THOSE BARBARIC EUROPEANS! Always fighting among themselves. thank heavens we americans are separated from them by a vast pond, otherwise we might be dragged into their senseless wars.
That attitude was typical of a patriotic american before world war two. Its amazing how littlw we americans used to love war. Our army and navy used to be small in times of peace, and we used to brag about their smallness, and our love of peace. Believe it or not, it was standard, before world war two, for the united states to maintain a small army and navy. Now there are no times of peace; america is permanently at was, with somebody, somewhere, anywhere will do, our war of the month.
Then came 1950, and Harry Truman's decision to keep up the size of the military leftover from the war, and the National Security Act of 1950, and the national security state we have had ever since. Senator Vandenberg of michigan said to Truman "if you sant to spend all this money on the military, you'd better scare the hell out of the american people." And thus we did, and still do.
"The Russinas are coming! The Russians are coming!" went out the hue and cry, the alarm sounding from the hallowed corporate halls of washington, to the most remote regions of the fruited plain. Hint; the russians never were coming, never could come, and never thought to. IN 1945, with twenty million dead, all cities and factories badly damaged or destroyed, they had to stay where they were, in the vacuum of eastern europe, to rest and rebuild. That takes a while. They're still doing it today. Don't hold your breath, the russinas will never get here. We can come out from beneath our wooden school desks now.
Top military brass used to have little influence in the nation's capitol. Corporations which manufactured the weapons of war were often called "merchants of death". America was a peace loving nation, with a memory, and a conscience.
Now, the arms industry is one of the few which makes really big profits. they profit so greatly that they can afford to purchase political office for people who, when elected, keep their promises to scare the hell out of the american people, and to increase public expenditures for weaponry. These weapons are not yet paid for; we have decided to permit our grandchildren the honor.
The corporate controlled media feeds us fear and violence, to seduce and frighten us into accepting and embracing a permanent wartime economy and security state. Throw in enough sex to make sure the violence and weapons seem plenty sexy. that always works.
At heart, the american people are tired of the mighty global empire they have had handed to them, but they know what to do about it, other than to turn on television, and turn off all thoughts about the tiger thay have by the tail.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Avoiding National Embarrassment
IN MANY CONSERVATIVE, southern, disunited states, state legislatures have passed laws greatly restricting abortion rights, and every one of these laws is clearly unconstitutional. The question is:"why"? Why pass the unpassable? Strangely enough, many, if not most of the conservative legislators who promulgated this lunacy know damned good and well that they are indeed unconstitutional, you have to hope so. they aint stupid, are they?
They acted out of sheer spite. Roe vs Wade allows abortions until fetal viability, which is defined as the end of the second trimester. Conservatives have always regarded roe v wade, perhaps properly so, the epitome of barbarity, and gleefully remind us over and over again, to vindicate their disgust, that since january 1973 fifty million american babies have been murdered.
Still unsatisfied, they have flouted the constitution, state by erring state. Arkansas, as southern conservative as they come, has outlawed abortions beyond the first trimester! A federal judge has alrady set this ludicrous law aside, essentially saying that since it will never pass constitutional muster, why bother?
All these new state anti-abortion laws will eventually work their way through the appellate courts, will be struck down, and at last one of them will be decided by the supreme court, thus deciding them all.
The current high court, though at least half conservative, will almost certainly uphold the appellate courts in strinking down these laws, because really it has no choice, so certian is their blatant unconstitutionality. the vote might even be something other than five four; surely at least one conservative justice will come to his or her senses, as they sometimes do, and must in this instance.
But again, you never know. it aint over, until...whenever...you never know when, where, and how inanely the murky vicissitudes of conservative thought will take this great nation of diverse ideals.
Another case in point: the U.S. house of representatives recently repealed obamacare, if you can believe it, which perhaps you cannot. the senseless, useless futility of this spiteful group temper tantrum is reflected in the fact that nobody noticed it, nobody cares, and the vote was only briefly mentioned in the media, not because of any liberal media bias, but because our discerning media mercifully wishes to avoid national embarrassment before the entire world. <whew>
But pouty, juvenile , vindictive behavior never entirely fades from the human psyche, even in advanced, alleged adulthood. I plan to use the following excuse: our country is young, and is still learning, as are our political leaders. That sometimes worked when I was in trouble as a child, and maybe it will this time. One can hope.
They acted out of sheer spite. Roe vs Wade allows abortions until fetal viability, which is defined as the end of the second trimester. Conservatives have always regarded roe v wade, perhaps properly so, the epitome of barbarity, and gleefully remind us over and over again, to vindicate their disgust, that since january 1973 fifty million american babies have been murdered.
Still unsatisfied, they have flouted the constitution, state by erring state. Arkansas, as southern conservative as they come, has outlawed abortions beyond the first trimester! A federal judge has alrady set this ludicrous law aside, essentially saying that since it will never pass constitutional muster, why bother?
All these new state anti-abortion laws will eventually work their way through the appellate courts, will be struck down, and at last one of them will be decided by the supreme court, thus deciding them all.
The current high court, though at least half conservative, will almost certainly uphold the appellate courts in strinking down these laws, because really it has no choice, so certian is their blatant unconstitutionality. the vote might even be something other than five four; surely at least one conservative justice will come to his or her senses, as they sometimes do, and must in this instance.
But again, you never know. it aint over, until...whenever...you never know when, where, and how inanely the murky vicissitudes of conservative thought will take this great nation of diverse ideals.
Another case in point: the U.S. house of representatives recently repealed obamacare, if you can believe it, which perhaps you cannot. the senseless, useless futility of this spiteful group temper tantrum is reflected in the fact that nobody noticed it, nobody cares, and the vote was only briefly mentioned in the media, not because of any liberal media bias, but because our discerning media mercifully wishes to avoid national embarrassment before the entire world. <whew>
But pouty, juvenile , vindictive behavior never entirely fades from the human psyche, even in advanced, alleged adulthood. I plan to use the following excuse: our country is young, and is still learning, as are our political leaders. That sometimes worked when I was in trouble as a child, and maybe it will this time. One can hope.
Playing the Spy Game, For Fun
IF PRESIDENT OBAMA ISN'T CAREFUL, he's gonna have the entire american corporate media complex after his national security obsessed self. Even the New York Times is up in arms, and if they want his hide, then any other newspaper or television network or radio station in the land of free speech could soon follow suit.
Its no secret that the united states government keeps all kindsa cute little secrets, with a great deal of incompetence; thus we all know about them: new weaponry, terrorist tracking, captured extraterrestrials and their spaceships, plans to infiltrate and disrupt domestic anti war organizations, and such like. Have we left anything out? Probaably, the entire gamut is difficult to run.
The problem is the incompetence part. Uncle Sam never met a secret he couldn't fabricate or spill; uncle sam likes to talk, uncle sam is as leaky as a sieve on a shallow sea shore. And this sieve-i-ness pisses off obama, majorly.
Liberal democrats are so cute when they try to behave like conservative republicans in order to prove that they are tough on crime, strong on fefense, and all macho and stuff. But, tapping phone lines of reporters and rummaging through the file cabinets of media executives might be just a tad over the line, dare we say, "nixonian?".
Obama, according to his sister, couldn't get mad at a copperhead in his P.J.'s, but he sure looks funny trying, and after all, what is politics but amusement and entertainment? His attempt at righteous outrage is as feigned and shallow as martha stewart at a drive thru taco bell, and the whole national securty mess is as deep in the mud as a heifer in a horse pond, to borrow a line from the inimitable davy crockett, the greatest of all politician-entertainers.
But its all good, as they say. Hint: any country with more military might than the next twelve countries combined hardly needs to keep secrets of any sort, but hey, we all seem to enjoy it, and, truth be told, it does keep a lotta potentially self harmful people off the streets, and gives the rest of us something to smile about over coffee and bagels, hidden in sunglasses behind the morning paper.
Its no secret that the united states government keeps all kindsa cute little secrets, with a great deal of incompetence; thus we all know about them: new weaponry, terrorist tracking, captured extraterrestrials and their spaceships, plans to infiltrate and disrupt domestic anti war organizations, and such like. Have we left anything out? Probaably, the entire gamut is difficult to run.
The problem is the incompetence part. Uncle Sam never met a secret he couldn't fabricate or spill; uncle sam likes to talk, uncle sam is as leaky as a sieve on a shallow sea shore. And this sieve-i-ness pisses off obama, majorly.
Liberal democrats are so cute when they try to behave like conservative republicans in order to prove that they are tough on crime, strong on fefense, and all macho and stuff. But, tapping phone lines of reporters and rummaging through the file cabinets of media executives might be just a tad over the line, dare we say, "nixonian?".
Obama, according to his sister, couldn't get mad at a copperhead in his P.J.'s, but he sure looks funny trying, and after all, what is politics but amusement and entertainment? His attempt at righteous outrage is as feigned and shallow as martha stewart at a drive thru taco bell, and the whole national securty mess is as deep in the mud as a heifer in a horse pond, to borrow a line from the inimitable davy crockett, the greatest of all politician-entertainers.
But its all good, as they say. Hint: any country with more military might than the next twelve countries combined hardly needs to keep secrets of any sort, but hey, we all seem to enjoy it, and, truth be told, it does keep a lotta potentially self harmful people off the streets, and gives the rest of us something to smile about over coffee and bagels, hidden in sunglasses behind the morning paper.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Recovering From the Cruelest Month
APRIL IS THE CRUELEST MONTH, asserted T.S. Eliot in his epic iconic poem "The Wasteland". I humbly nominate may, in the american midwest, the month of tornados. The good people of joplin, missouri "celebrate", if you can call it that, the second anniversary of tornadic cruelty today.
Those of us who survived barely survived, and should indeed celebrate, quietly. I was jogging in the monstrous tornados's soon to be path when the sky turned black and bumpy, and the sirens of despair sounded.
Never again will I ignore storm warning sirens; it almost cost me my life. In fact I payed great heed to them yesterday, when they announced another tornado's imminence to my tiny northwest arkansas town. In a tornado, a basement beats a jogging trail.
After the destruction of most of joplin, nearly a quarter million beautiful americans, including president obama, came to help. A great deal of rebirth can occur in a mere two years, and joplin is reinventing itself with amazing rapidity. I recall standing amid the ubiquitous rubble, convinced there could be no recovery, that my hometown would never rise again. but it has, and happily i eat my previous words of despair.
By now it should be obvious to everyone that the annual mid american tornadic onslaught is likely to resume every may unto the unknown future. Basketball star kevin durant contributed a million dollars to a ssist in recovery from our latest, but surely not our last, version of yet another climate change debate stopper, in oklahoma.
Billions more are needed, and trillions will be needed for future cruel days of may recoveries. An american aircraft carrier costs about a million dollars a day to operate. By reducing our armada from the current thirteen flat tops to, say, ten, we could save a cool billion a year for reinvestment in future tornado recovery. We'll need every penny of it.
A ten ship nuclear carrier armada would surely be sufficient to maintain america's vast emperial supremacy, and the savings generated by operating three fewer of the behemoths would help rebuild a few houses and schools in the bargain.
And, as a concession to our big military small government conservative colleagues, we could keep in service the magnificent warship commisioned most recently, and christened the "ronald reagan".
Those of us who survived barely survived, and should indeed celebrate, quietly. I was jogging in the monstrous tornados's soon to be path when the sky turned black and bumpy, and the sirens of despair sounded.
Never again will I ignore storm warning sirens; it almost cost me my life. In fact I payed great heed to them yesterday, when they announced another tornado's imminence to my tiny northwest arkansas town. In a tornado, a basement beats a jogging trail.
After the destruction of most of joplin, nearly a quarter million beautiful americans, including president obama, came to help. A great deal of rebirth can occur in a mere two years, and joplin is reinventing itself with amazing rapidity. I recall standing amid the ubiquitous rubble, convinced there could be no recovery, that my hometown would never rise again. but it has, and happily i eat my previous words of despair.
By now it should be obvious to everyone that the annual mid american tornadic onslaught is likely to resume every may unto the unknown future. Basketball star kevin durant contributed a million dollars to a ssist in recovery from our latest, but surely not our last, version of yet another climate change debate stopper, in oklahoma.
Billions more are needed, and trillions will be needed for future cruel days of may recoveries. An american aircraft carrier costs about a million dollars a day to operate. By reducing our armada from the current thirteen flat tops to, say, ten, we could save a cool billion a year for reinvestment in future tornado recovery. We'll need every penny of it.
A ten ship nuclear carrier armada would surely be sufficient to maintain america's vast emperial supremacy, and the savings generated by operating three fewer of the behemoths would help rebuild a few houses and schools in the bargain.
And, as a concession to our big military small government conservative colleagues, we could keep in service the magnificent warship commisioned most recently, and christened the "ronald reagan".
Playing the Game
THERE IS A GRAND new tradition in the stellar realm of american celebrity-dom, and why should you, of all people, have to wait until the next episode of "america's most clever celebrity comments", or "smarting off with the stars" to get the grime?
The usual pattern goes something like this: rich, beautiful and famous celebrity "A" makes crass and inappropiate comment about rich, beautiful and famous celebrity "B", gets caught, the tabloid press (is there any other kind in the U.S. of Advertising?) makes much ado of it, celebrity "A" apologizes melodramatically, gushingly, and everybody goes home even more famous and happy. Its a formula that seems to work for us all, especially in the profit columns of corporate paparazzi nation.
Among the more attractive targets is the ubiquitously soap operatic Tiger Woods, the undisputed prince of melodramatic personal interatcion. And why not? He's black, beautiful, rich, famous, prone to displays of emotion, and, the piece de resistance, he's a pretty fair week end golfer to boot.
It was in 1997 that good ole white boy "Fuzzy" Zoeller made an unsavory comment about, yo, Tiger's dietary habits, suggesting, that after Tiger won his first masters at that lily white citadel of southernly gentitlity, THE masters of augusta, he might wish to choose, oh, what, something like possum stew and collard greens, or whatever "they" eat, for the following year's traditional victors dinner, a traditional prerogative of the prior year's winner.
And yes, the cute scenario played completely, precisely on script, with the requisite mea culpa.
And here are are, and mere sixtten years later, but blink of the eye in the world of traditionally stately gentlemanly golf, and enter sergio garcia, and, again, but of course, el tigre.
The hispanic gentleman and the african american "brotagonist" (implicit racism a priori) do not get on swimmingly, so the stage is set, and the script is prepared. This time the menu is "fried chicken", and the apology sufficiently dramatic, if a tad understated. How we americans gobble up the repeats and leftovers in our intellectually deprived but star studded celebrity saturated "culture", to use the term generously.
And that'll have to do for today's bill of fare, folks. Hope everyone is satisfied, but not to worry; another offering will surely appear on tomorrow's menu of spicy media entrees; this is america, and we wouldn't think of missing the titillating daily special.
The usual pattern goes something like this: rich, beautiful and famous celebrity "A" makes crass and inappropiate comment about rich, beautiful and famous celebrity "B", gets caught, the tabloid press (is there any other kind in the U.S. of Advertising?) makes much ado of it, celebrity "A" apologizes melodramatically, gushingly, and everybody goes home even more famous and happy. Its a formula that seems to work for us all, especially in the profit columns of corporate paparazzi nation.
Among the more attractive targets is the ubiquitously soap operatic Tiger Woods, the undisputed prince of melodramatic personal interatcion. And why not? He's black, beautiful, rich, famous, prone to displays of emotion, and, the piece de resistance, he's a pretty fair week end golfer to boot.
It was in 1997 that good ole white boy "Fuzzy" Zoeller made an unsavory comment about, yo, Tiger's dietary habits, suggesting, that after Tiger won his first masters at that lily white citadel of southernly gentitlity, THE masters of augusta, he might wish to choose, oh, what, something like possum stew and collard greens, or whatever "they" eat, for the following year's traditional victors dinner, a traditional prerogative of the prior year's winner.
And yes, the cute scenario played completely, precisely on script, with the requisite mea culpa.
And here are are, and mere sixtten years later, but blink of the eye in the world of traditionally stately gentlemanly golf, and enter sergio garcia, and, again, but of course, el tigre.
The hispanic gentleman and the african american "brotagonist" (implicit racism a priori) do not get on swimmingly, so the stage is set, and the script is prepared. This time the menu is "fried chicken", and the apology sufficiently dramatic, if a tad understated. How we americans gobble up the repeats and leftovers in our intellectually deprived but star studded celebrity saturated "culture", to use the term generously.
And that'll have to do for today's bill of fare, folks. Hope everyone is satisfied, but not to worry; another offering will surely appear on tomorrow's menu of spicy media entrees; this is america, and we wouldn't think of missing the titillating daily special.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Freedom From Corporate Responsibility
THE UNITED STATES SENATE is taking a look at the Apple computer company, and is having the audacity to suggest that possibly the giant high tech inc. is playing games with its money in order to avoid paying federal taxes. How shocking. How surprising. How dare the united states government do anything other with an upright righteous american corporation than turn a blind eye to all its endeavors, especially those having to do with finances.
Are not american corporations veritable paragons of virtue, who, as legal individuals, not only pay their fair share of taxes, but do so gladly, willingly, with only the best interests of the american people in mind, even to the detriment of profits and executive incomes? Perish the very thought that any mega corp would ever attempt to short change the rest of us in any way whatsoever.
First the american government, a vile wing thereof, has the indecency of paying close attention to that stalwart of righteous virtue, the self proclaimed charitable public service oriented Taxed Enough Already gang - and now this. One can already hear the wailings and gnashings of conservative capitalists all across the land of the free to get rich by any and all means.
apple's CEO, obviously deeply hurt by this malicious insinuation, delcared with no uncertainty that his business, with a one hundred and forty five billion dollar stash of cash on hand, not only employs a great number of american citizens, but indeed does pay its fair share. As if he would or could ever say anything else.
Pretty clever, mister CEO. Nobody is suggesting that your firm does not pay its fair share, but rather, that by keeping profits overseas, particularly in Ireland, you are greatly decreasing, by this clever gimmick, the amount which constitutes what that fair share actually totals, after all the money juggling changes the fair share taxable total by lowering it, substantially.
By keeping the money in the air, over the atlantic ocean, the money is nowhere, and is thus legally taxable nowhere, either in europe or the united states. Doesn't the CEO's cleverly evasive, technically true simplisitic response that "we pay our fair share" thus constitute de facto dishonesty, and therefore, contempt of congress?
In a country which worships at the sacred alter of wealth, idolizes the wealthy, and hates the poor, we can expect to see nobody going to jail for contempt, but we can expect to see the billionaire owners of apple continue to fly high above the rest of us, out over the atlantic, back and forth, money safely stashed away in personal pockets, free from all social responsibility to america, or anyone else, save themselves.
Are not american corporations veritable paragons of virtue, who, as legal individuals, not only pay their fair share of taxes, but do so gladly, willingly, with only the best interests of the american people in mind, even to the detriment of profits and executive incomes? Perish the very thought that any mega corp would ever attempt to short change the rest of us in any way whatsoever.
First the american government, a vile wing thereof, has the indecency of paying close attention to that stalwart of righteous virtue, the self proclaimed charitable public service oriented Taxed Enough Already gang - and now this. One can already hear the wailings and gnashings of conservative capitalists all across the land of the free to get rich by any and all means.
apple's CEO, obviously deeply hurt by this malicious insinuation, delcared with no uncertainty that his business, with a one hundred and forty five billion dollar stash of cash on hand, not only employs a great number of american citizens, but indeed does pay its fair share. As if he would or could ever say anything else.
Pretty clever, mister CEO. Nobody is suggesting that your firm does not pay its fair share, but rather, that by keeping profits overseas, particularly in Ireland, you are greatly decreasing, by this clever gimmick, the amount which constitutes what that fair share actually totals, after all the money juggling changes the fair share taxable total by lowering it, substantially.
By keeping the money in the air, over the atlantic ocean, the money is nowhere, and is thus legally taxable nowhere, either in europe or the united states. Doesn't the CEO's cleverly evasive, technically true simplisitic response that "we pay our fair share" thus constitute de facto dishonesty, and therefore, contempt of congress?
In a country which worships at the sacred alter of wealth, idolizes the wealthy, and hates the poor, we can expect to see nobody going to jail for contempt, but we can expect to see the billionaire owners of apple continue to fly high above the rest of us, out over the atlantic, back and forth, money safely stashed away in personal pockets, free from all social responsibility to america, or anyone else, save themselves.
Control, and Freedom
FROM THE DAY I WAS BORN, i, like everyone else, was entirely under the control of other people. And perhaps for all of us life is partly a process by which we gain, incrementally, a certain, yet limited degree of self determination.
First come the parents, of course, and if we are lucky we have good ones. Then comes school, followed by employment, all under the direct supervision of some form of government, which, if we are lucky, again is a good one. "good" in the sense of inflicting minimum harm and providing at least some modicum of positive benefit for the governed.
That might explain a lot of things in my life, a lot of my decisions, and the same may be true of others, depending on personality type, resistance to or acceptance of external control, the extent to which any individual functions harmoniously with others.
Although I became a very good tennis player, and greatly enjoyed the game, I never enjoyed playing in tournaments, even though when I did, I often fared quite well, even winning a few. For me it was always more fun choosing my opponents and partners, choosing my own tennis dates, times, and places.
And with so few opportunities for true freedom in this world, when given the choice, I always chose the greatest amount of freedom.
Marriage has always been out of the question for me, though I greatly respect the institution, and indeed I consider it a primary foundation of civilization. With no desire to either control or be controlled, even compromose, which is a combination of the two, seems undesirable.
that's why blogging is made for me, is for me, heaven. No editors. No boss. No money, true, but, well, if one likes to write, shouldn't one enjoy it for its own sake, rather than for the sake of money, fame, or status? We all know the answer to that.
Unless we commit suicide, we don't even get to choose the manner or time of our death. Maybe that's partly why some people commit suicide: one last experience of complete freedom. It is the exception which proves the rule, as they say. I can live without the final freedom.
First come the parents, of course, and if we are lucky we have good ones. Then comes school, followed by employment, all under the direct supervision of some form of government, which, if we are lucky, again is a good one. "good" in the sense of inflicting minimum harm and providing at least some modicum of positive benefit for the governed.
That might explain a lot of things in my life, a lot of my decisions, and the same may be true of others, depending on personality type, resistance to or acceptance of external control, the extent to which any individual functions harmoniously with others.
Although I became a very good tennis player, and greatly enjoyed the game, I never enjoyed playing in tournaments, even though when I did, I often fared quite well, even winning a few. For me it was always more fun choosing my opponents and partners, choosing my own tennis dates, times, and places.
And with so few opportunities for true freedom in this world, when given the choice, I always chose the greatest amount of freedom.
Marriage has always been out of the question for me, though I greatly respect the institution, and indeed I consider it a primary foundation of civilization. With no desire to either control or be controlled, even compromose, which is a combination of the two, seems undesirable.
that's why blogging is made for me, is for me, heaven. No editors. No boss. No money, true, but, well, if one likes to write, shouldn't one enjoy it for its own sake, rather than for the sake of money, fame, or status? We all know the answer to that.
Unless we commit suicide, we don't even get to choose the manner or time of our death. Maybe that's partly why some people commit suicide: one last experience of complete freedom. It is the exception which proves the rule, as they say. I can live without the final freedom.
Uncluttered Openness
SITTING IN MY HIGH CHAIR, staring out the kitchen window, chowing down on my daily gerber. A refreshing pop up summer thunderstorm is in progress, sacrament of heat and humidity. Mom, puttering around, notices that my eyes are bigger than saucers, as I gaze transfixed in utter disbelief.
"What's wrong with that kid?" she says to dad, who is immersed in the morning newpaper and coffee. Mom, more nurturer than behavorial analyst. Dad, the analytical lawyer, replies sleepily: "he's never seen it rain before, dear."
And, fifty eight years later, I can still only avert my eyes from rain with some degree of difficulty. I miss those mid summer fifteen minute showers we had routinely in the nineteen fifties and sixties; global warming has its advantages, like short sleeves in december, but I would rather float stick boats in gutter races than watch my lawn turn crispy brown every summer.
We all selected and shaped our twigs, then let 'em rip. The races sometimes lasted for two or three blocks. By that time, somebody had usually pulled away, the sun was back out, and the sandlot had dried enough to resume whiffle ball.
Forty years later my beautiful black and silver german shepherd experienced the same joy, during a jog in the woods. He stopped, transfixed, and I followed his gaze across the valley to three unwitting deer.
Wolfgang glanced at me quickly, and said "you've been holding out on me. I had no idea there was anything this cool out and about." And he streaked off in hot pursuit, which no command from me could have prevented; he was out of his head with excitement. Fast as he was, the deer were twice as fast, gone in a flash, hopping without concern over a chain link fence and bidding farewell.
I hope I live long enough to experience something like that again, either directly, or vicariously, it doesn't matter. The overwhelming joy of the uniquely mundane. Just once more I want to be a saucer eyed infant, and I want to see a beautiful fellow being experience some moment of epiphamy.
Maybe its merely a matter of waking up daily with a certain attitude of uncluttered openness.
"What's wrong with that kid?" she says to dad, who is immersed in the morning newpaper and coffee. Mom, more nurturer than behavorial analyst. Dad, the analytical lawyer, replies sleepily: "he's never seen it rain before, dear."
And, fifty eight years later, I can still only avert my eyes from rain with some degree of difficulty. I miss those mid summer fifteen minute showers we had routinely in the nineteen fifties and sixties; global warming has its advantages, like short sleeves in december, but I would rather float stick boats in gutter races than watch my lawn turn crispy brown every summer.
We all selected and shaped our twigs, then let 'em rip. The races sometimes lasted for two or three blocks. By that time, somebody had usually pulled away, the sun was back out, and the sandlot had dried enough to resume whiffle ball.
Forty years later my beautiful black and silver german shepherd experienced the same joy, during a jog in the woods. He stopped, transfixed, and I followed his gaze across the valley to three unwitting deer.
Wolfgang glanced at me quickly, and said "you've been holding out on me. I had no idea there was anything this cool out and about." And he streaked off in hot pursuit, which no command from me could have prevented; he was out of his head with excitement. Fast as he was, the deer were twice as fast, gone in a flash, hopping without concern over a chain link fence and bidding farewell.
I hope I live long enough to experience something like that again, either directly, or vicariously, it doesn't matter. The overwhelming joy of the uniquely mundane. Just once more I want to be a saucer eyed infant, and I want to see a beautiful fellow being experience some moment of epiphamy.
Maybe its merely a matter of waking up daily with a certain attitude of uncluttered openness.
Monday, May 20, 2013
The Kings of Hyprocisy
POOR POOR LITTLE tea party, that shrinking right wing of the right wing of the ultra conservative grand ole party. How utterly devastating, that the internal revenue service would dare to examine such patriotic people a bit too closely. Pass the kleenex boys, and let's all have a good cry.
Because they are lily white, because they are that somehow strangely compatible mix of christian and capitalist, their cause is of the most urgent nature, their torment more severe than anyone else's who gets inspected by the IRS, and their protestations more vociferous.
They protest vehemently against rendering unto caesar, because the very thought of giving unto the poor irks them mightily, and what taxation they do approve they would use for the purpose of beating plowshares into swords.
One can live in a glass house if one's nose is clean, if one's affairs are in order, without fear of persecution after examination, and hell, one might be albe to even cast a few stones if one has the courage to stick one's head out of one's home, for a fraction of a moment.
Martin Luther King; now there was man whose group was really mistreated by the feds. When the FBI audiotapes your sexual sessions, you are really being mistreated by your own government. German Shepherds and high pressure water hoses were perhaps a shade more difficult to endure than nosy paper pushing bureaucrats.
Never a wimper was heard by america's white christian conservatives in protest of these abuses. But let a little paperwork get out of hand, and it really hits the fan. The ACLU has been bombed and shot. War protesters have been mugged and clubbed. Tea party types scarcely twitched the pinkies extending from their cups.
But a little over zealous scrutiny from desk bound caffeine addicts? round 'em up and lock 'em up! Call out the national guard! Impeach Obama! Methinks the kings of hypocrisy protest a tad too much
Because they are lily white, because they are that somehow strangely compatible mix of christian and capitalist, their cause is of the most urgent nature, their torment more severe than anyone else's who gets inspected by the IRS, and their protestations more vociferous.
They protest vehemently against rendering unto caesar, because the very thought of giving unto the poor irks them mightily, and what taxation they do approve they would use for the purpose of beating plowshares into swords.
One can live in a glass house if one's nose is clean, if one's affairs are in order, without fear of persecution after examination, and hell, one might be albe to even cast a few stones if one has the courage to stick one's head out of one's home, for a fraction of a moment.
Martin Luther King; now there was man whose group was really mistreated by the feds. When the FBI audiotapes your sexual sessions, you are really being mistreated by your own government. German Shepherds and high pressure water hoses were perhaps a shade more difficult to endure than nosy paper pushing bureaucrats.
Never a wimper was heard by america's white christian conservatives in protest of these abuses. But let a little paperwork get out of hand, and it really hits the fan. The ACLU has been bombed and shot. War protesters have been mugged and clubbed. Tea party types scarcely twitched the pinkies extending from their cups.
But a little over zealous scrutiny from desk bound caffeine addicts? round 'em up and lock 'em up! Call out the national guard! Impeach Obama! Methinks the kings of hypocrisy protest a tad too much
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Making Big Money
LOTTERIES HAVE ALWAY BEEN popular, especially in these united states where the frantic pursuit of instant wealth (donald) trumps all other values. The nation was, after all, founded upon the sacred doctrine of the pursuit of wealth, which is often given the misnomer "a better life", and "manifest destiny", aka the inevitability of succeeding in the great chase.
Lotteries were an excellent source of income in the early days of the republic, were used to pay down the national debt after the expensive civil war of independence from Britain, and were used to prop up the governments of the newly established disunited states under the impotent Articles of Confederation.
Lotteries fell into disfavor when the free wheeling roaring age of eighteenth century reason disintegrated beeath the weight of revived christian dogma after the turn of the nineteenth century. But at long last the roaring nineteen sixties arrived, and the era of deficit spending, and voila! Lotto returneth.
Any junior college mathethics instructor will tell you that purchasing lottery tickets like toilet paper is bound to yield nothing better than a good butt wiping, simply because of odds which usually run about a hundred million to one against.
But most americans have an aversion to mathematics beyond the sixth grade level, and to common sense beyond kindergarten. So, the greater the jackpot, the greater the number of fools who soon part with their money.
The reasoning usually goes "with the jackpot so high, I'd be stupid not to buy a lottery ticket, or many lottery tickets". Au contraire, madamweasal. Truth is, the smaller the jackpot, the greater the chances of winning, because the fewer the number of suckers who buy tickets.
But never let it be said that a mere million dollar opportunity is sufficient to lure us lusty americans - we always want more...and more...divide a six hundred million jackpot into six hundred equal million dollar parts - and the pool of purchasers dwindles so drastically that not enough people enter to sustain the madness. As the prize grows, and the odds decrease, so grows participation. Go figure.
But, to quote P T Barnum: "nobody ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the american people". He must've known what he was talking aobut; after all, he made big money.
Lotteries were an excellent source of income in the early days of the republic, were used to pay down the national debt after the expensive civil war of independence from Britain, and were used to prop up the governments of the newly established disunited states under the impotent Articles of Confederation.
Lotteries fell into disfavor when the free wheeling roaring age of eighteenth century reason disintegrated beeath the weight of revived christian dogma after the turn of the nineteenth century. But at long last the roaring nineteen sixties arrived, and the era of deficit spending, and voila! Lotto returneth.
Any junior college mathethics instructor will tell you that purchasing lottery tickets like toilet paper is bound to yield nothing better than a good butt wiping, simply because of odds which usually run about a hundred million to one against.
But most americans have an aversion to mathematics beyond the sixth grade level, and to common sense beyond kindergarten. So, the greater the jackpot, the greater the number of fools who soon part with their money.
The reasoning usually goes "with the jackpot so high, I'd be stupid not to buy a lottery ticket, or many lottery tickets". Au contraire, madamweasal. Truth is, the smaller the jackpot, the greater the chances of winning, because the fewer the number of suckers who buy tickets.
But never let it be said that a mere million dollar opportunity is sufficient to lure us lusty americans - we always want more...and more...divide a six hundred million jackpot into six hundred equal million dollar parts - and the pool of purchasers dwindles so drastically that not enough people enter to sustain the madness. As the prize grows, and the odds decrease, so grows participation. Go figure.
But, to quote P T Barnum: "nobody ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the american people". He must've known what he was talking aobut; after all, he made big money.
Tweets, Tax Cheats, and Hitler
THERE MUST BE SOMETHING about tweeting on twitter, whatever tweeting on twitter is, which makes people say very strange things. Or maybe its just something about being a republican.
On twitter, you're limited to one hundred and forty four letters per comment, aren't you? The magic number....(how was that decided, and by whom?) When one tweets, one tends to leave out letters, and words like "should" become "shld". Our continuing decline into inane illiteracy. ur cntnng dcln n2 inan ilitrcy (just practicing).
This alone might be the cause of it. Then too, when one is a republican, one, by definition, has a rather twisted view of life, and current events. Two cases in point involve two of america's tweet happy republican political leaders.
One, bobby jindal, R gov, LA., speaking before a group of repubs in VA, said the people who participated in the IRS's intense scrutiny of TEA party - like organizations should be put in jail. He did not indicate whether this should follow a fair trial by their peers, or whether he feared their peers would be scrutinized during or after said trial by the IRS.
but give him credit, though jindal is rumored to do his fair share of tweeting, he actually had the temerity to stand up in front of a bunch of living humans and say what he said, in person. That's real brass. Or sand. Or brassy insandity.
Did the IRS folks really break the law, or did they merely anger conservative america, and cause president obama to pretend to be angry for political expediency? Doesn't the IRS routinely audit, (subject to intense scrutiny) about one in seven federal income tax filers? Imagine every seventh american, enraged, demanding jail time for the entire IRS. Sweet. wld B a Sweet tweet.
Are these routine tax audits illegal, and should everyone who works for the IRS do time? Move over, inmates of american prisons, the overcrowding is only going to get worse...
Senator Charles Grassley, (R, Ia) tweeted something to the effect that america has no foreign policy, and that whenever america has no foreign policy, somebody like adolph hitler comes along, and invades some other country, and therefore hitler is soon going to invade another country, just like before. History might not repeat itself, but it sure seems to rhyme.
And to think he said all this in one hundred and forty four letters, or less. But then again, he spelled the word "should" "shld", presuming that twitter nation understood precisely what he was saying, which it no doubt did, which in itself is frightening.
Considering all the frequent flyer miles logged first by hillary clinton, and lately by john kerry, if america has no foreign policy, we the tax payers certainly are footing a huge jet fuel bill to achieve our foreign policylessness.
WE might take consolation in knowing that if and when some neo hitler invades somebody, and if it is us, then if the entire IRS is not already in jail, it soon will be.
On twitter, you're limited to one hundred and forty four letters per comment, aren't you? The magic number....(how was that decided, and by whom?) When one tweets, one tends to leave out letters, and words like "should" become "shld". Our continuing decline into inane illiteracy. ur cntnng dcln n2 inan ilitrcy (just practicing).
This alone might be the cause of it. Then too, when one is a republican, one, by definition, has a rather twisted view of life, and current events. Two cases in point involve two of america's tweet happy republican political leaders.
One, bobby jindal, R gov, LA., speaking before a group of repubs in VA, said the people who participated in the IRS's intense scrutiny of TEA party - like organizations should be put in jail. He did not indicate whether this should follow a fair trial by their peers, or whether he feared their peers would be scrutinized during or after said trial by the IRS.
but give him credit, though jindal is rumored to do his fair share of tweeting, he actually had the temerity to stand up in front of a bunch of living humans and say what he said, in person. That's real brass. Or sand. Or brassy insandity.
Did the IRS folks really break the law, or did they merely anger conservative america, and cause president obama to pretend to be angry for political expediency? Doesn't the IRS routinely audit, (subject to intense scrutiny) about one in seven federal income tax filers? Imagine every seventh american, enraged, demanding jail time for the entire IRS. Sweet. wld B a Sweet tweet.
Are these routine tax audits illegal, and should everyone who works for the IRS do time? Move over, inmates of american prisons, the overcrowding is only going to get worse...
Senator Charles Grassley, (R, Ia) tweeted something to the effect that america has no foreign policy, and that whenever america has no foreign policy, somebody like adolph hitler comes along, and invades some other country, and therefore hitler is soon going to invade another country, just like before. History might not repeat itself, but it sure seems to rhyme.
And to think he said all this in one hundred and forty four letters, or less. But then again, he spelled the word "should" "shld", presuming that twitter nation understood precisely what he was saying, which it no doubt did, which in itself is frightening.
Considering all the frequent flyer miles logged first by hillary clinton, and lately by john kerry, if america has no foreign policy, we the tax payers certainly are footing a huge jet fuel bill to achieve our foreign policylessness.
WE might take consolation in knowing that if and when some neo hitler invades somebody, and if it is us, then if the entire IRS is not already in jail, it soon will be.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Sink, Sank, Sunk
A LITERARY CRISIS of incalculably dire dimensions is ravaging america's book reading community, what there is of it, or a very small part of it, such as it is. It has to do with the use of the word "sink", and its past tense "sank", and its past participle "sunk".
It all started when one of the highly entertaining and intriguing novels by John Grisham. He appeared to misuse the word, using the past participle when the simple past tense was called for. "the boat sunk to the bottom of the lake".
Then it happend again, same author. Never did he use the word "sank", but always, "sunk". Confused at first, I eventually chalked it up to grisham's arkansas origins, and his mississippi residence.
But that explanation seemed condescending, indaquate, unreasonable. Grisham has a college education, a law degree, and is of course a very successful and popular contemporary writer. He would never do this. Could it be that I was missing something?
IT DIDN'T STOP THERE. Next, Ernest Hemingway appeared to do the exact same thing; he used the word "sunk" in a situation which seemed, at least to me, to clearly call for the word "sank". I now forget which novel contains this. Its one of four: "The Old Man and The Sea", "The Sun Also Rises", "A farewell to Arms", or "For Whom the Bell Tolls".
Its one of those, and maybe all of them. The word "sunk" in place of what should be the word "sank" "the rock sunk to the bottom", something like that. The same mistake, everytime.
Next came Charles Dickens. He does the same thing in his classic "Oliver Twist". I cannot cite page and paragraph, but its there, like some verbal demon, tormenting me. But it wasn't over yet. For the same mightmare seems to occur in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle". Sunk, instead of sank. In chapter Two, fourteenth paragraph, third sentence, Sinclair says "it sunk into your consciousness". Shouldn't he have said "it sank into your consciousness"?
Furious and frustrated, I , having read all these books, went back and tried to find the specific examples of what I am talking about. But of course, like a UFO, it wasn't there, or couldn't be seen, on second search; except for the sinclair example. But the others do exist, and are of the same ilk. How can these writers not see this, or not care?
but its there, all right, in each of the authors named above, its there, the incorrect congugation of the elementary work "sink". But why? Can it be that I am hallucinating? NO! Never! I know what I saw. They were there, hovering above me, in the sky, on the page, these bright, hideous, misplaced literary objects, tormenting me, laughing at me....
And they must surely still be there, and others have surely seen them. Somewhere, somehow. Which leads to an even more terrible thought: how many more are there, and by whom? How many of our most cherished writers have fallen victim to this insidious disease of seventh grade grammar?
If only I had had a camera with me, or even a notepad. But each time it happened, I assumed it was a stray, an anomaly, and would be the last. My greatest fear is that it will happen again..and again..and will haunt me forever, in every book I read. What if people start talking like that? If that ever happens, the joy of rreading and writing will for me be forever sank.
It all started when one of the highly entertaining and intriguing novels by John Grisham. He appeared to misuse the word, using the past participle when the simple past tense was called for. "the boat sunk to the bottom of the lake".
Then it happend again, same author. Never did he use the word "sank", but always, "sunk". Confused at first, I eventually chalked it up to grisham's arkansas origins, and his mississippi residence.
But that explanation seemed condescending, indaquate, unreasonable. Grisham has a college education, a law degree, and is of course a very successful and popular contemporary writer. He would never do this. Could it be that I was missing something?
IT DIDN'T STOP THERE. Next, Ernest Hemingway appeared to do the exact same thing; he used the word "sunk" in a situation which seemed, at least to me, to clearly call for the word "sank". I now forget which novel contains this. Its one of four: "The Old Man and The Sea", "The Sun Also Rises", "A farewell to Arms", or "For Whom the Bell Tolls".
Its one of those, and maybe all of them. The word "sunk" in place of what should be the word "sank" "the rock sunk to the bottom", something like that. The same mistake, everytime.
Next came Charles Dickens. He does the same thing in his classic "Oliver Twist". I cannot cite page and paragraph, but its there, like some verbal demon, tormenting me. But it wasn't over yet. For the same mightmare seems to occur in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle". Sunk, instead of sank. In chapter Two, fourteenth paragraph, third sentence, Sinclair says "it sunk into your consciousness". Shouldn't he have said "it sank into your consciousness"?
Furious and frustrated, I , having read all these books, went back and tried to find the specific examples of what I am talking about. But of course, like a UFO, it wasn't there, or couldn't be seen, on second search; except for the sinclair example. But the others do exist, and are of the same ilk. How can these writers not see this, or not care?
but its there, all right, in each of the authors named above, its there, the incorrect congugation of the elementary work "sink". But why? Can it be that I am hallucinating? NO! Never! I know what I saw. They were there, hovering above me, in the sky, on the page, these bright, hideous, misplaced literary objects, tormenting me, laughing at me....
And they must surely still be there, and others have surely seen them. Somewhere, somehow. Which leads to an even more terrible thought: how many more are there, and by whom? How many of our most cherished writers have fallen victim to this insidious disease of seventh grade grammar?
If only I had had a camera with me, or even a notepad. But each time it happened, I assumed it was a stray, an anomaly, and would be the last. My greatest fear is that it will happen again..and again..and will haunt me forever, in every book I read. What if people start talking like that? If that ever happens, the joy of rreading and writing will for me be forever sank.
Giving Unto the Poor
THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, (SNAP), is the formal name for "food stamps". Never an unclever acronym. Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, not surprisingly, are attempting to cut the roughly eighty billion dollar program by about three per cent.
Approximately one out of three americans relies on food stamps. Under the current system, its fairly easy to apply for and receive nutrition assistance; the republicans, not suprisingly, want to make it more difficult.
Democrat representative McGovern tried to give the repubs a little of their own medicine by quoting the bible: I was hungry and you fed me, I was thirsty and you watered me", or something of that nature, and got nowhere.
Helping people must be done on an individual basis, responded some typical conservative tightwad. We must not coerece anyone into generosity, regardless of what the bible says, and the government must not be involved.No biblical passage was cited to support this.
Conservatives never want the government to render assistance to people in ndeed. That should be left to provate charity, and should be voluntary. Yet Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar". Or "go thy way, and sell whatsoever thous hast, and give unto the poor."
Seems like that could be accomplished privately, or publicly, and that it really shouldn't matter which, as long as it gets done. Making it mandatory gets 'er done. Would jesus have rendered unto caesar for the purpose of purchasing weapons of war, or for giving unto the poor?
Approximately one out of three americans relies on food stamps. Under the current system, its fairly easy to apply for and receive nutrition assistance; the republicans, not suprisingly, want to make it more difficult.
Democrat representative McGovern tried to give the repubs a little of their own medicine by quoting the bible: I was hungry and you fed me, I was thirsty and you watered me", or something of that nature, and got nowhere.
Helping people must be done on an individual basis, responded some typical conservative tightwad. We must not coerece anyone into generosity, regardless of what the bible says, and the government must not be involved.No biblical passage was cited to support this.
Conservatives never want the government to render assistance to people in ndeed. That should be left to provate charity, and should be voluntary. Yet Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar". Or "go thy way, and sell whatsoever thous hast, and give unto the poor."
Seems like that could be accomplished privately, or publicly, and that it really shouldn't matter which, as long as it gets done. Making it mandatory gets 'er done. Would jesus have rendered unto caesar for the purpose of purchasing weapons of war, or for giving unto the poor?
Friday, May 17, 2013
Righteous National Outrage
WE CAN ALL AGREE, presumably, with the exception of extreme right wingers, that the internal revenue service is a necessary evil. It came into existence rather late in american history as a necessary expedient to finance the sundry pursuits of the government, pursuits to which the american people have given their full approval, if not their approval of the specifics of income taxation.
Surveys indicate that the american people want a well maintained federal highway system, a military with not only a permanent wartime capability, but the capability of projecting american military power across the globe, a wide variety of entitlement programs; and a tax rate of about ten percent. That wouldn't work even the the fondest dreams of ronald reagan in his waning days.
As bankrupt as the government has made america, the american people in general, given their way, would have it more bankrupt still. But, as P.T. Barnum noted "nobody ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the american people".
And now, the IRS closely scrutinizes organizations which are determined to pay still less taxes, and the american people, and their ever faithful representatives, if you can call them that, erupt in righteous indignation.
Oh, please. Do we all feel better yet? Have we adequately vented our sanctimonious spleen? One might suppose not. Let us, in the midst of our outrage at government overreach, bear in mind that the groups being scrutinized with particular attention to detail are all political action groups claiming to be be public service organizations, for the purpose of commiting income tax evasion. The TEA party wants political power, not an opportunity to render aid unto the disadvantaged.
Why shouldn't the nation's primary tax collection agency pay special attention to admitted would be tax evaders? But President Obama looks like a veritable knight in shining armor, and he seizes upon it; and doesn't he wear his anger well? Rather like a grade "B" actor, rather like some born again ronald wilson reagan.
Obama must by now surely realize that no matter how hard he works to placate america's all government is bad government lunatic fringe by paltry displays of bad acting, he will never succeed. The TEA party tax evaders, though mercifully small in number, are a vociferous lot, and the more he appeases them, the more they, in grand hitlerian style, lap it up, and spew it back against him.
Surveys indicate that the american people want a well maintained federal highway system, a military with not only a permanent wartime capability, but the capability of projecting american military power across the globe, a wide variety of entitlement programs; and a tax rate of about ten percent. That wouldn't work even the the fondest dreams of ronald reagan in his waning days.
As bankrupt as the government has made america, the american people in general, given their way, would have it more bankrupt still. But, as P.T. Barnum noted "nobody ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the american people".
And now, the IRS closely scrutinizes organizations which are determined to pay still less taxes, and the american people, and their ever faithful representatives, if you can call them that, erupt in righteous indignation.
Oh, please. Do we all feel better yet? Have we adequately vented our sanctimonious spleen? One might suppose not. Let us, in the midst of our outrage at government overreach, bear in mind that the groups being scrutinized with particular attention to detail are all political action groups claiming to be be public service organizations, for the purpose of commiting income tax evasion. The TEA party wants political power, not an opportunity to render aid unto the disadvantaged.
Why shouldn't the nation's primary tax collection agency pay special attention to admitted would be tax evaders? But President Obama looks like a veritable knight in shining armor, and he seizes upon it; and doesn't he wear his anger well? Rather like a grade "B" actor, rather like some born again ronald wilson reagan.
Obama must by now surely realize that no matter how hard he works to placate america's all government is bad government lunatic fringe by paltry displays of bad acting, he will never succeed. The TEA party tax evaders, though mercifully small in number, are a vociferous lot, and the more he appeases them, the more they, in grand hitlerian style, lap it up, and spew it back against him.
Equal and Opposite
AS ACCEPTANCE OF GAY MARRIAGE sweeps inexorably across the nation, state by state - minnesota recently became the twelfth state to legalize it - one can almsot sense a building conservative exodus from mainstream america.
Soon there will be an alternative, conservative, heterosexual version of the boy scouts of america. Indeed there already is, something called the "pathfinders", or some such. The regular boy scouts, in the midst of a great conscience clearing, is struggling with itself mightily to pull itself forward into the modern era of encroaching tolerance for people - just because they are people.
If the american military can do it, by golly, anybody can do it. Not only do we now allow gay folks to serve in the military, we allow it openly. Really, "don't ask don't tell seemed harmless enough, and practical to boot; just do your job, and no need to proclaim your sexual orientation, straight or gay. But we live in an era of strident proclamation of one's true identity. It is not enough to simply be; one must be heard.
So the homosexuals are entering the mainstream, and the right wingers are leaving it, in a huff. Are we anticipating the formation of an all heterosexual military to offer an alternative to our sexually tolerant regular one?
But wait; we already tried that. Recall the militia movement of the early nineteen nineties, when the election of bill clinton so agitated our straight laced defenders of freedom, tradition-changelessness and heterosexual christian capitalist vitue, that a gun slinging militia, begotten of the jesus, guns and money crowd, sprang up across freedom's land...and then vanished in the woods, campfires smoldering for a time, only to be quenched with the cool water of common sense and Tim McVeigh.
And so it may come to pass that for every sexually tolerant entity, there is an equal and opposite intolerant heterosexual only entity, from the boy scouts, to the girl scouts, to bowling leagues across the fruited plain, and even to the military. Don't write the militia folks off quite yet; they are most resilient, and probably due for a comeback.
Soon there will be an alternative, conservative, heterosexual version of the boy scouts of america. Indeed there already is, something called the "pathfinders", or some such. The regular boy scouts, in the midst of a great conscience clearing, is struggling with itself mightily to pull itself forward into the modern era of encroaching tolerance for people - just because they are people.
If the american military can do it, by golly, anybody can do it. Not only do we now allow gay folks to serve in the military, we allow it openly. Really, "don't ask don't tell seemed harmless enough, and practical to boot; just do your job, and no need to proclaim your sexual orientation, straight or gay. But we live in an era of strident proclamation of one's true identity. It is not enough to simply be; one must be heard.
So the homosexuals are entering the mainstream, and the right wingers are leaving it, in a huff. Are we anticipating the formation of an all heterosexual military to offer an alternative to our sexually tolerant regular one?
But wait; we already tried that. Recall the militia movement of the early nineteen nineties, when the election of bill clinton so agitated our straight laced defenders of freedom, tradition-changelessness and heterosexual christian capitalist vitue, that a gun slinging militia, begotten of the jesus, guns and money crowd, sprang up across freedom's land...and then vanished in the woods, campfires smoldering for a time, only to be quenched with the cool water of common sense and Tim McVeigh.
And so it may come to pass that for every sexually tolerant entity, there is an equal and opposite intolerant heterosexual only entity, from the boy scouts, to the girl scouts, to bowling leagues across the fruited plain, and even to the military. Don't write the militia folks off quite yet; they are most resilient, and probably due for a comeback.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)