Character

One of my best friends from high school is a self-described "lifelong Republican" and for the past eight years has been the State Representative in my hometown area, the one I was raised in, went to school in and moved back to almost two years ago.  There is a reason we were friends, at least from my perspective anyway, because Stacey Fitts was a genuinely good person of character.
At this point I'll stop blowing smoke up his ass and let his own deeds and words make the point.  The following is a recently-released commercial "starring" Stacey urging Mainers to vote yes on  Question 1 this fall.


I have actually not seen the commercial yet on television.  Where I learned about this was from Stacey sharing this editorial on Facebook that was written by Bill Nemitz in the Portland Press Herald entitled One Man's Turnaround Reflects a Sea Change.  It is a very well-written article and provides a great deal of background to this story.

This is not the first time he's publicly disagreed with his party and has continued to do so even now that Republicans control both Houses in Maine and the Governor's office.  He has sat on energy-related committees and has always formed his own opinions, some in disagreement with his own party, and has not been shy in publicly disagreeing with Governor LePage.  Recently he wrote the following op-ed in the Bangor Daily News chiding the Governor for making Maine's energy policy a political football.  I know when I read what Stacey has to say on these issues, I'm getting it fair, honest and straight, whether I agree or not.  I wouldn't expect anything less from the man I've called my friend for at least 40 years.  Hey buddy, if you read this, the next Fresca's on me.

I do need to add that this piece as it initially formed in my head was supposed to be a piece in support of Question 1 and legalizing gay marriage in Maine, as opposed to being back-slap for Stacey.  But since it has sorta turned into that, I want to thank him for his eight years of honest service to this community and the people of Maine, and to thank him for his support on this issue.  Make sure you vote in November no matter how you feel about these issues but make sure you have as much honest information as you can get.

Thank you, Senator Pressler

Thank you, Senator Pressler, a Republican, for so succinctly and eloquently and passionately saying what needs and should have been said for quite some time now.  Below is an excerpt from Senator Pressler's endorsement letter of President Obama:

As a combat veteran of two tours in Vietnam with twenty-two years of service as a Republican member of the U.S. House and Senate, I endorse President Barack Obama for a second term as our Commander-in-Chief. Candidates publicly praise our service members, veterans and their families, but President Obama supports them in word and deed, anywhere and every time.
 

 This is a rather long letter as far as letters go but it lays out so well why it's not even close when it comes to how much support the President has given the troops and the military, and how much the Republican Party has let them down, which is putting it kindly, and presents a stark contrast between the President and Mr. Romney.  This is something the average conservative has ignored for years, though admittedly so has the average Democrat.  If you haven't read this letter, you need to and you can do so here.  It'll be interesting to see whether this gets anywhere near the press coverage and conversation it deserves.
Brent, I assume living in South Dakota, you've seen this?

And I want to throw in a great quote (sort of, since I don't now remember it exactly) by Chris Matthews tonight, paraphrasing, "Why do conservatives believe that the way to get rich people to work harder is by giving them money but the best way to make poor people work harder is by making things more difficult." 

From the woods to Orwell and Dickens

Call this a musing or a ramble, whatever.  I went for a long walk in the woods with my dog, Todd, which ought to mean, since it was in the woods in Maine, that I then read Thoreau; but after our walk I was initially interrupted by a partial journey through Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut" (with an interlude to eat my very first cara cara orange, which I highly recommend) and a full viewing of "Interstellar Overdrive."  


Then on to read Christopher Hitchens' last essay, which was on G.K. Chesterton, which I confess to not really understand since I'm not very aware of Chesterton and only marginally more so of T.S. Eliot, who is also quoted often in that piece.  But then on to an article in The Atlantic regarding the writing of Hitch's final essay, which then lead me on to something that would not be surprising if you knew Hitch and again not surprising if you know me.  What is it?  Orwell's essay on Dickens, of course.  But before you read the link to the essay, I want to share this gem of a quote from Orwell:

“One is prepared in the end to be defeated and broken up by life, which is the inevitable price of fastening one’s love upon other human individuals.”

 Since Hitchens is what truly sparked me to write this personal piece, I will likely end my day with a little of Mr. Walker's amber restorative.

Now back to the Orwell essay to put in a teaser quote:

In OLIVER TWIST, HARD TIMES, BLEAK HOUSE, LITTLE DORRIT, Dickens
attacked English institutions with a ferocity that has never since been
approached. Yet he managed to do it without making himself hated, and,
more than this, the very people he attacked have swallowed him so
completely that he has become a national institution himself. In its
attitude towards Dickens the English public has always been a little like
the elephant which feels a blow with a walking-stick as a delightful tickling.

And then one more, which I hope will help to tie some of these themes together, at least what it was about Orwell that Hitchens admired.  In this quote you see Orwell's pragmatic outlook on society as he explains Dickens' similar view:

Whatever else Dickens may have been, he was not a hole-and-corner
soul-saver, the kind of well-meaning idiot who thinks that the world will
be perfect if you amend a few bylaws and abolish a few anomalies. It is
worth comparing him with Charles Reade, for instance. Reade was a much
better-informed man than Dickens, and in some ways more public-spirited.
He really hated the abuses he could understand, he showed them up in a
series of novels which for all their absurdity are extremely readable,
and he probably helped to alter public opinion on a few minor but
important points. But it was quite beyond him to grasp that, given the
existing form of society, certain evils CANNOT be remedied. Fasten upon
this or that minor abuse, expose it, drag it into the open, bring it
before a British jury, and all will be well that is how he sees it.
Dickens at any rate never imagined that you can cure pimples by cutting
them off. In every page of his work one can see a consciousness that
society is wrong somewhere at the root. It is when one asks 'Which root?'
that one begins to grasp his position.

Are you lost yet?

He Went to a Tea Party Instead

I am very disappointed in Tim Thomas' decision to make a political statement by not attending the Boston Bruins' championship visit to the White House.  I find it specious at the very least that he picks this moment, this event, to come out of the closet.  I'm a pretty avid Bruin fan and this is the first I've heard of his political leanings, and to choose a non-political event to make a statement to me smacks of politics.
Oh, I know, you'll say since I'm on the opposite side of the fence from TT that that's biasing my thoughts on this.  Hardly.  I would say the same thing if an apparent liberal athlete had turned down a visit to the White House to see President George W. Bush.  This isn't a political event -- it is a celebration, a reward, an honor to get to visit the President of the United States; and Tim Thomas, being one of only two American-born players on the team, should know this.  In fact, he does know this and, thus, my point.

Here's Tim's statement from his Facebook page:

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People. This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government. Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL." – Boston Bruins goalie Tim Thomas, on his Facebook page, January 23, 2012"

 Don't get me wrong, TT has every right to his views and every right to make this statement -- just don't insult our intelligence.  Also, he needs to understand that what he did was a selfish act, drawing attention to himself and his cause regarding a nonpolitical event, that does nothing but embarrass himself and most importantly the Bruin organization and his teammates.  His teammates and the Bruin brass have been having to deal with the questions regarding Tim's absence for two days now.  And as an avid Bruin fan who happens to be a liberal, I don't appreciate being put in the position of having to either defend or disagree with this stunt.  I know the following will sound foreign to a conservative but, "Hey Tim, if you don't like it, leave it.."  That's the very same thing conservatives say when liberals complain about government; the difference is we have a lot more class regarding picking our moments.
This stunt should not affect the decision the Bruins will have to make in the off season regarding TT's age and contract vis-a-vis Tuukka Rask's age and contract; but if the Bruins decide they don't want to pay two #1 goaltenders #1 goaltender money in long-term contracts and decide to trade Thomas, I hope they trade him to a Canadian team.
My position on this is no different than it was when NASCAR fans in Florida booed First Lady Michelle Obama.  It's a nonpolitical event; she's there for the troops and I would've defended Laura Bush with the same passion.  Tell me, Tim, with a straight face that you wouldn't have gone to the White House to shake the hand of a Republican President?
Give the President his props, he made a couple of zingers at the Bruins' expense.  He rattled off the names of all four New England sports teams, that they'd all won championships lately and that "that's enough Boston."  He also picked on Brad Marchand by calling him the "little ball of hate."

Christopher Hitchens

From those of us who are boring and irrelevant, a toast of scotch to you, Christopher Hitchens.  It'll have to be Johnny Walker Green, since I have no Black and don't really care for it; but we can still use your term, Mr. Walker's Amber Restorative.
He was an atheist (or more accurately by his definition an antitheist) and an asshole (two of my favorite traits), an enigma, a provocateur, a satirist, an intellectual elitist, a bon viveur; he was someone I disagreed with nearly as often as I agreed but he was always eloquent and interesting and relevant. As he said, he was friends with Salman Rushdie, was nearly scratched by Mother Theresa and nearly spanked by Margaret Thatcher.

 My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass.

To those of us who wish we could be writers, he is both a goal and the reason we don't even try.  Why bother if your best isn't even half as good as he was at his worst?
True, he was an egomaniac -- how could anyone who condemned Bll Clinton, Henry Kissinger and Ghandi, amongst many others, not be?  But he was conversely very modest.  You couldn't help but be fascinated listening to him argue a point as eloquently as anyone ever, much like his idols Paine and Jefferson and Orwell, even a point or issue that you vehemently disagreed with.
Hitchens is very, very high on my list of people who are the answer to the question, "If you could 'come back' as anyone who ever lived, who would it be?  That is due in large part to his success as a philosopher and provocateur obviously but in equal measure due to the way he lived life and approached his intellectual discoveries and defense thereof...he didn't give a shit whether you agreed or not.  Where we almost always agreed is the subject of anti-totalitarianism, which includes religion.
From The Wiki:

Identified as a champion of the "New Atheism" movement, Hitchens described himself as an antitheist and a believer in the philosophical values of the Enlightenment. Hitchens said that a person "could be an atheist and wish that belief in god were correct," but that "an antitheist, a term I'm trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that there's no evidence for such an assertion."^[17] He argued that the concept of god or a supreme being is a totalitarian belief that destroys individual freedom, and that free expression and scientific discovery should replace religion as a means of teaching ethics and defining human civilization. He wrote at length on atheism and the nature of religion in his 2007 book God Is Not Great.

 Anti-war British politician George Galloway, on his way to testify in front of a United States Senate sub-committee investigating the scandals in the U.N. Oil for Food program, called Hitchens a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay",^[155] to which Hitchens quickly replied, "only some of which is true".^[156] Later, in a column for Slate promoting his debate with Galloway which was to take place on 14 September 2005, he elaborated on his prior response: "He says that I am an ex-Trotskyist (true), a 'popinjay' (true enough, since the word's original Webster's definition is a target for arrows and shots), and that I cannot hold a drink (here I must protest)."^[157]

There are many video interviews of Hitchens on shows like "The Daily Show," where you can get glimpses of the large intellect, ego and humor of the man; but where you really get insight into who he was and what he believed was in the many interviews he did with Charlie Rose.  Unfortunately, the Charlie Rose website does not offer embeds.  So I'll invite you to this link, which is the last of the 13 appearances by Christopher Hitchens with Charlie Rose, a whole hour from 2010.

Thomas Brackett Reed

Another one from the category "See how little you know about your home state."
I'm watching Ken Burns' documentary "The Congress" yesterday when there's mention of Speaker of the House Thomas Brackett Reed of Maine.  "Who?," says I.  Click "like" below if you're from Maine and you haven't heard of him either.  How many Speakers of the House are from Maine?  Two, I believe, Blaine being the other.  So you'd think that would be a common name to hear during our educations in Maine. 
Reed was an important enough figure to be mentioned in an hour and a half documentary on a subject as vast as the U.S. Congress, despite the fact that he was Speaker well over 100 years ago.
As I've done with other similar blogs, I won't write a biography as much as encourage you to learn more.
I will tease you with this and include the below link and excerpt.  His efforts to increase the powers of the Speaker were dramatic and lead to the tenure of one of the more powerful Speakers ever, Joseph Gurney Cannon of Illinois.
There's even a street named after him and a statue on the Western Promenade in Portland.
 From Wikipedia
During his time as Speaker, Reed assiduously and dramatically increased the power of the Speaker over the House; although the power of the Speaker had always waxed (most notably during Henry Clay's tenure) and waned, the position had previously commanded influence rather than outright power. Reed set out to put into practical effect his dictum that "The best system is to have one party govern and the other party watch"; this was accomplished by carefully studying the existing procedures of the U.S. House, most dating to the original designs written by Thomas Jefferson. What followed has popularly been called the "Battle of the Reed Rules".

UPDATE:  Author Evan Thomas was on "207" tonight talking about his new book about the Spanish American War, and Reed's name comes up as one of the few prominent politicians who were against the war. WCSH6.com Portland, ME Newsweek's Evan Thomas

Who I learned about yesterday

I guess I'm on a streak here lately of learning about influential people that I shamefully know very little about. A couple of days ago it was Rachel Carson, and yesterday it was Martin Luther. My task here again is not to tell you who these people are in any great detail but to encourage you to learn more about them.
When it comes to Martin Luther, is it fair to say that most of us are familiar with the name and that's about it? Perhaps we know he was a religious figure, perhaps that the Lutheran religion is named for him. But what else do you know? Did you know he told a Pope, Pope Leo X, and a King, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, that he wouldn't retract his writings; that he was right and they were wrong? That he basically told the Pope he was irrelevant; that he translated the Bible from Latin to a language of the common people, and thus the Protestant Reformation starts with Luther?
He was a devoutly religious man and I'm an atheist but I love rebels and free thinkers. Every freedom fighter from Thomas Jefferson to Martin Luther King were inspired by Martin Luther. It could be fairly said that we as Americans owe our democracy to Luther. So take five minutes or so to become better acquainted with one of the most influential people of all time.
Up next? Cleisthenes.

Rachel Carson

This won't be a biography at all; it's an attempt to get back in the habit of using this blog, forcing myself to write a little something here on a regular basis.
I find it astonishing that the name Rachel Carson is unfamiliar to most Americans, including yours truly. While I'd heard the name and knew she wrote "Silent Spring," I really had no idea who she was or the profound influence she had on the modern environmental movement and the creation of the EPA.
Even that aside, she was a trailblazer for women in education and the workplace. Look at where and when she went to college; likewise, her early professional career prior to becoming a fulltime writer. You'd think that anyone included in Time's 100 Most Important People of the 20th Century would at least have been heard of.
You all know how to use the Wiki, so look her up yourself, or go here http://www.rachelcarson.org/ and decide for yourself whether this is someone with whom we should all be familiar.