Five-day report

As I mentioned in a previous post, last week in a fit of despair and irrational decision-making, I signed on to extended cable.

Since I post such lofty statements as “I think everyone should be self-critical and willing to change” or some such nonsense (realizing that no one is REALLY self-critical, let alone willing to change), I decided to scientifically evaluate the sanity of this decision. First, the daily scorecard on my TV watching now that I have some 80-plus channels to choose from (the plus refers to a movie option that I took but do not understand at all at, AT ALL! Except that it bought some free box into my home where now I can start movies –what movies??? From where???? – on demand):

Thursday (the day of cable installation): 0 minutes of TV viewing
Friday: The debate (perhaps 2 hrs?) on NBC (available without cable)
Saturday: 0 minutes of TV viewing
Sunday: 15 minutes of “60 Minutes” on CBS (available without cable)
Monday: 5 minutes of news at 7 a.m. on NBC (available without cable) and 20 minutes of the MacNeil/Lehrer Report (available without cable).

Am I ready to admit to complete stupidity and lack of self-awareness? No, of course not (remember: no one is REALLY self-critical). We’re dealing with unique circumstances, that’s all. [Yes, yes, I know; that’s what they all say…]

Another post that demonstrates my commitment to both sides of the political spectrum

[Q: GWB, a steward? Yes!]

However President Bush may choose to characterize himself (and there have been very interesting such characterizations), I never would have thought that he would pick this one: “steward of the land.” Because the word “steward” doesn’t fit with GWB-speak. Nor does "of the land." It’s as if Kerry suddenly said next Wednesday “I feel your pain, sister!” Clinton? Maybe, but not Kerry. So, too, the steward of the land thing seemed to me to be a Bush aberration.

Where did he come up with it? When was it first suggested that stewardship, land and George are like peas in a pod? After poking around a bit, I found that, lo and behold, lots of people HAVE been linking stewardship with the environment and GWB and this has been evidently taking place since the days of his governorship. We hear it from advocate types as well as within the corporate sector. So I was wrong: Bush is merely quoting others who have indeed used the phrase in conjunction with this administration. I’ll include a few samples, in case you don’t believe me (in chronological order; I've highlighted the appropriate words in case you're in a hurry and just want to get to the proof).

(from Iowa Press, questioning GWB’s record as Governor, Dec. 1999)
[IP]: You're being criticized for your handling of the environment in Texas. Specifically, people are saying that the Texas environment is a polluted one and that you've not been a good steward of the environment. How do you respond to that?
[GWB]: ...I don't believe we can sue or regulate our way to clean air and clean water.

(from ABC News, May 2001)
Mr. Bush went to Sequoia National Forest in California today to say that he is and he will be a good steward of the environment. ... But environmentalists are skeptical of Mr. Bush, even when he is trying to please them. The National Parks Association today gave him a barely passing grade, D.

(from ChevronTexaco home page, Aug. 2003)
President George W. Bush has announced his intention to appoint Lydia I. Beebe, corporate secretary of ChevronTexaco, to the Presidio Trust board of directors. The board is charged with preserving the Presidio’s [in SF] natural, cultural, scenic and recreational resources...
"I’m honored to be appointed to the Presidio Trust board of directors,” said Beebe. “The appointment allows me to put into practice the values we adhere to at ChevronTexaco of being a good steward of the environment and a constructive partner in areas where we live and work."

(from the Center for American Progress, Feb 2004)
Three years into the current administration, the trend in environmental regulation is sledgehammer clear: this administration is the worst steward of the environment ever. So bad is the record, so long the list of environmental depredations, that it is difficult to pick the worst.

What did I say? Peas in a pod. With ChevronTexaco, too.

Twenty-third street pre-election diary*

Seward, sitting at the junction of the avenues at 23rd, thinking, perhaps, which way do I go now? 

the intersection of the avenues at 23rd: you head to the Left or to the Right 

It’s still very dark outside. On the twenty-third sunrise, we’ll wake up to an election morning. Do they have twenty-three day forecasts? They have ten day forecasts, how accurate are those? [I’m thinking of the weather which has been stunningly beautiful in Madison – perfect for walking and ruminating.]

The interesting thing about William Seward (pictured in the photo above) is that he ‘flip-flopped’ (to use a popular phrase) in his political positions over time. What does that mean in terms of a governor who later became Secretary of State for Lincoln? It means that his more radical views (focusing on abolishing slavery, promoting prison reform and providing education for immigrants) appeared to calm down over the decades, so that toward the end of his career he was more interested in the protection of national unity than of individual rights (at least that is how I read his life, admittedly based on limited information; but then we always interpret the views of others based on limited information).

People change. Yet, it is interesting to note how history remembers them and it turns out it is never for the act of change but for the direction and reasons behind it. It’s true in politics, it’s true in everyday life.

(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)