04 January 1972

As the sun rose on the east coast this morning, I returned from Vietnam, landing at Dulles Airport. I had been in transit for about 30 hours, leaving Bien Hoa Air Base around mid evening (local time) on the 2nd and arriving in San Francisco about two hours later (local time) after a 14 to 16 hour flight. By noon on the 3rd, I was discharged from the Army and headed to SFO, still wearing a uniform to qualify for reduced airfare. My flight east wasn't scheduled to late in the evening so I killed time drinking with a guys from my unit who returned on the same Freedom Bird.

By the time I boarded my flight I was pretty spaced out from travel, time change, alcohol and ennui. If I slept at all, it was fitful. I recall spending part of the flight in the back of the plane talking with an staff sergeant in military intelligence although none of the conversation comes back to me.

After landing at Dulles, I took the charter bus to National Airport. On the way, I couldn't help but notice that everything seemed so normal, like the war didn't even exist. Everyone was going about their business, their daily commute just like everyday with no thought to rocket attacks, ambushes or claymore mines. I wanted to scream at them all but mostly, I sat silent. Everything changed when I met my girl friend at National. She had taken the day off to meet me.

I was home. Vietnam was behind me. Back then, I didn't give much thought to the fact that Vietnam would never leave me. On that day, I tasted the sweetest victory I had ever known. I was alive and whole.

Thirty seven years later, that day is still very real to me. The victory is tarnished by years of anger, shame and remorse not to mention all the subsequent wars my country has fought since. I call it the price of survival.

Government Ownership is Dangerous

Russia's embargo on gas shipments through Ukraine demonstrate the danger of a state-owned enterprise, namely that the enterprise will be used to further a national rather than business interest. No sane private business would disrupt its customers over a dispute with one of them. A private business would be extremely reluctant to cut off its revenues in that way. A state-owned business has the luxury, especially when the business involves a vital energy resource, of forgoing receipts in favor of state interests.

Russia is playing a very good hand in an energy scarce era as a way of recapturing its previous glory, not just the Soviet Union but also the Empire of Czarist Russia. Russians have always had a high opinion of their nation and culture; it's no surprise to me that they seek recognition of that fact. If their gas monopoly loses revenue because of the embargo, the sacrifice is tolerable and for a good cause. Don't expect Russians to behave as capitalists, expect them to behave as Russians.

Private owners are unwilling to take those losses unless they have no other choice. These days globalization has weakened the leverage national governments can exercise over private capital. Certainly that's the case in the US of A where government regulation of or influence over enterprise is anathema. Unlike government-owned enterprise, market forces and profit will prevent private enterprise from slavishly serving state interests or posing any threat to society.

*cough*

First Ride

The bicycle and weather gods smiled upon me yesterday and gave me the first ride of 2009. I used the opportunity to push a few more miles south on the Chehalis Western Trail. The route from my place is virtually all dedicated, paved former railroad right of way completely separated from vehicle traffic. It's sweet and easy riding with no steep climbs.

Yesterday's trail showed many signs of the past weeks' hard weather: fallen trees,broken branches and tracks of maintenance vehicles in the still remaining snowy spots. Any maintenance must have been done in the past seven days; I rode to the trail on last Sunday's mostly clear main streets and found it still deep in snow and ice. Only a few patches and piles of snow remained yesterday.

The southern portion of the trail had more snow on pavement than I expected. the snow was often a light dusting. It looked fresh. Otherwise it was mostly slush, no more than an inch deep and no big deal once I got used to it. The weather was overcast and cold. The forecast said rain but the skies said no; the sun occasionally broke trough the clouds but the day was mostly subdued. Every now and then I felt a drop of water on my face but the predicted precipitation did not arrive until long after my ride was done.

The new section of trail took me through the Deschutes River wetlands and along the river itself, maybe a mile or so. At one point the trail parallels a bend in the river. Swollen run-off from the Great Snow twists around sandbars and islands. Lowlands all around are wet and marshy. I'm going upriver from town, which means gaining elevation, and I've been riding into the wind the entire route. I'm looking forward to the return.

My return was back the way I came. Not something I typically do but it was hard to give up that dedicated right-of-way with no vehicle traffic. Not much traffic of any sort, for that matter. It was fun to see this familiar route from a completely different direction.

I wore two a capilene base top under a polypro zip turtleneck shirt and a rain jacket for my body core and on my legs I wore black cycling tights under loose fitting cycling shorts (gotta have those pockets). Wool hiking socks with liners for my feet and a fleece earband under my helmet. The temperature was around 35 the entire time with about a 9 mph wind and I was comfortable for most of the ride. My feet were noticeably cold on the return.

The fenders were most welcome yesterday.

CheneyBush Generic Eppitaph

By his acts you will know him.

The Bush administration appears poised to push through a change in U.S. Forest Service agreements that would make it far easier for mountain forests to be converted to housing subdivisions.

Mark E. Rey, the former timber lobbyist who heads the Forest Service, last week signaled his intent to formalize the controversial change before the Jan. 20 inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama.

Future Dominance

Neil Howe and Richard Jackson write in the Washington Post that

All told, population trends point inexorably toward a more dominant U.S. role in a world that will need us more, not less. ...In 1950, six of the top 12 [most populous countries] were developed countries. In 2000, only three were. By 2050, only one developed country will remain -- the United States, still in third place. By then, it will be the only country among the top 12 with a historical commitment to democracy, free markets and civil liberties.

Their premise is a scary one: exploding population in the Third World overwhelming Western values and ideals held dear by aging societies no longer able to defend those values. Only one nation may survive--the United States. It certainly sounds like a cry for help that only America can provide.

The authors' facts sound impeccable. they marshal sociological studies of violence,crime and demographic trends. They project population changes and offer data on fertility and birth rates. I'm not in a position to verify or dispute the facts but they certainly sound true based on what I do know about demographics and economics.

What doesn't sound impeccable to me is the sense of mission that the authors impart. I certainly believe that America has a unique role in history as the incubator of popular democracy. I further believe that, as a nation we have an obligation to share our wealth--financial and intellectual--with the world. That much of the authors' mission makes sense. In fact, only three words--"more dominant rol"--give me pause. What I hear in those three words is "Forget any idea that America can retreat into isolationist safety. America must become more dominant if Western civilization is to survive." In the world of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where the authors are research analysts, dominance equals force. The CSIS board is a pantheon of American hawks, intellectual home of the National Security State. When I hear "more dominant role" from that quarter, I expect missiles to fly and bombs to fall.

Since I don't dispute the authors' facts, what is my answer to the dire future they predict? First off, I would not assume that American military power can change the demographic or economic trends that give rise to the poverty,instability and violence. Second, I would not assume that the rest of the world will welcome a "more dominant role" for America. This nation may have much to offer but that is only me, born and raised in America, projecting my values on the world. Instead, I would demonstrate the utility and advantages of American ideas by addressing directly the causes of poverty and despair, marshaling a variety of public, private and non-profit initiatives to create a sustainable economy for the nation and the world in the 21st century.

If the world will be changing in ways that threaten us and future generations, then we have a duty to deal with those changes in ways that preserve our fundamental liberties and economic security. For CSIS, force and dominance will protect America and by extension Western democratic values. For me, utility and results will be America's strength in competing with other values and ideas even as those societies out race us in population. Let's face it, the world is constantly changing--always has and always will. If not for constant change, America would not have emerged as a powerful nation. So nothing in history guarantees that this country will always retain that position.

The United States was fortunate to acquire a large land mass with vast resources and protected by great oceans. These days that land mass is well occupied, its resources depleted and no longer protected by the oceans. In much of the last century, the US was banker and manufacturer to the world. Now we are deeply in debt, devoid of industry beyond the manufacture of a vast arsenal and rapidly aging. Howe and Jackson correctly describe one key challenge Americans will face in the coming years. The only "more dominant role' that will succeed for America will be one where our ideas demonstrate real results, not simply project force.

Perhaps the most truly American trait has been an unwillingness to accept limits; when confronted by an obstacle, Americans typically find a way to work around it. Elsewhere in the WP another article invokes Alex de Tocqueville

"Americans of all ages, all stations of life, and all types of disposition are forever forming associations," he wrote. "In democratic countries, knowledge of how to combine is the mother of all other forms of knowledge; on its progress depends that of all the others."

In the 170 or so years since that was written, Americans have demonstrated an amazing agility in overcoming problems, not just because of our economic and resource advantages but also because of our ideas, ingenuity and ability to cooperate toward common goals.

This is the "more dominant role" I would like to see for my country, not more bullets, bayonets and bombs. This is a legacy of hope we can leave for future generations. I hope we are up to it.

My Little Reader

I read a Richard Cohen column about George W. Bush's reading list today. Normally, Ignore Cohen and stories like this about Bush but my curiosity about Bush and a reflective pursuit like reading was too much to resist. Cohen doesn't dispute the claim but dismisses Bush's reading list as an no real achievement since the titles largely reinforce Bush's worldview and ignore the wealth of books that offer differing assessments.

My first reaction is "Who in the hell keeps lists of books read?". Then I reminded myself that I keep a list of books read. I started last year, largely as a way to remember what I read. Without the list titles and authors escape me, plots and ideas are misremembered if remembered at all. So I have a list and short summary. Occasionally, I'll do a post based on something I've read.

I read regularly but don't come close to matching Bush in volume and question the whole claim. If Bush in fact read 51 books, he obviously has a lot of time of his hands. That's unlikely since he spends time working out, cycling, sleeps eight hours a night and during most working hours appears as President of the United States. I just don't buy it.

Bush may have actually looked at all the titles he claims but he would have to be far more diligent than anything in his behavior or ideas would suggest.

Of course, that means I am calling Bush and Karl Rove, the source of this claim,, liars. And that is exactly what I am saying.

Still lying after all these years.