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.

 

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.

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.

Example of myopia

Battling the spread of anti-biotic resistant bugs

definition of Myopia - see #2

I laud the American Centers for Disease Control for all they do protecting us from the ravages of all the illnesses that tend to attack humans.

However, the news story on CNN illustrates what I mean by cultural myopia. All too often we tend to think that the cultural environment we live in is shared by all … bad news … it isn’t.

That is why all the wonderful things that the CDC tries sometimes doesn’t even make progress in the US. It would be nice if everybody would, as Pappy used to tell me when it was really important that I get his message, listen, hear and attend to what it is saying. Unfortunately, that is not happening and it is somewhat silly to think that it will happen.

Even worse, it leads to the “experts” trying to impose their vision on the less informed people so that they can be protected against themselves, their own follies and foibles.

We are seeing that in the US with the new health care financing regime popularly known as Obamacare (but really entitled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). All those silly people who didn’t have enough sense to get the health care insurance plan that these experts deemed adequate are now being forced to do so, whether they want to or not; or they will face a new tax (it is not a fine, the Supreme Court said it was a tax), because it is the right of every person within the US borders to get health care regardless if they want it or not.

Oh, and employers will face the new tax in a year or so, unless they get with the program.

Now, it seems that a lot of Americans were happy with their lot and pretty well understood the value they were getting for their premiums. Unfortunately for a lot of them (now numbering in the millions), their insurance carrier was forced by federal law to drop the policy that they had because they had changed some of its wording or the pricing schedules to reflect new realities.

I have no doubt that there will be winners and losers in this situation and the winners will be tickled pink at how much they will save. They ought to be … but at the same time, they need to acknowledge that someone else is picking up the tab for them.

I am not necessarily saying that is wrong, because that is how insurance works. Normally, however, it is a matter of choice for both the carrier and the insured. Removing the element of choice – and essentially that is what Obamacare does by setting its vision of what should be covered and what should not be covered – is what I disagree with.  But then, nobody asked me.

You see, I have a problem with the government/society protecting me from my own foibles. Granted, there are those who will argue that we have to be protected from vagaries of life that can inflict so much damage on us. I suppose they have a point, especially when they can’t get someone else to share the burden or risk with them. But then, I disagree. I see life as being basically unfair and our test is to see how we cope with reality. Getting others to carry our burdens without their consent is a little beyond me.

My fear, you see, is that when we do that, we surrender our freedoms and liberty to make choices. To me, that is more important … but then I have to admit I invested a lot in making sure I had health care insurance coverage as I got older.

I have paid and am paying a pretty penny for that coverage – in more than one currency – so, I don’t have to worry about the medical care that I or my wife have to pay for. It may not cost as much now as others, but then I made different choices … and one of those choices always kept one eye on the necessity of providing myself with health insurance at a certain age.

Unfortunately although I keep getting reassured that the federal government is not going to muck with it too much, I fear that the federal government in its good intent is going to change all the rules, negate all the planning and effort I put into setting up my coverage and basically mucking it all up.

You see the U.S. federal government has a long track record of mucking things up … and with me, going back on its word.

So, while I hope that the CDC folks can get their way, sort of, I look at the US and shake my head in doubt.

As for changing the habits in other places? Not a chance that is going to happen. That is what I mean by myopia. These experts can’t see past the borders and realize that things in other cultures and social environments just ain’t the same as they are down in Atlanta.

Anyway, I suspect that regardless of what happens, the human race will endure.

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.

Government by fiat

Obama, rejected by Congress, implements new gun control steps

Now, if you don’t have problems with the sentence above, then you have problems living in a democratic republic.

The Obama Administration, failing to get its gun control agenda through Congress, said it is going to go around Congress and by executive order implement its idea of gun control.

This is government by executive fiat and we are seeing a distressing increase in it in the United States under the current administration.

But let's take the gun control steps first.

By using the language (and most people’s limited understanding of what is really being said), the administration’s decision to block the re-importation of “military-grade” firearms given as military aid a half-century ago probably seems reasonable. Can’t have all those Army automatic weapons like machineguns being purchased by civilians.

However, the real impact is to block the re-importation of the staple weapon used by most of the infantrymen in World War II and the Korean War: the M1 Garand 30-06 caliber semiautomatic rifle. The problem with the Garand is that it makes a lousing weapon in the hands of a criminal. It is big with only an 8-round clip in its magazine. It one fires one bullet at a time and automatically ejects the clip when your 8th round goes down range. It also will smash the heck out of your thumb if you don’t get it out of the way of the bolt when you insert a new clip (and try manually setting up a clip some time, it ain’t fun). It does not even come close to fitting anyone’s description of the fearful “assault rifle.” No 30-round detachable magazines, etc.

Why the administration is banning the re-importation of such collectible weapons is beyond me, but there is some rationale there somewhere.

Still, back to the basic point: When is the current US administration going to be called to account for using its regulatory powers to circumvent the legislative powers of the Congress chosen by the people to enact the rules they want?

I think the American people need to start asking why Congress is laying down on the job and not challenging the executive branch’s usurpation of its powers.

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.

Big bad Koch boys threaten employees

Vote for Obama and face the consequences – says NBC

Round two: Big Bad Employers against employees.

Give me a break. In these various “notifications” to employees of various corporations the people who are sending the e-mails say outright they are not telling the employees whom to vote for.

No, rather, they are telling the companies’ employees what the most likely consequences will be if President Barack Obama wins re-election, and that one of those consequences will be that an undetermined number of the employees of the companies will lose their jobs.

Is this a threat? Yes, indirectly. However, it also is an economic reality. Four more years of the policies of the Obama Administration is going to bite into the receipts and profits of many a corporation and business. The Obama Administration has made no bones about its plans and that is what it intends to do. It intends to tax “wealthy” business people more. It is going to make companies provide more benefits or pay a tax. It is going to do more to advance alternative energy at the expense of the current energy providers and the consumers, through higher prices for traditional sources of energy.

These people who have far more money than I will ever dream of have earned their money, for the most part. Granted, I can’t do what they have done, but then I never tried, nor did I have the skills. But then again, I am not jealous of their wealth or begrudge them it either.

Now, at least these people are being honest. They are saying that if Obama gets re-elected, they are going to cut costs at their businesses so they can keep more of the money (or at least amounts similar to what they are getting now) in the wake of the economic changes. You blame them?

Now, regardless of how you look at it, these are the people who put the big bucks up to sustain these businesses … it is called investments. They are entitled to a return on that investment (commensurate to its contribution to the success of the company), just as a shop floor worker deserves compensation for his labor that creates or adds value to the product. So, you may disagree with how that compensation is allocated, but unless you are one of the stockholders/owners of the company, then you are just hired labor and are selling your investment at a pre-agreed upon rate.

I know there are a lot of people who think that isn’t fair … but it is part of the price we pay for individual liberty. You know, where you get to make your own choices and live with the consequences of those choices. Oh, I forgot, no one is supposed to fail or face the consequences of their choices.

Well, tough! That is life. Time to get over and get on with your life.

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.

Executive orders?

Questions about Obama’s cybersecurity plans – PC World

About a month ago, I raised my own red flag on the issue that is troubling the computer magazine PC World. I need reiterate it again, I suppose.

I know that it may not be politically correct to say so, especially among those who really had a visceral hatred of George W. Bush, but our current president, Barack Obama, scares me every time he starts talking about using executive orders to implement something he can’t get passed by Congress. I would hope that this government by fiat would be upsetting to others as well.

We have seen this administration move much farther abroad than the previous administration in applying its changes to the law by executive rules, regulations and basically fiats on what laws to enforce and on whom they should be enforced. This must be a frightening trend to those of us who celebrate our civil liberties, economic rights and our basic freedoms.

If a president doesn’t need Congress to enact law, then why have a Congress (I know that may sound good, but it really is a bad idea)? This propensity of President Obama to use his executive orders to enact new law in such a broad spectrum of government policy is the reason I find him to a walking disaster area. He seems to be intent on advancing his agenda, regardless of the views of the American people who elect those people to represent them in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Granted, Congress is polarized. Being polarized just reflects the fact that the people are split very badly about what they think are the best policies to advance the nation. When there is no consensus, then inaction often is the best answer, despite what our elites and so-called opinion makers, or our media elites or the president and the political leaderships may think. Ironically, the system was designed for such inaction in the face of polarization.

If it was not for the War of Rebellion that saw the Southern states withdraw from Congress, then the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments would never have passed. But the slave-holding states did withdraw, did go into rebellion, did lose that rebellion, and basically lost whatever influence they had to keep the institution and to keep African-Americans in chattel bondage. However, they were able to resurrect apartheid and maintain it for many years until even that was overturned. (Note: It was the Democratic Party that was instrumental in maintaining the Jim Crow legislation and fought the civil rights reforms of the 1960s).

I hope those who go to the polls keep that thought in mind: Do they want to retain such polarization? Do they want to eliminate it? And to which side do they want the country to go? I hope that for a little bit of security that my fellow Americans are not willing to sacrifice even more of their liberty.

Again, someone much more articulate than I

This article I am linking to expresses so well the point I have been trying to make.
Arab Spring nations don’t yet grasp freedom of dissent
If there is going to be a clash of cultures, then this will be at its root. Where there is no freedom of dissent; then there is no freedom. Either you are willing to accept and tolerate others who disagree with you or there inevitably will be conflict.
It doesn’t matter where you live, or what culture you live in, or society or anything. At the bottom of it all is that if you are unwilling to accept that other individuals are different than you are and are going to be, no matter what you think, then there will be no freedom, no liberty for anyone. Someone will always be trying to impose the tyranny of conformity on you and everyone else.
This, more than anything else, is what we should take away as a lesson from the riots, carnage and chaos we are seeing igniting around the world by Muslim extremists. Muslim, as well as members of all faiths, should reject the message being sent by these demonstrations in no uncertain terms.

Thank God for religious freedom

Pakistan grants bail to girl accused of blasphemy
Iran releases Christian pastor
The Mutawah
There is one thing that most Americans have a great difficulty in understanding and that is living under theocratic rules.
Of course, to your run-of-the-mill progressive, American Christian fundamentalists fit the description, but believe me, they don’t even come close. Fundamentalists in the U.S. of any stripe don’t hold a candle to the real thing that you find in Muslim countries functioning under the auspices of Sharia laws.
For example, the young Christian girl in Pakistan who was charged with blasphemy for supposedly burning a page from the Quran (the Islamic faith’s version of the Christian Bible or the Jewish Torah, the holy book). Apparently, it seems, that the equivalent of a priest or rabbi or pastor fibbed and that was what got the child arrested. Due to international pressure, at least the girl was released on bail. That doesn’t mean that the charges can’t go ahead, but it does mean that she gets out of jail to be with her family, hiding somewhere in Pakistan from those Muslim fundamentalists who would like to see her drawn and quartered. And you think American Christian fundamentalists are intolerant.
In the second case, an Iranian who was fulfilling the role of a Christian church minister apparently is not going to be put to death for apostasy by the Iranian regime. It seems that the international attention won another victory and he got off on appeal, which reduced his charges to a lesser crime and he was released in lieu of time served, which was three years in the pokey.
You see, things like that don’t happen in the United States and won’t as long as the law is respected by those who believe and those who don’t believe. It wasn’t always that way, but it is the way it is today and has been for a good long time now … well at least for about a century or so. Yes, we do tend to tolerate differing religious views in the U.S., even though those not currently popular often have a relatively rough time of it. Unfortunately, intolerance also is one of those faults/sins that we will never get rid of … but, more than other places, at least we have a bridle on it.
What we don’t have are mutaween … or as I call them the mutawah. In Saudi Arabia, the mutaween are the enforcers of customs and mores, like what you wear, are you observing prayer time, is your shop not selling unapproved goods like CDs, DVDs and alcoholic beverages. I know my progressive friend out west sees an American version of these religious policemen in everything the religious right/conservatives seem to do, but really, our religious right has nothing on the mutawah. And such enforcers here definitely don’t have the sanction of the government, and despite his fears, I don’t think our government will give such enforcers sanction.
When I was stationed in Saudi Arabia, I had a number of encounters with the mutawah. Most were amicable – they didn’t speak much English and my Arabic was limited to about three or four phrases. There was one incident when the business I was visiting suddenly shut all the shutters on the windows to the street and as it continued on with business, the owner explained to me that it was prayer time and rather than shut down the press run he was doing for me, he just closed the shutters so the mutaween wouldn’t see what was going on. I guess my time was worth more than the pressmen’s prayers or the fine he would have faced had he been caught (which he said he was occasionally – he did this often and not just for the infidel American Army NCO who was there – and was ready to pony up the fine).
There was one encounter, which fortunately I missed, where another NCO, who was a friend of mine, literally had to drag a female soldier out of a shopping mall before she got arrested. They were both in civilian clothes and she was wearing the obligatory floor length skirt, but her shirt sleeves only came down to her elbows and she wasn’t wearing something covering her hair. A couple of mutaween decided that she wasn’t observing the local dress code and decided to hassle her about it. Being a proper American who seems to think that the U.S. Constitution applies anywhere in the world, she proceeded to try to make a federal case out of it. Bad idea, young lady. Well, the NCO rode to her rescue, literally dragging her by her arm out of the shopping mall as she was practically screaming about her rights and away from the two officers.
When they got back to the hotel where we were billeted, I got the story and we two NCOs tried our best a) to calm her down and b) explain to her the facts of life that what goes in the US does not always go over in other countries and we have to respect that. We may not agree with it, and definitely don’t have to like it, but we do have to – as we usually put it – SADO. (SADO stands for Salute And Drive On and is what you do when you have to do something someone in authority tells you to do that you disagree with or think is wrong)
When I look around and see a Mormon and a Protestant, backed by two Catholics, running to lead the United States I am amazed (Well, not really, because I am an American who believes in the tolerance of America). It is not something that you will see in very many countries around the world. Well, even in the US, the fact that these candidates even profess their religious preferences raises eyebrows in some progressive quarters that would rather see secular humanists in the job. They have no room for those who see some value in religious faith or the belief in some deity that you can’t see or prove the existence of. To them it, it all opiates for the masses and a bunch of hokum.
Of course, we may come to the obverse of a theocracy, and that is almost as scary as the thought of living in a theocracy.

Redefining freedom?

Travis Smiley on redefining Freedom in America
I read this commentary by Travis Smiley and immediately some warning bells went off in the old brain.
First, we need to be careful when we start to redefine what “freedom” and “liberty” mean. It puts us on a tricky slope that could get dangerous really fast.
Second, while President Franklin D. Roosevelt was a really smart politician and a first-class statesman, he also was a propagandist. His four freedoms are an example of his skill at the latter. If you want another example, view Frank Capra’s “Why We Fight” series of films from World War II (they are the epitome of the art). Trying to appeal to the higher feelings of people, FDR framed the fight in World War II as the fight for the Four Freedoms:
Freedom of Expression
Freedom of Religion
Freedom from Fear
Freedom from Want
Well, two out of four is not bad. You can have freedom OF things, but you never really can promise anyone freedom FROM anything. Too many people also think that because you should have a freedom that means it is a right given by our Creator and that freedom is absolute. Wrong answer.
Our Creator granted us only freedoms of, not freedoms from. Freedoms from are really a secular concept that has nothing to do with rights.
We don’t have any freedom from fear, and never will. Sorry, but I am afraid of spiders sometimes (like the one that just crawled out from behind my monitor on the wall – oops, bad move spider, you’re dead now)  … nobody is going to grant me a freedom from that fear. There are too many fears and fear is a part of human existence. Now, I would agree that we should be as free as possible from the fear of government running our lives or banging on our doors, but we should always be afraid of government’s ability to do just those things and attempt to restrain it at every opportunity.
We will never be free from want because “want” is an elastic concept that defies definition. IF you cannot define something, then you can never be free of it.
When you call something a freedom, then that implies it is a right, but rights, unlike Mister Smiley’s position, do not come from government. What government gives, government can take away and rights are not like that. You either have rights or you don’t have rights, at least in country that professes that its government strives to treat each of its citizens equally and that they are equal under and before the law.
Of course, government can grant you some legal rights, but remember the government can take away those rights just as fast or slow as it granted them.
Even then, it is wise to remember that all freedoms are not unlimited. Sorry, but even freedom and liberty cannot be unrestricted. Unrestricted would mean anarchy and unfortunately, we have to have some social order. It would be nice if people would without prompting interact with each other with respect and dignity, as well as respect individuals’ rights to own property, including their own labor. However, people are not that way and so we, as a society (in every society in every country), implement rules and taboos that we delegate to our government to enforce. Note that government’s power comes from the consent of the governed and not the other way around.
We have freedom of expression, but that freedom is not absolute. There are some things you can’t say or do (as I outlined in an earlier post) and you do have a responsibility for what you say and do. There are consequences and you need always to bear that idea in mind.
We have freedom of religion or of conscience, but even that is not absolute. For example, in our society, the use of human sacrifice is not included among the freedoms for a religion’s adherents. Sorry, can’t go chopping people up to appeal to your God. In some areas, even animal sacrifices will run you afoul of animal abuse laws. Usually, the use of mind-altering drugs is not protected by religious freedom, although there are some exceptions to that.
Now, Mister Travis wants to redefine what freedom means. If it means freedoms of choices (even there, there are some tough calls and freedom of choice is never absolute – without consequences), I will be right there with him. However, if he means freedom from things, then he is barking up the wrong tree and I would hope you would agree with me on this and not him.

Initial reaction

I watched President Obama’s speech to the Democratic National Convention and I was impressed. He is a very good speaker and I should hope that he really believes in the things he said.
Having said that, I was left with my doubts. Why would I doubt? There was a dichotomy in his speech that left me wondering, “Does he really believe in what he saying?” because his rhetoric is not consistent, either within his speech or in his actions.
My question is this: Does he really believe in the law? Does he really believe in equality before the law? Does he really believe in contracts?
Unfortunately, both his rhetoric and his actions over the past few years lead me to question whether he really believes in the law, or that it be applied equally to all that come before it.
For example, if he really believed in equality before government, then all would pay the same rate of taxes to the government on the same kinds of income and wealth. That is not the case now. If you think it is, then you would be wrong.
No, we have decided to have a “progressive” system of taxation that increases the rate of your taxes as your income increases. We have decided to encourage certain behaviors by rewarding those who comply with our wishes with exemptions and deductions from their tax burden.
In addition, those who for whatever reason fail to achieve a certain income level, we have exempted them not only from paying federal income taxes, but we have agreed to give them other benefits and subsidies. That is not equality. That is discrimination, no matter how you describe it. Government is not in any way treating all citizens either fairly or equally.
Another example: I have no problem paying for education of young people or law enforcement or fire protection, but it is not the role of the federal government to provide those services.
Another example: This country has a law, called the bankruptcy code, and it applies to private companies – no matter what industry, no matter what size – the same. The president ignored that law because he said he wanted to save jobs. What gave him that right to ignore that law?
You see, I opposed the bailouts of Wall Street and Detroit. I thought at the time it was beyond the powers of the federal government to do what it did. I still think that is the case. Granted, it would have been a very serious situation and possibly thousands or millions would have been hurt. Guess what, thousands and millions of people were hurt. But, we would have survived it, just like America did in the Great Depression.
Note, Franklin Roosevelt did not end the Great Depression; World War II ended it. FDR did do some things, most notably restoring the outlook of the American people. It was not what he did that was right, but his positive outlook that was right. You can do wrong things with the right outlook and you will be surprised that things actually turn out better than you expected.
I agree that we should often act as a team, because in synergy there often is greater strength, but it should be a coalition of the willing and not the coerced. If we punish those for doing better than others then we discourage them from doing better.
Then there are contracts. Yes, I think all parties should abide by the articles of their contracts. Yes, often times groups try to shave those articles to their own benefit. That not only is to be expected but will happen, every time, all the time, no matter who is involved.
Yes, I think greed is wrong, but what one person defines as greed others define as righteous reward. Who has the right to define greed because it has to be defined before it can be punished. I am not qualified, and I know no one alive who is qualified to say what greed, or need or enough is.
I understand the rationale that the law should not apply to some people, particularly if they were not responsible for the circumstances they are in, but that is not my decision to make. It is not the federal government’s decision to make. Its job is to apply the laws as equally and equitably as humanly possible. If it doesn’t, then the law no longer reigns and we become a nation of men, governed by men and not by the principles that made this nation what it is and can be.
I don’t know how I am going to vote in November. I really don’t. There is a lot that can happen in the next two months. I do know that the Democrats have not sold me on their view of the world … but then again, neither have the Republicans, for that matter.

First Amendment concerns

Critiques' deletions cause censorship cries
You know, sometimes I really am impressed by how little a large proportion of the American people understand the U.S. Constitution and the “Bill of Rights” (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution).
For example: The right of free speech is guaranteed in the First Amendment, but most people don’t understand what “free speech” means.
It does not mean, for instance, that you can say anything you want about anything and anybody you want at any time you want. Sorry, but you can’t do that.
You can’t lie about other people, either verbally or in writing. You can’t damage the reputation of other people, either verbally or in writing (with some exceptions). You do that verbally, and you can successfully be sued for slander. You do it in print (or over the airwaves) and you can successfully be sued for libel.
You can’t say just anything that you want, like, maybe, yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater. That also can get you arrested.
You can’t display things, calling it “art”, or do certain things that offend local community standards (or sometimes national community standards). It is called obscenity and will get you arrested.
You can’t call for the violent overthrow of the government. That also will probably end up getting you arrested, especially if you try to garner the means to accomplish your calls. It is called treason and sedition.
You can’t demand a third party print your libelous, obscene, treasonous or seditious material, or air it on television or radio or leave it on their servers on the internet. Sorry, that does not fall under your right of free speech.
Now, if you own the server, you can put whatever you want on it. But if it is someone else’s server or web page, then you have no rights at all. Besides, they can get (and probably would be) sued for your libel and they really don’t want that to happen.
You see, that is why web sites, servers and internet service providers (almost all of which are private entities and not government entities) will “censor” your comments. They don’t want to get sued.
The First Amendment only applies to the government(s – courtesy of the 15^th Amendment) in the United States. It says CONGRESS shall make no law infringing on the right of the people to the freedom of speech, expression, etc. It does not say that your neighbor, or your newspaper, or radio station, or your television station, or some web site or internet host has to allow you to have free rein on their platform.
Nope, you want the freedom to say or whatever, then you go get your own soapbox and put it on the public square, or buy a copy machine and use it as a printing press, or crank up your own radio or TV station (unfortunately, there you will have to get an FCC licenses due to limited bandwidth on the airwaves), or set up your own web site on your own server (although there too the government can shut you down if you violate the law, sorry about that).
You see, freedom doesn’t mean you have no responsibility. Not that at all as you are responsible for what you say and do. If there are consequences, civil or criminal, then you have to be prepared to face those consequences and accept them as a result of your actions while you were exercising your vocal cords or your computer terminal.
So, when a web site deletes your comment, get over it. It is their right. You may not like it, just as they don’t like what you are saying. But they own the printing press and they get to decide what they print. You don’t like it, go create your own web site.
You see, freedom really isn’t free. It doesn’t mean that there is nothing that can be licensed or censored. Freedom comes with a cost and part of that cost usually is acting responsibility and with dignity and respect toward the rights of others.

Thank you, Michael Moore

Michael Moore on presidential race
I don’t know if Michael Moore, the very progressive film producer who keeps churning out films that attack conservatives, knew he was doing it but he did make a very pertinent observation during an interview on the Huffington Post.
Disregard his comments on his expectation that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney will defeat incumbent President Barack Obama in November. He doesn't know any more than the rest of us on how the election will turn out.
No, his telling comment was on campaign finance and how political parties use it (or should use it).
"This election's going to be decided on who gets out the most people that day. Who's up at four in the morning, making sure that dozens, hundreds, thousands of people in their communities are getting out to vote. And the Republican machine that is set up and the money behind it to guarantee [what] is really the only important thing -- turnout on that day -- that's what looks pretty scary here."
Uh, did I miss something here? Isn’t that what a democratic-republic is all about? Isn’t that what the democratic process is all about? I thought, though I may be wrong here, that the objective in any election was to mobilize supporters and to get them to the polling station so that the person elected represented their interests. Isn’t that what elections are all about?
To me, the role of the parties, other than to define the issues that they support and recruit candidates to run for office who will represent those views on those issues, is to mobilize their supporters and get them out to vote for their candidates. That is the job of the party faithful, to get those voters who support their cause to the polls in sufficient numbers to make a difference. If they aren’t doing that, then what are they doing? They sure ain’t helping their candidates. If the Republicans do that better than the Democrats or the Green Party or the Libertarians, then shouldn’t they deserve to win?
Mister Moore is scared that the turnout on Election Day might not represent his views. He calls that pretty “scary.” What about majority rule, Mister Moore? What about people electing their representatives in a federal-republic? That is scary?
The hypocrisy of his statement should be obvious. He doesn’t believe that enough people will vote “against” Romney. He might be right and he might be wrong, but then again, he might just be in the minority. Did that thought even cross his mind?
It is said that Americans are spending too much money on our elections. It is even raising questions in the foreign press. Hello, we spend more money in this country advertising tooth paste than we do on political efforts. We literally spend more than a trillion on advertising and public relations communications efforts but spending less than .6 percent of that figure on communicating our political views is wrong? There has got to be a disconnect there.
Of course, you can always say that in a perfect world, people wouldn’t have to spend money on communicating political speech. Hello, who said the world is perfect? Yes, money corrupts, but money also makes a pretty good megaphone and amplifier for what you want to say. Unfortunately, you can’t have one without the other.
Still, thank you Mister Moore, you hit the nail on the head. Elections are about turnout. Elections are about the constituents making their preferences known. That is what elections in the United States are all about.

Is perception reality?

Pew Poll finds majority think rich don't pay enough taxes

Sometimes the majority is wrong, unless it really doesn’t want equality before the law but only equality of outcome. It seems the Pew Institute did a public opinion survey that found that a majority of Americans believe that the “rich” do not pay enough taxes. Interesting concept is “enough.”

I wish I had bookmarked the page (but I didn’t and at the moment I am too lazy to go find it) but it was either a General Accounting Office or a Congressional Budget Office report that had a breakdown by income of which group paid how much. It revealed that the US federal income tax was indeed very progressive (if you can pay more you do, as a percentage of your income). Now, if that is true, then whatever happened to equality?

No, perception sometimes is about other things. For the last few years we have had pounded into our brains that equality means everybody gets the same, rather than everyone is treated the same by the government.

Now, I suppose, that if I am not getting enough, then I should be getting more. However, the concept of enough, like the concept of need, is quite elastic, wouldn’t you say?

To put it in plain perspective, when you sit down at the table to eat: Does everyone get exactly the same meal? Is that a requirement? Do you need the same meal as everyone else? Do you think the same portions given to everyone else are enough for you? What if you don’t like one of the foods on your plate? Must you eat all on your plate?

I could go on and on like that but I think I am making my point. Each of us is an individual. Our needs and our wants and what is “enough” are defined by our own perception and not by someone else. Oh, yes, we can be influenced by society and our learned value system, but it still comes down to what we perceive and how we, as individuals, define “enough.”

Now, we can accept that each of is an individual and try to cope with the problems that presents; or we can try to give each person an equal share of the pie. Granted, equal shares seem to be fairer, but are they always truly fairer? Again, our individual perception colors how we view that question. You see if you want to be “fair”, then government – at whatever level you choose – has to treat each individual equally, otherwise it discriminates by some arbitrary standard. Does government do that? Don’t be silly, of course it doesn’t treat people equal. Not if some people pay more than others and others receive more than others.

How do you reconcile this dichotomy? Well, you can ignore it or you can try to justify it. We in this day and age are trying somewhat ineffectively to accomplish the latter. We do that by trying to figure out a system that gives each individual what they need or what they want. I say ineffectively because as always with humans some are “gaming” the system to their own advantage.

The system tries to codify how government can dole out its largess to a very large, and therefore impersonal, population. The question then becomes should government (as representative of society) be responsible for providing for the needs and wants of individuals or should individuals be left responsible for that chore themselves?

Good question. Should the choice of whether to assist others be left to the individual or should it be compelled by the community? It depends, I guess, on how you view property (and I include labor as property). You see if an individual can “own” property, then that creates one set of problems. If all property is “owned” by the community, then that creates another set of problems. The question then becomes which system is “right” and which system meets the needs of the individual best.

Again, that brings us back to the question: Are we individuals? Do individuals have rights? Can individuals be free to make their own choices? Are individuals responsible for those choices? When are individuals not responsible? When is it right for others to take responsibility for individuals?

I firmly believe that as individuals, we are – for the most part – responsible for our own decisions; that we have to take responsibility for our own lives. And having said that: I also believe that we should make the choice to help others when we can; not because we have to or are compelled to do so, but because we choose to do so. I also believe that it is our own self-interest to choose to defend and protect our community and our society. Yes, it is an “obligation” but it not an obligation that you can force a person to accept. It must come from within the person.

I don’t agree with those who say it is right for the government/society to compel anyone to do anything or make a certain choice. They should be free to make whatever choice they want, with the proviso that they also are willing to accept the consequences of that choice, whatever they may be. That means that if they make bad choices, then they have to live with those bad choices. Yes, that means that maybe they will be harmed. Yes, that may mean that others might be harmed by association. We can try, if we choose to ameliorate that harm to the others, but even that should by choice rather than compulsion.

I know I could be very wrong in these beliefs. I know that there are a lot of people who might condemn me for lacking in compassion for these beliefs, but they would be ignoring that I, too, have a choice and that choice is when and where and how I assist others.

So, back to the original thesis of this essay: Do the rich pay enough in taxes? Well, it depends on how much you mean when you say “enough.” We should not be like bank robbers who rob banks only because that is where the money is. If we plan to take money – taxes – from people, then it would seem to me that equity should be the rule and not the exception. By equity, I mean that if we decide that people should pay at a given rate, then that rate should be the same for all people. If we decide that people should pay a certain amount, then that amount should be the same for all people. That is what government owes us: Equality.

If there are those who can’t – for whatever reason – can’t “pay” the fee, then I would hope that it would be the choice of others to help. Not because they are forced to do it, but because they choose to do it.

As for taxes, if they are based on a percentage of income, or wealth or whatever, then that rate should be the same for all persons. I realize that is not a popular concept, but it is the one I believe is most fair to all people. I believe in that case we are all contributors to society and not divided into two groups: Those from whom things are taken and those upon who benefits are bestowed.

When you look at our society, or any society, as we go into the future, keep those thoughts in mind. I hope that you would consider their merits and act accordingly.

In the end, as always, the choice is yours, yours as an individual and no one else’s.