Communism - The fantasy that persists.

About 25 years ago - give or take a couple of elections - a fellow in western Missouri ran for Congress. In his campaign advertising, he told how he, his father and his brothers all "lived from the same wallet". They each worked and put their earnings into a common bank account. All lived and spent frugally and all prospered. You can imagine that if one lost his job - he was taken care of until he found a new job. If one suddenly got a better job with higher pay, all profited. What a wonderful picture. Many folks I knew planned to vote for him. Sadly, the poor man was killed in an airplane crash before the election, so we'll never know how he may have governed had he been elected. But his story was very appealing. Of course, their success depended entirely upon every member working equally, spending frugally, being always true to the group.

For centuries, men have watched ants and bees, admiring and envying the way they all worked for the common good. There were no "poor" ants or "poor" bees, unless the entire colony was poor.

Then a German named Karl Marx spelled out a way for humans to live the same way... to live in an always equally sharing commune. Communism.

Trouble is, humans are not ants or bees. Humans are individuals with unique thoughts, aspirations and ambitions. Bees tolerate drones. Males whose only purpose is to mate with the queen and then be killed. Bees have worker bees which work endlessly until they drop dead on the job, never achieving anything special for themselves. Humans will not tolerate such a society.

But the Marxists have persisted. When enough people in a nation subscribe to their philosophy and install their form of government, the results are always the same. Too many workers refuse to work. Those who do work soon realize they are being cheated and quit working. The requisite rules and regulations soon trump reality and big mistakes are made in the name of compliance.

In the 1960s, the U.S. and Soviet Russia cooperated on an exchange program where teens of each nation spent a summer in the other nation, to learn about their way of life. Some farm boys from Kansas who participated were appalled when rules required that everyone leave the fields at quitting time, leaving crops to be destroyed by a coming storm. In Kansas, If your hay crop is cut and baled ahead of an approaching storm, you stay in the field, working through the night to get the hay safely in the barn. Then you can rest as necessary.

Every nation that has tried Communism has failed. Current examples are Cuba and North Korea. The greatest failure of Communism, of course, was the U.S.S.R.

Now some point to China as a success of Communism. But Communism in China exists only in the halls of government. Essentially, they have turned away from the collectivist rules and allow the people to make their own way. China is now the most entrepreneurial nation in the world. Unlike the Russians on the collective farms of the 1960s, the Chinese work tirelessly to succeed. Chinese people make great sacrifices to travel and live in distant places when that means a better job, a better salary, a better life for their families.

Still, the world is full of "bee watchers", intent upon transforming humans into drones and workers, etc. How much more proof do they need that this is a fantasy that has not, does not, will not work?

How did
The Greatest Generation
get it so wrong?

God knows we thought we were doing it right. We struggled through the depression years of "The Dirty Thirties" - dust bowl and all. We ate the simplest foods and were grateful for every bite. We went to school with homemade clothes and bare feet. We listened to the politicians promise us a new deal as the depression worsened. We dumped high school to join the military and serve the country we so loved.

When the world finally settled down, we also settled down to raise a family, determined that our children would have a better life than ours.

So, what did we do? We created a generation that cares nothing for the values so dear to our hearts. A generation that hates the American entrepreneurial spirit. A generation totally ignorant of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, and totally disinterested in the miraculous constitution they gave us.

We cared so much for them, they now believe they should always be cared for. But, the greatest generation is rapidly disappearing, and this new generation soon will realize that we will not be replaced. And I fear they will also learn that the rest of the world will not care for them but will destroy them if they can.

This weekend I was reminded that the students starting college this year were born in 1992! Born in 1992??? Why, that's only.... oh.... 18 years ago! How could they know? They didn't live it. We didn't teach it. Whatever they are, perhaps we are responsible.

How did we get it so wrong?

But, still caring, I yet have one sincere wish: that today's generation will learn (please, not the hard way) before it is too late.

Where will we be in 2052?

My father died 42 years ago today. He did not have a lot of formal education, but he was an intelligent, well-read man, aware of current events.

But, at his death, he had never heard of the internet. Knew nothing of personal computers. Never heard of GPS. Would have been puzzled at the mention of HDTV or flat screen LCD TVs, much less a digital TV. Never saw a CD or a DVD. Never saw a cell phone. Never saw an electronic calculator. You get the idea. None of those things were a functioning reality in 1968.

He once told me the story of being at some sort of display in which a person could pick up a telephone on one side of the room and speak to another person, on another telephone, on the other side of the room. As the onlookers marveled, someone said, "Some day they will do it without the wire." Everyone laughed.

The advances in technology through his lifetime and since his death are just mind boggling. Now consider what engineers at Texas Instruments were once quoting as having said: "Every time we develop a new and better calculator, it makes it much easier to make the next improvement." With all the new tools we now have in our toolbox, what wondrous new tools lie in our future?

Want to plan a future amusement for your grandchildren? On a sheet of paper, write today's date, then make a list of all the examples of the latest technology in your daily life. Put it in a safe place to be opened at some future date. Not 42 years from now, but say, when that new baby graduates from high school.

Advance of the human!

In my eighty-one years, I have observed a lot of human real estate. In so doing, I have developed a keen eye for the human condition. Believe me, it has changed!

In the 1950s, Andre Williams recorded a song called "Jail Bait". In the lyric, a man stood before a judge, accused of improper relationships with underage girls. Pleading for leniency, the accused promised

Please Mr. Judge
You just let me go this time
I won't mess with those young girls no more
I swear I won't bother them no more Mr. Judge
I ain't gonna bother none 15
I ain't gonna bother none 16
I ain't gonna bother none 17
I ain't gonna mess with none 18

To underscore his sincerity, he explained:

I'm gonna get me a girl about forty-two...

Talk about a laugh-out-loud line! 42? Teens of the day wondered: Do girls really get that old?

Well, that was the 1950s. The world was on a different track. President Eisenhower was busy ending the Korean War (he succeeded), keeping the budget balanced (succeeded, again), and designing the Interstate Highway System (Yep, he succeeded there, also.)

But, off to the side - in the shadows - the nanny state was hatching in some people's minds. Looking beyond national security, fiscal responsibility and modern infrastructure, these folks were wanting to save us from our own bad habits. (Uh, they still are!). It took awhile, but they eventually eliminated trans-fats; got rid of well-marbled steaks, in favor of tough, lean beef; they created bottled water, glorified vegetarianism; greatly curtailed high fructose corn syrup; brought us organic eggs, etc., etc.

Mostly, we did not realize that these steps were doing wonderful things for some citizens.

Today I look at a 42 year-old-woman and I think: college freshman! Everywhere you look there's a hot 50-year-old!

The other day my wife of forty years headed out the door for some grocery shopping. All I could think was, "Damn, she's cute!"

Long live bottled water!

I Am Sick and tired

of being sick and tired of hearing know-it-all talking TV heads telling us what The American People like. Or, Really Like!

So, with some degree of regularity, I have to scream "You're wrong, stupid!"

On one of the Sunday talk shows today, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich reminded us, yet again, that Social Security is a big, costly government program but that The American People love it!

After all these years, one might hope that old Bob would pick up some smarts along the way. No such luck. So, let me explain once more, Bob:

When I took my first job away from the family farm, at about age 13, the government explained that I now owned a retirement insurance program. It was an ill-conceived idea. It was bound to fail. I didn't like it then. I don't like it now. I had no say then. I've had no say along the way.

But I paid their required premiums with every paycheck I ever earned. I know those premiums were not many dollars at first. But those were powerful dollars. With one - just one - I could buy a gallon of gas; a sack of six White Castle hamburgers; a cup of coffee; get a haircut and have some change left. And, I worked damn hard for one of those dollars. A ten-hour day got me two of them.

For fifty years I paid those premiums. The government quickly spent those dollar. Then they printed more and more of them, making each worth less and less. On my 13th birthday, $33.85 would buy an ounce of gold. As of last Friday, it took $1,133.60 to buy that ounce of gold.

Now please, Mr. Reich, don't tell me about big government programs that the people love. Don't tell me I am getting some kind of handout. The government made the deal. They gave me two choices: go along or go to jail! Yes, Social Security was and is a lousy idea. Not my problem. I want my benefits.

Just when you think

things cannot get more absurd... guess what? They get really dumb!

The big outrage today is that "kids were directing air traffic!" OMG! The former director of the NTSB said "The absence of an accident does not mean there was no danger!"

Apparently, a professional, veteran air traffic controller brought his kids to work. The kid sat there for some time listening to his/her dad chat with the pilots. As a one-time pilot, I can testify that these chats are almost universally pleasant, and absolutely always professional.

Once in a great while a pilot gets impatient when a controller follows rules that inconvenience the pilot a little. I remember an incident when a controller, feeling safety necessitated that he delay a landing by a few moments, directed a pilot to make a 360.... a 360º turn... a big loop in the sky to use up a few minutes of time. The pilot snapped in reply, "Are you aware that it will burn $500 worth of fuel to make a 360 in this aircraft?" The controller replied, "Affirmative. Please give me a $500 left turn."

But that is rare... controllers generally will do everything they can to accommodate pilots. And as a pilot, I can attest that it is a comfort to concentrate on landing your aircraft and not have to worry so much about other air traffic because the controller is watching out for you.

I recall an incident from my broadcast days. A very pretty young woman and I were guests at an Air force bombing range. The grading officer in the tower would, in turn, call each plane in for its bombing run. We listened for some time, and caught on to the lingo. Finally, the novel of having a pretty girl in the tower, presented a special opportunity for the airmen. The controller handed his mike to the young woman and instructed her to call the next plane in for its bombing run.

In those days of an essentially all-male Air Force, one can only imagine the surprise of that F-105 pilot in hearing a pleasant female voice directing him. We'll never know... that plane, roaring past the observation tower at 500 miles per hour, was a shattering blur. Flying in at treetop altitude, the plane flew straight at its target, released its bomb, then turned straight up, roaring out of sight vertically. Very exciting!

Back to the present. It is apparent that this controller had mentioned to one or more pilots that his kid was at his side in the tower. We can imagine a pilot radioing his hello to the visitor. And, it went from there. Pilot or controller asked the kid to repeat his father's instructions. The kid did as told. Both controller and pilots enjoyed the exchange.

Does anyone think, for an instant, that the controller or any pilot was taking their eye off the ball? Give me a break. These are the most professional of professionals. They are also dads and moms - humans, if you will.

But some jerk - the politician or journalist who would ignore corruption and fraud - is coming down on the controller. And probably someone unloaded a heap of wrath on one or more pilots!

What will we feel outraged about next?

Name Calling.

I've been called names. They probably started out okay: "Darling baby!" "Cute little boy." Can't verify either, but a song I remember as a child claimed "Every old crow thinks her baby's white as snow". Cooing baby names seem assured.

But, the names went downhill from there. "Dumb kid."

Then "Teenager." Has there ever been a word more frequently used as a synonym for stupid?

Next was "Young Adult." Meaning, "still wet behind the ears", not quite yet a real person.

This was followed by "Middle Age." That's a nice term for a "Dicky Do" (A 40-ish beer drinker whose belly sticks out farther than his dicky do.}

Then, of course, came "Senior Citizen", a lame attempt at being PC... as though it is an insult to call an old person "old". I've wondered who first came up with that name.

Now I am called an "Octogenarian".

You know what's next?

"Ancestor".

Patience and Discipline!

Received this in an email: None of it verifiable, but certainly fun to think about!

A Well-Planned Retirement

Outside England 's Bristol Zoo there is a parking lot for 150 cars and 8 buses. For 25 years, its parking fees were managed by a very pleasant attendant. The fees were 1 for cars ($1.40), 5 for buses (about $7).

Then, one day, after 25 solid years of never missing a day of work, he just didn't show up; so the Zoo Management called the City Council and asked it to send them another parking agent.

The Council did some research and replied that the parking lot was the Zoo's own responsibility. The Zoo advised the Council that the attendant was a City employee. The City Council responded that the lot attendant had never been on the City payroll.

Meanwhile, sitting in his villa somewhere on the coast of Spain or France or Italy .... is a man who'd apparently had a ticket machine installed completely on his own and then had simply begun to show up every day, commencing to collect and keep the parking fees, estimated at about $560 per day -- for 25 years.

Assuming 7 days a week, this amounts to just over $7 million dollars ...... and no one even knows his name.

I once read a book that spoke of British patience and discipline. It talked about far-flung outposts of the British Empire, observable by no one, where faithful employees none-the-less showed up for work every day, rain or shine, to fulfill their assigned duties. Patience and discipline.

The Brit at the zoo was most certainly patient and disciplined. But don't you wonder how it could have started?

I can imagine some well-intentioned 1985 zoo patron, trying to help the then-administrators of the zoo raise revenue for the welfare of the animals. He suggested they charge for parking.

They whined that it would take some equipment and someone would have to be employed as an attendant. He offered to volunteer both - and did.

When he had accumulated a sum of money for parking fees, no one would accept the money: They did not have a bank account; They would have to form a committee to elect a treasurer; They would need to employ an accountant to compute taxes or other fiscal liabilities. They had other pressing things to do - like shoveling dung out of the elephant's enclosure.

The old guy just agreed to hang onto the dough until they solved their problems. Time passed and the administration of the zoo changed. The patient, disciplined old Brit continued in his self-imposed obligations.

Then, one day, some asshole insulted him in the way people often insult those they consider "beneath" them.

The old guy said nothing, just went home - wherever that may now be!

May he live happily ever after!

Just A Word?

President Obama was widely quoted after his "just words" comments. He was saying that some comments were a great deal more than just words.

I agree - but recently I hear comments - words, that is - that have a darker meaning than immediately apparent. If a pattern of behavior acquires a name - and if that behavior becomes unpopular - don't change the behavior, just change the name used for that behavior.

Or, if you want some behavior to seem better than it is perceived to be, you might just nuance the name commonly associated with that behavior.

The current mania for "political correctness" brings many examples to mind. "Disabled" replaced "crippled". Okay by me if "crippled" was hurtful to some.

But, I am not necessarily okay with discarding a name that has become distasteful by preempting a fully tasteful word as the new name. I have never liked the idea of calling homosexual men "gay".

Homosexual women are called a name derived from a Greek island - for some historical reason, perhaps - but the women didn't go out and steal the name from some more widely accepted behavior. I am not bashing homosexual men, and I have no problem with their wanting to be called something different. But why choose a word long associated with happy children at play?

Okay, none of those example are a burr under my saddle. Two that are is the practice of calling liberals progressives. Progressive sounds like someone supporting "progress". Not everyone realizes that Progressive delineated a much more sinister ideology a century ago. The second is the practice of calling Democrat politicians Democratic. The Democrat Party is an ideology that has been hijacked. So, calling a Democrat senator, a Democratic Senator, sounds better!

I'd like to think that all senators are democratic. Which is exactly why Democrats want us to give the term democratic a capital "D"! Even some competent journalists are now doing it.

Determined to Damn The Tea Parties

The current tactic of the liberal Left is simple: If you disagree with someone or something, don't debate, destroy!

The other day, some dingbat woman running for Governor of Texas, was a guest of commentator Glenn Beck. He asked her point blank if she was a "9/11 truther". Did she believe the U.S. Government was behind the attack on September 11, 2001. She gave a worthless politician's answer... she didn't have enough evidence to answer. Translation, "I have no belief, I just don't want to offend anyone who may vote for me."

Today, a TV reporter questioned another dingbat, identified as an expert of some sort. This clown was asked if the comment by dingbat #1 will hurt her candidacy. His answer, in effect, was, "If her polling goes up, it will prove that the Tea Party movement agrees with her."

Say, what?

I translate that as: Don't know what you're talking about, but here's a chance to take a vicious swipe at the Tea Party movement. Let 'er rip!

I have participated in every Tea Party protest I could. I have met and talked at length with Tea Party followers in my city. I have yet to hear one of them express an opinion that the Bush Administration engineered the 9/11 attacks in New York. Quite the opposite. Most are absolutely convinced that 9/11 was solely the work of Islamic extremists.

So, why did the expert on TV imply that Tea Party people will hinge their support for the Texas lady dingbat on her 9/11 conspiracy stand, or lack thereof?

For Valentine's Day:
A French Love Story

When my youngest son was barely a teen, we invited a French boy to come to America and be our guest for a summer month. The next summer we repeated with a second French boy. The following summer, our son spent a month with a family in France. We enjoyed the French boys and our son loved his summer in France - although most of it was spent at their vacation home in Spain!

One of the interesting stories he later told was that the French boys revealed they had always heard American girls were hot and horny. This surprised him, because he had always heard it was the French girls who were lovely and love-starved.

There are a lot of silly misconceptions between Americans and the French. Don't most Americans think the French are a bunch of pantywaists? Aren't most Frenchmen in complete bewilderment that America is full of wholly unsophisticated rednecks? Not really. Here is one story about our true relationship.

On Christmas Eve, 1732, a boy named Edward Peregois was born somewhere in France. For reasons no longer known, he emigrated to America.

A Frenchman, in an America run by Englishmen, Edward found his surname misspelled repeatedly. Eventually the family settled on the spelling Pedigo - which, pronounced by an Englishman, sounds about like Peregois, pronounced by a Frenchman.

Edward fell in love with his new land and when there arose a movement among colonists to declare America's independence from England, Edward joined in. In fact, he became a member of America's military, willing to fight for that Independence. With a Virginia Regiment, he joined General Washington's army at Valley Forge, PA where they did, indeed, fight for America's independence.

After the war, a grateful America gave Edward Pedigo a land warrant and he became a successful Virginia farmer, and father of seven. When his wife died, he remarried and fathered another seven children! Lots of hands for that Virginia farm.

But, as the years and generations progressed, much of the family migrated west to Kentucky and beyond. Eventually, Estella Greene Pedigo, daughter of the fifth generation, gave birth to three sons in Texas. These three Texas boys all came of age in time to be called to military duty during the global conflict that would become known as the World War. (And eventually, "The First World War")

The oldest son, Prentice Bradley was first to go to France. There, in November, 1918, just before the Armistice ended it all, in a wooded place known to historians as the Argonne Forest, Prentice Bradley died fighting for the freedom of his great, great, great, great grandfather's native land.

Such is the true relationship of the Americans and the French. As Charles DeGaulle once pointed out, our nations have always been the closest of friends. We share the rare and blessed fact that French and American armies have never faced each other in battle.

And I find it poignant that my great, great, great, great, great grandfather, Edward Pedigo left France to come fight for America. And that my uncle, Prentice Bradley, left America to go fight for France.

That was a true French love story. A Frenchman and an American. Love of freedom. Love of your fellow man.

About that Supreme Court Decision

During the summer of 2009, some people kept asking of the Tea Party Movement, "Why are you shouting?".

Those asking never understood that we had repeatedly asked politely but were ignored. We wrote emails; we phoned; we attended meetings and raised our hands. No one was interested in answering our questions. Finally, we started shouting! It is simple. If your quiet voice is ignored, you are inclined to make it a little louder.

We are guaranteed, by the Bill of Rights, the right to speak out. Nothing is said about how quietly or how loudly we speak. The right to speak is guaranteed.

Now, suppose you shout as loudly as possible, and are still ignored. Is it okay to reach for a megaphone? Or, a bigger megaphone?

Suppose you and a group of like-minded individuals decide on a really, really big megaphone... you pool your resources, hire a firm of lobbyists and buy a series of TV and print ads touting your position? Is that okay? Nothing in the Constitution hints that it is not okay... but various politicians have decided to make that illegal. And, we were gifted with such legislation as McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.

They could not say it would be okay if only we hired a lesser lobbyist, or bought a few less ads. So they say, as an example, if your group is a corporation you are restricted in what you say, when and how loudly you may say it. After all, a corporation is something that almost all of us are decidedly not. And, the American Public has been taught that corporations are evil.

Those of us with empty pockets and small voices, may be upset when the views espoused by this or that group are contrary to our own. But, I ask, do you believe in the Constitution or do you not? Should we re-write the First Amendment to read "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech with which we agree - but damn well better shut up those other guys."?

I have heard a lot of speech with which I disagreed, speech supporting or condemning politics, religion, or social practices. But, always and always, I have sworn to uphold your right to make that speech, no matter how loudly you are able to make it.

Because, above all, I want to retain my right to speak my views, even in a small and mostly ignored voice.

I am so thankful to the Supreme Court of The United States for their recent decision in this matter.

Long live freedom of speech!

The way it was - with Democrats.

About fifty years ago, I had a conversation with a close friend and business associate who was a devout Democrat. We were watching a construction project... a big building being built. Can't remember if the weather was very hot or very cold, but the weather caused my friend and I to express some sympathy for the workmen on the building.

I expressed this thought to my friend... "When this project is finished, someone will own a very valuable piece of real estate, but these guys who built it will own no part of it. I guess that is what troubles you Democrats."

He instantly corrected me: "Both these workmen and the people financing the job made a choice. The workmen wanted no risk. They wanted to do their job, get paid, and walk away whole. The people doing the financing wanted the risk. They invested the fruit of, perhaps, their lifetime of work in this project. If it succeeds, their payday will come. If it fails, they could lose everything. Our concern for the workmen is that they a get a good trade - labor for cash - and are treated fairly and honestly".

Yep. That is the way Democrats used to think. And my friend may have added that the workmen were perfectly happy with their deal. They were happy with their employer on this job. They appreciated their opportunity to participate in this building and were proud of their contribution. After this job, they would move to another construction project, enjoying their new home, their new truck or boat or whatever they bought with their pay. If this building was a financial failure, they would feel none of the pain.

Back in those days, Democrats and Republicans in government worked together to solve problems, get things done. And I, a Republican, was fully comfortable being in business with a guy who was a devout Democrat. There was a saying my late friend liked to quote: "There is no such thing as part-time honesty." Absolutely. His honesty was full time and never questioned. He would be saddened by many of today's Democrats

Here I go again...
being an opinionated old man.

It was an interesting experiment, electing a well-educated young African-American to be president of the United States.

It was a given that he was not up to the job. It is sad that his mentors, his advisers, were all of the wrong ideology.

Can anyone be surprised that his presidency is a colossal failure?

Personally, I hope Americans continue to take chances on well-educated young men and women as elected officials - disregarding their ethnicity or nationality lineage.

There should be some litmus tests: They must be absolutely and unshakably honest. They must be fully dedicated to the truth. They must fully accept that in America, power is vested in the people and the job of government is to serve the people.

They should understand that if some day the people of the United States decide they want a radically transformed state, it should be the government that follows the will of the people, not vice-versa.

And they must be strong enough to stand up to their advisers and say "no", when those advisers waiver on these principles.

And, maybe, just maybe when we elect young, untested people, we should not try to start them out at the very top.

More Random Memories

stirred up by Harry Reid.

We all tend to talk like the folk who were around when we were learning to talk. It's a hard habit to break.

Johnny Robinson, the great free safety of the Kansas City Chiefs back in the 1970s, once told me that some of his black teammates tried very hard to avoid using any speech habits of their youth. But in a sideline interview with a roving reporter they often, in the excitement of the game, let their guard down and spoke as they had spoken as a child. Later they would see a replay and beat their head against the wall.

I once had a business colleague, a bright, successful guy who, when relating an earlier incident, often said "we was...". That always shocked me a bit.

My son, a professor at a large Texas University is raising four small daughters. Though born in four different states, they are now all growing up to be - Surprise! Surprise! - Texans. On a recent visit, his six-year-old rushed in to say, "Dad... we were fixin' to...". Before I had time to recognize what she had said, her father interrupted, "Don't say fixin'!" In Texas, if you were or are planing to do something, it is quite normal to say fixin' to do it!

Reminds me of the time when my wife and I, seeking to escape from business pressures, moved to a small farm near a tiny Missouri town. After a few months in a small, country school, our oldest boy, then about eight, excitedly told us of something he brang home from school. Hey, Neil Diamond even used that term in the lyric of a song!

MIT professor, Steven Pinker, wrote words to the effect that "If I say something, and you clearly understand the meaning of what I said, our language is good... language czars notwithstanding." Dr. Pinker... I heartily agree.

Same goes for punctuation and sentence structure. In the mid 20th century, there was a radio personality named Arthur Godfrey. One of Godfrey's trademarks was singing original songs with outrageous or demeaning lyrics. Songs like "Slap 'er Down Again, Pa!" Or, "She's Too Fat For Me". Once I played one of his records on the air, then spent a moment making fun of his mispronunciations and poor choice of words. Next day I received a card from a listener, listing a lot of words I had mispronounced or improperly used that same day. I remembered each of them!

In writing copy to be read on the air, I formed the habit of inserting a comma in copy where I will want to take a breath, or shift emphasis. Today people scold me for my overuse of commas, and elipses.

This week there was criticism of a Massachusetts candidate for the U.S. Senate because the word Massachusetts was misspelled in a printed political ad. Big deal. Very near my home is a park dedicated to the memory of those men and women from this community who have served in the U.S. Military. On the street, approaching the park, is a city-erected sign pointing to Veteran's Park. That is singular possessive, but not surprising in a city where, for many people, English is a second language.

Once, in a Spanish class at New Mexico State University, the instructor told me I had misspelled the Spanish word for the number 10. I was sure I had not. He made me look it up. Good for him. I shall now always remember that the word is spelled diez, not dies!

When Dan Quayle was Vice President, he was once asked to moderate a spelling bee for young students. Quayle was given a stack of cards, each with one word, to test the students. The word potato came up. The student correctly spelled p-o-t-a-t-o. Quayle looked at his card, where the word was spelled p-o-t-a-t-o-e. In those circumstances, with TV lights and all, Quayle was certainly distracted from realizing that whomever had made the card had spelled the word incorrectly. Responding mechanically, as most of us would have, Quayle told the student he needed to add an "e". Following the recent comments on the misspelled word in the Massachusetts political ad, TV commentators. some two decades later, again ridiculed Dan Quayle.

By circumstance, not choice, I once found myself in partnership with people I didn't like very well. One of those new business partners was meticulous about his handwriting. When you saw something he had written (even though you were sure you were going to disagree with his premise), you were compelled to read every perfectly written word.

So, is careful handwriting, correct spelling, proper punctuation and clearly understood annunciation and pronunciation even important? Yes, of course. Clear and careful communication is a better assurance of clear understanding.

But Harry Reid's comment about "Negro dialect" is something else. The word negro, after all, is simply the word for the color black, in Latin based languages. Not all dark skinned persons have a regional accent or speech pattern. I remember my first trip to Bermuda when a black man addressed me in a crisp, British accent. But Reid lumped all dark skinned persons into one distinct group when he referred to Negro dialect. That lumping is the very essence of prejudice.

(I know that some learned person reading this post could, like my radio listener of six decades ago, point out a list of errors. But, as Dr. Pinker predicted, you did get my point, didn't you!)

Getting old - and angry.

One good thing about getting old... you remember things. But, maybe that is not so good because it also means you are angry most of the time.

This past week it was revealed that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid had said during the 2008 campaign that Barack Obama might be an acceptable candidate because he was not too black and did not sound black when he talked. Disgusting!

This past week also included the birth date of Elvis Presley... January 8, which is also the birth date of my twin daughters. So Elvis was on my mind and Reid's remarks reminded me of a widely held opinion back in 1955. I was a disk jockey at radio station KUDL in Kansas City at the time. One day the head of the record department at a big Kansas City drug store chain called to tell me that a lot of teens were buying records by a guy named Elvis Presley. I had never heard the name and asked her to spell it.

In a big box of new records left at the station for me by promotion people from local record distributors, I found two records by said Elvis Presley. They had a little yellow label that said "Sun", and were titles I had never before seen, "Mystery Train", "I'm Left, You're Right, She's Gone", "Milk Cow Blues Boogie" and "That's All Right, Mama". I listened to the four songs.

At that time, my program was largely devoted to what we then called "Rhythm & Blues", music noted for a solid beat and often a soulful rendition of earthy, if whimsical, lyrics. Those characteristics made the music very popular with teens. The songs by this Presley guy fit perfectly and I immediately started playing all four songs on the air. All four became immensely popular.

Soon the word got around that Elvis' music was okay with the kids parents, too (at least until they saw his sexy moves on The Ed Sullivan Show), because Elvis was not black! In 1955, very few white parents would approve of their young daughters becoming adoring fans of a black man! Such were the attitudes of some in the mid 1950s.

But, 1955 was a long time ago. Barack Obama was not even born then. Could anyone still hold those views in 2008? Yes. A United States Senator from Nevada named Harry Reid. I was not at all surprised when many prominent people responded angrily to Reid's remarks... his attitude toward blacks: "may be okay if they don't look or sound black".

Now more anger. Reid's defenders immediately jumped on the memory of Trent Lott, the Mississippi Senator who was Senate Majority Leader when the Republicans were the majority. Smoke came out of my ears!

In 2002, at a ceremony celebrating the 100th birthday of South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond (who had been a candidate for president in 1948 - 54 years earlier) Trent Lott said we may all have been better off if Thurmond had won that election.

Strom Thurmond had been a avid segregationist. But remember, in the 1940s, even the U.S. Military was segregated. I was in the Army in 1946 and 1947, and black soldiers were not even permitted to eat at the same mess hall as white soldiers. Today it is hard to believe that bit of history and, in time, Strom Thurmond, like most of America, came to realize that racism is evil.

But, in 2002, the fact everyone remembered was Thurmond's earlier segregationist views. The fact few remembered was that Thurmond was also a avid supporter of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: State's Rights! Trent Lott was right... we may well have been better off with a president who supported the 10th Amendment. (Our current president certainly does not!)

But, the Democrats, eager to strike at Lott in every possible way, blew his remarks into a racial issue and destroyed his career.

So, what is now to happen to Harry Reid? If he is not replaced as Senate Majority Leader, it will prove to me, once and for all, that the Democrats are a despicable group. As I heard my father say, way back in the 1930s, the Democrats are nothing more than a bunch of crooks and thugs, interested only in their personal power.

48!

This is something very few Americans alive today could know about or would remember, but I longed to hear it Tuesday night.

First, let me assure you I cannot imagine a finer group of young people than the West Point cadets who listened to President Obama's speech Tuesday evening. Among them, discipline is an art form. Count on them to be always dependable. For that I am grateful. But, my baser instincts yearned for a lesser PC group of Americans who once saved the world from tyranny.

During World War Two, our mostly drafted Army consisted of Americans of all walks of life who obeyed their mandatory call to duty because of their unshakable love of country. But these people were rarely inclined to go along with political b.s.

Starting in the ETO (European Theater of Operations) G.I.'s developed a way to quickly and uniformly express their collective dislike for some sort of bureaucratic edict. This practice spread around the globe, but quickly faded once the shooting stopped. Which is why it is little remembered today (unlike "SNAFU", another G.I. creation, which survived).

It went like this: Following some sort of pronouncement to a large, assembled group of unimpressed soldiers, a lone voice in the crowd would suddenly shout "48". A second voice would immediately yell "49". A third would follow with "50", whereupon the entire assembly, in one unified voice, would say "s-o-m-m-m-me shit!".

Tuesday night, when President Obama finished his speech, I pleaded to the sleepy cadets on my TV set... "Someone yell 48!"

A Commercial My Dad Would Write

I have been writing commercials for 60 years. To do it well takes a lot of hard work. My father never wrote a commercial, but I know one he could write in a heartbeat.

It would be for Taxmasters; for J.K. Harris; for irstaxagreement.com - or whatever they call themselves. You've probably seen their efforts at writing a commercial on TV.

My Dad would write:

"Do you owe thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes? Is the IRS coming to your home or place of business? Are you receiving harassing mail or phone calls? I'll solve your problem in two easy steps, and I will not charge you a cent for using my two-step program!

Step One: Open your checkbook and write a check for the full amount of your taxes.

Step Two: Mail that check to the IRS.

Tax problem solved. No more visits by IRS agents. No more harassing mail or phone calls."

What about the guy who complains that his taxes were unfair or excessive? Dad would agree. He thought we were all taxed excessively and unfairly. But, not paying would necessitate breaking the law and in Dad's world that was never acceptable. First, it was futile. As singer Bobby Fuller pointed out in the lyric of his 1960s song, when he fought the law... the law won!

Second, it was a temporary victory. Wipe out past tax bills, but with that bad law still in place, you'll continue to get unfair or excessive tax bills in the future.

The solution is to change the law. Dad's greatest frustration was with people who incessantly complained about the government, but always voted the same guys back into office.

You'd never do that. Would you?

Should a citizen attempt to serve in Congress?

A citizen, that is, with no prior political experience, no track record of offices held? That is what the Founding Father's had in mind! They set up Congress with two houses. The Senate to be a more deliberative body, with six year terms. The House of Representatives was to represent immediate concerns of their constituents. Any citizen could agree to give up two years of their life to serve. They could then run for re-election, voluntarily return to civilian life - or the electorate could replace them.

Anyone could run for Congress. Being elected required convincing voters to choose you. That would take some money and a lot of time visiting with voters. As years passed, the required amount of money increased. I recently read where a long retired Congressman said his first Congressional campaign cost $30,000. Today, it takes about $1.5 million. A Senate candidate now needs $6 or $8 million.

A popular candidate may well be able to raise that amount of money. But that could be just the beginning. Former House Republican Whip Tom Delay was heaped with all sorts of charges of ethics violations. All were investigated. All were proven frivolous and dismissed. But defending himself against the claims cost Delay some $8 million in legal expenses.

Many business people are sued every year for charges that are untrue, and on the surface, readily defensible. Many, if not most of these persons, on advice of legal counsel, choose to capitulate and pay some negotiated monetary settlement. That route being less costly and requiring less time and effort than it would take to mount a successful defense.

But political office holders do not have that luxury. Ethics claims against them must be investigated... the accused have no choice but to defend themselves or be punished - perhaps with imprisonment.

Witness the case of Sarah Palin. She faced unending ethics charges, all of which have proven unfounded. But the mounting costs for her and for the State of Alaska became untenable. She resigned to stop it.

The current debate on the cost of health care has made us all aware of what we are forced to pay because of medical malpractice lawsuits. If - and the operative word here is if - a medical professional makes a mistake, how is it to be corrected? Should we all have to contribute to give the allegedly abused a huge payday?

It appears to me that if a citizen has the time and knowledge and wants to serve our country, rather than run for office, a better way would be to mount an attack on the abusive use of our legal system. The Founding Fathers created the system to assure justice for all. It has been morphed into a tool for winning political battles, buying political favors, and punishing political opponents. We can no longer afford this foolishness.

Those three elections

There is speculation as to what the outcome of the November 3, 2009 elections will say about the current mindset of the electorate. I believe the races for Governor of Virginia and New Jersey, and the Congressional race in NY23 each tell a different story.

If the Republican wins in Virginia, it will tell me that the disinterested first-time voters of November, 2008, who voted to elect Barack Obama, voted then for personal reasons - personality, race, rhetoric, anybody but Bush, etc. - and have now drifted back into the "I couldn't care less" abyss.
If the Virginia Democrat wins, it will signal that those first time voters are still engaged - they just can't be reached by the pollsters.

If the Republican wins in New Jersey, I will read that to mean the voters are fed up with their incumbent Governor and no amount of campaign spending or high - powered endorsements will sway them.
If the Democrat wins, it will show us that big bucks and appearances by political big shots can still buy the votes.

If the Conservative wins in NY23, I will conclude that a majority of voters have opted to choose policy over party... that party label alone can no longer be a sure fire ticket to ride into office.
If the Republican wins, we will know that old time party loyalties are still a big factor.
If the Democrat wins, I guess we concede that third party candidates can still split the spoils and elect the one who should have been the runner-up.

Happily for me, in the Mountain Time Zone, I won't have to stay up too late to find the answers.