Snow & Gorge Pics

I did a the loop around Mt Hood today, but I think I overdid it... I'm sooooo exhausted now.

I had an issue with camera batteries today. I use rechargable lithium batteries. Yesterday I recharged the batteries from Monday's excursion. I'm sure that being up at Timberline for 30 minutes had something to do with the batteries losing their charge so quickly. I got rechargable batteries in Cascade Locks, but when I went to take a photo at Horsetail Falls my camera said "Charge Batteries" and then shut down. I was flabergasted. I just bought new batteries. Then I got to thinking that maybe the battery that was dying was the 3V watch battery. So I went out to Gresham, got a new watch battery, put it in, same result. So now I'm thinking the rechargable batteries I bought today weren't charged! Luckily I had a Garmin device with me, only with 3 AAs, so I put those three in and one of the old AAs in the camera, and finally it worked.

On to the photos:

Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President

The Civil War, the war "testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure", which Lincoln both birthed and guided the nation through, has established himself, as if sculpted into Black Hills granite, into national rememberance. His championing the absolution of slavery has endeared him to our memory, launched him to the White House, and divided a nation.

He was a native Kentuckian, turned lawyer, then Illinois politician. Somewhere he became a gifted orator, though lost to Stephen Douglas. Yet that loss, like Reagan's to Ford, established himself on the national scene.

Lincoln was moral, and morally-guided. It helps that I agree with those morals, but it helps that his side won, else I might have altogether different views. And the victory, his ensuring that the union survived, is as important as his adherence to the prohibition of slavery. Had the union failed it is very likely that rivals would have viewed each other warily and hostily across the Potomac, the Mason-Dixon line, and however else the continent would then be divided up. Lastly, his effort at reconciliation in the post-bellum period was equally important as he did not seek to exact revenge on the ceded states.

All that said, I'm not sure if I would have prosecuted a war to maintain the union. That is a moral dilemma: to kill to abolish slavery. To shackle a man to the grave in order to unshackle his slave. Aye, there's the rub. Yet Lincoln was resolved and was able to resolve men to kill their brothers, fathers, and sons.

And he was a very capable commander-in-chief. He fired generals who weren't performing. He stayed the course with Scott's Anaconda Plan.

Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President

Nearly everyone who wanted Teddy back in the job on Cafferty's website wanted him back to take on big business in America today. They want Teddy the Trustbuster. I'll give him that. He saw the inherent dangers of capital being concentrated in the hands of too few and how that disrupts the "free" in free market.

He is also remembered fondly for his conservationist efforts. Again, I find no fault with that.

Here's where I start to have problems with him, or at least the now popularly remembered version of him: he walked softly and carried a big stick--well, at least carried the big stick in a threatening manner if American interests were in doubt and swung it when American interests were actually threatened. Case in point: the Canal. Yes, it was a great thing for commerce, and for the world, but somehow I think the Panamanians got the short end of the, er, stick on that one. (And to think of the pomposity of some in the Carter years to refer to it as their canal!)

Some fondly think of him leading the charge of San Juan Hill in Cuba during the Spanish-American war (that bestowed upon US Puerto Rico and the Phillapines)... but that is sometimes seen as the beginnings of American Imperialism... but I should ask the Cherokee when they think American Imperialism began...

But he is earnestly remembered as being a man of conviction, a bull moose. Yet men of conviction have demonstrated to be problematic, i.e. Hitler--not that I'm saying Teddy was any where like Hitler, only trying to argue that what convictions are matters not simply that one has them.

I will also credit him being one of two American presidents being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. On Roosevelt's part, it was for mediating peace to the Russo-Japanese War in 1904-05.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President

Camelot! Didn't anyone then realize that King Arthur's court met with bad demise? Yet the contemporary media was bandying about that term in consideration of him...

But it was not without reason that this appellage was visited upon his administration. Like Arthur, Jack was young, energetic, idealisitic, visionary, and charismatic. Those were the reasons why he is fondly remembered. And he was cut down so unexpectedly, so young; another reason why he'll be so long remembered.

He did have a resume. A senator from Massachussettes. A war hero. Good-looking. Intelligent. Did I say good-looking? Jackie was beautiful too--not that I'm saying that I think she looked beautiful. Everyone else back then did. So she's remembered in her petticoat even though she survived him by decades.

But on to substance. Basically, he was the man for the post-war period (post-WWII, post-Korea). His youth complimented or made that. I'm not sure which. He made college students want to serve their country (you know that famous University of Michigan address, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"). He gave them the Peace Corps (thanks in large part to Sargent Shriver). He declared his mission (sadly not seen fulfilled by himself) of putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade (the 1960s). His was the formulative years of white political backing of the civil rights movement.

Yet though idealistic, youthful, and optomistic, he was tough--and therein lies some detraction. He was a cold warrior. If he wasn't there was no way he would have ever been elected. (Barely eeking out being Catholic...) First there was the Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba. Then there was the Cuban Missle Crisis. I'm sure that there are more defenders of his actions there than there are detractors. I have to agree with one of the commentators on Cafferty's website: Kennedy brought the US this close to war with the Soviet Union. However, I'm ignorant about what I'm ignorant about. Who knows what the world would have been like if there had been Soviet nuclear missles parked off of Florida. By the 1980s that really meant nothing with the advent of submarines carrying a nuclear missle payload. But for the time of 1962 onward, it may have put more swagger in Soviet policy. I, for one, am glad Krushchev blinked--even if I was born more than a decade later. Yes, I know more than one student was upset that they had to do the homework.

Then there's Vietnam. We'll never know Kennedy's intentions. He sent advisors there, but how long would he have kept them there? I speculate that he probably would have followed the same course as LBJ. People are projecting hindsight and their own wishes on a liked assainated President to really believe that Kennedy was just about to pull troops out of Vietnam on November 23, 1963 (the day after his death...) Foreign Policy in regards to containing Communism was very nearly universal in both the Republican and Democratic Parties.

He would not be remembered so ardently today if not for his assaination, but that is not to say that he wouldn't still have been well liked if he survived to his twilight years.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd President

FDR is fondly remembered for leading the nation through the Great Depression into the Second World War. That covers so much!

The nation was reeling from the Depression which struck back in 1929. During the 1932 campaign, he offered hope to the many despondent, impoverished Americans, culminating in his first inaugeral address where he proclaimed that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Many of the commentators on Jack Cafferty's website yearned for someone who wasn't a "fearmonger" (as they see it Bush/Cheney have used fear to advocate their policy of intervention in Iraq--a failed policy these detractors would say, detaining prisoners at Guantanimo Bay, enlarging federal abilities to monitor communications in its various mediums, and use of controversial interrogation tactics). With his New Deal, Roosevelt greatly broadened the Federal Government, both in its beaucratic size, but also in its perceived mandate.

First, its size. Roosevelt created several federal agencies, mostly for the purpose of finding some way in which to employ men without jobs. In short, FDR had the federal government step up to deal with what recently failed businesses left in its wake, unemployed people. It undoubtedly helped with the morale of those who would otherwise be doing not much else; it also provided money to those households, obviously. It could also be included that FDR increased the size of the Supreme Court just so that his legislation would pass judicial review.

More importantly, however, it that FDR was elected because he declared, in essence, that the business of the federal government was in the caretaking of its population. In reading all of the comments on Cafferty's blog it struck me how beloved FDR was, but also for how beloved Jefferson was, but for a dramatically opposite reason. Jefferson was on many occassions championed because of his belief in a small federal government. FDR was the antithesis to this "anemic" government, but Jeffersonian America was not early modern America. Both had arguable reasons for their views. As stated, the United States in 1932 was in crisis. That crisis started in 1929 with the stock market crash where fortunes were lost. There was a run on the banks because money seen was more safe than money put away. Money on paper was money no more--there was deflation. However, folks still had debts and deflation made it extremely difficult to pay back. Especially farm debt. The Dust Bowl of the 1930s excerbated the problem and left hundreds of thousands homeless (remember The Grapes of Wrath?) There was going to be no private sector solution to the problem. Hoover tried and failed at various stragtegies and was personally blamed by millions of Americans for their plight. The big-government solution was the only solution. (And unlike Hoover, FDR met with better success in getting his programs to work. He was an adept administrator.) This belief in the federal government as the caretaker of its people is one of Roosevelt's greatest legacies, whether for good or ill. I've also have read in different places that FDR's socialism saved America from Communism... I'm not sure that I'd go that far, but his policies at the very least kept the nation more cohesive than it would have been otherwise.

Another fondness for FDR lies in his spouse, Eleanor Roosevelt. Like FDR, she was reviled amongst Republicans... She was an intelligent, independent mind who went across the nation as FDR's eyes and ears. Moreover, the average American trusted her, which is why Mrs Roosevelt was one of the few non-presidents that some of Cafferty's commentators wished would be president now.

It should also be remembered that FDR was the original Great Communicator. His radio addresses allowed him into many families' homes and demonstrated his understanding of their plight, but also allowed him to explain his policies and their efficacy. Mrs. Roosevelt's trips across the country aided him greatly in these addresses. It also allowed him to convey his sense of hope.

Hope. That was one of the items that many commentators on Cafferty's website wanted to be communicated by a President. It was one of the huge draws to Reagan. It was one of the huge draws to the man from Hope, Bill Clinton. It was one of the huge draws at present to Barak Obama. People went to be reassured that things will get better. FDR was able to do that in a believable way, like Reagan after him.

Vision. FDR was also able to communicate his vision to the nation through his fireside chats. That is another draw for Cafferty's commentators. It's why so many loved Kennedy (Jack or Bobby), Reagan, Clinton, even the current President Bush, when he received accolades, it was in part because he did have vision, albeit a controversial vision.

Unity. Americans of the Great Depression believed that they were all in a struggle together (The Grapes of Wrath withstanding...) and FDR made it a common struggle. Yes, there were those who opposed his adminstration in Congress (thus necessitating the packing of the Court--they'd question the constitutionality of his measures, it would end up going to court, and be found unconstitutional, etc.), but the picture of the nation drawn by FDR was that of a nation united overcoming the struggles of the Great Depression.

December 7th, 1941, a date which will live in infamy. If the nation wasn't truly united before Pearl Habor Day, it certainly was thereafter. This is the last reason I'll give for why so many look at FDR with fond memory. He was commander-in-chief in two huge theaters of war--the nation has never experienced a world-wide conflagaration like this before and hopefully never will since. He let the military fight its battles (blessed with capable and brilliant generals), but he was a master diplomat with Churchill and Stalin. Managing that war, from mobilization, to prioritization (as much a political decision as a military one), to inspiration after a series of losses in the Pacific, took a man of uncanny ability. So what if he was taken off the top secret list for his throwing away secert memos into the White House trash can? And he demonstrated remarkable foresight... He recognized that Nazi Germany would eventually present a problem to the US and bolstered Britain's defense through the lend-lease act (and I believe that was his idea); he recognized that Britian could no longer remain a colonial power after the war and kept nudging Churchill in that direction. Some critics may say that he should have had foresight regarding Pearl Habor, but his administration was in talks with Japan over their colonial expansion into China and Southeast Asia, finding it untenable.

Surely the man had to have faults... Well, the one that immediately comes to mind are the Japanese internment camps. That isn't remembered well and he went along with it. I'm not happy with packing the Court. It showed too much of presidential aggrandizement.

One last thought, I believe that the US involvement in the Second World War is what finally brought the US out of the Depression. It was slowly recovering before, but the federal government infused the economy (bond-backed, of course... dulling the pain of deficit-spending) with so much money, it was the New Deal on steroids. The military became another alphabet agency for all intents and purposes.

William Jefferson Clinton, the 42nd President

Clinton was fondly remembered for many reasons:
The budget surplus
Economic prosperity during his tenure
Being a uniter (i.e. working across party lines)
A good communicator
Welfare reform
A good administrator
He preceded George W Bush

As for the budget surplus, he had the great fortune of timing. There was an economic boom during his time in office which allowed the possibility of the federal government having a huge influx of revenue from taxes. Where President Clinton should get credit is that he did not develop budgets to take advantage of the unexpectedly large tax revenues. Congress during that time gets credit as well. However, if not for Ross Perot running as a third party candidate in 1992 against President George WH Bush and soon-to-be President Clinton, I wonder how disciplined both President Clinton and Congress would have been. However, as some of Clinton's detractors say, he did not keep up adequate defense spending. That is an unfair critique. Defense cutbacks began under George WH Bush because of the end of the Cold War. The Soviet Union was no longer a threat and it was to that threat which almost all defense spending was allocated. Moreover, Newt Gingrich and his supporters of the Contract with America wanted a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget and a line-item veto for the President in order to elimiate congressperson's pet projects being inserted into other pieces of legislation (i.e. pork).

The economic prosperity in his two terms should not rest alone solely Clinton's feet. He came to office during an economic recession ("It's the economy, stupid" being James Carville's campaign slogan). That recession I argue came about with the change in government spending at the end of the Cold War. The Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and with it the Iron Curtain. The Soviet Union disentigrated in 1990. The central figure in America's defensive scheme was no longer a threat. Under Reagan, there was a huge defense spending run up. There was no rational reason for it to continue, so under President George WH Bush, defense spending was slashed. Defense spending went almost completely to the manufacturing sector. With that revenue stream gone, those defense contractors cut jobs. That cutting of jobs had an effect throughout the national economy and thus the recession was born.

I will give his administration credit for lengthening the economic prosperity. I'm certain that he made policy decisions that added to it, but I couldn't list any myself. I'm not schooled in the matter. Alan Greenspan was a rave fan of Clinton's and I'm sure that his administration's policies working in concert with the Federal Reserve did play a positive role in the economy. The subject itself is embroiled in debate as to its origins. Fiscal conservatives argue that Reaganomics (i.e. President Reagan's policy of supply-side/trickle down economics) was the fountainhead of this economic prosperity and there was a lag time to it which placed in Clinton's administration instead of Reagan's. However, my judgement says that the source of economic prosperity lay in the technological revolution that the internet unleashed. It was a new frontier and speculators dumped money into the tech field. Home computers were becoming common place. I'm sure that there were other factors to it, but the internet and personal computers allowed for an explosion of small businesses starting up and small business is one of the major pistons to the American economy. It should be remembered though that at the end of Clinton's tenure that the bubble burst and the nation had a dotcom bust. There was talk of recession during the 2000 campaign.

I really do not remember much of Clinton's ability to work with others across the aisle (ability to be a uniter). Probably because in 1994 Newt Gingrich's Contract with America swept in a conservative majority into both houses of Congress, the election being dubbed the conservative revolution. I will give him the Welfare Reform legistlation 1996 where he did work with a Republican Congress, but that was one of the tenents of the Contract...

Bill Clinton was a good communicator and the Great Empathizer. That latter role is what beheld him to so many female voters. He was the candidate for soccer moms (a term used to explain why he did so well in 1992 and 1996 among middle- to upper-income female voters with younger children). He is reportedly a very likable fellow. I've read in the past that Republicans could leave meetings with him thinking that they had reached a favorable agreement with him over legislation only to discover later he was simply an agreeable man. Thus "Slicky Willy" gained traction among his conservative enemies... well that and the affairs, both purported and real.

I have no clue about President Clinton being a good administrator. I don't remember any debacles in federal agencies on his watch.

Which I guess is as natural enough a segueway to President Clinton being like because he isn't President George W Bush. Bush has two strikes against him: the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. That makes many people nostalgic. Detractors argue that President Clinton let al Qaida fester into 9/11 attacks, not adequately dealing with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the debacle of military intervention in Somolia in 1993, the double embassy bomings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998, and the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000. All had Islamic militant extremism in common (Bush would later dub it Islamic Fascism). Yet to counter, it's hard to fight a non-state entity... as Bush would later find out in both Iraq and Afghanistan--but al Qaida and the Taliban in Pakistan probably better makes the point.

In summary, my take on the Clinton years are that it was an economically prosporous time in which he served as an adequate president, albeit impeached in the House. I believe that is how history will remember him... unless Hillary Clinton is elected president. Then he'll be more remembered as being the president who later became the first First Gentleman (or First Laddie, if you prefer).

Which former president would you want in the job again?

Yesterday on CNN's website in honor of President's Day Jack Cafferty posited the question which past president would you want to lead the nation now. It actually came from a Gallup Poll he said:

"A new Gallup poll asks people if they could bring back any U.S. president, living or dead, to be the next leader of this country who it would be. 23% of those surveyed said John F. Kennedy. 22% said Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton was next at 13%, followed by Abraham Lincoln at 10% and Franklin Roosevelt at 8%. The current president, George W. Bush, 1%"

However, here are the results based on comments on his blog. (I counted every president someone positively reviewed, so if they said Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln/Teddy Roosevelt I would have counted that as a vote for each)

1. Clinton, by far and away
2. FDR
3. JFK
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Lincoln
6 - tied. Washington, Jefferson, Reagan
9. Truman
10. Eisenhower
11 - tied. Nixon, Ford
13 - tied. Madison, Jackson, Wilson, LBJ, Carter
18. Polk
19. George W Bush
20 - tied. John Adams, Taft
22 - tied. Monroe, Fillmore, Cleveland, Harding, Hoover, George WH Bush
Not mentioned (at all or positiviely) - John Qunicy Adams, Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Pierce, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Benjerman Harrison, McKinley, Coolidge.

Thing to note: From Hoover onwards, every president made the list.

Non-Presidents to make the list:
1. Gore (because he won the popular vote in 2000; for his environmental-awareness campaign; and for not being George W Bush)
2. Alexander Hamilton... for some reason the people who named him didn't realize he was never president even though he's on the $10 bill...
3 - tied. Obama and MLK Jr.

Also rans:
Tony Blair (someone from London put that name in...)
Eleanor Roosevelt
Robert Kennedy
The 2nd Continental Congress
Barry Goldwater
Pierre Trudeau (someone from Toronto put that name in, he was a Canadian Prime Minister, even if he was from Quebec)
A Benevolent Dictator
Benjamin Franklin (at least that person realized he was never president)
Colin Powell
George Mitchell (elder statesman, former Senator, chief negotiator for peace in Northern Ireland, headed the Senate investigative committee on performance-enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball)
Vladimir Putin (because he at least brings the Russians a sense of self-respect--sort of like a Reagan for Russians)

The butts of jokes
1. William Henry Harrison (1. for having the shortest presidency of 31 days; 2. for having a "killer speech", i.e. the longest inaugeral address which is suspected for weakening his immune system that eventually lead to his death)
2. Mildred Fillmore (For the funny name and no one remembering him)
3 - tied. Van Buren (the side burns), Arthur (the mustache), Harding, Nixon (Watergate), Clinton, George W Bush (current war in Iraq)
9 - tied. Jackson, Cleveland, Coolidge, Hoover (Great Depression), Carter, Reagan, George WH Bush, Mikhail Gorbachev

I'll be making future posts with my comments about the reasons for people like Bill Clinton, FDR, etc.

Prez Day Pics

Today I made my first excursion of any mentionable length since being hit with the abdominal pain in October. One reason was because it is one of those typical sunny 60 F February days that I'm so used to here in the Northwest. I spent yesterday (weather similar to today) pretty much messing around on Google Earth and reading. Ididn't want to do that again. Also, I was blowing my nose a whole bunch yesterday and thought that maybe fresher air would clear my sinuses. My plan for this morning was to go somewhere south of Mt St Helens and take some photos. I made it all the way to Cougar, WA. I couldn't believe how much snow there was in town there and in the hills.

Cougar, Washington

I knew that there was a whole bunch of low elevation snow throughout January, but it amazed me to see this much snow lying about under 600 ft in elevation.

But on to Mt St Helens:

Unfortunately, all the other photos I took didn't turn out as well as I had hoped, especially of Yale Lake and the Lewis River. Yale Lake had a hue of green that just didn't translate in the photo and the Lewis River had a nice blue to it, again not picked up very well in the photo. This last pic did turn out the way I wanted it.

Other miscellaneous items to mention: First, today was the first time I got gas since December 11th. Second, when I drove up to Washington a little after 10 am traffic wasn't bad. Returning I-5 North was very slow from the Interstate Bridge all the way back to I-405 (5 miles!) at 1 pm on a somewhat-observed holiday. I feel sorry for all you Vancouver commuters.

So, since I did alright today (except that when I scrambled back up from the shore of Yale Lake back to the road my stomach hurt--not the side pain, more like I went beyond nausea) I should really begin making an effort to write a resume so I can apply for some job back at OHSU.