Sometimes a place still has a pull on you. a certain attraction long after time and logic should have resigned it to a distant memory. For me, Florence is still such a place, with fragmented memories embedded in me like sharp pieces of glass, quiet moments of being at peace in a new place, new friends who were different, open and accepting but challenging and curious at the same time.
Over the years when I look back at Florence, which was a wide street on a highway between Tucson and Phoenix, it had an almost universal quality of contentment for the people living there. It was home, it wasn‘t very much but it was good enough, fine in fact, no reason to go anywhere. When Becky and I visited in the 80’s she remarked on a conversation with a waitress. Becky had said something to the effect that it was close to Phoenix or Tucson so you could always go there. The response which surprised her was the girl said “Why would I want to go there ?” That summed it up. I think that may come from a virus or is in the water but it is one of the sure memories I carry from my time there in 1945. It was a special place It had a personality, a history that was unique and its own. Not particularly isolated and nothing of note beside a penitentiary on the outskirts of town. (And a Prisoner of War Camp to boot in my time.)Yet its quality had nothing to do with those places although they may have spawned some of the ambiance of the place. Visiting day at the Pen was Saturday, wives and the juke box would blare the tune “I want a pardon for Daddy,” a mournful wail but a sure nickel grabber for the juke box company.
The movie “Murphy’s romance” which was shot in Florence changed the town a bit but it also captured the special quality of the place, the “Why would I want to be anywhere
else ?” of it that seems still to me a great mystery for a desert town of small distinction and a population of some 3,000. I note that the last census placed the population of Florence at 17,000. I hope the virtues of that old Florence of 3,000 have not been obfuscated by that much growth.
During my visit in the 80’s I was afraid, rightly so, that no one would remember me, then known as ‘”Brooklyn” the new kid, yet I remember so much in rich, vivid detail about my short stay that it was as if it had been another lifetime--- when I became a different person.
The family was flat broke when we left, Dad walking away from is half interest in the Shamrock Cafe, although I suspect it represented little for him except a loss, a defeat and a disappointment in a formerly trusted friend. Our life style there had been less than elegant, me sleeping on a cot in a small kitchette, yet I was wildly content to be there, absorbed in my new existence as the cowboy from Brooklyn and the acceptance extented by the people of the place that had already made me feel one of them.
I recall the day we boarded the Trailways bus heading east I cried, openly and without shame, my Florence friends witnessing the pain of my parting.
I recall visiting one of the bars during Becky and my visit. There was an older guy, drunk, obviously an ex GI, in civilian clothes but proudly defiantly, wearing a green beret. I knew who he was, remembered when he first enlisted in 1945, his unit patch bore the legend “volunteer army” to distinguish him from the draftees who were then being separated. I could still name his running mates, but I did not attempt contact fearful that I would not be remembered. I could have reminded him of my “Ruth Party” that primitive let’s scare the shit out of the new kid ritual, which is so popular in rural communities, but that was all the connection I had-- and I wanted to be remembered so I didn’t reach out- didn’t take the chance. It might have made him feel good that I remembered him after all those years. It was my loss, I should have tried.
I left Florence with a pair of levis, ubiquitous all through the southwest in those days, my bona fides as a cowboy when I first wore them in Baldwin, New York. I also had a western carved leather wallet, made by the shoemaker who rode with Pancho Villa and was lost to me as I cleaned the bilges of the Destroyer Escort Kyne on my first reserve cruise years later. I also had a silver ring in the shape of a mexican saddle, long misplaced, perhaps given as a token, and a small silver charm shaped like a thunderbird with a small turquoise stone. These, my cowboy treasures all gone save in my memory.
I feel must go back there at least one more time, a slow visit with no deadlines and no urgency to see if I really left a piece of me there or brought away something important which still defies analysis an d understanding.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Glory in excesses
The natives of the Pacific Northwest, known as Kwakiutl and other peoples developed a unique social custom to gain status and prestige within their culture. It involved the elaborate gifting and destruction of items of value and utility in great numbers, in order to display both great wealth, generosity and at the same time a quality of indifference to material things.
A practice called “Potlatching” developed where the tribes would gather at certain times of the year and engage in an orgy of gifting and destruction of such prized possessions as canoes, blankets, weapons and other artifacts, thus displaying their wealth and generosity which gained them much prestige. It also had religious significance.
The tribes would in preparation for a “potlatch” spend many months manufacturing canoes, blankets and other commodities which were to be burned as a display of the excess of riches of a tribe, thus gaining the respect and appreciation of the other tribes.
This style of excess and consumption was far from foreign in what is now described as “the golden age” where wealth, elaborate displays of parties, and exaggerated styles became the hallmark of the American rich and successful, ultimately catalogued and analyzed by Thorsen Veblen, in his work “The Theory of the Leisure Classes, “ which gave birth to the phrase “conspicuous consumption.”
While not as flamboyant as the Kwakiutl practices, the lifestyle of the rich and famous of the Golden Age did, share a common blueprint with those peoples, to consume and display great wealth to an obscene level, incorporating it into all manner of social rituals involving status (pecking order) rules for partying and visiting, courtship and friendly relations so as to build up a structure of a society in which every one knew who was important, what deference was due and how important it was to keep one’s place.
Canada outlawed the “potlatch” which was ruinous to the tribes, while the monied caste of the U.S. wealthy continued their extravagances to this day. Many large wealthy homes in fashionable locations, armies of servants and yachts, the floating toys of elegance, continue the competition of the wealthy. Selective criteria developed, old money lording it over the “nouveau riche.” John Dos Passos describing “mello wampum” as a fortune 3 generations old. How the fortunes were amassed became less important in time than the size and influence that they achieved for their founders and scions. Cliques developed, while claiming exclusivity for a variety of reasons, still depended on and clung to the cult of money although sometime disparaged it as “filthy lucre.” First family of this or that soon competed for unique attention and superior status, ultimately looking down upon one another from mountains of self proclaimed superiority.
Our class system, as rigid as the Hindu’s was born. Ethnic barriers were early erected to protect the purity and power of the early elite, less some social climber taint the purity of the bloodline. One could engage in business with members of the despised classes of necessity, but did not entertain nor socialize with them. After all standards had to be maintained.
While some of the rules and barriers have moderated, our society is still stratified by status and money. CEO’s of the major corporations erect several mansions around the world as visible evidence of their success and importance.
Homes, far larger and more elaborate than necessary have become one of the hallmarks of success. The term, “McMansion” has appeared in our language, a disparagement of the overreaching of the over ambitious. Luxury cars, replete with all manner of electronic doodads dominate the automobile market. The advertising industry refers to less expensive vehicles as “econo boxes,” to be eschewed.
In the world of fashion, well-cut, well-tailored clothing is not enough. The “designer” label, and whatever snob appeal it has is as significant. Again, a highly advertised, pricey garment is to be preferred. Each year to be replaced by the latest style.
Trend and flash supplant quality and utility.
A practice called “Potlatching” developed where the tribes would gather at certain times of the year and engage in an orgy of gifting and destruction of such prized possessions as canoes, blankets, weapons and other artifacts, thus displaying their wealth and generosity which gained them much prestige. It also had religious significance.
The tribes would in preparation for a “potlatch” spend many months manufacturing canoes, blankets and other commodities which were to be burned as a display of the excess of riches of a tribe, thus gaining the respect and appreciation of the other tribes.
This style of excess and consumption was far from foreign in what is now described as “the golden age” where wealth, elaborate displays of parties, and exaggerated styles became the hallmark of the American rich and successful, ultimately catalogued and analyzed by Thorsen Veblen, in his work “The Theory of the Leisure Classes, “ which gave birth to the phrase “conspicuous consumption.”
While not as flamboyant as the Kwakiutl practices, the lifestyle of the rich and famous of the Golden Age did, share a common blueprint with those peoples, to consume and display great wealth to an obscene level, incorporating it into all manner of social rituals involving status (pecking order) rules for partying and visiting, courtship and friendly relations so as to build up a structure of a society in which every one knew who was important, what deference was due and how important it was to keep one’s place.
Canada outlawed the “potlatch” which was ruinous to the tribes, while the monied caste of the U.S. wealthy continued their extravagances to this day. Many large wealthy homes in fashionable locations, armies of servants and yachts, the floating toys of elegance, continue the competition of the wealthy. Selective criteria developed, old money lording it over the “nouveau riche.” John Dos Passos describing “mello wampum” as a fortune 3 generations old. How the fortunes were amassed became less important in time than the size and influence that they achieved for their founders and scions. Cliques developed, while claiming exclusivity for a variety of reasons, still depended on and clung to the cult of money although sometime disparaged it as “filthy lucre.” First family of this or that soon competed for unique attention and superior status, ultimately looking down upon one another from mountains of self proclaimed superiority.
Our class system, as rigid as the Hindu’s was born. Ethnic barriers were early erected to protect the purity and power of the early elite, less some social climber taint the purity of the bloodline. One could engage in business with members of the despised classes of necessity, but did not entertain nor socialize with them. After all standards had to be maintained.
While some of the rules and barriers have moderated, our society is still stratified by status and money. CEO’s of the major corporations erect several mansions around the world as visible evidence of their success and importance.
Homes, far larger and more elaborate than necessary have become one of the hallmarks of success. The term, “McMansion” has appeared in our language, a disparagement of the overreaching of the over ambitious. Luxury cars, replete with all manner of electronic doodads dominate the automobile market. The advertising industry refers to less expensive vehicles as “econo boxes,” to be eschewed.
In the world of fashion, well-cut, well-tailored clothing is not enough. The “designer” label, and whatever snob appeal it has is as significant. Again, a highly advertised, pricey garment is to be preferred. Each year to be replaced by the latest style.
Trend and flash supplant quality and utility.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Afghanistan- the Mideast briar patch
To understand the complicating factors of our current involvement in Afghanistan, three things are necessary. One must have a map of the area, and a knowledge of it’s history for the last 200 years and a healthy appreciation of the irony of unforeseen consequences.
For centuries, Afghanistan’s dominant population was the Pashtun people, believed by some cultural anthropologists to be one of the ten lost tribes of Israel. HIghly tribal and fragmented, they continually engaged in conflict among them selves, establishing and overthrowing a series of governments over the centuries, a no-man’s land between India and Persia.
In the early 19th century, Russian expansion from the north met British resistance from India, with Afghanistan in the middle. These two empires contended for dominance in the area, called “The Great Game” in English literature of the era. The Pashtans, in the middle played one side against the other, the consequences of which exacerbated the turmoil which has continued to this day.
In an attempt to solve their differences the British, with Russian acquiescence, in 1893 established a division of Afghanistan, known as the Durand line, which became the border between western India (now Pakistan) and Afghanistan. One unfortunate (and unforeseen consequence) was the division of the Pashtun people and bequeathing to Pakistan the disruptive and quarrelsome people which now populate their northern tribal areas.
For a time, “ the great game” abated, restarted after W.W.I I and finally concluded when the British Raj in India ended with the partition of India and establishment of Pakistan as a Moslem state in 1948.
Afghanistan was ruled by a succession of Khan’s until 1973, when a military coup overthrew the existing government of the Khan, leading briefly to a republic, which in turn was overthrown by the socialist leaning Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, which in turn invited the Soviet Union, to assist in modernization and development. Later this “assistance” expanded to help suppress a rising mujahideen uprising and by 1979 had expanded to what was perceived as the Soviet invasion. The Soviet incremental involvement, similar to our own involvement in Vietnam was perceived by the U.S. and in particular, presidential advisor Brezinski, as an opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union and give them their own Vietnam, “Operation Cyclone” was born, authorizing C.I.A. involvement in supporting the rebels, funding them and supplying them with Stinger missiles to shoot down Soviet helicopters. Now glorified by the Tom Hank’s movie “Charlie Wilson’s War”. By 1985 we were fully committed to a Soviet defeat by the Mujehideen, augmented by a variety of Islamic jihadists. After 9 years of warfare, a million Afghans killed, 5 million displaced and 15,000 Soviets dead, the Soviets left. In their place victorious group of muslim fanatics, including Osama bin Laden, which later morphed into Al Quada and the Taliban. (Another unforeseen consequence. )
After the attack of 9-11 on the World Trade Towers, we invaded Afghanistan, ostensibly to “take out Osama bin Laden. While a mercenary hit squad might have been more effective, we were committed. Once more into the breach, dear friends.
Currently, our concerns are establishing a new strategy, establishing new troop levels, determining the limits of our commitment to the current regime, redefining our ultimate goals, and designing an exit strategy, while surrounded by a people who have spent the last 200 years shooting at one another and any foreigners who happen to be in country.
In Vietnam there was a saying that the Emperor’s mandate stops at the village gate, reflecting the fact that the central government had limited authority in the countryside. I suspect that this is also true with respect to the tribal areas of Afghanistan, especially with respect to the Pashtuns given their tradition of rebellious independence.
Disparaging references to President Karzai as the mayor of Kabul demonstrates the lack of the effectiveness of the central government and will be a difficult circumstance for U.S. forces to deal with in achieving a lasting success in stabilizing the country.
For centuries, Afghanistan’s dominant population was the Pashtun people, believed by some cultural anthropologists to be one of the ten lost tribes of Israel. HIghly tribal and fragmented, they continually engaged in conflict among them selves, establishing and overthrowing a series of governments over the centuries, a no-man’s land between India and Persia.
In the early 19th century, Russian expansion from the north met British resistance from India, with Afghanistan in the middle. These two empires contended for dominance in the area, called “The Great Game” in English literature of the era. The Pashtans, in the middle played one side against the other, the consequences of which exacerbated the turmoil which has continued to this day.
In an attempt to solve their differences the British, with Russian acquiescence, in 1893 established a division of Afghanistan, known as the Durand line, which became the border between western India (now Pakistan) and Afghanistan. One unfortunate (and unforeseen consequence) was the division of the Pashtun people and bequeathing to Pakistan the disruptive and quarrelsome people which now populate their northern tribal areas.
For a time, “ the great game” abated, restarted after W.W.I I and finally concluded when the British Raj in India ended with the partition of India and establishment of Pakistan as a Moslem state in 1948.
Afghanistan was ruled by a succession of Khan’s until 1973, when a military coup overthrew the existing government of the Khan, leading briefly to a republic, which in turn was overthrown by the socialist leaning Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, which in turn invited the Soviet Union, to assist in modernization and development. Later this “assistance” expanded to help suppress a rising mujahideen uprising and by 1979 had expanded to what was perceived as the Soviet invasion. The Soviet incremental involvement, similar to our own involvement in Vietnam was perceived by the U.S. and in particular, presidential advisor Brezinski, as an opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union and give them their own Vietnam, “Operation Cyclone” was born, authorizing C.I.A. involvement in supporting the rebels, funding them and supplying them with Stinger missiles to shoot down Soviet helicopters. Now glorified by the Tom Hank’s movie “Charlie Wilson’s War”. By 1985 we were fully committed to a Soviet defeat by the Mujehideen, augmented by a variety of Islamic jihadists. After 9 years of warfare, a million Afghans killed, 5 million displaced and 15,000 Soviets dead, the Soviets left. In their place victorious group of muslim fanatics, including Osama bin Laden, which later morphed into Al Quada and the Taliban. (Another unforeseen consequence. )
After the attack of 9-11 on the World Trade Towers, we invaded Afghanistan, ostensibly to “take out Osama bin Laden. While a mercenary hit squad might have been more effective, we were committed. Once more into the breach, dear friends.
Currently, our concerns are establishing a new strategy, establishing new troop levels, determining the limits of our commitment to the current regime, redefining our ultimate goals, and designing an exit strategy, while surrounded by a people who have spent the last 200 years shooting at one another and any foreigners who happen to be in country.
In Vietnam there was a saying that the Emperor’s mandate stops at the village gate, reflecting the fact that the central government had limited authority in the countryside. I suspect that this is also true with respect to the tribal areas of Afghanistan, especially with respect to the Pashtuns given their tradition of rebellious independence.
Disparaging references to President Karzai as the mayor of Kabul demonstrates the lack of the effectiveness of the central government and will be a difficult circumstance for U.S. forces to deal with in achieving a lasting success in stabilizing the country.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Profiles in Caution
Recently it has come to light that many of the Republicans in the House secretly admitted that Obama’s stimulus bill was the right direction for government to take and wished for its passage but withheld their support and vote, solely out of the fear of neocon attacks and primary opposition in the next election. Surely not the Hemmingway definition of courage as grace under pressure.
This reaction raises an interesting contrast to the qualities approved of in JFK’s “Profiles in Courage,” where certain politicians decided that doing the right thing was more important than acting solely in their own personal interest and political survival.
This, in turn, brings up an often debated question as to the appropriate role for an elected official, viz. is the official charged with using his own good judgment in the best interests of the people, or is his obligation merely to parrot the loudest or prevailing views of his constituency, however mistaken or misguided this may be ?
The “Profiles in Courage” approach supports “doing the right thing, regardless of contemporary unpopularity and taking the consequences, while acting for the “vox populi” and reflecting solely their will may be a sure path to reelection but does it necessarily lead to good government and well serve the people ?”
When a representative is selected to serve because he has wisdom and experience and is expected to make wise decisions, how are the people served if he is expected to bend to the opinion of the crowd which may be ill-informed, based on bias or just generally wrong ? While consistent disagreement with one’s constituency will surely lead to defeat in the next election, isn’t a representative obligated to do his best while in office, rather than just serve as a mouthpiece or parrot ?
“Party Discipline “ is yet another way of clubbing independent thinkers into conformity as demonstrated in the current case of moderate Republicans not voting their conscience or best judgment for fear of factional reprisal.
Doing right is not always the easy nor the popular thing but isn’t it more important, in the final analysis, than ducking one’s responsibility or acting as a mere puppet to preserve one’s re-elect ability ?
This reaction raises an interesting contrast to the qualities approved of in JFK’s “Profiles in Courage,” where certain politicians decided that doing the right thing was more important than acting solely in their own personal interest and political survival.
This, in turn, brings up an often debated question as to the appropriate role for an elected official, viz. is the official charged with using his own good judgment in the best interests of the people, or is his obligation merely to parrot the loudest or prevailing views of his constituency, however mistaken or misguided this may be ?
The “Profiles in Courage” approach supports “doing the right thing, regardless of contemporary unpopularity and taking the consequences, while acting for the “vox populi” and reflecting solely their will may be a sure path to reelection but does it necessarily lead to good government and well serve the people ?”
When a representative is selected to serve because he has wisdom and experience and is expected to make wise decisions, how are the people served if he is expected to bend to the opinion of the crowd which may be ill-informed, based on bias or just generally wrong ? While consistent disagreement with one’s constituency will surely lead to defeat in the next election, isn’t a representative obligated to do his best while in office, rather than just serve as a mouthpiece or parrot ?
“Party Discipline “ is yet another way of clubbing independent thinkers into conformity as demonstrated in the current case of moderate Republicans not voting their conscience or best judgment for fear of factional reprisal.
Doing right is not always the easy nor the popular thing but isn’t it more important, in the final analysis, than ducking one’s responsibility or acting as a mere puppet to preserve one’s re-elect ability ?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Health Care, Insurance and Employee Benefits
The furnishing of health care as a collateral benefit of one’s employment is largely a matter of historical accident rather than logical choice. Early in the development of the organized labor movement in the U.S. medical insurance was advanced as a benefit for employees. Initially, management found this a less expensive alternative than an outright wage increase since it was a contingent rather than absolute expense and could be covered by an insurance plan. Over the years this concept became generally accepted in U.S. employment contracts. Our current economic difficulties, with large numbers of the work force losing their jobs and as a consequence their health insurance demonstrates the illogic of this arrangement. Also, the cost of the insurance makes U.S. companies less competitive in the world market and is a factor in moving business off shore.
A more sweeping and more expensive problem with health care is to regard it as an “insurance program,” necessarily tying it to the insurance industry, and creating a universe of unnecessary costs, involving profit taking, managerial expenses and paper processing- creating a headless and expensive wall between the patient and the care giver.
Many other countries, less developed and less affluent than the U.S., have provided a more efficient and vastly less expensive alternative by establishing a “single payer” system through taxpayer funded plans.
Resisted in the U.S. for doctrinaire and philosophic reasons rather than issues of practicality, we have inherited an inefficient system, overburdened by excessive and unnecessary costs and vast duplications of administrative functions.
Our economic patchwork of co-payment, exclusions and coinsurance does not obscure the fact that we now have one of the most expensive and least efficient health care plan of any developed country and many less developed counties.
It is past time to get the hundreds of large and small insurance companies out of the health care business. By saving the millions of dollars wasted on a competing advertising, executive salaries, stockholder dividends and salaries for unnecessary employees performing make-work paper-shuffling services the cost of health care could be immediately reduced to supporting health care function only rather than the unnecessary appendages which have become the barnacles of the system.
The employees cost of labor would be reduced by no longer being burdened with adding the cost of “health insurance” to wage costs, making us more competitive with foreign companies who are not so burdened. Clearly this would be a win- win scenario for health care , the American public and the U.S. economy.
A more sweeping and more expensive problem with health care is to regard it as an “insurance program,” necessarily tying it to the insurance industry, and creating a universe of unnecessary costs, involving profit taking, managerial expenses and paper processing- creating a headless and expensive wall between the patient and the care giver.
Many other countries, less developed and less affluent than the U.S., have provided a more efficient and vastly less expensive alternative by establishing a “single payer” system through taxpayer funded plans.
Resisted in the U.S. for doctrinaire and philosophic reasons rather than issues of practicality, we have inherited an inefficient system, overburdened by excessive and unnecessary costs and vast duplications of administrative functions.
Our economic patchwork of co-payment, exclusions and coinsurance does not obscure the fact that we now have one of the most expensive and least efficient health care plan of any developed country and many less developed counties.
It is past time to get the hundreds of large and small insurance companies out of the health care business. By saving the millions of dollars wasted on a competing advertising, executive salaries, stockholder dividends and salaries for unnecessary employees performing make-work paper-shuffling services the cost of health care could be immediately reduced to supporting health care function only rather than the unnecessary appendages which have become the barnacles of the system.
The employees cost of labor would be reduced by no longer being burdened with adding the cost of “health insurance” to wage costs, making us more competitive with foreign companies who are not so burdened. Clearly this would be a win- win scenario for health care , the American public and the U.S. economy.
The smoke of self-laudation
Frequently letters and editorials recite that we are the greatest country in the world and have been blessed in a variety of ways. Unfortunately this often repeated self praise tends to overlook the fact that this just didn’t happen; it was the result of hard work and diligent effort to improve our lot. The self praise also has the unfortunate effect of obscuring our shortfall in many areas. We would be far better off in focusing our efforts and attention to what needs fixing and improvement in our country, maximizing those blessings, rather than wallowing in self praise and chauvinism.
Many less developed countries have better health care and educational systems than we do, and we are slowly loosing our preeminence in other areas. In part due to the blinding effect of self praise. Hard work got us to where we could justifiably feel proud of our country, more of the same is necessary to keep our country great.
Many less developed countries have better health care and educational systems than we do, and we are slowly loosing our preeminence in other areas. In part due to the blinding effect of self praise. Hard work got us to where we could justifiably feel proud of our country, more of the same is necessary to keep our country great.
The Beat Cop
In the 1930’s my Dad was a “beat cop” in the Bronx, a policeman who walked foot patrol in an assigned section of the city, alone and unassisted. I recall his equipment consisted of a 38 special revolver, 12 spare rounds in leather loops on his belt, a black jack, “nipper chains”, (a highly effective come along device,) a large brass key which gave him access to a call box, a box containing a telephone attached to a lamppost on the corner and a wooden 26 inch nightstick which was attacked to a long thong. An accomplished patrolman could twirl the nightstick in a fashion which would make a baton twirler envious. They could also be thrown in a fashion to bring down a fleeing suspect.
What was missing in my father’s array of duty equipment was pepper spray, tazers or other electric shocking devises and two way radio equipment.
In short, policeman in those days were expected to subdue ordinary miscreants barehanded; without blinding them with pepper spray or shocking them into a near stupor with the much favored tazer of today’s officers. Two hands were usually adequate to effect an arrest.
Resort to the night stick or “billy” as the blackjack was called only in extreme circumstances. But then cops in those days were expected to be self reliant, tough, if necessary.
Punks, then as now were treacherous dangerous and frequently armed, but the police were charges with the responsibility to subdue them while effecting an arrest, not kill them by accident. But then, back in those days policemen were cops.
What was missing in my father’s array of duty equipment was pepper spray, tazers or other electric shocking devises and two way radio equipment.
In short, policeman in those days were expected to subdue ordinary miscreants barehanded; without blinding them with pepper spray or shocking them into a near stupor with the much favored tazer of today’s officers. Two hands were usually adequate to effect an arrest.
Resort to the night stick or “billy” as the blackjack was called only in extreme circumstances. But then cops in those days were expected to be self reliant, tough, if necessary.
Punks, then as now were treacherous dangerous and frequently armed, but the police were charges with the responsibility to subdue them while effecting an arrest, not kill them by accident. But then, back in those days policemen were cops.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
What again?
A generally accepted premise is expecting different results from the same behavior is completely irrational. During the Reagan administration, David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director, persuaded the Republicans to embrace the concepts of supply side economics and the theory that if the top earners earn more it will “trickle down” to the rest of the economy. To achieve this result, major tax cuts for those in the highest tax brackets was implemented with the result that the national debt was doubled during the Reagan years.
The policies were changed by Clinton and by the end of the Clinton administration the debt was eliminated. Bush inherited a surplus and introduced major tax cuts for the wealthy which ultimately led to the largest national debt in our history.
Fast forward to 2009, and the Republicans in the Congress are again arguing that the solution for our current economic malaise is for more tax cuts for the wealthy as this will revive our economy and create more jobs thus solving our current difficulties . Does anyone dare to challenge the concept this time or are we doomed to repeat the behavior in expectation of a different
result ?
The policies were changed by Clinton and by the end of the Clinton administration the debt was eliminated. Bush inherited a surplus and introduced major tax cuts for the wealthy which ultimately led to the largest national debt in our history.
Fast forward to 2009, and the Republicans in the Congress are again arguing that the solution for our current economic malaise is for more tax cuts for the wealthy as this will revive our economy and create more jobs thus solving our current difficulties . Does anyone dare to challenge the concept this time or are we doomed to repeat the behavior in expectation of a different
result ?
The Beat Cop
In the 1930’s my Dad was a “beat cop” in the Bronx, a policeman who walked foot patrol in an assigned section of the city, alone and unassisted. I recall his equipment consisted of a 38 special revolver, 12 spare rounds in leather loops on his belt, a black jack, “nipper chains”, (a highly effective come along device,) a large brass key which gave him access to a call box, a box containing a telephone attached to a lamppost on the corner and a wooden 26 inch nightstick which was attacked to a long thong. An accomplished patrolman could twirl the nightstick in a fashion which would make a baton twirler envious. They could also be thrown in a fashion to bring down a fleeing suspect.
What was missing in my father’s array of duty equipment was pepper spray, tazers or other electric shocking devises and two way radio equipment.
In short, policeman in those days were expected to subdue ordinary miscreants barehanded; without blinding them with pepper spray or shocking them into a near stupor with the much favored tazer of today’s officers. Two hands were usually adequate to effect an arrest.
Resort to the night stick or “billy” as the blackjack was called only in extreme circumstances. But then cops in those days were expected to be self reliant, tough, if necessary.
Punks, then as now were treacherous dangerous and frequently armed, but the police were charges with the responsibility to subdue them while effecting an arrest, not kill them by accident. But then, back in those days policemen were cops.
What was missing in my father’s array of duty equipment was pepper spray, tazers or other electric shocking devises and two way radio equipment.
In short, policeman in those days were expected to subdue ordinary miscreants barehanded; without blinding them with pepper spray or shocking them into a near stupor with the much favored tazer of today’s officers. Two hands were usually adequate to effect an arrest.
Resort to the night stick or “billy” as the blackjack was called only in extreme circumstances. But then cops in those days were expected to be self reliant, tough, if necessary.
Punks, then as now were treacherous dangerous and frequently armed, but the police were charges with the responsibility to subdue them while effecting an arrest, not kill them by accident. But then, back in those days policemen were cops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)