Immigration from Mexico.
Why does there seem to be so much opposition to immigration from Mexico? I don't see strong feelings against Russian, German, Italian, Japanese, or any other group of foreign nationals. Why Mexicans? Some say it is because we once fought a war with them. But we fought wars (hot or cold) with others, and those memories are faded.
My opinion:
I have spent some time in Mexico. Acapulco, Mexico City, Cozumel, Cuernavaca, Columbus, and many trips to Ciudad Juarez. I have some familiarity with Mexico and Mexicans. Mexico is a beautiful country. Spectacular mountains. Beaches that are the envy of the world. A gentle, pleasant climate.
Mexican people offer much to be admired. I have found them universally a warm, friendly people. Strong family values, strong religious faith. I go to Mexico and stumble through my broken Spanish, always to be met with patience and understanding. I once translated a Spanish saying for a granddaughter and was congratulated by an elderly Mexican woman for having translated correctly. And, Mexicans are most often hard-working, industrious people.
But, in Mexicans there is an interesting dichotomy. One that is deep-rooted and slow to change.
It all began with the Aztecs. Legend has it that the Aztecs were a tribe located somewhere in (what is now) the southwest United States, or northern Mexico. For some reason they migrated south, settling where they found an eagle, perched on a cactus, devouring a snake. (Honest!) That area is now known as Mexico, D.F. - Mexico City.
The Aztecs were a highly advanced people with one major flaw: their religion. Like the innocents of Jonestown, they let their priests convince them that human sacrifice was required to appease their Gods.
The Spanish Conquistador Hernan Cortez defeated the Aztecs, but while the Spanish rulers brought much modernity to Mexico, their ways were nearly as harsh as the Aztecs (minus, of course, the human sacrifice). Eventually, the Mexicans overthrew the Spaniards.
Next it was the French. The madman Maximilian was installed as Emperor of Mexico and continued the oppression of the Mexican people until the French, like the Aztecs and the Spanish, were thrown aside.
A purely Mexican (or Indian) government was installed. Sadly, they had learned governing from the Aztecs, the Spanish and the French, and corruption was all they understood.
Then, of course, came the Americans. Mexicans tried to claim all the territory once held by Spain, but the onslaught of western migration in America by European immigrants overwhelmed them. Eventually all territory north of the Rio Grande was lost to Mexico, by force or otherwise.
Fast-forward a century and a half. South American drug cartels, thwarted at delivering their wares to American consumers, through the Bahamas, Florida and gulf cities, or the coast of California, chose to move through Mexico. This brought a wave of violence unequaled even by the Aztecs, plus a flood of cash to tempt the population.
Today, the retiring police chief of Ciudad Juarez estimates that 80% of the population of his city are involved in crime to some degree. Not necessarily what we would consider "serious" crime, but a willingness to be complicit in some degree of corruption if it is of personal benefit. It is all the Mexicans have ever known.
In the United States, we began as a government of the people.We have held respect for our government officials. Despite the tendency of our youth, since the 1960s, to 'question authority', Americans largely respect the rule of law.
Many Mexicans, with good reason, have no such grounding. We often see it in an unwillingness to assimilate. A willingness to accept government largesse, deserved, earned, or not.
Many Americans resent this. But mostly they resent the speaking in Spanish. Generations of immigrants have come to America and have learned to speak English. Imperfectly, perhaps, but they worked at it. Always speaking Spanish is like speaking in code - Americans do not understand. And they greatly resent telephone answering systems that require 'press one' for English.
Yes, there are the youth - the gang-bangers. But that is a stage, inherent in people of most every ethnicity. I have seen virtually no adversarial tendencies in Mexican adults.
Mexicans are good people. They become great Americans. Consider how many persons of Mexican descent have proven their courage and loyalty in the U.S. military. How many Mexican Americans have distinguished themselves as jurists, legislators, educators, entrepreneurs?
Perhaps it will be those outstanding Mexican-Americans who will teach their former countrymen that there is no part-time honesty. That corruption is never acceptable, in any degree. And, that assimilation into American culture and language would be very much appreciated.
My opinion.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Friday, December 28, 2012
Insanity
Either Albert Einstein or Benjamin Franklin first said the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. That should not be confused with the 'try, try again' maxim, which would suggest you try, try something a little different each time. But if something fails, it does seem insane to do the same thing over and over again.
In 1919, Americans decided to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages. Resulting unintended consequences proved to be untenable and the policy was changed. More recently, we launched the 'War on Drugs'. Unintended consequences are everywhere, most notably in the violence of drug cartels and the overcrowding of our prisons. We are waiting for a better idea.
Now it is guns. Unlike a club or a sword, a gun is easy to use. A small woman can pull a trigger. More Americans own guns than ever owned swords. And, those guns in the hands of law-abiding, peaceful citizens pose no problems. But, a gun in the hands of a criminal, or a deranged person, is very much a problem.
It is fair to note that there have been a high number of murders in Russia, mostly from domestic violence, often with alcohol involved. Since guns are effectively banned in Russia, those murders are by primitive weapons.
In America, like Russia, we could just ban all guns. But no thinking person believes a criminal would give up his or her gun. Which means we could only ban guns from law-abiding citizens. If you want to see the results of that policy, look to Mexico. Recently the soon-to-retire Police chief in the Mexican city of Juarez said he will have to leave his country when he retires, as so many Mexican criminals have promised to kill him. As a private citizen in Mexico, he will be prohibited from defending himself.
In light of recent shootings in America, numerous politicians are vowing to fix the problem. So far, none have offered a new idea. Perhaps some day, someone will.
Either Albert Einstein or Benjamin Franklin first said the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. That should not be confused with the 'try, try again' maxim, which would suggest you try, try something a little different each time. But if something fails, it does seem insane to do the same thing over and over again.
In 1919, Americans decided to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages. Resulting unintended consequences proved to be untenable and the policy was changed. More recently, we launched the 'War on Drugs'. Unintended consequences are everywhere, most notably in the violence of drug cartels and the overcrowding of our prisons. We are waiting for a better idea.
Now it is guns. Unlike a club or a sword, a gun is easy to use. A small woman can pull a trigger. More Americans own guns than ever owned swords. And, those guns in the hands of law-abiding, peaceful citizens pose no problems. But, a gun in the hands of a criminal, or a deranged person, is very much a problem.
It is fair to note that there have been a high number of murders in Russia, mostly from domestic violence, often with alcohol involved. Since guns are effectively banned in Russia, those murders are by primitive weapons.
In America, like Russia, we could just ban all guns. But no thinking person believes a criminal would give up his or her gun. Which means we could only ban guns from law-abiding citizens. If you want to see the results of that policy, look to Mexico. Recently the soon-to-retire Police chief in the Mexican city of Juarez said he will have to leave his country when he retires, as so many Mexican criminals have promised to kill him. As a private citizen in Mexico, he will be prohibited from defending himself.
In light of recent shootings in America, numerous politicians are vowing to fix the problem. So far, none have offered a new idea. Perhaps some day, someone will.
Monday, December 24, 2012
The Tea Party. Recalcitrant? You bet!
Some years ago, following a presidential election, one of the broadcast networks, NBC, I think, did a documentary they titled "The Right Man".
I no longer remember the content, but the gist of their argument was that even with all the rough and tumble of our political campaigns, we always manage to elect the right man - or woman.
We believed that.We lived through Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and some 25 Congresses, always believing we had elected the right men and women to trust with our government... the business of running our country. We proceeded to build our careers and our homes, we raised and educated our children.
Then came the year 2009 and we started hearing alarming sounds of deficit and debt. What? This rich and powerful country of ours seriously in debt? Cannot be! We took a look. They told us our national debt was some twelve trillion dollars. We did a little fourth grade math;
$12,000,000 000,000. (OUR DEBT)
300,000,000 (OUR POPULATION)
Holy cow! That's $40,000. for every man, woman and child in the United States! We said, Stop! For the first time in our lives we began protesting, out in the street, carrying signs! And, we campaigned for like-minded candidates, managing to take back one house of Congress in 2010.
But the spending has not stopped. Now the debt is $16.4 trillion and the population is 308 million. The debt is now $43,000 per person. We prayed for election day to come. It came and low-information people re-elected much of the government that got us into debt. This government tells us they need more money, and more spending. They want to raise the debt ceiling at will. They say we must compromise or we will go over a cliff.
We are already over a cliff. There is no way we can pay back this debt, short of near-miraculous growth. We cannot wait for miracles. We must stop this government now.
No compromise! No more taxes! We want spending cuts. Significant spending cuts and we want them now.
Rid the military of all the unneeded, unwanted bases and weapons programs protected by politicians. Lessen our military footprint on foreign soil.
Change the retirement age for Social Security. Stop providing benefits to people who did not pay into them. Social Security was instituted as old-age insurance. You do not collect insurance benefits unless you have paid the premiums.
Change the eligibility age for Medicare. Get serious about cutting Medicare fraud - it is rampant!
Cut wages of government employees to levels matching salaries of like skills in the private sector.
Eliminate collective bargaining for government employees. Cut excessive pensions for government and private sector employees alike.
End welfare for able-bodied persons. Work or go hungry.
End base line budgeting. Forget last year's budget, start from zero every year.
Completely eliminate government programs that are not working: The departments of Agriculture, Energy, Education, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Commerce, and, yes, the Post Office and Amtrak. All these programs have failed in their intended purpose. Why are we going deeper in debt to support them?
That is a start. That is my idea of compromise. When that is done we can start talking about more cutting.
Some years ago, following a presidential election, one of the broadcast networks, NBC, I think, did a documentary they titled "The Right Man".
I no longer remember the content, but the gist of their argument was that even with all the rough and tumble of our political campaigns, we always manage to elect the right man - or woman.
We believed that.We lived through Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and some 25 Congresses, always believing we had elected the right men and women to trust with our government... the business of running our country. We proceeded to build our careers and our homes, we raised and educated our children.
Then came the year 2009 and we started hearing alarming sounds of deficit and debt. What? This rich and powerful country of ours seriously in debt? Cannot be! We took a look. They told us our national debt was some twelve trillion dollars. We did a little fourth grade math;
$12,000,0
3
Holy cow! That's $40,000. for every man, woman and child in the United States! We said, Stop! For the first time in our lives we began protesting, out in the street, carrying signs! And, we campaigned for like-minded candidates, managing to take back one house of Congress in 2010.
But the spending has not stopped. Now the debt is $16.4 trillion and the population is 308 million. The debt is now $43,000 per person. We prayed for election day to come. It came and low-information people re-elected much of the government that got us into debt. This government tells us they need more money, and more spending. They want to raise the debt ceiling at will. They say we must compromise or we will go over a cliff.
We are already over a cliff. There is no way we can pay back this debt, short of near-miraculous growth. We cannot wait for miracles. We must stop this government now.
No compromise! No more taxes! We want spending cuts. Significant spending cuts and we want them now.
Rid the military of all the unneeded, unwanted bases and weapons programs protected by politicians. Lessen our military footprint on foreign soil.
Change the retirement age for Social Security. Stop providing benefits to people who did not pay into them. Social Security was instituted as old-age insurance. You do not collect insurance benefits unless you have paid the premiums.
Change the eligibility age for Medicare. Get serious about cutting Medicare fraud - it is rampant!
Cut wages of government employees to levels matching salaries of like skills in the private sector.
Eliminate collective bargaining for government employees. Cut excessive pensions for government and private sector employees alike.
End welfare for able-bodied persons. Work or go hungry.
End base line budgeting. Forget last year's budget, start from zero every year.
Completely eliminate government programs that are not working: The departments of Agriculture, Energy, Education, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Commerce, and, yes, the Post Office and Amtrak. All these programs have failed in their intended purpose. Why are we going deeper in debt to support them?
That is a start. That is my idea of compromise. When that is done we can start talking about more cutting.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
You Can't Fix Stupid. (Oh, Yeah?)
Some idiots who call themselves Handgun Control, Inc. made a poster. Pretty picture. Stupid copy.
Comparing such numbers without relating to population, or individual nation's restrictions on gun ownership makes little sense. You can surely post startling numbers by comparing traffic deaths, deaths from falling in the bathtub, or any of many other human mishaps.
But here in America, we have a different take on things. We look at the history of some of our neighbor nations and we remember The Nazi Holocaust; The Soviet Gulags; The Chinese Cultural Revolution; The Pol Pot Killing Fields. And we remember the Japanese massacre of innocents in Nanking. and on and on.
So, we have revised their silly poster:
Yes, we American gun owners deplore the loss of innocent life at the hands of thugs, murderers, and madmen, by use of guns or any other means. We search for ways to protect innocents. But, when we propose to arm the innocents to level the playing field against the thugs, we are met with frantic opposition by people proposing the very policies that have enabled mass loss of life around the world.
7000 Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto and millions more in the Nazi concentration camps. The Jewish people said "Never Again" and they meant it. Today Israel is a well-armed nation able to protect its citizens.
We look at the world's mass murders of the past and we say "Never In America!" We want our citizens armed. And they are. There are over 100 million gun owners in America. There are 41 million military veterans, all with some military training, many with extensive combat experience. Among them are tens of thousands of veterans who were highly trained, highly skilled, high-ranking officers who could provide command and leadership at the blink of an eye. That makes American citizens the world's largest army, in reserve.
And this American is a proud member of the National Rifle Association!
Some idiots who call themselves Handgun Control, Inc. made a poster. Pretty picture. Stupid copy.
Comparing such numbers without relating to population, or individual nation's restrictions on gun ownership makes little sense. You can surely post startling numbers by comparing traffic deaths, deaths from falling in the bathtub, or any of many other human mishaps.
But here in America, we have a different take on things. We look at the history of some of our neighbor nations and we remember The Nazi Holocaust; The Soviet Gulags; The Chinese Cultural Revolution; The Pol Pot Killing Fields. And we remember the Japanese massacre of innocents in Nanking. and on and on.
So, we have revised their silly poster:
Yes, we American gun owners deplore the loss of innocent life at the hands of thugs, murderers, and madmen, by use of guns or any other means. We search for ways to protect innocents. But, when we propose to arm the innocents to level the playing field against the thugs, we are met with frantic opposition by people proposing the very policies that have enabled mass loss of life around the world.
7000 Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto and millions more in the Nazi concentration camps. The Jewish people said "Never Again" and they meant it. Today Israel is a well-armed nation able to protect its citizens.
We look at the world's mass murders of the past and we say "Never In America!" We want our citizens armed. And they are. There are over 100 million gun owners in America. There are 41 million military veterans, all with some military training, many with extensive combat experience. Among them are tens of thousands of veterans who were highly trained, highly skilled, high-ranking officers who could provide command and leadership at the blink of an eye. That makes American citizens the world's largest army, in reserve.
And this American is a proud member of the National Rifle Association!
Friday, December 21, 2012
Negative Speech... or something.
We hear it often these days, but most frequently from our super-intelligent, Harvard educated president:
"I couldn't be..."
I couldn't be more clear. I couldn't be more proud. I couldn't be more pleased. Oh, yeah? Supposing that, right after you said that, Michelle handed you a double cheeseburger, large fries and a 42-ounce Coke! Wouldn't you then be more pleased?
The point being, whatever happened to "I am proud..." "I am pleased to announce..." You might even say "I am most pleased" or "I am very proud". Must it always be "I couldn't be more"?
Being a high-school dropout, I guess I am just stupid. But as a one-time broadcaster I learned to KISS, or to "Keep it simple, stupid"!
We hear it often these days, but most frequently from our super-intelligent, Harvard educated president:
"I couldn't be..."
I couldn't be more clear. I couldn't be more proud. I couldn't be more pleased. Oh, yeah? Supposing that, right after you said that, Michelle handed you a double cheeseburger, large fries and a 42-ounce Coke! Wouldn't you then be more pleased?
The point being, whatever happened to "I am proud..." "I am pleased to announce..." You might even say "I am most pleased" or "I am very proud". Must it always be "I couldn't be more"?
Being a high-school dropout, I guess I am just stupid. But as a one-time broadcaster I learned to KISS, or to "Keep it simple, stupid"!
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Suffering Fools
Centuries ago, Saint Paul told the people of Corinth, "ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise."
That phrase has been used and abused in many ways, by many people. Today some aver that they do NOT suffer fools gladly. I tend to join that group, while adding that I do not consider myself wise. So, what is a fool? Why are we intolerant of them?
I consider a fool a person who does foolish things. I have been there, done that, time and again in my youth. Some times just for fun. Many times unaware of the danger I posed to myself or others. Today I see young people doing foolish things, having fun, and I hope they do no harm.
But those are not the fools we fear. We fear the fools in positions of power or influence who choose to ignore facts of history, thus placing many in harms way. Maybe not physical harm, but harm, no less.
Our nation's current fiscal problems are a classic example. We are repeating tragic mistakes of the past while refusing to recognize past successes.
Today we are again on the brink of a big battle over gun control. Our nation's founders had seen the consequences of an unarmed population with a tyrannical government. They sought to prevent that happening in this new nation by providing protection for the right of the population to be armed. But that right has been twisted until it is now blamed for the actions of a deranged person who became a mass murderer.
As to the original purpose for an armed population, some anti-gun activists insist that people with small arms are no match for a modern army protecting a tyrannical government. Maybe they haven't noticed what happened in Tunisia, Egypt, or Libya, and what is currently happening in Syria. Insufferable fools.
But many of these fools are in positions of great influence, like the national news media; or positions of great power, like the President of The United States and members of the United States Congress.
Their current boogey man is the 'assault rifle', which, like the monster under the child's bed, does not exist. When I attended an Army Infantry Training Center, we employed long rifles with wooden stocks, patterned somewhat after the style of the muskets carried by my ancestor at Valley forge.
In recent years, the Army began using rifles of an entirely different style. They surely have some advantages, perhaps with added features, perhaps just in ease or cost of mass manufacture. But they look different. As may be expected, many private citizens wanted their personal rifles to look like the modern style military rifles. Gun manufacturers complied with this market demand.
Some find the new style rifles scary looking and have dubbed them 'assault weapons'. A traditionalist, I just find them ugly! Whatever your opinion, these new rifles on the civilian market are different in appearance only. No matter. The fools will insist they be banned.
So, we must fight the gun battle again. Not with our little rifles, shotguns or pistols. Rather, with our pens, our telephones and our emails. But fight we must, or we'll find ourselves suffering at the hands of fools, and not so gladly!
Centuries ago, Saint Paul told the people of Corinth, "ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise."
That phrase has been used and abused in many ways, by many people. Today some aver that they do NOT suffer fools gladly. I tend to join that group, while adding that I do not consider myself wise. So, what is a fool? Why are we intolerant of them?
I consider a fool a person who does foolish things. I have been there, done that, time and again in my youth. Some times just for fun. Many times unaware of the danger I posed to myself or others. Today I see young people doing foolish things, having fun, and I hope they do no harm.
But those are not the fools we fear. We fear the fools in positions of power or influence who choose to ignore facts of history, thus placing many in harms way. Maybe not physical harm, but harm, no less.
Our nation's current fiscal problems are a classic example. We are repeating tragic mistakes of the past while refusing to recognize past successes.
Today we are again on the brink of a big battle over gun control. Our nation's founders had seen the consequences of an unarmed population with a tyrannical government. They sought to prevent that happening in this new nation by providing protection for the right of the population to be armed. But that right has been twisted until it is now blamed for the actions of a deranged person who became a mass murderer.
As to the original purpose for an armed population, some anti-gun activists insist that people with small arms are no match for a modern army protecting a tyrannical government. Maybe they haven't noticed what happened in Tunisia, Egypt, or Libya, and what is currently happening in Syria. Insufferable fools.
But many of these fools are in positions of great influence, like the national news media; or positions of great power, like the President of The United States and members of the United States Congress.
Their current boogey man is the 'assault rifle', which, like the monster under the child's bed, does not exist. When I attended an Army Infantry Training Center, we employed long rifles with wooden stocks, patterned somewhat after the style of the muskets carried by my ancestor at Valley forge.
In recent years, the Army began using rifles of an entirely different style. They surely have some advantages, perhaps with added features, perhaps just in ease or cost of mass manufacture. But they look different. As may be expected, many private citizens wanted their personal rifles to look like the modern style military rifles. Gun manufacturers complied with this market demand.
Some find the new style rifles scary looking and have dubbed them 'assault weapons'. A traditionalist, I just find them ugly! Whatever your opinion, these new rifles on the civilian market are different in appearance only. No matter. The fools will insist they be banned.
So, we must fight the gun battle again. Not with our little rifles, shotguns or pistols. Rather, with our pens, our telephones and our emails. But fight we must, or we'll find ourselves suffering at the hands of fools, and not so gladly!
Saturday, December 15, 2012
A Christian Atheist?
Impossible? Let's explore. The true history of the man, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, is sketchy. There is little record of his existence other than in the writings of His followers. But then, any recorded history from that era is sketchy. There were no printing presses, no paper or pen as we know it. Recording information on lambskin or papyrus with some kind of quill pen and plant dyes was tedious.
But, there is no denying that Christ was the most influential man in the history we know. His teachings are guidelines for many persons who have no affiliation with any organized church. That is not to say that Christ was the first to advocate principles of love, but certainly those principles are most closely associated with Christ's teachings.
People call themselves a Liberal or a Conservative, simply because they believe in most of the tenets attributed to those labels.
Many hold that to be a Christian, one must believe in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Some liberal Christians, however, do not accept a literal bodily resurrection, seeing the story as a richly symbolic and spiritually nourishing myth. Still, they consider themselves Christians.
An atheist, on the other hand, is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. While it is common to define atheists as persons who want to ban Christmas trees, nativity scenes or even the phrase 'Merry Christmas', many Americans who claim to be atheists do enjoy Christmas. They observe it as a National Holiday celebrating love, charity, and the joy of giving. And they are okay with calling it Christ's birthday. Why not? Those are the things He taught.
Some well educated, well read, critical thinking Americans believe strongly in the principles taught by Christ. They believe in equality, in fairness, justice, honesty, and truth in all cases. They try to instill these principles in their children. But they do not belong to, or attend services of any organized church. Can they not still be called Christians?
They do not believe in a Supreme Being. They believe in Christ as a man, a Rabbi, a teacher but do not believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection, or that Christ is the Son of God - unless we are all "Sons of God".
And they do not believe in an afterlife, believing instead in Moses' recounting of God's sentence to Adam in Genesis 3:19, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
Are they not atheists? Christian atheists?
Impossible? Let's explore. The true history of the man, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, is sketchy. There is little record of his existence other than in the writings of His followers. But then, any recorded history from that era is sketchy. There were no printing presses, no paper or pen as we know it. Recording information on lambskin or papyrus with some kind of quill pen and plant dyes was tedious.
But, there is no denying that Christ was the most influential man in the history we know. His teachings are guidelines for many persons who have no affiliation with any organized church. That is not to say that Christ was the first to advocate principles of love, but certainly those principles are most closely associated with Christ's teachings.
People call themselves a Liberal or a Conservative, simply because they believe in most of the tenets attributed to those labels.
Many hold that to be a Christian, one must believe in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Some liberal Christians, however, do not accept a literal bodily resurrection, seeing the story as a richly symbolic and spiritually nourishing myth. Still, they consider themselves Christians.
An atheist, on the other hand, is a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. While it is common to define atheists as persons who want to ban Christmas trees, nativity scenes or even the phrase 'Merry Christmas', many Americans who claim to be atheists do enjoy Christmas. They observe it as a National Holiday celebrating love, charity, and the joy of giving. And they are okay with calling it Christ's birthday. Why not? Those are the things He taught.
Some well educated, well read, critical thinking Americans believe strongly in the principles taught by Christ. They believe in equality, in fairness, justice, honesty, and truth in all cases. They try to instill these principles in their children. But they do not belong to, or attend services of any organized church. Can they not still be called Christians?
They do not believe in a Supreme Being. They believe in Christ as a man, a Rabbi, a teacher but do not believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection, or that Christ is the Son of God - unless we are all "Sons of God".
And they do not believe in an afterlife, believing instead in Moses' recounting of God's sentence to Adam in Genesis 3:19, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
Are they not atheists? Christian atheists?
Sunday, December 09, 2012
First Amendment
As we near the Christmas holiday, we hear more and more protests over Christmas symbols on public property and,well, you know the drill.
What's the problem? After 225 years, why are people sill arguing over what the Constitution means?
I believe it all boils down to the definition of the word "religion", as used in the wording of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
What, exactly, did the Framers have in mind? Having read a fair amount of original writings, I conclude they were concerned that America, like most European nations, would establish a "national" church.
They had seen what President Calvin Coolidge would have seen when, in 1926, he spoke of "entire congregations and their pastors emigrating to the colonies." If you are, say, a Lutheran, and the "National" church is Roman Catholic, you are probably going to feel isolated.
It seems apparent that by "religion" they meant, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Greek Orthodox, or whatever. There is no evidence that the Framers were opposed to religious faith in general.
Today, unfortunately, many people believe the Framers meant to ban anything remotely connected to faith. And, they wrongly believe that "Christianity" represents one or all of those "churches" that follow the Christian philosophy.
In reality, the fact that many churches adhere to the principles of Christianity does not make Christianity a "Religion".
And, so, the beat goes on. People continue to believe that any act or symbol related to a religious faith represents a "religion", which, by virtue of The Constitution, must not be "established". How narrow!
As we near the Christmas holiday, we hear more and more protests over Christmas symbols on public property and,well, you know the drill.
What's the problem? After 225 years, why are people sill arguing over what the Constitution means?
I believe it all boils down to the definition of the word "religion", as used in the wording of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
What, exactly, did the Framers have in mind? Having read a fair amount of original writings, I conclude they were concerned that America, like most European nations, would establish a "national" church.
They had seen what President Calvin Coolidge would have seen when, in 1926, he spoke of "entire congregations and their pastors emigrating to the colonies." If you are, say, a Lutheran, and the "National" church is Roman Catholic, you are probably going to feel isolated.
It seems apparent that by "religion" they meant, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Greek Orthodox, or whatever. There is no evidence that the Framers were opposed to religious faith in general.
Today, unfortunately, many people believe the Framers meant to ban anything remotely connected to faith. And, they wrongly believe that "Christianity" represents one or all of those "churches" that follow the Christian philosophy.
In reality, the fact that many churches adhere to the principles of Christianity does not make Christianity a "Religion".
And, so, the beat goes on. People continue to believe that any act or symbol related to a religious faith represents a "religion", which, by virtue of The Constitution, must not be "established". How narrow!
Saturday, December 08, 2012
Smokin' and Tokin'
People smoke tobacco and marijuana for the same reasons. They burn some dried leaves and inhale the smoke to achieve some kind of "high", a euphoric feeling of some sort, or perhaps just for the satisfaction some tobacco people promise. Now they claim marijuana smoke eases pain, or something.
Just as smoking tobacco is being considered a dumb idea, the opposite is true of marijuana. Lawmakers and regulators seem bent on making it an okay thing to toke. Many citizens are lobbying for toking. If that bit of euphoria, or satisfaction, or pain relief is important enough to you, light up. But anyone with a brain must realize that purposely inhaling the smoke from burning leaves can't be good for the lungs.
Numerous studies assert that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer. Some very well done studies. What they actually prove is that the incidence of lung cancer is much higher among tobacco smokers. But there is always the guy who will tell you his grandfather started smoking tobacco when he was twelve and smoked every day of his life, until he died at age 90 when he stepped in front of a bus. Still, purposely inhaling smoke from dried leaves, up close and personal, cannot be good for lungs.
Tobacco companies' brands are enormously valuable. They have spent much treasure and at least one life promoting their brands. (The macho Marlboro Man died of lung cancer, widely attributed to his smoking habit.) They spend even more protecting the consistency of their brands. There was a time when tobacco companies distributed cartons of their best brands, free of charge, on college campuses. The idea being that if you smoked a carton of 200 of their cigs, you would be hooked on their brand.
You can buy a pack of Marlboros in Los Angeles, then buy a pack in Boston, and the taste and aroma would be the same. They carefully select their tobacco leaves. They carefully handle and process those leaves in a certain way. All to achieve that valued consistency. Not to protect you, to protect their brand!
Not true of marijuana. There is no brand name on a plastic sandwich bag of weed. No billboards or neon signs touting a name. Just a bag of weed. No one knows where it was grown. How it was handled. How many unwashed hands processed it. If there is a bit of pesticide or herbicide on the stuff. What kind of tropical mold spore or insect eggs may be included.
When I was in the Army in the Pacific, it was rumored that bootleggers were opening bottles of whiskey, somehow preserving the seal. They drew off 10% of the liquor, replaced it with water and re-closed the bottle. Do this ten times and you've added a free bottle of whiskey to your inventory. Maybe true, maybe not. But how much easier to "cut" that marijuana stash with a little jimson weed, or something, to increase your profit? If grown in South America, the pot has leaped many hurdles to reach Chicago streets. Why not, now, expand your inventory?
The idea being that when you set a bong of marijuana on fire and suck the smoke into your lungs, you must be performing the dumbest act of your lifetime.
You know what is said of restaurants: if you saw what goes on in the kitchen you would not eat the food. But again, the restaurant has a brand to protect.
If you knew what is in that bag of week, would you still toke?
People smoke tobacco and marijuana for the same reasons. They burn some dried leaves and inhale the smoke to achieve some kind of "high", a euphoric feeling of some sort, or perhaps just for the satisfaction some tobacco people promise. Now they claim marijuana smoke eases pain, or something.
Just as smoking tobacco is being considered a dumb idea, the opposite is true of marijuana. Lawmakers and regulators seem bent on making it an okay thing to toke. Many citizens are lobbying for toking. If that bit of euphoria, or satisfaction, or pain relief is important enough to you, light up. But anyone with a brain must realize that purposely inhaling the smoke from burning leaves can't be good for the lungs.
Numerous studies assert that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer. Some very well done studies. What they actually prove is that the incidence of lung cancer is much higher among tobacco smokers. But there is always the guy who will tell you his grandfather started smoking tobacco when he was twelve and smoked every day of his life, until he died at age 90 when he stepped in front of a bus. Still, purposely inhaling smoke from dried leaves, up close and personal, cannot be good for lungs.
Tobacco companies' brands are enormously valuable. They have spent much treasure and at least one life promoting their brands. (The macho Marlboro Man died of lung cancer, widely attributed to his smoking habit.) They spend even more protecting the consistency of their brands. There was a time when tobacco companies distributed cartons of their best brands, free of charge, on college campuses. The idea being that if you smoked a carton of 200 of their cigs, you would be hooked on their brand.
You can buy a pack of Marlboros in Los Angeles, then buy a pack in Boston, and the taste and aroma would be the same. They carefully select their tobacco leaves. They carefully handle and process those leaves in a certain way. All to achieve that valued consistency. Not to protect you, to protect their brand!
Not true of marijuana. There is no brand name on a plastic sandwich bag of weed. No billboards or neon signs touting a name. Just a bag of weed. No one knows where it was grown. How it was handled. How many unwashed hands processed it. If there is a bit of pesticide or herbicide on the stuff. What kind of tropical mold spore or insect eggs may be included.
When I was in the Army in the Pacific, it was rumored that bootleggers were opening bottles of whiskey, somehow preserving the seal. They drew off 10% of the liquor, replaced it with water and re-closed the bottle. Do this ten times and you've added a free bottle of whiskey to your inventory. Maybe true, maybe not. But how much easier to "cut" that marijuana stash with a little jimson weed, or something, to increase your profit? If grown in South America, the pot has leaped many hurdles to reach Chicago streets. Why not, now, expand your inventory?
The idea being that when you set a bong of marijuana on fire and suck the smoke into your lungs, you must be performing the dumbest act of your lifetime.
You know what is said of restaurants: if you saw what goes on in the kitchen you would not eat the food. But again, the restaurant has a brand to protect.
If you knew what is in that bag of week, would you still toke?
Friday, November 30, 2012
Sometimes it hurts too much to laugh...
So, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner comes over to the Senate to explain the President's plan to avoid the 'fiscal cliff'. Whereupon, it is reported, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell laughed out loud. Okay, we all occasionally laugh aloud at ridiculous statements. But, like Lincoln and a century later, Adlai Stevenson, I find it too painful to laugh. Unlike those statesmen, I am not too big to cry.
Before November 6, 2012, there was hope in the news as we counted down the days to Obama's departure from office. 1450...1000...500... How the good feelings ever increased, right down to zero! Then came election night. We watched the returns and the sickening reality began to set in. Just as we had in 1996 and in 2008, we watched as Republican strategists lost another presidential campaign.
I am reminded of the story of the fox and the crow. Crow sat on a rock at the edge of the beach, looking at the ocean. Fox approached quietly from behind, slapped Crow on the back and asked "How's it going?" Startled, Crow fluttered out of the way, then turned angrily on Fox, "I was counting the waves and you made me lose count!"
Fox replied, "It's okay, just start over!"
So, now we start over, counting those seemingly endless days. As we do, bad policies erode away our freedoms, the very country we love, just as the surf may have eroded away Crow's beach.
There is scant hope or joy in today's news, only sadness.
So, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner comes over to the Senate to explain the President's plan to avoid the 'fiscal cliff'. Whereupon, it is reported, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell laughed out loud. Okay, we all occasionally laugh aloud at ridiculous statements. But, like Lincoln and a century later, Adlai Stevenson, I find it too painful to laugh. Unlike those statesmen, I am not too big to cry.
Before November 6, 2012, there was hope in the news as we counted down the days to Obama's departure from office. 1450...1000...500... How the good feelings ever increased, right down to zero! Then came election night. We watched the returns and the sickening reality began to set in. Just as we had in 1996 and in 2008, we watched as Republican strategists lost another presidential campaign.
I am reminded of the story of the fox and the crow. Crow sat on a rock at the edge of the beach, looking at the ocean. Fox approached quietly from behind, slapped Crow on the back and asked "How's it going?" Startled, Crow fluttered out of the way, then turned angrily on Fox, "I was counting the waves and you made me lose count!"
Fox replied, "It's okay, just start over!"
So, now we start over, counting those seemingly endless days. As we do, bad policies erode away our freedoms, the very country we love, just as the surf may have eroded away Crow's beach.
There is scant hope or joy in today's news, only sadness.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Hilary Hinton "Zig" Ziglar, RIP
Yes, Zig has died. How sad. Zig had a large influence on the lives of my wife and I. Zig was a motivational speaker whose motivating talks stuck like glue. Somehow you could never forget what Zig had said - and you wanted to always follow his advice.
He headlined several seminars we attended. Zig improved our lives immeasurably. One of my favorite Ziglar bits was his 'Round Tuit'. He informed us that many people promise to do a certain task as soon as they get "around to it." To help us along, Zig gave everyone a round, quarter-size piece of wood. Stamped on one side was the word "TUIT". "Now", Zig would say, "you have a 'Round Tuit', so get that job done."
"Never tell anyone your troubles.", Zig warned, "Half the people don't care and the other half are glad".
He taught us that there is a correct way to say things. The meaning may seem the same, but there is a vast difference between telling your girlfriend "her face would halt the hands of time" and saying she had a face "that would stop a clock."
I thank you, Zig Ziglar, for making our lives more productive. And, if people were only aware, many of our acquaintances would thank you for making us more pleasant people to know.
We'll keep trying, old friend!
Yes, Zig has died. How sad. Zig had a large influence on the lives of my wife and I. Zig was a motivational speaker whose motivating talks stuck like glue. Somehow you could never forget what Zig had said - and you wanted to always follow his advice.
He headlined several seminars we attended. Zig improved our lives immeasurably. One of my favorite Ziglar bits was his 'Round Tuit'. He informed us that many people promise to do a certain task as soon as they get "around to it." To help us along, Zig gave everyone a round, quarter-size piece of wood. Stamped on one side was the word "TUIT". "Now", Zig would say, "you have a 'Round Tuit', so get that job done."
"Never tell anyone your troubles.", Zig warned, "Half the people don't care and the other half are glad".
He taught us that there is a correct way to say things. The meaning may seem the same, but there is a vast difference between telling your girlfriend "her face would halt the hands of time" and saying she had a face "that would stop a clock."
I thank you, Zig Ziglar, for making our lives more productive. And, if people were only aware, many of our acquaintances would thank you for making us more pleasant people to know.
We'll keep trying, old friend!
Sunday, November 25, 2012
The Biggest Environmental Disaster
Is The Environmental Movement
Anyone who has listened to me through more than a passing conversation knows that I consider the modern environmental movement Public Enemy Number One! I believe environmentalists are responsible for more death, deprivation and suffering than all the world's despots combined.
I do not have definitive numbers to back that claim, but just consider this fact: Since Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring was published in 1962, leading to the ban on the use of the pesticide DDT and the resurgence worldwide of the anopheles mosquito, malaria deaths among African children have steadily risen to numbers exceeding 2,000 per day. Makes Adolph Hitler's Nazis seem like Boy Scouts.
Think about that number. In ten years it is 73 million avoidable deaths, thanks to an environmentalist's whacko claim that DDT was wiping out the world's bird population. That claim was not based on sound science. Even if ingesting DDT-laced insects did cause birds to lay soft-shelled eggs which would not hatch, as Carson claimed, better science has shown that birds were developing an immunity to any such cause and effect. Never mind those facts. Carson's prose persuaded the environazis. They, in turn, persuaded governments around the world. DDT was out - anopheles was in..
Malaria deaths among African children, however, is only a part of the devastation caused by environuts. Consider our energy problem. America sits atop the world's largest energy reserves, oil, gas and coal. America possesses the technology to retrieve those reserves. Yet, our nation is hopelessly energy-dependent, has become the world's largest debtor and has staggering unemployment. Removing onerous restrictions on drilling, frakking and mining on Federal lands would solve our energy problems, put Americans back to work and selling our excess energy on the world market may be our only hope of recovering the $16 trillion our government has wasted in this current century.
Sadly, the United states Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protects only the environmentalists. To accomplish this, the EPA violates the law at every turn. Check this link.
Is The Environmental Movement
Anyone who has listened to me through more than a passing conversation knows that I consider the modern environmental movement Public Enemy Number One! I believe environmentalists are responsible for more death, deprivation and suffering than all the world's despots combined.
I do not have definitive numbers to back that claim, but just consider this fact: Since Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring was published in 1962, leading to the ban on the use of the pesticide DDT and the resurgence worldwide of the anopheles mosquito, malaria deaths among African children have steadily risen to numbers exceeding 2,000 per day. Makes Adolph Hitler's Nazis seem like Boy Scouts.
Think about that number. In ten years it is 73 million avoidable deaths, thanks to an environmentalist's whacko claim that DDT was wiping out the world's bird population. That claim was not based on sound science. Even if ingesting DDT-laced insects did cause birds to lay soft-shelled eggs which would not hatch, as Carson claimed, better science has shown that birds were developing an immunity to any such cause and effect. Never mind those facts. Carson's prose persuaded the environazis. They, in turn, persuaded governments around the world. DDT was out - anopheles was in..
Malaria deaths among African children, however, is only a part of the devastation caused by environuts. Consider our energy problem. America sits atop the world's largest energy reserves, oil, gas and coal. America possesses the technology to retrieve those reserves. Yet, our nation is hopelessly energy-dependent, has become the world's largest debtor and has staggering unemployment. Removing onerous restrictions on drilling, frakking and mining on Federal lands would solve our energy problems, put Americans back to work and selling our excess energy on the world market may be our only hope of recovering the $16 trillion our government has wasted in this current century.
Sadly, the United states Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protects only the environmentalists. To accomplish this, the EPA violates the law at every turn. Check this link.
The Ancient Brain
I Googled "Ancient Brain" and got 140,000,000 hits! Well, let me simplify! Minutes after my youngest daughter was born, I stood next to the attending physician looking at this tiny, new human. He remarked that she was a healthy, normal baby girl. Realizing he had not yet had time to do a thorough examination, I wondered, aloud, "How can you tell?"
He said several things which I no longer recall, but I do remember his demonstration: "Normally babies are born with a fear of falling", he explained. To illustrate, he reached under the bottom of the crib and gave her little 'mattress' a good thump. She flailed her tiny arms as though grasping for something to hold onto.
Aha! The ancient brain! I liken it to when you buy a new computer with some software already installed. That is my definition of "the ancient brain"; knowledge that comes already installed in the new brain. The rest of the brain is just blank, like an empty computer hard drive, waiting to be loaded with things you will subsequently learn. I think of that part as 'The Conditioned Brain' (my label, that one got 1,710,000 hits!). You will learn many things during your lifetime, but you did not have to learn what is stored in the 'ancient brain'.
For the most part, that inherent knowledge has to do with the preservation of life and the propagation of the species. But the preservation of the life of the individual is important only so far as it supports the propagation of the species.
Air space at New Mexico's White Sands Missile Range, is restricted for air traffic to infinite altitude. At the range this spring, I was therefore surprised to see a contrail of a large jet aircraft flying directly overhead. I asked a maintenance employee of the range how that aircraft had permission to fly in this restricted airspace. She replied that the range "has dibs" on the airspace, meaning that the range commander could, at her discretion alone, suddenly call a halt to overhead flights, as when they were planning to launch a missile. In the 'ancient brain', the species 'has dibs' over the individual!
What is truly amazing, is that this seems true of species that are thought to have no brain. Like plants. A 'stalk' of wheat produces a head with many grains. When these grains are mature, they fall to the ground where some, at least, may take root and grow more wheat. Same with a stalk of corn. It may produce several ears of seeds, each with hundreds of grains. Once those seeds fall to the ground, the stalk of corn, or of wheat, shrivels and dies. The future members of the species have 'dibs' on life.
Propagation of the species, in my unlearned opinion, is what creates sex drive. Why does a male fish hover above an egg-laying female, spraying his semen into the water, fertilizing her eggs? There is no apparent reward for him. (Apparent? Maybe it makes him feel very good!) Gotta be that ancient brain at work.
At this point, if my Cognitive Scientist, University Professor son is reading this, he is surely pulling his hair. But that is unlikely, since his time is required for reading loftier writings. We can hope his hair is safe. You and I may, meanwhile, assume that I have reduced 140,000,000 complex explanations into one we all can grasp.
You're welcome!
I Googled "Ancient Brain" and got 140,000,000 hits! Well, let me simplify! Minutes after my youngest daughter was born, I stood next to the attending physician looking at this tiny, new human. He remarked that she was a healthy, normal baby girl. Realizing he had not yet had time to do a thorough examination, I wondered, aloud, "How can you tell?"
He said several things which I no longer recall, but I do remember his demonstration: "Normally babies are born with a fear of falling", he explained. To illustrate, he reached under the bottom of the crib and gave her little 'mattress' a good thump. She flailed her tiny arms as though grasping for something to hold onto.
Aha! The ancient brain! I liken it to when you buy a new computer with some software already installed. That is my definition of "the ancient brain"; knowledge that comes already installed in the new brain. The rest of the brain is just blank, like an empty computer hard drive, waiting to be loaded with things you will subsequently learn. I think of that part as 'The Conditioned Brain' (my label, that one got 1,710,000 hits!). You will learn many things during your lifetime, but you did not have to learn what is stored in the 'ancient brain'.
For the most part, that inherent knowledge has to do with the preservation of life and the propagation of the species. But the preservation of the life of the individual is important only so far as it supports the propagation of the species.
Air space at New Mexico's White Sands Missile Range, is restricted for air traffic to infinite altitude. At the range this spring, I was therefore surprised to see a contrail of a large jet aircraft flying directly overhead. I asked a maintenance employee of the range how that aircraft had permission to fly in this restricted airspace. She replied that the range "has dibs" on the airspace, meaning that the range commander could, at her discretion alone, suddenly call a halt to overhead flights, as when they were planning to launch a missile. In the 'ancient brain', the species 'has dibs' over the individual!
What is truly amazing, is that this seems true of species that are thought to have no brain. Like plants. A 'stalk' of wheat produces a head with many grains. When these grains are mature, they fall to the ground where some, at least, may take root and grow more wheat. Same with a stalk of corn. It may produce several ears of seeds, each with hundreds of grains. Once those seeds fall to the ground, the stalk of corn, or of wheat, shrivels and dies. The future members of the species have 'dibs' on life.
Propagation of the species, in my unlearned opinion, is what creates sex drive. Why does a male fish hover above an egg-laying female, spraying his semen into the water, fertilizing her eggs? There is no apparent reward for him. (Apparent? Maybe it makes him feel very good!) Gotta be that ancient brain at work.
At this point, if my Cognitive Scientist, University Professor son is reading this, he is surely pulling his hair. But that is unlikely, since his time is required for reading loftier writings. We can hope his hair is safe. You and I may, meanwhile, assume that I have reduced 140,000,000 complex explanations into one we all can grasp.
You're welcome!
Sunday, November 18, 2012
(Mis)labeling.
I just changed my profile on this blog to identify myself as an old white guy. The "old" part is a given. The white part is not so clear. It is, after all, just a matter of labeling. Or mislabeling.
Barack Obama is hailed far and wide as the black president. But, while his father (who deserted him before his birth) was certainly a black man, his mother and the grandparents who raised him were most surely white. Still, he is considered black.
Takes me back to the One Drop Rule of the old slavery south. According to Wikipedia, "The one-drop rule is a historical colloquial term in the United States for the social classification as Negro of individuals with any African ancestry; meaning any person with "one drop of Negro blood" was considered black."
Now, I may well have "one drop" of non-white blood in my veins. How could I know? I can trace my ancestry only so far, and have made no attempt to trace the ancestry of all of the wives and husbands along the way.
Then, again, according to Wikipedia, "The principle of "invisible blackness" was an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnicgroups to the group with the lower status." But wait... which is the lower status?
By that rule, why isn't Obama considered white? Can't Negro, or African, or Black (pick your label) be considered the higher status? A lot of people think so!
.
I just changed my profile on this blog to identify myself as an old white guy. The "old" part is a given. The white part is not so clear. It is, after all, just a matter of labeling. Or mislabeling.
Barack Obama is hailed far and wide as the black president. But, while his father (who deserted him before his birth) was certainly a black man, his mother and the grandparents who raised him were most surely white. Still, he is considered black.
Takes me back to the One Drop Rule of the old slavery south. According to Wikipedia, "The one-drop rule is a historical colloquial term in the United States for the social classification as Negro of individuals with any African ancestry; meaning any person with "one drop of Negro blood" was considered black."
Now, I may well have "one drop" of non-white blood in my veins. How could I know? I can trace my ancestry only so far, and have made no attempt to trace the ancestry of all of the wives and husbands along the way.
Then, again, according to Wikipedia, "The principle of "invisible blackness" was an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnicgroups to the group with the lower status." But wait... which is the lower status?
By that rule, why isn't Obama considered white? Can't Negro, or African, or Black (pick your label) be considered the higher status? A lot of people think so!
.
More from Wikipedia: "Despite the strictures of slavery, in the antebellum years, free people of mixed race could have up to one-eighth or
one-quarter African ancestry (depending on the state) and be considered
legally white."
Okay, My skin color would indicate that I am one-eighth or one-quarter white. So I am an old white guy. What does that make me, other than the product of the breeding choices of all of my ancestors since Noah? (By the way, what was Noah's ethnicity?)
Another example of mislabeling that irks me is the media preference for the label "atheist" when referring to anti-religious people. Most atheists do not consider themselves anti-religious. One close friend who is an atheist complained when it was revealed that young children were taught in school that God made the planets rotate around the sun. Fair enough, but that is simply objecting to the teaching of things other than proven facts.
Yet, every time a group protests a nativity scene on city property, they are immediately identified as atheists. Why not be more accurate and call them what they are: anti-religious groups.
Okay, My skin color would indicate that I am one-eighth or one-quarter white. So I am an old white guy. What does that make me, other than the product of the breeding choices of all of my ancestors since Noah? (By the way, what was Noah's ethnicity?)
Another example of mislabeling that irks me is the media preference for the label "atheist" when referring to anti-religious people. Most atheists do not consider themselves anti-religious. One close friend who is an atheist complained when it was revealed that young children were taught in school that God made the planets rotate around the sun. Fair enough, but that is simply objecting to the teaching of things other than proven facts.
Yet, every time a group protests a nativity scene on city property, they are immediately identified as atheists. Why not be more accurate and call them what they are: anti-religious groups.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Education
Recently someone posted a You Tube video in which a former Marine stood up at an outdoor gathering and sang the fourth verse of our National Anthem. As soon as he uttered the first four words, "Oh, thus be it ever,..." I recognized what he was singing and sang along with the video. We sang all four verses when I was a kid in school.
I have talked to several people about that video and I am yet to find anyone aware that there were four verses to our anthem. Has education changed that much? One of the Founding Fathers said The Constitution should be taught our children in school. Is it? Just in case you've never read it, it is not a complex legal document. Yes, there are parts that would hold little interest for a ten-year-old, like the eleventh amendment. So, save that part for college level students. But every American kid should know the Bill of Rights.
That is just one tiny bit of the massive problems with our education system. We truly are becoming a nation of dummies. Elementary education absolutely does not prepare students for higher education. Much of higher education teaches nothing of benefit to our citizens. About the only value of a liberal arts degree is that the four years gives a kid four years to mature. But a kid could work at odd jobs for four years and accomplish the same maturity - maybe more - and not have student loan debt.
Unemployment is high right now. Yet many high-paying jobs are unfilled because employers cannot find workers with the required skills. All sorts of skills are needed, welders, machinists, etc. But, kids out of high school are told they must go to college! What a disgrace to send your kid to a (hold your nose) Trade School!
Go to college? My wife and I have five children, all have college degrees. At one point in their "higher" education, one of the kids took a class from which he described the opening remarks of the instructor. They were, "Please tell me all the nicknames you have heard for the female vulva." Whereupon the students started shouting out the answers. This was not a medical school, mind you. The announced purpose of the exercise was to condition the class to discuss human body parts without embarrassment. What would be the value of that instruction to a college freshman? Any uneducated high-school dropout can do it, no tuition costs, no textbooks needed. By the way, never say freshman - that would be discriminatory.
What benefit is it to a kid to study mathematics? Think of the case where a man walked into a fast-food restaurant and told the young cashier to give him a half-dozen chicken nuggets. She told him they did not sell chicken nuggets by the half-dozen, only in quantities of 6, 12 or 24.
How about history? A TV reporter asked a college student at a July 4th celebration what year the U.S. declared its independence. She replied, "1964." From what country? "Russia." How important is history? Current politicians are pushing policies which failed at great expense in the past and opposing policies which greatly profited the nation in the past. And no one realizes it.
Whose fault is all this? Right now it is the professors teaching the teachers who are teaching the kids. We are teaching small children the phony science of man-caused global warming. They will grow up believing it with their heart of hearts. High school and college will confirm it. If they teach, they will teach it. Meantime, their students will not know that 6 is the same thing as a half-dozen.
Yes, you can learn engineering, medicine and other lofty subjects in college. From a practical standpoint, probably only in college. But who wants to go for a graduate degree that requires (God forbid) mathematics!
Recently someone posted a You Tube video in which a former Marine stood up at an outdoor gathering and sang the fourth verse of our National Anthem. As soon as he uttered the first four words, "Oh, thus be it ever,..." I recognized what he was singing and sang along with the video. We sang all four verses when I was a kid in school.
I have talked to several people about that video and I am yet to find anyone aware that there were four verses to our anthem. Has education changed that much? One of the Founding Fathers said The Constitution should be taught our children in school. Is it? Just in case you've never read it, it is not a complex legal document. Yes, there are parts that would hold little interest for a ten-year-old, like the eleventh amendment. So, save that part for college level students. But every American kid should know the Bill of Rights.
That is just one tiny bit of the massive problems with our education system. We truly are becoming a nation of dummies. Elementary education absolutely does not prepare students for higher education. Much of higher education teaches nothing of benefit to our citizens. About the only value of a liberal arts degree is that the four years gives a kid four years to mature. But a kid could work at odd jobs for four years and accomplish the same maturity - maybe more - and not have student loan debt.
Unemployment is high right now. Yet many high-paying jobs are unfilled because employers cannot find workers with the required skills. All sorts of skills are needed, welders, machinists, etc. But, kids out of high school are told they must go to college! What a disgrace to send your kid to a (hold your nose) Trade School!
Go to college? My wife and I have five children, all have college degrees. At one point in their "higher" education, one of the kids took a class from which he described the opening remarks of the instructor. They were, "Please tell me all the nicknames you have heard for the female vulva." Whereupon the students started shouting out the answers. This was not a medical school, mind you. The announced purpose of the exercise was to condition the class to discuss human body parts without embarrassment. What would be the value of that instruction to a college freshman? Any uneducated high-school dropout can do it, no tuition costs, no textbooks needed. By the way, never say freshman - that would be discriminatory.
What benefit is it to a kid to study mathematics? Think of the case where a man walked into a fast-food restaurant and told the young cashier to give him a half-dozen chicken nuggets. She told him they did not sell chicken nuggets by the half-dozen, only in quantities of 6, 12 or 24.
How about history? A TV reporter asked a college student at a July 4th celebration what year the U.S. declared its independence. She replied, "1964." From what country? "Russia." How important is history? Current politicians are pushing policies which failed at great expense in the past and opposing policies which greatly profited the nation in the past. And no one realizes it.
Whose fault is all this? Right now it is the professors teaching the teachers who are teaching the kids. We are teaching small children the phony science of man-caused global warming. They will grow up believing it with their heart of hearts. High school and college will confirm it. If they teach, they will teach it. Meantime, their students will not know that 6 is the same thing as a half-dozen.
Yes, you can learn engineering, medicine and other lofty subjects in college. From a practical standpoint, probably only in college. But who wants to go for a graduate degree that requires (God forbid) mathematics!
Friday, November 16, 2012
Right Wing Radicals
Yeah, maybe we are kooky old men, but at least we remember some history.
When we call Barack Obama a communist, we are soundly scolded. Why would we come up with that foolishness? We remember an old saying suggesting that if something "looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck" you can quit searching for further identification; IT IS A DUCK.
Listen to Obama in his recent news conference: "I refuse to give tax cuts to rich people who don't need them." Who don't need them? Where have we heard that sort of quacking before? Oh, Yes, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That was Karl Marx, father of Communism. Only Communists believe governments should decide what their citizens need. Rich folks don't need tax cuts? Says who?
Okay, if rich folks don't need to have their taxes cut, who does need for rich folks to have their taxes cut? The answer is, all the rest of us. John F. Kennedy, an icon of the Democratic Party who pushed for deep tax cuts, argued, "A rising tide lifts all boats." Urging a tax rate cut, Kennedy said: "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now. The experience of a number of European countries has borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reductions in 1954 has borne this out, and the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget -- and tax reduction can pave the way to full employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budgetary deficit but to achieve the more prosperous expanding economy which will bring a budgetary surplus."
Economist Art Laffer researched history and came up with the Laffer Curve. A graphic way of illustrating his findings, it clearly showed that as tax rates decreased, tax revenues increased. History.
Two time winner of the Pulitzer Prize, David McCullough, widely acclaimed as a “master of the art of narrative history,” was interviewed on CBS Television's 60 Minutes. He deplored American's lack of knowledge of history. We old right wing radicals concur. How sad that lessons we learned, often with considerable pain, must be re-learned.
Yeah, maybe we are kooky old men, but at least we remember some history.
When we call Barack Obama a communist, we are soundly scolded. Why would we come up with that foolishness? We remember an old saying suggesting that if something "looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck" you can quit searching for further identification; IT IS A DUCK.
Listen to Obama in his recent news conference: "I refuse to give tax cuts to rich people who don't need them." Who don't need them? Where have we heard that sort of quacking before? Oh, Yes, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That was Karl Marx, father of Communism. Only Communists believe governments should decide what their citizens need. Rich folks don't need tax cuts? Says who?
Okay, if rich folks don't need to have their taxes cut, who does need for rich folks to have their taxes cut? The answer is, all the rest of us. John F. Kennedy, an icon of the Democratic Party who pushed for deep tax cuts, argued, "A rising tide lifts all boats." Urging a tax rate cut, Kennedy said: "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now. The experience of a number of European countries has borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reductions in 1954 has borne this out, and the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget -- and tax reduction can pave the way to full employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budgetary deficit but to achieve the more prosperous expanding economy which will bring a budgetary surplus."
Economist Art Laffer researched history and came up with the Laffer Curve. A graphic way of illustrating his findings, it clearly showed that as tax rates decreased, tax revenues increased. History.
Two time winner of the Pulitzer Prize, David McCullough, widely acclaimed as a “master of the art of narrative history,” was interviewed on CBS Television's 60 Minutes. He deplored American's lack of knowledge of history. We old right wing radicals concur. How sad that lessons we learned, often with considerable pain, must be re-learned.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Reuben and Rachel
For some time now, that ditty has been stuck in my head. Especially the part where Rachel sings:
Reuben, Reuben, I've been thinking
What a grand world this would be
If the men were all transported
Far beyond the Northern Sea
My guess is that the author chose "Far beyond the Northern Sea" for meter and rhyme. But the meaning from Rachel's point of view was clear... she wanted those men gone, forever removed from any influence on her life. She did not necessarily want them to suffer harm, just sent too far away to ever return.
I think of that ditty every time I think of the folks who ran the political campaigns of Bush 41 - second term, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Karl Rove, et al, were great statisticians. They understood the electoral college, the political divisions among states, all the nuances of voting blocs. They just didn't know how to sell a candidate or a policy position.
Far beyond the Northern Sea sounds like a terribly cold place, so I would settle for some place like Idaho. It is a very pretty place, where they could surely find happiness. Just don't ever let them run another political campaign.
For some time now, that ditty has been stuck in my head. Especially the part where Rachel sings:
Reuben, Reuben, I've been thinking
What a grand world this would be
If the men were all transported
Far beyond the Northern Sea
My guess is that the author chose "Far beyond the Northern Sea" for meter and rhyme. But the meaning from Rachel's point of view was clear... she wanted those men gone, forever removed from any influence on her life. She did not necessarily want them to suffer harm, just sent too far away to ever return.
I think of that ditty every time I think of the folks who ran the political campaigns of Bush 41 - second term, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Karl Rove, et al, were great statisticians. They understood the electoral college, the political divisions among states, all the nuances of voting blocs. They just didn't know how to sell a candidate or a policy position.
Far beyond the Northern Sea sounds like a terribly cold place, so I would settle for some place like Idaho. It is a very pretty place, where they could surely find happiness. Just don't ever let them run another political campaign.
Medicine Men
When I was a small boy, back in the "Dirty thirties" there was scant family entertainment. We had no TV or computers, no CDs, DVDs, cassettes, 8-track cartridges, I-Pads, etc. We did have 78-rpm records and an old Victrola wind-up record player, but with titles like "Brother, Can You Spare A Dime" and "May I Sleep In Your Barn Tonight Mister?", records were not very entertaining.
There were movies, but they cost money, which we did not have. Also, my straight-laced parents disapproved of Hollywood and their products. Movies were off-limits.
But, we did have "Medicine Shows"! The name, medicine show, was dreamed up by the public... the same way we call certain TV dramas "Soap Operas". (Only because they were often sponsored by soap or detergent manufacturers.)
A Medicine Show was a kind of vaudeville show, live, usually in a big tent. I no longer remember the entertainment, but I certainly remember the "Pitch". Sitting through the pitch was the price you paid for the free entertainment. Halfway through the show, the pitch man came on stage. An extraordinarily persuasive, smooth-talking guy, his perfect presentation glorified the product they were selling.
Usually the product was some kind of tonic - sold as a magic cure-all for any and every ailment. I always bought into the pitch and wondered why my father never bought a bottle. Many others did lay out their 25¢ or 50¢ to acquire a bottle of the expertly sold tonic, on their way out of the tent!
When TV came along, medicine shows moved from the tent to the studio. The entertainment improved. The products changed, But the concept did not. You could sell anything to a gullible public with a carefully crafted message. And, the message crafters have become ever more skilled.
This morning I visited a doctor's office. The receptionist, with whom I have discussed politics in the past, remarked that "We are still scratching our heads", a reference to the presidential election which gave us four more years of Barack Obama.
The answer to her unanswerable question, of course, is medicine men, that is, very smart persuaders who correctly read the public's mood and crafted a message that convinced millions of Americans to buy a bottle of Obama on their way out of the tent.
Were Obama's policies good? Didn't matter. Were Romney's policies bad? Didn't matter. Obama's medicine men succeeded in selling their tonic. Romney's did not.
When I was a small boy, back in the "Dirty thirties" there was scant family entertainment. We had no TV or computers, no CDs, DVDs, cassettes, 8-track cartridges, I-Pads, etc. We did have 78-rpm records and an old Victrola wind-up record player, but with titles like "Brother, Can You Spare A Dime" and "May I Sleep In Your Barn Tonight Mister?", records were not very entertaining.
There were movies, but they cost money, which we did not have. Also, my straight-laced parents disapproved of Hollywood and their products. Movies were off-limits.
But, we did have "Medicine Shows"! The name, medicine show, was dreamed up by the public... the same way we call certain TV dramas "Soap Operas". (Only because they were often sponsored by soap or detergent manufacturers.)
A Medicine Show was a kind of vaudeville show, live, usually in a big tent. I no longer remember the entertainment, but I certainly remember the "Pitch". Sitting through the pitch was the price you paid for the free entertainment. Halfway through the show, the pitch man came on stage. An extraordinarily persuasive, smooth-talking guy, his perfect presentation glorified the product they were selling.
Usually the product was some kind of tonic - sold as a magic cure-all for any and every ailment. I always bought into the pitch and wondered why my father never bought a bottle. Many others did lay out their 25¢ or 50¢ to acquire a bottle of the expertly sold tonic, on their way out of the tent!
When TV came along, medicine shows moved from the tent to the studio. The entertainment improved. The products changed, But the concept did not. You could sell anything to a gullible public with a carefully crafted message. And, the message crafters have become ever more skilled.
This morning I visited a doctor's office. The receptionist, with whom I have discussed politics in the past, remarked that "We are still scratching our heads", a reference to the presidential election which gave us four more years of Barack Obama.
The answer to her unanswerable question, of course, is medicine men, that is, very smart persuaders who correctly read the public's mood and crafted a message that convinced millions of Americans to buy a bottle of Obama on their way out of the tent.
Were Obama's policies good? Didn't matter. Were Romney's policies bad? Didn't matter. Obama's medicine men succeeded in selling their tonic. Romney's did not.
Monday, November 12, 2012
11th Hour of 11th Day of 11th Month, 1918
That was when the Armistice was signed, ending the first world war. So brutal, so widespread was the violence of that war, it was widely believed that civilized humans would never again engage in war. Thus, World War I was called the war to end all wars. November 11 was remembered as Armistice Day and became a national holiday.
A scant twenty-one years later, on September 8, 1939, then again on May 27, 1941, President Roosevelt declared a State Of Emergency because Europe was once again at war. On December 7, 1941, Imperial Japan attacked American soil in Hawaii. Another World War was underway for Americans. President Truman declared an end to hostilities of this second world war on December 31, 1946.
Three and one-half years later, on June 25, 1950, North Korea launched an attack on American and Korean forces in south Korea, and we were at war again.
When President-Elect Dwight Eisenhower engineered an armistice in 1953, the observance of November 11 as "Armistice Day" seemed a little outdated. The following year, it was officially decided to designate November 11 as Veteran's Day, to recognize all veterans of all American wars.
Going back to 1918 and just ten days before that famous armistice, my uncle, Prentice (Prince) Bradley was killed in France. U.S. Army Captain Clifford Davidson, commanding Co. A, 359th Infantry, wrote my grandfather:
I don't know if my uncle's remains were ever re-interred, but it is evident that in 1918, if a soldier received serious injuries, he just died and was buried by his comrades.
Things have changed. Thanks to today's advances in medicine, many seriously injured soldiers survive. The result means a great number of "Wounded Warriors".
While we honor all veterans on November 11, today we feel especially indebted to those young men and women suffering both visible and invisible war wounds. The sight of a young man with an artificial leg, or a despairing homeless man wearing a Viet Nam Veteran cap is heartbreaking.
The death of my uncle ten days before the end of a war, or the sight of these wounded warriors always makes me ask "Why?". What value ensued from killing my uncle when, for all practical purposes, the objectives of that war had already been passed? What value ensued from the exploding I.E.D. that took the young soldier's leg? Why must nations go to war?
Perhaps, some day, Iraq or Afghanistan, or The War On Terror will be remembered as The War That Ended All Wars. Perhaps, some day, all veterans of all wars will have died of old age. But, I hope America will always observe the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in remembrance of those American veterans who brought about that final end of war.
That was when the Armistice was signed, ending the first world war. So brutal, so widespread was the violence of that war, it was widely believed that civilized humans would never again engage in war. Thus, World War I was called the war to end all wars. November 11 was remembered as Armistice Day and became a national holiday.
A scant twenty-one years later, on September 8, 1939, then again on May 27, 1941, President Roosevelt declared a State Of Emergency because Europe was once again at war. On December 7, 1941, Imperial Japan attacked American soil in Hawaii. Another World War was underway for Americans. President Truman declared an end to hostilities of this second world war on December 31, 1946.
Three and one-half years later, on June 25, 1950, North Korea launched an attack on American and Korean forces in south Korea, and we were at war again.
When President-Elect Dwight Eisenhower engineered an armistice in 1953, the observance of November 11 as "Armistice Day" seemed a little outdated. The following year, it was officially decided to designate November 11 as Veteran's Day, to recognize all veterans of all American wars.
Going back to 1918 and just ten days before that famous armistice, my uncle, Prentice (Prince) Bradley was killed in France. U.S. Army Captain Clifford Davidson, commanding Co. A, 359th Infantry, wrote my grandfather:
I don't know if my uncle's remains were ever re-interred, but it is evident that in 1918, if a soldier received serious injuries, he just died and was buried by his comrades.
Things have changed. Thanks to today's advances in medicine, many seriously injured soldiers survive. The result means a great number of "Wounded Warriors".
While we honor all veterans on November 11, today we feel especially indebted to those young men and women suffering both visible and invisible war wounds. The sight of a young man with an artificial leg, or a despairing homeless man wearing a Viet Nam Veteran cap is heartbreaking.
The death of my uncle ten days before the end of a war, or the sight of these wounded warriors always makes me ask "Why?". What value ensued from killing my uncle when, for all practical purposes, the objectives of that war had already been passed? What value ensued from the exploding I.E.D. that took the young soldier's leg? Why must nations go to war?
Perhaps, some day, Iraq or Afghanistan, or The War On Terror will be remembered as The War That Ended All Wars. Perhaps, some day, all veterans of all wars will have died of old age. But, I hope America will always observe the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in remembrance of those American veterans who brought about that final end of war.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
The Election...
Everyone except me has weighed in on election results. Now it's my turn.
1.The Candidate: Never mind that Romney was eminently qualified. He lacked charisma. He lacked Hollywood appeal (whatever that is). Way back in 1964, I observed a local election in which one candidate was a lawyer, more than adequately qualified. But he was a funny-looking guy. Unusual facial structure, parted his hair in the middle and wore a mustache.
A friend predicted that this guy could not be elected because people will not vote for someone who parts their hair in the middle or wears a mustache. This candidate did both.
My friend was correct as to results of the vote, though not exactly right on the reason. The hair part and mustache were starters. In all, this guy was just, well, funny looking. Romney certainly looked okay but, no matter, folks just didn't really like him.
2. Voting blocks: Romney lost the Hispanic vote (in spite of a broken promise on immigration reform); black Americans (in spite of same-sex marriage); Jews (in spite of Obama's sorry treatment of Israel); Catholics (in spite of the contraception brouhaha.
I remember when folks spoke of "The Solid South". Solid Democrat, that is. But Republicans came to understand the issues important to the south, addressed those issues, and became inclusive. The South is still solid, but now it is solid GOP. The GOP can, and must, show other groups that they are the party most likely to solve their problems.
The Democrats have treated black Americans shoddily for decades. Jim Crow, etc. But, certain Democrat candidates sold black Americans on the idea that they were the ones responsible for civil rights successes. The idea caught on and has passed from generation to generation. It is accepted as fact in the black community - no questions asked.
Same goes for Hispanics. History has proven that Democrats always have and shall continue to have disdain for Hispanics. But they convinced Hispanics that they were their party. I had one Hispanic friend who owned several small businesses. The Democrat's policies were clearly counter to this friend's business interests. Yet he often said "My father would turn over in his grave if I ever voted for a Republican." And he never did.
I have partnered in business with Jews who were dear friends, smart people, good businessmen - but solidly Democrat. The reason? Henry Ford was once associated with a openly anti-Semitic newspaper. So bitter were my colleagues that they refused to drive any automobile produced by Ford Motor Company. Henry Ford has been dead for 65 years!
The bottom line? A national primary might nominate a candidate people like, regardless of qualifications. No more of this "He won Florida." She won Ohio."
Then, instead of a dozen candidates fighting through a long, bitter primary campaign which included a dozen debates, the GOP could concentrate on listening to the disparate voting groups, learning to understand their concerns, finding ways to honestly address those concerns, then selling the groups that they will do so.
Everyone except me has weighed in on election results. Now it's my turn.
1.The Candidate: Never mind that Romney was eminently qualified. He lacked charisma. He lacked Hollywood appeal (whatever that is). Way back in 1964, I observed a local election in which one candidate was a lawyer, more than adequately qualified. But he was a funny-looking guy. Unusual facial structure, parted his hair in the middle and wore a mustache.
A friend predicted that this guy could not be elected because people will not vote for someone who parts their hair in the middle or wears a mustache. This candidate did both.
My friend was correct as to results of the vote, though not exactly right on the reason. The hair part and mustache were starters. In all, this guy was just, well, funny looking. Romney certainly looked okay but, no matter, folks just didn't really like him.
2. Voting blocks: Romney lost the Hispanic vote (in spite of a broken promise on immigration reform); black Americans (in spite of same-sex marriage); Jews (in spite of Obama's sorry treatment of Israel); Catholics (in spite of the contraception brouhaha.
I remember when folks spoke of "The Solid South". Solid Democrat, that is. But Republicans came to understand the issues important to the south, addressed those issues, and became inclusive. The South is still solid, but now it is solid GOP. The GOP can, and must, show other groups that they are the party most likely to solve their problems.
The Democrats have treated black Americans shoddily for decades. Jim Crow, etc. But, certain Democrat candidates sold black Americans on the idea that they were the ones responsible for civil rights successes. The idea caught on and has passed from generation to generation. It is accepted as fact in the black community - no questions asked.
Same goes for Hispanics. History has proven that Democrats always have and shall continue to have disdain for Hispanics. But they convinced Hispanics that they were their party. I had one Hispanic friend who owned several small businesses. The Democrat's policies were clearly counter to this friend's business interests. Yet he often said "My father would turn over in his grave if I ever voted for a Republican." And he never did.
I have partnered in business with Jews who were dear friends, smart people, good businessmen - but solidly Democrat. The reason? Henry Ford was once associated with a openly anti-Semitic newspaper. So bitter were my colleagues that they refused to drive any automobile produced by Ford Motor Company. Henry Ford has been dead for 65 years!
The bottom line? A national primary might nominate a candidate people like, regardless of qualifications. No more of this "He won Florida." She won Ohio."
Then, instead of a dozen candidates fighting through a long, bitter primary campaign which included a dozen debates, the GOP could concentrate on listening to the disparate voting groups, learning to understand their concerns, finding ways to honestly address those concerns, then selling the groups that they will do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)