Yes, that's duck tape. Because you just never know when one of those pesky ducks is going to come crashing to Earth, flopping on the ground at your feet on a perfectly clear day for no obvious reason. It could be guilty of eating too much smoked salmon and flying while inloxicated. If you had compassion for him and could endure his fish breath, you would naturally put him back together using duck tape.
Perhaps this drunken duck finds you while you are walking on the Isles of Marsh. Beware!
Having a little fun here this morning at the expense of mis-users of the language. A friend sent me a photo of a small plane that had been repaired with duct tape, enough to fly it back to his base for proper repairs. The article was in praise of duct tape saying, "Don't leave home with it." Good idea, but my mind suddenly jumped to the fact that some folks don't actually know that this product is is duct tape, spelled with a t - a very strong and durable tape developed for the HVAC industry to hold air ducts together. Perhaps some folks who know nothing about ducts think the tape is made with the linen canvas called duck. [* See insert below] Yesterday I saw in the hardware store a colorful roll of something new called Duck Tape - probably some enterprising marketer figured out the public's tendency to think of the name in this way. I personally have heard people clearly say duck tape on many occasions. But no, I have never heard anyone say inloxicated.
The Isles of Marsh line was also a reference just made up today because I am jotting notes on March 15, called by Shakespeare the ides of March, or the middle of that month. That's definitely an indefinite placement, the Roman calendar giving the 15th day of four months (March, May, July and October) the position of ides while the other eight months show the 13th bearing that wispy label. So please don't make the simple slip of writing about the ides of April when taxes are due. Forgivable, but it's better to be informed.
My mind has been on this matter of word misunderstanding, misspelling, mispronunciation etc., as well as the twisted use of expressions, due to an online literary contact having made a major fox paws in a promotion piece. Even people who work in the world of words and writing can make bold blunders in their strange misuses of words and phrases, and as someone I knew many years ago used to say, in all seriousness, "That just ceases to amaze me." (My own twisted sense of humor has allowed me often to utilize that little gem when in the company of someone who can enjoy the laugh with me.)
It was actually a literary agent sending out emails of self-promotion who made the stumble that has been eating at me for a few days. I can't decide whether to thoughtfully inform the young lady of her misused reference or to let it go without comment. First, it would be difficult to do a thoughtfully worded correction without sounding pompous or pretentious; and second, I've already questioned whether this literary connection is one worth keeping. She could turn off others while representing me!
The blunder itself involved a lovely photograph of a night sky in a storm. Two dramatic lightening bolts were caught simultaneously touching the ground, perhaps within three or four miles of each other. The literary agent looking for an assist in catching the attention of her audience to impress us with the exciting news that an opportunity might actually be repeating itself, simply fell upon a seemingly easy context. Problem was, the easy context was a totally misused one simply because the young lady apparently has always heard an old expression repeated in its common shortened version: lightening never strikes twice ... The fact she didn't even seem to know that the original expression ends with, in the same place, is indicative of our abbreviated speech and abbreviated reasoning nowadays. And she was not dedicated enough to check it out - even by a cursory Google search. I did so and even typing in the shortened version only, the quick selections available all point to the full idiom and go into probable meanings and usages. So she constructed an entire concept on half of a thought, which not only changed the meaning entirely, it showed she was lacking in thought.
Bothering me still further was the amazing fact that this person had obviously never witnessed a beautiful double - or multiple - lightening strike in her own world. I've personally enjoyed these displays on a large scale and on numerous occasions. One especially memorable night in Arizona a few years ago, my wife and I stayed outside our tent to marvel at the massive electrical storm that kept most of the sky to the west (a good, safe distance west!) of our location almost continuously lit up like some kind of laser light show. We even put music (vocalizing Beethoven's 5th, etc.) to it and made up the likely words of a banter being shared among the clouds and their charges firing out. There were easily six to ten strikes at times hitting the ground simultaneously during an hour or more of our devoted watching. We weren't doing the photography thing and even if we had been, we could not have captured nearly enough of the action to do justice to the intensity of our excitement of being there in person. Truly talented and dedicated photographers have displayed some incredibly awesome lightening shows.
The more I look into it now online, the more disgusted I am with the shallowness that a supposed literary person revealed in using a simple premise to sell her too-simple approach and taking no time at all to check out the subject. There must be hundreds of better ways to grab attention for a commercial purpose than to so flagrantly misuse and misunderstand an old expression. I think I will just delete her emails in the future.
This dismissive way of dealing with a language abuser is not a typical approach for me; it all depends on whether the speaker is someone who already has my respect but who merely slips up. Such was the case last week when I had to endure many repetitions of the old nucular offense, this time by Melissa Harris-Perry. She is a highly intelligent and very highly educated professor who is worthy of my respect in her typical output and I try to catch some of her new show on MSNBC on weekend mornings. She's so worthy of my audience that I've long since learned to virtually not hear a speech impediment that is obviously not within her control. But her mispronouncing of words in the manner of less capable speakers was just too much for my ears. So I sent her an email asking her - begging her - to rise above the level of the embarrassing former POTUS, GWB, who was notably poor at any kind of speaking and who never seemed to catch on to the way most of the world laughed at him for the oft-repeated mispronunciation of nuclear. SNL folks did a commendable job of poking fun at him for it as did other comics and writers. But as I said to Ms. Harris-Perry, Bush was perhaps incapable of learning; she is not.
No, I do NOT go through life trying to correct all the linguistic errors I encounter nor trying to punish all the usage criminals I confront. And yes, even as one reader of this blog called me out, I still make those occasional blunders myself. I hope I can avoid repeating egregious (or even minor) slips, but I'm pragmatic about this. Anyone using the language very much is bound to sometimes misuse it. I'm no paragon of proper speech, only someone who tries hard to be a good usage example. My wonderful wife, who communicates as effectively as anyone I know, is nonetheless a font of foibles and flaws in speech and spoonerism. She not only misuses words and expressions, she creates her own where nothing she knows is quite sufficient. She unintentionally utters many hilarious lines such as those delivered with practiced innocence by Gracie Allen many years ago, but she is a cute and bubbly blond, so I have dubbed her Gracie Hawn. When she asked me years ago to correct some of her missteps in speech, I declined until pressed on the issue. Acting as a constant verbal editor for my wife would not have promoted much harmony between us. We finally agreed that if she would try hard to avoid abusing just three offending words which are commonly mispronounced and are particularly grating on my nerves, then I would try hard never to wince or show any outward sign of dismay when she misses on any others. So the only time I call her on anything is when she slips up and says the aforementioned nucular or that word I already covered in an entire post - real(e)ty.
And the third one? The other abused word I am allowed to reject and repair for my wife? Amazingly, it's another one heard often coming from people in all walks of life, including even broadcasters! And it's one of those words that is easier said properly than it is in the commonly corrupted version. Go figure! Oh, well, I guess error is here to stay; we can never excape it!
[ * Correction INSERT - Mar. 23]
Once again, this red-faced writer is guilty of doing exactly as he accused others of doing; writing before thoroughly checking it out himself. If Wikipedia is correct, the article about duct tape shows that I am sadly lacking in knowledge of this product. Now I'm reading up on other articles found in an online search, and I see that The Duct Tape Guys have written seven books on the subject. No, I probably won't read all of those, but allow me to stand VERY corrected on my earlier snide remarks about the tape. And NO, this was not premeditated as a test of my readership to see who might slap me around for my gaffe. I simply blew it!
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Weights & Measures
This piece has nothing to do with graduated sizes of lead cylinders and extensive instruments used in determining finite measurements. No, this is all about the heavy weights placed upon people who take on positions of leadership and the manner in which they are measured by their handling of these matters. There exists no metrology for this arcane business.
Personally, I hated the speech given by President Obama at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee gathering in March. Oh yes, the president was able, because of his intelligence and the capability of his writers, to give another sound and fairly convincing speech that was likely appreciated by the supporters of Israel's sovereignty and will surely be an over-all plus in his run for re-election. What I hated was the fact that he had to deliver it at all.
The words this president and all presidents in the last six decades have been obliged to say about the virtual island called Israel are to me a mystery and the premise itself is indefensible. Our leaders in this country are always required to say words of strong protectionism toward Israel. Israel! A tiny nation carved out of the sands and rocks of the Middle East, surrounded by Syrian, Arabian and Jordanian (and doubtless a few others too obscure to gain notice) peoples and cultures. And much like the briefcase of nuclear power and other responsibilities which is handed off to each new president, in fact part & parcel of that bag of responsibilities, is the protection of Israel. The weight of that powder keg was handed off from Truman to Eisenhower in 1953 and has continued to be handed on down to each new Commander-in-Chief to this day. And each has been measured by his caution and wisdom in handling that explosive.
WHY? Indeed!
Allow me to draw a totally far-fetched analogy here. Let's imagine a playground at a school. That's right - a playground. Silly, I know, but playgrounds have been exigent and weighty in the affairs of men!
The In Crowd - let's use this as the title for the acknowledged strongest group of kids on the playground, encompassing most of the larger and physically more imposing boys who are always prominent in this milieu. The In Crowd has been around and respected, often feared, for quite some time, growing stronger with each challenge to its supremacy. The individual members of this crowd continually change, but the crowd never lessens in its strength or influence over the whole playground. Those smaller cliques that dare to rise up against it are always quelled in such a decisive fashion that they fall away and often dissolve and disappear as a cohesive group that could ever again threaten the In Crowd.
One day an intelligent and persuasive fellow, one of the older and more serious students who is respected and has a devoted but cerebral and harmless following of his own, approaches the leaders of the In Crowd with a request. Could this big, strong group perhaps support the much smaller group who have a big mission and difficult plan to execute? The leaders of the In Crowd listen to a captivating story, well told by this serious older student, about the fact that long ago, before this school existed, even before this whole area was developed and heavily populated, a venerable old man lived in a sad little hut on a small plot of ground. This little old man, let's call him Old Jude Adams, lost track of all his children who had not stayed near him to work his little plot of land. Over many years, they had re-settled elsewhere, with no close ties to the old man or his property. Now, due to much seeking and interesting coincidental events, it had been discovered that a substantial number of the descendants of Mr. Adams wanted to touch base with their ancient forefather's land. This serious student, call him David, acting on behalf of all those distant cousins, had found that old Mr. Adams had left a monument to his legacy. This monument, a strong piece of concrete engraved with the Adams name and inlaid with a small but imposing stone, had been left unnoticed over the centuries by developers, and low and behold, was actually the cornerstone of the current playground activity center. From ancient notes left by Old Jude Adams, the lines of his small plot were easily measured from this monument, and the original property, that should rightfully have been passed on down to all these descendants, now contained the Jungle Jim and other playground equipment area - not any large basketball courts or baseball fields, but that little center of activity that the kids all took for granted, using whenever they pleased.
So here was the request: We, the descendants of Jude Adams, would like to claim this one small area as the place where only we who are all the cousins can play. It should have been ours all along, so we hope that you, the strongest of all the groups of all the kids who frequent this area, will support our decision to make this little plot of our great ancestor, our own private playground. That you will help us put our markings around it and claim it and all rights to its use, for our family only. And further, that you will protect us and our own descendants, allowing us to always play here and keep others out, for all time.
For some strange reason, the leaders of the In Crowd decided they could make that commitment.
Back to today's real world of actual events; after more than six decades, it is not unreasonable to question the whole business of the 1948 world playground and a strange deal that was struck.
Sadly, some of the most devoted present day bright advocates for peaceful solutions to Israel's problems are fine young folks born too recently to question some elements of the way things are. Israel itself was born only three years after I came along, so most of today's American fighters for Israeli concerns have been aware, for all of their lives, only of this great conflict in the Middle East. It's hard for them to grasp the reasons for so much conflict and the hatreds surrounding Israel. Hearing the passionate pleas of intelligent young activists on behalf of Israel and our (American) initiative to stand firm for Israeli sovereignty and safety, makes me a little crazy. People who visit websites like J Street can offer support and join the conversation. Great discussions on television and in meeting halls everywhere can be continued (have been and will be continued) to keep the fight alive and protect Israel at all cost.
Here's my own solution. And since I have no weight in world affairs, my comments will not be measured, (therefore I can toss out any cockamamie idea I please), but here is what should have been done when the United States so desired to assist (a fundamentally good desire) the Jewish People back in 1948 to obtain a homeland. We could have selected one and deeded it to them! Why didn't we give these people we felt obligated to protect, a piece of ground we actually controlled - somewhere more desirable (and safer) than that harsh landscape east of the Mediterranean Sea.
How about Camp Pendleton? Our government had already commandeered that large chunk of California ocean-side property in the war years to use as a training facility for our fighting soldiers and Marines. By the late forties, the war was over and that land could readily have been returned to good use in the art of living rather than preparing for more future killing. Yes, the area is only a fraction of the total size of the current territory called Israel, but it's probably close to the amount of desirable and arable real estate contained in that whole Middle East region. And to me, it has always seemed a crime that any part of the beauty of the coastline of California is devoted to the ugliness and cruelty of war.
So, you say a little more land would have been required for a truly thoughtful gift to our friends? We could have thrown in Santa Catalina Island! Just a breeze of a boat ride, maybe forty miles from the Pendleton coastline, or a very brief commuter plane trip away. You say, but it wouldn't have been like returning to Jerusalem! True. But really, anybody can admit, no matter what mythology is involved, that a city itself cannot be holy. At least, none built by humans. You may believe deeply in a New Jerusalem to come, but that one supposedly will be built by a supreme being and made of pure gold! Putting that aside, think of what a fabulous and distinctive dedicated city could have been built there in the natural beauty of Catalina without even disturbing the small group of existing local citizens at that time. By spreading out over the whole beautiful island, folks could live far better than they do while shoe-horned into the tiny center of Jewish life in the original Jerusalem.
This could all be done still today and we could call a halt to the madness of our obligation to protect eight million people struggling (and terrified) to live in the middle of the Middle Eastern Muslim world. Giving up that part of the commitment to our military preparedness would surely offset the need to keep open this one training facility of Pendleton (one of several in California alone) and the whole arrangement would beautify and honor this part of our planet. Imagine what those creative and hard-working people could do here!
As for the Catalina Island part of the deal, the four thousand citizens of Avalon would very likely vote to approve the take-over by Israelis who could make more of the area than has been accomplished there in the past. After all, the island is accustomed to historic changes and extremely few of these current inhabitants were there in 1948 when the island was most ripe for the change. Tom Robbins who was deeded the island in the early 1800s did little with it and the Banning family went broke trying to make a go of it a century later. Bill Wrigley did okay with his (majority) ownership of the place and for a few decades the Chicago Cubs trained there. But basically, the island sits quietly, invitingly, off the coast near the heavily populated cities of Los Angeles and Orange County communities, and those of us fortunate enough to get away now and then (I finally did so in 2010) can hop a boat to Avalon.
Of course, if the current residents were not on the whole in favor of the deal, they could easily be convinced of its workability. Current residents could be left to live exactly as they do now but could attend to their tourism business with the cooperation of strong business-minded Jewish leaders while watching as the new immigrant population develops the entire Island into the flourishing paradise it could be.
Naturally, anyone reading this will want to pass it off as strictly satire, but please don't. I'm as serious as a six-day war! The whole foolish concept of the playground story above is completely appropriate. The wildly implausible story of a people having some kind of "forever rights" to a homeland because of a fantasy plan of some kind involving promised land being handed down from a phantom being to a long-ago ancestor, was patently ridiculous as a cause for action on the part of a powerful western government in 1948. How did Zionism even gain any credence here in the U.S. back in the World War II era? Two simple facts existed: Everyone with any humanity at that time, decently and rightfully felt compassion for a race of people almost destroyed by a despot; millions of western Christians added to their human compassion a guilt factor. They shared the mythological connection to that original phantom in the heavens and felt that the race that begat their hero, Jesus, should not be erased from the Earth. They were also (as are fanatical believers still today) under the weight of biblical verses (variously interpreted) that prophesy some concept of Jews being IN JERUSALEM at the (longed-for) time of Christ's return. So they launched into an attempt to manipulate synchronicity!
The entire frustrating malaise of the Middle Eastern dilemma was set up and established as an in-perpetuity obligation incumbent upon all U.S. citizens and their political leaders to follow after 1948. So today, our president has to speak to the problem with solidarity, with full bluster and show of strength to the world on behalf of that small stolen piece of almost empty land in an unfriendly and dangerous part of the planet. He has to do so as Ike was obligated to do immediately after the theft was perpetrated and the borders were drawn; JFK was required to do the same, and so has every president since. And now, the most recent three presidents have grown up thinking Israel is real! It was imagined by a non-practicing Jewish writer named Herzl and promoted for half a century until being forced into being in 1948. The project on the whole may be seen a century from now, in the long view of history, as a failure. That nation may even be crushed and forgotten by then! No matter how ignorant and ill-advised I believe it all has been, I nonetheless hold great respect for the amazing leadership of Ben-Gurion and other Israelis over the decades who have managed to establish and develop some kind of government and some kind of life in a totally uninviting land where they are uninvited intruders.
Think of how much better it would all have gone in California!
Personally, I hated the speech given by President Obama at the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee gathering in March. Oh yes, the president was able, because of his intelligence and the capability of his writers, to give another sound and fairly convincing speech that was likely appreciated by the supporters of Israel's sovereignty and will surely be an over-all plus in his run for re-election. What I hated was the fact that he had to deliver it at all.
The words this president and all presidents in the last six decades have been obliged to say about the virtual island called Israel are to me a mystery and the premise itself is indefensible. Our leaders in this country are always required to say words of strong protectionism toward Israel. Israel! A tiny nation carved out of the sands and rocks of the Middle East, surrounded by Syrian, Arabian and Jordanian (and doubtless a few others too obscure to gain notice) peoples and cultures. And much like the briefcase of nuclear power and other responsibilities which is handed off to each new president, in fact part & parcel of that bag of responsibilities, is the protection of Israel. The weight of that powder keg was handed off from Truman to Eisenhower in 1953 and has continued to be handed on down to each new Commander-in-Chief to this day. And each has been measured by his caution and wisdom in handling that explosive.
WHY? Indeed!
Allow me to draw a totally far-fetched analogy here. Let's imagine a playground at a school. That's right - a playground. Silly, I know, but playgrounds have been exigent and weighty in the affairs of men!
The In Crowd - let's use this as the title for the acknowledged strongest group of kids on the playground, encompassing most of the larger and physically more imposing boys who are always prominent in this milieu. The In Crowd has been around and respected, often feared, for quite some time, growing stronger with each challenge to its supremacy. The individual members of this crowd continually change, but the crowd never lessens in its strength or influence over the whole playground. Those smaller cliques that dare to rise up against it are always quelled in such a decisive fashion that they fall away and often dissolve and disappear as a cohesive group that could ever again threaten the In Crowd.
One day an intelligent and persuasive fellow, one of the older and more serious students who is respected and has a devoted but cerebral and harmless following of his own, approaches the leaders of the In Crowd with a request. Could this big, strong group perhaps support the much smaller group who have a big mission and difficult plan to execute? The leaders of the In Crowd listen to a captivating story, well told by this serious older student, about the fact that long ago, before this school existed, even before this whole area was developed and heavily populated, a venerable old man lived in a sad little hut on a small plot of ground. This little old man, let's call him Old Jude Adams, lost track of all his children who had not stayed near him to work his little plot of land. Over many years, they had re-settled elsewhere, with no close ties to the old man or his property. Now, due to much seeking and interesting coincidental events, it had been discovered that a substantial number of the descendants of Mr. Adams wanted to touch base with their ancient forefather's land. This serious student, call him David, acting on behalf of all those distant cousins, had found that old Mr. Adams had left a monument to his legacy. This monument, a strong piece of concrete engraved with the Adams name and inlaid with a small but imposing stone, had been left unnoticed over the centuries by developers, and low and behold, was actually the cornerstone of the current playground activity center. From ancient notes left by Old Jude Adams, the lines of his small plot were easily measured from this monument, and the original property, that should rightfully have been passed on down to all these descendants, now contained the Jungle Jim and other playground equipment area - not any large basketball courts or baseball fields, but that little center of activity that the kids all took for granted, using whenever they pleased.
So here was the request: We, the descendants of Jude Adams, would like to claim this one small area as the place where only we who are all the cousins can play. It should have been ours all along, so we hope that you, the strongest of all the groups of all the kids who frequent this area, will support our decision to make this little plot of our great ancestor, our own private playground. That you will help us put our markings around it and claim it and all rights to its use, for our family only. And further, that you will protect us and our own descendants, allowing us to always play here and keep others out, for all time.
For some strange reason, the leaders of the In Crowd decided they could make that commitment.
Back to today's real world of actual events; after more than six decades, it is not unreasonable to question the whole business of the 1948 world playground and a strange deal that was struck.
Sadly, some of the most devoted present day bright advocates for peaceful solutions to Israel's problems are fine young folks born too recently to question some elements of the way things are. Israel itself was born only three years after I came along, so most of today's American fighters for Israeli concerns have been aware, for all of their lives, only of this great conflict in the Middle East. It's hard for them to grasp the reasons for so much conflict and the hatreds surrounding Israel. Hearing the passionate pleas of intelligent young activists on behalf of Israel and our (American) initiative to stand firm for Israeli sovereignty and safety, makes me a little crazy. People who visit websites like J Street can offer support and join the conversation. Great discussions on television and in meeting halls everywhere can be continued (have been and will be continued) to keep the fight alive and protect Israel at all cost.
Here's my own solution. And since I have no weight in world affairs, my comments will not be measured, (therefore I can toss out any cockamamie idea I please), but here is what should have been done when the United States so desired to assist (a fundamentally good desire) the Jewish People back in 1948 to obtain a homeland. We could have selected one and deeded it to them! Why didn't we give these people we felt obligated to protect, a piece of ground we actually controlled - somewhere more desirable (and safer) than that harsh landscape east of the Mediterranean Sea.
How about Camp Pendleton? Our government had already commandeered that large chunk of California ocean-side property in the war years to use as a training facility for our fighting soldiers and Marines. By the late forties, the war was over and that land could readily have been returned to good use in the art of living rather than preparing for more future killing. Yes, the area is only a fraction of the total size of the current territory called Israel, but it's probably close to the amount of desirable and arable real estate contained in that whole Middle East region. And to me, it has always seemed a crime that any part of the beauty of the coastline of California is devoted to the ugliness and cruelty of war.
So, you say a little more land would have been required for a truly thoughtful gift to our friends? We could have thrown in Santa Catalina Island! Just a breeze of a boat ride, maybe forty miles from the Pendleton coastline, or a very brief commuter plane trip away. You say, but it wouldn't have been like returning to Jerusalem! True. But really, anybody can admit, no matter what mythology is involved, that a city itself cannot be holy. At least, none built by humans. You may believe deeply in a New Jerusalem to come, but that one supposedly will be built by a supreme being and made of pure gold! Putting that aside, think of what a fabulous and distinctive dedicated city could have been built there in the natural beauty of Catalina without even disturbing the small group of existing local citizens at that time. By spreading out over the whole beautiful island, folks could live far better than they do while shoe-horned into the tiny center of Jewish life in the original Jerusalem.
This could all be done still today and we could call a halt to the madness of our obligation to protect eight million people struggling (and terrified) to live in the middle of the Middle Eastern Muslim world. Giving up that part of the commitment to our military preparedness would surely offset the need to keep open this one training facility of Pendleton (one of several in California alone) and the whole arrangement would beautify and honor this part of our planet. Imagine what those creative and hard-working people could do here!
As for the Catalina Island part of the deal, the four thousand citizens of Avalon would very likely vote to approve the take-over by Israelis who could make more of the area than has been accomplished there in the past. After all, the island is accustomed to historic changes and extremely few of these current inhabitants were there in 1948 when the island was most ripe for the change. Tom Robbins who was deeded the island in the early 1800s did little with it and the Banning family went broke trying to make a go of it a century later. Bill Wrigley did okay with his (majority) ownership of the place and for a few decades the Chicago Cubs trained there. But basically, the island sits quietly, invitingly, off the coast near the heavily populated cities of Los Angeles and Orange County communities, and those of us fortunate enough to get away now and then (I finally did so in 2010) can hop a boat to Avalon.
Of course, if the current residents were not on the whole in favor of the deal, they could easily be convinced of its workability. Current residents could be left to live exactly as they do now but could attend to their tourism business with the cooperation of strong business-minded Jewish leaders while watching as the new immigrant population develops the entire Island into the flourishing paradise it could be.
Naturally, anyone reading this will want to pass it off as strictly satire, but please don't. I'm as serious as a six-day war! The whole foolish concept of the playground story above is completely appropriate. The wildly implausible story of a people having some kind of "forever rights" to a homeland because of a fantasy plan of some kind involving promised land being handed down from a phantom being to a long-ago ancestor, was patently ridiculous as a cause for action on the part of a powerful western government in 1948. How did Zionism even gain any credence here in the U.S. back in the World War II era? Two simple facts existed: Everyone with any humanity at that time, decently and rightfully felt compassion for a race of people almost destroyed by a despot; millions of western Christians added to their human compassion a guilt factor. They shared the mythological connection to that original phantom in the heavens and felt that the race that begat their hero, Jesus, should not be erased from the Earth. They were also (as are fanatical believers still today) under the weight of biblical verses (variously interpreted) that prophesy some concept of Jews being IN JERUSALEM at the (longed-for) time of Christ's return. So they launched into an attempt to manipulate synchronicity!
The entire frustrating malaise of the Middle Eastern dilemma was set up and established as an in-perpetuity obligation incumbent upon all U.S. citizens and their political leaders to follow after 1948. So today, our president has to speak to the problem with solidarity, with full bluster and show of strength to the world on behalf of that small stolen piece of almost empty land in an unfriendly and dangerous part of the planet. He has to do so as Ike was obligated to do immediately after the theft was perpetrated and the borders were drawn; JFK was required to do the same, and so has every president since. And now, the most recent three presidents have grown up thinking Israel is real! It was imagined by a non-practicing Jewish writer named Herzl and promoted for half a century until being forced into being in 1948. The project on the whole may be seen a century from now, in the long view of history, as a failure. That nation may even be crushed and forgotten by then! No matter how ignorant and ill-advised I believe it all has been, I nonetheless hold great respect for the amazing leadership of Ben-Gurion and other Israelis over the decades who have managed to establish and develop some kind of government and some kind of life in a totally uninviting land where they are uninvited intruders.
Think of how much better it would all have gone in California!
Monday, March 5, 2012
GOLF
As I begin composing my thoughts here on Sunday, March 4th (I've always liked the idea of some big thing happening in my world on this date - a day I can march forth!), Rory McIlroy is beginning his final round of a tournament in Florida. He has the lead by two strokes and if he can win today, he will be named the #1 player in the world of men's golf. Now this does NOT give me any thing to march forth about, but this definitely IS a big thing in my world. Why? Simply because I love the game.
The above information and admissions of my personal tastes in sports mean absolutely nothing, nada, zero to many folks. In fact, I have heard there are quite a few people out there who do not even consider golf a sport! These would be people who, if they ever were willing to try it, would find it frustratingly difficult to play the game. I've also heard it repeated that about 80% of those who play the game, even on some kind of regular basis, never post lower than a 100 score in an eighteen-hole round. I often wonder whether I would have continued an interest in golf beyond a year or so had I not managed to do better than that statistic. Now that I've enjoyed forty-four years and a small amount of success in the game, I can speak about it both physically and philosophically.
To those folks who have never tried to play golf but are sure they would never want to play it, I simply say, To bad! I think you're missing out on something great in life. To those who denigrate the game, allow me to blatantly praise it and state my reasons for the praise. I'll start by hitting back!
We've all heard it said that it takes all kinds to make a world, and that appears to be the case. Would I enjoy living in a world where golf was respected above all other games and where various other sports such as pugilism and auto racing were either unheard of or had been banned from societies when they first broke out, in the way cock-fighting and dog-fighting have now been banned? Probably so. You see, my personal opinion is that boxing is not a sport! Are men (and many women as well) who get into a boxing ring, far better examples of physical conditioning than I am - or ever was in my stronger days? And could they kick my ass with ease? Absolutely. But why? How did an activity that involves a basic aim of seeing one person beat another to senselessness (a knock-out being the highest hope and goal, as I understand the event), ever gain acceptance in a civilized society?
Now auto racing is obviously not in the same class of the vulgar violence that pugilists inhabit. But seriously, calling it sport to drive around a track at ever greater speeds? Calling a driver an athlete because he is crazy enough to push down on the accelerator after surpassing speeds most of us find frightening? What athleticism does that require?
Now correct me if you can, but I strongly suspect that practically 100% of the folks who enjoy watching a fight, expecting (hoping!) to see a sudden crushing blow that causes an opponent to fall unconscious, will also find it exciting to watch bright cars flashing around a track, knowing that within a tiny particle of a second, a mistake or obstruction (even a tiny pebble) can bring on a fiery or other spectacular crash. Then, of course, because these fans are civilized(!), they must go through the nail-biting wait to see whether their driving hero emerges unharmed from the wreckage. Does this even make sense - seriously? I don't know whether any similar (nail-biting) concern is ever shown for the losing boxer who lies lifeless for a while with a concussion. After all, he IS a loser!
Those who are prone to get into these activities, either as participants or spectators, are a mystery to me. I've always been something of an athlete (minimally capable) and an adventurer (hands-on as much as possible and always in my imagination), but it seems to me that so many less dangerous and destructive opportunities present themselves to us that we need not go to great extremes in order to be exhilarated. Yet I see there are television shows about extreme sports, and there would be no market for that kind of show if there weren't lots of people crazy enough to think these are fun. But I do realize, under the above heading of ...all kinds to make a world, that each of us has a vast menu of potentially pleasing activities from which to choose. I've tried a few things that were beyond my natural skill level. I've gone down some tough intermediate ski runs; the wrecking of a knee on one of those prevented me from moving on up to the black diamond runs. (Probably a case of my knee saving my neck!) I've enjoyed some fairly high-speed water ski outings, never quite mastering the slalom but feeling a little pain from some of the tumbles while trying. I've suffered the spills from bikes and once from a mid-sized motor cycle. Hell, I even felt some pain and sudden fear of a permanent crippling injury while challenging myself with ever-higher jumps and flips on a trampoline! And still today, I haven't given up hope on one day jumping from a mountain top with a hang glider strapped to my body.
So it's not as though I don't have a small grasp on the desire for the thrill of physically demanding and dangerous activities available to us humans. We all must draw the line for ourselves - the line between fun and disaster. Many folks are simply willing to push farther toward the disaster potential than I am. Fine! It's their decision. And they will apparently always have a ready audience when they go to the brink of death. I might watch a little, but often I prefer to even stop watching others who take more chances than I am willing to take. To me, there is no fun or thrill in seeing someone fall, get hit, defy death but just barely. It's all part of my make-up, the derivation of which I cannot explain, that causes me to reside in the Neutral Zone. I have always been quite practical and conservative in my actions but generally very liberal of mind.
So, back to GOLF. This game is not only sport, it is the ultimate sport, in my opinion. The perfect way to compete for money, fame - or whatever one gets by winning. But it is also, as I said to someone just yesterday, a game in which winning can even be defined as one pleases. To me, as a senior citizen, I consider it a WIN when I manage to play an eighteen-hole round without limping home under severe joint pain. Scores? Not important - well, not AS important. I still like winning the little matches within matches we play as a men's club in my neighborhood. But my point is, I never ever consider that I have LOST anything if some other fellow picks up two bucks for low net or closest to the pin or any other little prizes we play for. My life enjoys rather frequent wins because I choose to see it that way.
But look at the wonderful specifics of the game of golf. For one (huge!) item, there is no one playing defense! The course is your real opponent and every player has the equal chance to manage the course using his own strengths, ending with a score that indicates how well he did that management. This allows men to be very competitive while still being gentlemen. They often compliment or high-five one another for good shots within the playing of a match. In fact, in golf it's good for everyone to see others hit some great shots.
For another major point, perhaps my favorite, the sport is completely an individual effort. Sure, some team sports are fun and I've enjoyed both playing and watching some of those immensely. But for a professional who makes a living at a sport, just think of what it means to never need to depend on someone else or several others for your own success. Of course, one must be able to take the lack of success with a cool head because he cannot blame anyone else for any failure. You may point out that Tennis also offers this individual component, but the difference here is that the tennis court is not the opponent for you as a player; the other player is a direct obstacle, playing defense to your best shots.
I've heard people (non-golfers) say how simple it must be to hit that little ball just lying there still, or even set up on a tee, while real athletes like baseball players, have to hit a ball being hurled at 90 miles-per-hour or faster at times. And you'd be right in saying most of us cannot do that! But here's a challenge: I submit that if you could put the best six hitters in the major leagues out on a championship golf course, then afterward selecting the best three holes each of them played over the eighteen, that their combined score will not best almost any pro golfer playing alone! I would love it of some crazy match like this could be set up, but I won't hold my breath. Admittedly, I cannot hit a baseball. Failed in Little League! But I would not hesitate to walk onto a golf course with most any good-hitting 25-yr-old baseball player today, and at 67, half crippled with various old joint and back problems, I could still give the young man a run for his money!
And right there's another major point. We can watch professional golfers today, earning money in a senior league, some of them even labeled "Super Seniors" such as Arnie Palmer. Those fortunate enough to maintain some good health can go on competing at an amazingly capable level even into advanced years. Golf invites the use of natural ability and practiced skill as well as a cunning adapting of that skill as we age. How about that senior NFL? Scary to think of 80-yr-old former football players, most of whom had to give up the gridiron by their early thirties, suiting up and running(!) out there to slam into each other again. Same with basketball, of course, and most sports. You probably don't want to witness aging boxers get into the ring to finish the job of brain destruction begun in their youth. Even you racing fans would probably not want to see Mario and A.J. head back out onto the track - although I can't assume that. If you're hoping to see spectacular crashes, old farts behind the wheel can do those with class! Typically only one crash each.
That's it for now; you're invited to come to my place and try a round of my favorite game!
Well, Rory did it! It's Monday now and he is probably walking around pinching himself to realize he is the world's top golfer. Good show, young Mr. McIlroy! This 22-yr old from Northern Ireland ascends to his position by passing in the rankings (among others), two Englishmen and a German who have recently held the #1 title. This foreign fact will be addressed in a future post.
**Added for your entertainment: If you like the humor of Robin Williams and are not tender of ear for the raw language, here's his take on the Old Game.
The above information and admissions of my personal tastes in sports mean absolutely nothing, nada, zero to many folks. In fact, I have heard there are quite a few people out there who do not even consider golf a sport! These would be people who, if they ever were willing to try it, would find it frustratingly difficult to play the game. I've also heard it repeated that about 80% of those who play the game, even on some kind of regular basis, never post lower than a 100 score in an eighteen-hole round. I often wonder whether I would have continued an interest in golf beyond a year or so had I not managed to do better than that statistic. Now that I've enjoyed forty-four years and a small amount of success in the game, I can speak about it both physically and philosophically.
To those folks who have never tried to play golf but are sure they would never want to play it, I simply say, To bad! I think you're missing out on something great in life. To those who denigrate the game, allow me to blatantly praise it and state my reasons for the praise. I'll start by hitting back!
We've all heard it said that it takes all kinds to make a world, and that appears to be the case. Would I enjoy living in a world where golf was respected above all other games and where various other sports such as pugilism and auto racing were either unheard of or had been banned from societies when they first broke out, in the way cock-fighting and dog-fighting have now been banned? Probably so. You see, my personal opinion is that boxing is not a sport! Are men (and many women as well) who get into a boxing ring, far better examples of physical conditioning than I am - or ever was in my stronger days? And could they kick my ass with ease? Absolutely. But why? How did an activity that involves a basic aim of seeing one person beat another to senselessness (a knock-out being the highest hope and goal, as I understand the event), ever gain acceptance in a civilized society?
Now auto racing is obviously not in the same class of the vulgar violence that pugilists inhabit. But seriously, calling it sport to drive around a track at ever greater speeds? Calling a driver an athlete because he is crazy enough to push down on the accelerator after surpassing speeds most of us find frightening? What athleticism does that require?
Now correct me if you can, but I strongly suspect that practically 100% of the folks who enjoy watching a fight, expecting (hoping!) to see a sudden crushing blow that causes an opponent to fall unconscious, will also find it exciting to watch bright cars flashing around a track, knowing that within a tiny particle of a second, a mistake or obstruction (even a tiny pebble) can bring on a fiery or other spectacular crash. Then, of course, because these fans are civilized(!), they must go through the nail-biting wait to see whether their driving hero emerges unharmed from the wreckage. Does this even make sense - seriously? I don't know whether any similar (nail-biting) concern is ever shown for the losing boxer who lies lifeless for a while with a concussion. After all, he IS a loser!
Those who are prone to get into these activities, either as participants or spectators, are a mystery to me. I've always been something of an athlete (minimally capable) and an adventurer (hands-on as much as possible and always in my imagination), but it seems to me that so many less dangerous and destructive opportunities present themselves to us that we need not go to great extremes in order to be exhilarated. Yet I see there are television shows about extreme sports, and there would be no market for that kind of show if there weren't lots of people crazy enough to think these are fun. But I do realize, under the above heading of ...all kinds to make a world, that each of us has a vast menu of potentially pleasing activities from which to choose. I've tried a few things that were beyond my natural skill level. I've gone down some tough intermediate ski runs; the wrecking of a knee on one of those prevented me from moving on up to the black diamond runs. (Probably a case of my knee saving my neck!) I've enjoyed some fairly high-speed water ski outings, never quite mastering the slalom but feeling a little pain from some of the tumbles while trying. I've suffered the spills from bikes and once from a mid-sized motor cycle. Hell, I even felt some pain and sudden fear of a permanent crippling injury while challenging myself with ever-higher jumps and flips on a trampoline! And still today, I haven't given up hope on one day jumping from a mountain top with a hang glider strapped to my body.
So it's not as though I don't have a small grasp on the desire for the thrill of physically demanding and dangerous activities available to us humans. We all must draw the line for ourselves - the line between fun and disaster. Many folks are simply willing to push farther toward the disaster potential than I am. Fine! It's their decision. And they will apparently always have a ready audience when they go to the brink of death. I might watch a little, but often I prefer to even stop watching others who take more chances than I am willing to take. To me, there is no fun or thrill in seeing someone fall, get hit, defy death but just barely. It's all part of my make-up, the derivation of which I cannot explain, that causes me to reside in the Neutral Zone. I have always been quite practical and conservative in my actions but generally very liberal of mind.
So, back to GOLF. This game is not only sport, it is the ultimate sport, in my opinion. The perfect way to compete for money, fame - or whatever one gets by winning. But it is also, as I said to someone just yesterday, a game in which winning can even be defined as one pleases. To me, as a senior citizen, I consider it a WIN when I manage to play an eighteen-hole round without limping home under severe joint pain. Scores? Not important - well, not AS important. I still like winning the little matches within matches we play as a men's club in my neighborhood. But my point is, I never ever consider that I have LOST anything if some other fellow picks up two bucks for low net or closest to the pin or any other little prizes we play for. My life enjoys rather frequent wins because I choose to see it that way.
But look at the wonderful specifics of the game of golf. For one (huge!) item, there is no one playing defense! The course is your real opponent and every player has the equal chance to manage the course using his own strengths, ending with a score that indicates how well he did that management. This allows men to be very competitive while still being gentlemen. They often compliment or high-five one another for good shots within the playing of a match. In fact, in golf it's good for everyone to see others hit some great shots.
For another major point, perhaps my favorite, the sport is completely an individual effort. Sure, some team sports are fun and I've enjoyed both playing and watching some of those immensely. But for a professional who makes a living at a sport, just think of what it means to never need to depend on someone else or several others for your own success. Of course, one must be able to take the lack of success with a cool head because he cannot blame anyone else for any failure. You may point out that Tennis also offers this individual component, but the difference here is that the tennis court is not the opponent for you as a player; the other player is a direct obstacle, playing defense to your best shots.
I've heard people (non-golfers) say how simple it must be to hit that little ball just lying there still, or even set up on a tee, while real athletes like baseball players, have to hit a ball being hurled at 90 miles-per-hour or faster at times. And you'd be right in saying most of us cannot do that! But here's a challenge: I submit that if you could put the best six hitters in the major leagues out on a championship golf course, then afterward selecting the best three holes each of them played over the eighteen, that their combined score will not best almost any pro golfer playing alone! I would love it of some crazy match like this could be set up, but I won't hold my breath. Admittedly, I cannot hit a baseball. Failed in Little League! But I would not hesitate to walk onto a golf course with most any good-hitting 25-yr-old baseball player today, and at 67, half crippled with various old joint and back problems, I could still give the young man a run for his money!
And right there's another major point. We can watch professional golfers today, earning money in a senior league, some of them even labeled "Super Seniors" such as Arnie Palmer. Those fortunate enough to maintain some good health can go on competing at an amazingly capable level even into advanced years. Golf invites the use of natural ability and practiced skill as well as a cunning adapting of that skill as we age. How about that senior NFL? Scary to think of 80-yr-old former football players, most of whom had to give up the gridiron by their early thirties, suiting up and running(!) out there to slam into each other again. Same with basketball, of course, and most sports. You probably don't want to witness aging boxers get into the ring to finish the job of brain destruction begun in their youth. Even you racing fans would probably not want to see Mario and A.J. head back out onto the track - although I can't assume that. If you're hoping to see spectacular crashes, old farts behind the wheel can do those with class! Typically only one crash each.
That's it for now; you're invited to come to my place and try a round of my favorite game!
Well, Rory did it! It's Monday now and he is probably walking around pinching himself to realize he is the world's top golfer. Good show, young Mr. McIlroy! This 22-yr old from Northern Ireland ascends to his position by passing in the rankings (among others), two Englishmen and a German who have recently held the #1 title. This foreign fact will be addressed in a future post.
**Added for your entertainment: If you like the humor of Robin Williams and are not tender of ear for the raw language, here's his take on the Old Game.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Stock Market - Crock Market!
For a few years I have watched the improving numbers on the big board and experienced warm fuzzy feelings for the recovery of our national economy. No more! Watching the incredible stock market numbers lately is causing me more and more frustration.
For all those historic years of our awareness of the fact that a rising stock market meant better economic health for the nation and for us all, perhaps I was simply duped. Or perhaps the nation really was experiencing good fiscal health back in the late 20th century when those numbers rose gradually through the five-hundreds, the seven-hundreds and after many years finally topped 1000 for the first time. That was then, ... But the news this week showing that 13,000 has been topped does nothing for my confidence in any national fiscal health. It's quite the opposite feeling.
The rising stock market today means only one thing: the very wealthy are piling up more wealth! There is absolutely no evidence that any benefit of the rising numbers on the big board will trickle down to little people - the general citizenry of our rich nation. The richness is being enjoyed by the rich - period!
I'm no financial or economic expert in any way, so someone should be quite able to talk me down. Please try! Just prove to me that my thoughts on the matter are wrong and that our great nation is becoming substantially greater by the rising stock market numbers. I do want to know what it means. What I see is that our general populace is suffering about as much as we were back in 2008 when things had all gone plunging south on the big board. Yet today the large financial institutions and other huge corporations are raking in the largest profits in the history of our economy. And I suppose I am expected to rejoice in this fact because now, with the Supreme Court's wisdom and gracious decision in Citizens United, it means that those giant corporations and filthy-rich CEOs can pour more millions into the Super PACs for political candidates and surely bring about better government. Right! The ignorance and corruption flow unabated. THAT is what trickles down! We all know what runs down-hill, don't we?
If this next national election, not only of the president but of the representatives sent to our national congress, does not clearly come down fairly on the side of the 99% as opposed to the wealthy 1%, then my only conclusion can be that vast numbers of (otherwise nice and perhaps even good) people in our country are willingly ignorant. Are they purposely supporting the corruption, the corporate greed and the sickening unfairness of the system? If the huge piles of money poured out by the super-rich are able to buy enough ads to simply dull and overwhelm the masses, drugging them with drivel and drowning them in dreams of possible future wealth of their own, then we will surely go down the drain as a democracy.
Many signs exist to show that people in all walks of life are confused and unable to readily define their frustrations. One of my earlier posts approached (with little space and no studied expertise on the matter) the concept that the religious among us tend to fall under the thrall of money and power, and do so almost naturally because of their long devotion to invisible powers. [I'm still waiting for comments, of any type, on that whole epiphany.] At least the person of a Mitt Romney, even with his abysmal lack of grasp on the plight of the common man, is standing there as a visible reminder to folks of moderate means that real wealth is possible. Is there some wishful reasoning that the mere closeness(!) to someone who hordes billions of U.S. dollars (no matter where the dollars are stashed) will bring us all nearer the potential of wealth for ourselves? Pretty sad, in my opinion.
Probably the most vived example of the way the above twisted thinking diminishes us, is shown in oblique views of reality offered by many commentators and writers. It seems that people who observe a leader who appears to be devotedly and determinedly trying to help the masses, somehow see that effort as something sinister or depraved. Something socialistic! Evil!
An interesting article appeared in the Painful Truth blog [Aug 17, 2011 - Is Obama Right?] that left me scratching my head. Later I figured out the reason I felt I was missing something. I was!
Near the end of the rambling article, author Ralph Haulk summed up a bit with this paragraph:
Marx then proposed “centralization of credit in the hands of the state”. A central banking system. This would create what Marx called a permanent revolution. Equality would become the passion of the masses, and the masses would never be satisfied until all barriers are broken down, and everyone is equal. Where all are equal, all are “alienated” from the basic goals and needs, such as property, that once made them individuals. Humankind becomes subject to planning and re-distribution. What was “God” if not an ancient tyrant who brought more war and hate than love and peace? Religion is the opium of the masses.
It's a minor point that "opiate" was the word used in the Marx writing, not "opium" as above, but it is indicative of the common alterations (at times, critical ones) so often used when articles get produced. A conscientious effort made by Austin Cline picks up far more of the direct writing, and clarifying perhaps more of the intent, of Marx himself. Cline's coverage of the subject actually convinces me that Karl Marx was not nearly as skeptical of religion as am I.
What I was missing while struggling to understand the direction Haulk's article was heading, was the fact that the writer is apparently still under the influence of a supreme being concept. It's amazing to me that an obviously intelligent fellow who was able at the age of twenty to see through Armstrongism (and one could reasonably assume, the cult business in general) and later impress his superiors in the Marine Corps with his clarity on the subject of rights and freedoms, has not long-since kicked the habit of belief in phantoms. But, be that as it may, he still should be able to avoid the pitfalls of far-fetched associations. I will hasten to add here that this man has put vast amounts of time and effort into studying economics and many other disciplines - all of which causes me to respect him for strength of character. But as with many highly educated folks, it's quite possible that the very basis of some of the study is pointless. Like the degree of Doctor of Divinity always makes me cringe with pity and laugh with irony. I pity anyone who will waste a life studying fine points of great concern over something that seems to have no foundation whatsoever; I laugh because I can never shake the funny idea that the person has earned a doctorate in making white chocolate fudge!
I do not find Mr. Haulk laughable. He seems in fact to be erudite and extremely well-versed on the subject of economics - far beyond my capacity to understand it all. But even if he has the best ideas to ever come down the pike and some kind of plan to fix the problem, a plan which he doesn't clearly articulate, he still would have no more chance of getting it into action than do those folks at The Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement who do have great plans. Or the writers from Star Trek who seemed to handle an intergalactic economy with panache. The real troubling thing for me about Mr. Haulk's article was his blatant plastering of the name of Obama in the title. Simply a means to attract attention, I suppose. The name doesn't appear later, nor does any connection to Mr. Obama get explained through the long article. The author admits in the first few words that the writing has not much to do with Obama, but to my thinking, the attachment of that name was intellectually dishonest and utterly misleading. Worse, there seemed to be the subliminal intent to blame all the ills of our economic system on our current president. That's not only preposterous, it's hateful. (And obviously wrong.) The writer even slips in an imagined link between our president and a communist concept. Makes me question Mr. Haulk's motives altogether and distrust his ability to reason. Yes, I've already admitted he seems to possess great intelligence; I merely question his exercise of it.
Very likely, the above mentioned writer will fall in line with millions of others this November and align himself with a wealthy aristocratic type who would almost certainly continue the trend of raping the masses. Far better it would be to vote for a presidential leader who works hard at lifting the masses out of the mire. But perhaps only we devout Independents can actually see the clear difference.
Meanwhile, the market continues to make Romney and others even more unimaginably rich while you and I struggle to pay the bills and buy gasoline. And there you go - that Obama character is going to have to be defeated so we can have lower gas prices. Right! Strange how foolishness can pass for meaningful discourse and plans for progress can be held suspect through fear of the unknown.
NOTE: I have rushed back here to add something highly worthwhile. Kagin at freethought blog posted an article on Sunday that just came to my attention today. His piece goes far beyond my subject, in a way, but it more than underscores my fundamental concerns. Since it is beyond my poor power to add..., I will simply ask that you check out this terrific post for yourself. markman
For all those historic years of our awareness of the fact that a rising stock market meant better economic health for the nation and for us all, perhaps I was simply duped. Or perhaps the nation really was experiencing good fiscal health back in the late 20th century when those numbers rose gradually through the five-hundreds, the seven-hundreds and after many years finally topped 1000 for the first time. That was then, ... But the news this week showing that 13,000 has been topped does nothing for my confidence in any national fiscal health. It's quite the opposite feeling.
The rising stock market today means only one thing: the very wealthy are piling up more wealth! There is absolutely no evidence that any benefit of the rising numbers on the big board will trickle down to little people - the general citizenry of our rich nation. The richness is being enjoyed by the rich - period!
I'm no financial or economic expert in any way, so someone should be quite able to talk me down. Please try! Just prove to me that my thoughts on the matter are wrong and that our great nation is becoming substantially greater by the rising stock market numbers. I do want to know what it means. What I see is that our general populace is suffering about as much as we were back in 2008 when things had all gone plunging south on the big board. Yet today the large financial institutions and other huge corporations are raking in the largest profits in the history of our economy. And I suppose I am expected to rejoice in this fact because now, with the Supreme Court's wisdom and gracious decision in Citizens United, it means that those giant corporations and filthy-rich CEOs can pour more millions into the Super PACs for political candidates and surely bring about better government. Right! The ignorance and corruption flow unabated. THAT is what trickles down! We all know what runs down-hill, don't we?
If this next national election, not only of the president but of the representatives sent to our national congress, does not clearly come down fairly on the side of the 99% as opposed to the wealthy 1%, then my only conclusion can be that vast numbers of (otherwise nice and perhaps even good) people in our country are willingly ignorant. Are they purposely supporting the corruption, the corporate greed and the sickening unfairness of the system? If the huge piles of money poured out by the super-rich are able to buy enough ads to simply dull and overwhelm the masses, drugging them with drivel and drowning them in dreams of possible future wealth of their own, then we will surely go down the drain as a democracy.
Many signs exist to show that people in all walks of life are confused and unable to readily define their frustrations. One of my earlier posts approached (with little space and no studied expertise on the matter) the concept that the religious among us tend to fall under the thrall of money and power, and do so almost naturally because of their long devotion to invisible powers. [I'm still waiting for comments, of any type, on that whole epiphany.] At least the person of a Mitt Romney, even with his abysmal lack of grasp on the plight of the common man, is standing there as a visible reminder to folks of moderate means that real wealth is possible. Is there some wishful reasoning that the mere closeness(!) to someone who hordes billions of U.S. dollars (no matter where the dollars are stashed) will bring us all nearer the potential of wealth for ourselves? Pretty sad, in my opinion.
Probably the most vived example of the way the above twisted thinking diminishes us, is shown in oblique views of reality offered by many commentators and writers. It seems that people who observe a leader who appears to be devotedly and determinedly trying to help the masses, somehow see that effort as something sinister or depraved. Something socialistic! Evil!
An interesting article appeared in the Painful Truth blog [Aug 17, 2011 - Is Obama Right?] that left me scratching my head. Later I figured out the reason I felt I was missing something. I was!
Near the end of the rambling article, author Ralph Haulk summed up a bit with this paragraph:
Marx then proposed “centralization of credit in the hands of the state”. A central banking system. This would create what Marx called a permanent revolution. Equality would become the passion of the masses, and the masses would never be satisfied until all barriers are broken down, and everyone is equal. Where all are equal, all are “alienated” from the basic goals and needs, such as property, that once made them individuals. Humankind becomes subject to planning and re-distribution. What was “God” if not an ancient tyrant who brought more war and hate than love and peace? Religion is the opium of the masses.
It's a minor point that "opiate" was the word used in the Marx writing, not "opium" as above, but it is indicative of the common alterations (at times, critical ones) so often used when articles get produced. A conscientious effort made by Austin Cline picks up far more of the direct writing, and clarifying perhaps more of the intent, of Marx himself. Cline's coverage of the subject actually convinces me that Karl Marx was not nearly as skeptical of religion as am I.
What I was missing while struggling to understand the direction Haulk's article was heading, was the fact that the writer is apparently still under the influence of a supreme being concept. It's amazing to me that an obviously intelligent fellow who was able at the age of twenty to see through Armstrongism (and one could reasonably assume, the cult business in general) and later impress his superiors in the Marine Corps with his clarity on the subject of rights and freedoms, has not long-since kicked the habit of belief in phantoms. But, be that as it may, he still should be able to avoid the pitfalls of far-fetched associations. I will hasten to add here that this man has put vast amounts of time and effort into studying economics and many other disciplines - all of which causes me to respect him for strength of character. But as with many highly educated folks, it's quite possible that the very basis of some of the study is pointless. Like the degree of Doctor of Divinity always makes me cringe with pity and laugh with irony. I pity anyone who will waste a life studying fine points of great concern over something that seems to have no foundation whatsoever; I laugh because I can never shake the funny idea that the person has earned a doctorate in making white chocolate fudge!
I do not find Mr. Haulk laughable. He seems in fact to be erudite and extremely well-versed on the subject of economics - far beyond my capacity to understand it all. But even if he has the best ideas to ever come down the pike and some kind of plan to fix the problem, a plan which he doesn't clearly articulate, he still would have no more chance of getting it into action than do those folks at The Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement who do have great plans. Or the writers from Star Trek who seemed to handle an intergalactic economy with panache. The real troubling thing for me about Mr. Haulk's article was his blatant plastering of the name of Obama in the title. Simply a means to attract attention, I suppose. The name doesn't appear later, nor does any connection to Mr. Obama get explained through the long article. The author admits in the first few words that the writing has not much to do with Obama, but to my thinking, the attachment of that name was intellectually dishonest and utterly misleading. Worse, there seemed to be the subliminal intent to blame all the ills of our economic system on our current president. That's not only preposterous, it's hateful. (And obviously wrong.) The writer even slips in an imagined link between our president and a communist concept. Makes me question Mr. Haulk's motives altogether and distrust his ability to reason. Yes, I've already admitted he seems to possess great intelligence; I merely question his exercise of it.
Very likely, the above mentioned writer will fall in line with millions of others this November and align himself with a wealthy aristocratic type who would almost certainly continue the trend of raping the masses. Far better it would be to vote for a presidential leader who works hard at lifting the masses out of the mire. But perhaps only we devout Independents can actually see the clear difference.
Meanwhile, the market continues to make Romney and others even more unimaginably rich while you and I struggle to pay the bills and buy gasoline. And there you go - that Obama character is going to have to be defeated so we can have lower gas prices. Right! Strange how foolishness can pass for meaningful discourse and plans for progress can be held suspect through fear of the unknown.
NOTE: I have rushed back here to add something highly worthwhile. Kagin at freethought blog posted an article on Sunday that just came to my attention today. His piece goes far beyond my subject, in a way, but it more than underscores my fundamental concerns. Since it is beyond my poor power to add..., I will simply ask that you check out this terrific post for yourself. markman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)