Morning Fog

Monumental Excess - About Ike, And What's Not To Like

Who knew anybody was planning a monument to Dwight David Eisenhower in Washington DC?  Apparently Congress knew, having set up a commission for the purpose back in 1999.   And now, finally, a possible design for the monument, by Frank Gehry, is getting its first exposure to the public.

As always, there are those who think the new design proposal is marvelous, and others who think it misses the mark.   I'm in between.  I like the novel aspects of the architecture itself; and I favor innovative designs over the mundane.   The mundane is well represented by the World War II memorial, which Stalin would have loved; and the new Martin Luther King Memorial, which Mao Tse-Dung would have loved.  

On the other hand, I agree with Roger Lewis that a memorial focusing on Eisenhower's boyhood does not make a lot of sense.  Also I can tell you that a theme of trees just doesn't fit -- I've been to Abilene and trees are not typical of the landscape.  Oh, and is that a grain silo I see in the design?  Interesting, but it may look a bit out of place in Washington.  Architecturally, I fear for Gehry's design because imaginative public art has a way of being ground into kitsch by Congress.  Witness, for example, the ridiculous addition of the very traditional statues of soldiers to the clean, modern line of the original design of the Vietnam War memorial, or consider the aforementioned WWII and MLK efforts. 

Time will tell how the design will turn out.  It may be a quite different one.

Meantime, the stealth commission having beavered away for more than ten years now, it's probably too late for me to ask my questions:   Do we really have to have a colossal monument to every President somewhere along the Mall, and where does it all stop?  How great is great enough to merit a monument?  Is there a Chester A. Arthur commission yet?

Somewhere, it's written that a person must have "lasting historical significance" to be honored by a major monument (think of the "major award" in A Christmas Story and you'll get the picture that pops into my head when I say that).  I wouldn't deny that Eisenhower may qualify; perhaps more than some others because he did a lot that was both historically significant and important to his country even before he became President.  I've been looking for a good, comprehensive biography or history of DDE and his times, but haven't found a satisfactory one yet.  And he grew up in Kansas, where both my parents were raised and where I spent and at times misspent a small segment of my youth. 

But if we are honest, using the "lasting historical signficance" measure, wouldn't any U.S. President probably qualify?  Especially when there are willing partisans of his party in Congress ready to push his cause?  Will existing "naming opportunities" -- like the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (which has a sculpted head of the eponymous Pres), or the Ronald Reagan Building (how curious that a huge building to house the federal burreaucracy should be named after this particular President) -- suffice for their fans, or will we have to build city-block-sized monuments to them too?  We can already foresee that in 20 years or so, pressure will be building for a monument to Obama, if only as the first African-American President, and to George W. Bush, if only as the creator of the most colossal economic collapse since Hoover... (no, seriously, Bush will be nominated because the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks occurred on his watch). 

For me, it's enough already.  Let's wait a respectable period to decide about someone's historical significance before we throw up monuments to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who happens to get elected President.  A hundred years would be about right.  From that perspective, we know who's who, and save ourselves an awful lot of smelting.

Unintended Consequences

I was interested to see that Democratic political action groups have jumped into the Florida fray between leading Republican candidates Romney and Gingrich (or is it Gingrich and Romney?)  They are floating negative ads about Romney in the belief that weakening him may help Gingrich, whom they consider weaker, triumph.

Well, politics is politics, but it seems to me this effort bears some risk of backlash.  First, because I am not so sure Gingrich is the weaker candidate; he's done a pretty good job so far of getting people to ignore his past, he's a good debater, and many voters will like his populist Southern stance.  Romney, on the other hand, comes across as just another politician and isn't presenting the best image right now.  That may change, but it's worth considering.

Second, this sort of Democratic involvement in a Republican in-house affair may rankle some Republicans.  It's not unprecedented -- both parties have on occasion encouraged their "base" to go vote in the other party's primary (where this is permitted) to try to steer toward choice of a candidate they deem weaker.  I'm pretty sure this occurred in the last primary for Virginia governor, where an obvious loser came out on top of the Democratic primary.  Still, I think it's politically wiser to let Republicans choose their candidate without outside influence; ultimately the result may be just as favorable to Democrats, or even better.

The common thread is the law of unintended consequences.  He who unleashes them must live with them. 

The Future Of U.S. Security

Hardly had I clicked to publish my last post when I read David Ignatius's column on "the debate over U.S. strength," which takes a new book by Zbigniew Brzezinski, "Strategic Vision," as a springboard for a discussion of two competing conceptual frameworks for the future exercise of U.S. power in the world.  Ignatius, paraphrasing Brzezinski, wrote this paragraph:

'A wake-up line in Brzezinski’s book is that there are “alarming similarities” between America today and the Soviet Union just before its fall, including a “gridlocked governmental system incapable of enacting serious policy revisions,” a back-breaking military budget and a failing “decade-long attempt to conquer Afghanistan.”' 

Quite an arresting statement, considering my own opinion a couple of hours ago that I didn't think the U.S. was about to break apart!   Neither does Brzezinski, really, but he does use this comparison to awaken us to the need to think seriously about what kind of defense establishment we need, and how we should use it.   

On this broader issue, Ignatius's column is well worth reading, as is, I suspect, Brzezinski's book.  (The latter can be ordered directly from amazon.com by clicking the icon in the right-hand margin.)  

As Yugoslavia Went...

After I retired some years ago, I got into the habit of tuning in to U.S. Presidents' State of the Union messages.   I guess I never thought I had time before.   I suppose it makes me a better-informed, and therefore better, citizen to watch them, yet I sometimes wonder if this is a worthwhile way to use the time.  These talks, no matter who the speaker or what party he represents, have become too formulaic, too laden with a laundry list of proposals that will seldom be implemented, to be a meaningful guide to the nation's "state," less still to its future. 

Obama's SOTU this year was cut from the same cloth, so it was only natural for my mind to wander a bit.

As a diplomat, I spent several years in what until recently was known as "Yugoslavia."  At the time I was first assigned to that country, Josip Broz Tito was still alive and well.  The conventional wisdom was that only Tito himself could hold this pastiche of different mini-nations together in a (somewhat) cohesive whole, and most observers were concerned about chaos after his death. 

Tito died.  The country did not fall apart.  It survived Tito by roughly a decade.  In hindsight, I think it's clear now that Yugoslavia wasn't held together by any kind of internal force (Tito pulling strings and cracking heads), but by an external pressure -- the mutual fear of Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Macedonians and others of being dominated, if not annexed outright, by the Soviet Union.   The resolution of that threat, as the Soviet Union caved in on itself, led directly and quickly to the breakup of Yugoslavia into its component parts. 

Back to the SOTU:  President Obama's talk really spotlighted the increasing partisanship in our political system, the deadlock that prevails, and the growing divergence of view about fundamental precepts of government, economics, and even defense.  This all began in the early 1990s.   Could it be that our own unity, somewhat like Yugoslavia's -- albeit less directly and at greater remove -- was in part a function of the external threat that the USSR represented to us?  

I don't mean to suggest that the United States is about to break up into a half-dozen or more different countries; we are, I hope, a long way from that.   Yet the possibility of a cause-and-effect relationship between our current political mood and the end of the Cold War is a tantalizing thought.  A book needs to be written, and no doubt someday will, about the global consequences of the Soviet meltdown.  

  

Gingrich In South Carolina

The media gush today (and even yesterday evening) about Newt Gingrich's big win in the South Carolina primary.  It's just hype.  It's true that frequently, after two or three caucus/primary exercises, a clear front runner has emerged, and that hasn't happened this year.  So a couple more primaries will be needed.  That was only to be expected, considering how many hopefuls were at the starting line just a couple of months ago.

However, I fail to see anything very surprising about Gingrich's coming out on top in South Carolina.   Not if we consider geography.   No one was surprised that Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, won handily in neighboring New Hampshire. The Republicans of South Carolina recognize Newt as one of their own, i.e., a Southerner.  He came out of Georgia to national prominence, and they in turn know, or think they know, him.     

So if there's a surprise in the process, it's perhaps that Bachmann didn't do better in the Iowa caucuses.   

The Republican Media Circus

What a year for political theater!  Let's see:  we have the unusual spectacle of 9 or 10 (who's counting anymore?) would-be Republican Presidential candidates, the endless "debates" amongst them, the overweening shadow of the SuperPACs, the likelihood that the first three contests among remaining candidates will now produce three different winners, the unprecedented efforts to make candidates' wives a part of the process ... and waiting in the wings, the probability of a close race between Obama and the Republican candidate, with poll numbers no doubt changing daily.  What more could we ask?

Well, my belated New Year wishlist might include the following:

We could do with a more professional approach from the media.  The latest flub came from John King's now-famous question to Newt Gingrich about the accusations the latter's former wife had made against him.  Gingrich is incorrect, in my view, to suggest the question shouldn't be asked, because it speaks to his character; but King was professionally foolish to open with it, thereby suggesting it was the most important thing (it isn't).  King's gambit also offered Gingrich a predictable chance to play to the crowd, and to recite the tired old Republican mantra that the "elite" media are anti-Republican.  It was a silly decision on King's part.  Unless he consciously sought to give Gingrich a boost.

Also on my wishlist, a pledge to keep direct assaults on candidates' spouses out of the campaign.  Presidential campaigns too often boil down to personality contests ("Which of these two would you rather drink a beer with?"); it's beyond the pale to extend that to their wives.  Both politicians and preachers should avoid commenting.  No doubt the voters' impressions of spouses do play a part in their consideration of candidates, but I think they mostly figure these things out for themselves.  [Note: As the previous paragraph suggests, the charges leveled by Gingrich's ex-wife are of a different stripe:  She raised them herself, and the issue involved does show us something about Gingrich's character, if only that he's got the right stuff to be a politician.]

Finally, I would wish for fewer debates among the candidates.  Politics junkies may get a bang out of every additional debate, just as die-hard sports fans will welcome the addition of a half-dozen more playoff games to the schedule.  Most of the rest of us will become jaded.  I'm not sure they serve their supposed purpose very well, anyway; to the extent voters pay them any mind at all, it's probably through the filter of sound/video bites selected by the media, rather than the full transcript of what was said.

Postscript: It's interesting to consider the effects that so many debates might have on the contest itself.  Do they give the various Republican candidates/Party a leg up for the actual election?  Certainly, they provide a lot of exposure and publicity, and there are good opportunities for Obama-bashing.  On the other hand, many of these candidates have some rather extreme views, the exposure of which hasn't helped them with moderates and independents; and the charges and criticisms raised by Republicans against Republicans will certainly offer ammunition for the Democrats in the real campaign.  All in all, perhaps it's a wash.

Hostess No Longer With The Mostest

Hostess Brands announced last week it would file for bankruptcy (the second time in about a decade).  It seems almost a classic case of a failing company, with a little blame to go around for everyone:

• Exogenous variables, such as the rising costs of basic commodity ingredients.  (Apparently Hostess uses actual flour and sugar, though if you've ever eaten these products, you might be forgiven for not realizing that.)
• Labor:  It appears Hostess's unions may have insisted on sticking to outmoded work practices -- like requiring separate delivery systems for bread and cakes?  -- C'mon!
• Changing markets:  There has been a huge revolution in eating habits in the U.S.  Sure, not everyone has turned the corner to organic vegetables and whole grains yet, but the trend is evident, and Hostess failed to keep up with their market.  They are the General Motors of the baked goods industry.

Management, however, is mainly at fault.  It's management's job to see long term trends, recognize shifts in input costs, shift the product line to meet changing demand, work with  persuade unions to adapt, and bring everything together into a smooth-running and profitable whole.  Hostess's management, having already been through bankruptcy once, seems to have failed twice to accomplish these things.

If we lionize the "private sector" or "business" for its efficiency, responsiveness, and ability to solve problems; and if we go so far as to propose it as a model for government, we have to be realistic about recognizing the holes in the myth.  Businesses can fail; managers can be inept; wrong decisions can be made, even right decisions may not pan out because of unpredictable changes in the economic environment; and hey, government can actually be useful in saving businesses from themselves.  But Hostess isn't GM; it's unlikely we'll see Uncle Sam riding to the rescue here. 

If you happen to be a fan of WonderBread or Twinkies, never fear, the company plans to continue operating during its restructuring, so you'll still be able to head down to the Seven-Eleven or grocery to pick up a few packages.  If you don't mind my asking, what kind of car are you driving for that trip?

Rising Food Costs

Note: The following item is also posted on The Tin Lizard.

I had a surprise today, reviewing what we spent in various categories of ordinary household expenses last year.  The last time we conducted the same review was on expenses for 2005.

Shocker!  Our ordinary food costs, excluding meals out, and excluding wine/beer, were about fifty percent - 50% - higher in 2011 than in 2005.  This increase occurred even though, as we age, we tend to eat less (smaller portions and fewer big meals),  consistently shop price, and seldom buy anything that isn't "on sale."  One might be tempted to think there was a miscalculation somewhere, but I really doubted that; we have very good, thorough data for this in our financial software.

So, looking a bit farther, I ended up at the FAO website (via the intermediary of "ThinkProgress.org").  The FAO publishes a monthly index of world food prices.  It's worth a look.  It confirms not just that prices have gone up, but actually by far more than just 50%; comparing the average index number for 2005 (117) to that for 2011 (about 225) in fact, the FAO index suggests that costs have gone up by over 100%.   I guess we can congratulate ourselves on keeping costs down as much as we have! 

Food costs have increased more than any other category that we consider.  A related category for dining out shows an uncannily similar increase - about 50% - even though we consciously go out less often than we used to.  And while the media love to stir us up with almost daily reports that the cost of gasoline is up another penny or two, it's interesting to note that we paid only about 26% more for gas in 2011 than we did in 2005, for the same amount of driving.  These data suggest we ought to be paying more attention to those occasional reports about food increases, and less to those almost daily ones about gasoline. 

Still, as retirees, we have felt the effects of these rising food costs in the form of feeling frequently pinched, without consciously discerning to what to attribute it.  Other expenses has risen too, and far more quickly than our retirement income (even though the latter is somewhat buffered by cost-of-living increases). 

This insidious cost creep affects everyone, but it's particularly serious for seniors, and more so for seniors at marginal income levels.  It has some clear implications for the future of social security and current talk about altering its cost-of-living calculations downward.

Democracy In Action In Virginia

Like many people, I get a lot of my news from electronic media these days, but the joy of the "real" newspaper is still that you will happen across interesting little bits of information you probably wouldn't have found online.

The latest such is a little article by Laura Vozzella and Anita Kumar in today's Washington Post about Virginia's "Lobby Day," a day set aside specifically for non-professional lobbyists such as ordinary citizens, small organizations without budget for lobbying, or crackpots -- anyone who has an ax to grind or a weapon to conceal -- to get a chance to have a face-to-face exchange with elected representatives in the Commonwealth's Assembly.

I've lived in Virginia for the past 15 years, and at other times in the past, yet I'd never heard of this practice, which apparently is repeated annually.  It's less democratic than it sounds, because I suppose an ordinary person who doesn't represent an organization or cause would have trouble getting anyone to see him.  Yet it seems like a good thing.  Do other states do this?

Still Dithering Over The Misquote On The MLK Memorial

Recall the shameful misquote on the Martin Luther King memorial sculpture that was unveiled to much fanfare back in September?  Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has announced that it will definitely be "fixed," and Washington Post reporter Rachel Manteuffel, who broke the story, has written a smarmy self-congratulatory followup with a very rosy tone.  I was pleased, on reading the headline, that the issue was finally being dealt with, as I and many others had called for. 

But on reading further, I found it's not being dealt with properly.  Not at all.  Salazar is only passing along the promise of the memorial's chief architect that the misquote will be replaced by an "alternative wording," by which he seems to mean a more accurate paraphrase of what King actually said (and ergo, another misquote).  The nominal reason is that the full quote could not be fit retroactively on the slab of granite where it now resides without destroying the monument.  

I find that a rather dubious excuse.  First, officials of the Foundation that funded the memorial are even now admitting that the shortening of King's words occurred only because the sculptor (Chinese) and the architect thought a shorter quote looked better aesthetically -- NOT because they didn't think there was room for it.  Second, if you look at the expanse of surface available on the monument, it certainly looks as if there's space enough to put the entire Constitution of the United States.  (Photo below is the Washington Post's)

So once again it appears that we'll settle for a compromise that entirely overlooks the main point:  this is history, and a quote should be exactly that, not a paraphrase.  I think this monument, and therefore the memorial of which it is a part, is destined to be an object of ridicule for a long time to come; not of King, but of our country's cavalier approach to language, education, and history. 

(An interesting sidelight on our teaching of these things is that the Post's writer, explaining the real meaning of the remark, says that it was originally in the "conditional tense" -- another goof, because "conditional" is not grammatically a tense, but a mode, also sometimes referred to as mood.)

It's unfortunate that we find ourselves in this mess, thanks to an architect and a sculptor, neither of whom seemed to have much sense of history.  The quote itself isn't a particularly good one anyway -- it's long and not especially memorable -- so I'd suggest the right solution is not to re-paraphrase it, but to substitute a different one.  Perhaps it would even be one that "looks right."