Today in Texas, 1973: President Lyndon Johnson Dies At His Ranch In Johnson City

Today in 1973, President Lyndon Johnson died at his ranch near Johnson City, Texas.  The former president died of a massive heart attack while his beloved spouse Lady Bird and their daughters were shopping in Austin.

I was a small child during the Johnson presidential years, but I often heard my parents and grandparents talking about all the things this man had accomplished, both as a state politician and as a United States Congressman and Senator.  I remember my grandparents were pleased with Congressman Johnson because he served a very prominent role in getting electricity to the farthest corners of the Hill Country and those parts of Central Texas which were still off the young electrical grid.  Mr. Johnson was equally popular with my parents and grandparents for another reason.  It seems that the future president of the nation was not very particular about his voters' status; no, not as to whether these voters were of legal residency and age, but rather, whether they were alive or dead! 

President Johnson's expertise at securing the vote of those "who have gone before" proved crucial in his first senatorial race.  Mr. Johnson was head to head in a race with the very popular Texas governor, Steven Coke.  At that time in Texas, the Republican Party was a non-factor in most elections, meaning that whomever won the Democratic Primary had in effect won the November general election as well.  In the Democratic Primary, after a long, lively mudslinging campaign, approximately 250,000 votes were cast in that 1948 election.  After the votes were counted, Lyndon Johnson was declared the winner....by 87 votes!  Not only were those 87 votes suspected of belonging to residents of a cemetery in Webb County, Texas, but the new Senator acquired a nickname that so vexed him - Landslide Lyndon.

Lyndon Johnson became a very powerful senator over the next three decades, keeping wayward Democrats in line, and getting for Texas the lion's share of federal money and projects.  During his tenure as a US senator, Mr. Johnson was never seriously challenged by any other candidates.  Senator Johnson's power, both in Washington DC, and in Texas, made him the best candidate for Vice-President in the 1960 election.  The ticket of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson easily carried the election.  After the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, it was Johnson's political clout with the Congress that allowed President Kennedy's ideals to become practical social programs in the years following Kennedy's death.  These programs were known as Johnson's "Great Society."  President Johnson threw his support behind the 1965 Civil Rights Act and even met with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  Some have said over the years that President Kennedy might not have been able to implement these programs himself, as he did not have as much sway over Congress.

President Johnson did not want the Viet Nam War that he inherited upon the murder of John F. Kennedy.  He had not supported the war while he was in Congress, and he intended to end the United States' role in Viet Nam as soon as possible.  Instead, his advisers convinced him that if South Viet Nam fell into Communist hands, all of Southeast Asia would be taken by the communists as well.  These advisers further believed that this "domino effect" could leave the United States alone to stand against communism.  Thus, instead of ending the fighting, President Johnson presided over the largest expansion of the war since 1954.  The Viet Nam war, or "police action" was the longest conflict in United States history until it was recently overshadowed by the Afghanistan conflict.  Unfortunately for President Johnson, at least 30,000 American soldiers lost their lives in Viet Nam by the end of his term.  By contrast, only about 2200 soldiers have been killed to date in Afghanistan.

The Viet Nam War took a huge toll on President Johnson, both in emotional well-being and in physical health.  In one of his most famous speeches, the President made it clear that he would not campaign for or accept the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968.  With the way cleared by Johnson, Republican Richard Nixon won the election.  President Johnson left Washington DC and retired to his Johnson City ranch.  In the years after his presidency, Mr. Johnson worked long days on his ranch, his daily schedule nearly as full as in his White House days, although with much less stress.  But the President never lived down his involvement in the Viet Nam War.  Many of those around him in his final years said that Mr. Johnson believed his part in escalating the Viet Nam conflict overshadowed his many accomplishments as Congressman, Senator, and President of the United States.  It may be that this bitter feeling weighed very heavy on the President during his last years.

President Johnson may have managed to arrest some of his bitter feelings by immersing himself in the daily operations of his ranch.  He worked side by side with his ranch hands, and every day was a full day.  President Johnson encouraged his hands to care for each animal as if each head of cattle was a prize animal.  He died that morning in 1973 while he was thus engaged, doing what he loved.  President Johnson was only 64 years old at the time of his death.  Whether or not President Johnson was a great man or great president, he was certainly a colorful and tall, tall Texan.

 

MLK And The Continuing Fight For Freedom

In America, our forefathers became discontent with British colonial rule and threw off the yoke of that nation, becoming a new nation formed from a small band of colonies.  The founders of this new nation framed a Constitution which enumerated several rights that were considered "inalienable" to all men.  Men fought and died to secure these rights for all time.  Less than a hundred years after the United States gained its freedom from Britain, this new nation was engaged in a fight with itself that cost hundreds of thousands more American lives than did the first "revolution."

This second great war determined that our nation would no longer exist as a "half slave and half free" nation.  Once again Americans fought and died for freedom, although two views of freedom were tested in this war.  Ultimately the rights enjoyed by all (White) men were rightly acknowledged as belonging to the newly freed men and women as well.  But the new freedom for Blacks did not last, or maybe it never really began.   

Nearly one hundred years after the end of the "Civil War," Black men and women in America were still denied the free exercise of their rights.  A leader emerged in Selma, Alabama...a man who would organize and lead the Black people of America in a fight for their rights and their freedom.  As with all battles, men and women would die for the things in which they believed.  Indeed,  Martin Luther King, Jr., himself ultimately paid the supreme price for standing up and fighting for his beliefs.

I, like many people, look forward to a time in America where all men will truly "join hands" and realize we are all God's children.  It may be that America still has a way to go before all men and women are truly equal and truly free.  That being said, all Americans of all racial backgrounds are involved in another, and perhaps greater fight for freedom...a fight for freedom that is raging around the world, not just in these United States.

Our Constitution did not "give" us our rights, but merely stated that the rights we as humans ARE BORN WITH were INALIENABLE.  I believe that today, in this very hour, all of us are involved in a war for our freedoms once again, and this war has three fronts.  First, the war for freedom and equality in America continues, even in the face of improvements with each passing year. 

Unfortunately we are also in a war with our very government, although this war is still as yet a cold war.  Our government is, and has been for decades, peeling away the Constitution and the rights encoded there.  From secret (now acknowledged) domestic spying programs to the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, our rights and protections have been trampled to a point that would not have been tolerated by the Founding Fathers back in 1776.

Finally, all free people AROUND THE WORLD are involved in a war with militant Muslims who are intent are bringing the world into their fold, one city and one nation at a time.  We are told that only the "extremists" are blowing up things, killing women and "infidels," and in general bringing death and chaos around the world.  The idea that only "extremists" are fighting against non-Muslims is comforting, but does not seem to ring all that true.  For example, in the wake of the anti-Muslim cartoon in France, and the Muslim assassinations and uprisings that followed, we saw in nation after nation around the world HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Muslims taking to the streets in support of the deaths of those French cartoonists. 

One of the freedoms all men have, and which is INALIENABLE, is freedom of religion, which means not only freedom to be Muslim, but freedom to be any other religion, or the freedom not to be religious at all.  Another freedom, the freedom of speech, is inalienable as well, yet the Muslims are trying to squash freedom of speech around the world by assassinating those who express their opinions, including their disdain for Allah, if that is their opinion.  Women have the same freedoms as men in a free world, yet the Muslims (not JUST the extremists) want to limit women's rights.  In fact, many Muslims want to send women's rights back to the Patriarchal Age.  And in a time when gay rights are finally being recognized, the Muslims would stone homosexuals, or even behead them.

Martin Luther King's work is still not completely finished, but I believe we have made a great deal of headway here in the United States.  Yes, I am not blind, and I realize there is some way to go, but we are on the way.  And now we have a war for freedom on THREE fronts: the war for equality for all men that is the legacy of Martin Luther King; the new war for freedom that is going now, pitting ALL citizens against the ever-growing, ever-strengthening Federal Government, and the World War for Freedom in which "extremist" Muslims are trying to force their way of life on all the world.

I hope you will join me in this three-cornered fight for freedom.  First, I hope we can all join with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr in the fight for equality for all Americans.  Second, I hope that as more and more people realize that our own government is robbing us of our freedom, we will all hold our leaders responsible and demand that the Constitution once again be the law of the land and the measure against which all legislation and executive authority is measured.  Finally, I hope that not only people in America, but people around the world will not cower in fear and give up freedom in the face of Muslim extremism and terrorism.

I am proud to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. today, and to recognize that he is a true hero, and, in a sense, a Founding Father, in that he wanted not only to free Black people, but to make all people understand that no one can be truly free if any one is not free.  And I am proud to honor Mr. King in the sacrifice he made, the ultimate sacrifice, in the name of Freedom. 

I am also obliged to say on this important day, that freedom is not FREE, that men like our founding fathers, and like Martin Luther King, Jr., our soldiers, and even the innocent victims of Muslim extremism, all gave their lives in the fight...the continuing fight, for Freedom.

Rest In Peace, Mr. King...

And God Bless America   

True Hero: Masha The Cat, of Obninsk, Russia

The news media is full of bad news, tragedy, and misery, so I was happy to come across this tidbit of news, and happy to blog about it, too.

According to several news services, residents of a certain apartment complex in Obninsk, Russia had more or less adopted a homeless cat, letting it reside in a box in the apartment's breezeway.  For months people fed the cat and gave it the occasional pat. But a couple of days ago the residents noticed that "Masha" was behaving differently.  She was meowing a great deal more than usual and would not leave the box when her human "friends" came to feed her.  A few hours later the cat had still not come out of its box and continued to meow with great fervor.  Finally one of the residents came to see if the cat was sick or injured.  Imagine the lady's surprise when she heard a baby's cry coming from inside the cat's "house."

The woman looked inside the box and found Masha closely cuddled against an infant, keeping it warm against the freezing weather outside.  After calling other neighbors, the woman took the infant out of the box.  She and the other neighbors wrapped the child in blankets and called an ambulance.  After appropriate medical attention, the child was found to be healthy, and in fact had been well cared for in the weeks prior to its abandonment.  But doctors and the neighbors believe that Masha had saved the child's life by serving as its living blanket, AND by meowing in such a way that the residents of the apartment suspected Masha was in distress.

The child is now a ward of the state and will hopefully be adopted soon.  As for Masha, she is certainly the queen cat now.  She is a local hero and has received gifts of cat food and treats from all around the area.  More importantly, the residents of the apartment complex are taking extra special care of Masha.  She is no longer a stray, but has a permanent home in the apartments now. 

I know this is not usually what I blog about, but I thought that for one thing there was enough bad news that I did not need to add any on these pages, and two, Masha is a true hero and her story should be spread.  Who can say if she was aware that she was saving the child's life?  Did she know the infant needed warmth and cuddling?  I like to think Masha knew she was caring for this child, and that this is one of those fascinating stories of animals with almost human intuition.  Masha, thank you for being a such a heroic feline.

 

President Obama Keeps Another Promise - Kind'a

President Barack Obama announced on Christmas Day 2014 that the conflict in Afghanistan was "over."   And, in keeping with promises made in the 2008 presidential campaign, Americans will be pulled out of Afghanistan.  Of course, this is happening in the sunset of the President's second term (his puzzling re-election is a subject for another blog).  I wonder why it took so long to carry out this promise?  Or, on the other hand, I wonder why President Obama is ending this "conflict" just now when no purpose was met, and no victory was gained?  Remember how Obama criticized George W. Bush and told us how Obama would end the war...er, conflict...as soon as he was elected.  And he could have done it, after all, as he has made clear throughout his terms, he IS the Commander-In-Chief.  But, here in the opening days of 2015 withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan is FINALLY underway(at least that is what we are told).

If the President were going to withdraw our soldiers from Afghanistan, WHY did not he do so as soon as he took office?  After all, that is what he said he would do.  Well, you say, the President had to let the Chiefs of Staff or someone come up with an "exit plan."  Alright, I can grasp that concept, BUT, after one full term and three quarters of another, the "exit plan" is remarkably similar to the "exit plan" employed in Saigon in the century past.  That is, our troops are coming home and the nation of Afghanistan will fall to "terrorist control" within a few weeks after our departure.  Check the President's comments for yourself, as to the exit plan:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-12-25/obama-s-christmas-in-hawaii-carols-relax-on-the-beach

The President really does not have an exit plan, just a "withdrawal" that will still leave OVER 13,000 troops in Afghanistan.  I will wager that those troops will not just be there for the pleasure of that beautiful nation a way over there.  But Mr. Obama assures us that the new Afghan government is "encouraging" because of that president's earnest desire to keep the country out of control of Muslim extremists.  The President is viewing this "encouragement" through rose-colored (delusional) glasses, however.  Just like history has taught us so many times, when US military forces pull out of an unsettled conflict, the "new government" installed by the US rarely lasts more than a few weeks, at least not as a significant factor.  Instead, after all the conflict, bloodshed, and trillions of dollars spent, Afghanistan is still a dangerous place and continued bloodshed is inevitable.  Most likely, a Muslim government of that nation is inevitable as well.  But, the President tells us that Afghanistan is no longer a threat to us.  What...no more terrorists in Afghanistan?  Right, Mr. Obama...then why are we leaving our troops over there after the "withdrawal?"

By the way, what about the 13,000 or so American troops to be left in Afghanistan?  If Afghanistan is no longer a threat, then why leave our soldiers there?  The President says that the thirteen thousand troops will be there for "training" purposes.  So, Mr. President, after your two terms and those of George W. Bush, the Afghanistan military is not "trained?!"  If that is the case, I am pretty sure there is no point in leaving our troops to train them, as it is apparent they cannot be trained.  And since the Afghan army cannot effectively fight the "terrorists" it makes one wonder, who WILL fight the terrorists?  I will give you only ONE guess, and it is not a difficult one. 

I agree with President Obama that our troops should be withdrawn, except that I believe they should be fully withdrawn.  If the "conflict" is "over" it is criminal (or should be) to leave American soldiers over there just to be "targets" for the group that ends up in control of Afghanistan.  Last year (2014) was the BLOODIEST year of the Afghanistan "conflict," with ten thousand civilians and five thousand official soldiers killed there.  Oh, but the conflict is over and that nation is safe, Mr. President.  Yet the President is right to remove our troops there.  For one thing, we can hardly afford to spend another trillion dollars there.  Second, because there is not anything there worth one US soldier's life.  It would be much cheaper to bring those soldiers home and let them secure our borders here.  I know it would be expensive, but at least no more American soldiers would be lost in an endless, objective-less "conflict, a small part of the endless "War On Terror."

NOTE:  My idea of placing our troops on our OWN border instead of Afghanistan is not without merit.  77,000 people have perished to date (estimate is probably low) in Mexico's War On Drugs.  The danger has spread to neighboring parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, and then to points diverse all across our nation.  Although the military cannot be used in the United States for law enforcement purposes, nothing prevents the military from being assigned to secure our borders by the Commander-In-Chief of the US military.

 

Egg Prices Rising in 2015 - Not Related To The Cost Of Fuel

During the past two years, until just recently, gasoline prices rose dramatically, with the ripple effect causing major increases in everything from food to airplane tickets.  One could not go to a clothing store or a theater without paying higher prices.  No matter high prices rose, the increase could always be lamed on fuel prices.  Not so in 2015.

As the holiday season closed with the ringing in of the new year, something strange began happening with oil prices, more specifically, with gasoline prices.  The price of gas dropped!  Barrel prices fell first, followed by sweeping decreases in price at the pump.  Drivers were very happy, and got even happier during the first week of 2015.  Some people even found prices at the pumps below the $2 mark.  There are many reasons that fuel prices are low now, and it should follow that all the things that cost more a few months ago should decrease in relative proportion to the decrease in fuel costs.  Eggs, however, are not following suite.

It turns out that the price of eggs will likely rise soon, and it has nothing to do with oil prices.  Instead, the prices you and I may pay for eggs in the near future could be dictated by farmers (I should say HUGE farming conglomerates - the family farmer has nothing to do with this issue) and the amount of money these egg producers have to pay in order to comply with California state law regarding cruelty to hens.  How can the State of California force out-of-state producers to spend money on improvements to their hen raising operations?  Simple...that state will not allow eggs to be sold in California unless the egg producers meet the requirements of the new California chicken space rules.  Apparently many producers sell a large enough percentage of their eggs in California that they cannot afford to lose the business from this state.

I do not often agree with California laws and rules about anything, but I feel this new law does have some merit.  Various parties came together in California seeking to make conditions somewhat less cruel for the hens that produce our eggs.  In the large egg production establishments, chickens are placed in cages (you or I would recognize them as crates) and never come out again.  These chickens grow from immature chickens to mature egg-laying hens without ever leaving their cages.  But, to make things worse, there are usually six to eight hens in each cage.  These birds are packed so close together that they can hardly move.  They literally cannot turn around in these cages.  I have to admit that I put this reality out of my mind some time ago, years ago, and just ate eggs without really giving any thought to the welfare of the hens.  And really, are there not so many more important things to worry about in life beside the number of hens in a cage? 

Actually, I believe that the California requirements for somewhat better conditions for hens is long overdue.  In fact, I will not mind forking over a few extra cents per dozen if it means that egg-laying hens will be in cages in which they can actually move, walk around, and get away from the other hens if they want.  Oh, but egg producers are screaming bloody murder.  The California law does not "force" out-of-state producers to conform to California policy, but only states that these companies cannot sell eggs in California IF they do not meet the standards of the new law concerning chicken cage "roominess."  Of course egg producers in California MUST meet these requirements, and they are mad as mad, well, as an angry hen about it!  Profits will fall in the first year, no doubt, but I am sure these companies will recoup their new expenditures fairly rapidly.  By the way, the egg producers are not cooperating without a fight.

The California egg production industry is already busy mounting a publicity campaign explaining to everyone that, first, the new laws will not protect chickens.  We are told (this is the TRUTH!) that placing chickens in pens or cages which are large enough to allow the chickens to walk around are actually MORE dangerous for the hens because they may run or flap their wings, thus "placing the hens at greater risk" than if they were in the conventional crowded crate cages.  Next they tell us that the new laws will hurt "the poor" because the egg producers will have to pass on the cost of complying with the new law to consumers, including those on welfare or on fixed incomes. 

Out-of-state egg producers filed lawsuits against the State of California claiming that the new laws to protect hens were in effect unconstitutional because they amounted to California controlling the commerce of other states.  These companies have so far not prevailed because they are free to ignore the California law and sell their eggs in the other states, as well as to Canada and Great Britain, two large importers of US eggs.  The laws only state that California will not allow the sale of these eggs within the state. The bottom line for both California egg producers and out-of-state companies is that they will both spend into the millions of dollars to comply with the new law.  And they will pass these costs to the consumer.

 

I, for one, am willing to pay the few extra cents per dozen eggs that these new laws will entail, if they effect me at all.  The conditions in which these chickens have been raised is appalling, and I am glad changes are coming.  It is quite possible that other states will follow suite and require egg producers to raise their chickens in humane conditions.  Perhaps such changes will eventually spread to another disgusting industry, that is the huge "dairy farms" that are now the norm in milk-producing areas.  Many of these farms, which are mostly owned by huge food conglomerates, confine their cattle to relatively small, grassless, muddy lots.  In any case, I hope to see this somewhat more humane treatment of egg-laying hens spread.  With gas prices going down, most people will have a buffer in their income that will more than make up for the increased price of eggs.