Plains talk Column By Curt Andersen I have been arguing with a navy buddy of mine about Bush’s military “service.” He and I initially disagreed about Bush getting into the Champagne Unit that protected the privileged sons of wealth from having to bleed in Vietnam. I didn’t like that Bush got that special treatment, but my friend insisted I remember that both of us looked for a better deal when we joined. Neither of us supported the war but both of us joined anyhow. I had been lured to the navy because of the promised training and travel, and shows like Silent Service and Navy Log, about the U.S. Navy’s role around the globe in WWII. My friend has, therefore, convinced me that Bush’s seeking something other than crawling through rice paddies was pretty much like what we did ourselves. Bill and I did agree that the real crime was that Bush supported the Vietnam War but didn’t have the cojones to go there, allowing someone else to do his dying for him. Whether this plays in Peoria or not will take some years to know for sure. It still boggles my mind that we tossed out George H.W. Bush for many fewer economic sins than his son has already racked up. We kept Reagan in office, in spite of Iran-Contra. This reminded me of a conversation with a female friend back in the 1960s. She said her mother had given her advice on how to know if a certain boy was a good catch or not. "Take a close look at his friends - if they're jerks, he’s probably a jerk too." The other piece of advice was to watch how he treated his mother. When I look at the sad sacks that Bush hired for his cabinet, I get an idea of what goes on upstairs in Bush’s mind, at least when the light is on. Besides Colin Powell, only one, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, has military service. All the rest, including Cheney, skipped out on their turn in the meat grinder while they supported the Vietnam War. When I see what Bush has done to Mother Earth, and all the damage he has inflicted on our forests, our public lands, our rivers and our air, I have to wonder what happened to the respect gene. This is a mutation for sure. Environmental policy was never about pretty calendar photos or giving birds real habitat… that stuff was only tangential to the real ideal - public health and economics. Bush has committed gross violations of the public trust by allowing timber companies to cut old growth trees. It would be one thing if all these companies did was rob us, at about $1.50 per tree, but then our taxes pay for the road building and maintenance in those forests. Some of those forests are in areas with steep slopes, so, once trees are taken out, there is lots of erosion that brings soil particles down to the rivers where trout live, destroying the habitat for the trout and the tourist income that the trout bring in. These companies boast there are more trees in America now than when Columbus landed in the New World. I would guess this is true, but it’s still a distortion. Some timber companies have enormous tree plantations where they grow trees for transplanting, from six inches to two feet tall. There are literally millions of these trees transplanted every year. If you compare the number of board feet available when Columbus arrived in the New World instead of the board feet available today, you would have an incredible difference. The quality of the lumber is vastly different as well. The old growth lumber is straight and nearly free of knots. The new, fast growing strains can be pretty gnarly. Why do you think the lumber companies want the old growth lumber instead of the fast-growth varieties on their plantations? A very important side issue, especially with the attack on the environment by the Bush administration, is the fact that trees inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. We cannot continue to lose trees at the current rate. This is not a new phenomenon for the Conservatives. An April 2004 Thomas Frank article in Harper’s Magazine, "Lie Down For America - How the Republican Party Sows Ruin On the Great Plains", tells the story of Frank’s home state, Kansas, and other plains states. Frank tells about the towns crumbling into ruin, with all the stores boarded up, the towns’ schools now closed or combined with as many as ten other towns’ schools, so that students have a three-hour bus trip each way. Farms are failing as prices fail to keep up with costs. It’s a grim picture of a once thriving industry all over the heartland of America. Frank points out that it is the Great Plains, with so many of the so-called “red states” that are in the most trouble, as he says, from “unfettered capitalism.” By this, he is referring to the regulations and other protections for small businesses and the farmers for those years since FDR took over the White House. These folks in the red states are voting against their own best interests. I believe the Republican Party has used these people’s pride in being industrious, self-starters, and their selfishness about giving welfare to the poor, to lure them to the dark side. Years ago, it was Liberal policies that brought electrification to the plains states, giving farmers a chance to improve their lot. Republicans fought the measure, saying it wasn’t economically sound. It was Liberal policies that brought huge hydroelectric dams that provided thousands of jobs during the Great Depression, and provided water for millions of acres of marginal farmland. It was Liberal policies on economics and environment that have made the difference between living a healthy life and one fraught with illness and poverty. It was Liberal policies that instituted the best education system on the planet, bringing millions of people up from the ranks of the poor and enabling them to live the good life. Meanwhile, Bush is sitting on his hands instead of doing something…anything…about the continuing destruction of small family farms, and the movement of jobs overseas. Was it Bush sitting on his own hands, or are those hands at the ends of the many arms of special interest groups basking in the new wealth from unfair and corrupt trade policies? Yoshi Tsurumi, one of George W. Bush's professors at Harvard Business School, had little nice to say about Bush recently. In a Salon.com article by Washington correspondent, Mary Jacoby, she talks about Tsurumi’s class in 1973, as the oil and energy crisis wore on. “Tsurumi led a discussion on whether government should assist retirees and other people on fixed incomes with heating costs. Bush, he recalled, "made this ridiculous statement and when I asked him to explain, he said, 'The government doesn't have to help poor people -- because they are lazy.' I said, 'Well, could you explain that assumption?' Not only could he not explain it, he started backtracking on it, saying, 'No, I didn't say that.'" Tsurumi continued, "He showed pathological lying habits and was in denial when challenged on his prejudices and biases.” Tsurumi said, "…I always remember two types of students. One is the very excellent student, the type as a professor you feel honored to be working with. Someone with strong social values, compassion and intellect -- the very rare person you never forget. And then you remember students like George Bush, those who are totally the opposite." We already knew that Bush hated socialism, except for those parts that make his cronies rich. Halliburton is doing well because of taxpayer dollars. George H.W. Bush is doing well because of his connections to the military procurement business…Carlyle Group. George W. Bush likes the stadium built with taxpayer dollars…there are lots of socialist programs that the wealthy love. Socialism used to raise the tide for all boats. Now it’s just the big boats that rise. Liberals have always seen through the slimy film of righteousness projected by Bush. Tsurumi saw through it many years ago. He said, “He denounced labor unions, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Medicare, Social Security, you name it. He denounced the civil rights movement as socialism. To him, socialism and communism were the same thing. And when challenged to explain his prejudice, he could not defend his argument, either ideologically, polemically or academically." It has been said that if you want to be rich, you should choose your parents very carefully. The lazy, pampered son of a pampered son sure had some nasty thoughts about folks that didn’t have Bush’s luck, and who work lots harder. Fantasy time: George W. Bush, ten years old, with a paper route; or, 16 years old, working at the car wash or in a burger joint; or, 18 years old, laying track on the railroad or stocking shelves in a grocery store to earn his own walkin’ around money. What a hoot! The less than ambitious George has been a parasite all of his life. We might not be in the mess we’re in if he hadn’t taken a month’s vacation just before 9-11, especially with all the “hair on fire” news coming in from various intelligence agencies. What a poor example for the youth of America. (And they gave Pete Rose the bum’s rush?) (God approved this column.) Curt Andersen is a Green Bay native. He is a 4-year Navy veteran (Communications Technician, CTO2), (who, unlike President Bush, served his entire hitch), owns a small business, is vice president of Clean Water Action Council, and is an adjunct instructor at Northeast Wisconsin Technical College. You may contact Mr. Andersen at [email protected]