Interesting Times

I’ve been around for awhile. I’ve seen this country change and change again. Some of it has been pretty good. We seem to be innovative to the point where it’s mind boggling. On the other hand, some of our directions and aspirations have been something less than admirable. (Why the Canadians speak to us at all has always been a mystery to me.)

During my lifetime a bunch of Presidents have come and gone. Some of ‘em were pretty good. Some of ‘em were just pretty. I’ve personally seen three, interviewed two.

I’m actually happy with the guy running the country at the moment. He’s not perfect – I think it would bother me if he was. But he still seems to be smarter than I am, and that’s why I voted for him in the first place.

Here’s an observation, then. I don’t think – in my entire life – I’ve ever seen so many disasters (man made and otherwise) fall over each other without a break as much as they have during the present administration. I saw a picture of the President today, and his hair is turning white. It’s not the first time, either. Other presidents have aged greatly during their time in office.

All this is leading to a question, rhetorical perhaps. Why would a smart person want the job? Think about it before answering. It’s a trick question.


j

A Response

I received this comment on my last post:


balcony39 has left a new comment on your post "Okay. I'm About To Intimidate A Windmill. Again":
As a foreigner, tho' frequent visitor to the USA when I first started to read this I seriously thought the Gov of Arizona had it in for illegal aliens (from Mars etc.) You guys and your politicians are so wacked it seemed utterly feasible. Then I read on and I saw the raw ugly all pervasive face of rising hard right Neo Nazism. Ugly, Ugly, Ugly!!! Think on In Xanadu. Read a bit of history and see how the little stuff, and such a nasty bill is not a small thing, leads to the total erosion of human rights. Good luck!

I thought the observations from balcony 39 deserved more than simply being buried in the comments section of my post.

First of all, I sincerely apologize for the appearance of having “wacked” politicians. The United States of America is a republic, and republics constantly evolve, and sometimes it’s not pretty. If you read our history, you will note that regardless of whatever direction we lurch, eventually – and it could take years – the will of all the people dominates.

To compare the Arizona law to Neo Nazism is to focus on the wrong period of history. (And, respectfully, it’s condescending of you not to look deeper.) Unlike Nazi Germany, this is not a national law, it is a state law, and every civil rights organization in the country is lining up to take a shot at it. They are doing this because they can do this. On the national level, our President has people examining it – closely. Already parts of this law have been revised, and this is before it even goes into effect. This is literally the will of the people in action.

The real problem here is one of attitude. The “aliens” of today are regarded the same way African Americans were regarded in the 1930’s, 40’s, and 50’s. I suspect that earning respect and equality today will be every bit as difficult as it was 60 tears ago.

But you have to start somewhere.

j

Health Care Reform

I never intended to write a “this is where I stand” series. As most of you know, I love to pose questions that will evoke responses, but I make at least a token effort to keep my own opinions private. I’ve often commented – lamented – that a writer is more an observer than a participant in life.

However. The present political situation in this country, the decidedly unprofessional attitudes of many of our leaders, and the resulting unreasoned anger by citizens in general, have made me realize that to encourage debate without making my own position known, is not disinterested reporting, it’s avoiding confrontation.

So I’ve decided to level the playing field; this is how I feel, and why. Based on that, I invite your response. No more high altitude bombing. (I know I’m hitting something, I’m just not sure what.)

For the past year, I’ve watch the antics of congress and the senate with both growing interest and apprehension. In many instances the two major political powers flatly have refused to work with each other. Vaguely I can remember this happening one or more times in the past. During these time periods no viable business of the government was conducted. At the time there was a standing joke that this inaction may not have been a bad thing at all.

In this case, however, a purposeful antagonism seems to have abraded the distance between the democrats and the republicans. I’ve seen far more name calling and finger pointing than I expect from elected officials. Hate is an effective recruiting tool, but is almost always not satisfied until a violent action accompanies it.

Now you have my viewpoint on our present congress and senate. Their disrespect for each other doesn’t even come close to my disappointment in them as a whole.

With that as background, then, here are my observations of the progress of the present health care reform bill.

I remember when the bill was bring drafted, the President went on TV and said (paraphrased) “Here it is. If anybody has a better idea, let me know.” I don’t recall anybody stepping forward. Up to and including the time when the bill was made into law, there was STILL no better plan offered, just the demand to scrap everything and start over.


Those in favor of the law will explain in detail why it will work. Those opposed will explain (in my case with a condescending tone of voice) why it won’t work. The truth is, since none of this has been put into effect yet, nobody actually knows how it will work. Seems to me that the prudent course of action would be to observe something happening before praising or condemning it.

There seems to be a great amount of talk about “starting over.” Why? Admittedly, the work is not perfect. What’s wrong with fixing the problem areas instead of simply dropping everything? This law will provide millions of people with health insurance. Having given it to them, can you honestly face them and say you are now taking it away? What truly offends me are the people who are working so hard to withdraw the insurance have no fears of losing their own.

Comment?


j

Expose Yourself To Art

… with apologies to Julie Morrison.


Whenever I hear the term “Expose Yourself To Art,” I think of the above photograph. It was taken in or about the early 1980’s, and at the time I thought it was clever.

I would have likely forgotten the picure, but later I learned that the man in the photo was the mayor of Portland, Oregon, and he was promoting a local arts festival. (I admired his creative imagination. I admired his dedication. At the same time, I wondered if he was re-elected.)

Did the idea work? Ya might say so. 28 years later the poster is still being sold along with other festival promotional pictures.

So ... what does that tell you?

JB

An Interesting History

There’s an article making the rounds of the email circuit, called “An Interesting History.” I've received it twice,now. The first time was from an old buddy who sends me every bit of trivia available. The second time, I received it from someone who takes this sort of thing much more seriously. This time I read it much more carefully. It’s an interesting article in that it’s my impression that it doesn't at all say what it wants you to believe it is saying.

What do you think? I’m including the entire article here – censorship isn’t fair. On the other hand, I AM interjecting my own comments from time to time, where I question the actual direction this thing is taking. I'm passing it along so that if you stumble over it somewhere else, you won't be fooled by what it appears to say.

HOW LONG DO WE HAVE?
This is the most interesting thing I've read in a long time. The sad thing about it, you can see it coming.

I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it.

How Long Do We Have?

(So here the author suggests that this article is about the inevitable decline of democracy. It’s important to keep this theme in mind, to see what proofs are presented to substantiate that claim.)

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'

(This statement may or may not be debatable. At face value, however, is the thought that Professor Tyler must have been smoking too much unrefined hemp. He’s applying the characteristics of a democracy to a republic. Not the same thing at all. And, in case we forget, the form of government in the United States is not a democracy – it’s a Republic! You remember this one, don’t you? “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic …

For the record, enough enquiries were received by the University of Edinburgh that, while they confirm that Alexander Tyler once taught there, they have no record whatsoever that he ever wrote a treatise on the Athenian form of government, Republic or otherwise.)

'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.’

(If I understand the implication here, the writer is suggesting that because this country is going through a economically difficult time, this is a “proof” that we are a democracy in decline. If I have voted myself a “generous gift from the public treasury,” it must have been delivered to the wrong address. My impression of our present misfortune is that we elected the wrong people to lead us. But that’s just my impression.)

'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'

(And what does that assertion have to do with any civilization being either a republic or a democracy? Absolutely nothing. From here on we are going on several rabbit trails, appealing to emotion rather than logic.

Even with that knowledge, I can’t resist an answer to the suggestion that no great civilization has lasted more than 200 years. I suppose you could say that statement could be true if you don’t count the British, who had been around as a monarchy for 700 years. Japan had 800 years, China about the same. Rome ruled for 700 years, Israel more-or-less the same. Egypt was under the same rule of government for almost 2,000 years. Hmmm … maybe if we don’t call any of these civilizations GREAT …)

'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage'

(Now this IS interesting. In theory we are still quoting an 18th century college professor living in Edinburgh. Professor Tyler – for the record, please define bondage, spiritual faith, liberty, abundance, complacency, apathy, and dependence. Are you SURE you are living in 1787?)

(It doesn’t matter. We’re about to lurch in a whole new direction.)

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

(Now read this next section VERY carefully.)

Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...'

(Did you read the same thing here that I did? With one inane swipe Olson lists "proofs" that Republicans were responsible - maybe ideal - citizens, and Democrats were ... uh ... somewhere below that level. Why? Is the author trying to sway 2008 voters in some direction? In the 2000 Presidential election, unless I'm mistaken, the Republican won. I guess it depends on your viewpoint how well THAT turned out.

As a point of interest, I made an effort to check out Joseph Olson and Hemline University on the internet. I could only find one in connection with the other, and both in regard to the comments made above. When I checked through accredited Universities of Minnesota, Hemline University wasn’t listed. It’s probably just me, but I’m beginning to detect a pattern …)

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase. (In other words, Democrats. Boy, am I gonna have fun talking to a few friends of mine who think they are respectable! Love it!)

(And while we’re at it, let’s throw in one more black fear which doesn’t apply to the premise.)

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

(Of course! The very first thing “criminal invaders” want to do is change this country into a carbon copy of the depressed areas they just escaped from! Everybody knows that!)

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message. If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE, ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE

(Brave what?)

JB

And how was your day?

In Response To Your Comments

I posted excerpts from nine plays. Comments on and off the blog expressed the most interest in my one work in progress, THE TEAPOT COLLECTOR. Thank you. I’m encouraged to pick up where I left off almost a year ago.

I posted a lighthearted jab at Hillary’s image … Nicki responded by saying that the story of Barack Obama would make a great musical. I agree. (In fact I’ll be greatly surprised if there aren’t several dramatizations eventually produced.) Not ten minutes ago I saw an interview with Mister Obama, who stated that Will Smith has already volunteered to play the role.

I posted a question (and later deleted it) in which I solicited advice. Most of the responses were thoughtful and intelligent. Thank you. Only one response was from someone who used the name “Anonymous” instead of the far more appropriate name of “Pond Scum.” Ah well. Be careful what you ask for.

I stumbled over these striking pictures of Hillary ...

Oops! Sorry! They're actually Eva Peron. My bad.

Running For Office

No, I'm not using this space to promote one potential president over another. But I think there are single pictures that define a candidate. For example:

Everyone assumed Dewey would beat Truman. So much so, that some newspapers were printed in advance.

When Gary Hart ran for president, he dared the press to get him. This photo with Donna Rice did it.

Michael Dukakis thought this picture would help him. It was memorable, alright. It ended his career.

And then there is this picture. In the foreground is Barack Obama, standing in front of 75,000 people on May 18, 2008, in Portland, Oregon. Win or lose, my thought is that this picture will ultimately define the campaign.

People Are So Interesting. Part Six. Galloping stupidity in political decisions.

For the past month I’ve heard nothing on the news except how unfortunate and unfair it is that the Florida and Michigan Democratic delegates won’t be seated at the National Convention. If I understand it correctly, the decision was made to move the primary elections in these states forward by months, in order to directly influence the decision regarding who the democratic nominee would be. The Democratic committee declared that this maneuver was unfair, that these elections would not be recognized, and in the end – no votes would count!

In other words …

The decision was made by individuals in Florida and Michigan BEFORE THE ELECTION that the votes of a few million people would not count. This was not something discovered later. The thought at the time was that by holding an early vote – even one that didn’t count – a pattern would be established that would lead to the clear leadership of one candidate over another, thus making these two states to appear mature and wise.

That didn’t happen. The candidates are deadlocked, and the two states look amazingly both infantile and senile at the same time.

Excuse me, but this leads me to ask a few questions.

If there is such concern for the voting rights of the people in Florida and Michigan, wouldn’t it have been better to voice these concerns before the initial elections?

If there were no great concerns about the voting rights in these two states before, what changed? Who benefits by their voting again?

If it’s going to cost many millions of dollars to hold re-elections, shouldn’t this money be charged against the people who are responsible for the debacle in the first place?

If I lived in Florida or Michigan, who would I sue for cheating me of my voting right?