Plausible Deniability the Chicago Way

Yet another scandal has hit Washington.  This time it's that foreign leaders had their phones tapped or bugged by the NSA.  Although I'm not terribly upset about this revelation -- they'd do it to us if they could, and they know it; to feign outrage is simply anger at being beaten to the punch -- the notion that President Obama didn't know anything about it continues the drumbeat that has been nearly a constant throughout his administration:  The President wasn't aware of it until after the news broke.

As excuses go, that's right up there with the guy doing ninety miles an hour on the highway being pulled over by the cops and telling them that he's on his way to the hospital for an emergency.  Nine times out of ten that's an outright lie.

Let's see what the President didn't know was going on under his watch:

There's the IRS scandal in which lackies swear the President knew nothing about.

There's Operation Fast and Furious, which supposedly escaped the President's purview.

There's Benghazi, which the White House defenders claim was a total surprise.

There's the AP scandal, which was completely unknown to the President.

There's the NSA spying scandal, of which the President knew nothing.

The failure of Obamacare's rollout, which had the President completely in the dark.

There are lesser scandals of which either the President knew and downplayed or were not considered scandals by the MSM.  Here's where one can find the running scoreboard of things gone awry under the President:

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/08/01/obama-dozen-scandals-counting/

Whatever the true tally, that there are scandals in a modern-day president's administration isn't, in and of itself, scandalous.  There hasn't been a president, liberal or conservative, whose administration hasn't faced scandal to some degree.

What's enervating is that the President constantly distances himself from any scandal, telling reporters that he knew nothing about it.  How can a Harvard-educated person, who led the august Law School's law review, be so utterly clueless about what's going on his administration?  What's more, when the scandals break, no heads roll.  The easy inference is that those heads of the people allegedly responsible for the scandals remain as payback for taking the fall for the POTUS.  Unless and until the President borrows from Harry Truman, the inference will remain.

But should we be surprised at this happening?  That is, should the American people be surprised the President is imitating the three wise monkeys?  At the risk of being accused of being racist, I post the following picture for those unaware of the reference:

Not really.  For those birthers who believe the President was born outside the United States, all I can say is that that may be, but he surely caught on fast, especially during his time in Chicago.

For those who are a little younger, allow me to explain:  Chicago, and for all intents and purposes the State of Illinois, has been run virtually like a Stalinist state since the election to the mayoralty of Chicago of Richard J. Daley, seen here:

Daley, pere, held office from 1955 through 1976.  After a couple of interruptions, his son Richard M. Daley, seen here:

took office in 1989 and held it through 2011.  In other words, from 1955 through 2011, a Daley was mayor for forty-three of fifty-six years.  During that time, both Daley's were largely popular and were never threatened in either the primary or general elections.  Yet during their shared tenures, the following scandals happened:

-- the FBI's Operation Safebet investigation into political corruption and organized crime's control of prostitution throughout metropolitan Chicago snared over 75 individuals;

 

-- Operation Gambat targeted First Ward connections to organized crime with 24 individuals convicted or pleading guilty;

 

-- Operation Incubator on City Hall corruption involved bribes to win city contracts for collecting unpaid parking tickets and water bills; convicted were four aldermen, a former state senator, a deputy water commissioner, and an aide to former Mayor Harold Washington;

 

-- Operation Greylord into Chicago's court system netted 87 court personnel and attorney convictions and guilty pleas, including 13 judges;

 

-- Operation Haunted Hall about City Hall ghost payrolls yielded 38 indictments and 35 convictions, including four aldermen, a Cook County treasurer, and a state senator;

 

-- Operation Silver Shovel probed city government and netted 18 convictions and guilty pleas from public employees and six aldermen;

 

-- Operation Board Games into public corruption of insider deals, peddling, and kickbacks involving state government boards; and

 

-- much more systemic corruption for decades, including under both Daleys.

 

Not once was either Daley so much as indicted for any involvement in these crimes.

Sound familiar?

Part of the problem in Chicago was that news organizations couldn't combat the patronage system sufficiently to sway voters to consider other candidates.  The problem with the MSM and the national problem is that the President has the MSM in his hip pocket; unlike Chicago, where the reporters reveled in taking Da Mayor to task, the MSM acts as an unofficial news organ and cheerleader for the President -- or at least it has during the first five years of his presidency.  There is some hope that the disclosures of recent scandals will result in a much harder line toward the administration, but now that the President is in his second term, what good will that do?  It's not as if he can run for reelection again.

The good, if there's any to be had in this sorry mess, is for enough of a shadow to be cast on his legacy that he begins changing his sorry ways and flies straight.  Perhaps enough voters will see that in fact the man they elected to the White House and the Senators and representatives who have been doing his bidding were not acting in their best interests.  Insofar as the senators and representatives are concerned, they can be voted out at the next elections.  It would be interesting to see the President vetoing proposed legislation passed by both houses at the will of the people.

I've said this before and I'll say it again:  For political pundits trying to read the tea leaves on the future of American politics, especially insofar as it concerns the White House, keep an eye on Illinois.  With Hillary Clinton the frontrunner for the Democrats and the Republicans being in disarray, it's likely that a Clinton-Rahm Emmanuel ticket will be in the offing come 2015.  And if that happens, look for more of the same.

More of The Chicago Way of politics steering the ship right over the edge of the waterfall that the Democrats insist isn't there.

(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Books and The Amazing Race

I might have mentioned that I have a few books.  In fact, I have about sixty-five pages of books, give or take a duplicate entry or two.  I do read them; these aren't for show.  Karen has counseled me to keep only those books that are friends.  My response was that the books that I still had were either friends or books I hadn't read yet.  I do get rid of books, just not as many as the former librarian would prefer.

My tastes in reading are eclectic.  If I had to give broad categories, I'd say they fall into one of these groupings:  Ireland, Americana, Classics, Military History, Sports, Spain/Spanish, Travel, Espionage, Biographies, Reference.  There is some overlap between categories, e.g., a biography of Chesty Puller is included in the military history section even though it could just as easily fall in the biography section, but most books fall easily into one specific category.  If I find a book that I loathe, it gets donated.  I just happen to like most of the books I have.  To paraphrase my late aunt Joyce, I like most of the books since I chose them.

One of the reasons I keep so many books is that I refer to them.  In the course of writing things, I find that certain things I've read come back to me and I need to be able to quote them accurately.  Call it anal retentive, but it's what I do.  And for anyone who thinks I'm faking it, I can show you in my writings where I've actually used my own library as reference materials.

I say this because when we moved into our apartment, I had to cull some books out to read for the next year.  I did this because the majority of my library was going to remain in boxes until we moved next July. The books I chose were as diverse as I could find.  One of them that I just finished is Yemen:  The Unknown Arabia, by Tim Mackintosh-Smith.  I may have mentioned that the Arab world intrigues me, but Yemen is one place I'll never see in all likelihood.  

Biographies give me insights into people whom I admire or about whom I'm curious but will never meet. Travel books do what Yemen did for me.  Military history and sports books allow me to see what happened with explanations as to how and why they happened.  As one can see, books give me information that I'd never have otherwise.

The Amazing Race ("TAR") does the same thing.  Apart from the beautiful pictures of places to which the show travels, the show avoids many of the pitfalls of most reality shows.  It also incorporates cultural elements and explains them.  Sure, there isn't that much substance, and the cultural elements are props for the competition, but the combination of the cultural and the scenic is riveting to me.  Karen thinks the show has jumped the shark, but I still find all the places they go fascinating.  It also helps me learn what places I have no interest in ever visiting, and confirms my thoughts on other places.  TAR is in a sense a video library that I can use to further and refine my travel interests.

I wonder whether, when I'm in my dotage, I'll still be this curious.  My bet is that I will be.

(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

The Emperor Has No Clothes

It's finally happening.  I'm not sure what the catalyst was.  Perhaps it was the unending string of embarrassing incidents.  Perhaps it was the MSM being hit where it lived.  Perhaps it's a function of the lame duck status. Whatever the reason, President Obama is finally receiving criticism from all corners.

The Affordable Care Act ("ACA"), otherwise known as Obamacare, has hit a few snags.  I don't understand it all, but the crescendoing complaints about it are now being reported in the MSM, heretofore the cheerleaders of the POTUS.  Actual critical reporting is occurring, which is nothing short of amazing.  And it's not limited to the ACA.

Recently, the New York Times, as liberal a news organ as there is, complained about the utter lack of transparency in this administration.  That it's a fact isn't news.  That the Times is reporting it and complaining about it is news.  Why that happened I don't know, but perhaps it had something to do with the AP scandal, in which DoJ subpoenaed the AP's phone records, a huge no-no within the press corps.  Investigating James Rosen, even if he does work for Fox News, also sends the message that this White House isn't necessarily above turning on the press.

But with Benghazi, the AP scandal, the ACA debacle, the IRS scandal, the Edward Snowden mess and now charges that we're spying on our allies (something that, personally, I don't have much trouble with because I'm quite sure they're trying to spy on us, too), the MSM is beginning to focus on the negative stories emanating from the White House and stopping its cheerleading.  This is refreshing, because before the POTUS was elected, the MSM always considered itself the safeguard on governmental misdeeds.  Once Obama was elected, however, the MSM was there to shepherd the administration's policies along rather than examine them critically.

Now, we have an insider who seems to have been as critical of elements within the administration as he was of its opponents.  Jofi Joseph was a national security official who tweeted about myriad subjects, sometimes sophomorically, other times tellingly.  If I were the Republicans in the House, I'd grant him immunity and have him testify as to things he knows about the goings-on within the administration, starting with Benghazi, since he tweeted:

Look, (Republican Rep. Darrell) Issa is an ass, but he's on to something here with the @HillaryClinton whitewash of accountability for Benghazi.”

There may be nothing there, but then again, there may be.  This isn't the case of a disgruntled employee who was fired wrongly, in his estimation.  Had he kept his mouth shut, no one would have fired him, in all likelihood.  That's because the POTUS never fires anyone for anything, unless it's dissent.

What conservatives have been noting for five years -- the lack of transparency, the lack of bipartisanship, the scandals, the mismanagement, the lack of accountability -- the MSM and liberal supporters are finally starting to acknowledge, albeit it in whispers.  Were this a conservative president who was engaged in these shenanigans, the MSM would be all over him, accusing him of treason at a bare minimum.  This POTUS has gotten a free pass, and with that pass comes an insouciance that is incorrigible.  When the POTUS's acolytes refuse to answer questions, contemptuously asking What does it matter? when a congressional committee asks for answers.  That's how Eric Holder can get away with investigating his own misdeeds, how Jay Carney can choose not to call on the Fox News reporter in briefings, how Valerie Jarrett can jeeringly tell people to watch out if they didn't support the POTUS's reelection campaign...the list is endless.

The MSM likes to exalt itself and its role as the people's watchdog when it comes to government.  It has failed miserably thus far in this administration.  I still think the greatest threat to this country, internally, isn't the administration but the Fifth Estate.  All those newsies who claim to have been inspired by All the President's Men missed the underlying premise that they were to follow the news no matter who was in power or what their own political leanings were.  Instead of being journalists, they're newsies, because to put them in the same class as Edward R. Murrow does Mr. Murrow a disservice.

With the White House's stubbornness on the ACA continuing, it will be interesting to see whether the MSM continues to be turned or whether it will revert to form.  Either way, in the words of my estimable and quite liberal friend, the MSM is letting the country down.

(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Three-For-One

Three posts for the low, low price of one:

I haven't even begun to check out Obamacare, or as it was called originally, the Affordable Care Act (the "ACA").  I'm not sure I'll do anything about it, frankly.  I think the SCOTUS was wrong; this is a penalty, not a tax, and since it originated in the Senate, it is constitutionally flawed.  But that's beside the point.

What I'm failing to understand is that the administration won't acknowledge that there are massive problems with the so-called rollout and delay the effective date for at least six months.  If the thing's not working -- and reports are that it isn't -- what's the harm?  I just don't understand the intransigence.

Even more enervating are the selective carve-outs for special interest groups -- Big Business, certain governmental employees, now unions, possibly -- while ordinary citizens who have no voice in Washington are bound to comply or else.  What this indicates to me is that we dividing as a people into the haves and the have-nots.  Ironically, it's happening under the watch of the party that holds itself out as the guardian of the middle class.  If conservatives did this there'd be riots.

Finally, has the President gotten too big for his britches?  It would seem that he can't admit anything negative and won't concede that anything he's said or done relating to the ACA -- or anything else, for that matter -- could possibly be wrong.  This extends to his friends and cohorts.  With Clinton, there was an acronym that described friends of the President as FOB.  Here, it should be FOO...and that would be appropriate.

                                          -------------------------------------------------------

Some thirty-odd years after my family went to Canada without me (I had to stay home to earn money for school), I finally crossed our northern border.  It wasn't nearly as exciting as crossing the border into Portugal was for me, but we did go through the tunnel into Windsor.

Windsor wasn't as Canadian as I expected.  Being as close to the States, that's not altogether surprising. That we were there on a Sunday may also have had something to do with it.  But we went only to purchase tickets for a show in January that we wanted to attend.

The border crossing guard was pleasant enough.  He even stamped my passport, although he didn't stamp Karen's.

I can't wait to see more of Canada.  Going to Windsor and saying that represents Canada is like going to Newark and saying that represents the States.  Sometime in the Spring we may travel to Toronto for a long weekend, which would be nice.  I'd love to see the Hockey Hall of Fame, although that might bore Karen to tears.

Perhaps the best part of being in Canada was the guy at the tourist office noticing my Blackhawks' cap and saying that he was a fan of the team.  Karen thought I was silly for wearing the hat, telling me that no one would care about it.

Not only did the kid in the tourist office comment on it, so did the border patrol agent in Detroit comment on it.

                                         --------------------------------------------------------

When we went to purchase the tickets, we went into the Caesar's casino, where the show will be held.  This was my first time in a casino -- honestly.  I don't gamble and have little interest in shows generally.  I thought we'd only have to go to the box office located somewhere inside the front door.  I couldn't have been more stupid.

The box office, it turns out, was way on the other side of the building whence we entered.  But of course. So that meant we had to wend our way through hundreds of chattering machines with blinking lights and whirring wheels revealing fruit, and numbers, and symbols and whatever else the gambling magicians thought up to entice people to throw their money away.  Not once did I wish I were staying there gambling.

One thing that I'd always assumed that this little visit confirmed for me was that not one person in the establishment looked anything like the people in the glitzy commercials that are shown on television.  I saw not one would-be or actual model on the floor.  Everyone was overweight or old or ugly -- not one good-looking person in the bunch.  Plenty of people were drinking beers -- it was only two o'clock in the afternoon --and many of the older folks sat in front of the one-armed bandits like automatons putting in coins and pulling levers or pushing buttons.  What kind of existence is that?

We'll probably eat at the casino the night of the show simply because it may be cheaper to do so.  But I have no interest in ever gambling or spending any amount of time in a casino other than to see a show.

(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Reverse Discrimination in Politics

Robert Redford is an avowed Liberal.  He's entitled to his opinion.  Presumably, or so I thought, Mr. Redford puts some thought into his political agenda.  That I disagree with it is fair, since I try to reason against what the liberal agenda is.  I don't have knee-jerk reactions, nor do I call names, nor do I make outlandish comments to discredit the other side.

Mr. Redford said the other day that the shutdown was partially to blame on:

There is a body of congressional people that wants to paralyze the system.  I think what sits underneath it, unfortunately, is there's probably some racism involved, which is really awful.  I think just the idea of giving credit to this president, giving him credit for anything, is abhorrent to them so they'll go against it...They're representing their own self-interests, which is very narrow and in some cases bigoted.

Interesting.  Apparently Mr. Redford either knows something no one else seems to know, is osmotic or is merely presenting the same liberal smear campaign as always.  As I've said before about blacks, Martin Luther King did not say that blacks couldn't be judged on merit, just not on color.  Mr. Redford and some of his Hollywood chums need to understand this as well.

Infamously, Janeane Garofalo stated:

This is about hating a black man in the White House.  This is racism straight up.

Another avowed leftie, Mark Potok of the Southern Law Poverty Center, declared:

Obama has triggered fears among fairly large numbers of white people in this country that they are somehow losing their country.

Well.

I don't need to establish my credentials as a non-bigot.  It's a little like trying to disprove a negative. Suffice it to say that if asked, about the only people I really can't stand on the planet are Brits, whatever their pigmentation.  I have no axe to grind with blakcs or Latinos.  If I took the time to explain my family's background, the position would be clear.

But I wonder if what's happening is a derivation of reverse discrimination:  Instead of hating someone just because he's black, certain supporters are so anxious to prove how open-minded they are by voting or supporting someone simply because he's black.  Within the black community itself, that can be expected, just as Catholics proudly but blindly supported Kennedy back in 1960.  Given the discrimination Catholics endured at the turn of the century preceding Kennedy's election, it was understandable that Catholics took inordinate pride in the first viable Catholic candidate since Al Smith.

But when it comes to white or Latino voters, is the same blind faith understandable?  That is, although it might be natural for blacks, in some instances, to vote for a candidate simply out of racial pride, is voting for the candidate simply because he's black as understandable?  Or is it something more sinister, despite how liberal it seems?

Sure, there are plenty of Liberals in Hollywood who would support a Democratic candidate were he a Martian hermaphrodite.  But do some Liberal voters vote simply to make themselves feel better about themselves, or to redress what they see are past wrongs, taking into account nothing of the candidate's political platform?  I ask simply because it's as legitimate a query as that posed by Mr. Redford and every bit as incisive.  Could it be, as with Mr. Redford's and Ms. Garofalo's assertions that criticism of the president is motivated by racism, that certain support of the president is simply because he's black and, as with the criticism, has nothing to do with the content -- or lack thereof -- of the president's positions?   

In the military, tracer rounds are used to tell the shooter where his aim is landing the shots.  But as anyone in the military will admit, tracer rounds also tell the enemy from where the shots are being fired.  Similarly, the ridiculous, speculative and baseless claim that racism explains opposition to the president may belie the real motivations behind the criticism.  That some people are so concerned with the appearance of fairness in electing and supporting the first black president that a thorough examination of his positions and the harm they cause the country isn't to be considered because -- surprise -- to do so would be racist.  Mr. Redford avers that the president is a good and smart man.  Perhaps so.  But the policies he espouses, the administration he governs, do not pass the sniff test.  And they wouldn't pass that test no matter what the color of the man, or woman, in the White House.

The troubling thing about this is that we face exactly the same scenario once the first woman president or first Latino president is elected.  Admittedly, the election of such a president is long overdue, but if this is the same thing we're going to revisit when that happens, it doesn't portend well for the future of this country.

Criticism that is directed at the president's positions should be assumed to be motivated by reasons beyond race.  They may have political ambitions behind them, but that's not racism.  I find it hard to believe that in this day and age, such organized movements motivated by race alone are running rampant in the capital.  The days of Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond are, thankfully, over.  George Wallace is dead.  But even Mr. Wallace had an epiphany.

It's time for Liberals to have an epiphany about race.  It is possible to oppose a black person without being motivated by race, just as it's possible to support a black person for reasons other than race.

Unless, of course, one lives in Hollywood.

(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Living in the Wilderness

No one would confuse me with Jeremiah Johnson, if for no other reason that I bear no resemblance to Robert Redford.  But on a more practical level, I don't have much experience living in the outdoors.  That doesn't mean the lifestyle doesn't appeal to me.

When I was growing up, I didn't camp much.  I went on a couple of Scouts' outings, went with Himself one dreary weekend and with the family another week, but that's about the sum and substance of my outdoor living.  I've never hunted, and my fishing experience was limited to standing on some wharf somewhere and getting one small fish that I had to put back.  Last year, Karen and I went deep-sea fishing and we caught some mongos -- vermillion snapper -- but that was on what they call a party boat.  Think of it as bingo fishing.

Karen and I have been hooked on cable shows about Alaska.  Buying Alaska, Yukon Men, Alaska:  The Last Frontier and a couple of others have us watching.  It's a dirty, grimy existence, full of danger not only from the animals but from the elements.  There's another show called Mountain Men that shows men in Alaska, Maine, Montana and North Carolina, which is nice because there's some variety, albeit with somewhat less danger.

While we were watching the show the other night, Karen noticed my interest in how these people live.  She asked me if I'd like to live like that.  Choosing my words very carefully -- because Karen, having lived with a lawyer now for three years, might as well be an attorney -- I said (and I repeat now) WERE THERE NO YOU, yes, I would have liked to try that.  To rephrase my statement to make it clear, in my youth, long before I ever knew Karen existed, I might have been interested in trying to live in the wild.  But not now.

The solitude wouldn't have bothered me.  I lived for years by myself, so that part wouldn't bother me as it would others.  The cold wouldn't bother me as much as if I were in a hot area.  Then again, I don't know what it would be like to live in climes where the temperature reaches fifty degrees below zero.  But I wouldn't balk at that.

Living around wild animals would take some getting used to.  By that I mean I'd have to learn what to look for, what to avoid, how to be safe in doing what I needed to do.  I think an apprenticeship would be very helpful in this regard.  Learning the tendencies of the animals, what not to do and what I can do safely, would be of enormous value.  Knowing how to hunt and fish would certainly be necessary.  Would I be repulsed by killing my meals?  I doubt it.  I'm not squeamish about that.  But learning how to hunt, how to track and trap, would carry with it a huge learning curve.

My natural curiosity would make moving to the wilderness infinitely easier than moving to another locale would be.  I've lived in a huge city, and I'm not interested in a return engagement.  Suburbia bores me to tears.  Living in a rural area is great, but it can't compare to living in the wild as in Alaska.

Sure, part of it is overly romantic.  There have to be hard times that I don't get to see or read about.  I've read a few books on living in Alaska, and while they can't possibly give me a complete idea of what it's like, they have to omit some of the worst aspects about living in the wild.

Lack of modern conveniences would be an issue, but not nearly as much as one might think.  I continue to have some troglodytic tendencies that drive Karen crazy -- ask her what I will and won't eat some time -- so roughing it wouldn't be much of an issue for me.  About the only convenience I would really want would be books.  I could go without television.  Radio would be fine in whatever form I had it, because I'd have to have some form of communication with the outer world.

Would I have survived in the wild?  Who knows?  I might have mistakenly eaten poisoned berried and died like that poor kid did.  Given my less-than-stellar knowledge of botany, such a scenario isn't without reason.
But I would have liked to try.  Now, if I could try it for a couple of months, that would be the best I could do.  Physically, I don't know how my body would hold up over the rigors of such a hard life.  What with my medical history, I'd be a little concerned.

But I still would have liked to try.

(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Honors

Despite the fact I have this blog, I'm a pretty private person.  The reasons for this are many, but the fact is I'm not really willing to share myself with the world.  That's why this blog has neither my picture, nor my location, nor anything that would allow a stranger to guess at my identity.

I don't know that I'm exactly shy, but one thing I do flee is the spotlight.  Those who know me might see a contradiction in this, since I both appear before the court and teach in front of groups of people.  I also have no qualms about speaking in public.  At the same time, I'd never get on a stage and act or sing alone in front of a crowd.  But I'm not fond of getting up in front of people to be singled out, especially when it's for an honor.

In the first place, for me -- and I limit my comments to myself -- honors hold no fascination.  I think by and large they're arbitrary and therefore suspect.  At least insofar as my candidacy is concerned.   I don't trust them, I don't like them and I'm quite pleased to see someone else who's deserving get it.

I know people who are honors whores.  They'll apply for anything just to add another tombstone to their shelves.  I know one guy with whom I worked -- we were in the same firm, which is the extent to which we worked together -- whose Wiki page is a mile long.  Honors and positions sparkle on a listing that might be ten pages when it's printed out.  But the funny thing is that at the end of the encomiums, there's a much smaller entry about how this doofus pleaded guilty to trying to extort a teacher's pension fund.  He sacrificied his law license and is now working in obscurity somewhere in Europe.  Sometimes, those honors cloud people's judgment into thinking that they're above playing the the rules.

I've never sought individual honors.  If a team I was on won something, that was fine by me.  I remember in eighth grade we won the Diocesan Tournament, which back then meant something.  We finished with a 28-1 record, and I happened to score the winning points in the championship game.  At the awards banquet after the season, my best friend was awarded the MVP of the team.  I could have been the MVP, but I was happy for him.  When we were graduating from high school, I was shooting hoops with one of other starters on that team at an open gym when out of nowhere, he told me that I was really the MVP on our eighth grade team.  That meant more to me than the award did.

I have an inherent distrust of any honor someone gives me because I'm suspicious about its sincerity.  That may be my mistake, but it's how I feel.  I also don't need the award for my self-esteem.  I know what I did and how well I did it, and although I'm clearly my own worst critic, I also have an ego that's healthy enough to pat me on the back.

Others can have honors, and they can have any honors for which I could be considered.  I don't need to line my shelves with trophies and tombstones and plaques.  They're just more tchotchkes that I'd have to dust and keep from breaking.

Besides, I need the shelf room for my books.

(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Outsourcing

As an American who speaks a foreign language, has taught it in colleges and who lived abroad, I think I can say that I'm no xenophobe.  There are certain cultures I admire more than others, but as a blanket statement, I can't claim that I hate any one ethnic group.  Sure, I'm not wild about Brits, and Asians from the Far East don't hold any attraction for me on any level.  But I can't say that I hate, categorically, any one ethnic group.

That being said, I'm very tired of this phenomenon of outsourcing work to India.  I suppose corporations have to do what they have to do, but the cultural divide between me and Indians in India is vast.

First of all, I'm well aware there are cultural differences.  That's what makes them foreign to me and me foreign to them.  So I'm not adverse to culture differences.  But there are some differences that are too great to bridge.

Indians are innately polite. The problem is they're polite to the point of obsequiousness.  It's one thing to be polite and courteous and another thing to be polite or courteous in a grating sense.  This is effected by the second trait.

Indians are tenacious with their courtesy.  For example, in one exchange I had today, I was asked for my phone number, which I readily provided.  In the US, a person might thank me for giving the number. From India, I was thanked for helping them with that number.  It's not like I deciphered it for him; I merely gave him my phone number.

They will also try to work around policies that are not of their making but with they must work.  For example, this poor guy called me to confirm that I represented a particular client.  Once I did that, he asked whether my client might be interested in discussing a settlement of the matter.  I told him that I would be glad to forward any settlement proposal to my client and that he could send it to me in writing.  He then told me I had to send him a power of attorney so that they could send me a settlement proposal, an absurdity.

You mean to tell me that I can confirm that I represent these people, but for you to send me a written settlement proposal, I have to send you a written power of attorney???? I asked incredulously.

I am so sorry, but that is the procedure that I must follow, he answered o-so-politely (notice the abject lack of contractions).

So that I understand, let me get this straight:  For purposes of the FDCPA, you can take my verbal confirmation that I represent the client, but you can't send me a written settlement proposal without a written power of attorney?  Seriiously?  I was beyond incredulous.

Please, allow me to confer with my supervisor to see if there is something we can do about this.  At which number may I return this call? he asked courteously.

So I bought myself a couple of hours from him with that and awaited what should have been an easy resolution to the problem.  When he called back, he proceeded to outline what their settlement proposal was.  I interrupted him -- politely, of course -- and asked him to send it to me so I could present it to the client.

That is fine, sir, may I have your fax number so that I may send it to you? he asked.

My fax isn't set up yet (which is true), could you email it to me?  I replied, again politely.

On hold I went again while he conferred with his supervisor.  I didn't expect what he next told me:

Could you please send me an email giving me permission to send this proposal to you via email, sir?

I don't know whether it was the client's policies or this agency's policies, but whoever's they were, they're asinine and I told him as much.  I proceeded to lose my temper, slightly, and tell him he could either take my email address and send the proposal to me or we were done.  Again, he launched into more apologies, politely and obsequiously delivered, until I couldn't take it any more and hung up.

What should have taken ten minutes at most took nearly a half hour of accumulated time.  Sure, some of it had to do with unnecessarily bureaucratically intricate rules, but the prolongation of the talk had at least as much to do with the over-the-top courtesy in which the poor schmuck couched everything.

At some point, if Indians are going to conduct business for American companies here, they should not only be able to speak English, which they all do, but also learn some cultural nuances as well.  We Americans are pilloried for our cultural ignorance, which is largely deserved. so others should be held to a similiar standard. Whether it's bill collection or the cable company or another utility, it's frustrating to be talking with someone in English and not have a word of the conversation move it forward.

Just one other nitpick-y complaint:  These callers are obviously from India.  If one or two of them had the same thick accent, I might believe they were transplants.  But when everyone with whom I talk has the same accent, they're obviously not in the same time zone.  That being the case, don't try to kid me by telling me your name is John or George or Susan.  I have yet to meet a native-born Indian with an Anglo-Saxon name.

And if you keep doing it, I'll just tell you my name is Rajeev.

(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Sports Curses

(WARNING:  This post contains MAXIMUM sports content that will be injurious to some readers' health, notably Karen's.)

I'm an unabashed Cubs' fan.  I know, I know:  We're on a 105 year long losing streak.  Well, to paraphrase Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe, my sports loyalties are not to be changed like a coat in the weather.  One day -- hopefully -- we'll win it all.  I just hope I'm around to see it.

I inherited my fandom from our Mother and Grandmother.  Despite the fact that Mom grew up on the South Side, they were both Cubs' fans too.  I think it had something to do with the fact that, when I was growing up at least, one couldn't see White Sox games on television.  They were on channels that didn't come in clearly, and no baseball-crazed eight-year-old is going to watch baseball through snow in July.

The Cubs' pathetic history is well-known and ridiculed on a regular basis. There are myriad reasons for the century of ineptitude, mostly owing to bad ownership.  The College of Coaches, day baseball, poor trades -- the list is endless.  There are those who claim that the Cubs are cursed.  We've had our unfair share of incidents, to be sure, but really, when one gets right down to it, we're just snakebitten, whatever the real reason.

That's why I got riled up a few years ago when some Boston Red Sox fans used their influence to have put together a documentary on the Curse of the Bambino.  For those unaware of the elephant in the Bosox fans' rooms, after the 1919 season, the owner of the Red Sox cum theatrical agent sold Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees allegedly to finance the play No, No Nanette.  The Red Sox, who had won the World Series in 1918, didn't win another title until the year after the documentary came out in 2003.

If it sounds interesting, the documentary can be bought, here:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Curse-Bambino-Ben-Affleck/dp/B0001I56LY

What really frosts my chaps is that the Red Sox fans have co-opted curses as if they've suffered the worst from their one curse.  Sure, going eighty-six years without a title stinks.  I'm not suggesting it's good.  But let's examine some facts.

The Cubs, at the time of the 2004 Red Sox World Series title, were still ten years deeper into their own winless streak.  So right away, Cubs' fans have suffered more than Red Sox fans. But it's much worse than having a ten-year head start.

The Cubs have a winning percentage .006 less than the Red Sox.  In and of itself, that means nothing.  But as of this writing, the Cubs are within twenty-four games of becoming the third MLB team with 10,000 losses all time.  What's more, the two teams that have 10,000 losses -- the Atlanta Braves and the Philadelphia Phillies --have both won titles since the Cubs' last World Series victory, with the Braves winning in 1957 (when in Milwaukee) and 1996 and the Phillies winning in 1980 and 2008.  Heck, the Florida Marlins, a team that didn't even exist until 1993, have won two titles.  But not the Cubs.

It gets worse when Boston's futility is compared to the Cubs' futility.  Sure, the Bosox didn't win from 1918 until 2004.  The Cubs haven't won since 1908.  But how many times has each team appeared in the World Series since 1918?  The Red Sox appeared six times after 1918 -- 1946, 1967, 1975, 1986, 2004 and 2007.  Since 1918, the Cubs appeared in six as well -- 1918, 1929, 1932, 1935, 1938 and 1945 -- all of which were losses.  But notice that all of the Red Sox' appearances came after the Cubs' last appearance in 1945.  In other words, the Curse of the Bambino was so horrific that the Red Sox not only made six appearances in the World Series, they made all of them since the last time the Cubs were in the Series, and they won two of the six.  Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

The Curse of the Bambino is a media-created malady. The Cubs actually had one foisted on them by a local restaurateur.  In 1945, Sam Sianis, the owner of the Billy Goat Tavern made famous by John Belushi and Dan Akroyd in a Saturday Night Live sketch, tried to bring a billy goat to Wrigley Field for a World Series game against the Detroit Tigers.  He even bought the goat a ticket, but the goat was denied admission because the goat's odor offended other fans. When the goat was kicked out -- presumably with Mr. Sianis -- he infamously declared Them Cubs, they ain't gonna win no more...and they haven't.

There have been countless attempts to reverse the curse, but none has worked.

Thankfully, the Cubs' celebrities have better sense than to air our dirty laundry in public.  Ben Affleck, Glen Ordway, Michael Chiklis, Steven Wright and Dennis Leary can cry crocodile tears all they want, but they don't know curses.  If they want to see curses, let's see these:

The Cubs were in first place for 155 days until mid-September, holding an 8.5 game lead in mid August. They'd finish eight games behind the Mets after losing seventeen of twenty-five games in September.

In 1984, Leon Durham preceded Bill Buckner by letting a ball go through his legs in San Diego during the NLCS.  It wouldn't have mattered had the Cubs made the Series, as no one was going to beat the Tigers that year, but it would have been nice to make it.

Then, this:

 As we say in the law, res ipsa loquitur.

There have been other calamities in Cubs' history, but instead of making a documentary about it, we bear it and soldier on.

Affleck and his cronies don't know from curses.

(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Congressional Gridlock

We're at day nine of the American hostage crisis staged by our chose representatives, and there's really no end in sight.  Eventually something will get done, as it always does, but the question at that point will be what the cost of the shutdown was to the economy, not to mention to our democratic way of life.

As a fundamental issue, I'm against Obamacare.  It's the law, and we should have to obey its dictates no matter how distasteful it may be.  Ordinarily, that would be the end of the issue, until the opposing party could elect enough congresspeople to vote to overturn the law.  That's how the democratic process works. But those who are, in essence, allowing the government to be on shutdown, have a point.

Obamacare should apply to all people.  Instead, the administration has been cutting deals with certain entities that allow them to sidestep, if not wholly ignore, the process.  That's not part of the democratic process.  In fact, that's illegal, only that this was done by executive agreement, probably to entice the recipients of his largesse to continue to continue to vote for Democrats.  Whatever the reason, it stinks.

So the country is now in the position of gridlock because the Democratic powers are cutting sweetheart deals with favored groups, the Republicans want to delay implementation of Obamacare as has been done with favored groups -- if not repeal it outright -- and the American public by and large opposes Obamacare. The President is urging the Speaker of the House to have an up-or-down vote, knowing the Republicans can't win such a vote, which defies the will of the American people.  Meanwhile, the administration has cut side deals with favored parties that exempt them from participating in Obamacare -- a decidedly undemocratic maneuver -- with the President and his family not signing up for the very law he championed.

When the President urges the House to stop obstructing implementation of his pet project, he says that the people have spoken and the law was enacted democratically.  He's technically right, but in so arguing he's putting form over substance.  Various polls state unequivocally that the public opposes Obamacare.  If the President truly wants the will of the people to be represented, he'd delay the effective date of the law which, ironically, he's done for big business, the entity that could most easily afford to participate.  Instead, the people with relatively little political power and no political action committees to represent them, stands out in the cold having an unpopular law shoved down its collective throat.  In turn, the President resorts to name-calling, likening -- either himself or through his minions -- Repuublicans to terrorists or arsonists, hardly the language of negotiation.  Remember, this is the President who pledged to change the way Washington worked, expecting to usher in an era of bipartisanship rarely seen in the capital.

Republicans are hardly blameless in this.  Largely the party of impotence, it's grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to retain relevance on the political landscape.  It's claiming to represent the public's wishes, but if it did that better, wouldn't it already be in the majority?  Within the party itself there's a schism between moderates and the hardcore young turks.  It's amazing that there's anything approaching coherence coming out of that party.

Aside from the inconsistent application of the law by the Democrats, they're exemplifying the old saw What a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive.  Shutting out veterans from visiting the World War II Memorial at the same time allowing an immigration reform rally on the Mall under the guise of standing up for free speech is spurious and disingenuous.  Not being able to give out numbers of people who have allegedly signed up in the exchanges and claiming that, as one official did, that a reporter's question seeking the number of people who have thus far signed up, the reporters isn't asking the right question is preposterous.  It's clearly a dodge, as evidenced by Kathleen Sibelius' appearance on The Daily Show.  Jon Stewart, as fun and smart as he may be, is not a journalist (although he may actually be better than those who claim to be), and if his questions can't -- or won't -- be answered, it's obvious something is afoot.

Ultimately, the problem rests with the electorate.  It's one thing to have honest convictions and vote for them. It's another to be lazy and not sift through the rhetoric to discern whether a candidate's stated position is truly borne by his actions.  For my money, the Democrats are hypocrites.  Don't take my word for it:

Republicans are elitist.  They probably have more issues in common with my beliefs, but the way they carry themselves is obnoxious.  The last thing I want is to be ruled by someone who believes himself to be better than me as a matter of birth.  There are some Republicans who are hoi polloi -- just as there are Democrats who don't speak out of both sides of their mouths -- but in both instances, the numbers are minuscule.  Yet incumbents are retained at a troubling rate -- something on the order of seventy-seven percent win reelection unless some tawdry scandal hits the airwaves.  In effect, we're getting what we pay for -- and we're not paying attention very well.

Right now, the only way the shutdown is affecting me personally is that it's delaying my passport renewal, which I need so I can get a driver's license in my new state.  Otherwise, the shutdown is a spectator sport for me.  Unfortunately, it's not a very appealing game in its essence.

It's just entertaining trying to watch the politicians utter their transparently false statements about wanting to do the best for the American people. All they really care about is maintaining power.

(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Up North

Karen and I took a long weekend and went Up North.  It's a particularly regional expression that suggests a visit to the northern part of the state.  In some ways, it may as well be an international adventure.

Lakes abound Up North.  Water is very important to this state, as is hunting and fishing.  Wildlife in general routinely makes an appearance Up North, as evidenced by the porcupine that crossed the highway in the national park as hurtled along at sixty-five miles an hour.  He waddled much like our bulldogs do.  I was so intrigued at seeing my first porcupine in the wild that I nearly caused a pile-up with the car trailing behind me.

The ostensible reason for the trip was what's called Leaf Peeping in these parts or, as I call it more commonly, looking at the color change of the leaves.  It was absolutely beautiful and would have been more so had the weather cooperated.  As it was, we were able to visit each of the sites we wanted without climate interference.  The trip to each of the sites was a little soggy, but once we got there it was fine.

The boys accompanied us, and are they rock stars!  It's as if we're introducing a new breed into society. Thankfully, through Karen's hard work the boys are largely behaved.  In one location, a fudge shop was so taken by the little crowd that gathered around our dogs while Karen was in buying fudge that it brought out little bowls of ice cream for the dogs (none for the handler though...).  Again, as with virtually any place we went, the Generals had fans galore.  It was so bad that another couple who'd brought their three frou-frou dogs were left entirely alone while we were surrounded by as many as ten people at a time or constantly stopped and asked it if was all right to pet them to the exclusion of the frou-frou trio.  Some people even took their pictures.

The true stars of the weekend were the natural sights we got to see.  From the rugged coastlines to the wondrously beautiful and multicolored trees, we were in constant awe of nature.  So much so that our spartan accommodations didn't put a damper on our trips, nor did the rain.  It was a perfectly autumnal vacation full of nature and simplicity.  We took nearly a thousand photos documenting our trip and preserving the memories.  It would have been nice had the weather provided a more photogenic backdrop, but we can't complain.

The people in this region are no-nonsense, hardworking and friendly.  The accent, at times, was amusing, but perhaps my accent was amusing to them as well.  Heck, Karen finds it amusing, and she lives with me.

Next year we're planning on venturing farther west to see more of the region referred to as Up North.  In some ways it's wilder than its eastern counterpart.  Either way, I can't wait.

(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Pride of Place

I was born in Illinois.  It's not like I had a choice.  My parents married there and had me and my four siblings, and for forty-nine of my fifty-two years, I lived in the state, mostly around Chicago.  I went to grad school at the University of Iowa in Iowa City and spent a very enjoyable year in Spain.  Otherwise, it was always in Illinois that I resided.

While I lived in Illinois, I never felt much pride of being from there.  Being a Chicagoan, by extension (although I did live in the city for eleven years), gave me some pride when it came to sports teams, but other than its architecture and the relative cleanliness of the city, I can't say that my chest was puffed with pride. When it came to the state, though, the only pride I took was in being a graduate of the flagship school of the state.

Even so, I watched other states puffing their chests out in pride.  Texas, notoriously, has so much pride that it swaggers.  I have never met a Texan who didn't love his state.  Of course, given that it's a sovereign state, that's almost to be expected.  But ask any Texan which state is the best in the Union, and invariably the answer will be Texas.

New Yorkers have great pride, but it's more rooted in the Big Apple than anywhere else in the state, which is a shame because I've heard the northern portion of the state is gorgeous.  Californians are so proud of their state they continue to write songs about the place.  As one of the bigger states, it has a geographic diversity that is to be envied.  Not even Texas can rival what California has to offer with its topography.

Virginia is the Old Dominion, Tennessee is the Volunteer State and Missouri is the Show Me state.  Illinois is the Land of Lincoln only because Abe's father couldn't support his family well in Kentucky.  Speaking of Kentucky, it has bourbon, horses and fast women -- or so it says.

Michigan is a beautiful state.  It touts its auto industry, which is to be expected, together with its natural beauty and the variety of its coastlines.  Made in Michigan is said with pride.  Even being down is looked at as an opportunity to improve, not as something in which to wallow.

Illinois has none of that.  Sure, we had Michael Jordan, but that was due to an accident (thank you Portland) and he's from North Carolina anyway.  Al Capone?  Now there's something in which to take pride.

Carl Sandburg wrote about Chicago being the City of Big Shoulders.  He wrote a biography of Abraham Lincoln.  Despite being born in Illinois, however, I don't recall him writing an homage about the state.  Only Dan Fogelberg wrote a song about Illinois, and that's little known outside Fogelberg devotees.

Growing up, the only preoccupation I had about the state was whether to attend college somewhere in it for in-state tuition.  I never took pride in much that was purely about Illinois.  Beside its agriculture, much of what it does is pretty pedestrian.  Galena is beautiful, and I've heard that the southern portion of the state has some locations to recommend it, but it has none of the natural beauty of Michigan, none of the unique locations like California or Alaska, no on-going industry like Michigan.  For all the things associated with Illinois -- Presidents (Lincoln, Reagan, Grant and Obama), Michael Jordan, hog-butcher of the world -- it's no better than Nebraska when one gets right down to it.

But places like Texas, California and Michigan are bursting at the seams with pride of place.  I can only imagine what it would have been like to grow up in one of those states.

Then again, I shouldn't complain too much.  I am a citizen of the best country in the world.  That more than makes up for my humble roots.

(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles