Trump reaction

Note: this section will not be G-Rated … Not even PG … it will be at least R …

WARNING: There will be obscenities and profane language past this point. I have been politic; you have been warned!

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON! America (especially in its national media) is going fucking bonkers because one of its political leadership candidates talks of bawdy things (in a younger iteration) and shows that he is a God-damn, arrogant, loud-mouthed, profane, self-centered, self-absorbed, ruthless, son-of-a-bitch … so what else is new. Get the fuck over it. It ain’t the first time it has happened.

People are going ape-shit crazy calling him to withdraw his candidacy because he told some broadcast flunky off mic that he likes to fondle pretty women … what a bunch of fucking hypocrites. Damn, if there is a male in the room over, let’s say, 45 who hasn’t engaged in bowdlerized, locker-room talk about women and braggadocio about what they would like to do … excepting possibly those men who are gayer that the three-dollar bill … I probably would call them a liar and be right. I can’t say much about people younger than that because I haven’t sat in on many of their conversations, but what I have heard makes me think they aren’t much different.

Folks, take a fucking chill pill. The God-damned politically correct shit has to stop.

The problem with Trump is that he actually talks like he is one of the plebeians … you know, us common folks who actually worked for a God-damn living and not made a living getting paid by the government/state for a career.

I find all this faux-horror at Trump’s tax returns, his sexually explicit talks with people (especially those with recording devices, which is stupid, but then, what the hell, we live in a gotcha by the balls society these days), so freakingly fucking hypocritical that it sort of makes me want to stage a French Revolution here in the US? Trot out the guillotine for the “aristocracy”!!!!

Where is the Red Queen when we need her? Off with their fucking heads! 

I guess I have fallen a long way from my perch among the elites of the world as a college graduate who was the editor of one of the 1600 daily newspapers (at the time) in the USofA, assistant editor at another, editor at a three-times a week paper, and editor of four different weekly newspapers, not including a weekly and an every-other-day newspaper I produced in a war zone.

I no longer have much patience with progressives and those who education or position places them above the fucking masses. I am reminded to tell them, despite your fucking smarts, or God-damn worthless pieces of paper, social, economic or political positions, you stupid over-educated dumbshit assholes, you still put your panties on one leg at a time just like the rest of us idiots.

You know the people you find deplorable may be crude and rude, but they are people. They might not have high-fluting degrees or education, or even money or wealth, but they still are functioning human beings, who can – when called upon – actually have a thought or two in their head … and those thoughts just might be worth listening to. A lot may be stupid or silly thoughts, but given the facts, their common sense will usually win out.

So, Trump is a ruthless, fucking billionaire (or just a multi-millionaire, what does it matter) corporate slob of a businessman, that has never stopped such people from running and serving in public office before. Cue the damn Virginia planter class or the fucking Ivy League country club shit heads

The question you really should be asking yourself, you fucking dumbbells, is has he broken the law? How did he make those billions? By himself or surrounding himself and delegating to a vast corps of really competent deplorables?   I really don’t think he did it selling favors, like a former Senator from New York and Secretary of State, along with her sexually obsessed husband who is an ex-president now, who actually did “it” with a God-damn intern in the Oval Office … or was it her oval orifice … shit, I don’t even know any more ... much less really give a shit.

How many laws, lies, and other shit does Trump’s leading opponent have to break, say and do before you get the message that she really is a bunch of crappola. Do you really want that crappola? Do you really want the fucking status quo candidate to keep things running down the same God-damn track we have been going for the last 10 or so years … so be it … vote for the piece of shit.

Another question: Why is the “establishment” fucking going freaking ape-shit over the possibility of Trump being president? What is it they really are so fucking scared-shitless about? Do they know something about the checks and balances built into our system of governance that we don’t know that makes them think we can’t survive a loose-cannon? What is it that we have had for the last 25 fucking years? Cannons lashed down so tight their pussies squeak? I think they are just afraid he will upset the status quo and maybe, just maybe, fucking change the way things have been run in our fucking capital for that last shitting century or so. Maybe that is the change we need, fucking stupid America.

Now I am not saying anybody should vote for the jerk Trump, or anyone else, but I am saying look at what they say they want to do … ask yourself if those things are what you really want done or if they really are sustainable or just pipe dreams … or just products of your own envy of those who have shit you don’t. … then reach down and vote for the candidate who can win AND do the least amount damage to what freedoms you, as an individual, still have in this country.

One last point, a historical one: The last time the elite was in this much of an uproar, I think, was 1828. You know when that rude, crude and obscene Tennessean Andrew Jackson was elected and the Virginia planter class and the New England lawyers had a hissy fit over this frontier braggart capturing the White House. He was a populist too, if I remember my history correctly and really changed the course of politics and the shape of the American democratic republic. Is that what they are so afraid of?

Anyway, I apologize for my fucking profanity, but I am becoming more and more like the old fucking grunt soldier I was part time, rather than the urbane, cosmopolitan, liberal arts college-educated elite journalist I once was.

Still, I raise my rye on the rocks to all of you who are a) Americans and b) deign to read this rant. (tonight is was Canadian rye, tomorrow night it will be my Gordon’s vodka … I alternate nights on which poison I drink on the rocks).

May you all find your path blessed by the Divine, and you have the strength and courage to endure whatever travails may lie ahead of you personally and (if it so applies) as an American.

 

Footnote: This is a succinct summation why I don't give a fucking rat's ass about Trump's "hot-mic moment". OK, I am done

Autumn of life

First, I want to apologize to anyone who has followed this blog in the past: I have been woefully bad about updating, having somewhat abandoned you all to make links on my Facebook page. Richard Browne on Facebook

It has been easier to post links with brief commentary there, but I have decided to take the time at this point to more fully develop my headline thesis and Facebook is inadequate vehicle for that.

Secondly, I want to apologize for the lack of links that will be in this post, but a) I am lazy and b) I am going to credit you, the reader, as one who follows the news in the United States and therefore already will be able to understand the context in which my views are made.

Now, what do I mean by “Autumn of Life”? Am I referring to my own or do I have some larger portrait to paint? The answer to both is “yes”.

I recently reached the ripe old age of 66 and with my health being as it is, I am – I must realize and acknowledge – in the “autumn” of my existence. It doesn’t mean I plan to die tomorrow or sometime soon, but it is a possibility that will come to pass. Being an old codger with a few miles under my treads does tend to give me a perspective that I once would have applied only to my digressions into my studies of history – of American, of the World, of Western and other civilizations.

So as I read today’s headlines on the internet and read through the lead stories of the day, on one hand I have been struck by an increasing sense of doom and gloom, while occasionally I see flashes that there may yet be hope.

The problem in the U.S., to me at least, is that we have become too complacent, maybe even too apathetic, about who we are as Americans and what is expected of us as Americans. Understand, that for most Americans we take for granted a lifestyle that literally few, except maybe the very wealthy, around the world really can hope to achieve. But we assume that lifestyle as a right, and don’t realize it is a privilege that has been built on the hard work and discipline of our parents, their parents, etc.

It is our expectations that are at fault now and how we fail to acknowledge the basis for the life that those expectations are built upon. Over the course of my life, I have witnessed how the elevation of our expectations in outcome were not keeping pace with the expectations of what input it would take to achieve them.

It is, of course, de rigor now to teach every child that they can achieve anything they want to and that everyone can be a success. That concept is why we now downplay competition and celebrate mere participation. We do this to promote self-esteem in our young and a belief in their abilities … even if their abilities are not up to achieving their expectations. I remember the first year I played organized baseball, I had these visions of me driving the ball up the hill above our diamond and into the parking lot. I walked 13 times (I was a little kid and had a small strike zone) and I struck out 13 times. We forgot somewhere along the line that we also have to teach our progeny that what we want often is not what we get.

I remember a saying from my youth: Aim for the stars, but be willing to accept the moon, or even low-earth orbit, if that is what your abilities will carry you to.

It is called dealing with disappointment and dealing with the reality that sometimes what you want and what you can achieve are entirely different things.

For example, when I was a young man I would have given my eyeteeth to become a line officer in the US Navy or the US Coast Guard. It didn’t happen, but not for lack of trying. Events both in and out of my control augured against me and I was disappointed in nine different attempts. What that taught me, with each of the failures I had a long the way, was to fall back, regroup, and strike out again with a new objective in mind.

Over my life, I have had some successes and, if I am honest, many failures. It was the challenge of trying to pick up the pieces after each of the failures – an some probably should be legend – and go on. It is hard. It is not easy. However, I thank my parents for for somehow endowing me with the perseverance to keep going.

The problem I see with a large part of my nation these days is that we have lost the consensus of what it means to be an American … and even if to be called an American is a worthy thing. If you read much of the politically correct debate, you begin to wonder if being an American really is worth all we go through … especially if we who believe in the old American ideal were such evil and bad people.

We have lost the consensus of what is expected of the individual adult, or the role of faith is to play in our collective lives, or what role civil and community organizations are to play in our American civilization, or what the individual roles of city, county, state and federal governments are.

The role of the individual, as perceived by those rather smart white men who wrote the constitution that underlies our current republic, was guardian of his (sorry, certain groups were excluded, although that has been for the most part correct as a matter of law) own sustenance and future. It was not the government’s role (especially not the federal or state) to make sure the individual had a roof over his head or food on the table. The role of the individual, however, was to contribute to the success of his community and to stand in its defense … and in a larger sense, to his city, county, state and nation, as part of his obligation to it. It was the individual’s obligation to uphold the law through his own actions, rather than an expectation that the government, at what ever level, to enforce the law. All were to be treated equally by that law and it applied to everyone.

That perception, unfortunately, no longer applies. If it feels good and you can get away with it, it seems that today no one has an obligation to obey or uphold the law. In addition, that extends to those whose job it is to enforce the law. If, for whatever reason, it becomes expedient not to enforce the law, or to enforce it selectively, or in some cases rewrite the law by executive fiat, those who are charged with its uniform enforcement decline to do so.

In order to satisfy the political beliefs for some, rather than take the language at its face value, it is twisted and turned into something Orwellian to behold. George Orwell’s “NewSpeak” is alive and thriving in 21st Century America.

On one hand, there are those who believe – not as American tradition holds – that in the 21st Century the rights and beliefs of the individual no longer matter but the rights of the community and democracy trump the individual with the “government” as the arbiter. We see political candidates to date making it clear that it is their position in no uncertain terms.

For example, take firearms. Well, you have the right not to own one, but does that make it right to deny someone who wants to own one to be able to do so. Just because you are scared of guns does not necessarily correlate to a need to ban guns.

The Second Amendment makes it an inalienable right of the individual to keep and bear arms, as so many of the people who debated its adoption pointed out. And it was not just for hunting, but it was survival … survival against enemies of the Republic from both within and without. The government is not giving us this right as a privilege and it doesn’t have the privilege to take it away from American individuals without showing good and just cause. It is not up to the individual to prove that he or she worthy of the right; it is up to the government to prove that he or she is unworthy of the right.

Now, I know that is not a popular position with some of our elites, particularly among our media gatekeepers and pundits and others who consider themselves to be progressive. To them, we have “evolved” past the need for individuals to be willing to step and defend not only themselves but their communities “from all enemies foreign or domestic.” (I know that oath because I have taken it many times) To them, that is what we hire police and the military for, but I would disagree with them.

In our hubris, we are letting our expectations and wants get ahead of our abilities and capabilities. In our hubris, I would posit that my country has reached the autumn of its life. Those who are familiar with the Cycle of Democracy will understand what I am saying … if you are unfamiliar with it, then I beg forgiveness and ask you to research it.

For many decades now we have let those who want desperately for everyone to succeed and raise everyone to the the same level as everyone else raise expectations without pointing out that there is no free lunch. Everything comes with a price and what you want sometimes is beyond the reach of what you can afford. That this is true does not necessarily mean that you are failure – I can attest to that, for I don’t consider myself a failure … I may not have been perfect or roaring success who achieved all his goals without effort, but that doesn’t make me a failure.

Unfortunately, we have raised at least two, if not three and possibly going on four, generations who were not taught that while all things are possible, not all things are probable. That as individuals we have to be prepared for disappointments and that we will take losses, probably in greater proportions than our gains.

I once gave a poem to my step-son and commended it to his reading. I told him to listen, hear and attend to its words, for they are good rules to live your life by. I hope it has helped him … and I would recommend everyone, especially every adolescent and young adult to read it and pay heed. It is the poem “If” by the British author and poet Rudyard Kipling. I know there are those who will immediately dismiss it, given Kipling’s provenance, but they would be wrong. It truly is an eternal lesson that knows no race, religion, creed or era.

When I look at events of recent days, I am struck by the fact that evil does walk among us … and, yes, there are evil people out there. They feed upon the envy, resentment and hate that is being fanned every day by people on the internet, in the media, and in our political leadership. We cannot escape that truth. All we can do is prepare ourselves to cope with.

How do we do that? There are a number of things we can do, but it falls to individuals and not to “society” or “government”.

First, we can endeavor to live our own lives by the only one true and universal rule of life: Treat others as we would have them treat ourselves.

Easy to say, but difficult to do. We wish we were ruled by our reason, but the truth is we are move often ruled by our emotions and our passions. Still, we must learn that it truly is better to forgive rather than to let our anger and hate eat away at us and turn us into beasts we do not recognize.

The second thing may seem at odds with the first, but it is just as true: If we want peace, then we must be prepared for war.

Whether it is war at the individual level, the community level or the national level, we must be prepared to step forward and take whatever measures we can to combat evil when it comes … and it will come. This is not something we can farm out to mercenaries in the form of police or the military. This is something each of us must take on as our personal obligation, not just to ourselves, but also to our communities, our cities, our counties, our states, territories, commonwealths and districts, our nation … and probably, by extension, to our planet.

I say these things without consideration of color, or race, or ethnicity, or economic, or social status. It doesn’t matter to me. Unfortunately, for far too many Americans, it does matter these days. No longer is it important what the law says, or what people’s actions are in accordance with those laws, it only matters what someone’s perceive gender is, or sexual orientation, or color of their skin, or whether they are rich or poor or somewhere in between. This is wrong and is part of the evil that has brought autumn to our Republic.

If you have bore with me throughout this lengthy essay, I commend you. If you agree with it, I hope it inspires you; just as I hope it it inspires you to respond with a comment if you don’t agree with me.

 

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.

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.

Philosophy 101–Essay #7

Essay #1   Essay #2   Essay #3

Essay #4   Essay #5   Essay #6

Seventh in a series

Welcome back, as I continue my wanderings through the canyons of my philosophy.

As I left off in Chapter 6, my question remains: What should society do for us?

That is a tough question and I know I don’t have the complete answer.

Now, I would like it if we could differentiate between “Society” and “Government” but that seems so awfully hard to do these days. I don’t know when it happened, but there used to be two separate entities: Society and Government … but today, things that used to be the responsibility of society has, for the most part, seemed to have to morphed into things that we demand that government, as a representative or agent of society, provide for us.

You are free to disagree here, but one of the things that Alexander de Tocqueville found so appealing about the American experiment back in the 1830s was the degree to which Americans voluntarily formed civic associations to solve social problems. We did not look to government for the solutions; we turned to like-minded individuals and used that synergy to achieve incredible feats that made the United States so wealthy – in spirit as well as materiel – and powerful. It seems that visualization of how to solve our problems have given way to letting someone else deal with it … in this case the “government” as agent for us.

This sense of civic involvement has given way to an apathy, or at least a detachment, that since the “government” or “society” has assumed responsibility for solving all our problems and since we pay taxes to that government, then we have fulfilled our part of the social contract and no further effort is needed from us. It is the easy way out, but is the right way out?

Remember, I said that individuals are inherently basically lazy. Now, I don’t mean that in the pejorative sense of the word (well, sort of). What I do mean is that like anything else in nature, we people seek the course that requires the least effort from us. The easier it is, then the more likely that it is a choice we will make. This is not bad, necessarily, but it is the way we are. Deny that truth at your own peril.

Sometimes we do chose to take the more difficult path, but usually that is because we perceive a greater reward at the end of it than if we took the easy road. Again, that is simply the way humans are. We are self-interested and rightly so, because otherwise some predator in nature would have eaten us.

However, over the millennia, we humans have figured out that we can’t do everything by ourselves and that sometimes there is safety, if not more efficiency, in numbers. Hence, man has slowly but surely become more “civilized.” Individuals learned to specialize and trade things for those things that others had. As this civilization grew, so did the need for people to arbitrate and administer the transactions and the bureaucracy was born.

I remember once hearing a history professor tell me that you could tell the level of civilization within a society by the size of its bureaucracy. To wit, my jocular response was, “I think we are civilized enough now, already even, thank you.”

But, yes, what was the thing de Tocqueville was getting at? When we voluntarily come together, the results are nothing short of incredible. When we are compelled to work together, as was the case with the feudal societies of the Europe before the 19^th century, progress can be made, but it is restricted. Unleash the power of the individual and look out.

Unfortunately, from my perspective, that has been perverted somewhat by others – particularly the 19^th century social philosopher Karl Marx – into a view that seeks to release the individual from responsibility for existence and transfer that responsibility to the state. There are those who see Marx’s vision and philosophy as being the best option, but I would contend that they are wrong because it fails to take into account human nature. You are welcome to make your own choice.

The essence of the socialist philosophy (and no I have not read all three volumes of Marx’s epic epistle) seems to have been explained to me as “from each according to their ability and to each according to their need.” I find that concept quite seductive until I start thinking about it.

Let’s take the first part: From each according to their ability. Define ability? Are we saying all that a person is capable of? At what level of effort? Would that be minimum or maximum effort? How about “sustainable” effort? Who decides what that level is? How can we define it in a way that is fair to person putting forth the effort? Are all individuals willing to put out more than minimum effort if the reward for it is the same as for greater effort?

Secondly, who assigns the value to that ability? If we remember that society/state is made up of individuals, then who or what is giving that other individual as an agent of the state the right to assign that value? We can do that through our social contracts. We do that all the time in our lives when we exchange one thing of value with another person for something that person has of value. Of course, under a capitalist system, the individual gets to decide the relative values, where as in a socialist system that decision is left to the state and who is the state but individuals who have taken on the responsibility for others and substituting their choices for the original individual.

Taking the second part: To each according to their need. Define need? How much food, water, shelter, clothing, protection, etc., is required in order to fulfill anyone’s needs. Three hots and cot can be a pretty low standard.

If we cannot define “need” satisfactorily, then how will it be possible to fulfill all the needs of all the people, especially when each person is different and their needs essentially unique? Add to that, how do we allocate the limited resources we have, which – in case you haven’t noticed – won’t begin to fulfill all the needs of all the people to bring all the people up to the same standard (unless you set that standard pretty low – which brings us back to three hots and cot).

So, what role should the state/society/government have in our lives? It has to have some, otherwise it would be anarchy and I am not advocating that.

I alluded to what role I think government/state/the society should have in an individual’s life when I was talking about civilizations. The role should be limited to enforcing contracts between individuals, groups, and the various associations that humans form. Contracts are the basis for our existence. Oral, written, tacit, implicit, explicit, whatever form they take, in the end as members of society we have to agree to some level of enforcement of those contracts.

That is what we do with our unwritten social contract. It regulates our behaviors through social sanctions. Society breaks down when the system of social sanctions breaks down. If you don’t believe that, then just look around you, as examples abound. I could take a dozen news stories a day that would illustrate this point, where society has turned its head on individual responsibility only to have its face slapped.

Unfortunately, we have surrendered individual responsibility in favor of societal responsibility and we are paying the price.

Don’t agree? That is your prerogative, but in the long run, I fear that you will find that you are wrong.

Nuff said for this go-round.

Poor people, poor decisions

"Poor" person's rationale why bad decisions make sense

I read the afore mentioned article on the Huffington Post and was torn between commenting there or here. Discretion being the better part of valor … and wanting to think a bit before making my comment, I chose here.

There is so much wrong with the young lady’s rationalizations. Where others see a just cause, I see merely excuses.

Ok, life has dealt her a tough hand. Get over it.

Second, own up to the fact that a lot of your choices got you where you are today … things that had you done something differently … like deferred gratification instead of going for moment and instant gratification … then maybe you wouldn’t be in the shoes you are in now.

Third, life is not a picnic. It takes hard word and many long hours of effort … and even then  you are not guaranteed material success. I know, because – I would tell the young lady – I have been there. I know about living on a jar of peanut butter and bread for weeks, because that was all I could afford. I know about celebrating the Kraft dinner* I had one day (made maybe two meals unless I was really, really hungry) because I could afford the box, a quart of milk and a pound of butter because I had a good night driving a cab at night** while going to college in the day and working on the student newspaper in the afternoon and early evening.

* For the uninitiated, Kraft dinner is a box of macaroni with powdered cheese mix … it cost me I think 19 cents back in 1971 and that was a dent in my budget. You need a pot, six cups of water, a dash of salt, 1/3 cup of milk and half a stick of butter to make it … takes maybe 10 minutes.

** I drove a cab in Manhattan, Kansas, for a couple of months in 1971. Not Manhattan, NY. Got 40 percent of the fare … and maybe got two or three fares a night – the Little Apple not being big on running around town in taxis. Average fare probably was less than $2. On a really, really good night (where I was lucky), I might make $15 or $20 but that happened about once every two weeks. My other source of income was my drill pay from my participation in the Navy Reserve … a whopping $16 per month back then for an E-3.

Then I spent my first 30 working years as newspaper journalist. Not that I would complain, but I would point out that unless you work for a Guild paper or one in a major metropolitan market, you basically get paid … crap. You have to love what you did, and tighten your belts, and accept that small newspapers can’t afford to pay people what they do in the big cities. I happened to absolutely love what I did. Probably did my children a great-disservice working 60-70 hours per week (with no overtime) and contributed to the collapse of my first marriage.

So you make choices. Like deferring having kids for years and then spacing them out. Like either not smoking or buying the cheapest cigarettes you can find … and then rationing them. Like not taking that vacation or trip … or buying those beers you wanted.

You think you have it bad, you really ought to study what it was like in the Depression in the 1930s, or what it was like trying to find a job in the 1970s when unemployment was in double digits.

College is not something that also is handed out. Granted a lot of parents put their kids through school or you take out loans to go to school. The latter is your choice, however. No one forces you to do it. I know because way back when I was lucky to go to college. The family bank was broke and I was last in line. Big Brother #1 opted to join the Army. Big Brother #2 was lucky to qualify for a full ride scholarship as was Big Sister. Unfortunately, I was not as talented as smart as they were so I lost that lottery.  That meant working, loans and sometimes pleading.

I spent six weeks in college begging not to be thrown out of the dorm while I waited for my loan to come through. I had $12 that lasted me that whole period and became a terrible bummer of cigarettes.

But as the line from Clint Eastwood said in Heartbreak Ridge: I adapted. I innovated. I overcame.

A lot of times your choices are dictated by your environment. That too is life. Get over it. Where you live can be your choice, once you reach a certain age. Again, it is not easy, but then who said it had to be easy or even was going to be easy.

Note: We all basically are immigrants here. Look back at what the life was for those people and stop taking for granted that you can just stand on their shoulders to get where you want to be.  Sometimes you have to start at the bottom.

Finally, nicotine is not just a stimulant. It also works as a depressant, as people under high stress will tell you. Smoking can help calm the nerves so you can cope with high levels of pressure or stress … or calm down after a high-adrenaline experience. I can personally document such usage.

Still, smoking is a choice.

So, if you don’t like the choices you have? Then, make new choices. Change your environment, but accept the fact that the mistakes you have made will encumber you like a load of baggage. You can either own up to them and carry them or dump them.

All too many people these days seem to be turning to the government/society and saying: “Here, carry my baggage.”

Believe me, it is going take us all down if we don’t stop doing that. It is not society’s job to take care of us. Nor the government’s. That is our job. And if others can, and are willing, then helping hands will be there because it is in our own self-interest to help others.

However, don’t complain if they aren’t. Sometimes life is like that. Sometimes you have to carry the baggage of your own choices, rich or poor, bad or good.

Don’t waste time blaming others, or situation or society, for your situation. They don’t really care (ah but we do … bovine scatology). You can get yourself out of it, or at least define yourself by trying.

Bad Republicans

The Republican conspiracy

I read this article on the Huffington Post and I about fell out of my chair laughing. Why? Because the author’s premise is so silly.

First … the Republicans. TEA Party-nics and conservatives are not Democrats or progressives. They are the opposition. You know, people who oppose you. They should be expected to do what they can to make your policies and plans fail.

Now, it doesn’t take a savant to figure out that they don’t agree with policies like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). So, if you are the elected representative of your particular area (and a majority of the people in the last election for your office voted for you) then it is pretty much a given that you represent at least some of their views and that should govern the way you vote. If your district doesn’t really like some law or policy, then it is your job to do what you can to overturn or change that policy.

The author of the article seems to think that Republicans are some terrible beasts because they don’t view the world through the same prism that he does. That is what is wrong with the world.

Reverse the shoe, say a war in Iraq. Is it not the right of the opponents of such a venture to do whatever they can to end it? It seems that was the progressives’ line just a few years ago.

Of course, they were chastised in much the same manner as the right is being assailed today. That is politics, folks.

I find it humorous to the absurd to watch various people and groups of people hammer their political opponents for their views in language that probably would have been reprehensible in my youth. However, the historian in me knows that the language of politics in the United States always has bordered on the rough and tumble.

I guess what I find most humorous is the view that everyone has to view the world through the same lens, the same philosophy, the same cultural view plate. I find it humorous, because it is so tragic and misguided that it really makes me want to despair, but I chose to laugh at my troubles rather than cry.

I wish, as Pappy used to say, I could knock some heads together in order to knock some sense into them.

People, we are all different. We all look at the world and see different visions. Depending on our experiences and cultural environment, we value different things. Some of these things we agree on the value of and others we profoundly disagree; however, the mere fact that we disagree doesn’t make us bad people.

Just because a person disagrees with you does not necessarily make that person evil … just different. Sometimes that person is evil, but it is not because they disagree with you.

The difference, as I see it, is a different view on how much responsibility the individual for his or her life. Are we, as individuals, supposed to be willing to accept the consequences of our choices? Are we supposed to be willing to accept that life is not fair and often sends adversity our way when we can ill afford it?

A lot of people say we are not. They say we are obligated to help all those less fortunate than we are. I would agree with part of that. I would say I have an personal obligation to make that choice, but that society, or the state, doesn’t not have the right to compel me to do it by force.

So to insist that anyone has a right to demand or compel another give them a good or service at a price less than they are willing to do it is, in my humble opinion, wrong. Even lifesaving medical care.

Another unfortunate aside: It seems to me that in our narcissism that seems to afflicted so many people, we seem to believe that we are supposed to live forever. Wrong answer, folks. We are mortal and every day here is a gift (that is why they call it “present”).

Sometimes, I think, in our quest for immortality, we forget that others have rights too. We forget it is not ours to demand that they forgo their rights just to our benefit. This is not to say that they can’t forgo those rights, but the choice is theirs and not ours.

Anyway, I love when progressives try to defend their demands, but it makes me want to laugh in their face when I hear them denigrate those who disagree with them. What was it Pappy used to tell me about the pot calling the kettle “black.”

Philosophy 101–Essay #5

Fifth in a series

Essay #1

Essay #2

Essay #3

Essay #4

For those who have just joined us, I am exploring the roots of my philosophies and sharing them. This really means asking a series of questions and then trying to answer them. Those who have read the earlier essays, I hope this continues along in a satisfactory vein.

Society: What is it? What do we expect of it? What does it expect of us?

Ah, therein lays the rub. Expectations and how do we deal with them.

Society, as I see it, is the social contract that binds humans together to form … well … society. It is the social contract that defines every society.

So, what does a social contract do? It does what any contract in human relations does: It defines expectations. It tells the party of the first part what is expected of them and in return what the party of the second part is expected to do in return. No matter where you are, where you live or with whom you are living with, there is a social contract that outlines the rules of the relationship. Sometimes these are written, but more often they are not. Usually, they are not even articulated but understood because of the conditioning that we all receive from our experiences and cultural environment as we develop into adult human beings.

Interestingly enough, this is where the cultural environment comes into play and pretty much defines how the contract is laid out and enforced. In the United States/North America there are maybe a dozen and a half or so cultural environments or patterns that have been laid down and compete for dominance. Each has its own value system as to what it considers important and what it doesn’t. Unfortunately, while they may share some aspects, they can be mutually exclusive in others in what they expect. Expand that to include the whole world and the competition for dominance and the breadth of beliefs is mind-boggling. We simply cannot comprehend it, or those whose world view is so different from our own.

For instance: What is the role of the individual? What place does the individual have within the construct of a given cultural value system? Is the individual important or merely another bee in the hive?

That adds another paradigm for us to consider when we look at people: Are we herd animals? Are we pack animals? Or are we hive creatures? In each of those paradigms the individual plays a different role, but the question is which paradigm is the best for humans to adopt as a social model? Or maybe there is another model out there for us to consider. Interestingly enough, we humans exhibit characteristics of all those social models, so go figure.

I for one have made the choice that the individual is probably the most important element in the social model, any social model. It is the basic component and is capable of making independent choices separate from the group. To an extent, it can survive without the group, but the group cannot exist without individuals. That is reality. And where there are two humans, one of each sex, then the group at least has an opportunity to thrive and grow. Without those individuals making the choice to be together, then there will be no society.

Others may not agree, but assume for the moment that what I posit is true.

So, the next question becomes how we define what we expect society to do for us and what should society expect of us in return. Remember, this is a contract and like any contract it is a two-way street. Of course, you are free to disagree with that formulation, but I suspect that any society that you create that does not recognize that life is a contract and it goes both ways will be destined to collapse.

Let’s go back to my earlier contention that we all basically are operating in our own self-interest seeking to meet our basic needs in the hierarchy of needs outlined somewhere by psychologists that I vaguely remember studying way back when I was getting that formal education that many of us go through. (Of course, if you want to read a more current version; then read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins – I found it a difficult but very interesting tome.)

Realizing that I am speaking in generalizations, but people are not really altruistic for the most part. There always is a somewhat selfish reason for what they do, even if sometimes they can’t even articulate that reason themselves. People are – at the same time – very complex and very simple creatures trying to satisfy that hierarchy of needs. Occasionally, I admit, saints do walk among us, but they are the exception rather than the rule and societies cannot be built on the expectation that everyone will be a saint (unfortunately, that too is a recipe for failure and disappointment). So, if you want things to work, then find reasons for people to want to make things work. Society needs to make whatever it is in the individual’s own best interest to do what it expects.

To do that, society can use two methods to modify behavior: Rewards or punishments or some permutation of the two. Rewards are more positive ways to reinforce acceptable behavior, while punishment often is a better teacher for immediate correction. Mistakes are nature’s best teacher because usually there is a negative consequence (id est: a punishment) associated with it – sometimes very severe consequences. Fire burns. Touch it and it hurts.

But before we must choose which manner we want for our society to work, we have to decide what we want society to do. So, as individuals, what can we expect society to do for us?

Well, that is the great debate that rages in American society today. In fact, I suspect that the same debate is raging in societies around the world as they come in contact in an age of near instantaneous global communication with differing philosophies and cultures that pollute their environments with strange and new ideas about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

The point I am making here is that we are all the products of the environments in which we grew up. Whether we want to admit it or not, everything we think, do or say, is a result of those influences that have shaped our lives. We are not clones. We are not all the same. We are different.

Unfortunately, in the modern world, the boundaries have shifted. Our societal expectations, a product of our being exposed to different cultural environments, are in a flux. Whereas, for earlier generations, expectations did not shift much over time; now – with the telecommunications revolution and flow of people and ideas from land to land – the rigidity of cultural expectations are collapsing left and right, leaving many people adrift. In fact, entire countries, societies and cultures are adrift. We are desperately trying to reestablish what those cultural norms are to be.

Well, folks, we ain’t there yet … and I suspect I will be long dead and gone before you get there.

The problem, unfortunately, is that we are still clinging to some absolutes and those are the cultural blinders that we grew up with or we have instituted new ones to replace the old. We still are thinking that everyone in the world, much less our own societies (at all levels), is singing from the same sheet of music but they aren’t. Because they aren’t, we get mad and insist that everyone play by our rules.

So, we have this great chasm in a country as large as the United States over what we expect from society and what we expect society to expect from each of us as individuals. Expand that to include the rest of the human race and all its various cultural environments and it gets even worse.

What will have to happen, in the end, is that each individual will have to reach an accommodation with the social structure he or she chooses to live in. That process is known as reaching a consensus. We don’t have that right now and I see a lot of conflict ahead of us before such consensuses begin to shake out.

Be not disencouraged, however, this is normal. In fact, admittedly usually at a bit slower than the breakneck pace we see today, mankind has gone through these upheavals many times and has survived them all so far. I think it will do it again.

I hope I have given you some more food for thought.

Nuff said for now.

Philosophy 101–Essay #3

Essay #1

Essay #2

Third in a series

As I extend my exploration of my own personal philosophy of life, I hope you will follow along as I continue in search of definitions on which to base further discussion. I really hope you find these wanderings of value and possibly interesting.

Our world is made up of what we can hear, see, taste, smell, touch and imagine. I think we all can agree on that.

But how we perceive that world is heavily influenced by a host of learned factors that color and add texture and nuance to that perception. What are these factors, these influences?

By and large, the greatest is our own experiences with life. Each of us, individually, have encountered a unique set of environmental stimuli which has been stored and processed by that incredible computer we have in our head called our brain.

I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be a particularly well-educated person, nor am I all that much smarter than the average bear, but I have interviewed, interacted and even lived in close proximity with some people who are/were far smarter than the average bear as well as being scientists, specialists and experts in a wide range of human endeavors (Sounds like those TV commercials with one of the Baldwin brothers). That relatively unusual confluence of experiences does give me, I think, my own unique perspective on our world.

It is, for example, the reason I believe that the individual is far more important in human events than we give them credit for. And I am not talking about the “key man” theory of history, or anything related to that. I am more in the vein of the “want of a nail” theory of life or one where each of us, however insignificant we may think we are, plays a role in the greater scheme of things and without that influence, however small it may be, things could and would be different.

Now, you are free to disagree with me, but I have seen far too many instances of where instants make a difference and the sum of those instants make a major change in the course of events. Stop and think sometime about major events in your lifetime. Think about all the things that happened to you leading up to that event … the little things, that maybe delayed you a second or two here or there or a street light that you ran that got you to somewhere 20 seconds earlier than if you hadn’t ran it. Add all those “chance” happenings, multiply them by the number of people involved and you get an incredible array of possible outcomes that didn’t happen. Now, multiply that by all the events that happen in a day … and you will be overwhelmed … it is simply not something you or any computer would be able to handle. Then add in the factor that you have a choice and it is not always binary (yes/no, black/white, pass/fail, go/no-go) and you really begin to wonder. And every person faces the same thing and that is what has made up human history. (Now, I have read that some in quantum physics claim that all those multi-verses exist, but that it too much for me to deal with. Let’s deal with one universe at a time.)

Passing aside: People wonder why I question things like opinion polls and computer models. It is simple, they are too easily manipulated. Change one word here, or a byte there, and the whole thing goes spinning off in another direction.

There is a quote somewhere supposedly by Dwight Eisenhower that goes “Plans are useless, but planning is everything.” That is because plans make various assumptions that usually are not valid … or at least change before you get very far … and it is the planning process that allows you to anticipate the various alternatives that you have to choose from. Life is like that and each of us does our own planning.

So, please remember, that choice is integral to our world along with the person making that choice. Your choices are important.

Next, we have to consider what elements – like our experiences – shape the choices we make. Experience is only one of the things that give texture to our choices. Our environment, and by this I mean our social and cultural environment, also plays a major role, if not a definitive role. You see, our social and cultural environment determines what and how we think.

I know I just lost some people there, so I will step back and make another run at it. What we think and how we think is a product not only of our experience but the language we are brought up and steeped in. That is our social and cultural heritage, our environment, so to speak.

Without language, we cannot think. It is language that gives us the ability to shape our thoughts and imaginings into words that we can share with others. We don’t have the ability to transfer our thoughts via telepathy (well, most of us don’t) and imagery goes just so far with intangible things, so we are limited in how we transmit information from one person to another to words that we agree on what they mean (language). It also is how in our brain that we process and organize those thoughts and ideas that we seek to express.

The words we choose to give wings to our thoughts – whether in written form like this essay or aural so that we hear it – make a major difference in how those thoughts are perceived. And it is important to remember that others have different social and cultural associations with those words even if you are speaking the same language, which in the vast majority of cases around the world we are not.

How we decide to use those words is what our social and cultural environment teaches us. We learn words from all sorts of sources in our lives, and our vocabulary and accent often defines us to various people and groups of people. If you haven’t read or seen the play Pygmalion or the musical play/movie My Fair Lady, then you missed an exercise in what I am saying.

But words, written or spoken, are used because we have agreed on (sort of kinda maybe) a definition of what they mean. Our society/our culture define the words we share, but each of us has our own customized definitions for each word.

Suffice it to say, the cultural environment that you are born into and then chose to live in defines you and helps shape the choices you make and the words you chose to express your beliefs. Again, however, it is very individual and despite what some people will have you believe, just because you share a lot of opinions, views, beliefs with others, it does not mean that you don’t have your own mind. Remember you, and those not-you, are different and each one not-you is a unique individual. (Take that, stereotypes!)

Yes, culture through language often encourages conformity, as does our own need for acceptance and companionship, but it does not negate the reality that each of us is an individual, who perceives the world through our own eyes, our own prism, our own separate set of parameters and paradigms.

One of the hardest parts of “growing up”, I think, is coming to grips with the fact that we indeed are all different. That we really are unique in our own way and that means that we are separate from others. That can be a very discomforting thought for a lot of people because, to introduce a new concept here, people are part herd and part pack animals. (OH! Did I forget to say that we are part of Nature’s Animal Kingdom? Well, we are, so get over it.)

Nuff said for this round … I hope it gives you something to think about.

I hate being prescient

Senate committee passes bill to define "journalist"
Forty years ago, as a young college journalist, I attended the national convention of Sigma Delta Chi as a student delegate. SDX, as it was called at the time, was what is now known as the Society of Professional Journalists.

At that meeting, during a session on the Watergate scandal involving the Nixon Administration, I got to ask a question of Benjamin Bradley, then the executive editor of the Washington Post and the response I got was “I was hoping no one would ask that question.”

My question? It was simple and straight forward. Mr. Bradley was on a panel and I directed my question to him:

“Sir, in light of all the investigative reporting the Post has done on the Watergate affair, what is your view of shield laws to protect journalists?”

There was this long pause, and then Mr. Bradley said, “I was hoping no one would ask that question.”

What followed was a lively discussion between the seven panelists (including one from the Watergate Special Prosecutor’s office (OSP)  who was in charge of negotiating with the media over getting information they had uncovered in their investigations). At one point, Mr. Bradley revealed that the Post that day had been served with a subpoena from the OSP, at which the poor fellow from the OSP about twisted his head off to look at the Post editor. You see, he was the first step in issuing those subpoenas and legal writs and he knew nothing about this one.

Now, I think Mr. Bradley and I shared a problem with Shield Laws. You see, the protections of the First Amendment apply to all American citizens, not just to people who work for newspapers, magazines or TV and radio stations (add in Cable Networks now).

So, if you are trying to protect freedom of the press by shielding reporters, etc., from having to divulge sources of information that ordinary citizens can be forced to divulge by court order then you have to define who is protected and who is not protected.

That is a very difficult problem because freedom of the press, as I have repeatedly pointed out over the intervening years, belongs to everybody, whether he or she is employed by a news gathering and disseminating organization or just somebody who is passing out leaflets on the street corner (or blogging on the internet). The people who promote shield laws want to make themselves protected like priests and lawyers but in each of those cases you have to meet a minimum requirement and basically be recognized (or licensed) by the government for the protect to apply.

My contention is that when you start “licensing” journalists then you are infringing on the freedom of the press of those people who are not employed by “media”. You see, for the court to say who is included in this special class of people, then somebody has to define what is qualifying news gathering organization.

If the court (government) only recognizes (therefore allows) only certain people the privilege of protecting their sources, then two things happen.

1. The equality before the law that is supposed to be the great hallmark of our system of governance is breached big time.
2. The government gets to say who gets to play and who does not and that opens the door wide for the suppression of unpopular views or even simple dissents from the consensus viewpoint.

Note that there is no way to define a journalist without running afoul of this trap, as I have patiently explained to an number of attorneys who were advocating journalist shield laws in a couple of states. They admitted I was right but argued that it was for a greater good.

My response to that is who set up journalists as gods and what requirements do they have to meet to be so designated. I say that because in my 30-plus years as a working journalist at 12 different newspapers across the United States, I have found many a good reporter / photographer / “journalist” who had none of the degrees or certifications that would qualify them as a “professional” other than their contributions to the publication that I was working for at the time.

I quit one editor job after the publisher told me that if he ever got sued, he was going to sue me. And he wanted me to play watchdog on local government officials? Oh boy, I got out of there as fast as I could.

Now, it seems the federal government is going to define who is a journalist and who is not. I warned people that this would happen if they started enacting shield laws. It also was just the first step in controlling the media. I repeat that warning now.

This is a bad law and I hope it won’t go anywhere.

Inequality is life

Obama: Inequality is morally wrong

 

President Obama, never my favorite person, just leaves me shaking my head with wonder.

Where did we find this guy?

Look, I think somebody needs to explain the realities of life to him (not that I expect it to happen).

When one speaks of  “equality” in the political/historical sense, we are not talking about equality of outcomes. We are not talking about everyone having the same as everyone else, or even anything approximating equality of what we may or may not possess.

No. what we are – or should be – talking about is equality before the law; with government treating us all equally and not showing favoritism toward any individual or group (or the flip side, persecuting or discriminating against any individual or group). However, it seems that concept has been lost in transition between generations somewhere … or maybe it was in translation.

Granted, the generations that came before us were not perfect, nor were they omniscient or omnipotent. Like us, they were flawed individuals who strove to make a more perfect union. Unfortunately, someone forgot to tell people like President Obama and other progressives, that “union” does not mean people are to be shaped with a cookie-cutter to be exactly the same.

Equivalence of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity, or – even more importantly – equality before the law.

As the President said in his speech this week, many people are being conditioned to believe: Inequality is wrong.

At first glance, it is hard to argue that “inequality” is wrong, but we have to define what is not being equal. If we are talking about economic outcome, then we are talking about something that is not the Provence of any government.

People are different. Individuals are essentially unique and therefore implicitly and explicitly INEQUAL. Sorry, but it isn’t going to happen. You can not use government to make everyone equal in life … it is impossible.

But our President is decrying the inequality of economic conditions and pledging to use the powers of government to correct this perceived problem … and if Congress doesn’t cooperate, he plans to do it by executive fiat.

If this doesn’t scare you, then you don’t understand that freedom isn’t free, liberty comes at a price and that if you want either then you have to accept that some people are just going to be different.

But no, we can’t have that. We have to resent all that others have.

That is beginning to scare me. I see far too many people, the President included, saying this group is wrong and that group is wrong and it is the federal government’s job to correct all that they define as evil, or wrong or an injustice.

We have lost our way, and unfortunately, the more I look at it, the more it seems that Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” was politically prophetic.

 

This however is so very true:

Life is like a cup of coffee

Freedom isn’t free

My progressive friend out west got me to laughing … and thinking … with his not unexpected Veterans’ Day rant on Facebook about the dangers of the military industrial complex … quoting Dwight Eisenhower, who was right and wrong, but is cited by progressives whenever they want to blame the military and the defense budget for not funding all the entitlements programs they want.

He contends that pretty much all of conflicts that the U.S. has been involved in his adult life have not been “good wars.” I can accept that.

You know why I can accept that? For two reasons:

First, he is entitled to his opinion and that opinion can be as wrong as I think it is, but it is still his view and he can have it. That is why I was associated with the U.S. military for 26 years, so he could have his views.

Second, there ain’t no thing as a “good” war. Nope, there are only dirty ugly violent destructive deadly horrendous conflicts that if you are lucky you can end rather quickly with a minimum of the aforementioned consequences.

He told me I should have learned something when I was dual-hatting all those years I spent in the military, military reserve and as a Department of the Army civilian employee. Well, I would say to my friend, I did … over and over and over again.

What did I learn? Well a number of things.

First, Freedom is not free. It comes at a pretty high price. Not just in national treasure and blood, but work and effort and doing things because they have to be done, not because you want to do them or you like to do them.

Second, I learned that there truly are evil and nasty people out there in the world. And while I do believe that most people would just rather go along to get along and live and let live, there is a substantial minority that doesn’t see the world that way.

Some of those people, I do believe, honestly believe that they are just doing things to make things better for others (for whatever reason or cause). The rest, they are just evil. Sorry, but there are really bad people in the world and they really are there.

How do I know that? Well, unfortunately, I have seen their torture chambers (and ours are nothing like them). I have read enough reports and interviewed enough people who saw much worse than I did, to understand that there are some people who do things that just defy my imagination (and I bet my progressive friend’s too)

Now, I know the sacrifices that service men and women of each generation make. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt as the expression goes … because I too have made some of those sacrifices and incurred my own burdens from that service. Granted, like most of my life, I think I had it fairly easy … compared to the real Hades that many of my comrades, predecessors and successors went through.

I learned enough to validate the view I had in high school: War is a really dirty, ugly, nasty business and the best thing is to avoid it, or at least get it over as quickly as you can. Unfortunately, sometimes the path of violence is the only solution.

In those cases, to me anyway, a portion of the Weinberger/Powell doctrine applies: If you have to fight a war, then you don’t do halfway measures. You bring the biggest baddest force you can and you end the war quickly … anything else is a crime and a travesty. Unfortunately, in places like Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan, the folks who planned the operation forgot that little maxim. That is why the aftereffects were so disappointing.

For example, I had no problem with kicking some Iraqi butt in 2003. The list of reasons for the Saddam Hussein regime to go was long and very verified. I thought we were about 12 years too late, but then I understood we didn’t have the same legal footing to stand on that we did in 2003. Not to refight the argument, but yes, there was ample legal footing for the invasion to proceed and with UN Sanction … and yes there were weapons of mass destruction found, and the capability and facilities to produce more, only not in the quantities anticipated. (Of course, when even the bad guys think they have them, it is hard not to believe them).

I had no problem with kicking some Taliban butt, for that matter.

Unfortunately, after World War II, the U.S. set a bad precedent. We tried to rebuild what we spent so much smashing … because that is what you do in wars – you smash things and you break them and you kill people.

Well, rather than just do the job, we Americans think the better idea is to stick around and help the smashed pick up the pieces. Unfortunately, in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan (under the Cheney/Rumsfeld Doctrine) we went in a light as possible to do the job, but not heavy enough to emphasize that times had changed. We also really didn’t know what we were doing when it comes to rebuilding South Asian nations, so we really stepped on it.

So, have I learned anything from that experience? Yup. It is called don’t fight a war unless you really truly want to win it and then you fight it with everything you got and as violently as you can until the other side hollers “Uncle” and one of your guys is standing over the other guys with a bayonet on the end of his rifle and saying rather emphatically: It is over now, ya hear?

However, I didn’t learn that sitting behind our moats will protect us from anything and that the bad guys will be content with that.

Progressive hypocrisy is almost funny

I finding interesting, if not exceedingly hypocritical, when I read various critiques by liberal, progressives who make no pretense of their disdain for people of faith that fault those people for failing to adhere to the progressive’s image of what their faith should be.
Most liberals and progressives will admit that they basically are secular humanists who believe that religious faith is a mistake and belief in such dogma is leading individuals, if not societies, astray.
The thesis, as I understand it, is that there is good and there is bad, but only according to the definitions as provided by their secular viewpoint. To them, these values are absolutes, but everyone else’s is relative. I may be wrong in this analysis, but I don’t think I am far off.
So, it somewhat surprises me when they criticize followers a two-millennia-old Jewish rabbi, cum Christian messiah and prophet, by quoting their interpretation of that prophet’s doctrine as it has been handed down, interpreted, re-interpreted and re-re-interpreted over all those generations, which they don’t believe in, and expect to be taken seriously. That strikes me as being a stellar height of hubris.
And then, of course, if these people happen to hold what might be conflicting thoughts on what they think is right and proper, then the liberals and progressives call down all sorts of hell and damnation because these people might have a view that reconciles these differences and still cling to their faith.
It really is almost humorous, if it wasn’t so serious.
It is, almost by definition, an assault on individual liberty. You know, the kind that Americans have enshrined in the First Amendment to their Constitution.
I mean, if you don’t believe in the dogma as these progressives do, then you are condemned and chastised. You are, as it is said, “a bad person”. Some people might even go so far as to call you names like “lying bastards” who are out to subjugate women and the poor.
Now, that might be true, but I would be willing to bet that it is a false characterization. But then I remember, it is Election Time in America (Sorry, my Canadian relatives, but I had to borrow your line – It is Hockey Night in Canada) and this is what is to be expected from people on opposing sides of the political fence.
I hope everybody enjoys the next two presidential debates between President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Romney. It will be so interesting to watch the vitriol spewing forth from each sides’ supporters … unless people shock me and actually talk civilly about the candidates.
An example of what I speak

Comparative militaries

Numbers in the military

Money spent on the military

Ok, I get it: The U.S. spends a whole lot more money on its military capabilities than anybody else. Doesn’t necessarily mean its military is all that much larger than anybody else’s, because it isn’t. There are any numbers of countries that field armies that are larger per capita than the U.S. counterparts or spend more money per capita or as a portion of their gross domestic product (also known as GDP) than the US does.

In fact, there even a few countries whose military establishment is even larger than that of the U.S., as shocking as that might seem.

Still, the U.S. military remains, arguably, the best trained, best equipped, most powerful force in the world.

Well, part of it is that the U.S. does put more bucks into its military might than anybody else (in aggregate). The old saying is that you get what you pay for.

However, as the world shows us time and again, you can spend big bucks on the gadgets and toys and other things (like paying the troops, their medical care, housing their families, giving them a fairly nice retirement plan), and still find yourself stretched to meet the challenges of much more frugally funded and equipped forces in the world.

What was that line by Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge: Adapt, improvise and overcome.

As an American, I sometimes am dismayed by the amounts we spend on our military forces. But then I step back and look at the reality of it. For its size, we do have the most professional corps of troops in our military services. I suppose that comes from the fact that it also is the best paid, nation-state funded military in the world, with – again arguably – the best benefits for the individual soldier that the world has to offer.

It is among the best trained forces in the world, so that is a good thing. I am a big believer it training troops. The better trained they are, the better prepared they are for the reality of conflict. The better prepared they are, the more likely they will survive in combat.

I also realize that like it or not America is called upon to be the “global cop”. You may not like it. I might not like it. Unfortunately, it is the way that things are. When bad things go down, everyone starts asking: Where is the nearest U.S. carrier task force or amphibious ready group? Why aren’t the Americans doing something about this?

Not that the Americans should be doing something about these things, but it seems that a large number of people look to the Americans to lead and  do something about them. Good, bad, indifferent, it still is the case.

For example, Syria: Our “friends” in the area are looking to the U.S. to at least support, if not provide leadership, to them. Hence, there is a military planning task force of 150 Americans in Jordan today … just to help the Jordanians prepare for any untoward consequences of the civil war in Syria.

And don’t be surprised if there aren’t a bunch of NATO planners (with a substantial contingent of Americans) talking with their brethren in Turkey about potential needs the Turks may have if the rumbles on its border with Syria continue to worsen.

The problem with the American military is that it is well-paid and very well equipped. Those things don’t come cheap. Oh, we could have a much larger military establishment, with lot cheaper weapons, but then that would come with a much higher human cost, which Americans are much more averse to seeing.

For example: Iraq, over eight years, cost the Americans about 6,000 dead. The British, in the 1920s, lost 1,200 in one battle. If that had happened in the latest Iraq war, it would have been over, right there.

Still, does the U.S. need such a powerful military? That is a good question and one I know Americans are quite divided about. Actually, one will find that Americans are quite happy holding contrary thoughts.

Americans always have looked askance upon a large standing military force. It smacks too much of opportunities for military coups and tyrannies. For that reason, there is such a strong tradition in the U.S. for civilian control of the military and for its members, particularly its officer corps, to remain as much as possible non-political and non-partisan.

On the other hand, particularly since World War II and the Cold War, Americans have been – and rightly so, to my estimation – almost terrified of a surprise attack catching the U.S. unawares and unprepared … sort of like 9-11 did.

In addition, Americans have this intense desire – not all that different than anyone else - to be respected (despite what you think, Americans still have somewhat of an inferiority complex toward the older and more established nations and cultures in the world … we are a bit like the nouveau riche), but not only respected, but also loved. We can’t seem to understand why everybody just doesn’t love us and respect us. I mean we have pretty much the most affluent society and our political system pays so much homage to the individual and individual rights, what is not to like and love? And we have this wonderful, almost Star Wars-like, military that is the envy of just about every military commander in the world (If we had just had half the weapons and gadgets at our command, they think)

For most Americans, we just don’t understand that being respected and being loved are two entirely different things and what makes you respected often does not lead to you being loved, and vice versa.

Americans don’t like to think of themselves as imperialists, and in the traditional sense, we are not (we don’t usually take over land; we merely try to get the people there to act like we do). We do not make good imperials. We are not ruthless enough or willing to pay the price to be imperials.

Ironically, I suspect, there is a reason that none of the First World powers have used their military forces to settle their disputes in recent memory and that is directly related to the power of the United States, and to a lesser extent to the power of the former Soviet Union. It was not in the interest of the US or USSR to fight a large scale conflict (even in conventional terms) involving First World technologies. It would have been a bloody mess, literally. That “peace” is the result of each playing “cop” in their respective spheres of influence and basically helping each other in the other areas. (You may not agree with this analysis, but I think if you examine it from a historical perspective, you will find it has a certain modicum of support) This not to say that there were not any “proxy” wars, because there were, but the two big guys kept a leash on the participants to keep them from going global.

So, when you look at the military “might” of America, you need to keep it in perspective: What is it there for?

Answer that question, and you have a better understanding of why the U.S. spends so much on its military and why, probably, it should continue to spend big bucks on it.

One wonders? A WARN Act warning?

CEO threatens layoffs if Obama gets reelected

Big Bad CEO threatens to fire workers

Ok, the above links provide differing views of the chief executive officer of a company that sells time shares and hosts resorts who e-mailed his employees, presenting them with a stark view of the future. His employees were told that should President Barack Obama be re-elected, he may be forced to lay off employees in order to be able to afford the taxes and other requirements that the Obama Administration has indicated it wants to implement. Obviously, if Mitt Romney is elected, the chances of those taxes and other requirements being implemented go do, and hence their jobs might not be at risk.

In a sense, the business person, whose business employs some 7,000 workers, might just be following the dictates of the WARN Act that requires employers over a certain number of workers to give at least 60 days warning to their employees if they are planning any large layoffs. You know, the law that the Labor Department under President Obama told defense contractors they could ignore. They are considering issuing such warnings because the sequestration of the federal funds that will go into effect Jan. 2, if a budget deal isn’t made.

Now the company, which happens to be the largest privately-held company of its kind in its field, is drawing flak from people who don’t like it when companies oppose President Obama. They think it is unfair.

Well, sorry folks, but it is a privately-held company. There is no law that says the owner(s) of that company can’t shut the doors if they feel it is necessary. Now, under the WARN Act, they can’t do it tomorrow, but they could do it in 60 days. But then again, how many companies in the current economic world actually have just shut their doors and given up. Quite a few, I imagine. That happens in a recession and we have been in a big one.

So, the CEO made it clear he wasn’t telling his employees whom to vote for. He only was warning them that should Obama be reelected, the company would be forced to downsize in order to meet the increased overhead.

Now, I know this gets the progressives, like those people at the Huffington Posts, panties in a wad, but when did we start requiring employers to employ people. Oh, I know that those under union contracts do have certain obligations, and we do seem to be requiring our governments to employ more and more people, along with paying people who can’t or out of work a stipend in order to permit them to survive.

I am not knocking that per se, since I am myself disabled and get some of that money, but then I was working for the government and you know all those rights those government workers have. You can accuse me of hypocrisy, but look: I am playing by the rules and did pay into the system for 40 years before my health collapsed. So, it is not really hypocrisy to point out that maybe the system needs to be changed. Granted, the government did screw me over big time, but that is only from my perspective.

Now, I have no problem with an employer warning his employees of the unfortunate political realities out there. It may not be a pretty picture, but at least it is being honest.

So, two points to the CEO for at least being boldly honest. You do know that he still does have that right and will, until the progressives make it a crime to shut a business down because the overhead has eaten up the profits. Remember, the world is supposed to be non-profit and it should be to each according to their indefinable and unlimited needs and from each according to the their maximum but necessarily limited efforts.