a lot of "challenge" questions that I don't remember providing answers for in the first place. And my first car could be the old beater my dad loaned me in college or the nice new one my wife and I bought when we were first married. Whichever one I pick will surely be wrong. In any event, I'm kind of a risk taker in life. I would be very willing to forego passwords for such things as my blog account and take my chances. If some terrorist wants to get on my blog and post some scary stuff, then I am willing to take that chance. I guess I can always delete his message when I get around to it.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
The World Must Act Collectively and Swiftly to Avoid Converging Disasters
Many people dismiss Facebook as a waste of time. For some people that may be a true statement. For me, the opportunity to interact with old and new friends has been priceless. Also, Facebook has exposed me to political discussion and scientific articles and information that I surely would not have seen otherwise. I feel that I have been much better informed in general since I joined Facebook. Today, I saw three articles that I reposted on Facebook. One quoted a study by the World Wildlife Federation that found that we have lost 52% of the world's wildlife in a little over 40 years since 1970, including fish, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and birds. Another reported a scientific study done with satellites that found that Antarctica and Greenland combined are losing 500 cubic kilometers or ice per year. Kilometers as in 2/3 of a mile. They report that this would equate to the island of Manhattan three-and-a-half miles high. The study predicted that sea levels will rise by several feet in the next few hundred years at the current rate of melting. A third article suggested that population growth is out of control and heading towards 9 billion people by 2050. This article suggested that the current UN conference on climate control should consider the related issue of projected rapid increases in population,particularly in places where resources are scarce already like sub-Saharan Africa, where the population is expected to DOUBLE by 2050.
Nobody likes to think about, talk about, or be seen talking about big problems like these. But I have come to think that people have to stand up and be heard if we are going to have any chance of avoiding catastrophe in the foreseeable future. I would rather be known as a guy who posts pictures of his dinner than as a scold or one who preaches. But I think we are about at the tipping point where continuing to ignore these converging problems will at the least drastically alter the quality of life for all of us, if not cause an out-and-out extinction event of life on Earth. Maybe we have already reached the tipping point on climate change. But if we can't halt climate change, we can at least mitigate the consequences. If blogging about this makes me appear to be a crank in my old age, then I guess it will just have to be that way.
I am having a hard time believing that people, and particularly national leaders, can't see what's coming. Global warming is clearly producing dramatic climate changes. We all know from 8th grade that the climate shifts as time goes on. But, hey, it doesn't shift this rapidly on its own. We are not looking at gradual changes in climate over hundreds of years, we are looking at relatively huge changes taking place in a few decades, not centuries. And if you don't think man's activities are the primary cause of all the change, then you have had your head stuck in the sand. The implications of continued global warming are far more serious than Miami Beach being submerged by rising sea levels. Scientists predict severe l droughts and food and water shortages the world over. Combine that with sharply increasing populations in the poorest areas of the world. Some political scientists have predicted wars in the near future just over water. Losing half the non-human living creatures on Earth since 1970 should certainly be enough to shock the public and governments into the realization that we are on a very precarious path. Not only does this have serious ramifications for the food supply for humans but also for ecosystems already beset by drastic changes in the climate. We are losing all of our bees. Bees pollinate plants. No bees, no plants. Science. Not rocket science.
To sit by and do nothing while all these things happen to our planet is absolute insanity. And the American government has led the world in foot-dragging and denial. I am not at this point in my life a religious person. I have come to believe that ORGANIZED religion is one of the worst aspects of human life. A few years ago, a substantial effort was made to provide birth control information and supplies to Africans. According to reports, representatives of the Catholic church came right behind telling the unsophisticated Africans that using birth control was a sin against God. In Africa today, a child is born every 20 seconds I am told. A continent already overpopulated and barely able to sustain its population with food and clean water continues to make the problem worse and worse. It's been said for centuries and is certainly clearly the case today that more wars have been fought in the name of religion than anything else. I cannot imagine that a God in Heaven would desire to have human beings reproduce to the point that human life becomes unsustainable on His good Earth. I can understand religious objections to abortion but for the life of me I cannot understand religious objections to family planning, particularly in the face of our exploding global population.
My point being that a number of truly ominous trends are combining to make the near future look very scary to me. Of course, I won't be here to have to endure it. But my granddaughter will be. I hate to think what her future might hold if we cannot reverse or at least alter the current trajectory of these trends.
We have heard a lot of Ayn Rand the past few years and her philosophy of the "virtue of selfishness." Randians relish the freedom of the individual and capitalism, decrying the "collectivists" as attempting to control people and limit their freedom. Paul Ryan the Koch brothers spring to mind. Of course, this "philosophy" that most of us get over by our sophomore year in college, is pretty silly when you break it down. First of all, if we did not operate collectively today, we would have no common means of exchange or division of labor. The brain surgeon or the hedge fund manager would be home on the farm trying to grow enough food to feed his family. So, operating collectively first of all allows us to have division of labor and, hence, modern American society. If we didn't operate collectively, we wouldn't have roads, bridges, policemen, or firemen. If each of us rugged individuals insisted on keeping all we earn and not paying any taxes, we would not have a civil society in the first place. Now, there can of course always be adjustments and certainly no tax payer wants to hear that his hard-earned tax money is being wasted. So vigilance is certainly warranted. However, the basic of idea of paying taxes in exchange for government services seems to me to be a pretty fundamental requirement of operating a society.
If we are going to deal with the converging problems of radical climate change, an exploding world population, and a startlingly rapid decline in animal life other than human life, with all the obvious implications of those changes, we are going to have to operate collectively and decisively and in the very near future. If learning that we have lost half of the animal life on Earth in the past 40 years, that glaciers are melting at an unprecedented rate, and that the world's population will have gone from 2 1/2 billion in 1950 to 9 billion in 2050 is not enough to motivate the world's people and governments to take meaningful action, then the Earth is going to be a far less hospital place in very short order. Even if we are not facing another Extinction Event, as some scientists are implying, we are clearly facing a very different and not very inviting future.
What can America do now? We need to have government use every available tool, including tax policy, to shift production and use of fossil fuels to renewable energy. Germany is well on the way to proving that this can be done. Is there a short term cost to this shift? Of course there is. We need to bite the bullet and do it. After all, fossil fuel is a non-renewable resource and we are going to have to make this shift at some point anyway. As individuals, we need to go green ASAP. Our family is looking at solar panels. In Europe this summer, it seemed like the roof of every house was covered with solar panels. If they can do it, so can we. The costs can be recovered over time. We are probably looking at limiting access to water resources. Fracking seems to use up an unwarranted amount of water resources for one thing. Next, we need to start disseminating birth control information and resources worldwide right now. We need to push past religious objections and just get this done. We simply have to be practical about this issue or we will overpopulate the world to an extent that life is compromised to an unacceptable extent. Next, we need to do everything possible to guard and perpetuate wildlife. We certainly need to keep commercial interests such as the lumber, mining, and oil and gas industries out of National Parks and wildlife areas. Missouri recently denied a permit for a wind farm near a protected area for migrating birds. Wind energy is certainly a good thing in general but this seemed like a good decision. The wind farm can certainly be relocated to a place where the heavy damage to migrating birds won't be a consequence of going green. Bees are dying by the millions. Some have attributed this to the use of chemicals on crops. If that is the case, then we need to take drastic action to stop the manufacture and sale of these type of chemical products. Many countries have already done so.
Having said all of that, I am somewhat resigned to the fact that we may not be able to summon the collective will to deal with problems this big, which would require a worldwide resolve and cooperation unprecedented on the Earth. Maybe we will all just shrug and much on chips and salsa and watch the NFL until the lights go out. Instead of worrying about problems that are too big for mere individuals to solve, we could just post pictures of cats. I hope not but I wonder.
Nobody likes to think about, talk about, or be seen talking about big problems like these. But I have come to think that people have to stand up and be heard if we are going to have any chance of avoiding catastrophe in the foreseeable future. I would rather be known as a guy who posts pictures of his dinner than as a scold or one who preaches. But I think we are about at the tipping point where continuing to ignore these converging problems will at the least drastically alter the quality of life for all of us, if not cause an out-and-out extinction event of life on Earth. Maybe we have already reached the tipping point on climate change. But if we can't halt climate change, we can at least mitigate the consequences. If blogging about this makes me appear to be a crank in my old age, then I guess it will just have to be that way.
I am having a hard time believing that people, and particularly national leaders, can't see what's coming. Global warming is clearly producing dramatic climate changes. We all know from 8th grade that the climate shifts as time goes on. But, hey, it doesn't shift this rapidly on its own. We are not looking at gradual changes in climate over hundreds of years, we are looking at relatively huge changes taking place in a few decades, not centuries. And if you don't think man's activities are the primary cause of all the change, then you have had your head stuck in the sand. The implications of continued global warming are far more serious than Miami Beach being submerged by rising sea levels. Scientists predict severe l droughts and food and water shortages the world over. Combine that with sharply increasing populations in the poorest areas of the world. Some political scientists have predicted wars in the near future just over water. Losing half the non-human living creatures on Earth since 1970 should certainly be enough to shock the public and governments into the realization that we are on a very precarious path. Not only does this have serious ramifications for the food supply for humans but also for ecosystems already beset by drastic changes in the climate. We are losing all of our bees. Bees pollinate plants. No bees, no plants. Science. Not rocket science.
To sit by and do nothing while all these things happen to our planet is absolute insanity. And the American government has led the world in foot-dragging and denial. I am not at this point in my life a religious person. I have come to believe that ORGANIZED religion is one of the worst aspects of human life. A few years ago, a substantial effort was made to provide birth control information and supplies to Africans. According to reports, representatives of the Catholic church came right behind telling the unsophisticated Africans that using birth control was a sin against God. In Africa today, a child is born every 20 seconds I am told. A continent already overpopulated and barely able to sustain its population with food and clean water continues to make the problem worse and worse. It's been said for centuries and is certainly clearly the case today that more wars have been fought in the name of religion than anything else. I cannot imagine that a God in Heaven would desire to have human beings reproduce to the point that human life becomes unsustainable on His good Earth. I can understand religious objections to abortion but for the life of me I cannot understand religious objections to family planning, particularly in the face of our exploding global population.
My point being that a number of truly ominous trends are combining to make the near future look very scary to me. Of course, I won't be here to have to endure it. But my granddaughter will be. I hate to think what her future might hold if we cannot reverse or at least alter the current trajectory of these trends.
We have heard a lot of Ayn Rand the past few years and her philosophy of the "virtue of selfishness." Randians relish the freedom of the individual and capitalism, decrying the "collectivists" as attempting to control people and limit their freedom. Paul Ryan the Koch brothers spring to mind. Of course, this "philosophy" that most of us get over by our sophomore year in college, is pretty silly when you break it down. First of all, if we did not operate collectively today, we would have no common means of exchange or division of labor. The brain surgeon or the hedge fund manager would be home on the farm trying to grow enough food to feed his family. So, operating collectively first of all allows us to have division of labor and, hence, modern American society. If we didn't operate collectively, we wouldn't have roads, bridges, policemen, or firemen. If each of us rugged individuals insisted on keeping all we earn and not paying any taxes, we would not have a civil society in the first place. Now, there can of course always be adjustments and certainly no tax payer wants to hear that his hard-earned tax money is being wasted. So vigilance is certainly warranted. However, the basic of idea of paying taxes in exchange for government services seems to me to be a pretty fundamental requirement of operating a society.
If we are going to deal with the converging problems of radical climate change, an exploding world population, and a startlingly rapid decline in animal life other than human life, with all the obvious implications of those changes, we are going to have to operate collectively and decisively and in the very near future. If learning that we have lost half of the animal life on Earth in the past 40 years, that glaciers are melting at an unprecedented rate, and that the world's population will have gone from 2 1/2 billion in 1950 to 9 billion in 2050 is not enough to motivate the world's people and governments to take meaningful action, then the Earth is going to be a far less hospital place in very short order. Even if we are not facing another Extinction Event, as some scientists are implying, we are clearly facing a very different and not very inviting future.
What can America do now? We need to have government use every available tool, including tax policy, to shift production and use of fossil fuels to renewable energy. Germany is well on the way to proving that this can be done. Is there a short term cost to this shift? Of course there is. We need to bite the bullet and do it. After all, fossil fuel is a non-renewable resource and we are going to have to make this shift at some point anyway. As individuals, we need to go green ASAP. Our family is looking at solar panels. In Europe this summer, it seemed like the roof of every house was covered with solar panels. If they can do it, so can we. The costs can be recovered over time. We are probably looking at limiting access to water resources. Fracking seems to use up an unwarranted amount of water resources for one thing. Next, we need to start disseminating birth control information and resources worldwide right now. We need to push past religious objections and just get this done. We simply have to be practical about this issue or we will overpopulate the world to an extent that life is compromised to an unacceptable extent. Next, we need to do everything possible to guard and perpetuate wildlife. We certainly need to keep commercial interests such as the lumber, mining, and oil and gas industries out of National Parks and wildlife areas. Missouri recently denied a permit for a wind farm near a protected area for migrating birds. Wind energy is certainly a good thing in general but this seemed like a good decision. The wind farm can certainly be relocated to a place where the heavy damage to migrating birds won't be a consequence of going green. Bees are dying by the millions. Some have attributed this to the use of chemicals on crops. If that is the case, then we need to take drastic action to stop the manufacture and sale of these type of chemical products. Many countries have already done so.
Having said all of that, I am somewhat resigned to the fact that we may not be able to summon the collective will to deal with problems this big, which would require a worldwide resolve and cooperation unprecedented on the Earth. Maybe we will all just shrug and much on chips and salsa and watch the NFL until the lights go out. Instead of worrying about problems that are too big for mere individuals to solve, we could just post pictures of cats. I hope not but I wonder.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Eleanor and Franklin and Ted and Alice
It was said that when Franklin Roosevelt won election to the White House in 1932, many voters thought that they were voting for President Theodore Roosevelt's son instead of his distant cousin. And Franklin seems to have taken no particular steps to set the voters straight. The Hyde Park Roosevelts (Row-see-velts) and the Oyster Bay Roosevelts (Rew-see-velts) were no closer than fifth counsins. They didn't even pronounce their family name the same way. But Franklin was said to have idolized T.R. and clearly set out to follow T.R.'s path, virtually to the letter. Indeed, Franklin's career path had mirrored T.R.'s career path to an almost eerie degree. T.R. went to prep school at Groton. Franklin attended Groton. T.R. then matriculated at Harvard. Franklin in turn chose Harvard. T.R. was Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Franklin became Assistant Secretary of the Navy. T.R. ran for and won the governorship of New York. Franklin ran for and won the governorship of New York. T.R. ran for Vice President under William McKinley. Franklin ran for Vice President in 1920 under James M. Cox. Franklin romantically pursued T.R.'s niece, Eleanor Roosevelt, which was surprising even to close friends and family members given Franklin's good looks and abundant charm and Eleanor's somewhat homely shyness. T.R. had famously attended Eleanor and Franklin's New York wedding in 1905 to give the bride away in his late brother's stead, the attendance of the President and his entourage drawing national attention to the nuptials of the young society couple. How much of Franklin's presumed ardor for the modest Eleanor was based on his budding political ambition and desire to link his political career to the popular T.R. is a question that history could reasonably ask. Especially in light of the way the marriage between Franklin and Eleanor ultimately played out.
By the time that Franklin and Eleanor entered the White House in 1933, a rift had long since developed between the Hyde Park branch of the family and the Oyster Bay branch. The bad feelings probably had root in Eleanor and Franklin's long time support for the Democratic Party. T.R., and his family, of course, Bull Moose digressions notwithstanding, were solidly Republican. But the essence of the dispute between the two branches of the family was the feeling of the Oyster Bay Roosevelts that Franklin had usurped the political career of Ted Roosevelt, whom the Oyster Bay clan had expected would follow in T.R.'s political footsteps. It was clear early on that Franklin intended to take advantage of his famous name and pursue a political career. Ted and older sister Alice Roosevelt, in particular, bitterly resented Franklin's attempt to assume the mantel of T.R. in the public eye.
T.R. died in 1919 at the relatively young age of 60. At that time both Ted and his cousin Franklin had ambitions of succeeding to his political legacy. Elected in 1910 from the district surrounding Hyde Park, largely on the strength of the Roosevelt name, Franklin had already served in the New York State legislature and by 1919 was in his post of Assistant Secretary of the Navy, where in his seven-year term he was in the process of carving out an impressive legacy of his own. Ted was just mustering out of the Army. Franklin, five years older than Ted, clearly had a head start in the political world.
Ted Roosevelt had followed his father and his cousin FDR in the post of Assistant Secretary of the Navy, appointed by President Harding. President Harding's election in 1920 came at the expense of FDR, who was the Democratic candidate for Vice President on a ticket with Ohio governor James M. Cox as Presidential candidate. The National Republican Committee had decided to ask Ted to follow his cousin around as he toured the west in an attempt to debunk Franklin's claims to be T.R.'s successor. Franklin was frequently exhibiting a toothy grin and using the word "Bully" at every opportunity. Ted Roosevelt made numerous speeches in support of the Democratic ticket, often suggesting that FDR was not a suitable candidate for Vice President and, in effect, not a "real" Roosevelt. Ted made numerous speeches in which he said that Franklin was a "maverick," "who does not have the brand of our family." In addition to resenting Franklin's attempt to claim his father's political legacy, no doubt Ted harbored some resentment of Franklin's lack of military service in World War I, when Franklin served in the civilian post of Assistant Secretary of the Navy while Ted served in the First Infantry Division in France being shot in the leg and gassed by the German army. TR himself had expressed disappointment that Franklin had not resigned his post as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and entered the military. Aided by the extensive efforts of Ted Roosevelt, the Harding-Coolidge ticket won in a landslide. President Harding's victory over the Cox-Roosevelt Democratic ticket enabled Ted to be appointed to the powerful post of Assistant Secretary of the Navy, the position formerly occupied by T.R. and later by Franklin. Although the Secretary of the Navy was nominally in charge, the post of Assistant Secretary of the Navy at that time effectively ran the Navy. Franklin was certainly not pleased that his own cousin had helped to assure his defeat in his first run for national office. The formerly cordial relations between the distant Roosevelt cousins, who had only limited contact during their growing up years now turned chilly to say the least. When Franklin contracted polio in 1921, it appeared that his political career was likely over. The Oyster Bay Roosevelts pushed forward with their plan to have Ted follow in his father's political footsteps. Ted ran for and was elected to the New York State Legislature. He was sworn in as a legislator on January 1, 1920.
The family tension erupted into an actual feud when Ted threw his hat in the ring for Governor of New York in 1924 against Democrat hero and incumbent Governor Alfred E. Smith. Eleanor at this time was beginning to assert herself on the political scene as women for the first time had become voters and became accordingly more interested in the political process. With Franklin's polio sidelining his political career, Eleanor took up the cause in large part as a place holder for Franklin, it being the great hope of Eleanor that Franklin would one day recover sufficiently to resume his political career. Eleanor was becoming more and more involved in Democratic Party politics and worked long and hard to get Al Smith elected Governor. She was not sparing in her negative comments about Ted Roosevelt's candidacy. One series of incidents in particular served to drive a wedge between the two branches of the Roosevelt clan. While serving in the Interior Department, Ted's name had been linked tangentially to the Teapot Dome Scandal. Although Ted was ultimately cleared by Congress of any wrongdoing, Eleanor and other Democrats eagerly used the Teapot Dome scandal to undermine Ted's gubernatorial candidacy. Eleanor had a special car rigged with a an oversized mock teapot on top of the car spewing steam out of its spout and carrying the written message that Ted was corrupt.. When Ted would be speaking in a small New York town square, Eleanor and her daughter would often drive the Teapot Dome car around the square honking the horn and spewing steam. When Ted lost the race for Governor of New York to Al Smith, Alice placed the blame for the end of her brother's political career squarely on Eleanor. Alice forever after blamed Eleanor for Ted's political demise. It is not hard to understand the resentment that Eleanor's later self-admitted "rough stunt" stirred in the Oyster Bay contingent, in particular in Ted and Alice.
Ted Roosevelt was serving as the appointed Governor General of the Philippines at the time of Franklin's election in 1932. It was widely speculated that Franklin would not extend Ted's appointment when he assumed office in 1933. When quizzed earlier by reporters as to his relationship with the new President, Ted quipped: "Fifth cousin, about to be removed." And removed he was. Indeed, when Ted's pro forma resignation was sent to the White House, the new President immediately "accepted" Ted's resignation.
So by 1933, Ted's political career, elected and appointed, was over. With Franklin holding the Oval Office until his death in April, 1945, Republican Ted Roosevelt would never again participate in civilian government as an office holder. And Princess Alice would be persona non grata at the White House she once dominated with her adventuresome personality. When the press once quizzed T.R. about Alice's escapades, T.R. told the press: "I can be President of the United States, or I can control Alice. I cannot possibly do both."
Although Ted was throughout his life a fairly easy going man, the same of course cannot be said for the infamously mercurial "Princess Alice." With regard to Eleanor's trailing Ted around the state in her teapot car, Alice told reporters that "It was a pretty base thing for her to do." Incurring the wrath of Alice Roosevelt Longworth was not something to be undertaken lightly. And Alice had resented Eleanor since they were little girls. When T.R.'s brother Elliot died at the age of 34 in 1894, making nine-year-old Eleanor an orphan, T.R. went out of his way to attempt to provide his young niece Eleanor with a father figure. For ten-year-old Alice, who already had developed the feeling that she did not have her father's complete attention, the perceived encroachment by little Eleanor, a girl of her same age, was a painful development. Alice carried a deep resentment of Eleanor for the rest of her life and, as only she could, made the gawky Eleanor's social life as uncomfortable as possible. While Eleanor would later dutifully invite Alice and husband Congressman Nicholas Longworth for dinner, Alice would reciprocate by inviting Franklin and his mistress Lucy Mercer to dinner at the Longworth house. She defended her actions by saying that Franklin "deserved a good time. He was married to Eleanor." The rift between Eleanor and Franklin and Ted and Alice would never fully be repaired and would simmer for decades. Alice Roosevelt Longworth would see to that.
By the time that Franklin and Eleanor entered the White House in 1933, a rift had long since developed between the Hyde Park branch of the family and the Oyster Bay branch. The bad feelings probably had root in Eleanor and Franklin's long time support for the Democratic Party. T.R., and his family, of course, Bull Moose digressions notwithstanding, were solidly Republican. But the essence of the dispute between the two branches of the family was the feeling of the Oyster Bay Roosevelts that Franklin had usurped the political career of Ted Roosevelt, whom the Oyster Bay clan had expected would follow in T.R.'s political footsteps. It was clear early on that Franklin intended to take advantage of his famous name and pursue a political career. Ted and older sister Alice Roosevelt, in particular, bitterly resented Franklin's attempt to assume the mantel of T.R. in the public eye.
T.R. died in 1919 at the relatively young age of 60. At that time both Ted and his cousin Franklin had ambitions of succeeding to his political legacy. Elected in 1910 from the district surrounding Hyde Park, largely on the strength of the Roosevelt name, Franklin had already served in the New York State legislature and by 1919 was in his post of Assistant Secretary of the Navy, where in his seven-year term he was in the process of carving out an impressive legacy of his own. Ted was just mustering out of the Army. Franklin, five years older than Ted, clearly had a head start in the political world.
Ted Roosevelt had followed his father and his cousin FDR in the post of Assistant Secretary of the Navy, appointed by President Harding. President Harding's election in 1920 came at the expense of FDR, who was the Democratic candidate for Vice President on a ticket with Ohio governor James M. Cox as Presidential candidate. The National Republican Committee had decided to ask Ted to follow his cousin around as he toured the west in an attempt to debunk Franklin's claims to be T.R.'s successor. Franklin was frequently exhibiting a toothy grin and using the word "Bully" at every opportunity. Ted Roosevelt made numerous speeches in support of the Democratic ticket, often suggesting that FDR was not a suitable candidate for Vice President and, in effect, not a "real" Roosevelt. Ted made numerous speeches in which he said that Franklin was a "maverick," "who does not have the brand of our family." In addition to resenting Franklin's attempt to claim his father's political legacy, no doubt Ted harbored some resentment of Franklin's lack of military service in World War I, when Franklin served in the civilian post of Assistant Secretary of the Navy while Ted served in the First Infantry Division in France being shot in the leg and gassed by the German army. TR himself had expressed disappointment that Franklin had not resigned his post as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and entered the military. Aided by the extensive efforts of Ted Roosevelt, the Harding-Coolidge ticket won in a landslide. President Harding's victory over the Cox-Roosevelt Democratic ticket enabled Ted to be appointed to the powerful post of Assistant Secretary of the Navy, the position formerly occupied by T.R. and later by Franklin. Although the Secretary of the Navy was nominally in charge, the post of Assistant Secretary of the Navy at that time effectively ran the Navy. Franklin was certainly not pleased that his own cousin had helped to assure his defeat in his first run for national office. The formerly cordial relations between the distant Roosevelt cousins, who had only limited contact during their growing up years now turned chilly to say the least. When Franklin contracted polio in 1921, it appeared that his political career was likely over. The Oyster Bay Roosevelts pushed forward with their plan to have Ted follow in his father's political footsteps. Ted ran for and was elected to the New York State Legislature. He was sworn in as a legislator on January 1, 1920.
The family tension erupted into an actual feud when Ted threw his hat in the ring for Governor of New York in 1924 against Democrat hero and incumbent Governor Alfred E. Smith. Eleanor at this time was beginning to assert herself on the political scene as women for the first time had become voters and became accordingly more interested in the political process. With Franklin's polio sidelining his political career, Eleanor took up the cause in large part as a place holder for Franklin, it being the great hope of Eleanor that Franklin would one day recover sufficiently to resume his political career. Eleanor was becoming more and more involved in Democratic Party politics and worked long and hard to get Al Smith elected Governor. She was not sparing in her negative comments about Ted Roosevelt's candidacy. One series of incidents in particular served to drive a wedge between the two branches of the Roosevelt clan. While serving in the Interior Department, Ted's name had been linked tangentially to the Teapot Dome Scandal. Although Ted was ultimately cleared by Congress of any wrongdoing, Eleanor and other Democrats eagerly used the Teapot Dome scandal to undermine Ted's gubernatorial candidacy. Eleanor had a special car rigged with a an oversized mock teapot on top of the car spewing steam out of its spout and carrying the written message that Ted was corrupt.. When Ted would be speaking in a small New York town square, Eleanor and her daughter would often drive the Teapot Dome car around the square honking the horn and spewing steam. When Ted lost the race for Governor of New York to Al Smith, Alice placed the blame for the end of her brother's political career squarely on Eleanor. Alice forever after blamed Eleanor for Ted's political demise. It is not hard to understand the resentment that Eleanor's later self-admitted "rough stunt" stirred in the Oyster Bay contingent, in particular in Ted and Alice.
Ted Roosevelt was serving as the appointed Governor General of the Philippines at the time of Franklin's election in 1932. It was widely speculated that Franklin would not extend Ted's appointment when he assumed office in 1933. When quizzed earlier by reporters as to his relationship with the new President, Ted quipped: "Fifth cousin, about to be removed." And removed he was. Indeed, when Ted's pro forma resignation was sent to the White House, the new President immediately "accepted" Ted's resignation.
So by 1933, Ted's political career, elected and appointed, was over. With Franklin holding the Oval Office until his death in April, 1945, Republican Ted Roosevelt would never again participate in civilian government as an office holder. And Princess Alice would be persona non grata at the White House she once dominated with her adventuresome personality. When the press once quizzed T.R. about Alice's escapades, T.R. told the press: "I can be President of the United States, or I can control Alice. I cannot possibly do both."
Although Ted was throughout his life a fairly easy going man, the same of course cannot be said for the infamously mercurial "Princess Alice." With regard to Eleanor's trailing Ted around the state in her teapot car, Alice told reporters that "It was a pretty base thing for her to do." Incurring the wrath of Alice Roosevelt Longworth was not something to be undertaken lightly. And Alice had resented Eleanor since they were little girls. When T.R.'s brother Elliot died at the age of 34 in 1894, making nine-year-old Eleanor an orphan, T.R. went out of his way to attempt to provide his young niece Eleanor with a father figure. For ten-year-old Alice, who already had developed the feeling that she did not have her father's complete attention, the perceived encroachment by little Eleanor, a girl of her same age, was a painful development. Alice carried a deep resentment of Eleanor for the rest of her life and, as only she could, made the gawky Eleanor's social life as uncomfortable as possible. While Eleanor would later dutifully invite Alice and husband Congressman Nicholas Longworth for dinner, Alice would reciprocate by inviting Franklin and his mistress Lucy Mercer to dinner at the Longworth house. She defended her actions by saying that Franklin "deserved a good time. He was married to Eleanor." The rift between Eleanor and Franklin and Ted and Alice would never fully be repaired and would simmer for decades. Alice Roosevelt Longworth would see to that.
Monday, July 14, 2014
Is Barrack Obama the worst President since World War II?
Almost every day I read a letter to the editor or a post on Facebook making wild claims about who Barrack Obama is and his performance and goals as President. He is a secret Muslim born in Kenya who is not actually the duly elected President. He is a radical Socialist who is trying to subvert American society and turn us into a Socialist--or Communist--country. He is a power-mad dictator who is lawless and running amok over the Constitution. His administration is shot through with scandal after scandal. The country is in terrible shape and it's all his fault. He is the worst President since World War II. His "feckless" foreign policy is allowing the forces or evil in the world to run wild in the face of U.S. recalcitrance to act. He does not have the best interests of America at heart. And lately, he should be impeached. And if not impeached, then sued by the Congress for overreaching on Executive Orders and other things.
I voted for President Obama twice. I have to say that I have been somewhat disappointed in his performance in office. My disappointment is primarily related to how conservative he has in fact been. The big issue in my mind is Global Warming and Climate Change and I don't think he has emphasized this problem as much as he should. I also question the overuse of drones and the CIA overseas. However, in general, I think that President Obama has been taking the right approach on domestic and foreign affairs. I have seen President Obama compared to President Eisenhower and I think that is an apt comparison. He is no more a radical socialist than Ike was. Measured historically against other Presidents, he is actually pretty middle-of-the-road in his approach to governing. What is see is a young man who grew up a Christian, an American through and through, who got himself educated at Columbia and Harvard Law School and married a lovely and accomplished lady and began raising a fine family. There were no real skeletons in his closet other than maybe smoking some marijuana, which at this point is looking pretty tame. Certainly he didn't have the rap sheet of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush as a young man. From what I can tell, putting the Fox news and Rush Limbaugh crowd's howling aside, he is an essentially admirable man who has tried to do his best to steer the country in a better direction.
I see a President who has patiently attempted to work with the Republican opposition, who from the get go announced that denying him a second term was the primary goal of the Republican Congressional delegations in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. Republicans have ended up opposing what were in fact their own proposals simply because the President came out in support of their legislation. "We can't give him a win," has been the mantra repeated for over six years now, no matter how reasonable or necessary the proposed legislation. The Filibuster has been used more in the past six years than in the previous hundred. Virtually every proposal and every appointee has been filibustered by the Republican minority. Republicans were recently successful in having the Supreme Court rule against some of the President's "recess appointments," made when he deemed Congress not in session. The was called high handed by the Republican Senate delegation and the Supreme Court agreed that such appointments were not legal. However, many people forget that the reason for the "recess appointments" was that Republicans have refused to confirm numerous Presidential appointments in the Executive Branch to the point that some agencies cannot even function. For instance, the National Labor Relations Board has been short members for quite some time to the effect that there is not a quorum to permit the NLRB to carry out its legislatively mandated duties. The President tried to use what authority he thought he had to get people in place to run the government. The real villains to me are the Republican extremists who have clearly put their own personal and party interests ahead of the good of the country. It's obvious that they are intent upon making President Obama look bad even if it harms the country in the process. They have been way over the line since day one.
The various "scandals" so trumpeted by the right pretty much amount to peanuts when examined. The great Benghazi investigative fiasco has so far yielded precious little to justify the time and money spent by Republicans, clearly searching for an issue to use on Hillary Clinton, expected to run for and win the Presidency in 2016. The big scandal to me is that the Republicans cut the funding for embassy security before Benghazi and then have run around trying to find something to blame on the President and Secretary Clinton. The more they investigate, the weaker their claims appear to be. The rest of the scandals seem to me to be pretty thin, if not outright silly.
So if you don't agree with President Obama's agenda, that's certainly within your rights. However, I think the constant hysterical hair pulling over perceptions of the President that are not based on reality only weakens the arguments of the Right. Almost all of the Sarah Palin type of criticisms of the President can be easily debunked. I will respect any criticism of President Obama that is thoughtful and realistic but the Kenya/Radical Liberal/Gun Hating/Socialist/ Muslim/America hater doesn't really exist and I am truly tired of hearing this sort of tripe and having the speakers lay this out as if it were factual criticism.
And how anybody can rate President Obama lower on the President scale that President George W. Bush is beyond imagination. George W. Bush did more harm to this country and to the world in general than any elected official in American history. Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives wasted on a pointless war in Iraq is enough in itself to earn G.W. Bush the "Worst Ever" title. President Obama is not perfect but he hasn't started any new wars of choice and that for me puts him far ahead of his predecessor.
I voted for President Obama twice. I have to say that I have been somewhat disappointed in his performance in office. My disappointment is primarily related to how conservative he has in fact been. The big issue in my mind is Global Warming and Climate Change and I don't think he has emphasized this problem as much as he should. I also question the overuse of drones and the CIA overseas. However, in general, I think that President Obama has been taking the right approach on domestic and foreign affairs. I have seen President Obama compared to President Eisenhower and I think that is an apt comparison. He is no more a radical socialist than Ike was. Measured historically against other Presidents, he is actually pretty middle-of-the-road in his approach to governing. What is see is a young man who grew up a Christian, an American through and through, who got himself educated at Columbia and Harvard Law School and married a lovely and accomplished lady and began raising a fine family. There were no real skeletons in his closet other than maybe smoking some marijuana, which at this point is looking pretty tame. Certainly he didn't have the rap sheet of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush as a young man. From what I can tell, putting the Fox news and Rush Limbaugh crowd's howling aside, he is an essentially admirable man who has tried to do his best to steer the country in a better direction.
I see a President who has patiently attempted to work with the Republican opposition, who from the get go announced that denying him a second term was the primary goal of the Republican Congressional delegations in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. Republicans have ended up opposing what were in fact their own proposals simply because the President came out in support of their legislation. "We can't give him a win," has been the mantra repeated for over six years now, no matter how reasonable or necessary the proposed legislation. The Filibuster has been used more in the past six years than in the previous hundred. Virtually every proposal and every appointee has been filibustered by the Republican minority. Republicans were recently successful in having the Supreme Court rule against some of the President's "recess appointments," made when he deemed Congress not in session. The was called high handed by the Republican Senate delegation and the Supreme Court agreed that such appointments were not legal. However, many people forget that the reason for the "recess appointments" was that Republicans have refused to confirm numerous Presidential appointments in the Executive Branch to the point that some agencies cannot even function. For instance, the National Labor Relations Board has been short members for quite some time to the effect that there is not a quorum to permit the NLRB to carry out its legislatively mandated duties. The President tried to use what authority he thought he had to get people in place to run the government. The real villains to me are the Republican extremists who have clearly put their own personal and party interests ahead of the good of the country. It's obvious that they are intent upon making President Obama look bad even if it harms the country in the process. They have been way over the line since day one.
The various "scandals" so trumpeted by the right pretty much amount to peanuts when examined. The great Benghazi investigative fiasco has so far yielded precious little to justify the time and money spent by Republicans, clearly searching for an issue to use on Hillary Clinton, expected to run for and win the Presidency in 2016. The big scandal to me is that the Republicans cut the funding for embassy security before Benghazi and then have run around trying to find something to blame on the President and Secretary Clinton. The more they investigate, the weaker their claims appear to be. The rest of the scandals seem to me to be pretty thin, if not outright silly.
So if you don't agree with President Obama's agenda, that's certainly within your rights. However, I think the constant hysterical hair pulling over perceptions of the President that are not based on reality only weakens the arguments of the Right. Almost all of the Sarah Palin type of criticisms of the President can be easily debunked. I will respect any criticism of President Obama that is thoughtful and realistic but the Kenya/Radical Liberal/Gun Hating/Socialist/ Muslim/America hater doesn't really exist and I am truly tired of hearing this sort of tripe and having the speakers lay this out as if it were factual criticism.
And how anybody can rate President Obama lower on the President scale that President George W. Bush is beyond imagination. George W. Bush did more harm to this country and to the world in general than any elected official in American history. Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives wasted on a pointless war in Iraq is enough in itself to earn G.W. Bush the "Worst Ever" title. President Obama is not perfect but he hasn't started any new wars of choice and that for me puts him far ahead of his predecessor.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Leviticus had a Phd in Human Biology?
We have heard a lot of discussion about gay marriage recently. I continue to hear that "Christians" don't believe in gay marriage and believe that same sex relationships are sinful and strongly disapproved of by God. Our old friend Leviticus seems to be the source of this thinking. Nobody really knows who composed Leviticus. I am certainly a Free Thinker and I have a hard time with the idea that modern people would let their thinking be dominated by what an unknown scribe wrote down thousands of years ago. To assume that whoever wrote Leviticus was speaking for God is a real stretch in my opinion. The idea that since the writing is ancient and since millions and millions of people accept it, it must be true, holds no particular persuasive power for me. I look at such a claim the way most "Christians" look at Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. The only difference in Leviticus and the Book of Mormon that I can see is that Leviticus wrote down his stuff a long time before Joseph Smith came up with his.
In any event, I realize that the jury is still out on whether homosexuality is biological or simply a lifestyle choice. Based on my experience, I think that homosexuality has to be based on biology. When I was a little boy I started noticing girls. I have been noticing them ever since. I didn't choose to be drawn to girls rather than boys. My attraction to girls started spontaneously when I was a small boy. I think that sexuality is a drive that comes from deep within our primitive brains. I don't believe that some course offered by a church group could convince me to be attracted to men over women. I don't think my lifelong interest in females could be "cured" by a course of study or by any amount of persuasion. I think that I am just simply wired that way. The sight of The Bachelor shirtless on a beach never has and never will send a thrill through my body.
So I have to assume that people who have a sexual attraction to members of their own gender are wired that way too. Nothing I have ever read or observed leads me to believe that people voluntarily choose to go against their basic inner drives regarding sex. I think the basic drive is entirely too strong and compelling to be subject to that sort of voluntary choice. And as a practical matter, who in their right mind would choose homosexuality in the social environment we live in today. Although society has certainly become more tolerant of same sex relationships, there is still clearly a stigma on the LGBT community in the eyes of many. That is in my opinion very unfortunate but it remains the actual fact in 2014.
So, in my mind, if God created humans, and in my mind that is a great big IF, then He surely is responsible for all of us. He made most of us heterosexual and he made a few of us homosexual. If we have basic wiring in our brains that determines our sexual orientation, and I think we do, then it seems to me that God is responsible for his own handiwork and would not discriminate against his own creations. If he does "hate gays," as the Westboro Baptists and others claim, then he certainly isn't a very fair minded deity and his example is not worthy of emulation.
So for people who call themselves "Christians" to make the claim that God himself has taken a position condemning gay people or gay marriage, I think that to convince me of that are going to need at the very least some strong scientific evidence that demonstrates that sexual orientation is simply a personal preference rather than a fundamental determination of basic human biology. Until then, I am going to believe that God/Nature made us all as we are and believe that gay people should be extended the same rights and respect as anyone else.
In any event, I realize that the jury is still out on whether homosexuality is biological or simply a lifestyle choice. Based on my experience, I think that homosexuality has to be based on biology. When I was a little boy I started noticing girls. I have been noticing them ever since. I didn't choose to be drawn to girls rather than boys. My attraction to girls started spontaneously when I was a small boy. I think that sexuality is a drive that comes from deep within our primitive brains. I don't believe that some course offered by a church group could convince me to be attracted to men over women. I don't think my lifelong interest in females could be "cured" by a course of study or by any amount of persuasion. I think that I am just simply wired that way. The sight of The Bachelor shirtless on a beach never has and never will send a thrill through my body.
So I have to assume that people who have a sexual attraction to members of their own gender are wired that way too. Nothing I have ever read or observed leads me to believe that people voluntarily choose to go against their basic inner drives regarding sex. I think the basic drive is entirely too strong and compelling to be subject to that sort of voluntary choice. And as a practical matter, who in their right mind would choose homosexuality in the social environment we live in today. Although society has certainly become more tolerant of same sex relationships, there is still clearly a stigma on the LGBT community in the eyes of many. That is in my opinion very unfortunate but it remains the actual fact in 2014.
So, in my mind, if God created humans, and in my mind that is a great big IF, then He surely is responsible for all of us. He made most of us heterosexual and he made a few of us homosexual. If we have basic wiring in our brains that determines our sexual orientation, and I think we do, then it seems to me that God is responsible for his own handiwork and would not discriminate against his own creations. If he does "hate gays," as the Westboro Baptists and others claim, then he certainly isn't a very fair minded deity and his example is not worthy of emulation.
So for people who call themselves "Christians" to make the claim that God himself has taken a position condemning gay people or gay marriage, I think that to convince me of that are going to need at the very least some strong scientific evidence that demonstrates that sexual orientation is simply a personal preference rather than a fundamental determination of basic human biology. Until then, I am going to believe that God/Nature made us all as we are and believe that gay people should be extended the same rights and respect as anyone else.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Sabotage
With three years to go in President Barack Obama's term of office, it appears that the Republican Party, driven to no small extent by the Tea Party factions, fully intends to continue its campaign of obstruction and sabotage of our economy and our country. Sabotage is a very strong term but it clearly applies to the conduct of the Republicans and Tea Party factions over the past five years. The plan was clear from the outset of President Obama's administration and was freely admitted to by Minority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell. The Number One Goal of the Republican Party was to deny President Obama a second term, said McConnell. Numerous times we have heard Republicans say that their obstructionist tactics were necessary because "we can't give him a win." President Obama came into office saying he wanted to get past partisan politics and work with the Republicans. This approach was met with resistance and obstruction so extreme that Republican legislators sometimes ended up opposing bills that they themselves had sponsored, simply because the President thought the legislation was a good idea and expressed support. After the recent State of the Union address by the President,, who called once again for bipartisan action to consider needed legislation to solve major problems, the Republicans were widely heard whining that the President had stated that "it was either his way or the highway," and that such an attitude would not result in cooperation from the loyal opposition.
The Republicans and Tea Party legislators apparently think that the American public is made up of idiots, forgetful idiots at that. How can these people so clearly oppose anything and everything Obama or Democrat and then with straight faces insist that the Obama Administration won't cooperate with THEM? A good example is the government shutdown of 2013. Tea Party types drove this misadventure to try to extort changes in the Affordable Care Act that they couldn't swing though the legitimate legislative process. When their bluffs were called, they eventually threw in the towel. Now Senator Ted Cruz tells us that the Administration shut down the government, not disgruntled Tea Partiers. Do they really think that we don't remember what happened to cause the government shutdown.
When Governor Romney and the Republicans/Tea Party lost the 2012 election by a significant margin, one would think that they would rethink their program of sabotage. What would making President Obama look bad do for them after all? He got reelected. He can't run again. What good does it do them to continue their disreputable program of obstruction and negativity on every imaginable issue? What I see is a party that has one constituency and one constituency only. Wealthy people and large corporations and banks. They have only a one-size-fits-all approach to economic issues: tax cuts. What I see is a party that is dishonest in its intentions and in its theories of government and economics. What I see is a party that is willing, again and again, to put self-interest and party politics above the best interests of our country and our people. What I see is a party willing to sabotage our economy so that they can come to the next election and blame the incumbent Democrat. Now President Obama and the Democratic Party have not offered the perfect solutions to all of our national problems. In many ways, I have been disappointed in the President, for whom I have voted twice. However, I do believe that he has had the best interests of his country at heart during his term of office, despite the wild claims of the lunatic fringe. In my judgment, when we have public officeholders who put concern for their party ahead of the good of the country--and clearly know that they are doing exactly that--then those officeholders lack the most basic requirement for holding public office in this country. At least give us people who will try to do the right thing.
The Republicans and Tea Party legislators apparently think that the American public is made up of idiots, forgetful idiots at that. How can these people so clearly oppose anything and everything Obama or Democrat and then with straight faces insist that the Obama Administration won't cooperate with THEM? A good example is the government shutdown of 2013. Tea Party types drove this misadventure to try to extort changes in the Affordable Care Act that they couldn't swing though the legitimate legislative process. When their bluffs were called, they eventually threw in the towel. Now Senator Ted Cruz tells us that the Administration shut down the government, not disgruntled Tea Partiers. Do they really think that we don't remember what happened to cause the government shutdown.
When Governor Romney and the Republicans/Tea Party lost the 2012 election by a significant margin, one would think that they would rethink their program of sabotage. What would making President Obama look bad do for them after all? He got reelected. He can't run again. What good does it do them to continue their disreputable program of obstruction and negativity on every imaginable issue? What I see is a party that has one constituency and one constituency only. Wealthy people and large corporations and banks. They have only a one-size-fits-all approach to economic issues: tax cuts. What I see is a party that is dishonest in its intentions and in its theories of government and economics. What I see is a party that is willing, again and again, to put self-interest and party politics above the best interests of our country and our people. What I see is a party willing to sabotage our economy so that they can come to the next election and blame the incumbent Democrat. Now President Obama and the Democratic Party have not offered the perfect solutions to all of our national problems. In many ways, I have been disappointed in the President, for whom I have voted twice. However, I do believe that he has had the best interests of his country at heart during his term of office, despite the wild claims of the lunatic fringe. In my judgment, when we have public officeholders who put concern for their party ahead of the good of the country--and clearly know that they are doing exactly that--then those officeholders lack the most basic requirement for holding public office in this country. At least give us people who will try to do the right thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)