HinesSight

Maybe Obama is the centrist president I long for

This weekend should have been relaxing. It's almost August. Oregon is warm, dry, and sunny. Staining decks isn't my favorite activity, but I enjoy the simple manual labor.

However, for the past few days I've been running to my laptop every hour or two and checking on the progress of the debt limit negotiations.

Now that our investments have crawled back to within spitting distance of their value prior to the Big Crash, I'm not wild about a major market downturn -- which likely would happen if Congress and the President don't get their act together and avoid a totally avoidable economic crisis.

Fortunately, Obama has announced that a deal has been agreed to. This is a big relief. It looks like both fervent conservatives and hard core liberals are upset, so the deal must be fairly centrist.

Which means, I'm not totally happy with it.

Apparently revenue increases are off the table, notwithstanding Obama's repeated insistence that a balanced approach to deficit reduction be followed: spending cuts and revenue enhancements.

But in my saner moments late this afternoon, after I'd learned about the outlines of the deal, I realized that Obama is acting like the sort of president my wife and I agreed we long for.

Driving around together last Friday, we got to talking about politics and the insanity of how the debt limit negotiations have beeen going. We're seriously irritated at all the drama, hissy-fits, walkouts, stonewalling, and general refusal to compromise for the good of the American people.

"I could see a third party emerging," my wife said. "Voters are fed up with extremism. They want to see our country's problems dealt with, not just simplistic polticial posturing."

I agreed.

I told her that I could vote for a moderate presidential candidate, maybe even an open-minded conservative like Jon Huntsman, so long as he or she was committed to getting beyond the right-left, R-D, I'm correct-you're wrong partisanship that's keeping us from being a truly United States.

it wasn't until this afternoon, though, that a light dawned in the political neurons of my brain. As I was pondering how Obama's deal-making disappointed me in some respects, I realized...

Any president with centrist, moderate, middle of the road leanings is going to disappoint people who tilt strongly right or left. Maybe Obama is the guy my wife and I were fantasizing about. Except, he's real -- our here and now president.

Many progressives think that Obama is a sell-out. I've thought that way at times. However, I've come to view him as a chess master rather than a checkers player. Meaning, those who expect an obvious and direct move often are disappointed, because his focus is on long-term strategy which is too subtle to clearly discern.

I suspect that Obama and his advisors have a game plan for how this debt limit deal is going to play out up to and past the 2012 elections.

They understand how the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will fit into a Democratic strategy. They know that a majority of voters support a balanced approach to handling our budget problems, so are willing to accept this initial daal and work to make future deficit reduction policies more centrist.

That said, E.J. Dionne makes some excellent points in his "Yes to moderation, No to centrism" critique of Obama.

At heart, he’s a moderate who likes balance. Yet Americans have lost track of what he’s really for. Occasionally you wonder if he’s lost track himself. He needs to remind us, and perhaps himself, why he wants to be our president.

He could give four or five big speeches — preferably at community colleges in states facing economic trouble — laying out a clear, detailed and, yes, inspirational plan for what the country needs to do to regain its standing and its confidence. And then he has to fight relentlessly to take the debate away from those who think government’s only job is to diminish itself.

Obama’s advisers are said to be obsessed with the political center, but such a focus leads to a reactive politics that won’t motivate the hope crowd that elected him in the first place. Neither will it alter a discourse whose terms were set during most of this debt fight by the right.

There’s nothing wrong with moderation that immoderate doses of conviction and courage won’t cure.

The U.S. is about to get a balanced budget catastrophe

The House Republicans appear to be poised to pass a bill that would forbid increases in the federal debt limit beyond six months from now unless Congress sends out to the states for ratification a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

This will never happen. There aren't enough votes in the Senate, and maybe even the House (two-thirds), to approve the amendment.

And I predict that if the federal debt limit isn't raised by August 2, as appears increasingly likely, American voters will be horrified by the prospect of a balanced budget amendment -- dooming this foolish proposal forever.

Why? Because after August 3 we will have a de facto balanced budget. As a story in my hometown Salem Statesman Journal said today:

A July analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center concluded that the Treasury Department will face an Aug. 3-31 cash deficit of about $134 billion. It will have only a projected $173.3 billion coming in to pay the month's $306.7 billion in expenses.

So if the once-unthinkable happens and the federal government can't borrow money to finance its already incurred obligations, everybody in the United States will get an up close and personal look at how a balanced budget amendment would affect this country.

It won't be a pretty sight.

If the roughly $100 billion in Social Security and Medicare-Medicaid obligations are met, tough choices will have to be made about how the remaining $44 billion or so is spent.

National defense, the Justice Department, including the FBI, and other vital government functions likely could not escape unscathed. The federal government shutdowns of 1995-96 would pale in comparison, experts say, because this time even mandatory spending would be affected.

Federal salaries, jobless benefits, Internal Revenue Service refunds and housing and nutrition assistance for low-income families could go unfunded in a worst-case scenario as could departments and agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Education Department.

With the economy still in the doldrums, this is a horrible time to be slashing more than a hundred billion dollars a month from U.S. economic activity.

“There’s nothing that you can look at here that is signaling some revival in growth in the second half of the year, and in fact we may see another catastrophically weak quarter next quarter if things go wrong next week,” said Nigel Gault, chief United States economist at IHS Global Insight. By “things going wrong,” he said he means “if Congress actually starts implementing a massive contraction by suddenly cutting government spending immediately,” as many Republican representatives hope to do.

Well, that's what the Tea Party wants: economic catastrophe. The best way to cut government is to throttle the economy. No profits or income, no taxes. Do the American people want this to happen? Of course not.

So Obama has been presented with a marvelous opportunity to do what's right for this country, now that Boehner has thrown his lot in with the balanced budget amendment crazies (ask a business executive if companies should be prohibited by law from borrowing money; yet this is how Republicans want government to be run -- which certainly isn't businesslike).

Now he has more reason to assert his presidential power and tell the country that he will not allow the federal government to default on its obligations, which would lead to huge increases in unemployment and other economic disruptions.

Or, if the worst comes to pass and a default happens, Obama and his fellow Democrats will be able to say "this is the consequence of a balanced budget amendment." As people see what the effect of slashing federal spending to current revenues is, they'll quickly realize why the amendment doesn't make sense.

Yesterday Ezra Klein wrote a persuasive column, "What the final deal is likely to look like." He correctly points out that there's a fairly easy way for reasonable Democrats and Republicans to come together on a debt limit bill that will avoid catastrope.

But today Klein said that Boehner's problem is that the Republican party doesn't want compromise. He's correct about that also. The Tea Party isn't reasonable, so they've got us on the edge of an economic cliff and are pushing as hard as they can in the wrong direction.

Obama needs to "take the 14th"

I'm hoping that soon we'll have another constitutional slogan that will become as well known as "pleading the Fifth" -- take the Fourteenth.

The Fifth Amendment provides a right against self-incrimination. To many, including me, the Fourteenth Amendment authorizes the president of the United States to do what is necessary to protect the validity of our nation's public debt.

A month ago I was arguing for this, inspired by a fictional -- but today, all too believable -- speech that Garrett Ebbs wanted Obama to give if debt limit negotiation talks broke down.

It ended with:

I regret that the intransigence of a small minority of members of Congress have forced our nation into this situation. I know that some of these same political leaders will now charge me with violating the Constitution -- the same Constitution that they apparently have no desire either to read or to follow. If they truly believe this to be true, I challenge them to bring Articles of Impeachment against me. The charge should be that I did what was necessary to support our troops in the field, to bolster our public credit, and to prevent destitution and despair among American families. I welcome that debate.

But as long as I remain president, the national debt of the United States shall not be questioned. That is my pledge to you, to the world, and to the memory of the brave men and women who gave the last full measure of devotion to rescue the United States from forces who long ago sought its destruction.

Last night I was reading TIME magazine as I was brushing my teeth and came across this quote from Obama and accompanying description.

"This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this." President Obama, arguing for a long term debt extension -- as opposed to a short term deal -- which would prevent the U.S. from defaulting when its debt limit is reached on Aug. 1.

August 2 is next Tuesday. Competing debt limit extension plans haven't even come up for a vote in Congress yet. Every Democrat and Independent senator has vowed to vote against the Republican House plan, which calls for another debt limit vote early next year.

That's crazy.

Republicans love to talk about how political uncertainty is hurting our economic recovery. Well, continued uncertainty about whether the federal government is going to shut down would be a much bigger drag on business than any potential closing of tax loopholes.

And if people don't get their social security checks, or if government employees (including our armed forces) can't be paid, our economy is going to crash, fast.

I'm hoping that Obama is serious about not signing any short-term debt limit bill. Boehner and his fellow House Republicans are going to have to compromise, since their debt limit legislation isn't going anywhere in the Senate.

Problem is, the Tea Party types are fanatical. They're already seriously irked at Boehner for coming up with his current bill, which they consider to be way too weak on cutting government spending. Yet the Senate and President seemingly won't approve the House proposal unless it becomes even more centrist.

I'm worried that we're heading for a political and economic meltdown.

Until today I thought Congress would get its act together just in time to avert disaster. But given how intransigent House Republicans are, it's difficult to see how the compromise that Obama has called for can happen before August 2.

Maybe a political miracle will happen in the next few days. Maybe the Tea Party crazies will come to their senses and realize that wrecking the American economy isn't going to help their cause.

But if these "maybe's" remain unactualized possibilities, I hope to see Obama taking to the airwaves again Sunday night. I want him to give the best speech of his life, one which will make the vast majority of Americans -- Democrat and Republican, progressive and conservative -- stand up and cheer for common sense, courage, and conviction.

I want Obama to say that he is authorizing the Treasury Department to do what's necessary to make sure that the United States pays its bills.  I want him to explain more clearly than he has so far that raising the debt limit has nothing to do with the federal budget deficit -- nothing.

All it does is assure that the government can pay the bills that it already has incurred. Lowering future spending is a whole other issue, in the same way as paying off a credit card debt is entirely different from vowing to reduce the amount of future charges.

It'd be immoral, unethical, and illegal for someone to refuse tp pay off their credit card because they suddenly realized that they'd been incurring too much debt. The VISA folks would laugh at that argument.

Yet the Tea Party, and many House Republicans, want the United States to default on its legal obligations. Obama can't allow this to happen. The bond and stock markets won't like a Fourteenth Amendment controversy, but that'd be much better for our economy that a shutdown of almost half of the federal government.

"Into the Wild" -- a great Oregon horse adventure

My wife and I can't stand "nose to tail" trail rides where the horses are on automatic pilot and walking is the only equestrian gait we get to experience.

But Jahn and Sheila Hoover's Into the Wild Equine Adventures are, well, a whole other animal. They offer real horse rides in the Monument Peak trail system in the Santiam State Forest near Gates (a few miles north of Mill City), which is about an hour from our home in Salem, Oregon.

Today we took advantage of a Groupon deal and went on a 2 1/2 hour ride with two women who came down from Portland. The four of us, plus Jahn and his young wrangler Elijah, enjoyed walking, trotting, and cantering our way along some beautiful trails.

My on-the-horse photos from our first Into the WIld ride last year turned out better. Today either my iPhone's camera had the shakes, or my horse did (naturally the lack of focus wasn't my fault).

But at least you can get a feel for the lush western Oregon greenness.

I was on Molly, a large black Percheron who looked like she should be charging across a French battlefield -- which her ancestors actually did. We got along fine, once I was used to riding a horse with hooves the size of dinner plates (OK, a small dinner plate).

After the ride, Jahn kindly picked up Molly's leg, something I'd be reluctant to do, so I could take some photographic evidence of her massive hoofprint.

Laurel snapped a few photos of me posing with Molly. I'm a bit over six feet tall, and I had to stretch to get my arm over her mane.

Below is Jahn with one of the Portland riders. This is my kind of horse riding: you drive up to the parking area, and your horse is already saddled. Then, after a brief lesson and some riding tips, you head off on a fun ride through an Oregon forest. When you're done, Jahn and Elijah handle all of the afterride chores.

Sure, it costs money. But so does owning a horse.

Jahn carts the horses around in what looked to me to be tbe world's longest horse trailer. I can't imagine what it'd be like to parallel park this thing.

Here's a photo of his dog, a Corgi,who stayed in the pickup while we rode. Kudos to Jahn for not having a stereotypical cattle dog (when he let the dog out after we got back to the parking area, one of the Portland women said "What happened to his legs!")


Laurel makes Molly look even larger. Her horse was a lot smaller, but also considerably  faster. But all of the Into the WIld horses are pleasingly non-ploddy. They have no problem trotting or cantering at a pretty good clip up a decent slope for quite a while.

The extended trotting we did helped me practice a quasi-posting technique that I'm trying to master. I don't want to look too "English," so I don't want to try full blown posting on a Western horse. However, as an intermediate rider I'm feeling quite a bit more comfortable trotting now that I'm getting some up and down movement happening with my legs and thighs.

Laurel and I learned quite a bit about horses today, along with having a good time. Jahn is an excellent instructor -- relaxed and non-critical, yet not hesitant to point out how someone's riding style could be improved.

Today Jahn told us that we shouldn't allow a horse to forcefully nuzzle us with its head. I'm breaking that rule here, as it seemed sort of cute -- how Molly lowered her head and pushed it into my side. However, Jahn said that horses do this to establish dominance in the herd, so if people allow it they're heading down the equine pecking order.

I also learned that a horse should be touched more like a cat than a dog. Meaning, firm "pats" should be reserved for when you want a horse to move a certain way, or otherwise do something you desire. Praise and affection should be done by stroking, something else I didn't know before.

Live and learn. Also, live and have fun. Into the Wild Equine Adventures offers both, for sure.

Here's a You Tube video about Into the WIld that appeared on KGW, Portland's NBC affiliate.

 

Boehner is a fool to walk away from debt limit talks

This progressive says, "Thank you, House Republican leader John Boehner. You just served up a juicy political victory to President Obama by throwing a hissy fit and walking away from the debt limit negotiations yesterday."

If Boehner had accepted Obama's deal, which was tilted toward Republican positions, lots of Democrats (including me) would have freaked out.

As Jonathan Cohn's cogent analysis in The New Republic points out, Obama was poised to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in ways that would have hurt seniors and poor people. This also would have taken away a powerful argument that Dems are eager to use in the 2012 elections: "Republicans are trying to destroy Medicare; we're committed to saving it."

Nobody disputes that, except for the revenue part, the administration and Boehner had agreement over virtually everything else. And it was a deal that, like Obama’s previous offers, was strikingly tilted towards Republican priorities. Among the provisions Obama to which Obama had said yes, according to a senior administration official, were the following:

Medicare: Raising the eligibility age, imposing higher premiums for upper income beneficiaries, changing the cost-sharing structure, and shifting Medigap insurance in ways that would likely reduce first-dollar coverage. This was to generate about $250 billion in ten-year savings. This was virtually identical to what Boehner offered.

Medicaid: Significant reductions in the federal contribution along with changes in taxes on providers, resulting in lower spending that would likely curb eligibility or benefits. This was to yield about $110 billion in savings. Boehner had sought more: About $140 billion. But that’s the kind of gap ongoing negotiation could close.

Social Security: Changing the formula for calculating cost-of-living increases in order to reduce future payouts. The idea was to close the long-term solvency gap by one-third, although it likely would have taken more than just this one reform to produce enough savings for that.

There's still a possibility that this "grand deal" can be resurrected. But such seems unlikely. Boehner reportedly wants a debt ceiling plan by tomorrow, Sunday. I don't see Obama caving in to Boehner's ridiculous resistance to reasonable revenue increases.

After all, PolitiFact supports Obama's contention that a clear majority of Americans, 70% or more, favor a balanced approach to reducing the deficit that includes both spending cuts and revenue increases.

So Obama is fortunate that Boehner walked away from a political victory, since the deal Obama offered to him included a lower percentage of revenue increases than the Bowles-Simpson report or Gang of Six recommendation called for.

The main difference, as both sides acknowledge, was over the size of the new revenue. They’d basically settled the basic principles of how to get the money: By closing loopholes, broadening the base, and lowering rates overall. Boehner had offered $800 billion, or roughly the equivalent of letting the upper income tax cuts expire. Obama had counter-offered $1.2 trillion.

But even the $1.2 trillion Obama was seeking – and remember, this was a proposal over which the White House says it expected to keep negotiating – was still far less than the revenue either the Bowles-Simpson chairmen or the Senate’s Gang of Six, two bipartisan groups, had recommended.

Or, to put it more simply, both proposals were far more tilted towards the Republican position, of seeking to balance the budget primarily if not wholly through spending cuts.

Yet Boehner chose to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Why? Seemingly because Tea Party Republicans look upon Thou shalt never raise taxes as a fundamentalist politico-religious commandment.

Which can't be broken. Ever. Even if the economic health of the United States economy depends upon doing so. Because fundamentalists aren't rational or reasonable. They're driven by blind faith.

This puts Boehner in a terrible position. The American public wants a balanced approach to reducing the deficit. Tea Party crazies are dead set against any revenue increases. So Boehner either is going to irritate voters or the most fervent members of his House caucus.

Over on NPR, Frank James has one of the best analyses of the debt limit negotiations that I've read (and I've read a lot). He does a great job of asking pertinent questions about what Boehner and Obama are up to.

Such as:

This leads to another question which Boehner was asked at his Capitol Hill news conference.

A reporter asked how Boehner could walk away from the prospect of a deal that was meant to avert default over what amounted to $40 billion a year or $400 billion over ten years?

Boehner said the extra $400 billion would've been a tax increase plain and simple and he couldn't abide that.

More questions. So Boehner couldn't reach a deal with Obama but he's going to try to reach one with Sen. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader at the table? How, pray tell, is that going to work?

(Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader will also be at the table. McConnell is the creator of a proposal that would essentially yield Obama the power to raise the debt ceiling even as Republicans voted against it.)

Reid is the same man who on Friday killed the "Cut, Cap and Balance" legislation proudly passed by Boehner's House Republicans. Reid actually killed the bill earlier than he had initially said he would, calling extended debate on a bill going nowhere a waste of time.

Reid is also the leader of a group of Senate Democrats who acted like they were fed saltpeter after they heard rumors Thursday that Obama was close to striking a deal with Boehner that would have frontloaded all the GOP-sought spending cuts and backloaded the revenue increases Democrats wanted.

In otherwords, they thought Obama had gone wobbly on them and were very upset.

Then there's Pelosi. She's only considered one of Capitol Hill's toughest negotiators. Pelosi is said to be so unyielding on her issues that Obama didn't let her take part in last year's negotiations on extending the Bush tax cuts and jobless benefits for fear that she would have made any deal impossible.

Again, the question would be why does Boehner think he'll have more success with these congressional Democrats than with Obama?

Maybe he will. Maybe Boehner will turn out to be a genius negotiator who knew what he was doing when he walked away from Obama's offer of a deal.

But my bet is that Boehner's political current on this issue hit its high water mark a few days ago and now is sinking.

My Apple quandaries: upgrade to Lion? buy MacBook Air?

Oh, Apple, you're making life difficult for me. Decisions... decisions. This is summertime. Living should be easy.

But I've spent the past few days wondering (1) whether I should upgrade my MacBook Pro from the Snow Leopard to Lion OS, and (2) if a MacBook Air would be a nice early birthday present from me to myself.

First quandary first: it's scary to install a major operating system upgrade. Before I switched back to the Mac world I was traumatized by Microsoft's Windows "improvements."

(The quotation marks are necessary because installing a supposedly new and improved operating system sometimes would leave my PC computer inoperable.)

So like a previously battered spouse who now doesn't feel completely sure if the new marriage partner can be trusted, I'm worried about forking over $29 and letting Lion replace Snow Leopard.

My inclination is to wait a few weeks, maybe even a month, in the hope that evident glitches in Lion's installation process will be ironed out by then.

After reading about Lion problems on an AppleInsider post, I headed over to Apple's support page for the new OS to get a feel for how early adopters were faring. For many, not very well.

Problems abound with either installing or using Lion. But since Lion downloads already number over a million, it isn't surprising that even a small percentage of problematic installations would lead to many unhappy Lion purchasers.

Still, I was disturbed to learn from a TUAW post about a nasty Mail problem. And it wasn't encouraging to see many Apple support complaints about dropped wi-fi connections. Since Snow Leopard is working fine for me, it'd be a major bummer to find that installing Lion left me with balky or non-existent email and wi-fi.

Turning to the second quandary (which has some relation to the first): I'd like to have a backup laptop in case my somewhat aged MacBook Pro gets sick or dies unexpectedly.

I've considered getting another MacBook Pro, but the changes in this model since I got mine several years ago have been evolutionary riather than revolutionary. So I can't get excited about a more-of-the-same computer purchase.

The newly revised MacBook Air is a different deal, though. Several pounds lighter. A solid state drive (like the iPad and iPhone). And about twice as fast as the previous Air -- which likely is a lot faster than my current MacBook Pro.

Plus Thunderbolt for superfast input and output (leaving aside the not-so-minor detail that currently there are no Thunderbolt external drives to input from or output to, something you'd think Apple would have considered before making Thunderbolt a big marketing feature. You've got to have it! But so far, you can't use it.)

Plus, plus -- and this is important to me -- a backlit keyboard has returned to the Air. I love this feature on my MacBook Pro. I rarely type in complete darkness, but even in a dim room a lighted keyboard is handy (and looks cool).

So I'm attracted to the MacBook Air.

I also like how Lion would come preinstalled on one. No worries about upgrading the operating system. If I had a Lion'ized MacBook Air, I'd feel a lot more comfortable taking the plunge and installing Lion on my MacBook Pro, since if there was a major screw-up, I'd still have a working computer.

Thus my inclination is to stifle my immediate craving for both Lion and the MacBook Air. Not forever, but for a month or two. I'll watch and see how reviewers react to these new Apple products. Likely some glitches will be fixed. Early adopting is fun, yet you can also pay a price by being one of the first to buy.

Patience, grasshopper. That's difficult to do when Apple comes out with a lustworthy new offering. I'll try to follow that Kung Fu advice, though.

Kudos to CardRescue -- it saved my deleted videos

A few weeks ago I did something really stupid.

I was happily engaged in shooting some videos with my Sony camera for a DVD that would show my granddaughter, Evelyn, some beautiful Oregon scenery and how her grandpa/grandma hike along the Metolius River.

Then, even though I have a 8GB camera card, the camera stopped working and an error message popped up on the screen. "Out of storage," or something like that.

Damn, I thought, we're only halfway through this hike and I want to show Evelyn some shots of what is coming up next. I decided to delete some old photos and videos that I'd already transferred to my computer, but had neglected to erase from the Sony's camera card.

What I didn't want to do, though, was delete a bunch of videos that I'd shot the day before during a two-hour hike on a different section of the river. I'd captured some interesting and unrepeatable footage that hadn't yet been copied over to my MacBook laptop.

So I carefully selected only photos and videos in a certain date range, figuring (incorrectly) that what Sony meant by a "date range" was everything shot on that day. Actiually, it seems, what I was doing was deleting everything from a certain date up to the present -- which included the videos I'd just taken, plus those I'd shot yesterday.

While my wife waited for me to finish fiddling with my camera, I went about deleting (as I mistakenly thought) everything on the card prior to the recent videos that I wanted to keep.

After a few minutes the camera presented me with another screen message which basically said "No content on card."

Holy shit!

At first I couldn't believe it. Then, after I looked for recorded images, I reluctantly became a believer. I'd deleted every freaking photo and video on the entire freaking card! All that time I'd put into shooting videos the past few days... wasted.

I was deeply irritated. So much so, I walked (OK, stomped) off, heading back to our cabin, yelling at my wife, "I don't feel like going on a hike now, I'm so mad about losing all of those videos."

Once I'd calmed down a bit, I began thinking about what I'd do when I got back to my computer. Double-check that the camera card indeed was empty. Then, if it was, see if there was any way to retrieve the deleted files.

Fortunately, even though the result of the first task was a "yes," so was the second. A Google search for "restore deleted camera card photos" led me to CardRescue. I was happy to see this offer:

Download Free Evaluation Version (v5.10) to quick scan on your memory card and see the recoverable pictures

It took quite a while, about twenty minutes, for CardRescue to check the many files that I'd deleted on the camera card. I watched my laptop's screen the whole time as CardRescue did its thing, seemingly recovering each and every deleted file.

After the scan was done, I saw that the recent video files had been recovered, along with everything else. Then it was a no-brainer to get out my credit card and pay for the full version, which let me save the recovered files.

Yeah, $40 was quite a bit of money. But I was pleased to pay that much to get back video files that I'd spent several hours shooting.

CardRescue worked like a charm. It undid my stupidity. Watching the recovered video files I felt great. $40 great, for sure. So if you ever do what I did and erase photos or videos that you didn't mean to, and want to get back, check out CardRescue.

Soccer's penalty kicks need booting

I have a plan to fix soccer ("football," in the non-United States world). I'm uniquely qualified for this, because I know next to nothing about soccer, and until today I'd never watched an entire match on TV without fastforwarding through the boring parts.

Which for me, has been every part except for the thirty seconds before and after a goal was scored, which means I'd end up watching just a few minutes of a 90 minute match.

But this afternoon I got drawn into watching the entire Japan vs. USA 2011 Women's World Cup final, all 120 minutes of the regular and overtime period. The overtime ended with the match tied 2-2, at which point my DirecTV recording ended.

I'd forgotten to add on some extra recording time. So I didn't know the final outcome until I headed to New York Times online and learned that the United States lost 3-1 on penalty kicks.

I'm glad my DVR recording of the match didn't include the penalty kick portion. Through the first 12O minutes of what I consider the "real" match, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed watching the play, even though I didn't really understand the strategy and subtleties of what was going on.

However, the overall flow and rhythm of soccer, the ebb and flow of the different teams' attacking and defending styles -- that started to make a certain amount of sense to my neophyte soccer-watching brain.

So up to that point the soccer gods, and soccer-promoting associations, should have been pleased. I'm the sort of fan that soccer needs to attract if it's going to grow in the United States: someone who has been mildly interested in soccer, but never before to the extent of watching an entire match.

The penalty kick decider really turned me off, though. It just seems like the wrong way to choose a victor, in much the same fashion as deciding who won a basketball game by a free throw contest would be.

Except, even more so.

Watching the soccer match, I was struck by how wonderfully teamcentric this sport is. Yes, the star players were focused on by the announcers. But if I hadn't been told who they were, it would have been difficult for this nearly-blank slate soccer viewer to identify them.

In soccer it isn't possible for a player to make the equivalent of a 99 yard touchdown run, or a fast break dribbling sprint that ends in a slam dunk. (At least, seemingly this would be extremely rare.) Almost always it takes a team to score a goal, whereas in other sports individiual prowess is a much bigger factor in who wins a game.

Thus it seems horribly wrong to spoil 120 minutes of gripping talented teamwork by the United States and Japan by having the match decided with four freaking penalty kicks by single players facing a single goalkeeper.

Shannon Boxx, the first American shooter, was thwarted by a kick save from Ayumi Kaihori. That seemed to unnerve and deflate the United States. Carli Lloyd ballooned her kick. Kaihori made another save on Tobin Heath. Only Wambach had the poise to make her penalty kick for the Americans.

...With a chance to earn a victory that once seemed beyond reach, the Japanese midfielder Saki Kumagai put her hands on her hips, stretched her arms and put her shot into the top left corner.

It seems to me that who wins a sporting event should be decided by a method that meshes with the overall vibe or style of the sport. Team sports should be decided in a team fashion, not by individual players missing or making a shot by a matter of inches.

I heard one of the announcers speak of a "golden goal." This reminded me that, not very long ago, soccer matches which ended in a tie went to a sudden death overtime where whoever scored the first goal was the victor.

Sure, Wikipedia informed me that problems with the golden goal method led to it being replaced by the penalty kicks approach. From my admittedly soccer-uninformed newbie perspective, I find the whole penalty kick thing deeply unsatisfying and discordant.

How would fans of American football feel if games that were tied after the end of regulation and an overtime period came to be decided by field goal kickers trying to score from the forty-five yard line?

Fans would say, "Hey, let the teams play it out. Why should just a couple of players decide the outcome? That isn't right."

Well, that's how I feel about the victor of soccer matches being determined by whether a goalie guesses correctly to dive to his/her right or left. That's just a crappy way to end an otherwise entertaining, hard fought match.

Boot the penalty kicks, soccer. This potential fan would like you a lot more for it.

Why men and women talk in different party clusters

First, let's deal with that word "why" in the title of this post.

I haven't bothered to research what other people have to say about my subject -- the phenomenon of men and women gravitating into separate groups at parties, where male and female conversations often head off in drastically different directions.

Hey, I'm a man.

So I'm going to act in accord with what I told a woman last night who wanted to join five guys (of whom I was one) having an interesting talk about world affairs. She sidled up next to me and said, "It looks like this is a male club. Can I fit in?" I told her...

Absolutely. Just make sure that you pretend you know everything about any subject, even if you don't.

I could tell she wasn't sure whether she should take me seriously. But I meant what I said. Sort of. Unless I was joking.

This is one reason men like to talk with each other at parties. They know what the rules of the conversation game are when they're bullshitting with other guys. When women are part of the group, it's sort of like if one team was on a field with a football playing by one set of rules, and another team was trying to compete in accord with soccer rules.

When men talk, most of the time they aren't trying to either reveal, or gain access to, inner feelings. My wife and I used to get another with another couple. The other guy and I would converse in one corner of our living room, while the wives huddled on the couch.

Our male conversation always focused on Grand Cosmic Subjects, like whether the laws of nature are actually "out there," or whether they're a manifestation of the human mind. We'd learn a lot about each other in this fashion.

Just not the same things the women would learn about.

After the other couple left, my wife would say something like, "How is Michael handling the death of his father?" I'd say, "He never mentioned anything about it. I didn't even know his father died."

This would astound Laurel. It seemed perfectly natural to me.

I used to play competitive doubles tennis several times a week with three other guys. It took until about six months after one of them was divorced before I learned the news. And then the full extent of the conversation about this major life event was along the lines of "Hey, hope you're doing OK. Now whose serve is it?"

Men like games. Men like sports.

I'm not saying that manly conversations always are like a game, or a sport, but much or most of the time they are. This can confound women who have the weird idea that people are supposed to share intimate emotions truthfully when they get together.

Last night, shortly after the aforementioned woman pulled up a chair close to the male conversational circle, the other guys got up and headed for the snack table. I was the last to get up. The woman looked at me and said, "Hey, it looks like I broke up the man-party."

I told her, "Guess you should head into the kitchen and do some woman-stuff."

When I later told my wife about this conversation, she was shocked. "You didn't actually say that, did you?" "Sure I did," I told her. "The woman should have known that I was kidding."

Should have. Hopefully she did.

This is another problem with men and women talking together. Guys are used to playing games with each other. They'll tease each other. They'll throw obscenities at each other. They'll insult each other. Usually they don't take this seriously. They know how the game is played.

I think a man finds it easier to chat with a group of women, than the reverse, because men are better at game-playing. Guys can act like they really care about a woman's deep, sensitive, inner feelings more easily than a woman can act like she's having fun in a profanity-filled, joking male bullshitting group.

The reason? To a man, acting all sensitive and caring can be just another game. To a woman, usually it is serious stuff.

Here's the way I generally feel when I'm talking with some other guys: we're throwing out conversation nuggets onto a playing surface, where they can be toyed with, accepted, rejected, thrown back into someone's face, bashed into another form, assembled into interesting shapes.

It's mostly got an external tone to it. Getting into another guy's head is frowned upon. That's his space. If he wants to open himself up, fine. But it's not my business to do that.

When I'm with a group of women, I feel a different vibe. They may seem to be just as crude, comedic, or crass, but there's an undertone (or overtone) of concern and commitment to how the conversation is affecting each woman's feelings.

Recently I was standing next to three women and overheard part of what they were saying. One of them related a lighthearted story. Another said, "I can't handle what you're saying. It's too close to what I've been going through."

My male mind expected her companions to respond with something like, "Well, fuck, dude! Deal with it!" Instead, the woman who told the story said, "Sorry, let's talk about something else."

I'm not saying that men and women can't have great conversations in mixed company. Just that there's good reasons why the sexes often gravitate to different corners of a party space.

Republicans out of touch with Americans on debt limit

Great analysis by Nate Silver of Five Thirty Eight. He supports what I've been saying: Republican "fundamentalism" about refusing to consider any additional federal revenues for any reason is way beyond how the majority of Americans feel.

The average Republican voter, based on this data, wants a mix of 26 percent tax increases to 74 percent spending cuts. The average independent voter prefers a 34-to-66 mix, while the average Democratic voter wants a 46-to-54 mix.

...But the House Republicans are very unlikely to capitulate on their no-tax pledge. And Democrats have little reason to capitulate either: they are on the right side of public opinion.

In praise of a certain insanity

"This is insane... this is insane... this is insane."

That was my mental mantra in the early afternoon today, after I'd been using my DR Field Mower for about an hour on our toughest patch of untamed tall grass, brush, and an ungodly number of trees that Laurel and I planted years ago in the midst of the grass and brush, each of which requires maneuvering the heavy walk-behind mower around it.

Like I've said before, it's hell. Also, heaven.

There’s a point when my mowing hell turns to heaven. It’s when my shirt is soaked through with sweat, the water bottle strapped to my hip is empty, my socks are filled with burrs, my arms are bleeding from limb scratches, and I’ve told the trees how I feel about them by running through every creative string of obscenities in my repertoire.

Bliss.

I’m hot. I’m dead on my feet. I’m dusty. And I feel undeniably real. There’s a reality to my blogging, to my meditating, to my talking with friends, to my Tai Chi, to my watching “The Daily Show.” And then there’s the fucking reality of spending six fucking hours under the July sun mowing fields filled with fucking trees that take a fucking lot of energy to miss.

It’s just so fucking wonderful.

Today there were some new wrinkles to the hellish, heavenish, insanity that, when I'm done for the day and have returned the mower to our garage, suddenly seems like the most mentally healthy thing I could possibly do.

What you can't see in the photo above is my absolutely soaked nature. Courtesy, naturally, of nature. After sweating through my Oregon Ducks t-shirt, it started to rain. Heavily. Really unusual for this time of year.

So now, instead of wrestling the mower through super tall grass and around those damned trees we'd planted (this is a photo of a neighboring area that wasn't mowed), I was doing all that in a downpour, getting my sweat mixed with rain drops until my dirty shirt was a dripping mass of clammy goop.

This was the point when this is insane...this is insane... this is insane reached it's loudest level in my head.

It's tough to describe how tough it is to mow this particular field.

Aside from the aforementioned damned trees that have to be maneuvered around, there's a giant downed trunk of an oak tree, other woody obstructions lying hidden in the tall grass, rough ground, large branches that have to be ducked under while steering the mower, and a variety of other challenges that make this The Field From Hell on our property.

Yet it looks so nice, so peaceful, so bucolic, when the mowing is finished.

Here's what struck me today about insanity of this sort: that's what life is all about, doing insane stuff. Raising a child is insane. Going to college is insane. Riding a bicycle from Seattle to Portland is insane. Losing twenty pounds is insane.

And yes, mowing a bumpy, tree and brush strewn field like this, where the grass starts off as tall as a deer's eye, at the age of 62 with a walk-behind DR mower that requires a lot of muscling even with the newer model's reverse gear (thank you for that, DR!) -- this also is insane.

As soon as I realized this, as soon as I embraced the insanity of doing a really difficult job that I simultaneously hated and loved, suddenly this is insane... felt a lot different.

I can't say that I started to enjoy my mowing. "Enjoy" isn't the right word for what it feels like to experience this sort of insanity. I doubt that someone climbing the last few hundred feet to the summit of Mt. Everest is enjoying his or her oxygen-deprived steps.

But like I said in my previous field mowing post, life is a succession of insanities. It's insane that each of us is here, alive and conscious, some 14 billion years after the Big Bang banged the universe into existence.

I feel like the luckiest guy in the world. I know that there will come a day—when I’m 70, 80, 90, some day—when I can’t do this any more. But Laurel will have to pry that DR mower out of my hands. Hopefully they won’t be cold and dead.

But there would be worse ways to go. I wouldn’t mind taking my last breath holding onto the handles of my longtime DR companion, out in a hot field with sweat rolling down my face, cursing those trees.

Which, as I’m sure you know by now, I dearly love.

And it's insane that we each have just a few years to experience existence. Twenty, forty, sixty, eighty, even a hundred -- our time is so short, so precious, it's insane that we aren't looking upon every living moment with a Wow! that it deserves.

I don't remember what an old Sean Connery movie was about, just the title: "A Fine Madness." Great title.

There have been times in my life when I thought I was going crazy. Other times, when I was afraid of being overly sane. I guess I'm living one of those times now. Today I felt wonderfully real, alive, and content when this is insane changed from a negative to a positive, from a feeling to be shunned to a feeling to be embraced.

Yeah, this week I've spent quite a few hours sweating my way through mowing fields of tall grass that will be just as high next year about this time, when I'll do it again, cursing the grass, the trees, the rough ground, the brambles, the branches that hit me in the face, the whole goddamn insane experience.

But you know what? Doing stuff like this is what keeps me from going crazy. Go figure. I sure can't.

Religion is the cause of our debt limit problem

The more it looks like the United States is heading for a political and financial train wreck over raising the federal debt limit, which has to be done pronto to avoid a massive panic in the stock and bond markets, not to mention drastically increasing the government's future borrowing costs, the more I put the blame for this fiasco on religion.

Why?

Because Congressional Republicans who are "negotiating" with President Obama and Democratic leaders are acting like thou shalt not raise taxes is a divine decree rather than a ridiculous pledge cleverly engineered and promoted by Grover Norquist, a decidedly ungodly guy.

Of the 435 House members, 236 have signed the pledge; of the 100 Senate members, 41 have signed the pledge. Only two are Democrats, showing that this isn't a bipartisan movement. It's Republican political fundamentalism.
Download Federal Pledge Signers

So an effective majority of both the House and Senate (since 41 is more than enough to sustain a filibuster in the Senate) have vowed to never, ever raise taxes even if there is a national emergency.

Can the language of the Pledge be altered to allow exceptions?

No.  There are no exceptions to the Pledge. Tax-and-spend politicians often use “emergencies” to justify increasing taxes. In the unfortunate event of a real crisis or natural disaster, the President should propose spending cuts in other areas to finance the emergency response.   

This is why Republicans aren't really negotiating with Obama. In a negotiation, there's give and take. But in the talks about raising the debt limit, the Republicans can't give an inch on increasing federal revenues, even when the Democrats are willing to offer half a foot in spending cuts.

I'm convinced that religion is the reason we're in this unholy mess. Most Republicans these days either are genuinely devoted to a rigid form of Christianity, or pretend that they are in order to get evangelical votes.

Yesterday, on my other blog, I wrote about David Chapman's intelligent take on how to live a meaningful life, non-dogmatic Buddhism, and other interesting topics. He sees "eternalism" as one extreme on the meaning-of-life front, with "nihilism" being the other extreme.

The strategy of eternalism is to deny the ambiguity. Despite appearances, it says, everything does have a clear and definite meaning, which is not merely subjective. We might not perceive it, or we might mistake it, but it exists.

The appeal of eternalism is that questions of life-purpose and ethics have clear, simple answers. If you act in accordance with this Cosmic Plan, you are guaranteed a good outcome. You can be assured that seeming chaos and senseless misery are all orderly parts of the will of an all-good principle.

Most Congressional Republicans are faith-based eternalists in regard to taxes. They believe, without any evidence, that it is never, ever justified to increase federal revenue by raising taxes on anybody -- even on the super rich, the undeserving, or to close absurd loopholes.

How is it possible for Obama and his fellow Democrats to sit in a room at the White House and negotiate with people who hold such a indefensible, rigid, fundamentalist political position?

Plenty of economists, plus the leaders of the Deficit Commission, agree that cutting spending and increasing revenues are both necessary to address our budget problems. But these rational, sensible, fact-based policy experts aren't hamstrung by Grover Norquist's commandment from on high, thou shalt not raise taxes.

I'm not a believer in religious commandments. Morality should spring from a sensitive attunement to the circumstances of a situation, not an abstract concept which has little or no relevance to what's really happening here and now.

I also don't believe in eternalism, though I can understand why people are attracted to the notion that something is unchanging, perfect, and unfailingly trustworthy. If such a thing exists, and I doubt that it does, it wouldn't be a No Tax Increases! pledge.

Yet Republicans are acting as if their salvation depends on following the gospel of Grover Norquist. That's insane. If they don't come to their senses, soon, the United States is in big trouble.

Photos of 2011 Oregon Country Fair -- weird and wonderful

I bet there's nothing like the Oregon Country Fair anywhere else in the United States. Heck, maybe the world. It's a celebration of what made the 60's so magical: freedom, creativity, love, expressiveness, community, caring.

Sure, the magic faded (I was at Altamont, the 1969 antithesis to Woodstock: nasty and murderous). But every year it lives on in a beautiful rural setting in Veneta, outside of Eugene, for a weekend in July.

Here's some photos from opening day 2011, Friday. My wife, Laurel, and I had a great time. The weather was perfect. Per usual, the Fair staff and volunteers did an amazingly competent organizational job.

After parking in a big grassy field, it doesn't take long to realize that you're walking to the fair with an unusual cast of characters.

Not being an aggressive photographer (I don't like asking people to pose), when I saw other cameras pointed at an appealing subject, I grabbed mine also.

One of Laurel's first stops was a cookie booth. The guy in the antlers sold her three yummy cookies.
This trash area featured a recycling guru. I never saw him move from his cross-legged position on a barrel. Impressive. He gave expert advice on where to put various items of litter: napkin, paper plate, cup, food remnants.

I got lunch at the Nearly Normal's booth. Laurel chose Tofu Palace. After getting her plate we sat down in a cool, straw-strewn area behind the booth. Great dining experience.

Which included music. And views of towering trees. Laurel wondered what the squirrels and other wildlife think about having their home invaded by thousands of people every year. My guess: Far out, man!

While Laurel shopped at her favorite cap and t-shirt booth for what seemed like eons, I had plenty of time to observe the passing throngs of people dressed in astoundingly diverse ways. These were two musician entertainers who stopped to play a while.

This little girl was super cute. She could use some work on her spelling, but her singing was charming. I put a buck in her tip hat, even though the sign said I didn't have to.

In the past my wife and I haven't dressed up when we came to the Oregon Country Fair. This year, though, we were drawn into a mask booth, along with lots of other people. We tried on quite a few masks, waiting to hear an inner voice that said, This is you!

Laurel went with a basic black cat look, which she accessorized with some yellow head dress fixings she found at another booth. This dog sculture sure seems to approve of her mask choice.

I embraced my inner African chieftain. Or whatever... I wanted head feathers that would harmonize with my beard and hair. I never thought about how the dangling wood thingies would feel, though, bouncing against my cheeks as I walked around for hours and hours. Well, sacrifices must be made for one's art.

I enjoyed the fair more after getting masked up. A photographer with a fancy camera even made a point of getting a close-up of me. Turnaround is fair play, given how many photos I've taken of weirdly dressed people at the fair.

Parades erupt periodically, making their way down the tree-shaded paths between the booths. The best way to describe them is... indescribable.

It's difficult to tell the difference between weirdly dressed parade participants and weirdly dressed fairgoers. These were the latter. I think. Reality gets blurry after a few hours at the fair.

In a semi-quiet corner of the fair, we came across this guy talking on his cell phone. His sign said: "Druid. Shaman Consultations. Poems Crafted. Mantic Arts. Spinal Healing." I wasn't aware of the light beaming on him until I got home and looked at my photos. Hey, maybe he really is a druid shaman.

The booths are wonderfully colorful. If there's a more beautiful outdoor fair, with higher quality and more interesting wares for sale, I'd sure like to know about it. But I don't think the Oregon Country Fair has much competition.

There were quite a few "stilt" walkers using a high-tech looking gadget that I don't know the name of.

Free hugs! The price was right. The girls were huggable. They attracted quite a bit of business while I watched.

Including a walking tree. Only in Eugene...

The drumming circle gets me entranced.

Partly because the dancers are entrancing.

Laurel found these younger females equally easy to look at. The girls were super-cute together, big sister and little sister, I assume. Probably reminded Laurel of her growing-up years (she's the youngest of three sisters).

Walking back to our car, I was struck by this woman's striking costume. How do people know where to buy this stuff? Guess I don't frequent 20-something stores and resale shops.

But at least now I've made a start on my own Oregon Country Fair persona. I need a chieftain staff. And a (fake) lion skin cloak.

Today I wore my 2011 Oregon Country Fair t-shirt (individually tie-dyed). Tomorrow I'll wear it again. Got to keep the 60's alive. Fitting, since I'm 62.

My beautiful granddaughter gets Photoshopped

It's fitting.

Evelyn, my four year old granddaughter, lives in Hollywood, California. Given this fact and her amazingly good looks, most of which she clearly inherited from her maternal grandfather, it was only a matter of time until a photo of her got improved through Photoshop.

Last week we took Evelyn to visit Russ and Delana Beaton's rural home on the east side of Salem. She enjoyed their chickens during her first visit in 2010. This year, Evelyn was more enthused about horses. So Russ kindly gave her a ride on their quarterhorse -- which has an impressive petigree (forgotten the details).

Russ was leading the horse up their driveway. My daughter, Celeste, was helping Evelyn stay steady during her bareback walk-ride. I was following along, snapping photos with my Sony camera.

Feeling some wind come up, I turned at just the right time and captured this image.

Looking at it after we returned home, I loved Evelyn's composed expression and the blowing hair of her and the horse. What I didn't like was the distracting presence of Celeste and Russ.

So I got rid of them. Not by a phone call to the Mafia, but via an email to a friend and neighbor, Tim Jaskoski. TIm is an avid photographer who uses Photoshop a lot in his artistic endeavors.

It wasn't long before I received a pure Evelyn/horse version. I like it a lot.

Tim, humble guy that he is, felt that he didn't do as good a Photoshop job as was possible. Well, the image looks fine to me. I don't know how it could be improved. I'm going to get some prints made and send them down to Evelyn and her parents.

Maybe also to some Hollywood agents.

My wife rescues a gopher snake caught in netting

I don't like snakes.

So when I saw my wife standing outside on our deck, knocking excitedly on our locked sliding glass door, yelling "I need some manicure scissors to save a snake," I was pretty damn impressed with her animal-compassion.

I rushed to a bathroom drawer and found the scissors. Later I heard another knock. And saw...

Wow. Now I was super-impressed.

I've never even touched a snake, much less held a large one up in the air. This iPhone photo doesn't do justice to the size of the gopher snake. Here's how Laurel described her snake adventure in an email to her family.

Yesterday I spent about an hour or more rescuing a large gopher snake from entanglement in a big wad of netting we had used to cover some big windows to deter a randy robin from waking us up every dawn during nesting season (as the robin tried to attack its reflection in our big bedroom windows).

Brian had left the netting in a wad on the back patio, thinking we might need it again. I found the snake terribly stuck in it, as it tried to stretch through, one end in and one end out. Only a few inches of the head was out, with about 5 inches wound inside the wad, and about 2 1/2 feet of it still outside in the back.

The more it tried to get through, the tighter the plastic caught it, and it couldn't retreat because of the scales on its bottom. The plastic netting did not tear, and just stretched very tight around it's body in a number of places.

I had Brian get a little finger nail scissors, and I worked at cutting the bands that were tightly stuck on its body, as it writhed around and hissed at me. However, once I relieved some of the bands and got a certain amount freed up, it seemed to know I was helping it and calmed down, stopped hissing, and reduced the writhing.

It was a little creepy when it would wind its tail  around my leg, but I had to get it free. Finally I got it free of the mass of netting, and it was calm enough that i got the remaining bands cut. I managed to carefully cut the bands without drawing any blood, and just messing up a few scales.

I had my grubby clothes on, so I may not look too great, but I brought the snake to show Brian when it was freed and he took my picture with it and the wad of black netting it had gotten into (apparently thinking it was some sort of dirt). It doesn't look that big in the picture, but if you notice, the head goes off to the right after a bend. In all it was pretty long.

So, I guess plastic debris on the ground can be just as bad for wildlife as plastic debris in the sea.

Why Republicans are so wrong about the debt limit

The Republican stance on negotiating an increase to the federal debt limit is illogical and ridiculous in so many ways, it's difficult for me to know where to focus my outrage. 

First, it's deeply irritating to have the national interest held hostage by a quasi-religious "Thou Shalt Never Raise Taxes." And just as absurd, "Thou Shalt Always Have a Balanced Federal Budget."

The first commandment is Grover Norquist pontificating, who knows zilch about economic reality. Conservative (but not a crazy one) David Brooks gets it exactly right in his The Mother of No-Brainers column.

Over the past few years, it [the Republican party] has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.

It's amazing that so many Republican legislators have surrendered their brains and commitment to serve the public interest to such a rigid, dogmatic No tax increases! oath. Reagan raised taxes numerous times. Apparently he'd be kicked out of the current Republican party.

Sometimes taxes need to be raised. Sometimes they don't. It depends.

Same with the G.O.P. drive to pass a balanced budget amendment as a condition of raising the debt limit. As a New York Times editorial correctly says, this is analogous to Republicans forbidding citizens to take out a car loan or a home mortgage.

What could be more prudent than balancing the books every year? In fact, forcibly balancing the federal budget each year would be like telling families they cannot take out a mortgage or a car loan, or do any other borrowing, no matter how sensible the purchase or how creditworthy they may be.

Again, sometimes it makes sense to go into debt. Sometimes it doesn't. It depends.

Conservatives often say they want government to act more businesslike. Well, how many businesses never borrow money? The federal deficit certainly needs to be reduced. But to hamstring legislators through a balanced budget amendment from effectively dealing with future national crises, that's crazy.

Currently federal tax revenues are at their lowest level in decades. The United States isn't overtaxed. Most of our deficit problem is caused by the unfunded Bush tax cuts, two unfunded major wars, and other unfunded Republican spending such as the Medicare prescription drug program.

This isn't opinion. It's fact.

Yet so far Republican negotiators are firmly opposed to increasing taxes on the wealthy, whose share of national income rose dramatically during the Bush presidency. Polls, though, show that Americans favor this. Here's what PoltiFact has to say:

We found a number of polls that indicate people do want the government to raise taxes. That was most clearly the case when it comes to raising taxes on the wealthy and on corporations.

Several polls ask people if taxes should be increased on people who make more than $250,000. Polls show substantial majorities support the idea. We found majorities of 72 percent, 64 percent, and 59 percent. (Those are from April polls by ABC News/Washington Post, McClatchy-Marist, and USA Today/Gallup, respectively.) 

On whether corporations pay enough in taxes, Gallup found that 67 percent said they pay too little.

My final gripe about how Republicans are approaching the debt ceiling negotiations is this: they don't recognize that reducing government benefits is almost exactly the same as a tax increase.

I mean, what's the difference between forcing Medicare recipients to pay more for health care out of their own pockets, and forcing wealthy people to pay more taxes out of their own pockets?

All we're talking about is whose pocket the money is going to come from. The same principle holds for all sorts of government programs, federal, state, and local. If the Oregon legislature can't properly fund the state university system (which it isn't), then students and parents pay more for tuition (which they are).

This is so obvious, I can't believe Republican brains are incapable of recognizing it. I guess their above-mentioned quasi-religious fear of taxes prevents them from understanding simple logical facts.

Such as, government is us.

Every dollar of committed federal spending that now requires an increase in the debt limit was approved by our duly elected Congressional representatives, both Republican and Democrat.

The government isn't a malevolent foreign force. It carries out the will of the American people through the people they elect to represent them.

We, the people, have every right to raise taxes in order to provide benefits to ourselves.

We, the people, have every right to borrow money in order to finance federal programs that are important to us.

We, the people, have every right to make wealthy individuals and corporations pay their fair share in taxes.

Republicans need to open their eyes and start looking at the citizens they represent, not the special interests who lobby behind the scenes for special treatment. David Brooks end his column with:

The struggles of the next few weeks are about what sort of party the G.O.P. is — a normal conservative party or an odd protest movement that has separated itself from normal governance, the normal rules of evidence and the ancient habits of our nation.

If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.

And they will be right.

Camp Sherman and Sisters: I love these Oregon towns

From seven to seventeen, formative years, I grew up in a small town nestled in the foothills of California's Sierra Nevada mountains.

Three Rivers had about 900 people back then. It was the sort of close-knit community where, during the winter when tourists weren't around, if someone unfamiliar was shopping in one of the two small grocery stores, locals would ask each other "Who was that?" when the person left.

It was more than just a gateway to Sequoia National Park. There were quite a few artists, drawn, I suppose, by the beautiful natural landscape: three forks of the Kaweah River, with the Middle Fork flowing down a canyon that offered views of the high Sierras.

During one of her visits, my grandmother hugely enjoyed the time she and the Three Rivers garbage collector got into a deep discussion about art when the guy -- an artist needing a regular job -- came onto our porch to collect the can.

"Where else," she'd say at family gatherings, "can you have a great conversation about art with the garbageman?"

Camp Sherman and Sisters, central Oregon towns about fifteen miles apart, make me feel right at home -- my childhood home. My wife and I own one-fourth of a Forest Service cabin on the Metolius River in Camp Sherman. That makes us about 10% of a full-time resident I guess, since we come to the cabin about a week a month for half the year.

My heart, though, resonates 100% with the charming atmosphere in Camp Sherman (pop. a few hundred) and Sisters (pop. a few thousand).

Yesterday I attended the annual meeting of the Metolius River Forest Homeowners Association (MRFHA) at the Camp Sherman community hall. Most of the meeting was about as non-exciting as you'd expect an event like this to be. But when local sheriff Dave Blann stood up to give his report, my small-town soul immediately woke up.

Dave looks exactly like the Camp Sherman sheriff should. And he's got a sense of humor that melds perfectly with the vibe of this quirky town.

He started off by saying there were no break-in's at any Forest Service cabins this winter, adding "I wish I could take credit for some great policing work, but I suspect the truth is that the bad guys can't afford $4 gallon gas to get up here."

Sheriff Dave checks out suspicious behavior, even when animal-caused. Some cabins have alarms that can be set off by intruders of less than human size.

"It really makes me glad that I chose police work," he told us, "when I'm sneaking around a cabin in the snow, my rifle at the ready, and a squirrel is looking at me thinking What the heck are you doing out here?

Dave said this year he responded to a first-time noise complaint: some campers at Riverside campground (near the head of the Metolius) were annoyed about all the noise people at a Tract C cabin across the river were making. This got a good laugh from the assembled cabin owners (some of whom may have been the culprits).

"Here's the lesson for you," Sheriff Dave said. "If you're having a party, invite your neighbors." Beautiful.

Near the end of his presentation a woman asked, "Do you have a regular routine?" She meant a patrol routine. But before he answered I instantly thought, Wow, maybe he has a comedy routine! Dave should. Really.

Along with Camp Sherman, Sisters was humming with visitors this Fourth of July weekend. Lots of motorcyclists were enjoying great two-wheeling weather and central Oregon scenery. Passers-by, including me, were drawn to one of the many outdoor events the town puts on during the summer, the aptly named Sisters Summer Faire.

Sisters, like Camp Sherman, feels wonderfully welcoming, natural, and unassuming. Almost universally residents are relaxed, polite, casual, friendly.

Simple shopping errands are more pleasant in these small towns. The Sisters Ace Hardware reminds me a bit of the hardware store in Three Rivers when my mother moved there in 1955. It was small, but somehow it had anything you needed. Not that you could find it yourself, the place was so crammed full. The owner knew where stuff was, though.

Without fail, I always stop at Paulina Springs Books when I visit Sisters. It's a terrific independent bookstore, an endangered business species. I'm more than a little ashamed to admit how many books I buy from Amazon. I'm also a frequent buyer at Paulina Springs Books, though.

There's nothing like walking into a bookstore and seeing a "staff favorites" table. Kneeling down and reading the staff reviews of favorite books makes me realize how important it is to be able to pick up a book, thumb through the pages, and see whether you agree with a glowing recommendation by a fellow book lover.

When it came to "Nowhere to Run" by C.J. Box, I sure did.

As soon as I finish this post, I'm going to get back to reading this engrossing paperback mystery. I'd never heard of Box's Joe Pickett (a Wyoming game warden) series before. Thanks to Paulina Springs Books, I'm probably hooked on C.J. Box now.

If you're ever in central Oregon, don't pass up Camp Sherman and Sisters. A visit to the Camp Sherman store (it's the only store in Camp Sherman) will take you back to a simpler time.

My childhood time.

When locals could have their purchases rung up, say "Put it on my account," and the clerk would turn to a bunch of alphabetized mini-ledgers behind the cash register, calling out your name and a "thank you" as you walked out the door.

A lot has changed since I was seven years old. I'm so glad that some towns haven't.

Thanks, 2011 Oregon legislature, for not being crazy

Wild and crazy can be fun.

But not in politics, not now, because there's too much extreme'ish freaking out going on in both Congress and state legislatures. So thank you, 2011 Oregon legislature, for showing that Republicans and Democrats can still work together productively to serve the public.

The Oregon Legislature wrapped up business Thursday, putting final touches on a no-frills budget and heaping praise on each other for what they called the most congenial, businesslike session in many years.

..."We have been blessedly boring all session," summed up Rep. Vicki Berger, R-Salem.

Yes, there were some partisan spats, especially over education policy. But the session was largely devoid of drawn-out meltdowns and bitter disputes, such as the one in 2009 that led to a narrow approval of income tax increases.

"We can feel pretty good about getting the people's business done in a workmanlike and statesmanlike way," Berger said, shortly before the gavels came down in both chambers at 2:49 p.m.

Amazingly, the legislature was able to pass reapportionment plans for both the state Senate/House and Congressional districts. The budget also was balanced without tax increases.

And some important steps were made toward education reform (though unfortunately Oregon's hugely wasteful corrections system was left mostly untouched). Public school advocates aren't happy about a bill encouraging online charter schools, but my progressive sense of outrage isn't much worked up about this.

Hey, that's how compromise works: you win some, you lose some. Right and left extremes get blurred into a fuzzier middle ground. Political purity gets shaken and stirred into a mixed legislative drink.

I can't resist, though, shouting out a Democratic-leaning "I told you so." I voted for John Kitzhaber last November largely because Republican Chris Dudley was untested. Also, excessively rigid.

Kitzhaber proved that he was able to get along with interest groups from all across the political spectrum. Even business lobbyists, one of whom called him "tremendously engaged." Dudley likely would have been a much worse performer as Governor.

In Minnesota state government functions essentially have shut down over a budget dispute between a Democratic governor and Republican legislature. Compared to other states in similar screaming-match situations, Oregon looks like one of the adults in an increasingly childish political room.

And summer has finally arrived! Forecast is for high 70's/low 80's and mostly sunny the next five days here in the Willamette Valley. Local life is good, for the moment at least, both politically and climatologically.