Busted Locals

Ya'll should review this article ... it is quite true, and when you know it backwards and forwards, ya'll will be ready to be fixinto pay a visit down where it is warm and the people are mostly warm too ... as long as you d'own stay too long if you ain't from around there (going back at least two or three or four or so generations)

WELCOME TO THE SOUTH FACTS:

1. A possum is a flat animal that sleeps in the middle of the road.

2. There are 5,000 types of snakes and 4,998 of them live in the South.

3. There are 10,000 types of spiders. All 10,000 of them live in the South, plus a couple no one's seen before.

4. If it grows, it'll stick ya. If it crawls, it'll bite cha.

5. "Onced" and "Twiced" are words.

6. "Jawl-P?" means, Did you all go to the bathroom?

7. People actually grow, eat and like okra and collards.

8. "Fixinto" is one word. It means "I'm going to do that".

9. There is no such thing as lunch. There is only dinner and then there's supper.

10. Iced tea is appropriate for all meals and you start drinking it when you're two. We do like a little tea with our sugar. It is referred to as the Wine of the South.

11. "Backwards and forwards" means I know everything about you.

12. The word "jeet" is actually a question meaning, 'Did you eat?'

13. You don't have to wear a watch, because it doesn't matter what time it is, you work until you're done or it's too dark to see.

14. You don't PUSH buttons, you MASH em.

15. "Ya'll" is mostly singular. "All ya'll" is always plural.

16. All the festivals across the state are named after a fruit, vegetable, grain, insect, or animal.

17. You carry jumper cables in your car - for your OWN car.

18. You only own five spices: salt, pepper, mustard, tabasco and ketchup.

19. The local papers cover national and international news on one page, but require 6 pages for local high school sports, the motor sports, and gossip.

20. Everyone you meet is a: Darlin', Honey, Sugar, Baby, or Miss (first name) or Mr. (first name).

21. You think that the first day of deer season is a national holiday.

22. You know what a hissy fit is..

23. Fried catfish is the other white meat.

24. We don't need no Driver's Ed. If our Mama says we can drive, we can drive!!!

25. NEVER dispute or say anything bad about Mama!

(I LOVE BEING SOUTHERN! COULDN'T IMAGINE IT ANY OTHER WAY!)

And that is the way it is, bless their hearts, sho nuff.

Leaving Christ out of Christmas?

For Christ's sake, leave Christ out of Christmas

I dearly love it when self-professed Christian liberals cite all the reasons why Christmas should not be a religious holiday.

I will grant that everything the woman who wrote the above piece is true, but that misses the point. Christmas is about the birth of the Christian messiah.

Ok, the date is wrong … so what? Neither she nor any other professed expert can say with any real certainty when Jesus of Nazareth was born in the town of Bethlehem.

Actually, no one really can demonstrate by other than the Bible that Jesus even was born, lived or died. Sorry, but the historical record just isn’t there and besides, assuming that someone found a Judeo-Roman contemporary secular record somewhere that references some Jewish rabbi from Galilee who got himself crucified by the Roman authorities at the request of the Jewish Sanhedrin in Jerusalem during the administration of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, how many people would accept it as fact.

No, the Bible is taken on faith (as is about every other historical document that predates those people currently alive).

Since it taken on faith, then does it really matter what day Jesus was born on? Not to a Christian. What matters is that he was born; he lived; he died; and he was resurrected. His death absolves us of our sins on judgment day, if we accept him as God’s representative on Earth and try to follow his teachings.

All the other traditions are merely eye-wash. Yes, they have come from various pre-Christian European cultures, but so what? It takes nothing away from the reason for the season.

So it is with all traditions. There is no “American” tradition, when you want to look at it. Nor is there a North American tradition (since Canada is inextricably linked to the United States on so many cultural levels). All our traditions, no matter the holiday, reflect the multitude of cultures that have melded in make the common core of the culture we accept in North America.

However, as Christians, we have chosen to celebrate the birth of our Savior; and by centuries of tradition, that celebration has occurred in December. You don’t like that; then don’t celebrate Christmas, or more accurately, Christ-Mass.

The spirit of Christmas, the beginning of faith, is not tied to some particular day, unless you are really narrow-minded. For example, for years, I often have been unable to celebrate “Christmas” on Dec. 25. For one reason or another, the tradition of exchanging gifts has fallen on other days of the month of December. Does that mean I am not Christian? Or does that mean I haven’t celebrated the Christ’s birth? I don’t think so.

So, those who want to separate Christmas from the religious holiday, they can do so, but why not give it a new name. Why hijack the Christians’ celebration and turn it into some secular event, divorced from the reason for the season.

In the United States, we have done so much to take Christ out of the season already, it is no longer funny. It truly has, as the leftist Christians say, like the author of the linked article above, become a non-event as far as the faith is concerned. It has become some narcissistic exercise in which the object of the holiday is forgotten.

Why do we give gifts – exchange gifts? Is it just so we can get some material wealth that makes us feel good for the moment? That is not the spirit of Christmas in my book.

From my perspective, and you are welcome to disagree or denigrate it at your pleasure, the offering of gifts is in recognition of the gift of salvation that the Christ gave us on the cross.

We often hear that it is in the giving that we should be most grateful. Not in what we have received but in what we have been able to give others, to put smiles on their faces and to give them feelings of warmth and love.

So, those of you who want to pick apart the traditions of Christmas … it ain’t no skin off me, as the saying goes.

If you want to point out the traditions observed in the United States (and Canada) are an amalgamation of the many different cultures that make up the populations of both great nations, then is that not a reflection of incredible kaleidoscope that is the culture that we share here. I think it is, and I think it pays tribute to the diversity of the people who live in North America. Should we not celebrate that diversity with the acknowledgement that the reason for the season really is religious and keep that thought in mind.

I, for one, think that those who want to take the Christ out of Christmas can do so. I only ask that they pick another name for their holiday.

When is a belief bigotry?

Duck Dynasty star suspension

The suspension from the cast of the Arts and Entertainment cable channel’s Duck Dynasty clan leader seems to brought the culture wars to a boil.

At the outset, let me say that a) Phil Robertson had every right to say what he did and b) A&E (barring some contractual verbiage otherwise) has every right to suspend him from the show.

Personally, I think it is all a tempest in a teapot, except for the fact that the progressives seem to going all out on this issue.

For the record, I didn’t find much to get upset about what Mr. Robertson said, and – as usual for me – fail to see what the ruckus is all about.

First, he is expressing his opinion … and that and a sawbuck will get a coffee at Starbucks.

Second, he is basing he opinion on his reading of a passage in the Christian Bible. His recitation of the passage is pretty accurate as far as I can ascertain … and I don’t hear anybody disputing that. Now, if you don’t like the passage …. well, nobody is holding a gun to your head or a sword to your throat saying  you have to be a Christian or at least one of his denomination.

The funny thing about the Bible, as my grandfather (the circuit-riding Congregational minister in the Yellowstone Valley and graduate of Oberlin College’s Seminary) taught me: IF you look hard enough you can just about justify anything you want, one way or another, by citing some biblical passage ... and people will do it.

I am not accusing anybody here, mind you, but by tradition and scripture (reinforced by the comments of the latest Pope in the Catholic Church), homosexuality is considered a sin in the Christian dogma. You don’t like that? Then don’t be a Christian, or a Muslim or any of a large portion of the world’s religions.

Having said that, I was struck by something else Mr. Robertson said:

"I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me," he said. "We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity."

Hello? You got a problem with that? Or maybe you didn’t read/hear that part in the story you are basing your opinion on. To me that is a pretty important part of his opinion. You know, the old “judge not lest you be judged” admonition.

Then he pointed out that having been “poor white trash” living in Louisiana for  67 years, he had the opportunity to live and work among the African-Americans going back to the pre-Civil Rights Act days of the 1960s. Back then, he said, he didn’t see any of his co-workers, friends and neighbors who happened to be darker skinned than he blaming all their woes on evil white folks.

Well, this has got the African-American grievance industry in an uproar. They seem to be blasting away with both barrels on how racist this bayou redneck is. He may be, but I suspect not … and least not in the way that East and West Coast progressives see it.

Now, I spent about half my life living in the Deep South – but I wasn’t raised there, nor did I go to school there. I can say from my own experience that there are those in the South – non-whites, mind you – look back on the 1940s and 1950s with a certain amount of wistfulness and fondness. It seems that before the upheaval of the 1960s (and into the 1970s) there was “era” of “black culture” that left a warm spot in the heart of many of the “baby boomer” generation of the African-Americans.

It seems that there was a greater emphasis on family, church, education (such as it was … and it was not equal, but they tried as hard as they could to make it work), and economic life back then. Thriving black business districts fell victim to urban renewal, schools (which are the anchor of almost any community – black, white, red, yellow, tan, whatever) were wiped out and consolidated as integrated entities that did not have the history that gave students roots to build their futures on.

Now, that is my experience being a newspaper editor in the South. Yes, there were many things wrong with the society and culture that was torn down by the Civil Rights movement … and in time a new society was born. It isn’t perfect. Not by a long shot, it isn’t but it is better than what was there before. Still got somewhat of a problem with 11 a.m. Sunday mornings, but that is by choice and not by government edict.

Unfortunately, the movies and television have perpetuated the old stereotype of the South which has engendered a new bigotry against the people who probably were just as much victims of the old Southern culture.

Unfortunately for those folks, whose educational opportunities also were limited, gone are the days of hoeing cotton, sharecropping or working in a textile mill. The mill culture that ruled much of the South for nearly a hundred years is dead folks and a new reality is rising.

The Duck Commander/Duck Dynasty clan is indicative of that change. Unfortunately, the progressives, gay rights activists, the racial grievance purveyors just can’t get that through their preconceptions. To them, po’ why-at trash is racist and bigoted and always will be.

Well, some are, but most aren’t.

It is like the War of Northern Aggression/American Civil War: Folks, it is over and done with. Same with the South of apartheid of the pre-1970s.

As for how Christians are supposed to view homosexuality? Well, it remains a sin (whether it is a choice or not) and those of us who are heterosexual Christians are reminded to hate the sin, but love the sinner.

So, hey, it don’t matter to me none if you are a homosexual, bisexual, transvestite, transgendered or somewhere in between. However, I do have one request, I won’t slap you in the face with my heterosexuality if you won’t try to force me to condone, approve, etc, your whatever.

And as long as you treat me with respect and dignity, that is what you will be getting from me. You start condemning me and ranting and raving about my views and beliefs, then don’t expect me to be quite so charitable with you. I will try, mind you, but my patience may be sorely tested.

And if that makes me a bigot, then so be it … but then, to my mind, everybody really is sort of some shade of green … but that is the old soldier in me.

Philosophy 101 – Essay 13

Thirteenth of a series

Essay #1     Essay #2      Essay #3     Essay #4     Essay #5

Essay #6    Essay #7      Essay #8    Essay #9     Essay #10

Essay #11    Essay #12

 

I arrive at this point in this series probably asking more questions than I can answer. If you find yourself at that point, then maybe I am doing something right. However, in a quest for those answers, I continue.

What responsibility should we, as individuals and as members of our society (in this case the American one), have to lift up others in our society, whether they are less fortunate than ourselves or not?

That is a tough question and one that currently drives a deep wedge in the American culture today. We are torn by the rationalizations of our liberal and progressive brethren who feel we are obligated (and should be forced by government) to lift up those who do not have access to the benefits enjoyed by others and the arguments that government has no right to be able to take from those who are able and give to those in need.

To the left it is a matter of morality and equality. To them, it is an argument that we are wealthy enough to provide for the needs of everyone, regardless of their ability or efforts.

To the right, it is a case of both we are not that wealthy and what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours and deal with it.

Or at least that is way the debate is framed in our media. I suspect that both sides’ positions, hopefully, are more nuanced than that, but it is the stereotype that people on both sides of the dichotomy seem to cling to with passion and vehemence. It is such divisions that wars are fought over.

The biggest tragedy is that those who are the most poor in the US probably have better living conditions than 90 percent of the people in the world. I am not saying there aren’t a few here and there, but by and large, Americans live in the lap of luxury compared to other people.

Unfortunately for the left in my nation, at least in my mind, the “from each according to their ability and to each according to their need” paradigm has been pretty much discredited by history and so no matter what moral argument you make for its validity, since it fails to account for the baseness of human nature, it is doomed for failure.

On the other hand, it seems rather myopic for those of the stereotypical right to ignore the plight of others, for as the old saying goes: There but for the grace of God go I.

In my humble view, the choice is to opt (note bene my selection of words here) to embrace the synergy that voluntary associations give us and make our choices such that they encourage others to join in that direction. It is not society’s – nor its agent, the government’s – role to force us to comply.

I understand those whose world view sees it differently, but I disagree. Based on the basic contract of the United States, its Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I don’t see it as a role for the federal government. A stronger case conceivably can be made under the various state constitutions for their intervention, and an even stronger case can be made for county and municipal government interventions, but in all of them that impulse must be restrained by the natural rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

This is not to say that government at any level cannot offer assistance to citizens, because it can, but it is to say that any such assistance must adhere to the concept of equality before the law, for the law is all that government can enforce.

If the government is to grant privileges, then the standards to qualify for those privileges must be such that any citizen can qualify for them if they meet the standards. But, again, in any case – especially for the federal government, the role in granting such privileges should be restricted and limited to minimal levels.

Unfortunately, I am a realist enough to know that is not the case in 21^st Century America and is not likely to happen. I realize that I am being outvoted by others who don’t agree, and I accept that. I just don’t think they are following the right path and we will be the worse for it.

An example of this, to me, is the current effort to raise the minimum wage in the U.S. to more than $10 per hour (from its current $7.25). To me it is one of the cruelest hoaxes perpetrated by the “progressives” against those who have less than they do.

First, if we are to have a “minimum” wage, it has to be understood that it is the starting wage for someone totally unskilled and inexperienced. As such, it is not supposed to be a “livable” wage for anyone other than one person, young and healthy. If you don’t meet those parameters, then society should have other choices for you, but the minimum wage is not one of them.

It is a starting point, then as you add experience and gain skills your wage level increases because your value to the economy grows. That is basic Econ 101. Unfortunately, there are a host of people who don’t get that or maybe they were never taught that. In either case, from my point of view, they are in for some rude shocks in the days ahead.

Back to the minimum wage concept: Well, I have problems with the federal government, and even the state or local government, setting prices in the market place, whether it is for labor, goods, services or anything else. I mean, I am sorry, but why have we given government/unelected bureaucrats the right to determine the value of anything? What makes them the better arbiter than others who have skin in the game? I understand the principle of delegating authority and responsibility, but usually that is done with people who are stakeholders and not with people who have no interest at risk.

Ostensibly, we live in a free market (although that is getting more and more questionable as the years pass), where the consumer and the producer negotiate what they think the value of whatever passes between them should be. That may seem simplistic, but that doesn’t negate its validity.

In the case of the minimum wage, we – through our agent, the government – impose what our representatives see as the economic value of a given product – in this case, labor. This has been proven by history to be an unworkable concept in the long run, but we keep forgetting that.

And yet, I learned as a manager for a corporate entity, how cruel such dictates can be. Back in the day, I was working as a mid-level manager at a newspaper and I was responsible for developing my department’s budget. Among the various variables I had to arbitrarily set was how much each worker was going to get over the next year. I was given a certain percentage of their salary to work with, which I could not exceed.

On the other hand, I also had to factor in what I was going to offer new hires in a period when inflation was running about 10 percent per year (and my cost of living adjustment was nowhere near that much for existing employees). My supervisor set the value for new hires and I was struck by the fact that often times we would be offering new hires more than we would be paying existing workers who had been with us for short, but significant, periods of time (employee turnover at this time was rather high because the stress of the work was significant and we also were getting raided by larger organizations because we trained our people so well).

Now, if you don’t see an intrinsic unfairness to this proposition, then I am afraid I can’t help you.

It is, however, the same unfairness I see with the minimum wage plan. You see, if you raise the minimum wage arbitrarily, then those already in the system are going to be penalized through no fault of their own. Sorry, but not everybody is going to get that raise; just the new hires and the people who are working under the mandated new wage floor. Those who make more will see the wage differential both as a percentage and in real terms shrink drastically, making their knowledge and experience appear to be of less value to their employer … which, in reality, is what the government is saying it is.

To me this violates not only the rules of economics and destroys the incentive system while inflating prices for everything and contributing to damaging the economy. In other words: It ain’t fair.

But, the liberals and progressives don’t see it that way, and currently, theirs is the voice and opinion that is carrying the day. I may not like it. I may think it is philosophically wrong (in fact disastrous) but I have had my say … and not enough people are on my side.

I hope you will think about the implications of this.

Nuff said for this go-round.

U.S. Army mulls wiping out memory of Robert E. Lee

U.S. Army mulls wiping out memory of Robert E. Lee, 'Stonewall' Jackson - Washington Times

This is another one of those silly stories. I call them silly because they make no real sense. It is like those Southerners who still are fighting the War of Northern Aggression. Folks, the damn war is over and as Gen. Lee said, it is long past the time to bind up the wounds and focus on being one nation.

It seems to me that the Politically Correct Police are running amok these days. Denying that Robert E. Lee was an American soldier who served his nation with valor and dignity. Yes, he chose to fight for the Confederacy because he could not raise his sword against his state. The Army he led against the Union Forces rarely fought outside his state, and those times it did, it came out on the short end of the stick.

Lee was a tactical genius for his time. His victories were tactical victories. His leadership both in battle and as an educator are something to be admired and not forgotten. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson also was an exemplary soldier and leader.

It is distressing to see people now who fail to see that both sides of the American Civil War were Americans. It truly was a brother-against-brother war ... it was a family squabble. For a place like the the US Army's War College to try to degrade the efforts of some of America's best military leaders is not only foolish, it is stupid.

But the PC Police are not content. To them, you have to toe the reigning viewpoint and champion it as your own. If your views do not comport with the views of the PCP, then you are to be condemned. There is no tolerance allowed.

Witness the hissy fit being thrown over the views of the leader of the Duck Dynasty reality show clan because his religious views prompt him to say that homosexuality is a sin (i.e. a wrong type of behavior). He said it didn't alter his treatment of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transvestites - he would treat all with the respect that he would expect from them. Well, since they are trashing him, trying to deprive him of employment, then I guess he should change his approach ... and start advocating that they be trashed, etc.

Of course, the PC Police won't allow that. It wouldn't be tolerant.

Witness the hissy fits being thrown at various military bases around the country over Christmas nativity displays. Give me a break folks.

I am sorry, folks, but being tolerant means accepting that people are different. It does not mean that you have to condone or endorse whatever it is that makes someone different. If that is what you think it means, then you are wrong. Sorry, but there is not other way to put it.

I can disapprove of what you do. I can say it is a wrong in my world view. I can call it a sin against God. But as long as I treat you with dignity and respect - even though I disagree with you vehemently - then you damn well better be willing to accept the fact that I am not going to endorse your views or condone your behavior. You need to tolerate me.

Now, in the cases of the above gentlemen. Accept the fact that they look at the world differently than maybe you do and get on with your life. You might even learn a thing or two from these gentlemen, each of whom had/have a right to view the world from their own perspective.

I know that soldiers can learn a heck of a lot from the examples left by Bobbie Lee and Tom Jackson.

Misplaced priorities

China, Iran, ... and Santa?

Ah, a kindred spirit … the author of the above linked article makes an incredible point about contemporary American … we are not only apathetic but we also have grow all too complacent.

The Chinese have their own rover now on the moon and it is barely a blip on the news radar screen in the US. So what? We did that 50 years ago. This from a society that always seems to be asking, “Yeah? But what have you done for me lately?”

The Iranians recently put a monkey into orbit and safely returned it to the ground. So what? We also did that more than 50 years ago. You do know that the same technology that put humans has a dual use, don’t you? If you can lift a payload large enough to carry a primate in orbit, with all the necessary life support aboard to keep it alive until it comes back down, then you have a missile capable of carrying a nuclear weapon basically anywhere on the planet. That, my friends, was what the space race of the 1950s and 1960s really was all about.

Back in those days, when my mother was so deeply involved in writing the computer programs that took America’s space craft hither and yon, we used to joke that we planned to buy her a ticket on one of the first commercial flights into space. Well, it turned out just to be a joke. She is dead now and we are still a year or so from regular commercial manned spaceflight … even if it will only be sub-orbital trips.

And giving the dithering of American political leadership, I don’t expect that the U.S. government will be doing much in space.

Look at the huge foo-fa-ra over what ethnic color Santa is when the International Space Station (which the US can only access these days via the Russians or a fledgling American commercial group) literally is starting to fall apart .

I am sorry folks, but Santa basically is a European creation and that makes him probably Caucasian, although there may be some Turk in him, and that makes him a white guy. You don’t like that? Get over it.

Now, I could go into my physics lecture on how the color white is the presence of all the visible light spectrums, which means that it includes all the other hues and shades, but that would just befuddle most people.

Or, I could point out that Santa (Saint) Claus really is a Christian thingy, but then all the progressives would throw in all the other cultural influences on on the annual gift-giving spree.

Or I could point out that the concept of Santa has become pretty much universal, so he belongs to a whole lot of cultures now.

Actually, it doesn’t really matter people what color race, etc., you think he is. Unless, of course, like the American discourse these days, you have become obsessed with the concept of race and inject it into everything and everything.

So, back to space, which is where I really want to go. That really is more important than what color or race you think Santa is.

So, for now, I am going to rooting on the second teams in the US; those private partnerships and corporations who have decided to pick up the standard dropped by the US government, its narcissistic politicians and indolent masses who just want their bread and circuses (NFL football and other pro sports. any one) had dropped.

I hope that visionary people throw a bunch of bucks in the direction of the private groups so they can grab up the colors, rally the troops, equip them and race back to places like the moon and on to Mars.

I know my Mom would be rooting for them too … and programing anything they needed to get there.

How the Cold War Nearly Killed Santa | Military.com

How the Cold War Nearly Killed Santa | Military.com

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!

Sheriffs vs. Presidents

Sheriffs refuse to enforce gun control laws

It seems that more than 400 county sheriffs in the U.S. are declining to enforce their respective states’ new gun control legislation. Does anyone have a problem with that?

If you do, then do you have any problem with the President of the United States and the Attorney General of the United States (and the various and sundry federal law enforcement officers that report to them) declining to enforce certain laws in the United States, like immigration laws or assorted portions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

Essentially, there is no difference. If it is fine for the President to order federal agents and others charged with enforcing federal statutes to use their “prosecutorial discretion” and not deport people for violation of U.S. immigration laws or not to impose statutory punishments for not abiding by the dictates and deadlines of the PPACA (better known as Obamacare), then it would seem to me that it should just as appropriate for the the elected local sheriff to declare that whatever the latest gun control legislation calls for will not be enforce … or be subject to priority enforcement.

Are not the Sheriffs following the example of our President?

Now, I understand not prioritizing enforcement of some statutes because of the vagueness of the law, or its widespread disregard. Heck, speed limits are not strictly enforced in the United States (except in speed traps) and that is because 90 percent of the drivers in the US normally exceed the posted limit by at least 5 to 10 miles per hour all the time. Heck, I can even understand not enforcing a law if you know the law is unconstitutional.

However, I do have problems granting waivers for laws because they are inconvenient or because they might cause political problems for the law enforcement people.

So, those of you who have a problem with the stand being taken by the sheriffs, I sure hope you are consistent and have equally vehement objections to the failures, or refusals, or downright ignoring the law of the Obama Administration.

Philosophy 101 – Essay 12

Twelfth in a series

Essay #1   Essay #2   Essay #3   Essay #4   Essay #5

Essay #6  Essay #7   Essay #8   Essay #9   Essay #10

Essay #11

The quest continues. As I look back over what I have written so far, I am glad you have persevered (assuming you have read 1 through 11), but yet I see a need to clarify my views again; if for no other reason than to demonstrate that my philosophy is not a selfish, narcissistic creed.

Now, one could look at the values that my culture sees value in and say superficially that it leaves no room for altruism; it leaves no room for others; it simply is the law of the jungle writ large. I agree that it might seem that way, except that I would say that those who see it that way are missing some major points.

First and foremost is the basic foundation of my philosophy is based on the concept of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I call it enlightened self-interest.

What do I mean by “enlightened self-interest” you may ask? Well, it accepts that everything that we do we really do in our own self-interest. You may not accept that but it is a reality that I believe is more than justified. You see we all have choices and the vast majority of the time those choices are driven by what we need and not by what might seem to be in the best interest of the “greater good.”

Note bene: There are people out there who probably are “saints” and truly are unselfishly devoted to the greater good (although I suspect even then they are trying to assuage some feelings of guilt or just to make themselves feel good or better, but that is the cynical old journalist in me talking), but they truly are few and far between. It is their rarity that makes us notice them and call them “saints.” The lesser beings, but ones who see themselves a little more enlightened than the majority, realize that adhering to the Golden Rule accrues benefits over the long run that would unobtainable by merely looking out for one’s self-interest in the short run. Of course, in the society I live in, unfortunately, living for the long term has given way to living merely for the moment. I suspect that will be our downfall. Most people merely see the Golden Rule as “he who has the gold rules” however.

Everything being a result of our choices and those things we were blessed with at birth, basically, therefore, I think that we should be grateful for whatever we have, regardless of how much or how little it may seem to others. I believe that we should be grateful for the mere fact that we are still alive and able to think about the world about us. That truly is a gift we often take too much for granted.

Secondly, in my view, we have to realize that there often is a synergy between individuals who pool their talents and abilities to achieve something larger than could be accomplished by the individual alone. This takes away nothing from the individual but merely recognizes that we all have something to contribute, however small it may seem and that contribution really is vital to the individual’s benefit. But again, the individual benefits from that contribution to the “greater good”, so the scales balance.

And yet, how does one account for truly unselfish acts? How do we account for something like someone willing to give their life to save someone else, a stranger totally unknown to them? Can we account for such things?

I could say that there are no “truly unselfish” acts, but that would be going far deeper than I would have space to explain (but a starting point would be to read Richard Dawkins’ Selfish Gene).

People do such things because they have an instinctive desire to be part of the “whole” or in other words, part of the herd/pack/hive/etc. because by being so, it helps not only the species, but also the gene line, to survive. (So much for my Cliff Notes encapsulation of a concept that probably would take volumes to explain by someone much smarter than I am – and a much better communicator) In essence, however, people don’t do anything without getting something in return, even if it is just an endorphin high.

Remember, there is no free lunch.

So, what should we do about those less fortunate than we are in our society? How do we make it in our self-interest (hence more likely that we will do something) to do things that those who believe in altruism think we should be doing. Obviously, just letting people fall victim to their own fates as happens throughout the other species of the animal kingdom is not an acceptable solution to a rational, thinking species that can discern right and wrong and morality and immorality. Those are the things that set us humans apart from the other species on the planet.

So, what do I see as the obligation in society for the individual to do for the less fortunate? Back to the Golden Rule, folks (not the gold rules rule). What would I want if I was in need of assistance? Ah? Assistance? You got it.

But assistance that comes, if possible, with the understanding that I have the option to opt out. Assistance that comes with the understanding that I am committing myself to some reciprocal obligations: costs and investments from myself. I may not like these costs – these prices that I have to pay – but if I want the assistance, then I have to accept them as part of the deal.

Remember, I am one of those people who thinks that life is a contract and it’s our individual part to honor the terms of that contract.

Yet again, I believe we should have the option to opt out … and if we do, then we also have the concurrent obligation to accept the consequences of that choice, of that decision.

In my humble opinion, the major problem with American society today is that we are way too busy trying to alleviate the consequences for individuals who make less than optimum choices in their lives and to insulate them from the vagaries of life. You see, we have those in our society who think that our society is wealthy enough that everyone can live like kings. They are wrong, but then they can have their view and I will just have to disagree (civilly, mind you).

Still, for those who have, they should have the choice of what assistance they are willing to provide, and I contend to provide that assistance is in their enlightened self-interest to do so. It is in their self-interest.

This article provides excellent examples:

Why courtesy?

As with courtesy, we have choices as to how and when we provide assistance … and while a case can be made that society through its agent, the government, can and should force us to be courteous and helping, I would argue that perverts the role of government as an arbiter of the social and personal contracts and corrupts society.

Pause to think about that awhile … and maybe you will see my point.

Nuff said for now.

Bumper cars at sea … again

Chinese naval vessel in near collision with US Navy cruiser

Ah, the games that nations play at sea. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt … a couple of times.

Back lo these many years ago, when I did my first tour of duty aboard a beat-up old World War II design destroyer, we used to play the same game that the Chinese seem to want to play in the South China Sea (and probably will start playing in the East China Sea), only we played it with the Russians.

It got to the point that in late 1972 or 1973, the Soviets and the Americans signed an agreement setting out the rules for our “games.” Not that they always followed the rules, but then I did my tour before the rules really went into effect. Life was interesting at those times when the two navies played in close proximity.

As I was explaining to my pretty wife, the old Meredith (DD-890) had a few encounters with the Soviets, both their spy ships and their warships.

The first encounter I remember came shortly after I had joined the ship’s company of the Merry-D and we had put to sea on our journey to the Mediterranean for seven months. We were part of the aircraft carrier USS Franklin D Roosevelt’s escort screen that included a DLG guided missile destroyer (now would be a CG guided missile cruiser), a DDG guided missile destroyer, a guided missile frigate (FFG), a big destroyer (post WWII design, but all guns) and two small destroyers (WWII all gun designs) (Well, everybody had anti-submarine rocket launchers – ASROCs – but only the Gs had surface to surface and surface to air missiles).

Once we passed the 12-mile limit, the FDR picked up another escort: A Soviet trawler. At least that was its cover story … I don’t they ever put a net in the water or pulled any fish from the sea … but in reality it was a Soviet spy vessel that would follow the FDR everywhere it went in the Atlantic. All you had to do to locate it was to look 3,000 yards astern of the carrier and there she would be bobbing along at whatever speed it took for her to keep station.

Well, a couple of days out of our homeport, the Admiral on the FDR wanted to do a “line ahead” formation. I don’t remember how it happened exactly, but it ended up that our “station” in the formation was 3,000 yards astern of the carrier.

Now, you should see what is coming here, but we needed to be where the trawler was and as we came up to take our slot, the trawler – like the band that refused to yield the field in the song of the time – wasn’t budging, despite several efforts to tell it to please move. Well, we got within maybe a ship-length or two, side to side, when the little trawler looked up and blinked and slide away.

It was obvious from some of the actions of the crew on deck they were not particularly happy with us, but nobody swapped any paint and it was a no-harm-no-foul situation.

Another time, however, in the Eastern Mediterranean off the coast of Egypt, things got considerably more tense.

We had been following a Russian heavy missile cruiser for about 10 days to two weeks because Naval Intel had word it was to test fire one of its SSMs – which was going to be the first time they had ever fired a missile of the type outside their Black Sea training areas. It was the day before they did their test shot that things got really dicey.

It started off relatively quiet, with us tagging along with the little Russian task force of five or six ships, with the cruiser at its center. Among its escorts were a mine warfare vessel and a Kashin-class guided missile escort (the equivalent of one of our DLGs at the time) with two double-rail anti-aircraft missile launchers – one fore and one aft – and two twin 76mm gun mounts – one fore and one aft.

Just to set the table, Merry-D carried two twin 5-inch (127-mm) gun mounts, both on the front of the ship. My battle station was the pointer on the No. 2 (Mount 52) mount just in front of the bridge. It also was my work station where I was responsible for its care and feeding. It gave me a ring-side seat for much of what transpired in the next two hours or so.

First, it started with the little (about half our size) mine warfare vessel coming over to signal us by signal lamp that we were “in a missile test area and would we leave”.

Our response was: “We are in international waters and we intend to stay on our present course.”

The Russian then started playing the “rendering honors” game with us. By tradition, when two warships pass at sea, depending on which one is on which side (and I don’t remember which is which), one of them is supposed to have its crew stop and salute the passing ship. The game makes for some interesting maneuvering by ships as they try to force the other ship into rendering honors to them.

During that whole evolution, the Russian kept telling us to leave the area. After about an hour or so of playing this game, the Russian ship headed back to where its task group was milling around, about 10-12 miles away.

Then its big brother, the Kashin comes over to talk to us. As she passed down our port side at about 1500 yards (which is really close at sea) I saw the normal complement of people walking on her deck doing normal things. I watched as the Kashin slid around behind us to come up on our starboard side to parallel our course at about 1000 to 1500 yards off and began to pace our speed.

I immediately started getting suspicious that something wasn’t kosher when I noticed there weren’t any people wandering her weather decks any more. Then, I saw both of the 76mm gun mounts break centerline and begin to traverse in our direction.

Now, I am no rocket scientist, but I already was climbing up to the hatch of Mount 52, when the speaker on the front of the bridge blasted out:

“GENERAL QUARTERS! GENERAL QUARTERS! ALL HANDS, MAN YOUR BATTLE STATIONS. THIS IS A SILENT GQ. MAN YOUR BATTLE STATIONS VIA INTERNAL ROUTES. DO NOT RUN ON THE MAIN DECK.”

I hopped into Mount 52, closed the two access hatches to the outside deck, opened the hatch to the handling room below and started lighting off the power drives for the rammers, the shell and powder hoists and the traverse and elevation for the guns. Then I went and sat in my seat at the left side of the left gun and opened my sight box.

The mount quickly filled with the 14 people who manned it at general quarters and a very tense 45 minutes ensued. I could hear the hoist cycle as they brought up powder and shells.

The mount captain opened his top hatch in the armor plate, so we were able to hear much of what transpired from the wing of the bridge.

We couldn’t understand what the Russians were saying with their bull horn, but we heard our captain respond with good American seaman’s English what they could do with their suggestion (and then the intel people had provided us with a Russian translator and it was repeated in Russian).

This bandying back and forth went on for quite awhile and I can remember muttering to myself that I hoped the captain wouldn’t piss the Russians off too much. I wasn’t so much worried about the Kashin, because at that range I knew I wasn’t going to miss when I pulled the trigger if we started firing and our 5 inch shells were going to do a whole heck a lot more damage to him than his 3 inches shells were going to do to us.

I was, however, worried about the heavy cruiser 12-15 miles away that it might want to plop one of the SSMs in our lap and that we probably would not survive.

After about 45 minutes, the Kashin gave up and sailed away and we secured from GQ. The next morning, the cruiser fired its missile, the intel people got their pictures and electronic readings and … well that is a whole other story. There also are other stories of playing with the Russians, but it never got quite as tense as that day off Egypt.

The thing was that I learned that both we and the Russians had enough experience at sea by that time that we weren’t about to do anything really stupid. Unfortunately, from the initial reports, it doesn’t seem like the Chinese have got that experience yet and they face a steep learning curve.

Yes, folks, it does appear that we do live in interesting times … it just may be possible that our domestic travails may pale against what may happen in places far away.

Air Force Base Takes Down Nativity Scene

Air Force Base Takes Down Nativity Scene Following Complaint « CBS Charlotte

I fail to follow the logic here. I guess the military had better start removing all the chapels, chaplains and chaplain assistants from the services.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation seems to think that any exhibit of a religious nature is a violation of the Constitution and I don't agree with the view.

Granted, the First Amendment says the government shall make no law respecting the establishment of any one religion, but that is light-year away from banning religious things on military bases.

I am going to hate to see the date when this form of political correctness reaches its logical conclusion and buildings like the chapel at the Air Force Academy have to be torn down. Of course, that will be long after the Christmas tree (or holiday tree) lightings will have cease, because they all are marking religious events.

Besides, whom does it hurt? Having a nativity scene on an installation little different that say any other observance honoring or respecting any group. If you don't like something, hell, ignore it or ask for your own display ... but I guess that is too much. 

No, it is much more inclusive to deny others the privilege of honoring one of their religious traditions.

Another NBC faulty premise

The barrier to reducing income inequality: the nouveau riche

Interesting story on the NBC web site. The premise is totally bogus, but it makes for a new narrative.

First, The Premise: The premise of the story is that because we are granted by the Creator the right of equality before the law, then that somehow translates into we have equal right to wealth and income. I am not sure how that computes, but it sure is a faulty logic.

First of all, people are not equal (except before the law, or should be, but aren’t these days as the federal government is busy carving out protected and favored groups at every opportunity). People are unique and different. It you deny that, then you deny freedom and the right to your own individuality.

People are not some cookie cutter pattern mass produced. Sorry, but human life just doesn’t come that way. Anybody who tells you that we are all the same and therefore deserve equality of outcome is handing you a pile of bovine scatology.

No, folks, we are all different. Our genealogy, our genetics, our talents, our abilities, our upbringing, our value systems, our life experiences, all work together to make each and every one of us unique. We are different, we are not the same.

Second, even if we were all the same, there are not enough resources to give us all the same standard of living. Sorry, folks, but that ain’t gonna happen no matter how you try. And trying is beyond being foolish because we are not the same and therefore we all want different things.

There is no way, in the United States, much less try doing it for the world, for everyone to get what they want. Our wants are as diverse as we are. We all have different talents, we all have different abilities and capabilities. Add to that our needs are different. Some of us are naturally healthy, others face health challenges all their lives.

So, to expect “income equality” is to build a strawman, a false issue with which to whip up resentment, jealousy and to foster hatred.

Secondly, while again the story points out that the 2 percent of the population (at anyone time) who make the most money in the country actually is made up of 1 in 5 or 20 percent of Americans, who find themselves in that top bracket for only short periods of their lives, before they probably drop back from the stratosphere.

Oh, but the article points out 1 out 2 Americans live in poverty part of their lives. It does a very poor job that some of the 20 percent also make up part of that 5o percent.

The article also takes pot shots at these achievers for looking at others and saying “Well, I could do it; so can you.” That is just not fair … oops, bad word there. I need to excise that word from my vocabulary, especially when I am talking about life.

Folks, LIFE IS NOT FAIR! Get that concept into your head and understand that. No, life is not fair and nothing we can do ever will make if fair. Remember, we are different people, each and every one of us. How can outcomes be equal when the inputs are not equal?

Fair? Fair is being equal before the law. Fair is government treating you no differently than any other member of society being governed. Fair is not the government giving this or that individual or group of individuals preferences or privileges based on some shared bond.

As a society, every society makes choices that rank abilities, etc., differently and the society rewards those it values. That is what societies do. If you don’t believe that, then find another world to live on because it isn’t the one you are living on here.

Is it fair? I would say so, but then my definition and yours probably are not the same.

I say embrace the fact that we are different. Revel in that fact. It is what makes the world such an incredible place. Like snowflakes, no two of us are exactly alike.

Don’t disparage people because we are different, welcome them. Treat them as you would have yourself be treated.

That is not the easy way, I know, but I suspect in the end, you will find it is the way that will reward you beyond your dreams.

Or maybe not, nothing in life is guaranteed (except death and taxes).

Tolerance and temperance

The day after the death of Nelson Mandela, I made the mistake of pointing out to my Left Coast former classmate that his Facebook rant on how dare people on the right and who supported people like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Dick Cheney, and maybe even opposed him back when he was the imprisoned leader of the African National Congress, mourn the passing of such a liberal icon that his position seemed rather juvenile to me. Nelson Mandela was a liberal and the conservatives couldn’t have him, he demanded.

He proceeded to threaten to block me and then chastised me for saying that at one time in his life, Mandela was indeed what one would consider a terrorist. He said that such posts were irritating to him while he was at work.

Well, I apologized … I am sorry that I am three hours ahead of him on the East Coast and despite his protestations that he is very well up on international affairs, etc., that I view his world view a bit differently.

You see, I don’t come foamingly unhinged at people like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or Sean Hannity or Bill O’Reilly. Nor do people like Rachel Maddow, or James Carville, or John Stewart or Bill Maher particularly upset me. I don’t see people like Dick Cheney or Karl Rove as being some evil people. I don’t think President Obama is a jerk and evil person (he might be a naïve incompetent one who can’t really lead or govern worth a hoot, but he is not evil).

I don’t agree with these people on most things, but I tend to keep my view that in the marketplace of ideas, maybe the proponents of the best solutions will rise to the top.

I also don’t claim that people not of my world view can’t admire or mourn the loss of someone who has affected the world profoundly in many ways. But that appears to be the difference between the Left Coast (progressive liberal) world view and mine.

Now, as I said in an earlier post, Mandela was a remarkable man, but to claim him as a liberal icon is making a stretch I think even he would disavow … at least not in the American liberal progressive sense.

You see, Mandela was a devout Christian. Just ask Bishop Desmond Tutu.

He adopted a free-market approach to change in his country’s economy, much to the dismay of his more left-leaning allies, including a former wife.

He sought reconciliation and through forgiveness to bind up the wounds that the ugly years of apartheid had left on South Africa.

He stepped away from power, when he very easily could have ruled for life.

Those are not necessarily “progressive” or “liberal” attributes, but more of a rather unique and honorable man.

He did not turn into a dictator like Stalin, or Kim Il Sung, or Fidel Castro, or Moamar Khaddfey or any number of other post-colonial African leaders who have led so much of the continent into so much misery.

His path has not been followed by stellar leaders of his mold but so far South Africa has remained a far more peaceful, prosperous and unified nation than it would have been if he chose a different course.

So, it matters not what political banner you travel under, you can bewail and bemoan the passing of a leader that we do not see many of on this planet.

Unfortunately, most leaders are of a lessor sort, who – rather than through compromise, dialogue and reconciliation – seek to force those who disagree with them to conform to their agenda, their world view. We need to look no further than our borders here in the United States.

It is easy to cast blame on the Republicans or the Democrats. Heck, from my point of view there is ample blame to go around, but my observation would be that for the last five or six years, it has been the left that has been trying to ram their vision of the world through and into acceptance. Our president made no bones about his goal was to “transform” the nation; unfortunately that leaves little room for dialogue, compromise and reconciliation.

My Left Coast friend makes no bones of his approval of such an agenda, as he should because it obviously is saving him thousands of dollars per year. But as I have said, it all depends on whose ox is getting gored. Obviously, my friend’s isn’t, so he can celebrate the fact that he is benefitting. I am glad he is being helped in a way that he wants.

Now, I probably would have approached the problem differently … in fact I have … but that is the wonder of this nation … or has been … that we are able to seek our own paths through life and not force others to conform to our vision, however much better we may think it may be.

So, I took his rant as a teaching moment … mostly to teach myself to understand that there are others out there who don’t view the world through a prism that even remotely resembles the one I see. That doesn’t mean they are evil or bad … they just don’t see things my way.

I may think that they are very wrong … but I am not going to force them to conform to my vision. I might encourage them to reexamine their prism and inspect some of the facets of how they view the world … because I would hope they would see that there may be some validity in my world view.

Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela, the South African leader, is dead at age 95.

May he rest in peace.

I know millions of words will be written about the man, his times, his life, his death and what I say will add little to discussion. Still, I feel compelled to add something.

Mandela rightfully does stand for how one person can affect the course of history for countless millions. Whether you agree with his politics as a young man, or his methods then, or his actions in later life as the president of a reborn South Africa or not, his actions did change a lot of world and that is not to be sneezed at.

Yes, I suppose, you could point out he was a “communist” when being a communist in post-colonial Africa was the cool thing to do. Besides, it got you support you needed to carry on the political fight for the rights of black Africans who were, admittedly, being shortchanged by the white Africans. (Note bene: Both sides were Africans)

Still, he and the African National Congress did wage war against the Afrikaans regime that used apartheid to hold back the majority blacks from the fruits of their labors. Like all wars, it was a violent one.

In the early 1960s, he was caught, prosecuted and imprisoned for his actions. He would stay in prison for 27 years. During that time he became a symbol of the oppression of black Africans in South Africa. As a symbol he became larger than life, but he still was a human.

Probably the most incredible thing about Mandela is somehow during those years of hell in a hellhole, he grew to be the man we saw in the 1990s and early 2000s. A man of grace and considerable integrity.

It was his integrity that struck me as being the most incredible thing about him. He saw his mission as bringing a freedom, a role in their governance for the black Africans and he stuck by that mission despite the personal cost him.

Like people like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, he grew to understand the power of non-violence and forgiveness, it seemed to me. That does not mean he was not a ruthless leader, just one who saw a different way to achieve his ends.

His handling of the transition from a “whites only” rule to “black majority” rule probably will be his lasting legacy. It is one I respect him for the most. Rather than seek vengeance, he  sought reconciliation. Rather than retribution, he sought justice through the admission that bad things had happened, and that through the recognition and admitting that these things had happened, both sides (hopefully) would find it possible to forgive those who transgressed against them.

By using the power of the market, rather than the state, he helped break down the social and economic barriers that had riven the old South Africa. He proved not to be such a “communist” after all.

South Africa also did something no other nation has done: They renounced nuclear weapons and gave up their capacity to build them AFTER they had developed one. That alone is mindboggling.

Is life better in South Africa today than it was 25 years ago? I don’t know, but I think South Africans – by and large and as a whole, rather than as individuals – think it is. Yes, I suppose there are white Afrikaans who feel that they have lost something, but I would question if it really was theirs to have exclusively. Just like there are those in the US who wish for the old days to return.

South Africa still is a work in progress, much like the United States. Fifty years ago, when I was a young man, the US was going through its own convulsions as it dealt with its own history of apartheid. Separate but equal was in its death throes.

The US, for the most part – at least de jure,  has been able to tear down most of those walls that divided it before (except we have erected new ones in an elusive quest for restitution). We may have a way to tear down the per se  barriers, but there, too, we have come a long, long way in my lifetime. Sometimes I wish we could recognize that fact, but it seems to be in the vested interest of some to deny that it has happened.

South Africa is a new nation now. It is a different nation. It is not a perfect nation, but then no nation is.

South Africa would not be the nation that it is, which is far more united then it was when Mandela became president and that is his doing. Like the United States’ George Washington, who is his own time was as revolutionary as Nelson Mandela, Mandela laid down a marker that will be difficult to emulate, but one it would benefit the world if more leaders tried to emulate.

Yes, Mandela will be remembered more for his mythology than for his reality, but then again, so is George Washington.

Somewhere, there is a saying that says something like “When the myth is more compelling and better for the nation, go with the myth.”

Americans have done that with their founding fathers and, in a sense, South Africa (and the world to some degree) has done the same with the founding father of the new South Africa.

Nelson Mandela

1918- 2013

May he now rest in peace

I am a libertarian ... and here are a few of the resons why.

Decriminalize the Average Man - Wendy McElroy - Mises Daily

Those who know me personally know that I describe myself as a "libertarian" and for the most part I am. In this article - most of which I agree with - Ms McElroy outlines reforms that I feel should be made and would agree with; if not advocate.

I have long advocated the decriminalization of a lot of things - like drug us (tax it and regulate it for content) and other non-violent offenses. I agree that restitution-plus damages is a good formula as an alternative to throwing people behind bars for many offenses. I am not all that sure what to do with repeated offenders and scofflaws but there probably is a disciplinary action that does not involve spending time behind bars.

Of course, the big problem with any of that is that we would have to start holding people personally accountable for their choices and actions ... horrors of horrors, we would not be able to claim that we were victims of circumstances beyond our control and therefore no restitution is required. No, for such a system to work, we would have to have do away with the culture of victimhood and as she points out, that is not likely to happen until people understand victimhood's costs.

Philosophy 101 – Essay #11

Eleventh in a series

Essay #1    Essay #2    Essay #3   Essay #4    Essay #5

Essay #6    Essay #7    Essay #8    Essay #9    Essay #10

Okay, time to dive off the deep end.

Which culture do I think is the best? Why, mine, of course!

If you expected any other answer, then you really haven’t been listening, hearing and attending, as Pappy used to say.

Of course, I think my cultural beliefs, values and mores are the best … because as individuals: WE ALL THINK THAT! That is because we are all humans and we all have this innate need to feel that we are right … even when we may be wrong … or even are wrong.

Still, to defend myself, I have to explain what “my culture” is. I am not sure where it fits in in the Parthenon of cultures that call themselves “American” but it does somewhere.

So: I am a White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, College-Educated, Middle-Class, American, Male, Professional, Veteran who is Overweight, Retired and a Senior (a WASPCEMCAMPVORS) citizen of the town of Falmouth in the state of Maine in the nation of the United States of America on the continent of North America on a planet we call Earth.

I have lived in 13 of these here 50 states over my nearly six and a half decades of life, visited Mexico, Canada, as well as 16 other countries on four continents and two U.S. territories.

My racial roots are Northern European, primarily Briton (English-Irish-Welsh-Scots-Norman-Anglo-Saxon) with a branch that goes back to Sweden (supposedly of noble blood, but I am not taking that to the bank). Having said that … it really doesn’t matter what a person’s ethnic roots are. People are people and we all basically are mutts when it comes to the genetic gene pool.

My religious roots are Christian Protestant, with a heavy dose of Congregational and Anglican flavors. Of course that colors my world view and yes, I agree a lot with what Martin Luther and John Calvin preached about Jesus the Christ and what the Christian faith means and should mean.

Politically, I am a federalist of the James Madison brand, not the current generation.

I have a college education (associate of arts and bachelor of sciences degrees) but with a decidedly public school education flavor. (That means I did not attend elite private colleges, but tax-supported public colleges and universities.) My primary and secondary educations also were in public schools in Illinois (kindergarten), Iowa and Missouri (first grade), and six different schools in southern California (for grades 2 through 12).

I list that to illustrate that I have been exposed to a variety of different educational environments in the United States, which – considering what could have been the case – turned out to have provided me with a pretty fair education. I believe in public education, although not necessarily with the model currently being applied or in the idea that national standards are the best fit for all.

I led an exceedingly middle-class existence in the U.S., married, with two children, living in a succession of mortgaged homes and driving compact to mid-sized cars. I got divorced and remarried (to a Canadian no less) and that added two adopted adult children to my immediate blended family.

I worked for a variety of family-owned and corporate-owned businesses, never making more than the median wage until I went to work for the federal government in my 50s and I was content doing that.

I served my community and my country as a member of its armed forces during the Vietnam era and again during the first Persian Gulf War. During the interim between those periods, I served as an enlisted member of the Naval Reserve and the Army National Guard in three states.

I consider myself a professional journalist (since I had a degree in journalism and worked for almost 30 years for newspapers in five states), but I have been forced into retirement due to a heart condition (not of the bleeding heart kind) and am considerably overweight (came after the heart troubles, not before). Think of me as an old walrus.

Since I have been on the planet for nearly six and half decades that qualifies me, I guess, to consider myself a senior citizen.

Hence, I am a WASPCEMCAMPVORS and proud of it.

Actually, I am an American who buys into the vision of America that was articulated by my predecessors, who – if one is to believe these things you find on Ancestry.Com – can be traced back to people who came over from England between 1620 and 1650.

I believe in silly things like freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom to own property, freedom to live your life like you want to as long as it doesn’t infringe on others to do the same and a freedom from the government mandating I do too many things.

I believe the law should be applied equally and equitably to all who claim citizenship in the United States, period. No conditions, no quibbles, no exceptions. No one is above the law, even if they write it or are charged with the responsibility of enforcing it.

In my culture, we believe in self-discipline that comes before social discipline.

In my culture, we believe in self-reliance that comes before reliance on social assistance.

In my culture, we believe that EVERYONE deserves to be treated with respect and dignity (unless and until such time that an individual demonstrates unequivocally that they deserve neither). Again, there are no other qualifiers, no quibbles and no exceptions.

In my culture, we believe that there are such things as “good” and “bad” and that evil can exist with good. We accept the fact that bad things happen to good people.

In my culture, we believe that we can know what is good and point it out, even if we have problems defining it with words; and can do the same with what is bad or evil.

In my culture, we believe that doing is more important than anything else. Do something; even if it turns out wrong or doesn’t work, at least you tried. Not to even try is worse than anything.

In my culture, we believe the Golden Rule is the highest standard to which we can aspire. And by that I mean “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”; not the one that says “He who has the gold makes the rules.” Unfortunately, humans being what we are, the latter rule usually takes precedence over the former, but in the end, we have to remember that it is the individual’s choice which one to follow.

In my culture, we believe in the maxim that “Government governs best, when it governs least.” We also believe that the level of government closest to the people is the level that is most responsive to the people and often, the people – not the government as their agent – are more effective at solving problems than the government enforcing solutions.

In my culture, we accept that the world is an imperfect place but believe that a federal republic with democratically elected representatives and office holders has proven the best form of government for large, diverse collections of individuals.

In my culture, we believe that we should accept that others hold values different than ours, respect that difference, but are willing to defend our values as being the values that should be reflected in our society and government.

In my culture, we are willing to either kill or be killed in defense of these values as well as those who live in our society. We accept that others may disagree with that position, but we will defend that right to disagree with our very lives.

In my culture, we celebrate all those things as positive values.

Now, you may not agree with these statements. Such is your right as a human being.

Nuff said. I hope this has given you food for thought.

Two thousand mice dropped on Guam by parachute — to kill snakes

Two thousand mice dropped on Guam by parachute — to kill snakes

Look out Swedish Teddy Bears ... here come the Guamanian Mice ... albeit dead mice ...

I wonder how you pin jump wings on a dead mouse hanging in a tree"

Anyway, fascinating tidbit from the day's news. 

Limbaugh on Pope Francis

CNN Blog: Limbaugh calls Pope a Marxist

When I first say the above story, it was a banner headline on the CNN website.

My first reaction was: Give me a flipping break!

First, who cares what Rush Limbaugh says? Granted he has roughly 15 million listeners to his daily radio monologue but so what?

You may not agree with me, but the guy takes pains to point of that he is a political commentator and entertainer. He deals in opinions … his opinions … and if your don’t like his opinions, then don’t listen to him.

Limbaugh doesn’t like the thrust of a portion of the English translation of a 50-000 word letter Pope Francis wrote in Spanish on the joy of spreading the faith. According to the Vatican translation, the pontiff took some shots at modern capitalism, which as far as I am concerned he is perfectly free to do … even if his billion followers (and Limbaugh has only 15 million?) as members of the Catholic Church are supposed to take his words as gospel (except in this case not as infallible).

Just because the Pope said something that makes liberal progressives have tingles running up and down their legs, it doesn’t necessarily mean poopy. Well, at least in my humble opinion.

One can find a whole lot to like about the new Pope, but one has to remember that he doesn’t walk on water. He is merely a priest, a very high ranking priest but a priest just the same, of a very large religious group.

So, if Rush Limbaugh, a person who liberals and progressives in the United States seem to hate almost as much as they hate Sarah Palin (which I will never understand), decides to criticize and poke fun at the pontiff, it really shouldn’t matter.

Actually, I find it terribly ironic that CNN, not known for being a bastion of the Catholic faith – much less any other Judeo-Christian-based religion, would be so up in arms about something a syndicated AM-radio talk show host has to say. It is not like Limbaugh is a god or something.

As for liberals and progressives taking umbrage at Limbaugh’s riposte, I find that even richer considering how much effort they spend to discredit the efforts of the religious to stand by their religious principles in the political arena.

Yes, a lot of people find Limbaugh’s commentary enlightening and entertaining, as well as informative and persuasive, which drives those on the left absolutely bonkers and has for the last two decades.

I wish the latest generation of “journalists” would stop trying to promote their own ideologies and just report what happens. I know, that is unfair. They are supposed to tell us what it means as well … but that is where this old newspaper editor parts company with his cable and broadcast posterity … they ain’t even close to being my posterior.

Please, producers and web editors, give people credit for being a bit smarter than you think they are and understand that not everybody agrees with your political, social and economic world views.

Footnote: I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh and never really have. I found him too full of himself to listen to for any length of time.

The intellectual dishonesty of liberalism, conservatism and politics

The intellectual dishonesty of liberalism, conservatism and politics

This is a pretty good article on how definitions really mean something, but that we get trapped in them.

It does a pretty good job of outlining both sides of the political spectrum in the U.S. as far as their views on solutions.

It is worth the read.

Philosophy 101 – Essay #10

Tenth in a series

Essay #1    Essay #2    Essay #3   Essay #4    Essay #5

Essay #6    Essay #7    Essay #8    Essay #9

 

I find myself increasingly challenged by what I express in these essays … I hope you are too.

First, I realize that much of what I think is on the macro scale, but I am trying to apply it on the micro scale, and vice-versa. I know that doesn’t always work, nor does it really take in all contingencies and variations.

For example, how do your reconcile the role of the individual in an ancient society such as China, where the fate of the individual is essentially a non-issue. Or is that merely the Occidental way of looking at an Oriental culture that we don’t really understand the nuances of its perspective.

Granted, as history has demonstrated through the millennia, the Chinese – like a number of Asian cultures – apparently don’t put the same value on an individual life that is found in those cultures under the influence of the West. And yet, all too often we see instances in those Eastern cultures of a high regard for individual honor and the role that the individual has in society.

I guess one then is pressed to ask is the culture synonymous with society? That question brings us back to what is society? What is culture? I guess I could drag out my Webster’s to cut and paste, but that seems inadequate. No, I need to be able to express a definition that is in my own words, but in a sense that will be inadequate because you may define those same words differently. Therein, as I have found throughout this series, lies my biggest challenge but it is a challenge we all face, daily, in all aspects of our lives trying to communicate through the only medium that society has given us to express ourselves: Our language.

Yet, at the root of all societies and all cultures must lay that commonality: a shared language.

As George Bernard Shaw allegedly pointed out the Americans and the British are divided by their common language (English), which is my point that, while the words we use may be the same, their meanings may differ. It becomes more apparent when society tries to accommodate more than one language.

It would seem to me that for a society to function with any efficiency then the language it uses must be one that is shared. Without that commonality, then communication is impossible and society necessarily will collapse. Without a common language, the societal rules cannot be understood the same way by all.

However, a culture can co-exist within societies as subsets of the larger society, but if the language is substantially different then the society has problems.

This may offend those who think that societies can be multi-lingual, but I contend that without those shared frames of reference that are essential to successful communication then conflict and discord is inevitable. Yes, it can work, but I think that history has repeatedly demonstrated that it will break down, especially when the cultural roots and the languages that it supports are incompatible.

It is relatively easy to mesh a multi-cultural society when the language’s symbology is similar, but when it totally different, then communication almost becomes impossible as the need for direct and simultaneous translation exceeds the capacity for us to process the information.

My take-away from that would be society has to have a common language. This is recognized in the United States by the fact that the law is in English (American English, granted, but English just the same). It is that way because under its system of common law words have been given certain precise definitions (which is why you have to hire a lawyer to make sure that what you are saying in a legal setting really is what you mean to say and does not get interpreted as something else – I can vouch for that through personal experience).

The Canadian experiment in bi-lingual law is working for now, but I wonder about its long-term viability. I suspect that conflicts in meaning between French and English eventually create significant problems for the country. Of course, if a significant minority of Quebeckers had their way, the province already would be a separate nation. Given the competition between the two cultures, I suspect that eventually either one will assimilate the other – since the English speakers outnumber the French speakers, it is probable that the English speakers could dominate, or they will go their separate ways.

In sense, this means that language actually defines society. But what defines language? Our cultural experience would be my best answer.

I remember reading somewhere that you could tell a lot about a culture just by counting the words used to describe a particular thing. The thesis being that the more words that were used, the more nuanced each one was and so you could have different shades of definitions for all. The more nuances surrounding a concept meant that it was an important value.

The example was that in some languages there are no words for things that might be described in English, or words that have few synonyms in English could have a multitude in another language.

For example: The word true in the English language as about than 45 synonyms (http://thesaurus.com/browse/true); and the word false has about the same number. I don’t know whether that means we lie a lot or not, because adding lie seems to add a whole bunch more words to the mix with a myriad of meanings.

The word yes (according to the same source) has like 33 synonyms, but its antonym no has only eight.

Using this paradigm, what this means we have a host of ways of saying I agree, all with different nuances, but when we say no … well, no definitely means NO!

When you expand that to include adjectives and adverbs, well, then a tangled mess we have, much of it defined by the culture we live in. Again, we may share the same language, live in the same society, but our sub-culture within that society may be something entirely different. We see that all the time in the U.S. where if you don’t speak the local dialect, then it quickly identifies you as an outsider, usually not to be trusted. (Having lived in many places, with a whole variety of different dialects, I have gotten used to hearing “You ain’t from around here, are you?” in a host of different ways)

So, we have to accept that culture is different from society. Culture is defined by its language. In turn, culture defines a society as well.

Cultures primarily can be described by their value systems: What beliefs, behavior patterns, values, etc., are considered essential to be a member of a specific culture. Hence, you can have cultures such as I grew up in that placed a very high value on education and those that don’t. I have lived in places where education was not a priority. Still I do not claim that my education has made me any better than anyone (well, I might be better at doing some things than others not so educated, but it does not make me a superior being) in our society, because it doesn’t, but I can easily point out many people who have far less education than I do but are far superior to me in so many ways it isn’t funny.

So, let us agree that language defines culture which defines society.

To go further, we will have to delve into what cultures I think offer more and what ones fail, but that is for another essay.

Nuff said for now. As always, I hope I have left you food for thought that leads you to examine your own personal philosophy.

Lost in Translation

Dealing with a lousy translation of Pontiff's letter

In my series on my philosophy, I allude to the problem that the person at this web site discusses.

I am not going to go into whether Pope Francis’ latest official papal letter (not an encyclical which would imply that it was infallibly true) is the last word for everyone to believe. I ain’t that stupid (I don’t want to start a violent argument), besides I am not a Catholic.

No, what struck me was the explanation of why the author found many problems with the official Vatican English language translation of a document that was written in Spanish (and not Latin, which used to be the common language for official papal documents, but the Pope is Argentinian and that is the Spanish he learned). It was that the the words used in the English translation did not mean the same in English as the Spanish words meant in Spanish. In fact, entire clauses and phrases were either left out or substituted with something meaning something else.

You see when you write in any language, you are hoping that the words you used mean the same thing to your reader. You really assume that they do, while in reality that may not be the case.

All words come with a context, a set of connotations, that are flavored by the both the writer’s/speaker’s experiences and the reader’s/listener’s experiences. If the writer and the reader do not share the same frames of reference, then things tend to get lost in transmission or if you shifting from one language to another, lost in translation.

For example, I may use a phrase that is familiar to me, but is entirely unknown to you. The phrase has meaning to me, but it has no meaning to you. Our terms of reference are different and so the message so clear to me now becomes muddled.

In the news coverage that we watch in the United States, we often see the same thing, but take away different meanings. And then often, we hear a person say one thing, and then the next person tells us what the first person really meant when he or she said whatever we heard. In the news business this is known as the “spin”.

For example, HealthCare.Gov website is supposed to be up and functioning this weekend. It is, I suspect, after a fashion. Because it is, after two months of being repaired, it will be deemed a “success” by those who support President Obama’s health services payment initiative (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare) and a vindication of the legislation. However, every tiny glitch, problem, malfunction, freeze-up, etc., will be seized upon by those opposed to Obamacare as yet another example of the president and his allies’ ineptitude and failure. (More spin)

I honestly don’t know whether it has turned a corner or not … not that it matters whether I think it has or not anyway.

However, the words used in the debate over its fate will be fraught with meanings – multitudes of meanings – which will mean as Pappy used to tell me:

“What I thought I said was not what I thought you heard and what you heard was not what I thought I said and what you thought I said something entirely different;” or a shorter version “What you thought you heard was not what I thought I said.”

Now, what is the problem with all this? Well, to begin with it leads to misunderstandings, and misunderstandings lead to conflict and unfortunately, conflict often escalates into violence … and we don’t want to go there.

The problem with the mistranslations is that apparently some of it was written with a certain political agenda in mind; an agenda that people who believe in a capitalistic economic model see as wrong.

Unfortunately, what was translated may not really have been exactly what the Pope wrote and that would put his words in a different light. I still am in the process of working my own way through the various translations – which I may not even finish, so I really have no opinion yet as to what the pontiff may or may not have urged his Catholic followers to do.

Bottom line: Be very skeptical about what you read and hear. Realize that either will be open to interpretation and how people think things are becomes their reality. We as individuals act on our perception of reality and tragedy most likely will ensue if we interpret our perceptions wrongly.

The problem in politics, both domestic and international, is that both sides are trying to sell us their vision of the world … and probably both sides are really just selling  us a bill of goods with nothing really there.

Eerie echoes of the past

Following the news reports of the past week, I have been trying to figure out which historical parallel is closer:

Is 2013 more like 1914 or 1938?

Heck if I know, but the world’s punditry seems to be seeing both and running with it.

Granted, George Santayana said those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, and it is pretty obvious that the world’s current crop of leaders have learned little from their study of history. Of course, teaching history these days is more an exercise in being politically correct that actually looking at what happened.

For example, what happened in Munich in 1938? Well, the major powers of the day came to resolve a territorial dispute over a part of a sovereign county (that was not represented at the conference). On one side was Germany, led by a charismatic leader named Adolph Hitler. He had been a corporal in World War I (then called the Great War because World War II hadn’t happened yet) and had risen to the position of chancellor of Germany (its highest post). Hitler must have been a pretty good poker player because he sure knew how to run a bluff.

On the other side was Great Britain (probably at its imperial height) and France. Now, one has to remember that running an empire is a pretty expensive business and this was in the time of the Great Depression that tanked economies worldwide. In addition, the French spent much of a generation of its young men in the bloody trenches of the Great War and was not eager to repeat the exercise. The Brits were not all that eager, either, have lost a bunch of young men as well as a bunch of money, that it still was trying to get the Germans to pay them in reparations for its role in the First War.

Mister Hitler, already having bluffed the French and the Brits out of keeping his troops out of the Alsace-Lorraine when he marched a small group into the disputed region (with a lot of noise and fanfare that made it look like a much larger force), decided to try again with the annexation of a chunk of neighboring Czechoslovakia. It worked.

The prime minister of England landed with a piece of paper that gave Hitler what he wanted and gave the Brits and the French what they wanted, which was a reason not to go to war. All hail the peacemakers … only Hitler went to war anyway a year later against the Poles and that dragged the Brits and the French back to war … that eventually cost about 60 million humans their lives. Now, had the French held the line at Alsace-Lorraine, or both the Brits and French held the line at Munich, then … well, we will never know.

What happened in 1914? Not much. It was the summer of 1914 that got everyone in to trouble. It started over the assassination of an Austrian nobleman, and then pretty much snowballed almost with a life of its own, until about every nation in Europe was choosing up sides and modern warfare put on its first demonstration of industrial might. The sad thing was that most of the leaders really didn’t want to fight a war, and thought it would be a relatively quick one. Well, we in the 21^st Century have heard that canard, have we not?

So, what are the parallels? Last weekend, the major powers represented on the UN Security Council (plus Germany) reached some sort of nebulous deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran that supposedly, but maybe not, reins in Iran’s ability to process uranium to the point where it can be used in nuclear bombs and the like. Now, the Americans say the deal says one thing and the Iranians say it says another, but then the Americans still are going to go ahead like what they said the deals says is what is going on because they have been fighting wars in that area since 2001 and tired of it; and the Iranians appear to be going to ignore what the Americans are saying and go their merry way. Of course the bottom line is a) do we believe that Iran (after being caught in numerous bluffs and lies) is being truthful when it says it won’t use its capabilities to build a nuclear weapon and b) that the Iranians are merely misunderstood waifs who have been unjustly punished for sponsoring various and sundry terrorist organizations around primarily the Middle East and repeatedly muttering that they want to wipe a neighboring sovereign state off the map. Only time will give us that answer.

Now, not to be ignored, on the other side of the Eurasian landmass, the most populous country in the world is telling its neighbors that that territory they thought was theirs, well … it really belongs to China and they need to get over it. The neighbors are not impressed nor are they very happy. Now, China has told the world that this area of international waters (well, most of it), but includes some islands that have been administered by Japan for almost a couple of centuries, is part of its air defense zone and anybody who wants to fly there has to have Chinese hall passes. Well, the first the Americans, then the Koreans and then the Japanese said poohy to yoohy China and flew their planes through the zone, because areas of it are in zones they already had said they could fly in.

Now, the problem with all this huffing and puffing is that somebody is liable to make a mistake … a very human thing to do … and we will have a repeat of 2001, with airplanes playing bumper cars in the air. Then it cost the Chinese a fighter and a pilot and led to a short diplomatic demarche between the US and China.

This time, however, it seems that the sides are upping the ante and backing their bluffs with a little bit more firepower. The problem with firepower is sometimes, somebody does an oopsie and pulls a trigger and a figurative Austrian noble person gets bumped off.

I guess we could be dusting off the old “domino theory” of global politics, but I hope not. As it stands, however, I don’t see nothing good coming out of events in either Geneva (and the Middle East) or in the East (and South) China Seas. It will be too easy for things to go wrong and then the bullets could start flying for real.

Add to that the economic calamity that is Obamacare, and I think the US is in for a nasty year in 2014. I could be wrong … in fact I hope I am wrong. War really is such an ugly, vile and destructive business. It really ought to be abolished as a bad idea … unfortunately, people just aren’t made that way and war will remain for the foreseeable future an unfortunate part of mankind’s fate.