How to size up and evaluate the American experience. Boosters will insist there’s never been a nation like ours. Our country is exceptional, has advanced human society in innumerable ways. How fortunate Americans are to live here and not elsewhere. Undoubtedly they have a strong case. On the other hand there surely are two sides to this story, one of which rarely receives the same amount of consideration. Below is a summary (mostly in chronological order) of notable developments that have occurred in the United States over the centuries. What grade would you assign to America’s overall performance?
 P R I D E  
** Religious diversity and freedom ** No hereditary aristocracy ** Widespread land ownership ** Impressive social nobility (B. Franklin, A. Hamilton, et al) ** Ideals of Declaration of Independence ** Rule of law ** Bill of Rights ** An advancing democracy ** Political stability (minus Civil War) ** Expansion of public education ** Free and vibrant press ** 19th century prison reform ** Women advancing ** Individualism unleashed ** Craft union organization ** Ending debt imprisonment ** The West beckons ** Accommodating waves of immigrants ** Keeping the military in check ** Freedom of association and voluntarism ** An ever expanding middle class ** Persistence of reform and generations of reformers ** Protections for labor ** A hospitable business environment ** An inventive people ** Robust charitable and philanthropic activities ** Vibrant urban culture ** Resisting monopolies ** Efforts toward equality ** Expanding home ownership ** World class universities ** Natural beauty ** Preservation of nature ** Victorious in two World Wars ** Pharmaceutical advances ** Repeated technological innovations ** World class hospitals ** Boundless consumer choices ** Enormous productivity ** Entertainments galore ** Consistently outstanding Olympians ** Endless leisure and recreational offerings ** World leadership.**
  SHORTCOMINGS  
** Slavery ** Indian removals and annihilation ** Wealthy exercise disproportional power ** Racism and persistent racial violence ** Immigrant discrimination ** Anti-Semitism ** Anti-Catholic prejudice ** Recurring economic instability ** Fierce resistance to unionization ** Chinese and Japanese exclusion ** Systematic segregation of black Americans ** Industrial monopolies **Worker accidents ** Exaggerated fears of radicals ** Periodic Red scares ** Clandestine domestic surveillance ** Organized crime and gang violence ** Female subordination ** Sexual repressions ** Eugenics experimentation ** Sterilizations ** Homophobia ** Domestic violence ** White collar crime ** WASP dominance ** Inequality of incomes and wealth ** Persistence of Poverty ** Corruption ** Environmental deterioration ** Urban blight ** Rural decay ** Shortages of affordable housing ** Loneliness and suicides ** Obesity ** Drug addictions ** Gun deaths ** Major gaps in medical insurance coverage ** Gambling ** First and only use of Atom bomb **Agent Orange ** Gridlocked roads ** Gerrymandering and voter suppression ** National political gridlock ** “Big money” into politics ** Substandard infra-structure ** College loans, personal and government indebtedness ** Sluggish wages ** Education deficiencies ** Retirement saving deficits **
On balance, what do you think? Every nation has its positive features and its flaws. Is there any way to draw objective comparisons among them? Can there be some measure of national achievement in comparison to its potential? Based upon what has been presented, can Americans substantiate their claims to being a “most favored nation?”

Who knows how often our ancestors talked to each other about their health. Surely they had their ailments and perhaps shared symptoms related to their infirmities with others. Today, however there is little hesitancy (more often among women) about turning polite conversation in the direction of one’s health. Ailments have somehow become standard, acceptable conversational fare. Why this should be is not at all obvious. After all, much of it concerns pain, discomfort, disease, medications, disability – ordinarily not the positive self-image people prefer to project. Let us, therefore, speculate as to why this happens and how such conversations may proceed.
• Thanks to an incessant barrage of TV commercials, health issues have become decidedly mainstream. Leg cramps, backaches, weight loss, elevated cholesterol, psoriasis, insomnia, diabetes, high blood pressure, bladder leakage, cancer, depression, headaches, erectile dysfunction, brain functioning, early onset Alzheimers – these and many more disorders are perceived as widespread and open for discussion.
• Overweight? Who isn’t? Dieting (sometimes related to health concerns) is a subject most everyone is comfortable discussing. Who hasn’t been on a diet at one time or another? Which ones work? Which are the least stressful and demanding? “How much weight have you lost?” Some folks like to boast. Weight loss represents an acceptable way to do so.
• When people converse they often engage in storytelling. Health issues lend themselves to this form by typically involving sequential narratives from onset, diagnosis, treatment and then hopefully relief and cure.
• For those people who welcome the opportunity to talk about themselves, an injury or illness provides the occasion to do so without appearing overly self-centered.
• Asking someone about their health or how they’re feeling is a means of demonstrating concern for others, surely an admirable trait. It can be risky, however, may open the floodgates and result in an interminable saga.
• Steering conversation toward matters of sickness and injury can be informative. People who have been through such experiences often have much to offer with regard to appropriate therapies and effective medications.
• Strong bonds may form when people discover they suffer and are battling a similar illness.
• An element of competition may enter when it comes to their doctor. Specialists, particularly those affiliated with prestigious medical centers, are usually regarded as a cut above. Having such physicians serves to elevate that patient above others. On the other hand, being under the care of “local” doctors may not measure up.
• People often are eager to reveal health information about others, especially when they’re in sole possession of the relevant information. There is, of course, an element of concern but also some satisfaction in being the “first” to know. “Did you hear? John was taken to the hospital.” “Martha had a stroke.” Such “medical gossip” is a conversational staple.
• Once people learn about someone seriously ill they will doubtlessly express concern but may also offer an explanation that casts responsibility upon the victim. “Sam never took care of himself.” “Do you know how overweight Laura was?” “George refused to go to a doctor.” Take heed – there’s a lesson to be learned.
So, the next time you’re sick, injured or just feeling lousy, don’t hesitate to bring it up in conversation. Expect some sympathy and possibly useful information. Plus you’ve created a bond, having disclosed a matter both private and personal.

Slaves first arrived in Virginia in 1619. In the years that followed, slavery to a greater or lesser degree spread to all of the colonies. But once the new nation formed, Southerners quickly recognized that the influence and prosperity of their region (unlike that of the North and Northwest) would depend upon the continued growth and expansion of the institution. Accordingly, for well over a half century, the South became a pre-eminent slave society. Southern elites depended upon the profits slave labor generated; southern politicians, both in their states and in Washington, defended slavery and warded off threats real or imagined, while southern apologists fashioned an ideology that viewed slavery as a “positive good,” which permitted the white race to achieve a higher level of civilization, even as it simultaneously lifted blacks out of the barbarism that had been their lot in Africa. As northern criticism of slavery grew over the early decades of the 19th Century, southerners became even more insistent that they had chosen the right path, some even suggesting that northerners consider converting their so-called “free labor” into a slave work force. Southerners could not conceive that, were blacks somehow to become free, there could even be a place for them in society. (Indeed, many southern states required that if individual slaves were freed they must leave.)
Slavery became ever more entrenched, even as North-South tensions heightened in the 1850’s. The slave population increased, slave prices rose, and southern leaders looked to the west and even beyond to the Caribbean as likely areas for further slave expansion. Far from heading toward extinction, southern slavery seemed destined to survive, even thrive indefinitely. But then, in 1861, the delicate political balance, the crafted compromises between North and South collapsed, and a violent and prolonged civil war enveloped the once united states.
It required four years for the North, after heavy fighting and appalling losses on both sides, to subdue the South. It took one bullet lodged in the brain of President Abraham Lincoln to reduce the chances of post-war reconciliation between North and South. What followed instead was an effort by Northern republicans to “reconstruct” the defeated South by sending Federal troops to occupy the region, making citizens out of, and giving the vote to, recently emancipated slaves and supporting black landowners and office holders in the region.
Most Southern whites were appalled. This largely “outside” effort to elevate and support blacks and to disenfranchise many former Confederates was regarded as outrageous. It overturned a social order that had prevailed for centuries. Southern whites struck back with mob action, terror tactics against blacks, economic pressure and coercion and voting fraud. Before long, they had successfully reversed what Northern Republicans had hoped to accomplish. Through strict segregation, voting disqualification, the crop lien and share cropping labor systems, convict labor and lynching, blacks were once more “put in their place,” relegated to the bottom of society, kept down decade after decade, extending well into the 20th Century. Thus a majority of white southerners had refused to accept the verdict of the
Civil War, resisted all efforts to realign racial relationships, rallied around the Confederate flag, took their “cause” to the national political scene and even persuaded many Northerners of its merits.

Post World War II America, triumphant over Germany and Japan, seemed eager to enjoy the fruits of the amazingly productive machine that had been put in place for the war effort. As the economy shifted over to consumer goods, it would not be long before memories of the harsh Depression Years would fade. Women returned to serving as homemakers, suburban growth exploded, birth rates soared, “organization men” conformed to corporate expectations, while the cold war and Communist threat descended upon the nation, encouraging Americans to believe even more fervently in American exceptionalism and the “American Way.”
Then the sixties exploded, bringing with it a level of social turbulence never before experienced in the United States. The civil rights movement burst out in all sorts of directions – marches, demonstrations, shows of force and of faith. The activism of African Americans encouraged others to organize and insist upon their rightful places in America. Latinos, Native
Americans, homosexuals, the disabled, above all – women, demanded recognition, rights and the acknowledgement of wrongs committed against them over the years. Entering into this somewhat chaotic mix were young people bent on establishing a distinct identity quite different from their parents and at odds with anyone “over 30.” They dressed differently, were “all in” with new musical expressions and rhythms, rejected traditional social norms and sexual conventions, entered into the drug culture and displayed little respect and no tolerance of those who retained the “old ways.” Then came mounting opposition, especially on college campuses to the Vietnam War, the political class that defended and supported it, the police (“pigs”) that broke up anti-war demonstrations, the draft that furnished recruits for the war machine the defense industries that benefitted from the conflict, and the “misguided” patriots that defended our intrusion into Southeast Asia. Multiple assassinations of prominent leaders, a president “forced” from the White House, blood in the streets at the Democratic convention in Chicago (1968), violent crackdowns on the Black Panthers, along with acts of terror and urban riots, made Americans insecure, fearing for the future of their nation.
The raw emotions of the 60’s and 70’s have receded, but few have forgotten the great divides that were revealed in those years. They still echo in those millions that protest the availability of abortion, show contempt for “privileged” college kids, defend the police and the right to own guns, venerate the American flag, the Constitution, the religious foundations of our nation, and the traditional roles men deservedly exercise. These beliefs form the substance of an ideological movement spearheaded by right wing think tanks, evangelical organizations, talk show hosts and conservative writers who pillory the Liberal Establishment and support the grievances of those “forgotten” Americans who object to the cultural patterns that have gained wide acceptance. The divisions first revealed in the 1960’s thus have endured, will continue to shape the discourse, the politics and the direction of the nation for the foreseeable future.
Action begets reaction; rapid alteration induces backlash. Change rarely proceeds uninterrupted or in a straight line. Rather, expect reaction, resistance, re-evaluation and perhaps a level of acccommodation. The post Civil War South recoiled and reacted against the effort on behalf of African Americans, just as millions of American were affronted by the divisive culture wars that swept over the nation beginning in the 1960’s. Only in time can a new order emerge.

We are surrounded by color: we express ourselves with, and are inspired by, color. Most all of us have our favorite colors and revel in the rich palette of hues and shadings that are everywhere. The many dimensions and meanings of color will become apparent from the following account.
• A nation’s flag is an ongoing source of pride, unifying symbol, and a rallying point. It speaks to people with clarity and conviction; “Three cheers for the red, white and blue.” While designs vary, color patterns have much in common throughout the world. Forty percent of all national flags display three colors, with red, white and blue the most popular combination. Stay away from any black and white flag at sea. You don’t want to be messing with marauding pirates.
• Colors go in and out of fashion. There is a measure of manipulation here as when designers, decorators and fashion gurus declare what is, or about to be, “in” and what has become passe’. Remarkably enough, their “edicts” and predictions largely determine people’s choices. Among the colors currently being advanced are lavender, purple, light green, beige, sage, marigold, burgundy, stone white and crimson. Deviate from this list and you risk the charge of being out of date and out of touch.
• Colors are said to convey mood, emotion, personality and purpose. Red, in addition to signaling danger and violence, is often associated with excitement, passion and aggression. Yellow, on the other hand, suggesting the sun, conveys optimism, joy and happiness. Orange is thought to promote energy, enthusiasm, creativity and health, whereas blue is credited with representing intelligence, trust, loyalty and strength (except for those “down” times when “feeling blue”). Few question green’s connection with nature, the environment, growth and freshness (though there are those “green with envy,” and at times are under the weather, “looking green”). Purple has long spoken to us about royalty, nobility and ceremony. And apparently is a favorite with children. What are your own true colors?
• While athletic teams, college and professional, are often associated with powerful animals (Tigers, Bulls, Lions, Bears, Rams, Eagles, etc.); many incorporate colors into their nicknames, viz., The Big Green (Dartmouth), Black and Gold (Pittsburgh Steelers),
Blue Shirts (NY Rangers), Reds (Cincinnati), Big Blue (NY football Giants), The Red Sox (Boston), the White Sox (Chicago), Crimson (Harvard), Blue and Gold (Notre Dame) and the Scarlet Knights (Rutgers). You wouldn’t imagine cheering for a color would inspire the faithful, but of course it does.
• Predictably, colors have entered our language in ways quite familiar. Most writers take care to avoid purple prose. No one wishes to get caught red handed or pursue what turns out to be a red herring. The black sheep of the family cannot be pleased at that characterization, or worse, be charged with having a yellow streak. Who among us has not been told white lies or at some point deliberately sought brownie points? Having a green thumb is all to the good; less so is being accused of having been born with a silver spoon in your mouth. Talking a blue streak may not endear you to others, but if you have blue blood you may get away with it, or if you’re feeling in the pink you may not care what others think.
• Those partial to history will surely remember the devastating Black Death of the 14thCentury. Death tolls were also catastrophic when the Blue and the Grey had at each other in America’s Civil War. In yet another Civil War, this time in Russia after World War I, the Reds defeated the Whites. Periodically the U.S. has experienced Red Scares, fearing Communist infiltration and the perfidy of those allegedly sympathetic to these leftists dismissed as Pinkoes. More recently the outcome of political contests in the U.S. rested upon the relative balance of Red and Blue states. Less controversial were the yellow ribbons affixed to trees during the Iran hostage crises. For some time now, pink ribbons have been employed as a show of support for those afflicted with breast cancer.
What’s your favorite color? Who doesn’t love a rainbow? Color counts.

Interest in the Founding Fathers remains high. (Just try getting a ticket to “Hamilton.”) Can any contemporary statesman compare in stature to those transcendent figures? Accordingly, “originalists” these days are consumed with uncovering the meanings and intentions of those hallowed architects of our nation.
There is one aspect of the debate at Constitutional Hall in 1787 and beyond that needs to be highlighted; most of those present were worriers. Some harbored the notion that the prospective governing structure should include a King, because only a monarch would be capable of binding together a rancorous cluster of states that, despite success in the Revolution, had not demonstrated much willingness to get along with each other. But most thought this to be a ridiculous idea, given the fact that the colonists had just overthrown a King who, they claimed, had oppressed them and rejected their pleas for greater home rule. Besides, a King in France had just lost his head for having turned a deaf ear to the plight of his subjects. Moreover, the only American who possessed monarchial credentials, George Washington, showed no interest, thought it absurd that anyone could ascend to a throne in the new Republic where every free man thought himself the equal of any other.
No, America was not made for Kings. Bur far more people were worried that the new nation might fall prey to aristocratic rule. After all, throughout the period almost every colony (excepting perhaps Rhode Island) saw a self-appointed elite take command (albeit under the ultimate authority of England). These cliques monopolized power in each province, maintained their exclusivity and proved adept at accumulating wealth (via land ownership, speculation and trade). Americans travelling to England could not but note that aristocrats ruled the mother country. John Adams was more outspoken than anyone else, warning against the threat the “Dons, the Bashaws, the Grandees, the Patricians, the Nabobs, call them by whatever name you please,” posed even in a society that recognized no formal aristocratic titles.
Did that mean that democracy should reign in America; that the common man could be entrusted with governing, determining matters of state? Few, if any, at that time thought that to be a good idea. Far too easily could the “people” turn into a mob; (mob activity was fairly common during the Revolution). In Revolutionary France they appeared to have acted in precisely that fashion. The people, united, could also threaten the rights of property (after all large numbers owned no property themselves and thus would have little at stake.) Indeed, in Massachusetts in 1786-7 common folk had been on the march (Shay’s Rebellion) against state authorities, who they claimed had levied onerous taxes upon them. Furthermore, relatively few people enjoyed the benefits of a formal education and thus could not be expected to think clearly and dispassionately about weighty issues. Finally, history offered no instructive examples of societies based on the widespread participation of ordinary folks. It was, therefore, too risky to launch such an experiment at this time when the need for stability was paramount.
So if such obvious limitations discredited exclusive rule by a monarch, or an aristocracy, or by the common man, what was to be done about devising a government that would provide for the general welfare and would have a decent chance of surviving and succeeding? The answer the Founding Fathers settled upon incorporated a little bit of this and a little bit of that. They called it a “mixed government” and provided for an Executive who might seem like a King but who was not, a Senate that was thought would be the preserve of the local elites who would engage in lofty debate along with a House of Representatives (“the people’s chamber”) where ordinary Americans might express more down-to-earth concerns. Thus, no single point of view prevailed: each camp had to accept some portion of the ideas they opposed. Somehow their collective fears produced a sturdy framework. In short, they found out that the jumble of approaches they blended together could work. And that’s why they’re called the “founding” fathers.

Sports fans are a quarrelsome lot, predisposed to challenge anyone eager to apply the label of “the greatest” on any particular athlete. We will skirt such a provocation and instead advance the claim that we’ve been treated to, and currently are witnessing, a “Golden Age” of outstanding performances by a remarkable collection of athletes. Ordinarily it’s only with the passage of time that golden ages come into focus. The contention here, however, is that our generation has been privileged to witness an exceptional cadre of all-time great performers. One may quibble with some of the selections, but to mount a serious challenge, you would have to identify another era when as many superstars in so many different sports were active at approximately the same time. Here, in no particular order, is this  cluster of the brightest stars in the firmament.
• TIGER WOODS is presently attempting, with some success, to regain the form that enabled him to become the “golden boy” of the golfing world beginning at a remarkably young age. For years he was a phenomenon, a dominant electrifying figure, racking up by wide margins one tournament victory after another and earning more money each year than any other golfer.
• USAIN BOLT the Jamaican sprinter rarely gave competitors much of a chance when they chased after him in the 100 and 200 meter dashes. Competing in three consecutive Olympiads he won gold medal after gold medal. Spectators thrilled to his explosive style and dominating bursts across the finish line.
• MICHAEL PHELPS was an aquatic marvel in the butterfly, a stroke to which he brought awesome power and unrelenting machine-like precision. He dominated four consecutive Olympic Games while accumulating a record 28 medals.
• ROGER FEDERER may indeed be the greatest male tennis player of all time. He’s won more grand slam men’s singles tournaments than anyone else, while for years he remained ranked as the #1 tennis player in the world. At one point he appeared in ten consecutive grand slam finals. His grace, power and court savvy have made his name synonymous with unparalleled excellence.
• SERENA WILLIAMS brought exceptional power and fierce determination to women’s tennis, which led to her winning 23 grand slam titles. Twice she won all four grand slam tournaments in the same year. Well into her 30’s, and now a mother, she remains a legitimate threat to win any tournament she enters.
• ALEXANDER OVECHKIN has been a terrifying force on the ice year after year. He has scored more goals then nearly any of the National Hockey League players in history and has an MVP award to his credit. If you wish to start an argument, mention SIDNEY CROSBY, and the debate over two exceptional hockey players will be joined.
• LEBRON JAMES continues to be the most dominant basketball player of the current era. Whether driving to the basket, shooting from beyond the three point line or flicking bullet passes to teammates, his skills are breathtaking. You will get an argument from MICHAEL JORDAN’s supporters, but surely there’s cause to celebrate both of these immense talents. Of course there’s also STEPHAN CURRY, who drains the longest shots ever attempted in the NBA.
• TOM BRADY has done it all, again and again, as quarterback. He’s taken his Patriots team to the super Bowl eight times and been victorious on five occasions. A three-time MVP he’s won more games than any other quarterback in the NFL. You’ll hear fans touting the extraordinary talents of PEYTON MANNING and the argument will be joined. Many of their playing years overlapped, so surely both belong in this mix.
• CLAYTON KERSHAW has been the most consistently outstanding pitcher of his generation. KERSHAW is a multiple Cy Young award winner, a career leader in ERA and seven-time all-star. Despite some disappointing post season efforts, he remains a formidable master on the mound. In the batter`s box we`d select KEN GRIFFEY, Jr., who played for 22 years in the Majors, was named an All-Star 13 times, won 10 gold gloves and was inducted into Baseball’s Hall of Fame (2016) with the highest vote percentage ever.
Have we made our point? We could include, if need be, soccer stars LIONEL MESSI, CRISTIANO RONALDO, NEYMAR, MOHAMMED SALAH and SERGIO AGUERO; skiers LINDSEY VONN, MAKAELA SCHIFFREN and BODE MILLER; boxers FLOYD MAYERWEATHER, SHANE MOSLEY, MANNY PACQUAI; the University of Connecticut’s Women’s basketball team (11 NCAA titles and 111 consecutive victories) and even some superior horseflesh (AMERICAN; PHARAOH and JUSTIFY, both Triple Crown winners) but that would be gilding the lily. The challenge is out there. Is this not collectively the all-time greatest generation of sports stars ever?

City and suburban dwellers tend to look down upon country folk. They dismiss and disparage “fly-over” country these days as if the landscape between East and West coasts were exclusively rural, occupied largely by marginalized hillbillies. The political cleavage so apparent at present also has been expressed in the divergent loyalties of urban and rural voters, and that, we’re reminded, relates in part to a cultural clash that sets them apart. But this may not be as stark as most assume. Let’s examine one aspect of a cultural crossover, a shared vocabulary, namely the presence of country expressions and colloquialism embedded in our everyday speech.
As one might predict, familiar animals figure prominently in the words and phrases we commonly employ. A sampling of such would include – High on the hog – Don’t count your chickens… – Get one’s goat – Pig in a poke – Stubborn as a mule – From the horse’s mouth – Cattle call – Cash cow – ‘Til the cows come home – Cock and bull story – Busy as a beaver – Cry wolf – Bee line – Dog and pony show – Wild goose chase – Bull’s eye – Open a can of worms – Black sheep – Night owl – Playing possum – Etc.
More revealing are the words and phrases that derive from rural life and experiences. Among these we would include – Hard row to hoe – Reap what you sow – Sow wild oats – Dirt cheap – Smell the roses – Trunk line – Root – Rut – Corral – Stump speaker – Water shed – Countryside – Grub – Grape vine – Cave in – Bloom – Hard scrabble – Stone wall – Branch out – New leaf – Glean – Locking the barn door – Hayseed – Bet the farm – Separate the wheat from the chaff – Weed out – Off the beaten path – Put out to pasture – In the weeds – Circle the wagons – Putting your eggs in one basket – Straw man – Nest egg – Dirt poor – Earthy – Haymaker – Mountain of details – King of the Hill – Roll in the hay – Over the hill – Barnburner – Barnstorming – Grass is greener – Riding shotgun – Sitting on the fence – Hill of beans – Country bumpkin – Farm out – Bumper crop – Up the creek – Roadkill – Axe to grind – Harvest – Cherry picking – Out on a limb – Cotton pickin’ hands – Take to the woodshed – Brushfire – Mudslinging – Crop – In the hunt – Logrolling – Dead Wood.
Whether a shared vocabulary can bridge the gulf between urban and rural America is not clear, but perhaps we can all gather “under a big tent,” do a little “horse trading,” and, if differences exist, avoid “making a mountain out of a molehill” and instead focus “on the forest, not the trees.”

It is noteworthy, let alone baffling, that a nation, long proud of its hardy, adventuresome, resilient, fundamentally upbeat inhabitants, should have, time and again, shown itself to be so fearful, felt so threatened by sinister forces, institutions and ideas, all supposedly capable of overwhelming our society’s defenses. But looking back over our history, the record is filled with just such eruptions of anxiety, apprehension and insecurity. It would require volumes to explain how these came about, i.e., the context in which they surfaced, so at this point let it suffice simply to offer a list (however incomplete) as evidence for our case. While some threats were largely bogus or demonstrably overblown, there were, at times, some bases for anxiety, even as these were manipulated and exaggerated by those intent on benefitting from the fears they had encouraged.
• Witches
• “Savage” Indians
• Hessian Mercenaries
• The Illuminati
• Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans.
• Democracy
• Masons
• Slave Uprisings
• The Slave Power
• The Gold Standard
• Catholics
• Monopolistic Business
• Wall Street Bankers
• Anarchists
• Atheists
• Evolution
• Socialists
• Communist Pinkos
• Taxation
• Jews
• Immigrants
• Germans (World War I) – Japanese (World War II)
• Blacks
• Welfare
• Black Power
• Organized Labor
• Hobos
• Hippies
• Feminists
• Homosexuals
• Crime
• Organized Crime
• Drug Cartels
• Motor Cycle Gangs
• Washington
• Hollywood
• Majority Minority
• The City – Modernism
• Terrorists
• Illegal Aliens
• Aliens from Outer Space

Given this lengthy list, how surprising is it  that in recent years we’ve been encouraged by voices across the political spectrum to worry about Moslems, terrorists, immigrants, illegal aliens, globalists, neo-Nazis, fascists, racist policemen, the NRA, inner city “carnage,” George Soros, the Koch brothers, politicians, conspiracy theorists and invading “caravans.” People, we’re told, typically alternate between hope and fear. Strangely enough, Americans who have lived in what arguably is the most successful and bountiful nation there has ever been, nonetheless have rarely, if ever, been free from fear.

The other night, at approximately 9:20, the phone rang. (Most people, I think, consider 9PM to be the cut off time for calls.) Still somewhat mindlessly, and without checking caller ID (who doesn’t screen calls these days?), I picked it up and immediately heard someone, identifying herself as “Julia,” cheerfully informing me that my number had been selected by Marriott to receive ….” It went no further; I hung up. Now, I don’t like cutting people off: I do feel for phone solicitors (except when they are computers) obliged to make cold call after call, only to be rebuffed time and again. But, on the other hand, why must we be subjected to the phone ringing repeatedly each day, being interrupted by people I have no intention of – or interest in – talking to? I recognize privacy has become a relic of a bygone era but still… (By this point in writing this piece, my phone has already rung on three separate occasions!)
We’ve all had to live with commercials throughout our lives, accept them as an inevitable feature of the environment, understand them to be the very lifeblood and driver of a highly advanced consumer society. And truth be told, we’ve often been amused and entertained by advertisements (thanks to the creative people behind them). Memorable slogans remain lodged in our minds (“Just do it,” “Fly the Friendly Skies,” “Breakfast of Champions,” Don’t leave home without it,” Reach out and touch someone,” “You’re in good hands”). And certain ads have stayed with us, e.g, Coke’s “Mean Joe Greene” (1979), or Wendy’s “Where’s the beef?” (1984). Still, while I imagine I’d come to terms with the reality of commercials, I find, these days, I’m losing patience. Here’s why:
• Besides bills, my mail box each day is stuffed with flyers, coupons, circulars, leaflets, offers, solicitations, “gifts,” i.e., readily disposable junk mail.
• There is an unrelenting torrent of phone calls. Even the cell phone, which once seemed to serve as a barrier, has been breached. They’re coming in there as well as over my land line. Each day typically begins with a flurry of early morning calls.
• I’m watching TV and about to face what I know is a lengthy string of commercials. Reluctant to sit through them I switch to another channel only to discover it is simultaneously featuring its own series of ads. I’m stuck!
• I enter my local movie theater and, even before the coming attractions begin, I’m staring at the screen, watching an extended series of ads by local merchants.
• I’m pumping gas at a nearby Exxon-Mobil station when suddenly a screen lights up alongside the gauge. Why – it’s GSTV (gas station TV), featuring its own “stories,” accompanied naturally by ads.
• I’m a baseball fan, listen to many a game. Commercials between innings I can live with, but now, announcers regularly interject ads between pitches or during the many stoppages on the field. It definitely mars the mood.
• Worse still are the “breaks” during football telecasts. The time devoted to commercials overwhelms the actual play by play of the game itself. Indeed, football coverage can be considered as primarily a series of ads punctuated by the occasional action out on the field. (While average NFL games feature scores of commercials, play action, by one calculation, usually consuming a mere eleven minutes.)
Could it be that I’m merely grumpy these days, unwilling to accept the “realities” of commercial clutter in contemporary America and the fact that the “bucks cannot stop,” otherwise the economy will falter. Can you “buy” what I’m saying?

America got a taste of a “wild-eyed Radical” in the person of Bernie Sanders during the 2016 Democratic Presidential primary race. However “outlandish” his ideas and proposals regarding health care, higher education, corporate regulation, the environment and taxation might have seemed, he attracted a very substantial following and might well have been nominated had his path not been obstructed by the Democratic Party leadership. Ordinarily, “Socialists” like Bernie don’t receive much air time from the mainstream media, and as a result, the public, while it is exposed to Liberal viewpoints, has little sense of what other far left radical spokespersons have to say about the past and about contemporary America. Let us, therefore, present some portion of their analysis of our society and consider how their views differ from standard narratives.
• Radicals believe that conventional accounts of American History (as is the case with most all other nations) are sugar-coated and gloss over or omit many of the unsavory episodes of our past. They are especially mindful of patterns of exploitation, subordination and violence, along with the exercise of power and control over vulnerable populations, especially women, Native Americans and non-white people, ethnic and religious minorities, as well as the poor and the working classes. Radicals consider themselves as the champions of society‘s underdogs.
• Radicals declare that despite the nation’s unprecedented commitment to the equality of all its people reality has fallen far short of such declarations. Significant disparities in resources, income, influence and standing have persisted throughout our past, while those in power never have had to relinquish their positions of privilege or their elevated status. Radicals view America as divided into “Victims” and Victors.”
• Radicals insist that violence has been and is pervasive in our society. They pronounce it genocide when referring to the devastation and death visited upon Native Americans from the beginning. The enslavement of millions of Africans constantly involved violence from the time they were captured in Africa through their endless labors in the rice, tobacco, sugar and cotton fields of the U.S. Violent reprisals against striking workers was not uncommon in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Mob violence against Catholics and the Chinese once occurred regularly.
• Radicals point to the ongoing love affair with guns and firearms as representing a dark and disturbing corner of the American psyche.
• Radicals focus on the plight of African Americans as the most glaring betrayal of the American promise of equality. After emancipation, the attempt at Radical Reconstruction by Northern Republicans – an effort to support and elevate the Freedmen in southern society – fizzled in the face of fierce southern resentment (by the KKK and other vigilante groups). In time, Jim Crow segregation, either by law or custom, spread throughout the U. S. That, plus racial prejudice, has meant that the advancement of African-Americans has become a long and painful process. ln view of this Radicals would likely favor a program of reparations to compensate blacks for their suffering and exploitation.
• Radicals rejoice when ordinary people organize effectively and exert pressure to challenge the status quo and to improve their lives. They applaud the efforts of women to remove the impositions of a patriarchal society and assume their rightful and equal position alongside men. They welcomed the organized efforts of farmers and others during the Populist Movement of the late 19th Century to rein in the excesses of the railroads, banks and monopolistic enterprises. They will generally support workers of all sorts in their ongoing efforts to improve conditions in the workplace and increase their share of corporate profits. Beyond that they will advocate for a greater presence of workers within corporate governing structures.
• Radicals assert that an elite has dominated the nation from the beginning. For well over a century, from a corporate power base they have controlled most major decisions in Society, ultimately extending their influence around the world. This elite bends both major political parties to its will and successfully wards off serious challenges from the government. They and their associates have enriched themselves greatly and lead privileged lives quite apart from the rest of us. They have no interest in changing the rules of the game.
• Radicals today are angry and largely pessimistic about the state of affairs in America. Most disturbing to them are the following:
A growing income and wealth inequality.
Deterioration, distress and despair is evidenced by opioid and drug addiction, increased suicides, upsurge in gambling, crumbling families, gun violence, swollen prison population, personal indebtedness (notably students), de-industrialized declining cities and the rapid rise of hate groups.A relentless environmental degradation that threatens severe disruptions and dramatic alterations of life on earth in the near future.
 Democracy under assault due to both public anger and indifference, low voter turnout, voter suppression, attacks on the press, corporate influence and super wealthy campaign donors, along with social media clutter and distortion.
 An on-going exclusion of Radical voices by the established media while Liberals are given a platform because they prescribe bandages, not cures, for what ails us, while also decrying radical prescriptions.
While Radicals still hope for a renewal of progressive insurgencies (such as Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter) they appear less than confident about such a possibility. Whereas they once called confidently for Revolution as the solution, they may be obliged at present to settle for periodic Marches on Washington.