The Passing of the last of the "Big Three"

A second post by our guest blogger, ARC.


The Passing of the last of the “Big Three”

I was saddened the other day when I learned of the death of Arthur C. Clarke. He is one of five science fiction authors who helped shape my worldview, and one third of the triumvirate (that included Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein) that presided over science fiction for more than half a century. By far he was not the most prolific; he did not delve the most deeply into controversy or sociology. In fact he represented the middle road, the centrist position among the five. And now in his passing he remains the middle man, not the first to go, and not the last. Here, for those who may be so inclined, are the five authors with reading recommendations:

Robert Heinlein (1907-1988) – “Stranger in a Strange Land”; “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”; “Starship Troopers” (read it, skip the movie)

Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) – “Caves of Steel”; “Foundation”; “I, Robot”

Arthur C. Clarke (1917-2008) – “Childhood’s End”; “2001: A Space Odyssey”; “The Fountains of Paradise”

Ray Bradbury (1920- ) – “The Martian Chronicles”; “Fahrenheit 451”

Ursula K. Le Guin** (1929- ) - “The Dispossessed”; “The Lathe of Heaven”

** Ms. Le Guin is the daughter of the man who is arguably the founder of American Anthropology Alfred L. Kroeber – another good source for reading.

I think being a centrist or a moderate requires balancing the present and the future; people and resources; science and society. The list goes on, but the point is simple. We are not people of bumper sticker slogans; we are people who understand that when the explanation is complicated it is because the thing being discussed is likely complicated. Most important, I want to believe, we are people of the future. We represent the consistently constructive part of society. These authors showed me that path. With the passing of each I feel the heavier burden of keeping the faith with what they helped teach me.

ARC

Roads for the Rich

This post is by a guest blogger today. Enjoy.

I am a moderate – always have been, always will be. That often is not a good thing to be in the American discourse on politics. No matter what you say as a moderate you are likely to be branded by one side or the other if not both. This disposition is probably a consequence of being a real GenXer – by “real” I mean the generation that was labeled X in the late 80s not because we were extreme but because we were lost between the demographic bubbles of Baby Boomers and the Children of Baby Boomers, we had no public face, no representation.

Back in the 80s and 90s I favored the caution and fiscal restraint of Republican rhetoric (and even the military spending that contradicted the concept of fiscal restraint) over the more unrestrained domestically focused isolationist direction of the Democrats. As a consequence I know I disappointed many friends and family. Now they are shocked, having previously branded me as “Alex Keaton”, that I am more often (though not always) in the Democrat camp on issues of foreign affairs and civil liberties.

Now along comes an issue that makes me wonder if the world (or at least the US) is finally being affected by all those pharmaceutical traces in the drinking water. One that will probably get me labeled a Trotskyite.

First there was the addition of special security lines, manned by TSA personnel, for people flying first class. Being rich means you are not subject to the same inconveniences for security the rest of us must face, obviously. So, paying for those extra TSA people out of tax money to service an elite minority is perfectly reasonable.

Then comes a recent report (“Letting the Market Drive Transportation”, Washington Post, 17 March 2008) indicating that the Department of Transportation, lacking specific legislative guidance to do anything with $1 billion in discretionary funds, has decided to “experiment” in 5 major municipalities by charging tolls during peak traffic hours to ease traffic congestion. I imagine this will be in the form of some decal you will need to purchase on a periodic basis.

Now I am all for reducing emissions, easing commute times, improving quality of life, etc. But instead of funding things that might actually work like a gas guzzler tax (smaller cars on the road is the same as increasing available road miles), new mass transit systems, or even something as radical as banning commuter traffic from 7 pm to 7 am and banning commercial traffic from 7am to 7pm (why not try a different approach in each place and see which has the most positive impact), they (the DoT) choose to tax the working man and woman at a time of spiking fuel prices and an impending (some would say already underway) recession!

The Wall Street Journal should have called the article “Roads for the Rich.”

-ARC (A Radical Centrist)

Ready on Day One?

The video may need to be setup a bit for all you non-political junkies out there.

Picture it, the White House, 1999. Bill Clinton is President, Hillary Clinton is the First Lady, and Wesley Clark is Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. The United States through NATO decides to start a bombing campaign to force the Serbs from Kosovo. The White House phone rings in the middle of the night. A decision needs to be made...

Sorority Girls

This post is by guest blogger, Mrs. Angry Moderate:

I have been pondering what it is about Hillary Clinton that annoys some but not all people, but particularly men. Here goes--she is not a tough broad. Who is a tough broad? I got to thinking about Margaret Thatcher. I can imagine the Iron Lady sitting down and having a scotch straight up with Winston Churchill and holding her own with the guy. She was tough but in a tough broad kind of way. Who are other tough broads? Katherine Hepburn. Barbara Stanwyck. Betty Davis to name a few actresses. Ann Richards was a tough broad. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, is a mountain climber. I think that definitely qualifies her as a tough broad. The Queen of England is a tough broad. I don't think there is any doubt about that. Sandar Day O'Connor is a tough broad. Think of the school teacher who could dismiss you with a flick of the wrist. I had a few. My guess is that Nancy Pelosi is one behind that smile. I bet she can rule with an iron fist. These are women who you just do not want to mess with. Being a tough broad is part genetic, part environmental, but however it is arrived at, you can sense it immediately. You can see it in their dress, in their demeanor. They like hanging around men and men like hanging around with them. They are tom boys perhaps, and they have more manly traits than womanly traits. They can wear a dress or a suit all right, but you can just see the steeliness in the eyes, the "don't bother me with nonsense and get on with it" attitude. They have no patience for chit chat. They mean business.

Hillary says she is tough but her toughness is not in a tough broad kind of way. I simply cannot see Hillary Clinton having a scotch, let alone one with Churchill where they shoot the breeze and maybe smoke cigars. She has many more womanly traits. She went to Wellesley, an all girls school. She likes to hang around with women. I imagine her as being way more into having tea parties with her sorority sisters than say, joining a softball league. Her idea of being tough is by relying on cliques to surround her and pulling out the claws when necessary. That is so like a girl. When I hear her idea of being tough I feel like I am in the school yard at recess. Am not. Are too! Am not. Are too! You can imagine that if she ran for class president her idea of winning was to spread rumors about her opposition. If I had to name women in power who are the Hillary type of woman, I would nominate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She is smart but she is no Sandra Day O'Connor. Another might be Barbara Boxer from California. I like her, she seems to be fun and smart and I agree with her about a lot of things, but I don't see her as a tough broad.

There is no way out of this for Hillary. She is what she is and all of her declarations of toughness will not make her Margaret Thatcher. That is why I say, we need a woman to be President, just not her. I like Susan Collins of Maine myself. She seems sensible and tough. Some of these women Governors may be up and coming. The lady from Arizona, Janet Napolitano, is pretty cool. We need to let them get battle tested and ready to go. They are out there. Let's hope they bubble to the top and succeed. But whoever it is, I think there can be no doubt, to be considered electable by most men and some women, the first woman President will have to be a real tough broad.

And where is Martha Stewart and Oprah Winfrey in this assessment? I actually peg them both as tough broads. Oprah is a little more touchy feely but my guess is that she has it in her to be steely. Martha is definitely a tough broad. She might be a home maven but I would not want to mess with her. As for chatting with the ladies, Martha could never do that. I don't see it unless she is chatting about stock options and how to make more money.

Over Stimulated

Last week, the Senate basically passed the stimulus package the was crafted by the White House and the House of Representatives. Interestingly, nothing brings our two parties together like giving away free money in an election year.

I find myself agreeing with Mike Huckabee's take on this. He was the only candidate running for president, with the possible exception of Ron Paul (I can't remember), that came out against the stimulus package. He stated in the debate before the Florida Primary;

"One of the concerns that I have is that we'll probably end up borrowing this $150 billion dollars from the Chinese. And when we get those rebate checks, most people will go out and buy stuff that's been imported from China. I have to wonder who's economy is going to be stimulated the most by the package."

He went on to argue that the money would be better spent by adding 2 lanes to I-95 from Maine to Florida, which would have a better impact on the economy. [On a totally separate note, he noted that 1/3 of the total US population lives within 100 miles of I-95, which I did not know.]

If you think about it, it makes sense. Government should spend money in an economic downturn and what better way than infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, etc. It's when the economy is good that government should spend less. It's clear that both parties forget that part. I don't think this generation of Republicans will be able to run as the party of fiscal prudence after the last 6 years of their running Congress. The Democrats are no better, albeit they are more transparent in their earmarks. I won't get started on earmarks. That will be a separate blog.

Looking back at infrastructure projects versus giving people money and hoping they will spend it. It just seems clear to me that Huckabee was right. Which has the greater impact. By doing infrastructure projects, we take care of legitimate needs that need to be done by the government. Some of the water systems and sewer systems in this country are over 100 years old. Roads are inadequate in many (most) metropolitan cities. Bridges are old need to be inspected and replaced. On top of that, it would create jobs. Construction workers who are out of work because of a housing downturn, go build roads. Seem obvious.

On the other hand, giving out money accomplishes exactly what Huckabee says it will. People will go by crap made in China. You really don't have much choice. Most everything is made overseas, a lot of it from China. I actually heard some government official saying that there was a fear that people would get the money from the stimulus package and pay down debt and save it instead of spend it. Good lord, how awful!! There is something fundamentally wrong with our economy when the government is worried that we will save our money or try to pay off debt. Isn't that why China is buying up our debt to begin with because we don't save?

Maybe I am missing something obvious, but I think a little common sense goes a long way and there is a dearth of that in both parties.

Don't Look Back

As I have watched a couple of the debates for both the Republican and Democratic primaries, one thing that has struck me is how backward looking both parties are. The Republicans try their hardest to be the one who emulates all the qualities of Ronald Reagan, while the Hillary supporters on the Democratic side want to restore the Clinton years. I find this a little sad in both regards. It's not that I'm not in favor of learning from history. History was one of my favorite subjects in school. Also, if there was ever a time to look back at history (particularly recent history) and learn over arching lessons, this would be it. Still, I can't help but be moved by the candidates who represent a break from the past.

If you look at both people who are being revered, if not outright worshiped, you can't help but notice that they both broke from their parties past to create something new for themselves. Now I am not going to pass judgment on either Reagan or Clinton, but the one thing they have in common is moving their parties in a different direction and create a new dynamic. Reagan, ran several times for the Republican nomination before winning the presidency in 1980. Each time, he ran into the establishment of the party. I'll use the term Rockefeller Republicans, even though it probably over simplifies it. Reagan created a new coalition of economic conservatives and social conservatives that created a core group of voters that was very difficult to defeat. By appealing to both types of voters, he managed to attract many middle of the road voters, Reagan Democrats, as an example. Bill Clinton did something similar when he ran in 1992. He established himself as a member of the DLC, a movement created by the conservative, mostly southern wing of the Democratic party. He had to break from the old establishment of the Great Society and New Deal Republicans that had served as the bedrock of the Democratic party for over 50 years. By running as a fiscally conservative, socially liberal Democrat, he was able to reach back to the people who had abandoned the Democratic party. Now, we can argue the finer points of the background and who was more successful, but I think both presidents owe their fortunes to breaking with the past.

Now, fast forward to today's election. The Republicans are all trying to be Reagan, going so far to even hold one of the debates at the Reagan Library. I was waiting for someone to pull out a ouija board and consult him directly. It seems clear to me that none of the remaining candidates, McCain, Huckabee, and Ron Paul are him. Ron Paul represents the Libertarian wing of the party, Huckabee is socially conservative and fiscally moderate, and McCain has spent his career poking people in his own party in the eye when they didn't agree with him. The reality is that Reagan wouldn't have even passed this test. Former governor of socially liberal state who had signed the most liberal abortion law in the history of California. You can hear them raking him over the coals now. It's time for the Republicans to move toward the future. Make your own mark. Transformational figures like Reagan come once every 50 years.

The Democrats have a similar problem with their one candidate. Hillary Clinton is counting on people looking back to her husband's term and her supporters do so enthusiastically. Her whole campaign is based partly on her "record" as first lady. Obama is the one person in this race that represents a look to the future. That was then, this is now.

Perhaps it is natural for both parties to want to look to the past, but I do not think it is healthy. Time to write our own story.

Attack Politics

I was watching the news the other day and two items struck me as something that I wanted to blog about. The first one was how John McCain had to hire an entire phone bank to refute malicious charges that were being put out there by mail, robo-dialing (a measure in which a machine randomly calls phone numbers in an area and then plays a recorded message, should the call be answered). The second story was about Bill Clinton's role in Hillary's campaign. I find both of these items connected.

Now let's look at this closely. Here we have a man, who is a decorated war veteran, a former POW, and someone that has served 22 years in the Senate. This man runs for president and has to devote thousands of dollars toward defending himself from spurious accusations being made by some "third-party" supporter of one of his opponents. This is all taking place in South Carolina, which if you recall from the 2000 campaign ran pretty much the same way. Someone who supported George W. Bush had a campaign to call people and suggest that John McCain's daughter, who was adopted from Bangladesh, was actually John's from an interracial adulterous affair. It was appalling...and it worked. Bush trounced McCain. So this time around, McCain was not taking any chances and hired a anti-hit squad. I'm pretty jaded and cynical, but I find this beyond the pale. What is wrong with South Carolina? Or is this indicative of our system of smear and burn? I just want to in the end pick the best candidate.

It has apparently become the Clinton strategy to deploy Bill as the attack dog. Bill Clinton has been vigorously attacking Barack Obama on the campaign trail. He is distorting what Obama says and his positions. I personally find this offensive. I think it is unseemly for a former president to be running around the country campaigning in this manner. It cheapens the dignity of the office and lessens his own legacy. You can see it in his face that Bill Clinton is angry that Obama is standing in the way of Hillary. I personally don't like it when people think they are entitled to something they have not earned. Bill Clinton thinks his wife is entitled to the presidency because it was apart of their lives' plan. It is not right.

On a side note, Fred Thompson dropped out of the race today, but couldn't be bothered to endorse anyone. I'm going to miss him. He is truly a scion of the ambivalent. I raise my glass to you sir. Well, metaphorically, I don't really want to make the effort...