Ebony and Ivory

Here are some selections from my recent correspondence that I thought belonged in the blog. The first is a reply to a friend who said I should "take the blinders off" and consider that Obama is a liability (to put it more mildly than he did.) As evidenced in my reply, he also said other things, to which I also replied.

(Pursuant to the email about Homeland Security versus the would-be revolutionaries.) I think DHS is on the lookout for the angry kind of people who get whipped into a mindless fury and throw things at the white house while shouting "revolution!" It's not you they're after, Dan -- it's the rebels without a clue. Polite dissent is always welcomed.

Consider that I was pretty polite to the Reagan administration in spite of the Reaganomics that destroyed the hopes of my generation ... I was beside myself today because Reagan planted the seeds of destruction and checked out before he could see the ultimate result. The main thing Obama is trying to do is erase supply-side economics before another generation goes to waste.

(It doesn't signify that there are people in my generation who made good. There are always people who fare well in a bad matrix. It doesn't mean that the matrix isn't bad.) [Later I would reflect that judging the whole gauntlet by the experience of individual matriculants is like saying someone doesn't have a plumbing blockage because some of the water still flows out the tap.]

[Friend,] re-read the emails you get from these people. You'll see that they're all about hate and anger, anger and hate. With a little ignorance thrown in to keep it going.

By contrast, look at John McCain. He doesn't agree with the president but he's not out in the streets crying revolution, or on the radio ranting hate. He's working within the system. Homeland Security respects him and other conservatives who behave themselves. [This was in reply to a forwarded email that tried to be all incendiary, saying that Homeland Security was against people who held certain political views. The writer neglected to differentiate between people who thought a certain way and behaved versus people who waxed extremist over their disgruntlement.]

Speaking of McCain, I really thought he'd take more of a leadership role both in government and in re-defining his party when Congress got back in session at the beginning of this year. I disagree with him about a lot of things, but I was kinda rooting for him post-election. I imagined he and Obama would share a great bear hug and then get down to the business of saving the world together. I imagined Clinton and McCain would share lunch from time to time and say, "Whew! Thank goodness it's Obama in that hot seat and not one of us."

And what do you have against socialism? We socialists aren't trying to destroy capitalism -- we're trying to tame capitalism so it can work for us and not against us. There are ways of doing this, and some of the best minds in economics and politics are working on them right now, not to "sell us out" but to make sure we all make it through this crisis and to better times beyond. (Success isn't guaranteed, but this path is our best hope.) Some people think tax cuts are the only way to accomplish anything, but after the last 30 years I don't know how they can fool themselves like that. It has been suggested that those who say and believe these things are not familiar with Keynsian economics, so those of us who would educate them have a hard row to hoe.

Think about it. If I wanted to plug the president's programs to an audience of conservatives, I'd bring a big, thick book about economics and start reading. The wing nuts would start throwing tea bags and screaming revolution and the respectable conservatives ... I don't know; would they listen? ... Were they listening when economics was taught in school?

It's a big question mark for me, [Friend]. I can't imagine why [a few] people sane enough to stay out of the tea-party crowd nonetheless [stubbornly] ignore the science of economics, as though they had a big stake in not knowing anything about socialism or capitalism. And this includes many respectable people in congress who clamor politely for tax cuts and a choke-hold of conservative spending. I wish I could see inside their heads. (And I can imagine some of my socialist friends saying, "No, you don't; you don't want to look in there." But I'm curious, [Friend.]

I'll go read your other emails now. ... I think many conservatives will be relieved to see how Obama champions the constitution, despite the fears you're having now.


The next one is a reply to a forward about some proposed legislation, forwarded to me by the same friend.

I just read the email about proposed hate-crimes legislation. If this could really put a gag on religious expression, then I do oppose it. I'm not gonna go all ballistic and treat the government like the enemy, but I do politely and vehemently oppose it. What I'm really hoping is that Congress will re-write it to be harmless, if it isn't already. I'm sure my president didn't intend to hurt his Church with it...

Again, the same fellow forwarded a discussion about the government no longer selling spent ammunition in useable form to private dealers. I remember writer ranted something to the effect of, "He's going after our ammunition!" I replied:

I was reading the FWD about munitions mutilation and thinking, "Why would Obama be so silly, alienating the gun lobby like that? He's supposed to be reaching out to different groups and uniting the country." Then I went to the author's blog and found this anonymous comment that solved the whole riddle:

I agree this is a stupid thing and will hurt us. Please be aware of the truth though! This policy was handed down on June 11 2008!!!! It might fit what many accept is Obama's plan, but it was hatched under Bush! The document is at www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso/Archives/JSACG/meetings/11Jun08/ADC_220_Small%20ArmsDefinition_DRAFT_JSACG_11June2008.doc Thank goodness! Bush's blunder. My guy's in the clear.

It isn't really that big a blunder, except politically. People who need weapons to protect themselves will pay a premium price for ammo. People with terrorist designs will want it cheap and in bulk. Bush was probably just trying to protect us from the bad guys.

Culled from a late nite chat, this one has nothing to do with politics:

10:50 PM For about two days I could relate to something you said that I never agreed with in the past.
I'm not convinced of it. I can't prove it.
10:51 PM But I felt that there would be something a little anti-climactic about me building my house now
I'm still going to try to build it
I might as well try to do something
And after my period I probably won't feel that way
10:52 PM I'll say, What's 42 when I have the rest of my geological life-span, just like Enoch?

And here is a passage I think I sent to the same person to whom I sent the first two:

I'm thinking now about how in some other countries, capitalists and socialists sit down at the piano together and make beautiful music. I want to see that kind of unity here, because the world needs both modalities the way an automobile needs both an engine and a transmission -- only more so, because economies are iterative and chaotic, whereas automobiles at worst will get you stranded on a hill or something