Meals From The Marketplace

            The President has done his thing; the Republican and Tea Party spokespersons have done theirs; now it’s time to get serious.

            I’m referring, of course, to this week’s show-biz charade and the accompanying side shows, to wit: President Obama’s State of the Union address to Congress and the retorts/responses by Republican Congressman Paul Ryan and Republican/Tea Party Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.  All three made their cases as best they could, the President to a large national television audience, the other two to decidedly fewer viewers.

            In the end, none of them spoke with complete candor, instead doing what politicians do best (and some would say are supposed to do): sound sanguine even while delivering less than sanguine news.  The country, according to all three, is going through a difficult period, but it is one that can (and will) be endured and overcome if each speaker’s plans and policies are adopted.

            All three believe in the indomitable spirit of the American people, in the capacity for innovation and regeneration.  All three stand firm in the view that nothing can defeat America so long as the people believe in that fact.

            Those points are boiler-plate state of the union balderdash, being 90 percent political (as in “vote for me/my party if you want a better life”) and 10% reality (as in “things are really bad right now and it isn’t going to be easy to make them better”).

            If an honest state of the union report had been provided by any of the three speakers earlier this week, it would have gone something like this:

            The country is in serious decline.  It may be impossible to ever regain the lofty position we held in the latter half of the last century, when our economy was second to none and we were an unassailable super power.  At best, we might be in the kind of cycle from which we can recover marginally, thus sustaining our prominence and regaining some sense of collective prosperity, but the trend lines are not encouraging, and by the end of the century, if not much sooner, we will be a lot more like Great Britain or France are today.

            If they were honest (with themselves first and with the American people thereafter), that sad prognosis is what all three would have to acknowledge.  They would then go on to explain how we got to this point, and each would have his/her own reasons.  Here are the ten real reasons (in no particular order, because they are all contributing causes):

            o  We are losing our middle class – The wealthy are getting ever wealthier, but their numbers (on a per capita basis) are not growing.  The numbers of the poor (those living in poverty) are growing geometrically.  The middle class is shrinking.

            o  We have extended our military forces too far and too deep – We have troops in all corners of the world, and in most instances, they are there for no productive reason.  We spend far more on our military than we need to and are no more secure as a result.

            o  We don’t make anything anymore – We have moved from a manufacturing economy to a service economy.  And the services are not self-sustaining (as the current plight of law firms evinces).  Making things requires a large labor force.  Providing service does not.  Without a manufacturing base, the service industries first become discretionary and ultimately become irrelevant.

            o  We have allowed our largest corporations to gain control of our government – Corporations are not patriotic; they don’t care whether the country survives as a super power or, more significantly, whether the residents of the country prosper.  They employ the cheapest labor available and produce the least costly goods (be they desirable or not).  And they now “own” most of the elected politicians and control the message the people receive.

            o  We don’t seek knowledge for its own sake – It started with People magazine and its television cousins.  We don’t like hard news anymore.  It’s too difficult to deal with.  In other words, we’ve become intellectually lazy, even to the point of eschewing reading for pleasure.  Tweets represent as much knowledge as we want to consume.  If it can’t be said in 120 words or less, we don’t have the time or mental energy for it.

            o  We aren’t just intellectually lazy; we’re lazy in everything -  We are couch potatoes, with a remote in one hand and a beer in the other.  Our entertainment must be either violent or infantile.  We’re overweight and poorly nourished and content to be both, because it’s too hard to fight the system that feeds us junk food.

             o  We don’t offer hope to those who need it most – We don’t regard the unlucky as unlucky; we regard them as intractably lazy or inherently ignorant.  If they wanted to better themselves, they would, so we aren’t going to help them.  Thus are we creating a sub-culture of the disaffected and the uninvolved.  They are the greatest long-term threat to our survival, and their numbers are growing.

             o  We are really two countries politically – United we stand; divided we fall.  We’re divided.  The coasts are blue; the vast middle is red.  Precious little is purple.  From another vantage, the cities (but not the suburbs) are blue; the rest of the country is red, bright red in most instances. 

            o  We refuse to make meaningful sacrifices – We discovered the right to be free from taxation 30 or so years ago; we failed to discover the cost that comes with failing to pay for what we get.  As a result, we have bankrupted our future.  The day will come when we just can’t afford ourselves.

            o  The other side of the world controls our destiny – The Islamic world controls the oil we are addicted to; the Chinese control our currency; India provides much of our labor and the markets for our goods (such as they are).  We no longer control them; they control us.

            Reality can be distasteful, and with respect to the state of the union, it most assuredly is.  Thus we get the pabulum and phony baloney we heard last week.  Of course, it’s all a matter of perspective.  Maybe everything will work out.  After all, we are the greatest country in the world.

            I will readily confess that I understand very little about what happened in Tucson on the morning of January 8.  The little I do know can be summed up in these two sentences:  A madman killed six people and wounded thirteen others in a wanton shooting spree during a “meet and greet” that was being hosted by a member of Congress.  He seemed to enjoy the experience, both as he was doing the shooting and later when he had been arrested and posed for a mug shot (the gruesome photo that once seen is implanted in our collective consciousness).

            Beyond those facts and observations, I am far from certain about what caused the kind of deranged thinking that led this young guy (only 22 years old) to act in such an inhuman way while displaying neither desperation nor, apparently, overt anger in carrying out the act.  Is it possible that he really didn’t care that he was killing people whom he’d never met?

            Of course, it is not only possible, but, from all the evidence now available, probable. 

            But there have to be lessons from this tragedy, if not answers for why it happened.  I start by considering the options. 

            For openers, I accept only three possible causes for the person that Jared Loughner became.  Simply stated, they are genetics, environment or a combination of the two.  And since one’s genetics are completely beyond anyone’s control, let me focus on environmental factors.

            In the modern society from which Jared Loughner emerged, I identify four factors that could have played a role in the tragedy he created.  I will list and briefly discuss them in terms of their degree of importance, beginning with what appears to me to be the least significant.

            Political rhetoric – Much has been said and written on this possible cause since the deadly assault—too much, in my opinion.  It is true that the level of vitriol and hyperbole that has attended much political speech in the last ten years (and even more significantly in the last two years) has been extreme and uncivil.  And it is also true that images of cross-hairs on Congressional districts, however intended, are not an appropriate way to indicate political viewpoints.

            But it is not likely that Mr. Loughner was impressed by (assuming he was even aware of) that imagery, and it is even less likely that he would have been motivated to attack not only a member of Congress whose views he might have objected to but also those wholly innocent folks who had gathered to speak with her.

            We should be more civil, and the Rush Limbaughs and Keith Olbermanns of the media airwaves should promote that civility far more than they do, but political rhetoric did not cause the Tucson tragedy, nor did political discourse contribute to it in any consequential way.

            Mental illness – For any number of reasons, people develop mental illnesses.  Some of these are of a variety that put those people and others at risk.  That fact seems inevitable in the human condition.  From the earliest recorded history to the present, societies have included madmen who have mutilated and destroyed their own bodies and those of others. 

            But in a civilized society, such as the United States purports to be, the mentally ill must be identified, treated, and often even removed from the mainstream of society.  For thirty years, U.S. policies toward the mentally ill have been neglectful at best and dangerously cruel at worst.  The genesis of this attitude was the decision by the Reagan administration to stop federal funding for mental illness facilities.  By turning over care for the mentally ill to the states, President Reagan greatly increased the likelihood that madmen like Jared Loughner would remain undetected and unsupervised.

            But this failing by the country (and it should be noted that no president, Republican or Democrat, has seen fit to reverse the Reagan policy), was not the principal cause of the Tucson tragedy.  Mr. Loughner could well have gone undetected even in a fully funded federal program on mental health.

            Violent culture – This one brings us closer to a potential causative factor.  America’s new millennial culture is shockingly akin to the early Roman Empire that featured gladiators fighting to the death.  The movie industry leads the way with feature film after feature film depicting gratuitous violence that reflects a lack of regard for human life.  Sex is out; violence is in; and the more graphic the violence, the more likely the film will score big at the box office.  But that aspect of the culture is just the tip of the iceberg. 

            Of far greater concern are the graphic video games that encourage those playing them (often the nation’s youngest and most impressionable) to kill enemy warriors with the same level of delight that Jared Loughner is said to have displayed as he emptied his clip of bullets in the Tucson tragedy. 

            Gun control – But of course, all the violent depictions in film and video games would have little real impact were it not for the easy access to guns that current law permits.  Only in a wholly insane society would a right to bear arms be interpreted to include the right of a deranged psychotic to purchase a weapon that could fire 31 lethal rounds in a matter of seconds, but that is the society that currently exists in the United States of America. 

            Jared Loughner legally purchased the gun that he used and the ammunition that he shot.  He did not violate any federal or state laws in purchasing the Glock 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistol or the magazine clip that contained 30 rounds.  He only broke the law when he fired the loaded weapon at Congresswoman Giffords and the crowd gathered around her.

            No law will be passed to change the circumstances that currently exist in Arizona and many other states because a lobbying organization with a membership of 4.5 million Americans will not allow it.  In a nation of over 300 million people, this is truly tyranny by a minority.

            Jared Loughner may or may not be criminally insane, but his country surely is.

            It’s often said, heck, we’ve said it ourselves, that when it comes to fine dining, Sacramento’s best restaurants are in San Francisco.  The City by the Bay does offer some great, okay, a lot of great restaurants, and we aren’t here to compare the fine dining offerings in one of the world’s truly great cities to those in our little town.

           But an evening of good food, prepared and served with care and style, is far from an impossible experience in and around Sacramento.  Need proof?  Here’s a list of 20 local restaurants that we recommend, in some cases highly, and in a few very highly, as indicated by the number of stars assigned.  (In our arbitrary classifications, a five-star rating is reserved for the very best dining experiences; four-stars means there’s very little to complain about; three indicates perfectly adequate food and service; two may appeal to some; and one, well, there aren’t any ones on this list).

Biba’s – ***** – 2801 Capitol Ave., Sacramento.  Still the best, although we did have an overly salted short rib special this week (but we were then served a delectable dessert on the house to atone for the sin).

Ambience – ***** – 6440 Fair Oaks Blvd., Carmichael.  The atmosphere in this Carmichael gem is ideal for a quiet, romantic evening, and the food is nothing less than lovingly prepared and presented.

The Kitchen – ***** – 2225 Hurley Way, Sacramento.  As complete a dining experience as Sacramento has to offer, with the preparation made into a veritable stage show.

Slocum House – ***** – 7992 California Ave., Fair Oaks.  Worth the drive to Fair Oaks, especially on a warm spring night, when the outdoor seating is pure bliss.

Ella’s Dining Room – ***** – 1131 K St., Sacramento.  Another gem from the founder of the Kitchen, this one without the staging of the preparation and thus more intimate.

Mulvaney’s – **** – 1215 19th St., Sacramento.  The downtown location features a pleasant outdoor area for summer dining.  The food is almost always excellent.

The Waterboy – **** – 2000 Capital Ave., Sacramento.  Great food for a less than wallet-busting price.

Grange – **** – 926 J St., Sacramento.  A bit noisy for our tastes, but it’s the place to meet and eat in downtown Sac these days.

Piatti’s – **** – 571 Pavilions Lane, Sacramento.  Usually excellent food and service in the Pavilion’s shopping center.

Il Fornaio – **** – 400 Capitol Mall, Sacramento.  Fine cuisine and good service, but can be too busy to make it enjoyable at peak times.

Scott’s Seafood – **** – 545 Munroe St., Sacramento.  Perhaps the best for seafood in town.

Firehouse – **** – 1112 2nd St., Sacramento.  Still a great place for a satisfying meal with a variety of table locations (inside and outside) available.

Zinfandel Grille – *** – 2384 Fair Oaks Blvd., Sacramento.  Uniformly good food at a Randy Paragary suburban hangout.

Esquire Grill – *** – 1213 K St., Sacramento.  An excellent stop after a night at the theater or an IMAX movie, perhaps more noted for its bar than its cuisine.

La Boheme – *** – 9634 Fair Oaks Blvd., Fair Oaks.  Good food, served with style, but getting there from downtown is something of a chore.

Lemon Grass – *** – 601 Munroe St., Sacramento.  Some offerings deserve a higher rating, but the overall quality lacks consistency.

Ruth’s Chris Steak House – *** – 501 Pavilions Lane, Sacramento.  Good for what it offers: steaks, of course.

4^th Street Grille – ** – 400 L St., Sacramento.  Standard fare for the most part, but convenient location and TGI Friday happy hours make it worth a visit.

The Broiler Steakhouse – ** – 1201 K St., Sacramento.  No longer the place to see the Legislature’s movers and shakers, but still a good spot for a slab of beef.

Morton’s Steakhouse – ** – 621 Capitol Mall, Sacramento.  Overpriced and overvalued, unless you’re a steak and potatoes kind of guy/gal.

            So, stop complaining and get out and enjoy a good meal in a good restaurant.  And when you do get to San Francisco, don’t tell them you went there to find a decent place to eat.

            The U.S. Navy announced the removal of the commander of an aircraft carrier last week.  The report would hardly have been newsworthy but for the circumstances that led to the Navy’s action.

            Naval officer Owen Honors (his real name), was a captain (the naval equivalent of a full colonel).  His vessel, the U.S.S. Enterprise, is the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.  It was due to leave its stateside port for Afghanistan (to support combat missions there) less than two weeks after the Captain’s dismissal.

            The decision to dismiss the Captain was made by Admiral John Harvey, the commander of the U.S. Fleet Forces Command.  He said he had lost confidence in Captain Honors’ ability to lead because of his lack of judgment and professionalism.

            What, you may now be wondering, did the Captain do to merit such an indictment? 

            The answer is a bit startling and serves to introduce the real topic I want to address.

            Captain Honors had created and starred in a series of sexually explicit videos that were regularly shown to his crew as entertainment.  The videos include scenes of simulated masturbation, the simulated eating of feces, a simulated rectal exam, anti-gay slurs, and a pair of men and a pair of women showering together.  They also include a scene that suggests an officer is engaged in sex with a donkey.

            The kicker in this story is that the videos were produced in 2005 and were shown to the crew (numbering 6,000 sailors) of the Enterprise in 2006 and 2007.  And knowledge of the existence of the videos was even more widespread than that.  In fact, two superior officers, a Rear Admiral and a Vice Admiral are implicated in the story as having had knowledge of the videos.  They reportedly did nothing with that knowledge.

            Admiral Harvey says the investigation is “continuing.”  But he appears to be facing significant resistance from the troops.  As of last week, over 11,000 individuals had posted comments on Facebook in support of the Captain.  Many claimed the videos were “morale boosters” and others complained that the media reports were over-reactions.

            While this particular captain’s actions may appear to go beyond the pale of normalcy, they, and the large-scale reaction to them (“morale boosters”), are emblematic of the mentality that exists both within the military ranks and in the psyche of the Washington establishment that condones and even supports those attitudes.

            In a recently published book entitled “Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War,” Andrew J. Bacevich presents a powerful critique of the foreign policy dogma that has led to a military structure that believes itself entitled to anything it wants.  On a micro level, Captain Honors’ actions and the support he is now receiving throughout the ranks, are an example of that reality.

            Bacevich is a former Army officer (he retired with the rank of colonel) and is currently a professor of history at Boston University.  “Washington Rules” is his sixth book, all of which deal with the misguided foreign policy and military misadventures that have been the markers of the country’s history since the end of World War II.  This latest book is the most profound of the bunch, chronicling and indicting American imperialism with a historian’s precision and an advocate’s passion.

            His thesis is that the vast military-industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned of in his last presidential address has become a monster that is destroying the country even as it seeks to control the world.  In one shocking paragraph, Bacevich details the span of U.S. military power, identifying these “Commands,” as the military calls them, that now exist as arms of military dominion in the world: Pacific Command (covering the Asia-Pacific region), Central Command (covering the greater Middle East), European Command (self-explanatory), Africa Command (covering the entire continent), Southern Command (Central and South America), Northern Command (protecting the homeland and Canada), and Space Command (to ensure control of the great beyond whenever it might need policing).

            Each of these commands are headed by a four-star general or admiral, and each maintains permanent bases and ports for troop deployment should the need arise.  Okay, the Space Command is not actually populated yet, but its mere existence says volumes about the commitment to the mission.

            That mission, simply stated, consists of three components, as Bacevich sees it.  The first, evident from the command structure that covers the globe, is to maintain a worldwide military presence.  The second is to project global power as a prophylactic (hence the massive nuclear arsenals and bloated naval and air forces).  And the third is to intervene militarily anywhere and at any time without regard for international rules of engagement (the invasion of Iraq constituting the most outrageous, but hardly unique, example).

            The results are the Washington rules, which, in sum, state that the United States will always act without external restraint (international law, treaties, United Nations’ resolutions) in safeguarding its interests and extending its influence. 

            The rules are, of course, the source of the nation’s hubris over the last fifty years, beginning with Viet Nam, continuing in Gulf War I (the first Iraq war), and culminating in the War on Terror (a convenient title to justify the overt wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the covert ones on-going in Pakistan and wherever else the military and its national intelligence partners may be secretly engaged).

            That hubris was most evident in the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq, which Bacevich condemns as “immoral, illicit and imprudent.”  He sees the Bush doctrine of preventive wars as an outrageous extension of the Washington rules, asserting that Iraq never was a threat to the United States, either for their alleged stash of WMDs or for their alleged involvement in the 9/11 attacks, both of which were bogus at the time they were asserted and have continued to be ever since.

            Bacevich asserts that the Washington rules are bound to destroy the nation, and he makes a compelling case for the conclusion that they already have started to do so.

           His book is chilling.  Barack Obama should read it.