"Republicans will end Medicare" was the subject line, bluntly laying out the Democrats' line of attack against the Republicans' deficit-reduction plan.

Ryan's idea is for seniors to begin receiving a set amount of money, starting in 2022, that they can spend on private insurance plans, a proposal that the Congressional Budget Office said could force seniors to pay more out-of-pocket. Ryan has defended it as a way to inject free market principles into a system that's becoming progressively more expensive as medical costs rise, and Republicans have made a point of saying the changes won't affect anyone who is currently 55 or older.

"We've seen this movie before, back when it was called Privatize Social Security," Schumer wrote. "We stood together when George W. Bush made that proposal, and we defeated it." (Other Democrats have opted for "Privatizing Ryan" jokes.)

Ryan's plan has been something of a gift for Schumer and the Democrats, who have struggled with their messaging since Republicans won back control of the House in November. Schumer was appointed the message guru for the Democratic caucus, but has been forced to mostly play defense, as Republican cuts dominated the narrative and helped the G.O.P. extract deep budget cuts for the current fiscal year.

Now, Democrats are hoping they've found their angle, as they brace for fights over the debt ceiling and next year's budget.

Here's the full letter, co-signed by Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, and sent out from Boxer's PAC:

Hi, House Republicans just passed -- on a party-line vote -- a plan to end Medicare as we know it. They claim their plan saves money, but what it actually does is force seniors to pay much more and get far less. It's outrageous that the Republicans are trying to destroy Medicare for one reason only: to pay for more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires -- something the public opposes by wide margins. We've seen this movie before, back when it was called Privatize Social Security. We stood together when George W. Bush made that proposal, and we defeated it. Now we need to stick together again to stop them from privatizing Medicare, and breaking the promise of coverage that our seniors have paid for throughout their lives. Join us and help stop Republicans from ending Medicare as we know it -- sign our petition today at www.MedicareNotMillionaires.com. Medicare is one of the most popular social safety net programs in the country, and with good reason. It has kept seniors healthy and out of poverty for generations. Every working American pays into Medicare throughout their professional lives. It's just plain wrong to deny seniors benefits they have earned. It's wrong to raise costs for seniors -- and give them less in return -- by forcing them into the private insurance market. We agree that we should be looking for ways to strengthen Medicare and ensure that it is there for future generations. Fortunately, we already have made a big step in that direction. The historic health care reform bill we passed made huge strides towards extending the life of Medicare and lowering drug costs for seniors -- and it's already going into effect. But the Republican plan isn't about strengthening Medicare -- it's about ending Medicare as we know it. We must stand together and defeat it. Tell the Republicans you won't stand by while they end Medicare. Head to www.MedicareNotMillionaires.com today and sign our petition now. Thanks for your support, Chuck Schumer U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer U.S. Senator Patty Murray U.S. Senator

Paid for by Friends of Schumer 509 Madison Avenue, Suite 1902 New York, NY 10022 Paid for by PAC for a Change Treasurer Sim Farar, FEC#C00342048

]]> Senator Chuck Schumer is currently in China, but he still managed to email supporters this morning, imploring them to sign an online petition against Paul Ryan's budget plan.

"Republicans will end Medicare" was the subject line, bluntly laying out the Democrats' line of attack against the Republicans' deficit-reduction plan.

Ryan's idea is for seniors to begin receiving a set amount of money, starting in 2022, that they can spend on private insurance plans, a proposal that the Congressional Budget Office said could force seniors to pay more out-of-pocket. Ryan has defended it as a way to inject free market principles into a system that's becoming progressively more expensive as medical costs rise, and Republicans have made a point of saying the changes won't affect anyone who is currently 55 or older.

"We've seen this movie before, back when it was called Privatize Social Security," Schumer wrote. "We stood together when George W. Bush made that proposal, and we defeated it." (Other Democrats have opted for "Privatizing Ryan" jokes.)

Ryan's plan has been something of a gift for Schumer and the Democrats, who have struggled with their messaging since Republicans won back control of the House in November. Schumer was appointed the message guru for the Democratic caucus, but has been forced to mostly play defense, as Republican cuts dominated the narrative and helped the G.O.P. extract deep budget cuts for the current fiscal year.

Now, Democrats are hoping they've found their angle, as they brace for fights over the debt ceiling and next year's budget.

Here's the full letter, co-signed by Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, and sent out from Boxer's PAC:

Hi, House Republicans just passed -- on a party-line vote -- a plan to end Medicare as we know it. They claim their plan saves money, but what it actually does is force seniors to pay much more and get far less. It's outrageous that the Republicans are trying to destroy Medicare for one reason only: to pay for more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires -- something the public opposes by wide margins. We've seen this movie before, back when it was called Privatize Social Security. We stood together when George W. Bush made that proposal, and we defeated it. Now we need to stick together again to stop them from privatizing Medicare, and breaking the promise of coverage that our seniors have paid for throughout their lives. Join us and help stop Republicans from ending Medicare as we know it -- sign our petition today at www.MedicareNotMillionaires.com. Medicare is one of the most popular social safety net programs in the country, and with good reason. It has kept seniors healthy and out of poverty for generations. Every working American pays into Medicare throughout their professional lives. It's just plain wrong to deny seniors benefits they have earned. It's wrong to raise costs for seniors -- and give them less in return -- by forcing them into the private insurance market. We agree that we should be looking for ways to strengthen Medicare and ensure that it is there for future generations. Fortunately, we already have made a big step in that direction. The historic health care reform bill we passed made huge strides towards extending the life of Medicare and lowering drug costs for seniors -- and it's already going into effect. But the Republican plan isn't about strengthening Medicare -- it's about ending Medicare as we know it. We must stand together and defeat it. Tell the Republicans you won't stand by while they end Medicare. Head to www.MedicareNotMillionaires.com today and sign our petition now. Thanks for your support, Chuck Schumer U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer U.S. Senator Patty Murray U.S. Senator

Paid for by Friends of Schumer 509 Madison Avenue, Suite 1902 New York, NY 10022 Paid for by PAC for a Change Treasurer Sim Farar, FEC#C00342048

]]> http://observer.com/2011/04/schumer-has-already-seen-this-medicare-movie/feed/ 0 jhanasobserver Stop Republicans from ending Medicare. Sign the petition! Sign the petition http://observer.com/2010/09/barbara-boxer-aide-has-leafy-green-substance-incident/#comments Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:44:57 -0400 http://observer.com/2010/09/barbara-boxer-aide-has-leafy-green-substance-incident/ Steve Huff http://www.observer.com/2010/09/barbara-boxer-aide-has-leafy-green-substance-incident/ Marcus Stanley, an aide to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), ran afoul of Capitol Police on Tuesday when he tried to hide a "leafy green substance" as he went through security at the Hart Senate Office Building. Politico reports:

Police confiscated the substance, which later tested positive for marijuana, and Stanley quickly resigned.

"Marcus Stanley is no longer with this office," Boxer spokesman Zachary Coile told POLITICO. "He submitted his resignation, and Sen. Boxer accepted it because his actions yesterday were wrong and unacceptable.

That's the end of what has been a 3-year career for Stanley on Capitol Hill.

It could have been worse--Politico notes that a previous Boxer staffer, Jeffrey Rosato, was arrested for receiving and distributing child porn in 2008.

[Politico]

Then there are accusations of sexual misconduct, which have the power to destroy candidates (think Mark Souder) and help them (Nikki Haley of South Carolina).

In a world of YouTube, where everyone's a video camera, publicized moments of misstatement and accusation presumably will only increase. But why do some public people in these cross hairs self-immolate while others endure and prevail? Maybe it's because they ignore a few simple rules.

Rule No. 1: Does the gaffe fit into a prior negative narrative? When Jimmy Carter chatted about "ethnic purity" in the white suburbs in his 1976 presidential campaign, and Senator Harry Reid opined on President Obama's "lack of a negro dialect," each statement seemed to be an out-of-character brain burp. It also helped that, respectively, the Rev. Martin Luther King Sr. and Mr. Obama exonerated the gaffer.

But when a comment seems to reinforce an ingrained perception, then a public weary of rehearsed lines and carefully crafted ads may seize on it as a betrayal of true character. When President Ford announced in his presidential debate that "there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe" in 1976, it was damaging since he hadn't been regarded previously as an Einstein. When Senator George Allen of Virginia mocked a student of Indian descent as "Macaca" in 2006-and Senator Trent Lott  previously had lionized Strom Thurmond's segregationist campaign of 1948-both sounded racist. That Mr. Allen had Confederate flags and an actual noose on his office walls-and that Mr. Lott's history included too many links to white supremacist groups-meant that their political lives were ruined.

I have personal experience with gaffe-dom. During my 2001 race for City Hall after 9/11, I was asked by a radio interviewer how I would have responded to the calamity if I had been mayor rather than Rudy Giuliani. The right answer was either "I don't answer hypotheticals" or "He did great." Period. But when I engaged the question and replied that ideally I could have done as well, "perhaps even better," it was a dopey answer that played into the narrative that I was "arrogant." (Moi? I'm better than that!)

Rule No. 2: Does your base stick with you? When Bill Clinton was caught "having sex" with Monica Lewinsky, he was so popular with the Democratic base-especially elected black Democrats-that they stuck by him when the G.O.P. overplayed its hand with impeachment. Today, he's one of the most respected men in the world. But when my friends Gary Hart in 1984 and Eliot Spitzer in 2006 were publicly exposed, they lacked Mr. Clinton's deep base of party affection and public support.

Rule No. 3: Can you do a convincing mea culpa? Think Barney Frank 15 years ago when a male prostitute was selling his wares from the basement of Mr. Franks' basement-or Richard Blumenthal in his Connecticut Senate race this year saying he had served "in" Vietnam, not "during" Vietnam. Each apologized and each had such deep support among liberals and veterans (see Rule No. 2), respectively, that they moved on and up. (Nor did it hurt that Barney was so brainy and funny.)

Rule No. 4: Are you a hypocrite? While no one exactly runs on an anti-family platform, it's especially damaging when, as with Representative Mark Souder two months back, you've been a big family-values Republican preaching morality to others. Forced to admit to an affair with a female staffer-and with whom he had made an abstinence-only TV tape -he didn't just decline to run but immediately resigned from the House.

In my view, it's fundamentally stupid to judge a person's entire public life by a private indiscretion-or a slip of the tongue that doesn't reflect a character flaw. But tell that to the tabloid media or cable talk shows that need to fill space and airtime. It's no doubt unfair to punish tired candidates for a single mistake. But those are also the rules when driving on a highway-or being England's goalie in the World Cup.

So let's focus more on Fiorina's bad views on immigration than her bad hair day. Does anyone really prefer faithful presidents like Nixon and Bush over F.D.R., Ike, J.F.K. and Clinton? As Lincoln said of Grant when the general was accused of drinking too much, "all our generals should have a bottle of whatever he's drinking."

Those who are unforgiving about innocent mistakes or private misconduct should recall a story attributed to the late congressman Emanuel Celler of Brooklyn. A constituent inspected a chicken at her butcher shop. She picked up one wing, and groaned ... then a leg and said, "Feh!" Behind the counter, an exasperated butcher said, "Ma'am, may I ask you a question?" "Yes," she said. "Could you pass such an inspection?"

Mark Green, the former NYC Public Advocate, is the creator and host of a new nationally syndicated radio show, Both Sides Now with Huffington & Matalin.

A similar backlash is brewing in response to the potential launch of two proposed futures markets based on Hollywood box office results. A group of powerful lobby groups—the Motion Picture Association of America, the Directors Guild and the National Association of Theater Owners, among them—last week warned of the risk of “rampant speculation and financial irresponsibility at a time when the nation is still seeking to recover from an economic meltdown of the financial markets.”

Specifically, the groups asked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to hold off on giving the new markets the green light while they prepare a response. On Tuesday, according to Variety, several lawmakers, including Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, came out in support of the delay. But while the industry groups claimed to have been blindsided by news of these new creations, the markets have been openly promoting themselves for at least the past year. One of them, the Cantor Exchange, is run by Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald, which also owns the Hollywood Stock Exchange (HSX), the 14-year-old Web site where people can already “bet” (without real money) on how their favorite stars and movies will perform. And, yes, it can be eerily accurate; its “traders” predicted 9 of the 10 nominees for Best Picture at this year’s Oscars. A second new exchange, set up by a small, Arizona-based company called the Trend Exchange, soberly compares its mission to the way futures exchanges were created in the 19th century to help farmers hedge the risk in crops.

There is, by the way, merit to all of this: A typical major studio movie costs more than $100 million to make and market, and two or three years to come to fruition—which is just one reason why Hollywood’s well-deserved reputation as the epicenter of creativity has as much to do with its accounting as its filmmaking. 

That said, it’s hard to defend derivatives these days, so let’s not even try—except to point out that many billions of dollars of them are still being traded in everything from energy to metals to weather forecasts. It’s also noteworthy that the MPAA, which represents the six major studios, has raised its hackles just after the early departure of its president, Dan Glickman, who one imagines would have taken a less alarmist view of the exchanges: Glickman is a former secretary of agriculture who sits on the board of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. 

Of course, unlike pork bellies, the weekly box office is a huge part of our cultural psyche. And the mechanics of what is being proposed are kind of comical. For instance, a draft definition of insider trading for the new exchanges does not include people who have, say, seen advance screenings of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps—every lunkhead has an opinion, after all. Rather, for these purposes, insider information is defined as anyone who knows what the true costs of making and marketing the movie are, whether a release date is going to change and knowing the total number of screens the film is going to be released on.

The MPAA and its allies have blasted the proposed markets as “legalized gambling,” and there is truth to that, too. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican on the House Agriculture and Judiciary committees, even warned that the new markets could be manipulated in ways that might "weaken the incentives for artists and inventors to create intellectual property in the first place." Maybe. On the other hand, Hollywood has long attracted its share of scammers, but that has rarely held it back before. And if the people starting these exchanges are correct, you might actually be able to use them to assist in the arduous task of raising financing for new movies. One way or another, there is always going to be gambling in Casablanca. 

rsiklos@observer.com

In the New York Times on November 5, John Broder wrote that "the move suggests that President Obama and Democratic supporters of the bill will have serious problems assembling the votes needed to enact it when it comes to the Senate floor, probably not before next year." There is little question that the President, or, more precisely, his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has a fight on his hands if the Administration is to get a climate law enacted before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen ends on December 18, 2009. Broder's piece notes that the senior Republican on the environment committee, Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, believes that Boxer's aggressive tactic in Committee "marked the death knell of efforts to enact a comprehensive climate change bill."

Senator Inhofe may be right, but in my view he is underestimating the importance of the U.N. Climate Conference in Copenhagen. Contrary to Inhofe's beliefs, Boxer's move does not suggest that the climate bill is dead, but rather that its proponents have recognized that the calls for further negotiation, cost analysis and discussion are merely delaying tactics. Thus far, "no" has proved a simple and effective strategy for Republicans. It's easy to communicate, and it has the Democrats on the run. But the off-year election that just took place may shake the Democrats out of their slow and steady slumber. They know that they must hold their base and motivate them to go to the polls, especially those new voters brought to the polls by Barack Obama in 2008.

To appeal to this base, the Democrats must stand for something. Actually, three things: 1. A revived private economy, stimulated by an activist government; 2. Health care reform that regulates insurance companies and provides coverage for poor people; and 3. Climate and energy legislation.

Democrats may be taking the hint from their dismal off-year election results that running on empty is a losing strategy. Republicans are trying to expand the scope of conflict and increase the noise level to frighten moderates into inaction. But perhaps the Democrats have finally figured out that the Republicans do not want to deal. If this is the case, and if the Democrats are to present a coherent record, they need to raise the stakes, stop talking and start acting.

I see the Boxer move not as an act of illogical desperation, but as a strategic step to take the fight right to her opponents. Copenhagen remains a real deadline for U.S. climate policy. The people who voted Obama into office, particularly his young supporters, want to see him play a leadership role at Copenhagen. The world's media is going to be in Denmark this December, and the President's political people know an opportunity when they see it.

Without a Senate bill enacted - particularly one able to survive a Senate-House conference committee - the President can't go to Copenhagen at all. Right now, the Democrats and the President look weak and unable to make progress.  While EPA is moving aggressively to regulate carbon dioxide, more dramatic and visible action is needed. The White House needs to marshal the powers of the Presidency to move wavering legislators into Obama's corner. In the last month or so we have started to see the White House deploy the power needed to get the health bill passed. Once a health bill is signed, Obama needs to move quickly on the climate bill. He needs to use his considerable rhetorical skills to mobilize public support.

The world's eyes will be on Copenhagen. Will they see an American President's leadership or will they once again be treated to a low-level American delegation with little to say and nothing to do? The first-time voters that voted for Obama in 2008 will sit on their hands in 2010 if they don't start to see some real progress. And if I can see that from where I sit, I'm assuming the political folks in the White House can see it too.

According to EPA’s website, the new rule was announced by EPA Chief Lisa Jackson on September 30:

“The Administrator announced a proposal requiring large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs [greenhouse gases] a year to obtain construction and operating permits covering these emissions. These permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies and energy efficiency measures to minimize GHG emissions when facilities are constructed or significantly modified.”

Jackson remarked that:  “By using the power and authority of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the nation’s largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of our economy.” EPA’s proposed climate regulation applies to the approximately 14,000 large businesses that emit about 70% of the nation’s greenhouse gases.

In Washington, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers have already voiced their opposition to the proposed rule. That is far from surprising, but, paradoxically, an interesting impact of this rule might be an increase in industry support for legislation like Waxman-Markey because it provides more flexibility in meeting emission caps. Waxman-Markey’s cap and trade provision allows companies to trade pollution allowances. The new approach to climate in Waxman-Markey also attacks the root causes of global warming by promoting the development of new energy technology and encouraging greater energy efficiency. It includes programs for climate adaptation, carbon sequestration and the transition to a green energy economy. EPA’s new rule, on the other hand, is good, old-fashioned command and control. The business community might prefer a bill with both carrots and sticks, if the alternative is the current law, which only provides sticks.
 
In comparison to Waxman-Markey, the Clean Air Act is a non-comprehensive, one-dimensional approach to climate policy. EPA’s proposed rule is a hacksaw, when the Obama Administration would rather operate with a scalpel. Nevertheless, if Congress is unable to provide an elegant tool to begin the process of reducing greenhouse gases, then the EPA will simply have to use the best tool they can grab hold of.  Though outdated, the Clean Air Act is far better than nothing. This approach to environmental regulation finds its historical roots in the early days of EPA. Seven days after EPA was created in 1970, its first administrator, William Ruckelshaus, used provisions from the River and Harbors Act of 1899 to force a number of large cities (run by mayors that were not of the President’s political party) to stop dumping sewage into local waterways.

EPA’s strong action is possible because of President Obama’s deep understanding of the climate problem and his willingness to use the authorities he has available. In the 1970’s many industry groups eventually realized that the public demand for clean water and clean air would result in new and more stringent laws. Rather than opposing all efforts at change, some decided to try to shape the change they saw coming. Today, anyone running a business with even a small amount of foresight realizes that climate and energy policies are going to be changed over the next several years.  Better-managed businesses will be trying to figure out how to plan for change rather than continue to resist it.

Unfortunately, despite the President’s desire to usher in a post-partisan period, the lines only seem to be getting more sharply drawn. Let’s keep in mind that the lobbying business has grown dramatically in recent years, along with limitless electronic communication. Intense partisanship has become a big business. And there is simply more money to be made if you are part of the entrenched, hard line opposition than if you are a moderate, pragmatic deal maker.

EPA’s tougher approach to climate regulation will enable our negotiators at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in mid-December to claim that the U.S. has put in place a new policy to dramatically reduce greenhouse gases. While a new piece of legislation would be better than what we have now, using the Clean Air Act is better than doing nothing. Here comes the hacksaw.

“When it comes to the United States Senate,” she said, “60 is the new 50.”

But if Democrats do make major gains this year, it could complicate Boxer's own political future.

Boxer, who was first elected in 1992 (“The year of the woman”), next faces California voters in 2010. Boxer’s outspoken liberalism has placed a definite ceiling on her support in her home state – she’s been able to win re-election, but she lacks the overpowering cross-party appeal of her Democratic colleague, Dianne Feinstein. That might not be good for the 67-year-old Boxer's chances in 2010 if Arnold Schwarzenegger, term-limited out of the governor’s office in the same year, opts to challenger her.

So far he's been coy, but he seems too young and too enamored of politics to not at least take a serious look at the race. A poll last year gave him a one-point edge over Boxer.

Boxer’s odds of beating Schwarzenegger almost certainly won’t be helped by a big Democratic year this fall. The combination of a Democratic president and robust Democratic majorities in both chambers would make G.O.P. gains in the 2010 midterm elections likely. With the national political winds blowing against her, Boxer would probably face an uphill fight against Schwarzenegger.

But if Obama were to lose this fall, Boxer’s re-election prospects would brighten, for two reasons. One, a John McCain presidency would make it more likely that the midterm environment in 2010 will favor the Democrats. Also, a McCain presidency would create potentially alluring opportunities for Schwarzenegger to have a role in the administration, possibly even a high-profile cabinet spot.

The venue had been changed to accommodate the mass, but some were still left out of the packed hearing room; the Gore nostalgia along the line was palpable.

"I wish he'd get in [to the presidential race]," said Martin Apple of the Scientific Society Presidents.

Mr. Apple said that he first met Gore when he was a young Senator so worked up over climate change that he jumped on a conference table and waved his arms, in a particularly wonky sort of Tom Cruise moment.

"We need him," he said wistfully. "The country needs him."

It was an impressive turnout for an afternoon hearing that didn’t involve subpoenas or indictable offenses; at least three dozen journalists lined the sides and back of the cavernous hearing room.

When Mr. Gore appeared – in a distinctly un-Presidential grid-patterned shirt and powder-egg blue tie – an excited buzz rose from the room.

"I can imagine a time in the future when our children and grandchildren will look back at us here in 2007 and ask us one of two questions," said Mr. Gore during his testimony, his voice rising. "Either they will ask, ‘What were you thinking?’"

He paused, as the room went silent.

"Or they will ask, ‘How did you find the moral courage to cross party lines and solve this crisis?’"

Oklahoma Senator and global warming arch-skeptic Jim Inhofe – the environmental committee's chair when the GOP controlled the Senate – launched into his allotted question time with relish, pressing Mr. Gore to pledge that his own home would use less energy than the national average within a year. (It was a follow-on the controversial story in The Tennessean about Mr. Gore’s personal energy use that that shared airtime with his triumph at the Oscars).

"First of all, Senator – thanks for your question," said Gore dryly.

The back rows barely stifled their laughter, and a smattering of applause in the mostly sympathetic audience was audible.

Perhaps sensing he was losing the crowd, Mr. Inhofe tried to hold Mr. Gore to straight yes-or-no answers, prompting a testy response at one point from Senator Barbara Boxer, who waved her gavel at him and reminded him that he wasn’t in charge anymore.

The Gore supporters in the room exploded.

But a small but vocal chunk of the audience, sporting anti-Gore stickers, spurred Mr. Inhofe on. “From now on, I’m going to ask you to respond in writing,” insisted the clock-watching Oklahoma senator, who had 15 minutes to grill the former vice president.

“If I respond to you verbally here, I hope it’s okay, too,” responded Gore.

Ms. Boxer stepped in to referee, with the air of a patient fifth grade teacher pushed to her limit. “Senator, I will stop the clock, and allow Senator Gore to speak please.”

A half-dozen teenage girls in Steve Madden shoes collapsed in laughter. A middle-aged woman in a pink sweatshirt and pearls stood and cheered.

I bring this up because we are nearly five years into a war—an amorphous one against shadowy enemies within and without, including, principally, a country that never attacked us—and the president has never tried to rally the country to any measure of real sacrifice. Notwithstanding the fact that the hostilities began with events that in horror and magnitude eclipsed Pearl Harbor. If that war were properly defined, I'm sure Americans would willingly sacrifice. For instance, if Roscoe Bartlett's ideas gained greater circulation.

I was reading A Separate Peace, by the late John Knowles, this morning; and it stunned me a little to read his poetic reflection on a time, World War II, when Americans grittily do without: