John Silber 1926-2012:Too Negative does not make a positive.

John Silber, former President of Boston University, was an unhappy man. Growing up in Texas with a deformed arm, he endured a lot of mistreatment. His later life was shadowed by the death of his son, David, from AIDS at the age of 41. Yet, the former did not help him deal with the latter because it didn’t teach him sympathy, only bitterness.

His career in politics was stunted – along with that of Gov. John Connally of Texas  - when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. An attempt to revive this career was cut short when, thirty years later, Silber ran for Governor of Massachusetts and lost.

He was meant to hold power, though, and hold it he did as President of Boston University. John Silber took a commuter school with shaky finances and made it into a national university with a large endowment and distinguished visitors among its faculty. In the process, however, he ended some truly excellent programs, alienated everyone from deans down to freshmen and became a millionaire in office. What’s more, BU’s relative position, particularly within the greater Boston area, never changed. Better than a lot, but not as good as some. True distinction has always eluded it.

Finally, despite his vaunted achievements, no one has ever copied John Silber’s methods. Why? Because, as an academic, he taught Richard III by example. Silber was a smart man, who wielded his intelligence like a blunt object. A strong man, who traded in pain. A proud man, who humiliated others. Everything he achieved could have - and has – been done with far less human cost. If John Silber has no followers, it’s because no one ever worked with him, only under him. In the end, he may have taught Ozymandias, too.

A Wandering blogger I: A Post of Votes and Akins, Election Gaffes and Romney.

But no dreamy lullabies. It may seem like we should be saying, “goodnight” to the Republicans, but there’s still time for the Democrats to blow it. There’s always time for the Democrats to blow it.

                       

Deliverance? Home-Schoolers Squeal Like Pigs For Akins.

Sen. Todd Akins (R) running for re-election  in Missouri has lost the support of the Republican Party, his party, but that doesn’t stop him. He believes he can make up for the loss of campaign funds and official sanction by rallying support among people who home-school their children. They are, according to John Eligon’s article in The New York Times (9/26/12) “Deeply religious people who want a biblical worldview to be part of their children’s studies, and many connect on a spiritual level to Mr. Akins.” Not only because he and his wife home-schooled their own six children, but because, as a State Representative, Mr. Akins was instrumental in killing a bill that would have required home-schooled students to take the same standardized tests as children in public schools. Sen. Todd Akins, by the way, lost his party’s support after stating – on television – there’s something about a woman’s vagina that keeps her from getting pregnant after a “Legitimate rape.” Now, he’s seeking votes from people who don’t believe in Evolution.There’s something appropriate about that.

            I Kid Because He Cares.

After something dumb he said appeared on television (imagine that) Mitt Romney is desperately trying to repair his image. I don’t use “desperately” lightly. While campaigning in Ohio, perhaps the most critical “swing state,” Mr. Romney told NBC’s Ron Allen, “One hundred per cent of the kids in [Massachusetts] had health insurance. I don’t think there’s anything that shows more empathy and care about the people of this country than that kind of record.” First, convincing one person that you care is difficult, especially if they have reason to think otherwise – which is usually the case. Convincing a majority of the voters in Ohio, much less an entire nation? Second, if you do convince swing voters that healthcare reform is a good idea, you’ve lost your base. Remember them? All the Republicans who hate the idea and disdain it as Obamacare. Third, if reforming health care proves that you’re sensitive and care about people, then all the Republicans who oppose it (see above) are cold and uncaring. Is that what you want to say?  Fortunately for you, but not for us, the Republican Party can’t withdraw its support – like it did for Sen. Akins – because you’re their candidate for President of the United States and it’s six weeks before the election! Romney, we hardly knew ye

MITT ROMNEY: IN HIS HEART, HE KNOWS YOU ROT.

People paid $50,000 to have dinner with Mitt Romney, so he owed them more than a canned speech. He tried to level with them, but that was a bad idea. Instead of the private thoughts of a public person, they got an unwholesome hash of half-understood strategy and ignorant prejudice. Okay, it was a mistake. Clint Eastwood did worse at the convention. At least, Romney did it in private. Right? Not exactly. When his secretly recorded comments were made public, the Republican Presidential candidate had a lot of explaining to do. 

First, he tried to quiet the uproar by confessing that his views were “Not elegantly stated.” That didn’t matter because the message was clear: poor people suck. He copped to the message, but, according to Jim Rutenberg and Ashley Parker’s front-page article in The New York Times (9/19/12) said it helped voters define the philosophical choice between him and President Obama. Except there’s nothing philosophical about calling forty-seven per cent of the country a bunch of weak, lazy, greedy sponges who live off entitlements and will vote for Obama just to keep the gravy train rolling.

Next, Romney tried to reframe his comments as an argument for limiting the role of government in American life. Really? Did Mr. Romney want to go there? The man who, as Governor of Massachusetts, created the model for national healthcare reform? Who, running for the Republican Presidential nomination, defended the government bailout of banks and, as candidate, defended both Medicare and Social Security? The only person in his campaign who might credibly argue for limited government is his running mate, Paul Ryan, who has limitations of his own. He thinks the literary novelty, Ayn Rand, is a great intellectual and not the reason that Alan Greenspan’s economic theories collapsed. 

What about taxes? A Republican politician has to talk about taxes and Mitt Romney obliged his wealthy audience by criticizing people who don’t pay income tax. Not them, of course. He meant the forty-seven per cent that bloat the government with their lust for entitlements. This coming from a man who has hidden more money offshore than Captain Kidd – and in the same places. Without actually defending those comments (He couldn’t. The figure of forty-seven per cent includes retirees, working poor and soldiers in combat zones)  Mr. Romney, again, tried to reframe them by suggesting, as the NY Times article states, “That it is time for a full debate about dependency, entitlements and what his campaign characterized as a long history of Mr. Obama’s support for ‘redistributionist’ policies.” First of all, Mitt Romney calling for any kind of debate is a small dog barking at a big one. Second, the greatest redistribution of money in American history was under President Reagan. It went from the middle class to the upper class. He shouldn’t bark 

up that tree, either. 

It’s not what Mitt Romney said or how he said it that concerns me. I know many people who are vastly more prejudiced and very few who speak in full sentences and express clear, complete thoughts. What bothers me is how Mr. Romney falls exactly in the middle. He is utterly average and wants to be President of the United States. Painfully ordinary yet thinks that he should be leader of the free world. Look at the clumsy way he tried to make up for this recent blunder. No artful dodging or crafty charm that might compel our grudging respect. Only the demi-cunning of someone, anyone trying to avoid embarrassment. We deserve better.

Four Questions or Why The 2012 Republican National Convention Was Easy To Pass Over.

1) Why is the Vice-Presidential candidate Paul Ryan like a little kid at the dinner table? He needs the federal budget to prop him up or he'll disappear completely.

2) How can New Jersey Governor Chris Christie emit so much hot air and still look like a balloon in The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade? 

3) What do you call an 82-year old man with no experience in improvisational comedy, who attempts it alone in front of the entire nation? Clint Eastwood.

4) Why is Presidential candidate Mitt Romney like a bad science-fiction movie? He's an empty suit without the entertainment value of

The Invisible Man.