The above words will bring back memories to many: some pleasant ones, some not so pleasant, and to many others, devastating, reflective, and, well, you choose the appropriate meaning.
To those who lived the years of the first half of the 20th century, they are etched in everyone's memory banks and does not require any mind twisting to figure out the meaning. After all, living the 1910's World War 1, the "over there" war (for those of you who may still be with us - bless you), the roaring and prohibition "wars" of the 1920s, the great stock market crash, depression and food lines of the 1930s, and the "great war," World War 11, and its aftermath of the 1940s, the words should hold meaning as no others to reflect the lives and culture of America and its people during those years.
And the babyboomers say "so?"
Well, here's so. And after I explain it, you might say "so?" again. Or "you must be kidding." But to those who remember it, it is a flashback to another time, when time seemed to stand still, to a shared family time, when sacrifice and caring meant something, and when helping your neighbor and/or a stranger was considered the thing to do.
Picture any of the above happening in a non 24/7 internet world, and trying to get the news of the day, most of which was a world shaping event.
Picture a young boy, age maybe 10, 11, but no older than 16 perhaps, dressed most certainly in shabby clothes, a billy cap perched on his head, clutching under one arm as many newspapers as he could hold, and in the other outstretched hand one copy of a newspaper of the day, and shouting out "extra...extra...extra...read all about it," bringing to Americans the news of the day. And in those days, almost every day had a shocking story to tell.
Queuing up to him would be a line comprised mostly of men (as I said, it was a different time, that is, until December 7, 1941), with a nickel in hand (5 cents - a day's wages for some, and yes, it was a different time), waiting anxiously to read the news as it was "happening." Off to the side would be others, who clearly did not have the nickel to spend, for they would also play a big part of this important picture.
"How so?" For, as one who had the money walked off to the side to read the newspaper, he or she would always, and I stress always, share the newspaper with those who were less fortunate. The sight of two, three, or perhaps more people, often times entire families or strangers, standing on the sidewalk, sharing a park bench, sharing "their" one newspaper, is a picture that is almost impossible to put into words. I am not qualified to do it justice but if I can somehow convey this image to you, then I have at least done it some good.
"Big deal," the boomers bellow. Well, my young ones, in those days there was no television, no internet (as the current oval office idiot would call it), not many telephones, and horror of all horrors, no cell phones or blackberries.
But wait, "what about radios?" Yes, almost every home or apartment had one. And yes, they did get their news by that "modern" invention. But it usually took place in the home with the family gathered around it once supper was finished (yes, in those days, one of the family requirements was to eat together as a family - as I said, it was a different time).
But "what about movie theatre news?" Ah yes, the movies. They are a story for another day. But for this story, audiences were treated to news clippings in between the two feature movies, on film that was flown in overnight from the battlefields and seas, (yes, two movies, and they had audio - how about that? - and, yes, it was...).
Sometimes, one longs for "the good old days," even if it was during periods of war, hunger, human and racial injustices, and of difficult economic times.
"Wait a minute, this sounds like today. Weren't you talking about the first half of the 20th century?" (funny how things change many times but yet somehow they remain the same). Yes I was. I was merely pointing out one tiny segment that is unknown to more than half the population of the United States.
But if you read carefully the themes that each generation lived, gone to a large degree is the sharing and caring, helping your neighbor or stranger, and family togetherness. Norman Rockwell painted many scenes that played out in those years. But he did not do one about the "newspaper boy." Too bad, especially for those who did not live those years.
That one scene captures all that was good in those times.
Peace.
Larry
Monday, October 27, 2008
Here We Go
Written on 10/24/08
Before I go into my usual rant let me say right up front that I would give anything - well, almost anything - for someone to say that "you're wrong Larry, you don't know what the hell you are talking about" re the following.
I have written before that the Republicans have three game plans to turn to in ensuring a victory in this year's presidential election ( there must be a reason that John McCain is smiling). The first was voter suppression currently being challenged in as many as nineteen states and is a plan concocted as long ago as 2000. Remember that fiasco?
The second is just now getting national attention - voting machine/ballot manipulation.
Early balloting is underway in twenty-nine states. And if the complaints and horror stories that have been recorded so far is any indication of what to expect in this election, which is projected to be a record turnout, the 2000 balloting mess will seem like child's play by comparison.
Voting machines misalignment, voting machines not recording the vote correctly, if at all, casting votes for Democrats recorded in the Republican Party's column, many machines not functioning at all, long lines to cast a vote of three hours or more, untrained poll workers, are just some of the complaints so far.
On and on and on and where will the merry-go-round stop? Only the Republicans know for sure.
Remember the old catch phrase "we can send a man to the moon but we can't - " (you finish the sentence)?
Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon in 1969. Almost FORTY YEARS ago.
We can do wondrous things with our computers, we can do incredible scientific and medical research, we can do so many things that are seemingly impossible (except to provide affordable health care for everyone and to ensure that the bank/stock brokers are playing the game fairly, but those and many other stories are for another day) that it stretches beyond our imagination.
We have more power in our cell phones than what was available for the computers that guided us to the moon.
And we can't design and build a voting machine that works properly?
Because we don't want to. I say "we" loosely because the contracts are controlled by the government (Bush and his clownsmen are still in charge last I looked) and are given to corporations that support the Republican agenda.
So until some Democrats grow some testicular fortitude this will continue to be a problem.
Or until Barack Obama's lead becomes so large that it would be impossible for anyone who has any brain matter about him or her (I guess this rules out the Republicans) to even think that such a large lead could be overcome without the voting machines being tampered with.
I believe that it is imperative that if Obama and his supporters want to feel "comfortable" (oh how I hate that word in such an important election) his poll numbers must reach double digits and continue to climb unabated.
Why can't we have an honest and fair election? And we call ourselves a democracy? And we are intent on spreading our "democracy" to the rest of the world?
Some example we are setting.
Peace.
Larry
Before I go into my usual rant let me say right up front that I would give anything - well, almost anything - for someone to say that "you're wrong Larry, you don't know what the hell you are talking about" re the following.
I have written before that the Republicans have three game plans to turn to in ensuring a victory in this year's presidential election ( there must be a reason that John McCain is smiling). The first was voter suppression currently being challenged in as many as nineteen states and is a plan concocted as long ago as 2000. Remember that fiasco?
The second is just now getting national attention - voting machine/ballot manipulation.
Early balloting is underway in twenty-nine states. And if the complaints and horror stories that have been recorded so far is any indication of what to expect in this election, which is projected to be a record turnout, the 2000 balloting mess will seem like child's play by comparison.
Voting machines misalignment, voting machines not recording the vote correctly, if at all, casting votes for Democrats recorded in the Republican Party's column, many machines not functioning at all, long lines to cast a vote of three hours or more, untrained poll workers, are just some of the complaints so far.
On and on and on and where will the merry-go-round stop? Only the Republicans know for sure.
Remember the old catch phrase "we can send a man to the moon but we can't - " (you finish the sentence)?
Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon in 1969. Almost FORTY YEARS ago.
We can do wondrous things with our computers, we can do incredible scientific and medical research, we can do so many things that are seemingly impossible (except to provide affordable health care for everyone and to ensure that the bank/stock brokers are playing the game fairly, but those and many other stories are for another day) that it stretches beyond our imagination.
We have more power in our cell phones than what was available for the computers that guided us to the moon.
And we can't design and build a voting machine that works properly?
Because we don't want to. I say "we" loosely because the contracts are controlled by the government (Bush and his clownsmen are still in charge last I looked) and are given to corporations that support the Republican agenda.
So until some Democrats grow some testicular fortitude this will continue to be a problem.
Or until Barack Obama's lead becomes so large that it would be impossible for anyone who has any brain matter about him or her (I guess this rules out the Republicans) to even think that such a large lead could be overcome without the voting machines being tampered with.
I believe that it is imperative that if Obama and his supporters want to feel "comfortable" (oh how I hate that word in such an important election) his poll numbers must reach double digits and continue to climb unabated.
Why can't we have an honest and fair election? And we call ourselves a democracy? And we are intent on spreading our "democracy" to the rest of the world?
Some example we are setting.
Peace.
Larry
Why Is John McCain Smiling?
I don't know about you, but for someone like Senator John McCain to be smiling that smile, that sinister smile, as he trails in just about every poll, suggests to me that perhaps he knows something that we voters don't know.
There must be something more to the "we have Obama just where we want him" than meets the eye of the voter.
Could it be that he really believes what he is saying on the stump, that he loves being the underdog, that he has been there before, and that he is going to pull off the upset of all upsets?
Is there something behind that Mona Lise smile - is he smiling with us, or against us?
Or maybe he knows that he is going to win, that it is just a matter of going though the motions.
I have written before that he and the Republicans have three game plans ready be implemented to ensure that McCain wins the election.
The first of three is already underway - voter suppression.
The Republicans have managed since 2000, with the help of the Democrats seemingly ignoring the importance of the issue, to make inroads in having their representatives placed on the state election registration boards, and establishing rules that govern the eligibility of voters to vote. In many states if there is not a perfect match of drivers license, social security number, and registration information, a voter will find that his or her vote will not count, even if they somehow manage to find their way to the voting booth.
This clearly is aimed at Democratic voters, many of whom are minorities who don't have a drivers license, many seniors who don't drive, urbanites who see no need to have a license, etc.
And it doesn't stop there. If someone were to register on one document with an initial, and on another document spelling out the name, that voter would be denied his/her right to vote.
Oh, how many times have I filled out forms involving job applications, health information, etc., and not used my middle initial. We all are guilty of it.
But not to get away from the subject at hand, with new voters registering at a five to one ratio, Democrat to Republican, this will certainly impact the election. It has already been declared that twenty percent of new voters in Colorado will not be able to vote. And it took the Ohio State Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision that would have denied 200,000 voters their voting rights.
To put the Ohio voter suppression in perspective, Senator John Kerry lost the Ohio vote to George Bush in 2004 by 119,000 votes
As many as fifteen states may find many of their voters being denied their right to vote.
For as simple as an initial. Or a clerical error. Really now.
And McCain goes around bragging about putting "country first.?" And he and his running mate are questioning Senator Barack Obama's "patriotism?" This is unconscionable.
I said before the Republicans have three game plans to steal this election. The other two are voting machine/balloting manipulation and creating a terrorist threat.With the success that the Republicans appear to be having with voter suppression, game plans numbers two and three may not be needed.
So I do not put any faith in the polling data that show Obama leading, in some cases by double digits.
It may not matter.
This may not be the greatest presidential election upset of all time - it would be the greatest highway robbery of all time, making the 2000 debacle seem like child's play.
Peace.
Larry
There must be something more to the "we have Obama just where we want him" than meets the eye of the voter.
Could it be that he really believes what he is saying on the stump, that he loves being the underdog, that he has been there before, and that he is going to pull off the upset of all upsets?
Is there something behind that Mona Lise smile - is he smiling with us, or against us?
Or maybe he knows that he is going to win, that it is just a matter of going though the motions.
I have written before that he and the Republicans have three game plans ready be implemented to ensure that McCain wins the election.
The first of three is already underway - voter suppression.
The Republicans have managed since 2000, with the help of the Democrats seemingly ignoring the importance of the issue, to make inroads in having their representatives placed on the state election registration boards, and establishing rules that govern the eligibility of voters to vote. In many states if there is not a perfect match of drivers license, social security number, and registration information, a voter will find that his or her vote will not count, even if they somehow manage to find their way to the voting booth.
This clearly is aimed at Democratic voters, many of whom are minorities who don't have a drivers license, many seniors who don't drive, urbanites who see no need to have a license, etc.
And it doesn't stop there. If someone were to register on one document with an initial, and on another document spelling out the name, that voter would be denied his/her right to vote.
Oh, how many times have I filled out forms involving job applications, health information, etc., and not used my middle initial. We all are guilty of it.
But not to get away from the subject at hand, with new voters registering at a five to one ratio, Democrat to Republican, this will certainly impact the election. It has already been declared that twenty percent of new voters in Colorado will not be able to vote. And it took the Ohio State Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision that would have denied 200,000 voters their voting rights.
To put the Ohio voter suppression in perspective, Senator John Kerry lost the Ohio vote to George Bush in 2004 by 119,000 votes
As many as fifteen states may find many of their voters being denied their right to vote.
For as simple as an initial. Or a clerical error. Really now.
And McCain goes around bragging about putting "country first.?" And he and his running mate are questioning Senator Barack Obama's "patriotism?" This is unconscionable.
I said before the Republicans have three game plans to steal this election. The other two are voting machine/balloting manipulation and creating a terrorist threat.With the success that the Republicans appear to be having with voter suppression, game plans numbers two and three may not be needed.
So I do not put any faith in the polling data that show Obama leading, in some cases by double digits.
It may not matter.
This may not be the greatest presidential election upset of all time - it would be the greatest highway robbery of all time, making the 2000 debacle seem like child's play.
Peace.
Larry
Friday, October 10, 2008
Float Like a Butterfly, Sting Like a Bee
As I watched the debate on Tuesday night it became apparent to me early on that I felt I was watching a boxing match.
The entire scene brought me back to the year 1964, when boxing was considered one of our most popular "sports" and a world heavyweight championship title fight between the challenger, Muhammad Ali, 22 years young, and the reigning champion, Sonny Liston, 12 years his senior.
For those of us who are not followers of the fight game, a title bout is scheduled to go fifteen rounds of three minutes each, with one minute rests in between rounds, provided no one scores a knockout - putting your opponent down and out, unable to get up and continue - before the end of fifteen rounds. Points are awarded for style, effort, punches landed and avoided, etc.
Ali predicted he would win the fight by employing a strategy that would totally befuddle the older and stronger and more experienced Liston by moving about quickly, deftly, elusively, making Liston miss his knockout punches, and hitting Liston with sharp, accurate blows, not putting him down but scoring the points needed to win.
The strategy called for Ali to - float like a butterfly...sting like a bee.
Ali won, a new champion.
Watching the debate, as Senator John McCain, the older veteran, circled the stage and stalked his opponent with a hunched over, grizzled, and angry look about him, I thought of Liston in that 1964 fight. He attacked, he swung wildly and angrily, and missed more blows than he landed. And the more he missed the more frustrated he became.
And of course the younger Senator Barack Obama was the epitome of Ali as he moved about so carefully, so methodically, so calm and cool, with his calculated punches landing ever so sharply, piling up the points as the fight wore on, satisfied that his plan was working and would serve him and his supporters well.
So, was there a winner Tuesday night? A tie? What did the performance of each candidate say to you? Did you see it as I did? Was I just reliving a momentous moment in sports history? Am I completely out of touch with reality? Am I being biased?
Who appeared to have the "steadier hand on the wheel?"
Who would you want to be receiving that "3 AM call?"
With two debates in the history books, with each "fight" of five rounds recorded, next Wednesday's debate will be the final "five rounds." By consensus of the experts and polls, it appears that Obama is currently ahead on points.
Will McCain be able to land the knockout punch that he will certainly need to win? Will Obama continue his successful strategy and maintain his lead?
Or will McCain and his fellow Republican strategists resort to the three remaining game plans in their arsenal : voter suppression, voting machine manipulation, and the fear factor - manufacture a "terrorist threat?"
Float like a butterfly...sting like a bee.
Tune in - it should be one hell of a fight.
Peace.
Larry
The entire scene brought me back to the year 1964, when boxing was considered one of our most popular "sports" and a world heavyweight championship title fight between the challenger, Muhammad Ali, 22 years young, and the reigning champion, Sonny Liston, 12 years his senior.
For those of us who are not followers of the fight game, a title bout is scheduled to go fifteen rounds of three minutes each, with one minute rests in between rounds, provided no one scores a knockout - putting your opponent down and out, unable to get up and continue - before the end of fifteen rounds. Points are awarded for style, effort, punches landed and avoided, etc.
Ali predicted he would win the fight by employing a strategy that would totally befuddle the older and stronger and more experienced Liston by moving about quickly, deftly, elusively, making Liston miss his knockout punches, and hitting Liston with sharp, accurate blows, not putting him down but scoring the points needed to win.
The strategy called for Ali to - float like a butterfly...sting like a bee.
Ali won, a new champion.
Watching the debate, as Senator John McCain, the older veteran, circled the stage and stalked his opponent with a hunched over, grizzled, and angry look about him, I thought of Liston in that 1964 fight. He attacked, he swung wildly and angrily, and missed more blows than he landed. And the more he missed the more frustrated he became.
And of course the younger Senator Barack Obama was the epitome of Ali as he moved about so carefully, so methodically, so calm and cool, with his calculated punches landing ever so sharply, piling up the points as the fight wore on, satisfied that his plan was working and would serve him and his supporters well.
So, was there a winner Tuesday night? A tie? What did the performance of each candidate say to you? Did you see it as I did? Was I just reliving a momentous moment in sports history? Am I completely out of touch with reality? Am I being biased?
Who appeared to have the "steadier hand on the wheel?"
Who would you want to be receiving that "3 AM call?"
With two debates in the history books, with each "fight" of five rounds recorded, next Wednesday's debate will be the final "five rounds." By consensus of the experts and polls, it appears that Obama is currently ahead on points.
Will McCain be able to land the knockout punch that he will certainly need to win? Will Obama continue his successful strategy and maintain his lead?
Or will McCain and his fellow Republican strategists resort to the three remaining game plans in their arsenal : voter suppression, voting machine manipulation, and the fear factor - manufacture a "terrorist threat?"
Float like a butterfly...sting like a bee.
Tune in - it should be one hell of a fight.
Peace.
Larry
Lingering Thoughts on the Vice Presidential Debate
With last Thursday's "debate" between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin now history, the most anticipated debate since they began in 1960, and drawing the most viewers, did it live up to the hype? Did it answer our questions? Did it raise more questions than it answered? Did it underscore the importance of the vice presidency? Did it highlight the weaknesses and strengths of both candidates? And what they would bring to their administrations?
On all accounts, you betcha.
The contrasts between Biden and Palin were on display and never more apparent right from the beginning: Biden, with his confident presence, having been in the Congress for 35 years and having gone through so many of these debates, versus Palin, and her relatively short political career, early butterflies, and having the enormous pressure of disproving the negative press and shortcomings in recent tv interviews, and having to prove that she belonged on that stage.
It also became apparent as the questions were presented by Gwen Ifill that Biden was determined to be very disciplined, to be respectful of Palin, and that his answers and comments were those that he could recite in his sleep. Say what you want of Biden, he knows his stuff, he is confident, and as vice president he is ready to step in on "day one" if necessary.
Palin was determined to prove that McCain's choosing her as his running mate was not a political gimmick, that she was not going to be intimidated, and that she has the intelligence and grasp of issues that qualify her to be ready on "day one." Say what you want of Palin, she has "testicular" fortitude.
Darn right, you betcha, wink.
However, it was very obvious that she lacked in depth knowledge of many issues, and her answers, when she chose to answer the question at hand, were standard fare, very repetitive, and often incoherent, preferring to continually bring up the issue of energy which she appears to have a lot of experience.
Give her credit though for this: she is intelligent, she is charismatic,she is confident, the tv cameras love her, and her personal story of family and meteoric rise to be at the side of possibly the next president is very compelling. She and McCain may fall short this year but she has a future in politics that may play out to the dismay of the Democrats in the future. There may be but a handful of people in the world who would be able to cram in so much information in such a short period of time and be able to stand up before a record shattering tv audience and try to convince the American people that she is ready from "day one."
Having said that though, if it were not for the fact that the Republicans made an issue of Ifill's writing a book that might bring into question her objectivity and impartiality to her moderating the program (note: this was known to the producers, organizers, and the Republicans as far back as August 2008, no one had a problem with it, and the book was not about Obama but about blacks during the years of Obama being in the political spotlight), Palin's "I'm not going to answer that question" and going back to her repetitive talking points, Ifill or any other moderator might not have been so forgiving.
Did the debate answer at the very least who appears to be more ready to step in on "day one?"
Darn right it did. You betcha. No wink here people. This is serious.
Peace.
Larry
On all accounts, you betcha.
The contrasts between Biden and Palin were on display and never more apparent right from the beginning: Biden, with his confident presence, having been in the Congress for 35 years and having gone through so many of these debates, versus Palin, and her relatively short political career, early butterflies, and having the enormous pressure of disproving the negative press and shortcomings in recent tv interviews, and having to prove that she belonged on that stage.
It also became apparent as the questions were presented by Gwen Ifill that Biden was determined to be very disciplined, to be respectful of Palin, and that his answers and comments were those that he could recite in his sleep. Say what you want of Biden, he knows his stuff, he is confident, and as vice president he is ready to step in on "day one" if necessary.
Palin was determined to prove that McCain's choosing her as his running mate was not a political gimmick, that she was not going to be intimidated, and that she has the intelligence and grasp of issues that qualify her to be ready on "day one." Say what you want of Palin, she has "testicular" fortitude.
Darn right, you betcha, wink.
However, it was very obvious that she lacked in depth knowledge of many issues, and her answers, when she chose to answer the question at hand, were standard fare, very repetitive, and often incoherent, preferring to continually bring up the issue of energy which she appears to have a lot of experience.
Give her credit though for this: she is intelligent, she is charismatic,she is confident, the tv cameras love her, and her personal story of family and meteoric rise to be at the side of possibly the next president is very compelling. She and McCain may fall short this year but she has a future in politics that may play out to the dismay of the Democrats in the future. There may be but a handful of people in the world who would be able to cram in so much information in such a short period of time and be able to stand up before a record shattering tv audience and try to convince the American people that she is ready from "day one."
Having said that though, if it were not for the fact that the Republicans made an issue of Ifill's writing a book that might bring into question her objectivity and impartiality to her moderating the program (note: this was known to the producers, organizers, and the Republicans as far back as August 2008, no one had a problem with it, and the book was not about Obama but about blacks during the years of Obama being in the political spotlight), Palin's "I'm not going to answer that question" and going back to her repetitive talking points, Ifill or any other moderator might not have been so forgiving.
Did the debate answer at the very least who appears to be more ready to step in on "day one?"
Darn right it did. You betcha. No wink here people. This is serious.
Peace.
Larry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)