Category: Uncategorized

Categories
Uncategorized

The Cruellest Month?

April is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.

Thus sayeth T. S. Eliot in his poem The Waste Land. Eliot, like most poets, was a bit of a mope. Anyone who can make melancholy of springtime lilacs and roots beginning to grow anew might be a candidate for Prozac or lithium. Still, his words made me wonder and ponder whether he had a point.
A hasty search of references does not reveal significantly more or less notable events, births, or deaths during April. It is, however, the month the American Revolution began with the “shot heard ‘round the world” on April 19, in which the Civil War began (and ended), the sinking of the Titanic, and in our own time, the Oklahoma City bombing. It probably was the month in which the Crucifixion as well as the Passover & Resurrection occurred. On the more whimsical side, it begins by celebrating fools, and there is no other month which so validates the adage that Texas weather changes hourly. Back to melancholy, mid-month is when individuals account to the IRS for the income tax, and the more productive of us actually pay some.

It’s also the last full month of the school year

Happy April 2012 to all.

Categories
Uncategorized

Is Jumping to Conclusions or Flying Off the Handle Good Exercise?

Normally I do not weigh in on ongoing criminal investigations no matter how newsworthy or apt for discussion. Making a bad situation where particles of selected information are bandied about as mathematicaly certain facts is unproductive and wrong. The Sanford, Florida shooting of one Trayvon Martin has become such a frenzy over the past week, however, that I make an exception to discuss the appalling rush to judgment.  I am particularly distressed because our own Dallas Morning News on this past Friday’s editorial page called, not merely for the investigation, but the prosecution of the alleged shooter George Zimmerman. There have been other commentators in the print and electronic media, some of whom I generally respect, who have done likewise. When one is not privy to complete information about a possible criminal act, they should keep their mouth shut, pen in their pocket, or keyboard unplugged insofar as opining on what should be done to or with an alleged perpetrator.
I can speak with some authority because I have been a big city police officer, patrol and criminal investigator, and a lawyer for more than 20 years. Most of my practice is civil, but I have some experience in criminal law, both in state and federal courts. We have all heard that facts are stubborn things. That is correct. What is most stubborn about them is that they are often difficult to ferret out, and are usually incomplete, uncertain, contested, and colored by differing points of view. Sorting out the ambiguities is the job of nearly anyone in any occupation that requires analytical thinking, which means most of us on at least some level. But no other occupation requires the split second analysis and action that is required of first responders such as patrol officers, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians. They don’t always get it right. Detectives, lawyers, and others have it a lot easier, because they have the luxury of time to look, evaluate, consider and reconsider alternate hypotheses before making a decision.
Reasonable persons can debate the merits of Florida’s (and many other states) self defense law, but it is the law. Some politicians supportive of the law have opined that it has no application in the Sanford case. That has not yet been established, so they should heed the zip the lip doctrine articulated above. What the law – the U.S. Constitution, in fact – requires in all cases is that a search or seizure, that is, an arrest, cannot occur unless probable cause exists. The courts have defined probable cause as facts and circumstances sufficient within themselves that would cause a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed and the person arrested committed the crime. State constitutions and statutes may impose more stringent requirements to make an arrest. For example, here in Texas absent exigent circumstances, an arrest warrant is required. (I do not know what Florida law is in this regard, and I have not seen or heard anyone articulate it.) An exigent circumstance can be the necessity to positively identify the alleged perpetrator or a reasonable belief he might flee and hide.
Before one can be brought to trial by the federal government, and in most, but not all, states (including Texas, and I believe Florida), a grand jury must present an indictment. And, as most of us know, one cannot be convicted of any crime except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt. One is entitled to a jury to determine that proof. In Texas, if a defense is asserted and evidence of it is presented, the prosecution has the burden to negate.
Given the sketchy information and facts known at this time, it is entirely plausible that the Sanford police made the right call by not arresting George Zimmerman. Under the circumstances, a warrant may have been required under Florida law. It is also possible they could have but chose not to do so because they knew who he was, where he lived, and he was not a flight risk. One of the stated purposes of the various “castle doctrine” or “stand your ground” laws was to not put the expense and burden of having to defend oneself for the use of deadly force unless it is abundantly clear such use was not justified. In the murky situation described, despite what editorial writers and pundits have to say, that clarity does not yet exist.
I fully, unequivocally support the absolutist freedom of speech and of the press doctrine as it has been established in American jurisprudence. An unavoidable cost of this freedom is the tendency to try in the public media a criminal case that touches a nerve of the population, or a significant segment thereof. Relatively recent examples were the murder trials of Casey Anthony (in Orlando, only one county over from Sanford) and O.J. Simpson. Both were acquitted, possibly in part because many in the media were so cocksure of their guilt. Other unsympathetic defendants have been tried in the press and convicted, some sentenced to death and executed. Most of those were probably guilty anyway. Even so, the lynch-mob mentality must not be allowed to rule the day. Quite a few of those currently expressing outrage had ancestors vulnerable to, if not victims of, lynch mobs, as well as media circuses that were the equivalent. Turnabout may be fair play in some venues, but not in criminal justice if some semblance of civilization is to endure.
As for the conduct of the Sanford Police Department is concerned, commentator Michael Kinsley is reported to have defined “gaffe” as when a politician accidently tells the truth. I regard reports of a “botched investigation” as one that does not elicit the facts that fits one’s prejudices.
As far as George Zimmerman is concerned, he has not said anything since the day in question. That is the only sane thing for him to do, and a Constitutional right. If I were his lawyer, I would advise him not to say anything even remotely connected with the incident – to anyone. Let the lawyer be his mouthpiece. (Good advice to anyone being interviewed by law enforcement officers. If they think you are a suspect, they’ll try to get you to admit to possibly incriminating facts. I know; I’ve done it.)
As far as Trayvon Martin’s family is concerned, I offer my condolences. It is profoundly sad to lose a loved one under any circumstances. I am not making any judgment of any kind at this time.

Postscript

As a postscript, I offer the following observations about getting the facts right, and several reasons to be skeptical of media reports:

the Tawana Brawley rape hoax. Al Sharpton was sued for his culpability and paid a $65,000 judgment.

the Duke University Lacrosse Team scandal. The prosecutor faced the same kind of pressure to go after students there that Florida is. In the end, the students turned out to be innocent and the prosecutor was disbarred and convicted.

the Representative Giffords Arizona shooting. The media blamed this on gun rights advocates immediately after it happened. It turned out the shooter was more left-wing oriented than conservative and had a personal grudge against Giffords rather than a political motivation.
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Chief Judge Sharon Keller was lynched in the media for allegedly preventing a condemned murderer from presenting his case to the court at the last minute. The Special Master who did the investigation of the alleged misconduct had this to say: “[Judge Keller’s accusers] in essence tried this case through the media…the media’s reporting began with minor inaccuracies and became more and more embellished, leading to plainly false assumptions about Judge Keller’s role…”.
the Henry Louis Gates arrest. He verbally abused a police officer in public who had come to investigate a report of Gates’ house being burglarized. The media attempted to turn him into a saint for doing it.
On a more personal note, I gave a number of interviews to the media when I was a police officer, and was misquoted or inaccurately paraphrased several times. I’ll give one example, because it shows how facts can be literally reported but the wrong impression given. Late one evening I was called to a shooting in a bar. I arrested a 17 year old (legally an adult form criminal purposes) for shooting her boyfriend. When I was filling out the arrest report, I asked her for her occupation and employment. She said she was a student at ******* High School. That’s what I put in the report. Turned out she was technically enrolled, but had not attended since the first week of school that year. When asked by a reporter, I related that was what the arrested woman said. The headline for the story the next day said “17 Year Old ******* High School Student in Shooting.” I’m sure the faculty and students of that school really appreciated that publicity. (Turned out that the boyfriend, who was 10 years her senior, probably deserved it. She pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault and got probation.)
Categories
Uncategorized

The Costliest War

The main reason the “War on Drugs” in the U.S. has continued long past any prospect of winning is that it cuts across ideological lines. The right sees it as a moral issue; the left as a public health and welfare issue. Both also see it as an aesthetic matter, although from different vantage points.
The history of alcoholic beverage Prohibition shows a similar ideological alignment. It was a major part of the Progressive agenda 100 years ago. The most conservative of churches backed it. That coalition was strong enough to amend the U.S. Constitution – political heavy lifting in any case.
For the past quarter century, there has been a growing recognition that the War on Drugs is lost, and it has not been worth fighting to begin with.
In 1993, American Heritage magazine published point-counterpoint articles about history’s answers to the supposed benefits and detriments to prohibition of use of mood altering drugs. The answer for those willing to consider the evidence was that prior to 1914, the year opiates were first controlled by state and federal governments, there was a small subset of persons addicted and thereby harmed. Today, in spite of Draconian penalties, and hyper-aggressive enforcement measures, that subset has grown, not diminished.
Steven B. Duke, Yale University Law Professor said in 1993 “The only benefit to America in maintaining prohibition is the psychic comfort we derive from having a permanent scapegoat. But why did we have to pick an enemy the warring against which is so self-destructive? We would be better off blaming our ills on celestial invaders flying about in saucers.”
William F. Buckley, Jr., founder and publisher of the National Review said in 1995: “We are speaking of a plague that consumes an estimated $75 billion per year of public money, exacts an estimated $70 billion a year from consumers, is responsible for nearly 50 per cent of the million Americans who are today in jail, occupies an estimated 50 per cent of the trial time of our judiciary, and takes the time of 400,000 policemen – yet a plague for which no cure is at hand, nor in prospect.”
Nearly 20 years later, the U.S. has 760 prisoners per 100,000 citizens. By comparison, Great Britain, one of the highest elsewhere, has 153. In 1980, when the war was in its infancy, the U.S. had a prison population of 153 per 100,000. More than half of federal prisoners today are in for drug convictions – many serving sentences one would consider excessive for crimes that actually harmed other persons. Four out of five drug arrests are simply for possession. My appointments from the Criminal Justice Act panel for the Northern District of Texas were mostly for defense of drug charges. (More to the point, they were exercises in calculating sentencing ranges under the federal guidelines and working to get the best plea bargain.)
Why does the drug war continue? Fareed Zakaria, writing in this week’s Time magazine, opines that, at least in part, building, staffing, and running prisons is big business and an economic boon. I am not sure I buy that, although when visiting to the Dallas County criminal courts building on any given day one can observe a massive workforce, and inspection of the court dockets reveals that more than 50 percent of the cases are controlled substance offenses of one kind or another. One cannot discount the economic impact. Decriminalizing possession and use of all controlled substances overnight would put a lot of people out of work, at least for a while. Economics cannot be the whole story. I believe a large part of continued prohibition is that controlled substances are a bogeyman (aside: help me out here, Gary B. – “bogeymen” doesn’t sound right but seems to be correct in agreement). There is a fear of the consequences of decriminalization. The specter of stoned drivers roaring down the streets and highways, opium dens, and the like is scary. Well, we have a lot of that now.
Perhaps a gradual program decriminalization would work. Marijuana is for medicinal purposes is legal in many states, and it my understanding that the federal DEA is not interested in enforcing the contrary federal laws too vigorously. That could change overnight, however. In the meantime, the futility of the War on Drugs continues. What can we do? For now, write your Congressman is the best suggestion I have.
Categories
Uncategorized

Live Free or Die? – Not Exactly

Gay rights advocates are declaring victory after New Hampshire’s failed attempt at repealing its gay marriage law, saying it resounds in a region where opponents have concentrated efforts to reverse momentum.

The state House voted Wednesday to kill the measure.  See here.
Same-sex marriage is legal in New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and Washington, D.C.
Apparently, New Hampshire was the first state to make gay marriage legal, and it did so on its own; that is, without prodding from activists. NH, of course, is on in the vanguard of libertarianism – “Live Free or Die!”
Voters have overturned gay marriage laws in California and Maine. A federal appeals court declared California’s ban to be unconstitutional, and the matter could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Prior to the secularization of Western Civilization marriage was the purview of the church, not the state. Of course, in pre-modern societies, church and state authority overlapped, often with unhappy effects. They still do in some contemporary civilizations – mostly those we Americans would not want any part of.
Perhaps the solution that will pacify most – not all, of course – would be to get the state out of the “marriage” business period. Everyone can have a civil union if they wish and the legal aspects would rule under that rubric. Those who want to be “married” can call their civil union a “marriage” socially and religiously (and clergy, as well as civil officers can officiate). Property and inheritance rights can be defined without calling the relationship a “marriage” legally. Most issues between spouses come up upon dissolution, so child support and custody issues that occur upon the dissolution of a civil union could be handled by legal processes.
One thing that is abundantly clear, most of the social problems involving sex occur because unwanted children are the by-products. Those are inherently heterosexual in nature. Same sex partners do not together produce unwanted children. Maybe the solution there is to make a civil union come into existence as a matter of law when unmarried/not civilly united heterosexuals have a biological child together.  That would make the act referred to as the consummation would actually become the commencement.  Might discourage some hanky-panky, or perhaps not.
Categories
Uncategorized

Bogeymen and the Supreme Court

Judging by the number of lobbyists employed by insurance industry organizations, those whose business is writing medical care insurance policies were some of the most avid proponents of the legislation popularly known as Obamacare. I recall listening to an interview on NPR with the CEO of Aetna, one of the largest medical coverage insurers. The prospect of a huge number of additional premium payers that the individual mandate would bring made him palpably giddy.
One of the favorite categories of bogeymen in this country is the insurance industry. Insurance companies tend to be unpopular because most seem to have a lot of money, which, of course is necessary if they are going to be able to pay claims without going bankrupt. Also, the only contact most of us have with them is when we pay premiums. The rare instance when an insured suffers a loss is the only time the insurance company pays. Quite often we the perception is that the payment is inadequate. Insurance claims are occasionally denied or limited as not being within the scope of the risk assumed. Again, often we believe that denial or limitation is unfair. We have all heard the lament that insurance companies love to take your money, but are loathe to pay a claim. This is all primarily a result of policyholders’ failure to read and understand what risks are being covered. Few document have language as arcane as insurance contract, though most now define terms that have special meaning. There is also the regulatory mechanism that forces most consumer policies to contain inclusions and exclusions mandated by government regulators. Those regulatory agencies are subject to capture by the industry; that is, a regulator is more likely to favor the regulated industry than the general public because those in the industry are the most interested and knowledgeable. It is too bad that most of us do not get that concept.
Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on challenges to the constitutionality of the Obamacare legislation, particularly in regard to the mandate that every individual, with narrow exceptions, must procure medical insurance that covers services dictated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. An issue doesn’t reach the Supreme Court unless it is of great national importance or it is an extremely close call. In this case, both criteria are met. So much so that the Court has scheduled nearly three days of arguments, which is almost unheard of. Predicting how it will turn out is a scientific wild-ass guess (SWAG) at best. Having appeared before appellate courts, I can personally say that there is no reliable way to tell what a judge or justice is thinking by their questions, so the arguments will not give us reliabel clues. Once the arguments close, the case goes into a black hole until a decision and opinion are released. In close, difficult cases that is almost always at the end of the Court’s term in June. I can be later.
In any event, the arguments next week are sure to be extensively covered by the media, and it will be interesting.
This issues to be argued and the points on which the case will most likely turn are lucidly discussed in an article published today in the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page. I recommend it highly and it can be found at this link.
Categories
Uncategorized

Stool Samples? Male Bovine, for Sure

Some excerpts from a modern day Greek drama, perhaps a triumph amid tragedy:

Greek entrepreneurs tell tales of misery
BY SUZANNE DALEY
ATHENS — It was about a year ago that Fotis I. Antonopoulos, a successful Web program designer here, decided he wanted to open an online business selling olive products.
Luckily, he already had a day job.
It took 10 months crisscrossing the city to collect dozens of forms and stamps of approval, including proof that he was up to date on his pension contributions, before he could get started. But even that was not enough. In perhaps the strangest twist of all, his shareholders were required by the Health Department to submit to lung X-rays and stool samples.
‘‘I laugh about it now,’’ he said. ‘‘But it wouldn’t be so funny if I didn’t have a very good job with very good pay. It would have been an absolute nightmare.’’
With Greece’s economy entering its fourth year of recession, its entrepreneurs are eager to reverse a frightening tide. Last year, at least 68,000 small and medium-size businesses closed in Greece and nearly 135,000 jobs associated with them were lost. Predictions for this year are also bleak.
Experts say the climate for doing business here is abysmal. In a recent report titled ‘‘Greece 10 Years Ahead,’’ McKinsey & Co. described the country’s economy as ‘‘chronically suffering from unfavorable conditions for business.’’ New companies faced large amounts of red tape, complex administrative and tax systems and procedural disincentives, it said.  (emphasis added by YT)

* * *

‘‘I know that what happened to us is not in isolation,’’ he said. ‘‘This is what everyone else who tries to start a business is living. It is very frustrating.’’
E-commerce is still relatively new in Greece, though growing. But Internet businesses with international sales are so rare that when Mr. Antonopoulos went to three different Greek banks for help with processing payments, they seemed incapable of grasping the concept.
Before the banks would agree to act as a clearinghouse for credit cards, they insisted that portions of the OliveShop’s Web site, including the company’s marketing and privacy policies, be written exclusively in Greek, no matter how hard Mr. Antonopoulos tried to explain that his customers would not understand Greek.
‘‘We kept trying to tell them that the idea was to export — that customers might be Chinese and they
wouldn’t understand,’’ he said, throwing up his hands. ‘‘It was useless.’’
In the end, he turned to PayPal, an online payment and money transfer site, and got what he needed to get started in less than 10 minutes, he said.

* * *

Mr. Antonopoulos’s foray into an e-business ran into trouble right from the start. Finding prize-winning olive oil was not hard, he said. Nor was convincing farmers that they needed to find prettier bottles.
But just getting a small warehouse in Athens was a nightmare. No warehouses are allowed in the city. Instead, he had to settle on a storefront and cover up the windows. And there were permits and certificates needed from the tax office, the pension office, the Chamber of Commerce, the Health Department, the Building Department, the Fire Department and more.
The worst moment, he said, was when representatives from two different agencies came to inspect the shop and disagreed about the legality of a circular staircase. They walked out telling him that he ‘‘would have to figure it out.’’

* * *

Mr. Antonopoulos says there was a happy ending. His company has already shipped goods to the United States, Argentina, Australia, Japan and even Mongolia, and it is covering its costs.
‘‘Stool samples cannot be the center of this story,’’ Mr. Antonopoulos said. ‘‘We made it.’’
At more, unnecessary cost to his customers, no doubt.
Things are not this bad in the U.S. by any means.  But, then, the Dems have only had Congress and the Presidency at the same time for 2 Congressional terms in the past 30 years.  
Categories
Uncategorized

Cave, Caesar!

Today is the Ides of March, according to the ancient Roman calendar. It is perhaps most famous as the date in 44 B.C. on which Julius Caesar was assassinated. Ironically, the eponymous Julian Calendar, devised by Caesar or at his direction, went into effect in Rome the year before his death.

In the previous calendars, the Ides appear to have been used to designate the full moon, and fell on the 13th day of the month except for May, March, July and October, which fell on the 15th of those months. The Kalends, from which our word “calendar” is derived, was the 1st of each month – the new moon, and the Nones was eight days before the Ides, that is the 5th or the 7th depending on the month. Since the moon cycles roughly every 29.5 days, Caesar’s calendar, which had 12 months of 30 or 31 days except for February which had 28 with one added for correction every four years, meant that the phases of the moon ceased to synchronize with the days of the month most of the time. These names remained in use for some time, however.

Thanks to Shakespeare’s drama Julius Caesar, the Ides of March is familiar to most of us. In the play, a soothsayer warns Caesar of that date on the Lupercalia, a holiday in February, and later on the actual day, but Caesar dismisses the warning both times, and goes to his fate. Shakespeare’s drama is based on Plutarch’s biography of his title character and that of Marcus Brutus, who is actually the tragic protagonist of the story, in his Parallel Lives, (available in a translation by John Dryden around 1683 at this link.

The play is based on facts as they have come down to us – with dramatic license, of course. Shakespeare had access to an earlier translation that read in English “take heed of the day of the Ides of March.” Not dramatic enough for the Bard; he phrased it more poetically as “Beware of the Ides of March.”

Not quite as scary as that day one month hence, but it is the day our corporations must file their tax returns in the good old U.S.A.

A recent political thriller film “The Ides of March” was released last August 2011. In the film, the date is that of a fictional Ohio Presidential Primary. I watched it on DVD early last month, but do not recommend it. It has few redeeming values other than a fairly competent cast.

Anyway, don’t fear going the Capitol today. Unlike in Caesar’s day, we have metal detectors. Only the occasional mad legislator can bring a weapon in. But, hey, they don’t need guns and knives. They do enough damage with some of the idiotic laws they pass.

Cheers!

Categories
Uncategorized

Coffee Drinkers Unite! We Have Nothing to Lose Except Our Grounds

Allysia Finley writes in Monday’s Wall Street Journal:
“Studies show that coffee can ward off depression, Alzheimer’s disease, type 2 diabetes and sleepiness—which makes it one of the most powerful preventive treatments. Workers who drink java are also more productive and pleasant. While many offices have coffee makers, some employers—most notably those affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—continue to deny workers this essential benefit. All employers should have to provide workers with freshly brewed coffee. Oh, and workers must also be able to choose the kind of coffee regardless of the price.
“Republicans might argue that requiring Mormon charities to serve coffee is a violation of “religious liberty” since the Mormon church’s doctrine proscribes coffee, but this argument is a red herring. Leading medical experts recommend drinking coffee. Moreover, 99% of adults have drunk coffee at one point in their lives (including most Mormons).”
As a veteran coffee drinker, which I do mainly for my physical and mental health (you can believe that if you want to), I am all in favor of Ms. Finley’s proposed requirement that Obamcare mandate every employer to provide coffee to its employees. Heck, I already do. No matter those whose religions forbid coffee on moral grounds. What about Paul’s admonition to take a little wine for thy stomach’s sake?   That has been validted by recent medical research. There is no excuse for omission of these important benefits.

Her complete essay where she take aim at other unconscionable omissions is here .   

Categories
Uncategorized

Guns and Distant Mirrors

The Library of America is a series of well-bound hardcover books, presently 222 volumes of writings – fiction, non-fiction, drama, poetry, documents – by American authors. It started with a grant from the Ford Foundation in 1982 and has added an average of 7 volumes each year since. I suppose that inclusion of one’s works in the series is a recognition of their eminent or at least important status among American authors.
The latest addition contains Barbara W. Tuchman’s The Guns of August (1962) and The Proud Tower (1966). These works are histories, published in 1962 and 1966 respectively, of the beginning of the First World War and a portrait of the world – the major western powers – during the quarter century leading up to the war. I first read the Proud Tower during my undergraduate studies, and The Guns during my military service in the late ‘60s (I read a lot then, as there was not much else to in rural Korea during winter evenings – no shooting at that particular time).
Tuchman wrote a number of other books on various historical eras and events, before and after the two republished in the Library this month. All are interesting and illuminating, as well as quite readable historical studies. They include The Zimmermann Telegram, which tells the tale of the German government’s clumsy attempt in 1917 to secure an alliance with Mexico should the U. S. enter the war on the side of Britain and France, and thus ensuring that America would; A Distant Mirror (1978), a chronicle of Western Europe – mainly England and France during the turbulent and transitional 14th Century; The March of Folly (1984) in which she compares and relates the series of flawed policies and intractable mis-steps of governing powers to the paradigm myth of ancient Troy. That volume are analyses of the Renaissance Popes’ policies that precipitate the Reformation, the policies of the British Crown and Parliament that lost the North American colonies, and acts of our government those that embroiled the United States in the Vietnam War. Tuchman’s earlier works included Bible and Sword, concerning the Middle East and Palestine up to the late 1930s, a book of monographs Practicing History, which contain essays about her historical method, and includes a narrative of the interesting incident of an American’s kidnapping by Berber bandits in Morocco which prompted President Theodore Roosevelt to issue his ultimatum “Perdicaris alive or Rasuli dead.”
Tuchman graduated from Radcliffe College in 1933 where she majored in history and literature (as I did). She published her first historical work in 1938, but wrote very little history in the 20 or so years after college, and never pursued a graduate degree. She worked as a journalist for awhile in the 1930s, having an entree into that occupation in that her father owned The Nation during that time. That her grandfather and uncle were Henry Morgenthau Senior (ambassador to Turkey under Wilson) and Junior (Secretary of the Treasury under FDR) probably didn’t hurt her career.
Tuchman’s insisted that her research and writing method was to seek detail from which she could formulate broad historical theories, rather than pick a theory and then seek evidence to support it, a method popular among revisionists. Tuchman believed one should look mainly to primary sources, newspapers, correspondence, diaries, public records, and the like, and to concentrate on the point of view of those individuals who were at the center of events or important to the period. Additionally, she maintained that it was important to use examples from the period’s culture – social, artistic, etc.– to better provide context. Consulting contemporaneous fiction and drama is important, not to cite for facts, but for attitudes and for leads to obscure occurrences.
For example, in The Proud Tower, she profiles U.S. House Speaker Thomas Reed, Britain’s last peer Prime Minister Lord Salisbury, German composer Richard Strauss, French socialist Jean Jaures, French officer Alfred Dreyfus, and others. In The Guns of August, she does the same for the participants, some, like Winston Churchill, known to us all, some not.
What was called the “Great War,” which some historians, myself included, regard as but the first phase of a conflict that lasted for nearly the rest of the 20th Century, affected the world in ways that are still with us. This is especially true in the current clash between Islamic civilization and essentially the rest of the word. Tuchman’s Proud Tower and Guns of August both go a long way in explaining how that war came to be. Now that both works are available in a single volume, it would be a good value to anyone interested. There is also a fine review by Bruce Cole in Saturday’s WSJ Weekend  (3/10/12) which can be accessed at this link.
Here are a couple of Barbara Tuchman quotes I consider apropos to our present turbulent time:
“Disaster is rarely as pervasive as it seems from recorded accounts. The fact of being on the record makes it appear continuous and ubiquitous whereas it is more likely to have been sporadic both in time and place. Besides, persistence of the normal is usually greater than the effect of the disturbance, as we know from our own times. After absorbing the news of today, one expects to face a world consisting entirely of strikes, crimes, power failures, broken water mains, stalled trains, school shutdowns, muggers, drug addicts, neo-Nazis, and rapists. The fact is that one can come home in the evening, on a lucky day, without having encountered more than one or two of these phenomena. This has led me to formulate Tuchman’s Law, as follows: ‘The fact of being reported multiplies the apparent extent of any deplorable development by five- to tenfold (or any figure the reader would care to supply).’” – From A Distant Mirror.
“Government remains the paramount area of folly because it is there that men seek power over others — only to lose it over themselves.” – From The March of Folly.
Categories
Uncategorized

Joe the Plumber: Who Would Have Thought?

Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher captured the Republican nomination for Ohio’s ninth congressional district in yesterday’s primary. During the 2008 campaign Wurzelbacher famously sparred with then candidate Barack Obama over how the now President’s administration would affect small businesses, and took exception to the “spread the wealth” philosophy of Mr. Obama. In the same district, longtime Representative Dennis Kucinich lost to Representative Marcy Kaptur in the Democratic primary. The 2010 Census caused Ohio to lose Congressional seats and the Republican controlled legislature drew a district along Lake Erie from Cleveland to Toledo which forced to two incumbent Democrats to run against each other.
Kucinich has been an outlier and, many would say an oddball. In my more whimsical moments, I have been known to excuse my eccentricities by saying what do you expect from some who was born in the same Congressional District that Dennis Kucinich represents. Well, now there is a possibility that one who comes closer to being my soul mate will be the new Congressman there. I say possibility because Joe the Plumber is not favored, as the district was doubtless drawn to concentrate Democrats and remove them from GOP leaning districts. But that’s politics. Anyway, Wurzelbacher’s nomination shows how fifteen minutes of fame can propel one onto the national stage. Can’t vote for him – unless I move back to my native state and county. Probably not. Naturalized Texan I am and will remain. But I’ll be rooting for him, and maybe even send a donation. Good luck, Joe.
Joe the Plumber with Herman Cain