Almost everybody has a friend or family member struggling with a chronic illness. A free program developed by Stanford University that's going nationwide can help. Here's my story in the AARP Bulletin. http://aarp.us/chronic15
Monday, August 15, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
'Temple of Invention' reminds us who we are -- Aug. 11, 2011 column
By MARSHA MERCER
At a stylish Spanish restaurant in the Washington suburbs, the sangria flowed and luscious plates of food landed with the usual flourish before appreciative patrons. But Jim wore a glum expression as he looked around the bustling dining room.
“I’ve been downgraded,” he said.
Not exactly. Jim and his wife Sandy live in Chicago, where they both have good jobs and are far from hurting financially. But Jim, like many Americans, took personally Standard & Poor’s recent decision to drop the United States’ credit rating from AAA to AA-plus.
The downgrade was a public humiliation, a psychic slap, another sign – as if anyone needed it -- that this country isn’t what it used to be. The nagging doubt we try to keep at arm’s length crept a little closer. Is this the beginning of the end of the American age?
Maybe Joseph Heller had it right in “Catch-22”: “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.”
Whoa. Let’s step in off the ledge. Two other agencies – Moody’s and Fitch -- have left our sterling credit rating in place. Maybe S&P did use faulty math, as the administration says. In any event, S&P didn’t blame the American people for the mess we’re in; it blamed reckless politicians and policies.
“The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed,” S&P’s analysts said in their report. They don’t trust the politicians to make the hard revenue and spending choices needed to get the country on solid ground. This isn’t ideal, but it’s not the end of America.
Trying to show he was unconcerned, President Obama waited a weekend before offering tepid reassurance that “No matter what some agency may say, we have always been and always will be a triple-A country.” As he spoke, though, the stock markets were engaged in ritual blood-letting on their way to losing 450 points that day.
Amid the chaos of a broken government, teetering economy and stomach-churning financial markets, questions naturally arise. Among them: Who are we Americans and where are we headed?
As it happens, such soul-searching about the national identity is not new. America began as a Great Experiment for promoting human happiness, and after Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers died, 19th century Americans worried constantly if they would be able to keep the experiment going, says Claire Perry, guest curator of a new exhibit at the Smithsonian American Art Museum.
“They began to call themselves ‘an inventive people’ as they pondered the question: What, exactly, should their democratic nation be?” Perry writes in “The Great American Hall of Wonders,” the exhibit’s fascinating catalogue.
The “Hall of Wonders” exhibit, which runs through Jan. 8, showcases American imagination and ingenuity from the 1820s to 1870s. The 161 items include paintings, sculptures, prints, photographs, drawings, illustrations and patent sketches and models.
The American Art Museum is housed in the first Patent Office building, which was constructed by President Andrew Jackson in 1836. By the 1850s, more than a hundred thousand people a year flocked to see models and drawings of the newest gizmos in what became known as the “temple of invention.”
Imagination so bubbled in the 19th century that even politicians were creative.
Years before he occupied the White House, Abraham Lincoln saw the difficulty boat captains had maneuvering the untamed rivers of the Midwest. He was 40 and had just ended his term in Congress when he received a patent for his “Device for Buoying Vessels over Shoals” in May 1849. The drawing submitted with his patent application is displayed. The device involving bellows was never manufactured. Lincoln is the only president with a patent.
The 19th century was a time of many wonders but it was not wonderful. The Civil War was catastrophic, and the exhibit reminds us of the decimation of the buffalo by gun and train, the tyranny of the clock on human sleep and work schedules, and the widespread destruction of nature.
Being downgraded from AAA status is no fun, but we Americans have weathered far worse.
© 2011 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.
30
At a stylish Spanish restaurant in the Washington suburbs, the sangria flowed and luscious plates of food landed with the usual flourish before appreciative patrons. But Jim wore a glum expression as he looked around the bustling dining room.
“I’ve been downgraded,” he said.
Not exactly. Jim and his wife Sandy live in Chicago, where they both have good jobs and are far from hurting financially. But Jim, like many Americans, took personally Standard & Poor’s recent decision to drop the United States’ credit rating from AAA to AA-plus.
The downgrade was a public humiliation, a psychic slap, another sign – as if anyone needed it -- that this country isn’t what it used to be. The nagging doubt we try to keep at arm’s length crept a little closer. Is this the beginning of the end of the American age?
Maybe Joseph Heller had it right in “Catch-22”: “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.”
Whoa. Let’s step in off the ledge. Two other agencies – Moody’s and Fitch -- have left our sterling credit rating in place. Maybe S&P did use faulty math, as the administration says. In any event, S&P didn’t blame the American people for the mess we’re in; it blamed reckless politicians and policies.
“The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed,” S&P’s analysts said in their report. They don’t trust the politicians to make the hard revenue and spending choices needed to get the country on solid ground. This isn’t ideal, but it’s not the end of America.
Trying to show he was unconcerned, President Obama waited a weekend before offering tepid reassurance that “No matter what some agency may say, we have always been and always will be a triple-A country.” As he spoke, though, the stock markets were engaged in ritual blood-letting on their way to losing 450 points that day.
Amid the chaos of a broken government, teetering economy and stomach-churning financial markets, questions naturally arise. Among them: Who are we Americans and where are we headed?
As it happens, such soul-searching about the national identity is not new. America began as a Great Experiment for promoting human happiness, and after Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers died, 19th century Americans worried constantly if they would be able to keep the experiment going, says Claire Perry, guest curator of a new exhibit at the Smithsonian American Art Museum.
“They began to call themselves ‘an inventive people’ as they pondered the question: What, exactly, should their democratic nation be?” Perry writes in “The Great American Hall of Wonders,” the exhibit’s fascinating catalogue.
The “Hall of Wonders” exhibit, which runs through Jan. 8, showcases American imagination and ingenuity from the 1820s to 1870s. The 161 items include paintings, sculptures, prints, photographs, drawings, illustrations and patent sketches and models.
The American Art Museum is housed in the first Patent Office building, which was constructed by President Andrew Jackson in 1836. By the 1850s, more than a hundred thousand people a year flocked to see models and drawings of the newest gizmos in what became known as the “temple of invention.”
Imagination so bubbled in the 19th century that even politicians were creative.
Years before he occupied the White House, Abraham Lincoln saw the difficulty boat captains had maneuvering the untamed rivers of the Midwest. He was 40 and had just ended his term in Congress when he received a patent for his “Device for Buoying Vessels over Shoals” in May 1849. The drawing submitted with his patent application is displayed. The device involving bellows was never manufactured. Lincoln is the only president with a patent.
The 19th century was a time of many wonders but it was not wonderful. The Civil War was catastrophic, and the exhibit reminds us of the decimation of the buffalo by gun and train, the tyranny of the clock on human sleep and work schedules, and the widespread destruction of nature.
Being downgraded from AAA status is no fun, but we Americans have weathered far worse.
© 2011 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.
30
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Strange case of Dr. No and his RX for compromise -- Aug. 4, 2011 column
By MARSHA MERCER
For years, Sen. Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, has been sand in the gears of Washington’s well-oiled spending machine.
His straight talk, independence and relentless pursuit of what he considers the wasteful use of taxpayers’ dollars have alienated many in both parties, earning him the nickname “Doctor No.” Coburn is an M.D. family practitioner.
It’s a sign of how bizarre things have become in the nation’s capital in 2011 that some of his former allies, including Grover Norquist of no-tax-hike pledge fame and Tea Party groups, are now kicking sand at Coburn. His unpardonable sin is he’s sometimes willing to compromise.
A few years ago, Coburn signed Norquist’s pledge not to raise taxes or revenues. He since has untied his hands.
“Which pledge is most important…the pledge to uphold your oath to the Constitution of the United States or a pledge from a special interest group who claims to speak for all American conservatives when, in fact, they really don’t?” he said in April on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
And so, the man who tried to block spending for the “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska and countless other pet projects of lawmakers, the foe of what he considers silly research programs at such revered institutions as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, is on the outs with the Republican right.
For his part, Coburn, 63, has said the Tea Party is one of the best things to happen to the country, and it’s great that the American people have forced a shift in the Washington debate from where to spend to where to cut. That’s not enough for those who call him traitor.
In normal times, Coburn would be a logical choice for one of the three Senate Republican slots on the new joint, bipartisan committee, a.k.a. “Super Congress,” that will be charged with reducing the federal deficit by $1.2 trillion later this year. Coburn told Politico he’ll never get tapped by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Kentucky Republican has vowed not to pick anyone who favors revenue increases as part of a deficit-reduction deal.
Coburn is open-minded, at least on some taxes, sometimes. As part of the Gang of Six negotiating a debt-ceiling deal, he said he’d consider an increase in tax revenues if tax rates were cut.
While President Obama was dickering with House Speaker John Boehner over a “grand bargain” to cut deficit by $4 trillion – but still not bringing the federal budget into balance -- Coburn released his own, 614-page plan. He outlined ways to cut the deficit by $9 trillion over 10 years and balance the budget.
Coburn’s plan includes a variety of proposals, among them slashing pay for members of Congress, cutting Congress’ budget 15 percent and closing tax loopholes and breaks. Norquist’s group, Americans for Tax Reform, attacked Coburn’s plan as a trillion-dollar tax hike.
Coburn walked out of the Gang of Six talks when he failed to get Democrats to agree on Medicare and entitlement cuts. He later returned to the Gang, but voted no on the debt-ceiling compromise that Obama signed into law.
“In spite of what politicians on both sides are saying, this agreement does not cut any spending over 10 years. In fact, it increases spending by $830 billion,” Coburn wrote Tuesday in The Washington Post. “It eliminates no program, consolidates no duplicative programs, cuts no tax earmarks and reforms no entitlement program.”
He said he believes no substantial spending cuts will happen until after the November 2012 election, if then. As for the trigger mechanism that’s supposed to make $1.2 trillion in Pentagon and domestic cuts if the 12-member “Super Congress” deadlocks, Coburn says he doubts the cuts will ever happen. Congress will just wave them away.
Coburn has resisted Washington’s siren song. When he promised to serve just three terms in the House, he actually went home to Muskogee after six years. Elected to the Senate in 2004, he considered not running again. He did win re-election last year but has announced he won’t run again.
“Washington has imposed (the debt crisis) on the American people through laziness, incompetence, dishonesty and political expediency,” he wrote in the Post.
That’s strong medicine from Doctor No.
© 2011 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.
For years, Sen. Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, has been sand in the gears of Washington’s well-oiled spending machine.
His straight talk, independence and relentless pursuit of what he considers the wasteful use of taxpayers’ dollars have alienated many in both parties, earning him the nickname “Doctor No.” Coburn is an M.D. family practitioner.
It’s a sign of how bizarre things have become in the nation’s capital in 2011 that some of his former allies, including Grover Norquist of no-tax-hike pledge fame and Tea Party groups, are now kicking sand at Coburn. His unpardonable sin is he’s sometimes willing to compromise.
A few years ago, Coburn signed Norquist’s pledge not to raise taxes or revenues. He since has untied his hands.
“Which pledge is most important…the pledge to uphold your oath to the Constitution of the United States or a pledge from a special interest group who claims to speak for all American conservatives when, in fact, they really don’t?” he said in April on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
And so, the man who tried to block spending for the “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska and countless other pet projects of lawmakers, the foe of what he considers silly research programs at such revered institutions as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, is on the outs with the Republican right.
For his part, Coburn, 63, has said the Tea Party is one of the best things to happen to the country, and it’s great that the American people have forced a shift in the Washington debate from where to spend to where to cut. That’s not enough for those who call him traitor.
In normal times, Coburn would be a logical choice for one of the three Senate Republican slots on the new joint, bipartisan committee, a.k.a. “Super Congress,” that will be charged with reducing the federal deficit by $1.2 trillion later this year. Coburn told Politico he’ll never get tapped by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Kentucky Republican has vowed not to pick anyone who favors revenue increases as part of a deficit-reduction deal.
Coburn is open-minded, at least on some taxes, sometimes. As part of the Gang of Six negotiating a debt-ceiling deal, he said he’d consider an increase in tax revenues if tax rates were cut.
While President Obama was dickering with House Speaker John Boehner over a “grand bargain” to cut deficit by $4 trillion – but still not bringing the federal budget into balance -- Coburn released his own, 614-page plan. He outlined ways to cut the deficit by $9 trillion over 10 years and balance the budget.
Coburn’s plan includes a variety of proposals, among them slashing pay for members of Congress, cutting Congress’ budget 15 percent and closing tax loopholes and breaks. Norquist’s group, Americans for Tax Reform, attacked Coburn’s plan as a trillion-dollar tax hike.
Coburn walked out of the Gang of Six talks when he failed to get Democrats to agree on Medicare and entitlement cuts. He later returned to the Gang, but voted no on the debt-ceiling compromise that Obama signed into law.
“In spite of what politicians on both sides are saying, this agreement does not cut any spending over 10 years. In fact, it increases spending by $830 billion,” Coburn wrote Tuesday in The Washington Post. “It eliminates no program, consolidates no duplicative programs, cuts no tax earmarks and reforms no entitlement program.”
He said he believes no substantial spending cuts will happen until after the November 2012 election, if then. As for the trigger mechanism that’s supposed to make $1.2 trillion in Pentagon and domestic cuts if the 12-member “Super Congress” deadlocks, Coburn says he doubts the cuts will ever happen. Congress will just wave them away.
Coburn has resisted Washington’s siren song. When he promised to serve just three terms in the House, he actually went home to Muskogee after six years. Elected to the Senate in 2004, he considered not running again. He did win re-election last year but has announced he won’t run again.
“Washington has imposed (the debt crisis) on the American people through laziness, incompetence, dishonesty and political expediency,” he wrote in the Post.
That’s strong medicine from Doctor No.
© 2011 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Spare a dime? Paying for government that helps millions -- July 28, 2011 column
By MARSHA MERCER
Maybe the question should be who in America doesn’t get a break from Uncle Sam.
It’s not just the fat cats, Big Oil and General Electric that get special indulgences. The generous uncle makes life sweeter for ordinary folk too, although few even realize it.
Sixty percent of people who take the home mortgage deduction on their income tax returns say they haven’t used a government social program. Forty-four percent of Social Security recipients deny they’ve received any benefit as do about 40 percent of Medicare recipients, according to a study by Cornell University political scientist Suzanne Mettler.
A review of the role of government is in order -- before lobbyists swarm Capitol Hill to “help” Congress make program cuts totaling hundreds of billions of dollars. Remember: We’ve seen only overall framework numbers – not specific spending cuts. Those decisions will be made later – trust us, lawmakers say.
Here’s a stunning stat: The federal government sends out 70 million checks a month, says President Obama. No, it’s closer actually to 80 million, says Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
Even 80 million doesn’t begin to define the government’s scope. The Washington Post figured that in all some 211.8 million checks were payable -- in June alone.
The Post’s analysis of who gets the 80 million checks, or electronic payments, found the largest group was Social Security recipients – 56 million. The disabled, veterans, federal workers and retirees received payments as did non-defense contractors, railroad retirees, coal miners with black lung, IRS vendors and taxpayers receiving refunds from the IRS.
Besides those checks are 100 million Medicare payments to doctors, hospitals, labs and other providers, more than 21 million households receiving food stamps, 6.4 million active and retired defense personnel , and 1.6 million defense travel and other invoices. Medicaid, the health program for the poor and elderly run by states, wasn’t on the Post’s list, but the Census Bureau reported that there were 58 million Medicaid beneficiaries in 2008.
Everybody assumes the cuts will affect someone else, lop off waste and fraud, hit the less deserving. Nobody wants to go back to the days when getting old meant living in poverty and sickness.
But constitutional conservatives do like to quote James Madison, who said he couldn’t lay his finger on the article of the Constitution that granted Congress the right to spend the money of constituents on “objects of benevolence.”
Madison was talking about aid to French refugees from what’s now Haiti – not about medical care or benefits to seniors. But tea partiers and others who think government should shrink to the limited powers explicitly granted in the Constitution seize on his statement as vindication for ending Social Security as we know it and dismantling safety net programs. Even Obama said Social Security and Medicare were on the table. Everybody says changes won’t touch anyone 55 and older.
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas., a presidential hopeful, contends that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are all unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn’t specifically call for social insurance programs. He discounts the 1937 Supreme Court ruling that found Social Security constitutional.
Critics of government would like to forget that the Constitution also says government was established to promote the general welfare. They say liberals have misconstrued the phrase.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt cited the “general welfare” in June 1934 when he proposed a new social insurance program that would help shield people from the “hazards and vicissitudes of life.”
“Fear and worry based on unknown danger contribute to social unrest and economic demoralization,” he wrote. “If, as our Constitution tells us, our federal government was established among other things ‘to promote the general welfare,’ it is our plain duty to provide for that security upon which welfare depends.”
These days the angry talk in Washington is more about getting political advantage in 2012 than promoting welfare for generations to come. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., holds fast to his declaration that his chief job is to limit Obama to one term.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the role of Congress is to thwart a president’s future or that the president’s role is step aside and keep his collar and cuffs clean for his re-election bid.
Unfortunately, neither this president nor congressional leaders are likely to say, as Roosevelt did, “Among our objectives I place the security of the men, women and children of the nation first.” Millions who rely on Uncle Sam face uncertainty.
© 2011 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.
30
Maybe the question should be who in America doesn’t get a break from Uncle Sam.
It’s not just the fat cats, Big Oil and General Electric that get special indulgences. The generous uncle makes life sweeter for ordinary folk too, although few even realize it.
Sixty percent of people who take the home mortgage deduction on their income tax returns say they haven’t used a government social program. Forty-four percent of Social Security recipients deny they’ve received any benefit as do about 40 percent of Medicare recipients, according to a study by Cornell University political scientist Suzanne Mettler.
A review of the role of government is in order -- before lobbyists swarm Capitol Hill to “help” Congress make program cuts totaling hundreds of billions of dollars. Remember: We’ve seen only overall framework numbers – not specific spending cuts. Those decisions will be made later – trust us, lawmakers say.
Here’s a stunning stat: The federal government sends out 70 million checks a month, says President Obama. No, it’s closer actually to 80 million, says Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
Even 80 million doesn’t begin to define the government’s scope. The Washington Post figured that in all some 211.8 million checks were payable -- in June alone.
The Post’s analysis of who gets the 80 million checks, or electronic payments, found the largest group was Social Security recipients – 56 million. The disabled, veterans, federal workers and retirees received payments as did non-defense contractors, railroad retirees, coal miners with black lung, IRS vendors and taxpayers receiving refunds from the IRS.
Besides those checks are 100 million Medicare payments to doctors, hospitals, labs and other providers, more than 21 million households receiving food stamps, 6.4 million active and retired defense personnel , and 1.6 million defense travel and other invoices. Medicaid, the health program for the poor and elderly run by states, wasn’t on the Post’s list, but the Census Bureau reported that there were 58 million Medicaid beneficiaries in 2008.
Everybody assumes the cuts will affect someone else, lop off waste and fraud, hit the less deserving. Nobody wants to go back to the days when getting old meant living in poverty and sickness.
But constitutional conservatives do like to quote James Madison, who said he couldn’t lay his finger on the article of the Constitution that granted Congress the right to spend the money of constituents on “objects of benevolence.”
Madison was talking about aid to French refugees from what’s now Haiti – not about medical care or benefits to seniors. But tea partiers and others who think government should shrink to the limited powers explicitly granted in the Constitution seize on his statement as vindication for ending Social Security as we know it and dismantling safety net programs. Even Obama said Social Security and Medicare were on the table. Everybody says changes won’t touch anyone 55 and older.
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas., a presidential hopeful, contends that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are all unconstitutional because the Constitution doesn’t specifically call for social insurance programs. He discounts the 1937 Supreme Court ruling that found Social Security constitutional.
Critics of government would like to forget that the Constitution also says government was established to promote the general welfare. They say liberals have misconstrued the phrase.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt cited the “general welfare” in June 1934 when he proposed a new social insurance program that would help shield people from the “hazards and vicissitudes of life.”
“Fear and worry based on unknown danger contribute to social unrest and economic demoralization,” he wrote. “If, as our Constitution tells us, our federal government was established among other things ‘to promote the general welfare,’ it is our plain duty to provide for that security upon which welfare depends.”
These days the angry talk in Washington is more about getting political advantage in 2012 than promoting welfare for generations to come. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., holds fast to his declaration that his chief job is to limit Obama to one term.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the role of Congress is to thwart a president’s future or that the president’s role is step aside and keep his collar and cuffs clean for his re-election bid.
Unfortunately, neither this president nor congressional leaders are likely to say, as Roosevelt did, “Among our objectives I place the security of the men, women and children of the nation first.” Millions who rely on Uncle Sam face uncertainty.
© 2011 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.
30
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Family's gift of Civil War portraits shows America's best side -- Column of July 21, 2011
By MARSHA MERCER
Here, finally, is a story to make you feel good about Washington. And, no, that’s not impossible even in this summer of dysfunctional government.
It does mean that for today this space will be debt-free, politician-free, tax-and-spend-free and, I hope, migraine-free.
With Washington sweltering and cranky, I headed to the cool marble of the Library of Congress. If there’s a more beautiful public building in America, I’ve not seen it.
“The Last Full Measure” is billed as an exhibit of Civil War portraits – but that doesn’t do it justice. Unlike other collections of Civil War photos, the nearly 400 images are not of famous generals and politicians, and there are no camp scenes or soldiers dead in a field.
These are portraits that ordinary Union and Confederate soldiers paid to have taken of themselves with what then was the latest technology. Two-thirds of the exhibit pictures are ambrotypes, underexposed images on glass placed against a dark background, and the rest are tintypes, images on thin sheets of coated iron.
Each picture was framed with an ornate brass mat and cushioned with a facing pillow of brocaded velvet. The treasure was then encased in a leather or plastic box.
It’s shocking how young these soldiers were. Many of the solemn faces into whose eyes we look 150 years later can’t be more than 14 or 15 years old. With a change of clothes, they could be boys we see on the street. Their names mostly are lost, their identities only hinted by a button, hat or belt buckle. Many died much too young. Three million from North and South marched off to war, and 620,000 didn’t come back.
Choosing how they wanted their “shade” or “shadow” captured, some soldiers sat with friends or family members, others atop trusty steeds. Some held a gun or sword -- or a sword and a gun.
One heart-breaking portrait is of a sad-eyed girl of about six, in whose hands are a picture of her deceased father. Another portrait comes with a scrap of lace and a note saying it was taken from the hand of a dead Rebel after battle.
Photographers were much more plentiful in the North, so there are many more pictures of Union soldiers. The exhibit has five cases of Union pictures and one with Confederates.
Intriguing is an unidentified Confederate soldier from Co. E “Lynchburg Rifles,” 11th Virginia Infantry Volunteers, who looks like he has stepped from the pages of a catalogue. He holds an 1841 “Mississippi” rifle, Sheffield-type Bowie knife, canteen, box knapsack, blanket roll and cartridge box, according to the description. The pictures is only 2 ¾ inches by 3 ¼ inches. Who is he?
The exhibit inspires gratitude for a family’s philanthropic vision and to technology, modern and 19th Century. The Liljenquist family of Virginia donated 700 portraits to the library with a request that the photos be digitized and high-resolution scans made available online. The small pictures are so sharp because photographers used more silver in those days, creating a sharper image, experts say.
Tom Liljenquist – pronounced LILLY-en-kwist – and his sons began collecting Civil War relics in 1996 after finding a Civil War bullet in a park near their house in Arlington. They discovered a Civil War portrait in an antique store and began combing shops, shows, estate sales and eBay to add to their collection.
In 2003, the hobby took a more serious turn when The Washington Post began publishing the faces of fallen soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Liljenquists hoped their collection could honor Civil War dead in a similar way.
Last year, with hundreds of portraits at home and in Tom Liljenquist’s jewelry stores in the Washington area, sons Jason, 19, Brandon, 17, and Christian, 13, offered the collection to the Library of Congress.
If you can’t make it to Washington by Aug. 13 when the exhibit closes, don’t fret. You can experience it online through www.loc.gov. The online exhibit is rich in detail, and it was easier to call up individual pictures from home than to use a kiosk in the gallery.
Here’s more good news. The Liljenquists are still collecting Civil War portraits. They plan to keep giving them to the Library of Congress -- and to all of us.
©2011 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.
30
Here, finally, is a story to make you feel good about Washington. And, no, that’s not impossible even in this summer of dysfunctional government.
It does mean that for today this space will be debt-free, politician-free, tax-and-spend-free and, I hope, migraine-free.
With Washington sweltering and cranky, I headed to the cool marble of the Library of Congress. If there’s a more beautiful public building in America, I’ve not seen it.
“The Last Full Measure” is billed as an exhibit of Civil War portraits – but that doesn’t do it justice. Unlike other collections of Civil War photos, the nearly 400 images are not of famous generals and politicians, and there are no camp scenes or soldiers dead in a field.
These are portraits that ordinary Union and Confederate soldiers paid to have taken of themselves with what then was the latest technology. Two-thirds of the exhibit pictures are ambrotypes, underexposed images on glass placed against a dark background, and the rest are tintypes, images on thin sheets of coated iron.
Each picture was framed with an ornate brass mat and cushioned with a facing pillow of brocaded velvet. The treasure was then encased in a leather or plastic box.
It’s shocking how young these soldiers were. Many of the solemn faces into whose eyes we look 150 years later can’t be more than 14 or 15 years old. With a change of clothes, they could be boys we see on the street. Their names mostly are lost, their identities only hinted by a button, hat or belt buckle. Many died much too young. Three million from North and South marched off to war, and 620,000 didn’t come back.
Choosing how they wanted their “shade” or “shadow” captured, some soldiers sat with friends or family members, others atop trusty steeds. Some held a gun or sword -- or a sword and a gun.
One heart-breaking portrait is of a sad-eyed girl of about six, in whose hands are a picture of her deceased father. Another portrait comes with a scrap of lace and a note saying it was taken from the hand of a dead Rebel after battle.
Photographers were much more plentiful in the North, so there are many more pictures of Union soldiers. The exhibit has five cases of Union pictures and one with Confederates.
Intriguing is an unidentified Confederate soldier from Co. E “Lynchburg Rifles,” 11th Virginia Infantry Volunteers, who looks like he has stepped from the pages of a catalogue. He holds an 1841 “Mississippi” rifle, Sheffield-type Bowie knife, canteen, box knapsack, blanket roll and cartridge box, according to the description. The pictures is only 2 ¾ inches by 3 ¼ inches. Who is he?
The exhibit inspires gratitude for a family’s philanthropic vision and to technology, modern and 19th Century. The Liljenquist family of Virginia donated 700 portraits to the library with a request that the photos be digitized and high-resolution scans made available online. The small pictures are so sharp because photographers used more silver in those days, creating a sharper image, experts say.
Tom Liljenquist – pronounced LILLY-en-kwist – and his sons began collecting Civil War relics in 1996 after finding a Civil War bullet in a park near their house in Arlington. They discovered a Civil War portrait in an antique store and began combing shops, shows, estate sales and eBay to add to their collection.
In 2003, the hobby took a more serious turn when The Washington Post began publishing the faces of fallen soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. The Liljenquists hoped their collection could honor Civil War dead in a similar way.
Last year, with hundreds of portraits at home and in Tom Liljenquist’s jewelry stores in the Washington area, sons Jason, 19, Brandon, 17, and Christian, 13, offered the collection to the Library of Congress.
If you can’t make it to Washington by Aug. 13 when the exhibit closes, don’t fret. You can experience it online through www.loc.gov. The online exhibit is rich in detail, and it was easier to call up individual pictures from home than to use a kiosk in the gallery.
Here’s more good news. The Liljenquists are still collecting Civil War portraits. They plan to keep giving them to the Library of Congress -- and to all of us.
©2011 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.
30
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Why blaming LBJ and the Great Society won't fly -- July 14, 2011 column
By MARSHA MERCER
As we approach the 46th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s signing Medicare into law on July 30, the Blame LBJ Club is still open for business.
The same people on the political right who complain bitterly that Barack Obama and the Democrats should stop blaming George W. Bush for the rotten economy he bequeathed in 2009 are all too happy to blame Lyndon Johnson, who left the White House in 1969, for the country’s financial woes.
LBJ has been a target of conservative ire since before he declared a war on poverty in 1964 and long after Ronald Reagan quipped in 1988 that “poverty won.” The Great Society has become a great scapegoat.
Rep. Spencer T. Bachus III, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Wednesday the nation is suffering from a crisis of confidence that’s impeding economic growth. OK so far.
Then the Alabama Republican said the crisis’ origin is debatable. The Great Recession may contribute to it -- may? -- but he believes the “seeds of this lack of confidence were first sown in the well-intentioned programs of the 1930s and the Lyndon Johnson Great Society.”
A discussion about an aging society and the need to rein in entitlement costs is one thing. Bachus’ gripe something else. He basically faulted LBJ for treating seniors like family.
Opening a hearing with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Bachus quoted from LBJ’s taped phone calls with his press secretary, Bill Moyers in 1965. Bachus had seen the comments in a June 28 commentary by Thomas G. Donlan in Barron’s magazine.
Talking about the “average worker,” Johnson said, “I've never seen one have too much health benefits. So when they come in to me and say, 'We've got to have $400 million more so we can take care of some doctors' bills,' I'm for it on health…None of them ever get enough. "They are entitled to it. That's an obligation of ours.”
As only he could, Johnson invoked his mother: “It’s just like your mother writing you and saying she wants $20, and I’d always send mine $100 when she did. I always did it because I thought she was entitled to it,” he told Moyers.
“And I think that’s a much better reason and a much better cause and I think it can be defended on a hell of a lot better basis. We’ve just got to say that, by God, you can’t treat grandma this way. She’s entitled to it, and we promised it to her,” LBJ said.
Johnson was as savvy a political operator as ever was, and he knew how to sell an idea. He also believed in the power and responsibility of government to help improve people’s lives. His critics argue in effect that if Johnson wanted to send his own mother a hundred bucks, fine, but why should he make everybody else send Benjamins to other people’s moms?
And yet it’s exactly that cooperative, in-it-together spirit that makes our social compact work. Obama affirmed the ties that bind us in April when he said America wouldn’t be a great nation without the commitment to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and unemployment insurance.
He also emphasized that spending must be contained. He even put Medicare on the table as part of long-term debt reduction. That was a surprise because it’s always easier for politicians to give than to take away.
In 1965, Medicare covered only people 65 and over, and previously only half the seniors had any health insurance. Presidents and Congress have expanded Medicare repeatedly without worrying how to pay for the expansions – another reason it’s odd to blame LBJ for today’s costly entitlements.
Bachus’ remark didn’t go unchallenged. Rep. Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, said that Bernanke had warned when he appeared before the committee in 2008 as an appointee of President George W. Bush that the country was on the verge of economic collapse.
To say that the series of terrible economic events, the worst since the Great Depression, may be just a contributing factor to today’s problems and that it’s Lyndon Johnson’s fault seems “very odd history at best,” Frank said.
Frank was right, but it won’t stop the right from blaming LBJ and the Great Society.
© 2011 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.
As we approach the 46th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s signing Medicare into law on July 30, the Blame LBJ Club is still open for business.
The same people on the political right who complain bitterly that Barack Obama and the Democrats should stop blaming George W. Bush for the rotten economy he bequeathed in 2009 are all too happy to blame Lyndon Johnson, who left the White House in 1969, for the country’s financial woes.
LBJ has been a target of conservative ire since before he declared a war on poverty in 1964 and long after Ronald Reagan quipped in 1988 that “poverty won.” The Great Society has become a great scapegoat.
Rep. Spencer T. Bachus III, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Wednesday the nation is suffering from a crisis of confidence that’s impeding economic growth. OK so far.
Then the Alabama Republican said the crisis’ origin is debatable. The Great Recession may contribute to it -- may? -- but he believes the “seeds of this lack of confidence were first sown in the well-intentioned programs of the 1930s and the Lyndon Johnson Great Society.”
A discussion about an aging society and the need to rein in entitlement costs is one thing. Bachus’ gripe something else. He basically faulted LBJ for treating seniors like family.
Opening a hearing with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Bachus quoted from LBJ’s taped phone calls with his press secretary, Bill Moyers in 1965. Bachus had seen the comments in a June 28 commentary by Thomas G. Donlan in Barron’s magazine.
Talking about the “average worker,” Johnson said, “I've never seen one have too much health benefits. So when they come in to me and say, 'We've got to have $400 million more so we can take care of some doctors' bills,' I'm for it on health…None of them ever get enough. "They are entitled to it. That's an obligation of ours.”
As only he could, Johnson invoked his mother: “It’s just like your mother writing you and saying she wants $20, and I’d always send mine $100 when she did. I always did it because I thought she was entitled to it,” he told Moyers.
“And I think that’s a much better reason and a much better cause and I think it can be defended on a hell of a lot better basis. We’ve just got to say that, by God, you can’t treat grandma this way. She’s entitled to it, and we promised it to her,” LBJ said.
Johnson was as savvy a political operator as ever was, and he knew how to sell an idea. He also believed in the power and responsibility of government to help improve people’s lives. His critics argue in effect that if Johnson wanted to send his own mother a hundred bucks, fine, but why should he make everybody else send Benjamins to other people’s moms?
And yet it’s exactly that cooperative, in-it-together spirit that makes our social compact work. Obama affirmed the ties that bind us in April when he said America wouldn’t be a great nation without the commitment to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and unemployment insurance.
He also emphasized that spending must be contained. He even put Medicare on the table as part of long-term debt reduction. That was a surprise because it’s always easier for politicians to give than to take away.
In 1965, Medicare covered only people 65 and over, and previously only half the seniors had any health insurance. Presidents and Congress have expanded Medicare repeatedly without worrying how to pay for the expansions – another reason it’s odd to blame LBJ for today’s costly entitlements.
Bachus’ remark didn’t go unchallenged. Rep. Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, said that Bernanke had warned when he appeared before the committee in 2008 as an appointee of President George W. Bush that the country was on the verge of economic collapse.
To say that the series of terrible economic events, the worst since the Great Depression, may be just a contributing factor to today’s problems and that it’s Lyndon Johnson’s fault seems “very odd history at best,” Frank said.
Frank was right, but it won’t stop the right from blaming LBJ and the Great Society.
© 2011 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Digital divide: Obama's tweet and Gerald Ford's watch -- July 7, 2011 column
By MARSHA MERCER
In December 1974, President Gerald R. Ford made news by becoming the first president to wear a digital wrist watch.
Writing about the digital watch, the great newspaper columnist Charles R. McDowell Jr. quoted a United Press International news story in its entirety:
“President Ford today wore a digital wrist watch. The watch, which shows the time in numerals, appeared on his left wrist when he chaired a meeting of his Domestic Council in the Cabinet Room. It was the first time they had seen the President wearing a watch without the big and little hands, some White House aides said.”
About this “strange little item,” McDowell wrote, “The significance of this story remains unclear to me after several readings and much deep thought. I suppose it should be taken at face value and with tolerance for the journalistic tradition that nothing is too trivial to report about the President of the United States.”
I was privileged later to work and be friends with Charley McDowell, who retired in 1998 and died last year. I came across the column in a booklet of some of his favorites. How I wish he were here for the news of Barack Obama’s big tweet.
President Obama made news Wednesday by becoming the first president to live tweet. Sitting on a tall stool in the East Room under the watchful gaze of the Gilbert Stuart portrait of George Washington, Obama typed a question in 140 characters.
The Washington Post, New York Times and other organizations providing news and commentary on platforms not even dreamt of in 1974 covered the milestone. A picture on the front page of The Wall Street Journal showed Obama next to a screen grab of a tweet from House Speaker John Boehner.
I’m not saying the first presidential tweet or the first Twitter Town Hall from the White House is trivial, but both seem puny compared with Franklin D. Roosevelt's appearance on TV in 1939, Jimmy Carter's installation of the first computer in the West Wing in 1978, or even George H.W. Bush's first presidential email in 1992.
Obama is no stranger to technology. He’s the first president to use a BlackBerry and a frequent online guest.
In April, he did a Facebook Town Hall with Mark Zuckerberg. In January, he answered video questions submitted by YouTube users in a town hall-style event sponsored by Google. More than 40,000 video questions were submitted.
Last October, he took questions from young people via Twitter in a live town hall sponsored by MTV, BET and CMT. In 2009, he did an online town hall with questions from YouTube, Facebook and Twitter users.
For his first tweet, Obama typed, “In order to reduce the deficit, what costs would you cut and what investments would you keep – bo.”
Alas, the Twitter Town Hall went downhill from there. It proved that real-life town halls have a lot more going for them than the virtual variety. With a real-life town hall, there’s a chance, slim though it may be, for an unscripted moment between president and citizen.
In this case, Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter and an amiable fellow, read the tweets to Obama. Dorsey made a point of saying that neither he nor Obama knew what the questions would be, as if that added drama. The questions – chosen by “curators” around the country – were safe and surprise-free.
The one near-surprise came when Dorsey said there was a question from “someone you may know.” Speaker Boehner’s tweet: “After embarking on a record spending binge that’s left us deeper in debt, where are the jobs?”
Obama patiently explained in his professorial style that Boehner is a Republican, so the question was “slightly skewed.”
If this was boring video, it was brilliant as a political organizing tool. The White House reported that by noon on the day of the event, more than 60,000 tweets had been sent to the hashtag #AskObama. Just think of all those fans, friends and followers.
In his Twitter debut, the president didn’t try to respond in 140-character tweets. He stuck to lengthy verbal responses. And so, another milestone awaits.
Obama still can become the first president to tweet a response. It’s no digital wrist watch. But if he does, you know it’ll make news.
© 2011 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.
30
In December 1974, President Gerald R. Ford made news by becoming the first president to wear a digital wrist watch.
Writing about the digital watch, the great newspaper columnist Charles R. McDowell Jr. quoted a United Press International news story in its entirety:
“President Ford today wore a digital wrist watch. The watch, which shows the time in numerals, appeared on his left wrist when he chaired a meeting of his Domestic Council in the Cabinet Room. It was the first time they had seen the President wearing a watch without the big and little hands, some White House aides said.”
About this “strange little item,” McDowell wrote, “The significance of this story remains unclear to me after several readings and much deep thought. I suppose it should be taken at face value and with tolerance for the journalistic tradition that nothing is too trivial to report about the President of the United States.”
I was privileged later to work and be friends with Charley McDowell, who retired in 1998 and died last year. I came across the column in a booklet of some of his favorites. How I wish he were here for the news of Barack Obama’s big tweet.
President Obama made news Wednesday by becoming the first president to live tweet. Sitting on a tall stool in the East Room under the watchful gaze of the Gilbert Stuart portrait of George Washington, Obama typed a question in 140 characters.
The Washington Post, New York Times and other organizations providing news and commentary on platforms not even dreamt of in 1974 covered the milestone. A picture on the front page of The Wall Street Journal showed Obama next to a screen grab of a tweet from House Speaker John Boehner.
I’m not saying the first presidential tweet or the first Twitter Town Hall from the White House is trivial, but both seem puny compared with Franklin D. Roosevelt's appearance on TV in 1939, Jimmy Carter's installation of the first computer in the West Wing in 1978, or even George H.W. Bush's first presidential email in 1992.
Obama is no stranger to technology. He’s the first president to use a BlackBerry and a frequent online guest.
In April, he did a Facebook Town Hall with Mark Zuckerberg. In January, he answered video questions submitted by YouTube users in a town hall-style event sponsored by Google. More than 40,000 video questions were submitted.
Last October, he took questions from young people via Twitter in a live town hall sponsored by MTV, BET and CMT. In 2009, he did an online town hall with questions from YouTube, Facebook and Twitter users.
For his first tweet, Obama typed, “In order to reduce the deficit, what costs would you cut and what investments would you keep – bo.”
Alas, the Twitter Town Hall went downhill from there. It proved that real-life town halls have a lot more going for them than the virtual variety. With a real-life town hall, there’s a chance, slim though it may be, for an unscripted moment between president and citizen.
In this case, Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter and an amiable fellow, read the tweets to Obama. Dorsey made a point of saying that neither he nor Obama knew what the questions would be, as if that added drama. The questions – chosen by “curators” around the country – were safe and surprise-free.
The one near-surprise came when Dorsey said there was a question from “someone you may know.” Speaker Boehner’s tweet: “After embarking on a record spending binge that’s left us deeper in debt, where are the jobs?”
Obama patiently explained in his professorial style that Boehner is a Republican, so the question was “slightly skewed.”
If this was boring video, it was brilliant as a political organizing tool. The White House reported that by noon on the day of the event, more than 60,000 tweets had been sent to the hashtag #AskObama. Just think of all those fans, friends and followers.
In his Twitter debut, the president didn’t try to respond in 140-character tweets. He stuck to lengthy verbal responses. And so, another milestone awaits.
Obama still can become the first president to tweet a response. It’s no digital wrist watch. But if he does, you know it’ll make news.
© 2011 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.
30
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
