Ivory Tower

     Today’s post-Dolly dedication goes to Brownsville Mayor Pat M Ahumada Jr.: “Before You Accuse Me (Take a Look at Yourself,) by Bo Diddley.

***

     Ahumada has always been quick to speak his mind, and many people appreciate him for that, even if they might not always agree with him.

     Last week, however, he might have been a little too quick.

     With Hurricane Dolly bearing down on the Rio Grande Valley and officials everywhere advising residents to take whatever precautions they could, Ahumada on Wednesday made politics an issue when he questioned the motives of county officials who suggested the day before that people living near river levees consider going elsewhere.

     “We believe those will be breached if the path continues,” county emergency management coordinator Johnny Cavazos said. At the time the storm was headed straight toward Brownsville, and could well have traveled right over the levees, actually gaining strength as it fed off the waters of the Rio Grande. That prognosis put people living near the levees directly in the storm’s path, and put the barriers at risk not just from rising water levels, but also from damage by wind erosion and debris. Also, Mexican officials made known the possibility that they might have to open the gates at Cuchillas and other reservoirs if the storm turned south and flooded areas in northern Mexico.

     Fortunately the storm veered northward, but it still dumped plenty of water and left people stranded in flooded homes.

     Cameron County Judge Carlos Cascos wants a compromise with the Department of Homeland Security, which wants to build a fence along the Valley to protect the world’s most powerful nation from the threat of destruction by a bunch of homeless Mexicans. Cascos suggests rather than taking private property away from border residents and destroying natural habitat to build the fence, they simply shore up the levees, which need repair anyway, and make them higher and harder to cross.

     Ahumada is promoting the construction of a dam east of Brownsville that would back the river water up for 42 miles, making it 100 yards wide and some 27 feet deep. He said that alone would deter anyone who might want to cross without going through established ports of entry.

     It’s worth noting that PUB already has federal approval for a weir dam, which slows the flow but doesn’t completely block the river, and a rock weir already has been built where Ahumada wants a full channel dam, which could totally stop the river flow. The major is trying to win support for the dam among officials in Mexico, which would have to fund half the project and would lose just as much riverbank land as would Cameron County.

     Ahumada appears to feel the need to compete against Cascos, as if it were an either-or proposition. It doesn’t need to be.

     Certainly, funding is limited and the approval of one project probably would retard the progress of the other. But they needn’t be mutually exclusive. If anything, Ahumada’s proposal to raise the river level by more than 20 feet would also raise the risk of flooding without strong levees. Building a dam likely would make levee improvements even more necessary.

     It’s no secret that the International Boundary and Water Commission has found several weak points along the Rio Grande levees, such as around the Amigoland area. Some parts are in such bad shape that the Federal Emergency Management Agency threatened last year to decertify the levee system and declare the area a floodplain. Agencies have since worked on some areas, but officials noted in June that some of the newest work had eroded after moderate rains. Cameron County has about 60 miles of levees, and just over half of them needed repair before the storm hit.

     And it doesn’t help Ahumada’s cause that U.S. Sen. John Cornyn already has used Dolly to blast Congress for not providing enough funding to complete work on the levees.

     “You don’t have to think back but to Katrina. The federal government has not lived up to its obligation to fund and repair,” Cornyn said Thursday. “We may not be so lucky next time.”

     Strong levees are a safety issue. County officials probably weren’t thinking about politics when they issued the warnings that drew Ahumada’s ire; their motivation likely was the same concern for safety that has driven their efforts to get the levees reinforced since day one.

     Indeed, talk of levees quickly brings thoughts of the utter destruction of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, and even this year in the Midwest when levee breaches left thousands of acres underwater.

     Most people would agree that it’s better to be safe than sorry. With recent disasters engraved in many residents’ memory, questioning county official’s warnings only raised doubts about Ahumada’s own motives.

***

We have to admit that we’re a bit confused about County Judge Carlos Cascos’ idea to allow workers to come to the office just four days a week so they can safe the cost of gas on the fifth day.

First, we appreciate his concern for the employees, and his creative ways of trying to help them. Whenever his predecessor, Gilberto Hinojosa, wanted to win favor with his crew, he just raised bridge tolls and shared the windfall around the office.

But if he’s thinking about saving gas, Cascos might be looking at the wrong solution.

First of all, we’re not sure the county can get by with a four-day workweek, since they already seem to close county offices to enjoy every holiday on the books. Of course they take July 4, Memorial Day and all the other big days off, but they also shut down on Juneteenth, Texas Independence Day and the like. If somebody decides to create a holiday to celebrate Pecos Bill or somesuch character, you can bet that Cameron County residents will lose one more day of services. Add the holidays to a shorter workweek and these workers might not go to the office often enough to even memorize the best route to work.

When it comes to gas consumption, however, going to work more often could actually be the best way to save money — at least, if county workers are anything like we are.

On our days off we actually burn up the gasoline, running errands and doing chores that have accumulated during the week while we’re stuck in our little tower. Weekends are filled with shopping for groceries, taking things out to get fixed or just going to the Laundromat to clean the bedroom comforters that don’t fit in the home washing machine.

Then there’s the time we take to relax or have a bit of fun. Often that means driving out to visit friends, or heading out to the mall, the movies, a restaurant or whatever.

Even staying home ends up costing more, since opening and closing various doors around the house makes the air-conditioner and fridge work harder, and it’s likely that we’ll be using lights, radios or televisions, etc.

An extra day off is a juicy morsel indeed; we might like to taste such a treat now and again. But if the idea is to safe money on fuel — at least where we tower dwellers are concerned — it’s probably better that we come on in and punch the clock. That would keep us off the streets, out of trouble, and away from the poor house.

***

Hillary Clinton finally proved a good if grudging warrior and conceded defeat to Barack Obama, the majority choice of Democratic Party primary voters.

It must not have been easy.

Clinton’s reluctance to accept defeat (it came four days after Obama clinched the nomination, but long after his nomination was assured, and only after a come-to-Jesus session between the two and party elders), and the obvious angst seen among many of her supporters, suggests a faulty premise that appeared to drive her campaign.

It was a bitter loss for Clinton and her supporters; there was no shortage of television images of people, mostly women, crying as if they’d just lost their only son. Many of them told reporters and pollsters that they’d rather jump parties and vote for John McCain than give any support to the man who beat their beloved Hillary. About a third of Democrats recently polled said they’d prefer that see launch an independent campaign for the White House.

If anything those kinds of reactions only exposed the sense of entitlement that permeates the Democratic Party, especially the one defined by Hillary and Bill Clinton. Remember that some two years ago, when Hillary voiced her intent to run for president, she suggested strongly that others should just forget about challenging her. She went as far as to declare that her capture of the party nomination was “inevitable.”

She boasted heavy campaign coffers, and said she’d already locked up all the big party donors. Obama simply ran around such interference, nickeling and diming his way with small donations raised on the Internet. And by May he was the one with resources to spare, while Clinton was loaning her campaign millions from her own pocket, even though her chances of winning the nomination were long gone.

Even in her speech, Clinton was unable to fully concede, and instead of giving Obama credit she largely blamed the American people for making a mistake. She suggested that many people simply didn’t want to vote for a woman, saying that her campaign had been “for the single mom with a young daughter, juggling work and school,” and indicating that Americans hadn’t yet reached a point where they “understand the struggles of their grandmothers and mothers.”

Not in so many words, she essentially complained that a woman was supposed to make history first, and in that this country had failed her, and itself.

Most of the speech was dedicated to praising herself, not Obama, noting that she had blazed a trail that others could only follow. She said we can all be proud “that from now on it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories. Unremarkable to have a woman in a close race to be our nominee. Unremarkable to think a woman could be president of the United States.”

Clinton’s success certainly is historic. But her focus cheapens not only the equally historic candidacy of Obama, but also the paths made by the women who went before her.

Much has been made of the fact that Bill Clinton was the first true baby boomer president, exemplifying many of the traits that the demographic group generally shares. Unfortunately, one of those traits is a narcissism that makes it hard for many boomers to admit anything less than superiority.

The fact is that in terms of gender, Clinton’s campaign already was unremarkable. People took her seriously because of who she is, not because she is a woman. Elizabeth Dole was taken just as seriously during her short run for the Republican nomination in 2000. Many people have, quite seriously, suggested other women as possible candidates, including Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Hillary Clinton has many reasons to be proud of her run. She came close, and could well become the nominee in future years. But it must be because she offers programs and ideas that appeal to a majority of the voting public.

In the meantime we hope she comes to accept the reality that most people didn’t really care whether or not she is a woman. The simple fact is that while she had plenty of support, a larger group of voters either decided that they liked Obama’s proposals more. And most of those who specifically voted against her didn’t have any problem with a woman as president, but they did have a problem with Hillary Clinton as president.

Clinton’s sense of entitlement might convince her that America owes her the presidency; we don’t. The truth is that every voter will act in his own interests, not Clinton’s. After all, it’s all about us, too.

This simple dedication is for all those worked up over the Olympic flame: “Games Without Frontiers,” by Peter Gabriel.

***

     The Olympic torch has gone into hiding as officials figure out what to do. Everywhere the flame has been taken on its global journey toward the Summer Olympics in China protesters have tried to stop the torch and otherwise made a big ruckus over China’s violent crackdown on the Tibetan separatist movement. We can only presume that the Chinese have seen American TV shows and determined that the notoriously peaceful Tibetan monks are still able to kung-fu them all right back to the Qing Dynasty, and must be wiped out.

     Protests over China’s hosting of the Olympics have at times gotten out of hand. The flame reportedly was snuffed out five times during its tour of France, and officials were worried about what might happen in its only stop in the United States, San Francisco — the city that includes Chinatown, of course.

     They needn’t have worried; in fact, the torch should have had a longer run in this country. After all, if we know anything, it’s how to protest. That’s part of the greatness of our heritage.

     Americans have enjoyed freedom of speech for centuries, and have learned to use it both effectively and creatively. As a result, most law enforcement agencies have been trained to deal with demonstrations and protests. As we found out at Chicago in 1968 and Kent State in 1970, police have tended toward violence when they became afraid or frustrated. Experience and training have made violence against protesters rare here.

     Much of that relative peace can be credited to the Rev. Martin Luther King. One of his greatest legacies is the ideal of passive resistance — nonviolent protests. Many people inspired by King, including Saul Alinsky who wrote “Rules for Radicals,” embraced and refined nonviolent demonstration techniques. In other words, Americans normally don’t throw rocks at police, and police normally don’t respond by firing bullets back at them.

     More than likely, protests along a U.S. torch run would have been relatively bloodless, and yet effective. Protesters probably would have just tried to impede the route by sitting or lying on the roadways, and police dutifully would have just picked them up one by one, zip-tied their hands and tossed them into the paddy wagons.

     Switching themes, we’re beginning to hear calls from Capitol Hill and elsewhere that the United States lead an international boycott of the games, or at least the opening ceremonies.

     How soon we forget. Boycotts were the rage for a decade, and all were a flop. More than two dozen countries avoided the 1976 games in Montreal to protest the participation of New Zealand, which hadn’t joined the international trade embargo against South Africa and its Apartheid policies. The United States led the next boycott four years later in Moscow, to protest the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan before we did. The Soviet states returned the favor in 1984 by staying away from the Los Angeles games.

     In the end, those boycotts had little effect on international politics, and the decision to keep the U.S. team home in 1980 helped secure President Jimmy Carter’s defeat that year. And in true entrepreneurial fashion, Ted Turner leaped at the opportunity and organized the Goodwill Games, which reasserted the ideal of keeping politics out of international sport, and made him a little money to boot.

     At least Peter Gabriel got a catchy little tune out of the whole Olympic boycott affair (see above).

     So forget about keeping Americans out of the Chinese Games. We’d only be punishing ourselves, and the rest of the world would go right on ahead without us. Besides, people still celebrate 1936, when Americans ignored calls for a boycott, and instead sent a U.S. contingent, led by Jesse Owens, that shut Hitler up in his own backyard.

     That’s the way to get things done. So let the flame move forward, and let the Games begin!

Today we offer a heartfelt dedication to Mrs. Hillary Clinton: “I Am Woman,” by Helen Reddy.

***

Hillary Clinton stands a good chance to become this country’s first female president. If you think about it, however, people who really want a woman president because of the traditional characteristics women exemplify, their best bet might just be Barack Obama, and not Clinton.

Clinton is hardly the first woman to launch a serious campaign for the presidency. The first was Victoria Woodhull, more than 135 years ago, representing the Equal Rights Party. Margaret Chase Smith was the first to run in one of the major political parties, when she sought the Republican Party nomination in 1964. Shirley Chisholm was the first to win a major primary, capturing the New Jersey Democratic primary in 1972. Geraldine Ferraro made the final ticket as the vice-presidential nominee in 1984, and would have been the first in line to the presidency had she and Walter Mondale won the election. Other notable female candidates include the colorful Bella Abzug, Elizabeth Dole and Carol Mosely Braun.

It can be said, then, that Clinton simply is the one who is taking the inevitable next step, winning substantial votes and possibly capturing the Democratic Party nomination this year.

That’s a good thing, especially since many of her supporters insist that her gender has nothing to do with their belief that she’s the current candidate who would make the best president for at least the next four years.

There are those, however, who have expressed the opinion that any woman would be a better leader than any man; remember Sally Field’s rant during this year’s Emmy Awards that “if mothers ruled the world, there would be no (expletive) wars in the first place”?

Field is by no means the first person to express such a sentiment. Many people, including some candidates themselves (remember Pat Schroeder?) said that women had qualities that, by their very nature, made them better leaders than men.

Those qualities included more rational thinking, more empathy for the people who would be helped or hurt by government policies, better communication skills and an ability to stay calmer and think clearly during a crisis.

Empathy isn’t a word that’s associated with Hillary Clinton, however. In addition, her temper is legendary. Former aides and White House workers during husband Bill’s presidency talked of frequent shouting matches, and the retribution she could bring against the culprit of any slight or crime against her or her husband, whether real or imagined.

Clinton is clearly intelligent, but at times betrays a paranoia that borders on the Nixonian. She frequently plays the victim, most recently accusing the press of being kind to Obama while attacking her at every turn. And we can’t forget the famous 1998 charge that she and Bill were victims of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that was being perpetrated by the media — that’s the radical left-wing media, don’t you know.

Meanwhile, Obama is the best communicator to come along in a long time. He’s as smooth and eloquent as they come. And we haven’t seen him worked into a swivet over anything yet. He exhibits a calm that some say gives them confidence that he’ll feel their pain, as it were, and offers rational, well-thought-out answers to the questions and issues he’s faced so far.

It would seem, then, that if you’re looking for a candidate who exhibits the best qualities attributed to a woman, those qualities are most likely to be found in Obama. If, on the other hand, you want a Democrat who’s a tough-as-nails, take-no-prisoners kind of leader, then Hillary’s your man.

   Today we offer a musical dedication to presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich: “As Long as you Follow,” by Fleetwood Mac.

***

   Kucinich has filed a lawsuit against the Texas Democratic Party to force his way onto the state’s March 4 primary. The party rejected his original application as invalid, because he didn’t sign an oath printed on the application stating that if he wasn’t the eventual party nominee, he would support whoever was.

   The Ohio congressman’s lawsuit, which he co-filed with native singer Willie Nelson, claims the loyalty oath violates the U.S. Constitution’s First and Fourteenth Amendments. U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel has scheduled a hearing on the case for Jan. 11.

   “He’s right to challenge a blind loyalty oath to the Democratic Party because it’s un-American,” Nelson is quoted as saying in a news release issued by Kucinich’s campaign.

   Of course, Kucinich has the right to challenge the party’s requirement. It doesn’t seem to make sense, especially in a state that’s known for independent thinking. What if the ultimate party nominee doesn’t share Texas’ interests, and even promotes programs and policies that are detrimental to the state and its residents?

   Be that as it may, however, the same First Amendment that Kucinich cites in his challenge gives the party the right to issue the mandate. The right to assemble clause allows the party to support only those who are willing to play by its rules. If Kucinich doesn’t like it, he is free to start his own party, file as an independent, stage a write-in campaign or bypass the state altogether.

   All we have to say is, welcome to the de factor two-party system we have in this country.

   The two parties are so dominant that few candidates dare try their luck outside of these two. Just ask Ron Paul, who ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988. Knowing how hard it is to get elected as a third-party candidate, Paul has consistently run for his Congress seat as a Republican, and he’s now seeking that party’s presidential nomination this time.

   We should remember that the primaries are entirely party functions, and in order to participate one has to be a registered or declared member of that party. The primaries are the process in which each party selects its candidate for the November general election. Those who complain that they can’t vote in both party primaries obviously don’t get what they’re all about. And we can’t be Republicans and Democrats at the same time.

   The open vote comes in November, when we can vote for one candidate in each race, regardless of party affiliation.

   Of course, the general ballot will have more than two candidates in several races; we have the Libertarians, the Green Party and other groups sponsoring their own candidates. The Democrats and Republicans, however, get the vast majority of the votes, and all others just languish on the fringes.

   Kucinich doesn’t want to be an outsider, so rather than show his independence or give in to the Texas party’s wishes, he wants to force the party to fit his ideals.

   He has the right, and the party majority should be free to honor or reject his wishes, without bringing the courts into play.

   We’ll be watching on Jan. 11, to see what the judge says. Then we’ll see who has to follow whom.