Who is the Real Richard Nixon?

Recently, I had the opportunity to view Ron Howard's latest film, Frost / Nixon. Set in 1977, it explores a series of television interviews between British talk show host David Frost, and former United States President Richard Nixon. It is based on a successful play of the same name, written by Peter Morgan.

The play (and film) styles itself as a classic David and Goliath epic. Both men are locked in struggle, both with themselves and each other. The callow Frost appears mired in a struggle to resurrect his rapidly fading television career, while the disgraced and heavily worn Nixon wants to save his tarnished legacy, longing to again feel the adrenaline of politics coursing in his veins. Further, Morgan makes it clear that in the end, only one of these men will "win." Nowhere in the script is this more apparent than when Nixon remarks

"I shall be your fiercest adversary. I shall come at you with everything I got...Because the limelight can only shine...on one of us."

I was captivated and moved by Frank Lenghella's carefully crafted portrayal of the former President. It goes beyond the soundbite - driven caricatures that have haunted Nixon's legacy for years, and offers us a Nixon which many of us have never seen before. Langhella (and writer Peter Morgan) certainly incorporates the classic Dick - isms, from the man's comically awkward physicality, to his great intellect and ego. However, they also offer an awkward, quirky charm to Nixon's character. Ultimately, we are led to believe that deep down, Nixon viewed these interviews as an opportunity to "come clean" to the American people, and thus free himself from the burden of deceit that had dogged him since he left the oval office in disgrace. This comes through with great clarity, when he finally admits,

I have impeached myself... I let down my friends. I let down the country. I let the American people down. And I have to carry that burden with me for the rest of my life.

The interviews revive Frost's career, and supply Nixon with the catharsis he privately seeks. As we leave Langhella's Nixon, looking out over the ocean near San Clemente, we leave seeing a man who while still feeling lonely and exiled, also has found a measure of peace.

Frost / Nixon provides great drama and wonderful theatre. It also provides plenty of lighter moments, and the film's actors present embodiments of their characters, rather than mere impersonations. However, I fear that many people will view this work as historical fact, when in many ways, it truly is not.

Like Langhella and Morgan's Nixon, the real Richard Nixon could in fact be charming. In 1952, as a young Vice Presidential candidate, he was accused of accepting $18,000 in illegal campaign contributions. He went on television and delivered a famous speech, which many would say ultimately saved his nomination. In addition to presenting what he claimed was a full disclosure of his finances, Nixon told a charming little anecdote about a cocker spaniel one supporter had sent his family, which his daughter named "Checkers." He claimed that no matter what anyone said, his family was going to keep the dog. It was a great moment of light-heartedness that distracted many from a growing scandal.

However, unlike Langhella and Morgan's portrayal, the real Richard Nixon's dark side was a much more significant part of his personality. He was, for instance, far more predatory, cold, and calculating when it came to politics. Since he was not born into great wealth or social standing, Nixon had to carve out his own niche in the world. He did so with a remarkably fiery, competitive, and vicious zeal, forging a career out of an uncanny ability to tear his opposition to pieces. Like a hunter stocking a ten - point buck, he could sense an opponent's weaknesses. In the early years, as a member of the House Un - American Activities Committee (HUAC) he portrayed himself as a crusader against domestic communism. When running for a Senate seat in 1950, he stated that his opponent, Helen Gahagan Douglas, was "pink right down to her underwear." He won by a considerable margin. In 1952, as Eisenhower's running mate, he lampooned Adlai Stevenson, calling him "Adlai the Appeaser...who got a PhD from Dean Acheson's school of cowardly communist containment." Stevenson lost by seven million votes.

The real Richard Nixon also often faced the world with a combative stance, which seemed at times to border on paranoia. His political life reached its nadir in 1962. He had lost the Presidency to John F. Kennedy two years earlier, and had been decidedly defeated in the California Governor's race by incumbent Democrat Pat Brown. In a post - election press conference, he blamed the media for his failures, and concluded a rambling diatribe by saying,

Just think what you're going to be missing...you won't have Nixon to kick around anymore...because gentlemen, this is my last press conference.

These losses did not prove to be the ending of Richard Nixon's political career, but rather, almost a stepping stone of sorts. For in losing first to John F. Kennedy and later to Pat Brown, Nixon's resolve to never lose again was galvanized. He would, in short, get back to his political roots, ripping apart anyone who dared to cross his path. Furthermore, he would always view the world through oppositionist eyes. There was always somebody, or some thing, out to get him.

Frost / Nixon only provides a brief foray into Nixon's darker side. Late at night, a somewhat drunk Nixon calls Frost in his hotel room, and proclaims that through the interviews, he and Frost will "make those mother fuckers (presumably the media and anybody else who dislikes him) choke." Langhella portrays Nixon's hard - edged, combative world view convincingly, but Morgan's script barely allows him the opportunity. The scene is brief, and later on, its entire existence becomes dubious, as Nixon claims to have no recollection of the conversation.

In truth, this combative stance never left the real Nixon's character, even after he resigned from the Presidency in disgrace. In the actual interviews with Frost, this part of his psychological makeup clearly came across. One could easily argue that Nixon never truly admitted to being guilty of trying to cover up the Watergate scandal, nor did he want to do so. Instead, his most poignant admission was that he allowed his opposition to defeat him by using the very same tactics on which he himself relied - find the opponent's dirty laundry, and hang it out in the open air.

It was this admission that served as a loose basis for Frost / Nixon's climax. However, as direct quotations demonstrate, the real interview and its fictional counterpart contrast sharply. Ultimately, Nixon concluded,

I don't go with the idea that what brought me down was a coup, a conspiracy, etc., etc., etc. I brought myself down - I gave 'em a sword, and they...stuck it in...and they twisted it with relish. And I guess that if I'd been in their position, I'd have done the same thing.

In short, Nixon was admitting to failure. However, his was not a failure born out of his character. Rather, it was a failure born out of being outsmarted by his opposition. Perhaps he realized that he should have burned the tapes. By saying he would have "done the same thing," he was arguing that when it came to politics, this still was the only way to play.

Frost / Nixon's greatest contribution to American culture is not that it tells us what really happened thirty years ago. Rather, it reminds us of what so many of us wish could have happened. We wish Richard Nixon genuinely felt he "let the country down" by stooping so low. However, the fact remains that in the actual interviews, such an admission never really occurred.

This struggle to reconcile the real Nixon with his fictional counterpart should not invoke more cynicism or frustration in the film's viewers, and it does not do so in me. Rather, it serves as a reminder of the qualities we should seek in our leaders: Accountability, sound judgement, humility, and above all else, truly heartfelt honesty.

This, in short, is Frost / Nixon's greatest lesson.

McCain - Palin and their Socialist Deception...

Recently, I was driving to work, and, as I often do, listening to the news on National Public Radio. The journalist was traveling throughout the state of Colorado, and interviewing undecided voters. Recent poll data suggests that a state many have considered a Republican stronghold could actually be up for grabs.I was struck by a comment made by one gentleman in an interview. Although I cannot remember what he said verbatim, I do recall that he mentioned he was undecided, but leaning towards the McCain - Palin ticket. When asked to elaborate on his reasoning, he stated that he felt Obama's Socialist leanings would be bad for America.

As you might imagine, this caught my attention. More than anything, I wished the reporter had followed up by asking the man how he defined Socialism. This would have provided an interesting talking point. According to dictionary.com. "Socialism" is defined as a system "of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods (are) owned collectively or controlled by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Let's quickly examine the labeling of Barack Obama as a socialist. The central premise of this argument is grounded in the notion that Obama wants to "spread around" people's wealth to benefit everyone else. In a recent interview with CNN, Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin was directly asked if she thought Obama was a Socialist. This was her response:

"I'm not going to call him a socialist, but as Joe the plumber has suggested, in fact he came right out and said it, it sounds like socialism to him. And he speaks for so many Americans who are quite concerned now after hearing finally what Barack Obama's true intentions are with his tax and economic plan.”

The most troubling aspect of this quote is not the accusation itself. It is the fact that the concept of socialism has been transformed into a label with absolutely no substantive meaning behind it. It seems there are two forms of Socialism - the kind talked about by the likes of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, and the McPalin version. George Shadroi (voting for McCain), who blogs at www.intellectualconservative.com, recently stated that "...if we look at the definition of socialism, the textbook definition, it involves consolidating the means of production into the hands of the government. However liberal he (Obama) may be, there is no indication that Senator Obama plans to nationalize our major industries or centrally run our economy."

Interestingly, upon learning about her past, it seems that both the true definition of socialism AND its McPalin construct can be easily connected to Sarah Palin's record as a governor.

A centerpiece of her sales pitch to America is the notion that she is willing to "take on big oil companies." Soon after she was elected Governor, Palin decided to implement a new tax program that vastly increased taxes on oil production.

Additionally, the state of Alaska's approach to oil royalties is extremely intriguing. Essentially, the law says that Alaskans collectively own the state's energy reserves. Accordingly, permanent residents of the state are able to collect a dividend of these royalties. The government essentially distributes money from oil revenues amongst the state's qualifying populace. Palin has hailed this as a great policy, stating that "...Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

Finally, Governor Palin has also demonstrated that she will not hesitate to use Alaskan dollars to make big investments in the oil and gas - driven economy. For years, major American oil companies have shown little interest in developing their natural gas - rich land holdings in Alaska. Governor Palin vowed to tap into these fields for the good of her state. However, in order to do this, she did not try to give American companies incentives. Instead, she took the process largely into the state's hands. She decided to split the cost of building a massive natural gas pipeline with a Canadian corporation. Alaskans would fork over half the cost, roughly $500 million dollars.

George Orwell was an astute observer of political language. He once mused that

It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts...Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration.

In short, the McCain - Palin campaign has directly and indirectly muddied the meaning of the word "socialist" to the point where it obscures significant questions about Governor Palin's record. Unfortunately, many Americans have probably not taken the time to really notice them, nor has the American media done a very good job of pointing them out.

To recap;

A) Governor Palin has increased taxes on oil companies.

B) She openly embraces a government - run system in which oil royalties are spread equally among all Alaskans - in essence, a "share the wealth" philosphy under state control.

C) Instead of looking to the American private sector, she openly advocates investing huge sums of tax dollars in building a pipeline that will be an integral part of her state's economic infrastructure.

To borrow from the Governor's own words, I'm not going to call Sarah Palin a socialist, but sometimes, her record sounds an awful lot LIKE socialism.

Hey there, Joe the Plumber. You really ought to pay more attention.

A Flood of History we have Yet to Learn

The recent floods in the upper Mississippi basin have brought terrible devastation to America's heartland. As of today, twenty-four people have died, one hundred forty eight have been injured, and countless people have been forced to evacuate their homes. There have also been millions of dollars worth of property damage and losses. Sitting here on the East coast, I suspect that our perceptions of the destruction are somewhat limited. The beauty of television (or any form of media, for that matter) is that the individual can control the flow of information into the mind. Whenever the news becomes too overwhelming, we can just change the channel, put the newspaper down, or visit a new website. Unfortunately, our fellow citizens in the Midwest must face these difficulties all day, every day. Their resolve is something to be admired.

The flood's devastation has created great controversy. There are some who have argued that such incidents only occur every five hundred years. This seems to suggest that no matter what we do to prepare, there will be floods that are beyond our ability to contain. Eric Halpin, a special assistant for dam and levee safety with the US Army Corps of Engineers, made the following comment:

"Nature has its way of upping the ante. This storm proved that even if we had built levees to the floods of record, they would have been overwhelmed by this event."

There are also those who argue that America's flood containment system is grossly inadequate. By now, most of us are probably familiar with the concept of "levees." For those who are not, a levee is nothing more than an embankment designed to prevent the flooding of a river. In the United States, many levees are evaluated by what is known as the "100 year standard." This simply means that in any given year, there is a one percent chance that a flood will rise above the levee. If a levee meets that standard, it is considered sufficient. However, according to some, this system is a joke. The people of the Netherlands, for example, frequently have to deal with the possibility of ocean flooding. Levees in the Netherlands are built in accordance with a ten thousand year standard. Additionally, the addition of sandbags to the top of a levee can actually become weaker, as the earth cannot always support the extra weight. Sandbags are, of course, one of the most visible symbols of floods in this country.

Essentially, there are those who say that such floods are beyond our control, and those who say we are severely unprepared. One should not oversimplify this debate, as it is, undoubtedly, a very complex issue. However there are some very serious questions that we, as Americans, must begin to answer. From my perspective, two important questions that have been overlooked are these.

(1) Should flooding always be automatically equated with economic disaster and hardship?

(2) How should we deal with such incidents in the future?

For thousands of years, man has struggled to control the Earth's waters. Ancient Egypt, for instance, was able to survive through highly successful agriculture near the Nile. It was one of the agricultural centers of the ancient world. Interestingly, without floods, the ancient Egyptians may never have thrived. During the period of the Old Kingdom, Egyptian agriculture relied heavily on the fertile soil of the Nile's flood plains. The floods determined the rhythm of the agricultural seasons. The floodwaters would replenish the soil's nutrients and moisture every year, then recede long enough for the farmers to sew and harvest their crops.

Such an approach to farming stands in stark contrast to today's agricultural practices. We are bombarded by news of agricultural devastation due to flooding. It is fascinating to think that there was a time when farmers prayed that floods would arrive.

However, things did not always work out for the Egyptians. They were subjected to the unpredictable characteristics of Mother Nature, just as we are today. It is thought that environmental challenges actually led to the collapse of the Old Kingdom in approximately 2185 BC. Geological evidence suggests that at this time, the Nile's floods were unusually low, which starved the Egyptian soil. In sum, the people were starving, the economy failed, and the kingdom withered in the sun.

Some twenty-five years after the Old Kingdom failed, the Pharaohs and their legions of engineers were determined to transcend their natural agricultural limitations. To combat poor flood levels, they resolved to develop elaborate irrigation systems. In one region, called the Faiyum Depression, they struggled mightily.

This region was dependent on the Nile's floods. The pharaohs and their engineers decided to construct a large reservoir, which could replenish the region with water in times of drought. Additionally, instead of allowing the Nile's waters to flood the entire depression, it was determined that it would be contained to a lake, creating a greater area of available farmland. Large pyramids were erected in the region, along with an obelisk.

In the fifth century BC, the Greek historian Herodotus visited the region. He was disappointed to find that the whole Faiyum Depression was severely flooded. He had hoped to see statues that had been built at the old lake's edge. Instead, all he could see were the very tops of their heads - the rest of them were hidden underwater. Poor Herodotus. The river's behavior had suddenly changed, and it went from being meagerly low to being swollen with floodwater. Despite all of their efforts, the engineers could not contain the Nile's waters and shape them to suit their agricultural practices.

Over the centuries, new dams would be constructed to try and contain the Nile's waters in the depression. All of them held for a while, but ultimately failed. For the ancient Egyptians (and later the Romans), farming this region was a significant exercise in futility.

And yet, here we are in the twenty first century, engaging in the same struggles in which the ancient Egyptians took part thousands of years ago. It can be summed up as follows:

1) River meets land
2) Man meets river
3) Man wants crops
4) Man tames river
5) River tames man.
6) Man rebuilds, rinses, and repeats.

If we are to learn anything for Herodotus, and the experiences of the ancient Egyptians, it is this. Rivers are unpredictable, and containing them is little more than an exercise in futility. After thousands of years, it is probably safe to say that we need to find a better way.

In the upper Mississippi region, humans have radically re-engineered the landscape to change its water absorbing properties. Since the advent of the plow, farmers have utilized drainpipes to control the water table, thus ensuring that they would have more land available for farming. As a result, many wetlands have disappeared. Essentially, landscapes are being altered in ways that change their abilities to absorb what nature throws at them.

It all seems so redundant.

If we really want to find ways to avoid such disastrous losses as those incurred by the people of the Midwest, it seems that we must come to grips with a simple, but difficult truth. Floods are only devastating when we permit them to be so.

It is time to take a hard look at our agricultural practices. If we do not move beyond the failures of our ancient ancestors, then we will likely face the same difficulties.

All of this makes me want to outside and tend to my gardens...

An Unwitting Conspiracy on the Conservative Right

Last week, Mitt Romney ended his quest for the Presidency of the United States. The former Massachusetts governor officially threw in the towel on Thursday, February 7, after an inauspicious showing on Super Tuesday. It was a disappointing end to a campaign that seemed primed for success. He seemed to have it all - the crisp suits, the carefully coifed hair, lots of money, and strong support in conservative media outlets. Yet, despite all of that, his campaign fizzled, and many pundits were left to wonder why.

As it stands now, Senator John McCain has amassed 827 delegates, and will likely win his party's nomination for the Presidential campaign. His nearest rival, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, poses little threat, and God only knows (that's probably true, in this case) why he is still campaigning.

Throughout the race, Mr. Romney fought to present himself as the true conservative candidate, while trying to portray McCain as a moderate maverick. Many Right Wing pundits, such as Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter, bought into his candidacy. In Limbaugh's case, he used his popular talk show as a forum for praising Romney, stating that "...he (Romney) exemplified characteristics of somebody who (was) not afraid to lead." Coulter, meanwhile, tried to take a bullet for the fallen candidate, stating that "...if McCain weren’t a dunce, what he would do is take Mitt Romney as his vice president. That is the only way I think you could get me to vote for him. That's my final offer."

Additionally, both popular pundits used their respective platforms to throw bombs at Romney's GOP rivals. Limbaugh once opined that either a Huckabee or McCain candidacy would "destroy the Republican party." He chided McCain as "someone who supported amnesty for illegal aliens, who supported limiting free political speech, (and) who embraced the ACLU's brief for terrorist detainees getting US constitutional rights." Huckabee, he said, "might be a fine man, and is a great Christian - [he] is not a conservative." Coulter argued "John McCain is not only bad for Republicans - he is also bad for the country."

Based on Romney's poor showing on super Tuesday, one could argue that pundits do not assert as much influence over voters as they think. His withdrawal has left them alone in a political desert, drinking the last few drops of Romney Kool - Aide left in their canteens.

Or so it seems. One can't help but think they're enjoying this.

It's important to remember that pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are not nonprofit enterprises. They do not merely exist to provide (what they consider) a service. They exist to make money, and will do anything to improve their profit margins. Limbaugh, for instance, includes product endorsements during his program. I may not remember much of his program's content, but I will always remember the ringing endorsement of "Clean Shower" I heard him deliver some ten years ago.

Without a doubt, their relentless attacks against McCain and Huckabee have drawn plenty of attention. A quick google news search confirms this - try searching for "Rush Limbaugh" and "John McCain" together - you would be amazed at how many hits come up. The same is true for Coulter. Bomb throwing creates more exposure.

Additionally, the "lone wolf" effect cannot be underestimated. Romney never developed into a clear front-runner, which made their contrarian positions stand out even more in the media landscape. Like salmon bravely battling currents upstream, Limbaugh and Coulter's supposed struggle for true conservatism caused the media to point its cameras and microphones right at them. Only instead of National Geographic, their words appeared in newspapers, on blogs, and on network news. In short, Romney's loss has been their personal gain. However, while interesting, this analysis barely scratches the surface. There is something far more significant at work here. Their relentless assault has been, and will continue to be, a boon for John McCain.

It goes beyond the 827 delegates under McCain's banner. Change is happening in the Republican ranks. True, the word "change" itself is used so often these days that it seems nearly devoid of meaning. However, the success of John McCain's candidacy represents a slight departure from the Carl Rove school of campaign strategy.

When Rove (with plenty of help) engineered two successful presidential campaigns for George W. Bush, the greatest emphasis was placed on the Republican base. In short, Bush and his fellow campaigners worked hard to win the full support of the conservative right. Opposition to gay marriage, tax cuts, and a hawkish foreign policy were all political cornerstones, particularly in 2004.

Instead of engaging the conservative base, John McCain's focus will likely be on courting independent voters. Both parties are seeing record turnouts for their primaries and caucuses, but it appears that in many cases, the Democrats are bringing out slightly more voters. Senator Barack Obama has proven a worthy adversary in the struggle for independents, and Hillary Clinton, while trying to regain her momentum, is no slouch either. Being labeled a "moderate" and / or a "maverick" only helps McCain in his quest for independent votes.

In many ways, John McCain is a truly conservative politician. He voted to defund Planned Parenthood last year. He opposes partial birth (and all) abortions. He voted for both of George W. Bush's Supreme Court appointments. He has never voted for tax increases. He advocates more tax cuts structured similarly to the Bush tax cuts. He convicted former President Clinton on impeachment. He does not support universal health care, but rather, private strategies. Most significantly, he is a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq. Sure, he acknowledges that global warming is actually occurring - that is hardly a radical position when placed in a global context. It's actually quite mainstream. I could go on and on about his conservative voting record. However, I will leave that to Bill Bennett and Seth Leibsohn of the National Review Online. Read their article, "Conservative Sense and Sensibility" for more insight into McCain's conservatism.

The next President will win not because of their political base, but because of their ability to reach beyond it. On the key issues, by and large, Senator McCain is a conservative, not a moderate. Yet, this largely fictitious moderate identity has been perpetuated by people like Limbaugh and Coulter. Whether they know it or not, their arguments against John McCain are only going to help him.

It was Bill Clinton who once quipped that "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." True to form, the Republican voters will fall in line behind John McCain. Look no further than surveys taken during the recent Potomac primaries. According to CNN, three quarters of the Republicans they polled said they would support McCain in November, regardless of how they voted in the primaries.

While John McCain is not a true moderate, the election will be decided by moderate voters. The more Limbaugh and Coulter label him a moderate, the more they help his cause. So, in a strange way, such bluster is working towards exactly what the conservative right desires. Four more years.

Then again, what stake do such pundits really have in this race, anyway? If McCain wins, they get another four years with a Republican President. If he loses, they will have at least four years of fun - filled, liberal - bashing ahead. Either way, they'll get their television, radio appearances, and book deals. It's a win - win for them.

If only every American had it so easy.

Governor Patrick Wants us to Place our Bets...

To borrow a phrase from Emeril Lagasse, Governor Patrick is "kicking it up a notch."

The debate over the governor's proposed expansion of casino gambling has become increasingly heated over the last few months, and Patrick has chosen a tough strategy. In his proposed budget for the coming fiscal year, he has included $300 million that would be generated from casino licensing fees. $124 million would be used to cover a projected shortfall in the State Lottery. $88 million would fund property tax relief, and another $88 million would fund transportation construction projects in cities and towns. There's just one little catch...

The legislature has not approved his plan.

Here in what some call the "People's Republic of Massachusetts," it seems a bit strange that a Democratic Governor is locking horns with a Democratic Legislature just one year into his term. And yet, that's just what is going on. The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Democrat Robert A. DeLeo of Winthrop, had this response:

"Forget the cart - this is putting the entire wagon train before the horse...Moreover, even if this money did become available this year, which is a big 'if,' it may not be there the next year. Then we would have done nothing to really help . . . cities, towns, and property owners..."

To be fair, the Governor claims his budget will be balanced without the $300 million he seeks. However, he argues that it is in the state's interest to implement his proposal, because it will fund initiatives in the short term, and provide job growth and revenue for the long term.

Sounds pretty good. So why are the lawmakers on Beacon Hill not jumping on the wagon?

Perhaps it's because the long term benefits of casinos in Massachusetts are unclear. Both advocates and opponents of casino gambling frame their arguments in terms of extremes. The undecided tax payer is told he or she has two options - prosperity or ruin. However, a recent study from Harvard University suggests both sides have this one wrong.

They examined the impacts of casinos on a county level. Their goal was to test the statistical realities behind arguments for and against legalized gambling. Let's take a second and list the arguments people generally make in this debate.

ADVOCATES FOR CASINOS TEND TO ARGUE THAT...

1) Casinos provide a solid source of job growth.
2) They can stem a decline in regional populations
3) They can provide a readily available source of revenues when a government faces fiscal problems.

OPPONENTS OF CASINOS TEND TO ARGUE THAT...

1) Gambling sucks money out of local people's pockets, which hurts local businesses.
2) Casinos take money away from the state lottery
3) Casinos lead to increased crime, bankruptcy due to addiction, and therefore, actually don't improve the lives of locals.

What they found is that neither the feast nor famine arguments are true.

-Casinos can create jobs, but they are dispersed among more people, so unemployment rates really don't change.

-Property values in urban areas don't change too much, in rural areas they increase by about $6000 - not a lot.

-There is only a slight increase in bankruptcies.

-Revenues and expenditures in towns don't change drastically.

- A decrease in per capita crime.

In short, they found that casinos do some good things for counties, and some bad things. The overall impact was not dramatic, but rather, extremely modest. You can learn more by going to their report and reading it for yourself, at

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/rappaport/downloads/gambling/casino.pdf

Well, from this Massachusetts voter's perspective, there really is only one conclusion to be reached.

Governor Patrick, casinos do not represent the road to the promised land.

I suspect his response would be that the short term revenue from licensing will help us make some long term investments in the state's future, and like many investments, it takes time for them to pay off. Maybe he's right. However, his approach to enacting this proposal has run directly against the kind of politics his campaign was based on.

His campaign motto was simple, yet beautiful.

Together, we can.

His grassroots operation portrayed him as a political outsider, a leader who would bring an end to political bickering, and usher in an era of progressive reforms. In his inaugural address, he claimed that we could find a new kind of politics, i.e., that wonderful word EVERY politician uses today - "CHANGE." Consider the following passages from his inaugural address:

"I will ask municipalities to enter into a new partnership with state government, so that we can work together to reduce their operating costs, to better plan across regions, and to rebuild city and town centers into stronger economic cores. My point is that we will be doing some things differently. Moving today’s rituals within reach of you is symbolic of that. Change is not always comfortable or convenient or welcome. But it is what we hoped for, what we have worked for, what you voted for, and what you shall have."

However, in his dogged pursuit of bringing change to Massachusetts, Governor Patrick has not yet changed the way government conducts business. He isn't doing things differently. He's playing the same old political games. Special interest groups and lobbyists are still on the hill, and he is embracing them. Massachusetts Lobbyists representing gambling interests reported a $1.2 million increase in fees during 2007. Forty lobbyists from 25 firms registered to lobby on casinos last year. Developer Sheldon Addelson (#3 on the Forbes 400 list) has campaigned on Patrick's behalf to implement the casino legislation. Sun Chronicle columnist and fellow Wheaton College graduate Ted Nesi said it best

"The Democratic governor ran as a liberal reformer who was going to blow open Beacon Hill backrooms and spend big money investing in the state's infrastructure and social services.

That's quite a contrast with Adelson, a Republican donor who spreads his money around.

In Las Vegas, Adelson is known for fighting legal battles against the powerful Culinary Workers Union, the Vegas tourist authority, and even the electric company, according to The New York Times. His suit against John L. Smith, a top columnist for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, drove Smith into bankruptcy."

The governor who campaigned on a platform of change is hanging out with special interest groups, lobbyists, and white men with deep pockets.

But perhaps the most telling statement about his style of governing came from one of his supporters, State Senator Steven Panagiotakos, a Democrat from Lowell. When asked about Governor Patrick's budgetary move, he stated

He is being as responsible as many of the other governors who used this sort of tactic in the past. A governor's budget is as much a fiscal document as it is a political document. The politics here is that he is trying to drive this issue further down the field in order to get it to a legislative debate.

In other words, the Governor is playing the same games as his predecessors.


So what exactly has changed, anyway?

The answer is simple. Nothing.

Governor Patrick was right when he said change was hard. It takes a lot more than vocal eloquence to be a true agent of change.

It's time for him to start making good on his promises.

"The Fog of War" - Robert McNamara and What we can Learn from Him

Every year on my Christmas list (yes, I am close to entering my mid 20s, and my mom still insists I write one), I normally ask for a movie or two. Generally, the movies in my DVD collection fall into two categories - (A) Overtly masculine action thrillers (i.e. The Hunt for Red October) and comedies, such as Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein. To be added to my personal collection, a movie must fulfill but one requirement - I must feel compelled to watch it repeatedly. This year, I requested, of all things, a documentary.

Errol Morris' "The Fog of War" was released in 2004. It chronicles the life and work of former Secretary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara. He was 86 years old at the time of the film's making, and he is still with us today, at 91. Between 1961 and 1968, he served Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and is widely considered one of the primary "architects" of the Vietnam War. He also was a key player in crafting American nuclear strategy, and the development of modernized systems analysis for the Pentagon. A man of incredible intellect and complexity, McNamara is one of the last surviving political links to the increasingly distant Cold War Era. The film itself is far more than just an interview - it is a cinematic masterpiece. Morris mixes old archival footage with beautifully shot one -on - one interview with McNamara. Philip Glass links all of the imagery to a hauntingly beautiful musical score.

Due to his deep involvement in the development and escalation of the Vietnam War, McNamara has received much criticism since leaving his post in 1968. Perhaps one of the most scathing critiques is that he was a "human IBM machine who care(d) more for statistical logic than for human judgments." At one point in the film, McNamara makes this point more bluntly, stating, "A lot of people think I'm a son of a bitch." "The Fog of War" proves that nothing could be further from the truth. Instead, we see McNamara for who he is - a deeply sensitive, introspective, and conflicted human being, destined to carry a tremendous mental burden forever.

Long before John F. Kennedy won the presidency, McNamara was exposed to the rigors of formulating defense policy. In the early 1940s, as American involvement in World War II escalated, he left his position as an Assistant Professor at Harvard Business School to serve as a captain in the United States Army Air Force. His primary role was to analyze the effectiveness of America's bombing campaign against the Japanese, and find ways to increase its effectiveness. He reported to General Curtis LeMay, the aggressive, abrasive (some would say careless) leader of the American bombing effort. To increase the effectiveness of bombing against the Japanese, McNamara analyzed data, and found that the high altitude B-29 bombers lost their effectiveness when bombing from high altitudes. As a result, General LeMay ordered the aircraft to bomb Japanese cities from 5,000 feet - a much more risky, but effective proposition.

We gain a lot of insight into the man's emotional side during his discussion of the bombing campaign. When describing the firebombing of Tokyo, he is blunt, but seems controlled -

McNAMARA: "I was on the island of Guam in his (LeMay's) command, in March of 1945. In a single night, we burned to death a hundred thousand Japanese civilians in Tokyo - men, women, and children. "


However, later on, he becomes more emotional.

"I participated in the interrogation of the B-29 bomber crews that came back that night. A room full of crewmen and intelligence interrogators, a captain got up - young captain, and said, 'God Damnit, I'd like to know who that son of a bitch was that took this magnificent airplane designed to bomb from 23,000 feet, and he took it down to 5,000 feet, and I lost my wingman. He was shot and killed...He (LeMay) stood up and pointed at the map, 'Why are we here? WHY are we here? You lost your wingman. It hurts me as much as it does you. (McNamara becomes choked up) I sent him there, and I've been there, I know what it is. BUT, you lost one wingman, and we destroyed Tokyo.'"

In addition to showing his emotional response to the tremendous loss of life brought about by the low altitude bombing, McNamara also shows his deep personal conflict. He stops short of condemning the decision to firebomb Japan, but he also stops far short of the saber rattling that General LeMay was known for.

MORRIS: "Were you aware that this (the massive civilian casualties in Tokyo) was going to happen?"

McNAMARA: "Well I was...part of a mechanism that in a sense recommended it. I analyzed bombing operations and how to make them more efficient - i.e., not more efficient in the sense of killing more, but more efficient in weakening the adversary..."

McNamara seems to lapse into the standard military synonyms, and who can blame him? The burden of living with the knowledge that he played a role in bringing about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians must be mind boggling - I don't know that I could live with it. Thus, he feels compelled to partially insulate himself, while at the same time acknowledging the consequences of his actions. He is, in short, deeply conflicted. His ideas helped pave the way for victory in the Pacific theater, but it came at a tremendous human cost.

Another portion of the movie that offers great insight into the man is his discussion of his relationship with President Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was a very different (and some would say much more difficult) man to work for than Kennedy. He had an extremely domineering personality, and could intimidate even the most formidable politicos in Washington. Yet, McNamara was fiercely loyal to both men.

It was under Johnson's leadership that the campaign in Vietnam was escalated. Through the incorporation of recorded conversations with Johnson, Morris implies that McNamara was ultimately unable to shake himself loose of the "mechanism" that led to the destruction of Tokyo. Take, for instance, a recorded phone conversation between the two men from February of 1964 (not long after Kennedy's death):

JOHNSON: "I hate to modify your speech because it's been a good one, but I just wonder if we should find two minutes in there for Vietnam."

McNAMARA: "Yeah...the problem is what to say about it."

JOHNSON: "All right, I'll tell you what I would say about it, I would say that we have a commitment to Vietnamese freedom. We could pull out of there, the dominoes would fall, and that part of the world would go to the communists. We could send our Marines in there, get tied down in a third world war or another Korean action. Nobody really understands what it is out there. And they're asking questions and saying why don't we do more? Well, I think this - you can have more war or more appeasement. But we don't want more of either. Our purpose is to train the South Vietnamese and our training's going good. "

McNAMARA: "All right sir...I'll uh, I'll..."

JOHNSON: (cutting him off) "I always thought it was foolish for you to make any statements about withdrawing (Kennedy and McNamara had discussed exit strategies extensively). I thought it was bad psychologically. But YOU and the President thought otherwise and I just sat silent.

McNAMARA: "The problem is..."

JOHNSON: (cutting him off again) "And THEN come the questions - how in the hell does McNamara think when he's losing the war he can pull men out of there?

Indeed, McNamara had deep reservations about the war nearly from the beginning. Yet, in public, he never tried to remove himself from the political mechanism that he was a part of. One has to believe that, on some level, Johnson was able to intimidate McNamara into remaining loyal to him. Near the end of his tenure, McNamara sent Johnson a memo, in which he claims he advocated for a change of course in American policy. Johnson would have none of it. It was not long after that McNamara was dismissed.

And yet, at the same time, it seems McNamara wanted to remain loyal to Johnson. Despite the fundamental differences that ultimately led to his dismissal, McNamara still seems loyal to the man, even almost 40 years later.

After dismissing him from his cabinet post, Johnson awarded McNamara the Presidential Medal of Freedom. At the ceremony, McNamara was overcome by his emotions, so much so that he could not speak. Today, it appears that none of that emotion has been lost.

When asked to sum up his feelings, he states, "I know what many of you are thinking. You are thinking this man (Johnson) is duplicitous. You're thinking that he has held things close to his chest. You're thinking that...he did not respond fully to the desires and wishes of the American people. And I want to tell you you're wrong. Of course he had...personal idiosyncrasies. No question about that. He didn't accept all the advice he was given. On several occasions, his associates advised him to be more forthcoming. He wasn't. People did not understand at that time, there were recommendations and pressures that would carry the risk of war with China! And carry the risk of nuclear war! And HE was determined to prevent it!"

Again, we see personal conflict. The realist versus the loyalist. The loyalist wins out. We also see the human being - a far cry from the IBM machine characterization. We see one man grieving over a crisis that ultimately consumed and destroyed his boss. We also see a man clearly more comfortable talking about the future and what we can learn, as opposed to reliving the darker side of our past.

Despite all of the darkness in McNamara's life - the two wars, the stress, and tremendous personal toll, Morris makes it clear that McNamara has lost none of his intellectual fire. The man, now entering his 90s, is still driven by an almost superhuman desire to learn. Perhaps the greatest lesson he can take from his experiences is the importance of being willing to reexamine one's reasoning. Many years after the Vietnam War ended, he returned to the country, and concluded that he and many others had misread the Vietnamese people completely. They did not view it as a war for communist expansion, but rather, as a war for independence from colonialism. Ultimately, they had no interest in collaborating with the Chinese or Soviets to spread Communism around the world. Ironically, they wanted what Johnson himself articulated - Vietnamese freedom!

Ultimately, "The Fog of War" demonstrates that war is too complex for any one person to completely understand. McNamara tried, and clearly, he failed. Even today, it seems clear that he cannot fully wrap his mind around everything that transpired during his life as a public servant. When pressed on his personal stance on the war, McNamara clams up, saying, "you don't know how inflammatory my words can appear." Morris replies by saying, "is it this feeling that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, no matter what you say?"

McNamara's reply says it all. "Yeah, that's right. And I'd rather be damned if I don't."

We should not condemn the man for trying to insulate himself. Frankly, no human can fully embrace those realities. Imagine trying to live from day to day, carrying the knowledge that this man possesses. It is an inhuman undertaking. If we are to learn anything from his story, it is that destructive power, concentrated in the hands of small number of human beings, will likely have dire consequences. Humans are fallible. It’s been that way since Adam and Eve. The burden of maintaining peace and prosperity, in other words, is a tremendous one. Furthermore, humans, whether they are in positions of power, or in the masses, should never trivialize the process of wartime decision making. It's too damned hard to make light of, and never as simple as it appears.

"We make our decisions. And then our decisions turn around and make us."