People

Now past the midway mark in my tenure as an octogenarian, I've decided I really like people. I know there are some bad apples around, but they are a very small per cent of the population.

The vast majority of people are enjoying the promised life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Trying to get ahead, looking out for family and friends. Happily I have reached the stage where ethnicity, skin color, religious belief or formal education mean nothing. Any prejudices of my youth have faded away, and I can enjoy all people.

Years ago I read that most people are yearning to engage in a friendly conversation. I have watched my wife prove this to be true. She'll go to the store and strike up a conversation with the other lady mulling her produce choices. Then she'll chat with the next customer in line for checkout. She'll engage the cashier in a chat. All these people smile and happily respond. It's like they were hoping someone would talk to them.

I also once learned not to react to people. Don't let someone else determine your attitude. Never become a grouch because you've met a person acting like a grouch. Give them the same big smile and friendly greeting. It will make you feel good.

Liking people, just because they are people, can be rewarding. Try it!

The way I saw it

How is it that we fought a bloody war with Japan, which then became a quite successful nation and an ally to boot, while for all of our efforts in Iraq, they are now headed for civil war and disaster?

I paid a brief visit to Japan in 1947, when MacArthur was in the process of transforming the Island nation. No, I had no privilege to inside information. In fact, I was probably the least important American to ever visit Japan.

But I saw Japanese digging in garbage cans for food. Japan was a nation squeezed dry by the wartime generals seeking to dominate all of Asia.

Japan, with their ancient customs and deified Emperor was about as far removed from America's way of doing things as possible.

But, unlike in Iraq, where we seemed hurried to declare them a sovereign nation, MacArthur had no such plans for Japan. First, he had demanded unconditional surrender to end the war. Then he proceeded to set up a democratic government.

In Iraq, we heard hedging assurances that their new constitution would not necessarily look like the U.S Constitution. In Japan, MacArthur said "You will do this the way I tell you, period." In a reasonable time, Japan's economy was growing and the Japanese people forged ahead.

In Iraq, the freed Iraqis had no idea how to live as free men, and no one stayed to make them do it right. People were saying, "we gave the Iraqis a chance at freedom, now it is up to them." Someone might give me a chance to fly an airliner, but that doesn't mean I would even know how to start the engines.

In Iraq, we thought we could build an Iraqi army and they would defend their country. In Japan, MacArthur said forget about a new Japanese army. First build a successful government and we will later talk of your defense. That was nearly seventy years ago!

Why would we not follow such a successful pattern in Iraq? Because American politicians are so eager to prove they are smarter than their predecessors. They are going to do it differently, come hell or high water. Then they make excuses when their policies fail.

Eric Cantor Defeated.

Several have called Cantor's defeat an "earthquake". Others are speaking of a disarray in the GOP. It is as though a Congressman seeking his eighth term should never be defeated. Actually that is the point of primary elections... to ask the voters if they wish to continue to be represented by this man. What's so earth-shattering about their saying no?

This is the way America works. It gives us a chance to get rid of the guys who are not doing their job. It also means we will occasionally lose a really good man (or woman).

Is it such a shock that the primary voters wanting a change actually got out and voted? Or,that the voters who supported Cantor stayed home on election day? A disappointment, perhaps, but no great surprise.

Primary election day was June 3 in my county. Only 13% of registered voters bothered to vote. My guess is that similar numbers applied in the Virginia election. That is the sad part. Because so many voters ignore primary elections, we are allowing a very small minority to determine who our candidates will be in the general election.

I have an idea: create a lottery every election. Let the governmental entity holding the election create a lottery pot, contributing 1¢ for every voter casting a ballot. When all votes are counted and the election certified, draw one name from all who voted, and award them the pot. If there are 100,000 voters, the pot would be $1,000.00 - not enough to break the county, or city, but enough, perhaps, to attract voters. And voters might encourage their neighbors to vote... to enrich the pot.

Just Watch!

In the summer of 1937, when I was inching toward my ninth birthday, my grandfather, for whom I was named, was dying from cancer. One afternoon, the adults in the family were gathered around his bedside, when he summoned me. I loved my grandfather, a tall, gentle man. That demeanor belied the rough and tumble life he had led.

Born in 1862, before the Civil War had reached most of the bloodiest battles that would be fought, he grew up in Kentucky, then followed the frontier to Texas, and later to Oklahoma, where he participated (unsuccessfully) in the run for land in the "Cherokee Strip".

When I reached his bedside, there were hugs, and conversation which I no longer remember. Then, my grandfather said he had something he wanted me to have, and he gave me his gold pocket watch.

When I was sixteen, I carried the watch for some time, but eventually the mainspring broke and I put the watch in a drawer for safe keeping.

In 1968, my father, like my grandfather, died from cancer. Upon his death, my mother gave me my Dad's gold pocket watch. I placed that watch in the drawer with my grandfather's watch, and there the two watches have lain for forty six years. Somehow I had it in my mind that neither of the watches worked.

Recently, I became acquainted with a man who is a professional horologist, i.e., a watchmaker. I had called him to repair my grandfather clock, which task he completed in about five minutes. I was so impressed, I asked him if he would take a look at a couple of old pocket watches.

He confirmed that the mainspring was broken in my grandfather's watch. We are now trying to find a replacement main spring for a watch made in 1904. Then, the horologist examined my father's watch and showed me that that watch was not broken and seemed to be running normally.

I am astounded that after forty six idle years, that watch now keeps perfect time. I set that watch by the Official U.S., N.I.S.T. Time Clock, and re-check it each morning. To my great surprise if keeps time to the second!

As a former broadcaster, that degree of accuracy is important to me. My friends are often amused at my insistence on accuracy in a timepiece. What amuses me is that once all gentlemen carried a highly accurate watch. Another surprise is that both my Levi and my Wrangler blue jeans, and even my cargo shorts are still made with a watch pocket!

The hard truth about wages.

My current city of residence is contemplating a minimum wage of $10.10 per hour. Is it a coincidence that this is the exact same figure President Obama is pushing as a minimum wage? Of course not. Our local government is dominated by Democrats who place allegiance to political party above all else. This action is nothing more than a declaration of their love for and loyalty to a Democrat president.

So, what's wrong with a minimum wage of $10.10? Or $11.11? Or $9.09. Or any other amount? It is wrong because price fixing is unfair.

When someone employs a worker, they are agreeing to a swap: a certain amount of money for a certain amount of work. It is a fair square trade. How does it make sense for a government, with the full force of law, to set a minimum for one side of that trade? Why not a minimum for the other side?

Imagine a "minimum work law". Suppose we write the law to require a minimum of forty eight hours of work, for an unspecified weekly wage. No one would consider that to be fair.

Setting a minimum wage is never the end of the argument. A business must make a profit to stay in business. If wages are raised to an unprofitable level, one of three things will happen: 1. The business will close its doors. 2. The business will raise its prices (if competition permits). 3. The business will develop a way to operate without the expensive employees.

Already we are seeing some restaurants install computer stations at tables, allowing customers to order without a waitress. That is simply the latest version of sales by machine. As a teenager, I worked for a company that operated cigarette vending machines. The company sold truckloads of cigarettes... no sales clerk... no cashier.

Each of the above enumerated events will result in the loss of jobs. The minimum wage may help a few, but that help will come entirely at the expense of other employees, and often also of the consumer.