WHERE DID ALL THE GROWN-UPS GO?

By H. N. Burdett

"Grandpa, aren't you scared?" my 16-year-old grandson asked the other day, minutes before we sat down to dinner.

"Of what?" I asked.

"I was watching Boehner and Obama (on television)," he said. "It was like two parents fighting and I'm scared, aren't you?"

"Right, or like a couple of kids squabbling on the playground," I responded. "I'm concerned, but not frightened. It's all political posturing, gamesmanship. What this is really all about is next year's national elections. Opposing parties jockeying for position, each trying to set themselves up as the savior and the other as the villain. But don't worry. A deal will be struck on the debt ceiling. The country is not going to default on its debt."

Later that evening when I thought about that brief colloquy, I wondered if I wasn't whistling past the graveyard. In the end, I remained optimistic.

Impressive as the Republican members in Congress may be in rigidly repeating Frank Luntz's slogans and talking points, the feeling lingers that, with the tea party breathing down their necks, they are intent upon driving a stake through the GOP's heart and taking the country along with it as collateral damage.

Dr. Luntz is the wizard of ooze who came up with the "fair and balanced" tagline for Fox News, though anyone who is not blind, deaf or stupid knows it is neither. An acknowledged master of metaphor, he is the linguistic field general who has devised a brilliant campaign to solidify his valid premise that words matter in politics, business, relationships, and everywhere else.

Luntz has been working at this for years. He is the genius who turned global warming into "climate change" and the mainstream media, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, have swallowed it whole. Never mind that the world is experiencing the highest annual temperatures ever recorded and that a hunk of the Arctic the size of Rhode Island has melted.

Luntz's fingerprints are all over more recent constructions repetitively parroted by GOP congressmen in the debt ceiling debate: "job creators" to redefine and thereby justify corporate welfare in the form of unconscionable tax breaks, and "don't let them write a blank check" to demonize Democrats protecting Social Security and Medicare.

During congressional floor speeches by Republicans, just try counting how many times they use those two terms. Josef Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, was a master of the same strategy. Goebbels said if you keep repeating a lie, it will become conventional wisdom.

On the debt ceiling debacle, Fred Thompson, the movie and television actor and former United States Senator from Tennessee, is among the few actual grown-ups in his party. Thompson, once an aspirant for the GOP presidential nomination, cuts to the chase. Observing that the Republicans are getting most of exacly what they want in the debt ceiling deal, he says they should just shut up, vote and declare victory.

It should be noted that the tea party had not surfaced as the dominant political influence on the Republican party when Thompson was in the political arena. And the tea party is the tail wagging that dog, much to the chagrin of moderate members of the party -- a diminishing breed on the fast track to extinction.

One current U.S. Senator who pushes back at the tea party loonies is none other than the GOP's 2008 presidential nominee, John McCain of Arizona.

No longer harboring illusions of ascending to the presidency, McCain, who famously declined to buckle to torture in the Hanoi Hilton where he was confined during the Vietnam war, is reclaiming his torn and tattered maverick mantle.

He opposes the tea party's insistence that raising the debt ceiling should be linked to a Constitutional amendment mandating a balanced Federal budget. He calls such nonsense in the guise of don't-tread-on-me patriotism "foolish" and "bizarro."

By so doing, the Arizona senator once again becomes the pain in his party's posterior he was when he co-sponsored that long-standing GOP anathema, political campaign reform.

Any business unable to keep its books balanced can start counting the days when its doors must shut permanently. The family designee in charge of monitoring household expenses knows that spending beyond the budget means doing without not only luxuries but necessities. Virtually every state in the union prohibits its lawmakers from spending money that just is not there.

What makes the Federal government unique is that it is the states' banker of last resort. When Hurricane Katrina ravished parts of Louisiana and Mississippi, those states turned to the Federal government for relief. When George W. Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, he did not turn to the private sector to finance his folly; in fact, some portions of the latter profited rather handsomely.

Should Congress be bound by Constitutional fiat to balance the budget -- a key condition exacted by the tea party for a debt ceiling deal -- the United States, arguably the wealthiest and most admired country in the world, would have to throw itself at the mercy of the global community for emergency relief and unforeseeable urgent contingencies.

A balanced budget as a guiding principle of our Federal government would turn the United States into a virtual Third World country. Those six or seven of every 10 Americans who believe this is a great idea should go back to their high school civics texts and try reading and understanding them.

Better yet, the tea party and its conservative sheep should exert special effort to comprehend the Constitution they claim to revere. The tea party cult would sooner rather than later learn that a balanced budget amendment would be on a one-way collision course with that document's general welfare clause. They would not only lose the argument, but have no recourse but to fold their leaky tents and close shop.

Amid the bickering, back-biting and bombast that has turned the U.S. Congress into an object of contempt by the very electorate that puts its members into office, I remain confident that an eleventh-hour agreement will be reached. More than likely it will be a jerrybuilt mess, full of flaws, a patchwork quilt that will be of little more use than applying Band-aids to cancer.

But it will somehow squeeze us through our current debt dilemma. The Triple-A bond rating of the planet's most admired nation will remain in grave jeopardy and the global economy will feel our pain.

All Americans should vehemently resent allowing our country to become beholden to no-nothing, tea party mania. We should resent frightening the next generation into glimpsing into their future and seeing only bleak, cold darkness -- a future that will find it worse off than the preceding generation for the first time in American history.

To paraphrase the come-uppance for that notorious bull in the national china shop, Sen. Joe McCarthy, we must ask our elected officials on Capitol Hill: Has it come to this gentlemen? Have you no decency? Have you no shame?

REQUIEM FOR A PATRIOT

By H. N. Burdett

Among the more ironic idiosyncrasies of American history is the fact that two of the greatest founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, passionate rivals who never lost their mutual respect passed away on the same day: July 4, 1826.

One hundred and eighty-five years later to the day, a far less known but no less a patriot breathed her last. Her name was Selma Goldberg and she lived in Crofton, Maryland. She was my friend and, at times, a burr in my saddle.

Selma was a liberal firebrand who never pulled a punch. Her causticity was usually aimed at Republicans and conservatives. But she was never shy about calling out fellow Democrats and progressives when she felt they had strayed from their ideals.

A staunch, steadfast civil rights advocate, Selma was a co-founder of the Anne Arundel County chapter of the National Organization for Women. Equal pay for equal work was her cause in the early 1970s when our paths first crossed. But she was no one-trick pony. Her curiosity and intelligence, her drive to know more about everything inspired her to research and study virtually every issue headlined on the front page and a few that seldom or never even get into the paper.

Her weapons of choice were her pen and, later, her computer. Her opinions were expressed with considerable thoughtfulness and enviable clarity in letters to the editor. More than once I had heard her grumble about what she felt was her local newspaper's absurd policy of limiting individuals to one or two letters a month. "If you have something to say, they ought to let you say it," she once told me. As an erstwhile editorial page editor who had wrestled daily with the problem of so many letters, so little space, I understood the newspaper's policy and tried to explain it to her. She sort of understood, but never seemed quite satisfied with my explanation. Yet when I urged her to use Potomac Digest as a forum, she declined on the grounds that she felt she did not write well enough. "You write well enough for me to offer you space," I replied. "It's not your writing, it's your thinking that readers will care about." She still respectfully declined. I was crestfallen.

In addition to reading Selma's letters to the editor, I was privileged to have been the recipient of a few of her thoughts via e-mail and telephone. Her phone conversations would typically begin with something like: "I'm angry with Obama today because. . ." She never shrieked or screamed. Her tone was always as controled as the evidence she had harnessed to make her point.

Though Selma and I did not always agree, I invariably respected her opinions because they invariably seemed so confounded rational. You could waterboard me forever, but there would be no possible way I would consent to debate her publicly. I know that if I had the audience overwhelmingly on my side at the outset, before it was over they would be with her.

We agreed more than we disagreed. Sometimes we both agreed and disagreed on the same issue. An example: We both felt that so-called "Obamacare" was health care restructuring rather than health care reform. We were both strong supporters of single payer insurance. But we parted on her belief that the President's bill was unworthy of the paper on which it was written. I argued that the measure had value in that it mandated coverage for at least 16 million previously uninsured Americans and virtually eliminate pre-existing conditions as a reason to deny insurance. She said that I had a point, but never indicated she agreed with me.

Selma never lost her sense of humor. We both felt that constructing a costly fence across the United States-Mexico border was an exercise in futility and stupidity, to say nothing of profligacy. She laughed when I told her that if a 10-foot high fence was built, undocumented immigrants would bring an 11-foot ladder. She laughed again when I told her the fence would probably be built by the only available labor: immigrants, perhaps undocumented.

It is her delightful laugh that I will miss most about her, I think.

It is fitting that Selma, the passionate soldier in the trenches defending social justice, died on the anniversary of American independence. Her core belief was that disagreement with your government is not unpatriotic; silence when your government is wrong is unpatriotic. In this conviction, Selma Goldberg's life is one that would please the ghosts of those two old rivals, Jefferson and Adams.

THE WORLD'S DYING OCEANS

By H. N. Burdett

Amid the political ping-pong between a dysfunctional Congress and the desperate Obama administration over the August 2 debt limit deadline, the New York Times, in its wisdom, recently relegated to the penultimate of four editorials a new report that the world's oceans are "approaching irreversible, potentially catastrophic change."

That the moment of truth draws ever closer when "a self-inflicted wound," as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke termed it, could trigger economic chaos is undeniably a grave concern.

Underlying the current stalemate over how to best remedy the nation's deficit woes, however, is a struggle between the two major U.S. political parties to extract at the eleventh hour a bunny from a fedora, each intent upon not only declaring itself the savior but also portraying the other as the villain of the tragicomedy.

As serious as the debt crisis may be, it is nowhere close to rivaling in severity the portentous consequences of the acceleration of ocean degradation resulting in mass extinctions.

The findings of experts from the International Program on the State of the Oceans and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature reveal that the world's oceans have warmed and become more acidic as they absorb human-generated carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Agriculture runoff and other anthropogenic causes have further increased the deprivation of the ocean's oxygen.

"The oceans' natural resilience has been seriously compromised," the Times editorial warns. "Pollution, habitat loss and overfishing are dangerous threats on their own. But when these factors converge, they can destroy marine ecosystems."

The naysayers can be counted upon to vigorously argue that the authors of the study are nothing more than a thundering horde of Cassandras making much ado over very little, shrug off the report and hire their own "independent" scientists to furnish contrary data.

Meanwhile, the list of marine life either vulnerable to extinction, endangered or critically endangered grows. They now include seven commercially important species, among them mackerel, marlin and three species of tuna.

Reversal of the ominous conditions underscored in the report requires immediate reduction in carbon dioxide systems, establishment of a system of marine conservation areas and protection of ocean life that extends beyond national jurisdictions.

Conventional wisdom is virtually always slow to accept negative environmental findings as factual -- a reaction spurred by industrial polluters willing to debunk any and all evidence that might cut into their profit margins.

A concerted effort by the international community is necessary to head off destruction of marine ecosystems by reining in carbon emissions, thereby stabilizing the health of the world's oceans and preventing further significant changes therein that could further accelerate climate change.

With global markets wobbling on their shaky foundations and a U.S. national election 16 months away, the ramifications of future devastating weather systems and the kind of world the next generation will inherit somehow evades our attention much less our concern.

THE JOYS OF CEREBRAL FERVOR

By H. N. Burdett

I would have to reach well back into the past, more than three decades, to remember the last time I encountered Severna Park, Maryland schoolteacher Jim Hoage. But he left an indelible impression.

Jim is among those rare birds one both enjoys and respects for their clear-headed, yet passionate cut-to-the-chase worldview. Not only can he dish it out eloquently and concisely, he can back it up with legitimate facts, figures and citations for anyone who might demand such and is willing to read, listen and learn.

Let me hasten to add that while Jim has always worn his progressivism proudly as well as gracefully, I have friends from the opposite end of the political spectrum who share his ability to communicate which, for lack of a more precise term I can only characterize as cerebral fervor.

Though the cheap alibi of time and circumstance has precluded Citizen Hoage and me from having even a single phone conversation in all too many years, I am delighted to report that 30 or more years have neither mellowed his progressive allegiance or drained his ink well.

Jim still writes provocative letters to the editor: a perfect forum for someone of his bent who worships at the lonely but hallowed altar of brevity. After encouraging a few friends to glance at Jim's most recent offering in my hometown newspaper, the Annapolis Capital, I was pleased to learn that most had already seen it. Moreover, and this pleased me even more, more than a few assured me they look forward to reading any editorial page letter bearing the signature of James Hoage, Severna Park.

I will not go so far as to suggest that there is a Jim Hoage Cult alive and well in Anne Arundel County, but I certainly hope so. I also have a strong hunch that not all of Jim's fans have met him personally. Over the past few days I've heard his name mispronounced at least three different ways, no easy feat for a two-syllable name which often enough is botched into one. I won't bother to present the correct pronunciation here, instead choosing to enthusiastically reprint his Monday, June 27 letter to the editor in its entirety:

Cut the Fat

House Speaker John Boehner wants $2 trillion in (federal budget) cuts. But he and other Republicans want them to be in what middle class and poor people need. Instead, the GOP should look across the river (toward the Pentagon) and feast their eyes on pork and the corporate welfare. They should:

1. Trim five of the 11 aircraft carriers. The Chinese will soon have DF-21 missiles that can easily blow a carrier out of the water along with its 5,000-man crew. Save $75 billion.

2. Cut all the F-35 fighters. The F-15's, F-16's and F-18's we now have are fine. Use more drones. Build one new sub a year, not two. Save a whopping $676 billion.

3. Cut the Reagan relics, the Cold War missiles/nuclear weapons. Save $80 billion.

4. Trim troops to 0.7 million from 1.3, bases to 300 from 500, generals/admirals to 500 from 952. Stop 57 K "re-up" bonuses. Make it "25 and out," not 20. Save an admirable $487 billion!

5. Trim our 17 spy groups who gather more "intelligence" than they can study. Save $152 billion.

6. Bring home now the 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. Avoid quagmire. Save $350 billion.

7. Zero-base the whole Pentagon budget: justify each item each year. Save $180+ billion.

There's your $2 trillion. But if a little pork/corporate welfare is a must, compensate: Axe the Bush tax cuts for the rich and impose a minimum corporate income tax.

Ordinary Americans are wising up. A respectable poll finds 55 percent favor military cuts but only 21 percent Medicare cuts and only 13 percent Social Security cuts.

On Aug. 3, if Republicans prove pigheaded, Reggie Retiree may find no Social Security check in his mailbox. But Reggie shouldn't have to fear doomsday; it should be the pork chasers and corporate welfare queens who feed at the Pentagon trough.

JAMES HOAGE
Severna Park, MD